|
Post by Sue on Jun 6, 2021 13:04:59 GMT -5
Th New York Daily News reported in December of 1934 that blood spots were found in Hauptmann's car.
An official called this story "a fairy tale," but how could he come to that conclusion if there were no forensic tests done on the inside of the car and the wooden trunk that was attached to the back of the car?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 6, 2021 22:01:57 GMT -5
Th New York Daily News reported in December of 1934 that blood spots were found in Hauptmann's car.
An official called this story "a fairy tale," but how could he come to that conclusion if there were no forensic tests done on the inside of the car and the wooden trunk that was attached to the back of the car?
Hi Sue, You really do find the most interesting newspaper articles! According to a memo to Lt. James Finn dated September 27, 1934, no blood was found in Hauptmann's car. They did find a used condom. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 6, 2021 22:09:28 GMT -5
Wayne,
Do you know if any effort was made to do toxicological tests of the inside of the car and wooden trunk?
How would Finn know for a certainty that there was no blood?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 7, 2021 8:08:46 GMT -5
Wayne, Do you know if any effort was made to do toxicological tests of the inside of the car and wooden trunk? How would Finn know for a certainty that there was no blood? Sue, I have no idea what toxicological tests the police conducted on the car, I just have the results of whatever tests they used. You know for sure that if any blood had been found in the car or in the trunk, Wilentz would have used that at the trial. Here is another report which states that no blood was found in BRH's car or in his trunk - Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedAttachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 7, 2021 23:47:32 GMT -5
With today's forensics, they may find blood stains in the wooden trunk.
In 1934, they should have called in New York's Dr. Alexander Goettler.
Was the forensic evidence in the Dodge compromised with the passing of 2 1/2 years? Was that the reason why Wilentz didn't want to use the blood evidence? Other bodily fluids must have been in that car.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 8, 2021 10:52:00 GMT -5
With today's forensics, they may find blood stains in the wooden trunk. In 1934, they should have called in New York's Dr. Alexander Goettler. Was the forensic evidence in the Dodge compromised with the passing of 2 1/2 years? Was that the reason why Wilentz didn't want to use the blood evidence? Other bodily fluids must have been in that car. With no mention of what type of testing was performed, I'm wondering if they used Luminol, as it relates to that agent's reaction with dried blood. This case basically happened within a timeframe from first reporting of the discovery of Luminol's reaction (luminescence) with blood and further advancements in the science primarily in Germany, so perhaps it was not widely recognized in America in 1934, I'm not sure. As Hauptmann's car wasn't scrapped for the war effort until the early 40's, I also wonder if they might have gone back later to verify initial findings with any latest advancements.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 8, 2021 13:17:51 GMT -5
With today's forensics, they may find blood stains in the wooden trunk. In 1934, they should have called in New York's Dr. Alexander Goettler. Was the forensic evidence in the Dodge compromised with the passing of 2 1/2 years? Was that the reason why Wilentz didn't want to use the blood evidence? Other bodily fluids must have been in that car. With no mention of what type of testing was performed, I'm wondering if they used Luminol, as it relates to that agent's reaction with dried blood. This case basically happened within a timeframe from first reporting of the discovery of Luminol's reaction (luminescence) with blood and further advancements in the science primarily in Germany, so perhaps it was not widely recognized in America in 1934, I'm not sure. As Hauptmann's car wasn't scrapped for the war effort until the early 40's, I also wonder if they might have gone back later to verify initial findings with any latest advancements. Joe, I had to look it up. Luminol was invented in 1928 in Germany. It was first used in a criminal case in 1937 also in German (if we can believe Wikipedia).
