|
Post by Guest on Jun 18, 2021 6:46:26 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. Hauptmann didn't say he made changes to the trunk. He said that a German living over a garage near Anna's bakery made the trunk.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 18, 2021 7:32:03 GMT -5
Regardless, the point is that changes made to the back of the car were done by a hired carpenter in order to accommodate the clothing and provisions needed for the Hauptmanns and Hans Kloppenberg's cross-country trip to California. These changes would have been made in the summer of 1931. The alterations would have been obvious, so much so that during the trial Hauptmann asked his wife to consult with Kloppenberg and identify the carpenter who did the work and could testify when the work was done. Did the Dodge sedan seen near the site of the kidnapping (March 1932)possess this trunk on the back of the car? The answer to this question could help the defense.
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 18, 2021 7:48:13 GMT -5
According to Mark Falzini, when Hauptmann purchased the Dodge sedan he told the salesman ". . .that he was going to have the spare tire rack removed from the rear of the car and put it on the side and have a trunk put on the rear so he could carry his tools in it." "During the summer of 1931 the Hauptmanns, along with their close friend Hans Kloppenburg, drove cross-country to visit Richard's sister Emma in California. Hauptmann made a small trunk for the back of the car that had two drawers to hold clothes, camping equipment and other supplies. The lid folded down to serve as a table for meals eaten while on the road." "Their Fifteen Minutes" p.17
|
|
|
Post by aaron on Jun 18, 2021 14:58:43 GMT -5
A photo of Hauptmann's car taken after his arrest (and before it was torn apart by the crowd looking for souvenirs) shows that the trunk was still attached to the back of the Dodge sedan. The spare tire is mounted to the car on the driver's side.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2021 11:55:11 GMT -5
Many possibilities exist as to whose blood that was and how it got there. When it comes to this, I personally do not believe there was blood located on or in this trunk. I say this because there is absolutely nothing about this in the police reports, and I believe if it was found there would be at least a mention of it. When it comes to newspaper reports we should always be skeptical. Not saying they were all wrong but sometimes reporters were motivated by things other than the truth. Take Ben Lupica for example. They quoted him as saying he saw Hauptmann. I have a letter where he calls it a "bold faced lie." They wrote the same thing about the Moores. They did not identify Hauptmann either. Or the shovel found at the grave site. It was headlines in one paper as I recall. Unfortunately the man who planted it there admitted to police he was paid $5 by a reporter to put it there. Anyway just food for thought. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind but its important for me to at least offer my perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 19, 2021 14:46:29 GMT -5
There may be no blood in or on the trunk.
However, the New York Daily News said bloodstains were found on the seat of the car.
Mrs. Mueller, if you are to believe the article, voluntarily admitted that the blood could have been hers due to loose bandages from an operation.
That the blood was found on the seat of the car leads me to believe that she could have leaked blood from a menstrual accident. Could Mrs. Mueller have wanted to save herself from later embarrassment when toxological tests may have determined that that was blood from her monthly menses?
This is a very real possibility, and any woman who says otherwise is just lying or is a stupid woman.
The other possibilities that exist are that the car had blood and other bodily fluids from other people.
Perhaps the tests of 1932 were not sufficient enough to explain whatever else may have happened in Hauptmann's Dodge prior to his arrest in September 1934?
Maybe it was better for the State to say "no blood" than to attempt to explain the mystery of blood and other bodily stains from unknown (or known) individuals all mixed together?
|
|
|
Post by lurp173 on Jun 19, 2021 15:46:51 GMT -5
Walter Winchell was being honest in regards to two of his famous quotes:
"The newspaper business is not about reporting the facts; it's about selling newspapers."
"Today's gossip is tomorrow's headlines."
Michael's books and this forum has exposed so many false and misleading newspaper stories in regards to the LKC. I think that one has to be extremely careful when evaluating the validity of these news articles. Just my opinion on this.
|
|
|
Post by IloveDFW on Jun 20, 2021 8:30:23 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?
There were tests done on Charlie's clothing - no blood, hence no blood belonging to Charlie in BRH's car.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 20, 2021 10:01:52 GMT -5
I already acknowledged the "fairy tale" quote in an earlier post.
What kind of an answer is "fairy tale"?
