bob mills for joe and forum
Sun Feb 24, 2019 09:56

Joe, Schoenfeld might have been a smart guy. But he never met Hauptmann, let alone examined him, as you would expect any doctor to do before assuming a crucial role in a criminal case.

I'd be very interested to hear from other psychologists and psychiatrists. Is it considered professional, ethically, to inject oneself into a criminal case, telling a prosecutor what a defendant thinks, without ever once meeting that defendant?

I'm frankly surprised that more people here on the forum haven't spoken out on this. A man went to his death in the electric chair on Schoenfeild's account, when before he got involved Hauptmann was seen as part of a kidnap gang, or possibly only an extortionist.

  • Re: A Profile of Richard HauptmannJoe for Michael 5260, Sat Feb 23 09:37
    Clearly investigators were off on a totally wrong track. I look at the transcripts of his interrogation, and it's just page after page of random, mindless questioning by ham-fisted idiots, with the... more
    • schoenfeld — bob mills for joe and forum, Sun Feb 24 09:56
      • Shoenfeld & His Professionalismjdb, Sat Mar 16 03:04
        Hi Bob, I agree with your assessment of Dr. Shoenfeld's lack of professionalism, and this makes me wonder if the high standards of the medical profession, its rules and regulations (as it were) were, ... more
        • schoenfeldbob mills for jdb and forum, Sun Mar 17 10:01
          Thanks for the support, John. i've always put Schoenfeld in the category of "just what the prosecution needed." For over two years cops in two states chased a gang, because it was obvious to everyone ... more
          • Jafsie's ID of BrunoRichard Sloan, Mon Mar 18 11:00
            Bob -- the gang was still on the loose when Jafsie finally ID'd him! The witnesses were not credible, and the handwriting experts were all over the place from the start. (Only Koehler's testimony was ... more
          • A Perfect Stormjdb, Sun Mar 17 12:43
            Yes, Bob. It was a perfect storm for law enforcement, and David Wilentz, and he made the best of it. The witnesses who "came forth" were a dubious bunch; but more dubious still, morally, was the... more
            • hauptmann, doomed from the startbob mills for jdb and forum, Sun Mar 17 18:17
              A mistrial was impossible with Trenchard in charge. Remember his "charge" to the jury? "Do you believe that?" (regarding Hauptmann's alibi). Has any jurist, ever, been so ignorant of the effect of... more
              • I Guess Sojdb, Mon Mar 18 01:18
                I guess you're right about what you wrote, Bob, although I think that Wilentz's Jewishness was a liability, as Wilentz well knew, that he some managed to turn into if not an advantage a kind of David ... more
                • wilentzRichard Sloan, Tue Mar 19 15:49
                  This back n forth about WIlentz, Germans, Jews, etc; is interesting, but it doesnt really matter. The wood evidence was sufficient to convict. Rail 16 put him at the scene of the crime, not WHited,... more
                  • Re: wilentzAnonymous, Wed Mar 20 14:05
                    With all due respect, I think that Wilentz knew that the existence of Rail 16 did not (beyond all resonable doubt) put Hauptmann at the scene of the crime. It certainly proved beyond all reasonable... more
                    • witnesses to what?bob mills for anonymous and forum, Thu Mar 21 10:52
                      I'd say the difference between Whited and Lupica is one of integrity. Lupica wasn't willing to twist facts, even with reward money at stake. Whited first said he never saw Hauptmann, then went for... more
                    • at scene of the crimeRichard E Sloan, Thu Mar 21 09:34
                      Aha, there's "the rub." I think that rail 16 DID put Bruno at the scene of the crime IN THE EYES OF THE JURY, beyond reasonable doubt. I would think that is all that mattered. Regardless, I would... more
Click here to receive daily updates