Post by Rab on Mar 5, 2006 7:28:58 GMT -5
[Originally posted on Lindykidnap May 28 2003]
Kel has recently posted newspaper articles and a statement of David Hircsh, a co-owner of National Lumber. Both these sources, and an article quoting National employee John Harris, make it plain that Hauptmann was working for National during March 1932.
Now, regardless of Michael Melsky's continued efforts, I don't believe that Hauptmann worked at the Majestic before March 21 1932. The details given by Hirsch and Harris have Hauptmann working for National on March 7 and 10 (or from March 7 to 10, it's not clear) and Harris says he worked on a contracting job with Hauptmann during that period at West 204 Street. Hautpmann confirms this during his own testimony so I don't know why Michael continues to insist on the opposite. But that's another post.
If one accepts - as I do - the details given by Hirsch and Harris and Hauptmann's own corroborating testimony then he was either at National itself in the Bronx or at West 204 Street on March 7 1932. And that brings me, finally, to my point:
The third ransom note was received at Breckinridge's offices at 25 Broadway on March 8. But it was stamped Station D, 1pm on March 7 which means it was mailed close to that station sometime in the morning of March 7. But Station D was at 132 Fourth Ave, which is between 12 and 13 Streets in Greenwich Village. That's at least 190 blocks and many miles from either of Hauptmann's probable locations that morning. So who mailed the letter?
Let me say again that this doesn't exonerate Hauptmann. I still believe he wrote the ransom notes. But the evidence available here is that he couldn't have mailed this particular note. Perhaps there are unknown elements: maybe Hauptmann was sent by National to a contracting job all the way downtown in Manhattan (seems unlikely). Perhaps the mail wasn't picked up until 1pm and the note was placed in the mailbox the previous day (Sunday). But my information is that there was always an early morning pickup and that this would have been the second collection of the day.
So, again based on the available evidence, I must conclude that Hauptmann did not act alone.
Kel has recently posted newspaper articles and a statement of David Hircsh, a co-owner of National Lumber. Both these sources, and an article quoting National employee John Harris, make it plain that Hauptmann was working for National during March 1932.
Now, regardless of Michael Melsky's continued efforts, I don't believe that Hauptmann worked at the Majestic before March 21 1932. The details given by Hirsch and Harris have Hauptmann working for National on March 7 and 10 (or from March 7 to 10, it's not clear) and Harris says he worked on a contracting job with Hauptmann during that period at West 204 Street. Hautpmann confirms this during his own testimony so I don't know why Michael continues to insist on the opposite. But that's another post.
If one accepts - as I do - the details given by Hirsch and Harris and Hauptmann's own corroborating testimony then he was either at National itself in the Bronx or at West 204 Street on March 7 1932. And that brings me, finally, to my point:
The third ransom note was received at Breckinridge's offices at 25 Broadway on March 8. But it was stamped Station D, 1pm on March 7 which means it was mailed close to that station sometime in the morning of March 7. But Station D was at 132 Fourth Ave, which is between 12 and 13 Streets in Greenwich Village. That's at least 190 blocks and many miles from either of Hauptmann's probable locations that morning. So who mailed the letter?
Let me say again that this doesn't exonerate Hauptmann. I still believe he wrote the ransom notes. But the evidence available here is that he couldn't have mailed this particular note. Perhaps there are unknown elements: maybe Hauptmann was sent by National to a contracting job all the way downtown in Manhattan (seems unlikely). Perhaps the mail wasn't picked up until 1pm and the note was placed in the mailbox the previous day (Sunday). But my information is that there was always an early morning pickup and that this would have been the second collection of the day.
So, again based on the available evidence, I must conclude that Hauptmann did not act alone.