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 8, 2021 13:56:58 GMT -5
With no mention of what type of testing was performed, I'm wondering if they used Luminol, as it relates to that agent's reaction with dried blood. This case basically happened within a timeframe from first reporting of the discovery of Luminol's reaction (luminescence) with blood and further advancements in the science primarily in Germany, so perhaps it was not widely recognized in America in 1934, I'm not sure. As Hauptmann's car wasn't scrapped for the war effort until the early 40's, I also wonder if they might have gone back later to verify initial findings with any latest advancements. Joe, I had to look it up. Luminol was invented in 1928 in Germany. It was first used in a criminal case in 1937 also in German (if we can believe Wikipedia). Wayne, from what I can tell, Luminol just wasn't known widely enough in practical criminal investigation circles, until further advancements relating to detection of the presence of blood. I'm intrigued though to know if law enforcement ever considered going back to Hauptmann's car and testing before it was scrapped once the science was more universally accepted. Or did they all just consider the case to be closed at that time, so why bother?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 13, 2021 10:21:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 13, 2021 11:30:46 GMT -5
Under the picture of the Whiteds, the text reads, in part, the following: "Presence of bloodstains on the seat of Hauptmann's car was explained yesterday by niece of the prisoner. Story on page 3." The New York Daily News October 8, 1934 Page 1 www.newspapers.com/newspage/416840613/
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 13, 2021 12:11:04 GMT -5
This is what I can decipher: "Blood stains on the seat of Bruno Hauptmann's three-year-old sedan, evidence heretofore... by any of the three agencies investigating the Lindbergh kidnapping, became a matter of open record yesterday through a statement of Mrs. Hans Mueller, niece of the iron-willed Bronx prisoner. Although the obvious association in the minds of her listeners was the deep gash in the head of kidnapped Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., Mrs Mueller had a ready explanation for the dark red stain. "Anna Hauptmann came to my house right after Bruno's arrest," said Mrs. Mueller. "Pretty soon a detective came in and asked Anna what caused those bloodstains in her husband's car. From Operation "Anna couldn't tell him, but I said,"I know Anna. That must be from my operation." "You see, I was operated on two years ago. Bruno came for me at the hospital in his car. My bandages weren't on very tight and I think some of my blood must have got on the seat of Bruno's car." The New York Daily News October 8, 1934 Page 3 ? www.newspapers.com/newspage/416845806/(Viewed better in Desktop Site)
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 13, 2021 13:37:37 GMT -5
This is what I can decipher: "Blood stains on the seat of Bruno Hauptmann's three-year-old sedan, evidence heretofore... by any of the three agencies investigating the Lindbergh kidnapping, became a matter of open record yesterday through a statement of Mrs. Hans Mueller, niece of the iron-willed Bronx prisoner. Although the obvious association in the minds of her listeners was the deep gash in the head of kidnapped Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., Mrs Mueller had a ready explanation for the dark red stain. "Anna Hauptmann came to my house right after Bruno's arrest," said Mrs. Mueller. "Pretty soon a detective came in and asked Anna what caused those bloodstains in her husband's car. From Operation "Anna couldn't tell him, but I said,"I know Anna. That must be from my operation." "You see, I was operated on two years ago. Bruno came for me at the hospital in his car. My bandages weren't on very tight and I think some of my blood must have got on the seat of Bruno's car." The New York Daily News October 8, 1934 Page 3 ? www.newspapers.com/newspage/416845806/(Viewed better in Desktop Site) Maria knew Hauptmann only as Richard Hauptmann, never as Bruno. The quote attributed to her is therefore doubtful. Also, Hauptmann said he did not build the trunk for his car. What was the name of the German trunk maker living above a garage near the Frederiksen bakery who built it? It would be nice to track down this man. Sue, you can do it!
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 13, 2021 15:06:32 GMT -5
Well, I don't know the name of the German trunk maker living above a garage near Fredericksen's bakery.
How do you know of such a man? Where is the reference? Do you have any other clues?
There was a book that I posted excerpts from (on Ronelle's old board) that described a little of the neighborhood around Fredericksen's bakery. I will try to see what I can find.
I suppose his name isn't Abe Samuelsohn. That would be too easy, but I'll take a look.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 13, 2021 20:13:53 GMT -5
Well, I don't know the name of the German trunk maker living above a garage near Fredericksen's bakery. How do you know of such a man? Where is the reference? Do you have any other clues? There was a book that I posted excerpts from (on Ronelle's old board) that described a little of the neighborhood around Fredericksen's bakery. I will try to see what I can find. I suppose his name isn't Abe Samuelsohn. That would be too easy, but I'll take a look. I quoted Anna's and Richard's jailhouse conversation about the man who made the trunk in a recent post on this board. I was surprised it wasn't noticed. Hauptmann made a big point of not having made the trunk himself. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 13, 2021 21:57:04 GMT -5
Yes. I see your post under Dark Corners II about the exchange between Anna and Richard.
Do you think they are talking about the car trunk?
Do you have pictures of the car trunk and the featherbed trunk?
There must be a map, diagram, or photos of Fredericksen's Bakery and area that includes the gasoline station?
I wonder if their is a trunkmaker association or union that could help identify who this German was that Hauptmann and his wife were alluding to?
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 14, 2021 9:27:19 GMT -5
To Sue:
Frankly, I don't know why you are making such a big issue over possible blood in or on the trunk of Hauptmann's car. It doesn't imply that it was little Charlie's blood, at least not until you have some kind of corroborating evidence that Hauptmann's car was in or near Hopewell at the time of the purported kidnapping. And about the only eyewitness wannabes at trial who made an attempt at identifying Hauptmann's car in the Hopewell area during the relevant timeframe were Whited (a known perpetual liar) and Hochmuth (a visually impaired elderly man).
