THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPING CASE: ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Since the book Jim Dedman and I wrote on the Lindbergh Kidnapping case is coming out on September 15, I thought it might be good to post an annotated table of contents for the book to let folks know what it's about.

THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPING CASE:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRIAL OF BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN

ANNOTATED TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction, page ix—Sets the parameters of the book, sets its objects, and describes our methodology.

Dramatis Personae, page xiii—Introduces the main actors in the case.

CHAPTER 1: The Kidnapping, page 1—Describes the circumstances of the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh Jr., the ensuing investigation, and the arrest of Bruno Richard Hauptmann.

CHAPTER 2: Extraditing Hauptmann, page 11—Describes Hauptmann’s extradition hearing in the Bronx and critiques the performance of the lawyers.

CHAPTER 3: Preparing the Prosecution Case, page 33—Analyzes the evidence available to the prosecution, describes how it was marshalled, and discusses the problems confronting the prosecution team. Introduces a modular system for evidentiary analysis and presentation.

CHAPTER 4: Preparing the Defense, page 69—Analyzes the evidence available to the defense, decribes how it was marshalled, and discusses the problems confronting the defense team.

CHAPTER 5: The Prosecution Case, page 77—Describes and critiques how the prosecution case was presented.

CHAPTER 6: The Defense Case, Part 1: Hauptmann Testifies, page 135—Discusses the wisdom of calling Hauptmann as a witness, discusses strategies for handling his testimony on both direct and cross-examination, and describes how his testimony was delivered in court.

CHAPTER 7: The Defense Case, Part 2: Reasonable Doubts, page 177—Critiques the various theories of innocence presented by the defense, dividing the defense into modules, and discussing how they may have been better presented.

CHAPTER 8: Summing Up the Case, page 239—Discusses and critiques the final arguments delivered by the prosecution and defense.

CHAPTER 9: Verdict and Aftermath, page 291—Describes the post-conviction litigation of the case up to and including Hauptmann’s execution.

APPENDIX A: Timeline, page 331—Fits the various facts presented by the prosecution and defense into a timeline demonstrating the conflicts between the two theories presented at trial.

APPENDIX B: Proof Modules, page 351—Lists the prosecution proof modules in alphabetical order with a listing of the supporting witnesses and a summary of their testimony.

APPENDIX C: Points on Appeal, page 367—Sets out the points raised in Hauptmann’s appeal and the Court’s ruling on those points.

Table of Cases, page 373

Bibliography, page 375

Index, page 379

EXPLAINING DONALD TRUMP

How is it that Donald Trump did so well in the primaries and is tanking so badly in the general election? I think the answer is that if the primaries were run as they should have been run, the Republican Party (and perhaps the Democrats also) would have a different nominee. What am I talking about? I’m talking about runoff elections. We claim to be a “democratic” society, yet we elect our public officials most undemocratically. If there are three or more candidates for office in a race, we award the race to the candidate who receives the most votes regardless of whether that candidate receives more than 50% of the votes. 

Before a certain date, in primaries the delegates are divided among the candidates according to the percentage of the votes they got. After a certain date, the primary elections are winner-take-all, no matter how small the "winner's" margin of victory.

Take this example: Tom, Dick, Harry, Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp, Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo run for Dog Catcher. Tom gets 11 votes; Dick gets 10 votes; Harry, Larry, Moe, Curly, Shemp, Groucho, Harpo, and Chico each get 9 votes; and Zeppo gets 7 votes. There is no runoff. Tom is elected Dog Catcher despite the fact that 89% of the voters didn’t want him. With a runoff, that 89% would be given a choice between Tom and Dick, and the person elected Dog Catcher would be the choice of a majority of the voters. With multiple candidates in an election, our system looks more like a game of dice than a democracy. And the electorate often rolls snake eyes.

For example, Florida was a winner-take-all state. Trump got 45.7% of the votes and all 99 delegates. With a runoff, the voters would have chosen between Trump and Marco Rubio. Rubio would probably have gotten the lion's share of the votes cast for the other eleven candidates, and in the leadup to the second primary Trump likely would have alienated enough of his first primary voters to give the 99 delegates to Rubio.

