Historic Trial Transcripts

By Mr. Wilentz:

Q. Following in order will you tell us whether somewhere around the first of April or at the end of March, rather, you received this envelope which is now marked S-34 for Identification together with a note, the envelope being post-dated March the 29th, New York?

A. May I look at this envelope, please?

Q. Yes, certainly, I will help you with it.

A. Those stains were not on it but I received that letter.

Q. That envelope?

A. That envelope, right.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

(The envelope referred to was received in evidence and marked Exhibit S-60.)

(Note S-61.)

Q. I show you S-75 for Identification and ask you whether or not you received this note in that envelope (handing to witness).

Mr. Wilentz: While the gentleman is reading that letter, will you please mark this in evidence, by consent, an advertisement in the New York American.

The Reporter: The advertisement of March 26th is marked S-62 and the advertisement of March 31st is marked S-63.

(The papers referred to were received in evidence and marked State Exhibits S-62 and S-63, respectively, as above noted)

The Witness: (After lengthy examination) This staining on the back of the letter was not there, but that is the letter I received.

Mr. Wilentz: I offer it in evidence.

The Reporter: The note will be S-61.

(Note referred to received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S-61.)

Mr. Pope: If your Honor please, in relation to this letter which the State now tenders in evidence, we have no particular objection to the letter being admitted in evidence at this time, but with this reservation: the witness says that at the time he received the letter, the stains which appear on it were not there. If the State will assure us that they will later show how or why those stains came on to the letter, we have no objection at this time.

The Court: Well—

Mr. Wilentz: Yes, we will.

Mr. Hauck: We will explain it.

Mr. Wilentz: I think we will have no difficulty about that.

The Court: The letter will be received subject to such further examination as counsel see fit to make respecting this discoloration on the back of the letter, as I understand it.

Mr. Pope: And the front, too.

Mr. Wilentz (Reading to the jury): S-61, just admitted to evidence, reads as follows: “Dear Sir: It is not—n-o-t-e—necessary to furnish any code. You and Mr. Lindbergh know our program—o-u-e-r—program. Very well. We will keep the child on our—o-u-e-r—safe place—s-a-v-e—until we have the money in hand, but if the deal is not—note—closed until the 8th of April, we will ask for 30,000 more, and not—n-o-t-e—70,000, a hundred thousand. How can Mr. Lindbergh follow so many false clues? He knows we are the right party over singnature. Our singnature is still the same as on the ransom note, but if Mr. Lindbergh likes to fool around for another month, we can’t help it. Once he has to come to us anyway, but if he keeps on waiting, we will double our amount—o-u-e-r—There is absolute no fear about the child. It is well.”