And with the car and the bloodstain long unavailable for re-examination, you are leading this discussion down to a dead end.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 14, 2021 12:34:44 GMT -5
To Sue: Frankly, I don't know why you are making such a big issue over possible blood in or on the trunk of Hauptmann's car. It doesn't imply that it was little Charlie's blood, at least not until you have some kind of corroborating evidence that Hauptmann's car was in or near Hopewell at the time of the purported kidnapping. And about the only eyewitness wannabes at trial who made an attempt at identifying Hauptmann's car in the Hopewell area during the relevant timeframe were Whited (a known perpetual liar) and Hochmuth (a visually impaired elderly man). And with the car and the bloodstain long unavailable for re-examination, you are leading this discussion down to a dead end. Not to weigh in on either side of the issue of bloodstains, but are you not forgetting Lupica's eyewitness testimony of the vehicle he observed?
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 15, 2021 7:00:44 GMT -5
Yes. I see your post under Dark Corners II about the exchange between Anna and Richard. Do you think they are talking about the car trunk? Do you have pictures of the car trunk and the featherbed trunk? There must be a map, diagram, or photos of Fredericksen's Bakery and area that includes the gasoline station? I wonder if their is a trunkmaker association or union that could help identify who this German was that Hauptmann and his wife were alluding to? I'm sure Hauptmann is talking about the car trunk. There is a photo of it on the back of the car out there. Perhaps Michael has it. No luck identifying the trunk maker -- I tried. Why this man became so important in Hauptmann's mind so late in the game is puzzling. He seems not to have brought him up again, unless the conversation wasn't overheard. Wish we knew if Kloppenburg visited the man and what he asked or told him.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 15, 2021 8:56:46 GMT -5
IIRC, some of Lupica's descriptors of the vehicle he saw were NOT consistent with Hauptmann's vehicle. NJSP did not think that Lupica would be a good witness for them in the Hauptmann trial, and he ended up as a DEFENSE witness. So I would conclude that no reliable eyewitness saw the Hauptmann car in the vicinity of Hopewell during the timeframe of the purported kidnapping. Therefore there is no corroborating evidence to state that it was specifically Charlie's blood which caused the purported blood stain(s) in Hauptmann's car.
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 15, 2021 10:59:16 GMT -5
Yes. I see your post under Dark Corners II about the exchange between Anna and Richard. Do you think they are talking about the car trunk? Do you have pictures of the car trunk and the featherbed trunk? There must be a map, diagram, or photos of Fredericksen's Bakery and area that includes the gasoline station? I wonder if their is a trunkmaker association or union that could help identify who this German was that Hauptmann and his wife were alluding to? I'm sure Hauptmann is talking about the car trunk. There is a photo of it on the back of the car out there. Perhaps Michael has it. No luck identifying the trunk maker -- I tried. Why this man became so important in Hauptmann's mind so late in the game is puzzling. He seems not to have brought him up again, unless the conversation wasn't overheard. Wish we knew if Kloppenburg visited the man and what he asked or told him. This doesn't help much, but here are the two photos I have of the back of BRH's car. Unfortunately, the trunk is covered in both - Attachment DeletedAttachment DeletedMichael, I haven't seen the trunk at the museum, but I was told it was constructed with several pull-out drawers. In other words, a baby's body would not fit inside the trunk because of the drawers. Is that right?
