DIY History | Transcribe | Campus Culture | Edna Griffin's FBI file, December 1951-February 1955 | 1953-07-16 Omaha Field Office Supplemental Summary Report regarding Edna May Griffin Page 6

Transcribe
Translate

Edna Griffin's FBI file, December 1951-February 1955

1953-07-16 Omaha Field Office Supplemental Summary Report regarding Edna May Griffin Page 6

OM 100-4095 

On December 28, 1952, an article captioned, "Why Death for the Rosenbergs Is Opposed" appeared on the editorial page of the Des Moines Sunday register, a Des Moines, Iowa, newspaper. The article was signed by EDNA GRIFFIN, 1108 Third Street, Des Moines, Iowa.

The article criticized the decision of the Rosenberg case and claimed, among other things, that the case had been tried by the newspapers of the nation be-fore it ever reached the court. 

The article also claimed that the government prosecution had admitted that its chief witness, David Greenglass, perjured himself on the witness stand when he testified that he had no outside assistance to reproducing the sketch of the atomic secret together with twelve pages of formulas from memory. 

The article also claimed that the admission of circumstantial evidence jeopardized the right to the benefit of the doubt.

- p -

- 6 -

Saving...

OM 100-4095 On December 28, 1952, an article captioned, "Why Death for the Rosenbergs Is Opposed" appeared on the editorial page of the Des Moines Sunday register, a Des Moines, Iowa, newspaper. The article was signed by EDNA GRIFFIN, 1108 Third Street, Des Moines, Iowa. The article criticized the decision of the Rosenberg case and claimed, among other things, that the case had been tried by the newspapers of the nation be-fore it ever reached the court. The article also claimed that the government prosecution had admitted that its chief witness, David Greenglass, perjured himself on the witness stand when he testified that he had no outside assistance to reproducing the sketch of the atomic secret together with twelve pages of formulas from memory. The article also claimed that the admission of circumstantial evidence jeopardized the right to the benefit of the doubt. - p - - 6 -