In Florida we used to have runoff elections in Democratic and Republican primaries. I don’t have statistics to back this observation up, but it seemed to me that very frequently the top vote-getter in the first primary was soundly defeated in the second primary. Several years ago Florida decided runoff elections in primaries were too costly and did away with them, giving the election to the winner of a plurality of the votes. Then I noticed something else that I don’t have any statistics to back up. It seemed to me that very unpopular and/or very incompetent candidates were getting elected to office because multiple popular and/or good candidates split the votes of the majority of the voters so that the least desirable candidate got elected.

That’s what happened on a grand scale in the primaries with Trump. He appealed to a sizeable minority of disaffected Republican voters, and they were able to swamp the majority voters, who split their votes among the host of other Republican candidates. Had there been a runoff in each of these primaries, Trump would have lost most of them, and probably no candidate would have gone to the Republican Convention with enough delegates to secure the nomination. The result would have been that the Convention would have compromised on the most electable of the candidates—certainly not Trump—and that candidate would have gone on to trounce Hillary Clinton in the general election.

Trump can’t possibly get elected. The sizeable minority of voters he appeals to cannot overpower a majority split among multiple competing candidates in the general election because there is only one other viable candidate in the general election—Hillary Clinton. The sizeable minority that she appeals to will eagerly vote for her, and the majority of people who are offended by Trump as a human being and/or frightened of Trump as a president will reluctantly vote for her.

We thus see history repeating itself, but not quite. Bill Clinton was elected president the first time because an egomaniacal moneybags ran for president as a third party candidate and sucked enough votes away from George H.W. Bush to give the election to an egomaniacal career politician. Hillary Clinton will be elected president because an egomaniacal moneybags ran for president, scuttling the Republican Party in the process, and gave the election to an egomaniacal career politician. 

The only silver lining I see in this mess is the fact that Trump is so far behind Clinton in the polls that it probably won't be necessary for me to vote for her. If the polling continues as it has over the last few days I can safely squander my vote on Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate.

THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPING CASE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRIAL OF BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN

For those who are interested, reviews of The Lindbergh Kidnapping Case: A Critical Analysis of the Trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann are now available by following this hyperlink: REVIEWS

THE SACRIFICES OF THE SIBERIAN CANDIDATE

I have said elsewhere that I once swore I would vote for Zippy the Chimp before I would vote for a Clinton. Donald Trump is making me eat my words. As a presidential candidate, he is not only less attractive than Zippy the Chimp, he is less attractive than a Clinton. The man is a foreign policy nightmare who appears to me to be firmly in Vladimir Putin's pocket.

Donald Trump reminds me of a cross between Howdy Doody and Don Rickles. Putin pulls his puppet's strings and Trump blithely rewrites the Republican Platform to give Russia the Ukraine on a silver platter. And when Trump opens his mouth, nothing of substance comes out--just insults. Is that how he's going to conduct foreign policy? by hopping every time Putin says "Frog" and spewing insults at the leaders of other countries?

He can't even make sure his brain is loaded before he starts shooting off his mouth. Witness the Tim Kaine/Tom Keane fiasco. His latest venture into the realm of talking about that which he knows not is his demeaning statement about Khizr Khan's wife. And those who are in line to drink the koolaid are applauding Trump's comparing his sacrifice of a few dollars from of his millions of dollars to Khan's sacrifice of his son.

If Trump had taken the time to watch the MSNBC interview of Khan and his wife the day after the convention, he would have learned that Mrs. Khan, who is very shy, helped him write his speech. Watching the dynamic between husband and wife, it seemed apparent to me that she was far from the stereotypical submissive wive. She was the one who decided that they were going to stay in the USA after Khan got his degree.

