Emmy Wegfraß says that since the contract proves the changed conditions (no tax free years, higher interest) as opposed to the original plan, the guilt of Fredersdorf is proven, and clearly Fritz' letters stop because of this.

That's...that's not how criminal justice or historiography work.

I agree he shouldn't have changed the terms without also clearly changing the advertisement. Did he benefit personally? It appears not. Did he do it intentionally so someone else could benefit? Did he get an undocumented, under-the-table cut in the profits? Or did he think that he had advertised the change in terms clearly? In short, if I were sitting on a jury, I would have to ask, "What were his reasons for making this change?" and the answer is, "We don't know."

And as for Fredersdorf getting dismissed over this, she's presented no evidence, and we in salon have a good deal of counterevidence. So I think that claim can be conclusively refuted (although I still wish we had a source for April 9th, I doubt whatever it is is clear-cut enough to count as evidence).

In conclusion, this volume answers most of the questions Wikipedia had left me with, and it's the missing piece we needed if we want to assert that Fredersdorf was not dismissed for dishonesty, irrespective of whether he behaved in an entirely aboveboard manner in this affair.

And in conclusion, salon alchemy rocks. :D