|
Post by lurp173 on Sept 19, 2021 12:31:29 GMT -5
The discussions on Lupica and Hauptmann's Dodge have been very interesting. I do have a question in regards to Lupica. Has anyone read the alleged article from the "Daily Mirror' where Lupica allegedly identified Hauptmann as the man he saw in the Dodge vehicle on the evening of March 1st? I've read that Wilentz felt that because Lupica allegedly "sold" this story to the tabloid that it damaged Lupica's credibility as a witness and therefore Wilentz did not call him as a witness for the prosecution. However, from what I have seen of Lupica's trial testimony, it appears that on cross examination Wilentz did get Lupica to admit that although he (Lupica) could not identify Hauptmann directly, he did say that Hauptmann bore a strong resemblance to the man he observed in the Dodge.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 19, 2021 15:32:48 GMT -5
Mbg, I may have not made myself clear, but yes I realize that Hauptmann's one spare wheel and tire assembly was on the driver's side front fender. I was referring to what appeared to be his argument to Fisher that it was normal for a spare tire and wheel to have been, as he says, on “each side.” He even states that his right front mudguard (fender) was not set up for a spare tire and wheel. Here, he is correctly referring to the recess in fenders created by the manufacturer which helped to stabilize and hold in place the spare tire and wheel. The spare would also have been held down by a top fastener, as can be seen on Hauptmann’s Dodge. View AttachmentFrom all of the images I've seen, his driver’s side spare configuration does not appear to have been that unusual, so again I don’t understand what he was actually implying here. The standard location for the spare tire and wheel on a 1930 Dodge DD Sedan would have been the rear of the vehicle, with one side mounted being an option. So perhaps he wanted his vehicle to "fit in" a little better, if he did indeed remove it from the left front fender for this trip. Thanks for the confirmation of Hauptmann's Dodge having had 5 wire wheels from the date of purchase. By the way, the Dodge models of the year in question were highly respected for their durability and relatively low level of required maintenance, even having been exported for the rugged conditions of the Australian outback. Perhaps just the kind of ride for a guy like Hauptmann to have considered if he was planning a future trip that might involve some unfamiliar and challenging roads. I didn't make myself clear, Joe. If a 1930 Dodge had a spare on a front fender it usually also had one on the other side, like the luxury Phaeton, Cabrio or DC 8 models or other sporty types. It's just not always visible in the photos online but there are many examples showing both sides of the car. Hauptmann's car was a lesser DD 6 model which should have had its spare on the back like most cars of this type. That his had a spare in a fender at all, left or right, was unusual. That's the point Hauptmann made in his memoir: "This is something one very seldom sees." If he was at Highfields that day he would not have wanted his car to be noticed for this seeming anomaly. Hauptmann's bill of sale states: "Spare Tire & Tube," i.e. only one on the front fender. (This just for info: During his California trip, Hauptmann recorded several repairs and replacements in his notebook: $14.50 for valves (he spelled it Velves), $12.50 for new tire and lugs, $2.25 for new tube, $4.00 for grease, and several entries for "flats flicking." All in all, that car lived up to its good reputation.)
|
|
|
Post by Wayne on Sept 19, 2021 17:57:20 GMT -5
If it helps, here's how the police found BRH's car, complete with spare wheel info - Attachment Deleted
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 23, 2021 13:29:01 GMT -5
Mbg, I may have not made myself clear, but yes I realize that Hauptmann's one spare wheel and tire assembly was on the driver's side front fender. I was referring to what appeared to be his argument to Fisher that it was normal for a spare tire and wheel to have been, as he says, on “each side.” He even states that his right front mudguard (fender) was not set up for a spare tire and wheel. Here, he is correctly referring to the recess in fenders created by the manufacturer which helped to stabilize and hold in place the spare tire and wheel. The spare would also have been held down by a top fastener, as can be seen on Hauptmann’s Dodge. View AttachmentFrom all of the images I've seen, his driver’s side spare configuration does not appear to have been that unusual, so again I don’t understand what he was actually implying here. The standard location for the spare tire and wheel on a 1930 Dodge DD Sedan would have been the rear of the vehicle, with one side mounted being an option. So perhaps he wanted his vehicle to "fit in" a little better, if he did indeed remove it from the left front fender for this trip. Thanks for the confirmation of Hauptmann's Dodge having had 5 wire wheels from the date of purchase. By the way, the Dodge models of the year in question were highly respected for their durability and relatively low level of required maintenance, even having been exported for the rugged conditions of the Australian outback. Perhaps just the kind of ride for a guy like Hauptmann to have considered if he was planning a future trip that might involve some unfamiliar and challenging roads. I didn't make myself clear, Joe. If a 1930 Dodge had a spare on a front fender it usually also had one on the other side, like the luxury Phaeton, Cabrio or DC 8 models or other sporty types. It's just not always visible