Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Michael
Re: More
Thu Sep 27, 2018 08:02
2001:558:6027:18:e5f8:3aff:471f:669

You speak as if you were actually walking in his shoes. The man had more access and the most amount of information concerning Hauptmann than anyone else.

First thing is that his Lawyers were bound by confidentiality. So we can try to glean certain things by listening to what was said and reading confidential (at the time) letters, memos, and reports. Researching the documentation is not a trial. Your position seems odd to me - that if you cannot cross-examine there is no value to it. Everyone is dead Script and the trial testimony was rife with lies, dirty tricks, and embellishments. While certainly a source, it can in no way be relied on solely if the truth is what we seek. I use it often to compare with the reports to specifically identify what they weren't being truthful about.



  • Re: MoreMichael 5260, Wed Sep 26 10:57
    Fisher may have believed Hauptmann was innocent at the very beginning but as Fisher found himself wading in incriminating evidence up to his armpits he had his personal legal epiphany. What Fisher... more
    • Re: More — Michael, Thu Sep 27 08:02
      • Re: MoreMichael 5260, Thu Sep 27 13:55
        Three times this week I have heard John H. Wigmore quoted by attorneys: "Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." Wigmore was an American jurist and... more
        • Re: MoreMichael, Thu Sep 27 14:19
          If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it - does it make a sound? If the answer is yes, then how in the hell can anyone cross examine facts they aren't aware of? So what you mean to ... more
          • Re: MoreMichael 5260, Thu Sep 27 16:19
            Our discussions have been about the evidence and the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann That is the focus. At least I think that is the focus. Curtis Transcripts, Means Transcripts, and Parker... more
            • Re: MoreMichael, Thu Sep 27 19:09
              You are incorrect of both points. My discussions do not exclude anything relevant. Next, testimony from other related cases that contradict testimony in Flemington should not be ignored. Yet it is -... more
Click here to receive daily updates