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Jun 15, 2021 11:03:47 GMT -5
IIRC, some of Lupica's descriptors of the vehicle he saw were NOT consistent with Hauptmann's vehicle. NJSP did not think that Lupica would be a good witness for them in the Hauptmann trial, and he ended up as a DEFENSE witness. So I would conclude that no reliable eyewitness saw the Hauptmann car in the vicinity of Hopewell during the timeframe of the purported kidnapping. Therefore there is no corroborating evidence to state. that it was specifically Charlie's blood which caused the purported blood stain(s) in Hauptmann's car. Hurtelable, What Lupica's description of the vehicle he saw were not consistent with Hauptmann's vehicle?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2021 12:07:54 GMT -5
Wayne, hope you don't mind if I jump in here. Michael posted a great rear view photo of Hauptmann's car without the trunk attached recently, but I can't seem to locate it. I know Lupica claimed there was a spare tire tied to the back of the vehicle he observed, with no mention of a trunk and that the wheels were wood spoke variety. In my opinion, an extra spare tire would have been more useful than a trunk, given the propensity for blowouts in those days and the rough terrain of the Hopewell area. Also, the trunk would potentially have been more of a specific identifiable trait of the vehicle, as it was a custom made attachment. And after all, if you're going to get pulled over with a dead baby in your car, would it really matter if it was in the trunk or backseat? Regarding the wood spokes Lupica claimed to have seen versus the wire wheels which Hauptmann's car had, I can't preclude the possibility Lupica was mistaken or might not have had a clearly focused view of the car's lower features in the lessening light of dusk, at that moment favoring focus instead on the car's driver when it pulled up alongside his own vehicle. Here's something I posted previously about the difference in Dodge sedan models from that era: Lupica was very clear about the car having been a Dodge and one that he concluded was a 1929 model year. He based this on his understanding that the radiator emblem had changed to a winged design in 1929, which is the same emblem that was on the vehicle he saw on March 1, 1932. Doing a little research into the different Dodge models of the time, I discovered this change was made for both the DA and DB models in 1929, so he may have concluded it was one of these models. Hauptmann however, drove a 1930 DD model which he purchased new in 1931. The DD Sedan wasn't introduced until 1930 but it also carried the same winged emblem and did so until 1932. Bottom line, Ben may not have realized it but it could well have been a 1929 to 1932 Dodge Sedan he saw. Without the above kinds of subtle but telltale nuances, it's very difficult to differentiate vehicle model years by body shape alone in that era. The attached represents a good capsule history of the production period of the same winged emblem. www.ebay.ca/itm/Dodge-Brothers-Wings-Radiator-Emblem-Medallion-1929-32-/202298014298?hash=item2f19e6ba5a
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 15, 2021 12:26:30 GMT -5
Is this the photo Joe???
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 15, 2021 12:35:02 GMT -5
Yes it is and thanks very much Lurp. Glad you're still out there and hope to hear from you again soon as I find your posts always very insightful and down to earth.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2021 19:26:00 GMT -5
Michael, I haven't seen the trunk at the museum, but I was told it was constructed with several pull-out drawers. In other words, a baby's body would not fit inside the trunk because of the drawers. Is that right? It’s been quite some time since I took a look at it. From what I remember the top opens and it can be completely empty. If I’m right then any shelf can be removed from the top but I’d rather wait to see it again before I make any rock solid statement about it. It’s on my list to give it a hard look next time I’m down there. I know I’ve told some people already and might have even mentioned it here but I have a source that claims Hauptmann built a “false bottom” in something so I want to make sure it’s not in this trunk. In my past life, I was pretty good at finding hidden compartments so if it’s there I should be able to the make the discovery.
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Jun 16, 2021 8:32:04 GMT -5
Michael, I haven't seen the trunk at the museum, but I was told it was constructed with several pull-out drawers. In other words, a baby's body would not fit inside the trunk because of the drawers. Is that right? It’s been quite some time since I took a look at it. From what I remember the top opens and it can be completely empty. If I’m right then any shelf can be removed from the top but I’d rather wait to see it again before I make any rock solid statement about it. It’s on my list to give it a hard look next time I’m down there. I know I’ve told some people already and might have even mentioned it here but I have a source that claims Hauptmann built a “false bottom” in something so I want to make sure it’s not in this trunk. In my past life, I was pretty good at finding hidden compartments so if it’s there I should be able to the make the discovery. There is yet another strange reference to a car trunk. In a letter sent to the Chicago Daily Times on March 1, 1934, someone calling himself Jafsie wrote that the Lindbergh baby was killed inside [the Lindbergh home] and that “it was then placed in a trunk on the rear end of a car and taken to the forest and trampled in the earth.” I'll ask Michael to post the letter here. The pages are numbered correctly but not copied in the proper sequence. Pages 2 and 3 were switched.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2021 10:15:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 17, 2021 17:34:51 GMT -5
Does anyone have any idea as to who may have written this pdf letter? I think it was a shabby attempt to mimic the ransom note writer. It certainly wasn't the "jafsie" with whom we are familiar.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 17, 2021 22:54:34 GMT -5
To hurtelable:
The New York Daily News reported on possible blood evidence in Hauptmann's car.
Mrs. Hans Mueller thought the blood could have been hers.
Many possibilities exist as to whose blood that was and how it got there.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 18, 2021 5:06:00 GMT -5
In the summer of 1931 Hauptmann and his wife made a cross-country trip to California to visit his sister. Hans Kloppenberg went with them as he also had a sister in California and wished to visit her. Hauptmann had just purchased the Dodge sedan and very likely made changes to the trunk at that time in order to accommodate the clothing and provisions needed for the long trip. While in prison Hauptmann referred to these changes when he and Anna had conversation, and at that time Hauptmann mentioned Kloppenberg's name since Hans would remember the time and reason for the alterations to the car. This would be important to his defense since it related to the car's appearance and identification.
|
|