in the photos online but there are many examples showing both sides of the car. Hauptmann's car was a lesser DD 6 model which should have had its spare on the back like most cars of this type. That his had a spare in a fender at all, left or right, was unusual. That's the point Hauptmann made in his memoir: "This is something one very seldom sees." If he was at Highfields that day he would not have wanted his car to be noticed for this seeming anomaly. Hauptmann's bill of sale states: "Spare Tire & Tube," i.e. only one on the front fender. (This just for info: During his California trip, Hauptmann recorded several repairs and replacements in his notebook: $14.50 for valves (he spelled it Velves), $12.50 for new tire and lugs, $2.25 for new tube, $4.00 for grease, and several entries for "flats flicking." All in all, that car lived up to its good reputation.) Thanks for clarifying Mbg. I’ve been a bit busy lately with work and also trying to digest a lot of late-20’s to early-30’s Dodge model year changeover minutiae, which I’ve been gathering courtesy of a vintage Dodge enthusiast who’s been working in and around these specific vehicles for the past 45 years. On the subject of the spare tire and wheel assemblies, attached is a list of Special Equipment (Options) available for the 1931 model year Dodge Six and Dodge Eight. Either 5 or 6 wheels were offered for the Dodge Six which would have included Hauptmann’s DD Sedan, with the fifth wheel choice in either the rear, front left or right fender. Interesting to note here that the right fender was the preferred location of the fifth wheel spare for safety reasons, as this would represent the “ditch side” of the vehicle once the driver had pulled over to replace a flat tire. One less thing to worry about, regardless of which side of the vehicle a tire had blown. So there is perhaps some credence to Hauptmann’s lament about how his own vehicle would have stood out, with its relatively-uncommon left side-mounted spare. On the other hand.. To counter this is the fact that Hauptmann’s car had “bumperettes” as opposed to a full left-to-right bumper on the rear. These individual partial bumpers were designed to allow a “cutout” for a rear mounted spare tire, which means Hauptmann’s vehicle was originally set up for and came with a rear spare as its fifth wheel. The fact that his left front fender had the required recess for the spare, means that it may have represented a later addition or even came that way as a transition feature. Perhaps he even projected ahead that he would have been able to move the rear spare to the front left fender and add a homemade trunk to the rear in its place. Of course, if it actually was his vehicle in Hopewell on March 1, 1932, it means he simply replaced the trunk normally positioned on the rear, with his side-mounted spare. From production data, Hauptmann’s DD Sedan was built on either January 20 or 21, 1931, just a month-and-a-half or so before he took possession of it. His vehicle was a carry-over from the 1930 production year. Also of note, wire wheels were standard equipment by 1931, having replaced the wooden spoke wheels which by that time were costlier to make, but were still available on some models for those who preferred their legacy appearance. p.s. thanks also for the "flicking" (fixing?) explanation.. that notation in his memo book used to drive me crazy! Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 23, 2021 17:40:39 GMT -5
Thank you for the detailed and interesting information on the early 1930s Dodges in general and Hauptmann's in particular, Joe, and for taking the time to inquire and gather it. I distinctly remember Hauptmann saying in one of his statements that his car was a 1930 leftover model bought in 1931. In any event, it seems to have been a hybrid of sorts. The thin light blue striping around its entire body had made me think that it may have been a custom order that wasn't picked up. Hauptmann's finances were too limited at that time to request special features or options. He took what he saw because the price was right. (He was still hurting from a June 1930 $1,500 cash payment to his broker Carleton & Mott to cover a margin call after suffering heavy losses.) (Is there a way to post your attachment in a different file format, perhaps as jpg? I can't access it.) Yes, "flicking" in German means "to repair." Richard seems to have had a habit of getting his English and German mixed up...
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,635
|
Post by Joe on Sept 24, 2021 7:37:57 GMT -5
Mbg, I added the attachment again only under the format .jpeg as opposed to .jpg in my post, one above.
Not sure what difference it'll make but let me know if you (and others) can see it. Thanks!
And yes, I'm pretty sure Hauptmann would have seen good value in the deal, ie. a carryover year model with it's normally reduced price, not to mention, as you suggest that it could originally have been a custom order that didn't get purchased.
|
|
|
Post by Mbg on Sept 25, 2021 9:36:11 GMT -5
Mbg, I added the attachment again only under the format .jpeg as opposed to .jpg in my post, one above. Not sure what difference it'll make but let me know if you (and others) can see it. Thanks! And yes, I'm pretty sure Hauptmann would have seen good value in the deal, ie. a carryover year model with it's normally reduced price, not to mention, as you suggest that it could originally have been a custom order that didn't get purchased. Joe, I gave you an incorrect file extension. jpeg was the correct one. Wayne sent me the page via e-mail. Thank you for posting it on the board for all of us to see in the first place.
|
|