In what universe does spending money to make money constitute a sacrifice? Especially if you actually make money from the investment. In what universe does making a tax deductible charitable contribution to help build a monument constitute a sacrifice when your bank balance has six zeroes? And how does that compare to the loss of a beloved son? To suggest that it does also suggests that in Donald Trump's world, love of money is greater than love of children.

I titled this piece THE SACRIFICES OF THE SIBERIAN CANDIDATE.  Last night it occurred to me that Trump was like the fictional Manchurian Candidate, so I dubbed Trump the Siberian Candidate. This morning I googled "Siberian Candidate" and found myriads of posts calling him the Siberian Candidate. This one, for example: "Donald Trump: The Siberian Candidate." I don't agree with everything the author says about Republicans in general, but I whole heartedly endorse what he says about Donald Trump in particular.

If you're a Republican and just can't bring yourself to vote Democrat, then vote for Gary Johnson, but please don't vote for Donald Dunce, I mean Trump. If you're a Bernie Sanders supporter, don't vote Green. Do what I'm going to do. On election day I'm going to go to the polls with a clothespin on my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton because (1) as bad as she is, she is nothing compared to Donald Trump, and (2) Clinton is the only candidate with a ghost of a chance of defeating Trump.

 

THE LINDBERGH KIDNAPPING CASE: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE TRIAL OF BRUNO RICHARD HAUPTMANN

CLICK HERE TO GO TO BOOK'S WEBPAGE

It seems like a decade ago that Jim Dedman asked me if I wanted to collaborate with him on a book about the Lindbergh Kidnapping Case. Knowing absolutely nothing about the case, I said "Sure, why not?" The idea for the book was not to prove that Hauptmann was or was not guilty, or to prove that anyone else may or may not have been guilty. We were just going to look at the trial itself, the available evidence, and the performance of the lawyers involved and try to state a "learned" opinion on how well or poorly the case was tried.

We worked on the project through many fits and starts, with time off for illness and the demands of other projects, but we stuck with it and finally got it done. We pitched the book to The Lawbook Exchange/Talbot Publishing, and they liked it. We had been working with them for several months before I realized that the company was located in New Jersey. Now it's near done and set for publication in September of this year (2016). They're already taking pre-publication orders on their website. (See the hyperlink above).

The book is technical in nature, and it talks a lot about legal evidentiary requirements, trial strategy, and advocacy techniques, but (I think) it is written in non-technical language. You don't need a law degree to understand and appreciate the legal maneuverings that went on in the trial. At the end of the book you should be equipped to decide for yourself whether Hauptmann was guilty and whether he got a fair trial. These two issues are independent. It's possible for a guilty person to get railroaded, just as it is possible for an innocent person to get convicted at a fair trial. If you read the book, you'll have to make up your mind for yourself on these two issues. We don't give our opinions on those questions, and we've tried to be even-handed enough for fair-minded readers to be able to support a decision on either side of both issues.

Rather than describe the book myself, I'll let some of the advertising copy do that job:

The kidnapping and murder of Charles A. Lindbergh Jr. touched off one of the most massive manhunts in the history of American crime detection and generated so much publicity at home and abroad that it was touted as the "Crime of the Century." The arrest of Bruno Richard Hauptmann in connection with the kidnapping inevitably led to the "Trial of the Century." Although Hauptmann was almost universally detested at the time of the trial, the tide of public opinion began to change with his conviction. In the decades following Hauptmann's execution, writers have advanced one theory after another seeking to pin the blame upon various members of the Lindbergh household and others. Almost every aspect of the crime and the investigation has been examined and critiqued—with one exception. No one has written a critical analysis of the trial itself. This book seeks to remedy that omission by investigating with an investigation and evaluation of the marshaling, presentation, and arguing of the evidence, as well as and a study of the post-conviction litigation.

This innovative book includes:

- a thorough analysis of the evidence presented at trial by both the prosecution and defense

- a comprehensive critique of the performance of the lawyers

- a discussion of inculpatory scientific evidence available to, but not used by, the prosecution

- a section listing the major protagonists in the investigation and trial

- a timeline

- a modular analysis of the prosecution case

- a table of cases