Sounds like a flip, sarcastic response from the unnamed official.
Is that how they answered questions about blood in 1932 in the absence of dna forensic testing?
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 21, 2021 7:17:26 GMT -5
sue theres alot of repeated nonsense on this board that i heard for 30 years. the evidence against hauptman is ignored time and time again. theres a book that said ann lindberghs brother did it, another her sister, and lindbergh himself which is the weakest of them all
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 21, 2021 7:19:32 GMT -5
they didnt have the forensics in 1937 in the alice parsons case they had to find the body, which they never did
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 21, 2021 12:14:45 GMT -5
sue theres alot of repeated nonsense on this board that i heard for 30 years. the evidence against hauptman is ignored time and time again. theres a book that said ann lindberghs brother did it, another her sister, and lindbergh himself which is the weakest of them all I agree with you Steve. Isn't it amazing how successfully Hauptmann has been generally "rehabilitated" since he was executed? His guilt has been projected just about everywhere (any scapegoat will do as long as a few facts appear to possibly fit) but where it belongs. It takes the ultimate Dixie defense strategy to accomplish this where the defense attorney asks that the jury not look at the obvious, but "look away, look away, look away.." I can just picture Reilly nodding his head in approval.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 22, 2021 9:16:14 GMT -5
I agree with you Steve. Isn't it amazing how successfully Hauptmann has been generally "rehabilitated" since he was executed? His guilt has been projected just about everywhere (any scapegoat will do as long as a few facts appear to possibly fit) but where it belongs. It takes the ultimate Dixie defense strategy to accomplish this where the defense attorney asks that the jury not look at the obvious, but "look away, look away, look away.." I can just picture Reilly nodding his head in approval. I've got to laugh Joe. If this ain't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Look away, look away Joe. Look away. So if Hauptmann had acted exactly as Lindbergh, Condon, or anyone else you "like" would you say he wasn't involved then? Nope. You'd be pointing it all out to support involvement. Think about that for a second. Why does it matter "who" it was?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 23, 2021 11:29:48 GMT -5
I agree with you Steve. Isn't it amazing how successfully Hauptmann has been generally "rehabilitated" since he was executed? His guilt has been projected just about everywhere (any scapegoat will do as long as a few facts appear to possibly fit) but where it belongs. It takes the ultimate Dixie defense strategy to accomplish this where the defense attorney asks that the jury not look at the obvious, but "look away, look away, look away.." I can just picture Reilly nodding his head in approval. I've got to laugh Joe. If this ain't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is. Look away, look away Joe. Look away. So if Hauptmann had acted exactly as Lindbergh, Condon, or anyone else you "like" would you say he wasn't involved then? Nope. You'd be pointing it all out to support involvement. Think about that for a second. Why does it matter "who" it was? Your question Michael, reminds me of the type Edward Reilly would have asked to divert the jury’s attention away from his client. To what value do you ascribe hypothetical arguments which propose Hauptmann acts like Lindbergh, Condon or anyone else I supposedly "like", when the circumstantial physical evidence has continued to conclusively incriminate him alone for close to ninety years? Does this level of proof apply to anyone else? No, but that doesn’t stop you from trying in the absence of relevant evidence. Talk about looking away here.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 24, 2021 6:28:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 9, 2024 14:18:02 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2024 9:19:26 GMT -5
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2024 11:48:45 GMT -5
Here's the Dec. 15, 1934 news story about reported bloodstains found in the trunk Hauptmann made for his Dodge sedan. I had to crop each segment so it would be under the 1MB size limit for attachments, so after reading the fourth segment, (next post) you have to return the third segment to finish the story.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Apr 10, 2024 11:51:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 11, 2024 13:02:28 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
Is the trunk that Hauptmann constructed currently at the police museum in Trenton?
From what I understand, drawers (or dividers) are in the trunk. Do you know if these dividers can be taken out to make more space in the trunk?
The New York Daily News articles from the fall of 1934 state that blood that gets into wood is there permanently. Im sure this law of nature hasn't changed this then!
I wonder whose blood is in the trunk?
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Apr 11, 2024 13:47:49 GMT -5
I see that Wayne's June 15, 2021 post under this thread says Hauptmann's car trunk had "several pull-out drawers."
|
|