Accident, suicide or homicide? | Forensic Files

52-year-old Rudolf Rupp was a creature of habit. On the evening of Friday October 12 2001, the married father of two finished work for the day
and headed to his local drinking spot, the BSV Neuburg. By day, the BSV was a popular sporting
ground for residents of Neuburg an der Donau, a small Bavarian town in south-east Germany.
Boasting two soccer fields, seven tennis courts and a gymnasium, it provided a welcoming space
for locals of all ages to participate in group fitness activities. By night, the clubhouse offered a casual pub-like atmosphere for members of the community to socialise over .
Rudolf Rupp was a regular at the clubhouse, as it was only a few minutes drive from the Rupp family’s farm. After parking his beloved Mercedes outside,
Rudolf took a seat at his regular table, which was off to the side away from other guests.
As usual, he had come straight to the clubhouse from the barn without stopping to change his
soiled overalls and gumboots. The stench ensured other patrons kept their distance.
But it wasn’t the only reason they avoided Rudolf Rupp. After a few beers, he was known to become
argumentative and obnoxious, and he had a reputation around town for being a brawler.
Over the next few hours, Rudolf sat drinking wheat beers and smoking cigarettes.
The clubhouse slowly cleared out and by 1AM, he was one of three patrons left. The pub’s owner Werner Steger was ready to close for the night.
He offered to give Rudolf a lift home but Rudolf declined, saying he had his Mercedes
out the front. Anyone who knew Rudolph knew that his E230 model Mercedes was his pride and joy.
Warner walked his three lingering customers outside. Rudolf got into his car and reversed out,
narrowly avoiding hitting a flower pot on the way. At the car park exit, he made a
right turn towards his home, the headlights of his Mercedes slowly fading into the darkness.
Later that same day, Saturday October 13, 49-year-old Hermine Rupp approached one of her
neighbours in tears. Hermine explained that her husband hadn’t come home the night before and she
didn’t know what to do. She asked her neighbour if they had a phone book she could borrow. She wanted
to call the BSV Neuburg to see if anyone there could shed any light on Rudolf’s whereabouts.
Hermine contacted the club and spoke to the owner, Werner Steger. Werner was taken aback
to discover that Rudolf hadn’t made it home. He recalled that Rudolf had been a little
unsteady on his feet when he left the previous evening, but had otherwise seemed fine. There
had been no incidents at the clubhouse to suggest Rudolf could have found himself in any trouble.
As hours passed with no signs of Rudolf, Hermine eventually contacted the police to
report her husband missing. A check of Rudolf’s tab at the BSV revealed that he’d drunk eight
beers throughout the course of the evening. This suggested a blood alcohol reading well over the
legal limit. The obvious possibility was that Rudolf could have gotten into a car accident.
The Rupp family lived less than two kilometres from the BSV. A search of the roads in the
area revealed no sign of Rudolf, his prized Mercedes, or any evidence of a car accident.
This wasn’t the first time police had been called to the Rupp residence. Rudolf and Hermine lived on
the farm with their two daughters, 15-year-old Andrea and 16-year-old Manuela. Both teens had
mild intellectual disabilities and were required to attend a special needs high school. However,
they rarely attended, which prompted visits from the authorities to check on their welfare.
In the past, police had also been notified of noise complaints stemming from the property.
The Rupp family farm left a lot to be desired. Rudolf inherited the property from his parents,
but after his mother’s death in 1997, he struggled to maintain it. Everything had become run down, and the agricultural endeavours barely turned a profit.
To make ends meet, the Rupp’s rented the upper level of their farmhouse to a tenant.
When questioned, the tenant described conditions in the Rupp home as anti-social.
They said that the family argued often and Rudolf was constantly drunk. The tenant mostly went out of the way to avoid Rudolf.
It was a sentiment shared by other associates of the family, who described Rudolf as a bossy
and domineering alcoholic. Some considered him a tyrant who seemed to enjoy humiliating his family.
One relative said they were ashamed to be associated with the Rupp’s. Yet, another described Rudolf as a helpful and generous father. He tried his best to
give his daughters whatever they wanted, including two pet horses and video games.
There wasn’t anything at the Rupp home to indicate that Rudolf had packed up and left on
his own accord. His farm work was left incomplete and he hadn’t tried to tie up any loose ends.
It didn’t seem likely that he’d choose to up and leave without a word. A check of Rudolf’s finances revealed that the Rupp family were living well beyond their means.
Rudolf had once owned several properties, but with the farm failing to return a profit,
each of these properties had since been sold. In 1999, the Rupp’s farmhouse had been placed into foreclosure, and visits from a bailiff were commonplace.
To support his family, Rudolf had reluctantly resorted to selling off his farmland.
In the leadup to his disappearance, he’d sold a plot of land for around one million deutschmarks,
the equivalent to around 857,000 Australian dollars at the time. It was unclear what the money from the property sale had been spent on, but it
didn’t appear to have helped the Rupp’s financial situation. At the time of Rudolf’s disappearance,
he owed roughly 882,000 deutschmarks, which included 80,000 deutschmarks in income tax.
Less than two weeks prior to his disappearance, Rudolf had been summoned with an affidavit
regarding unpaid debts. With the farm and rental property only bringing in a meagre income,
the only option Rudolf had left was to sell more of his land. Then there was the issue of Rudolf’s health. Rudolf had type two diabetes,
the symptoms of which were exacerbated by his unhealthy lifestyle. If he didn’t make
some changes, doctors had warned Rudolf that one of his legs would have to be amputated.
Considerations led to the belief that Rudolf might have taken his own life. Those who knew him denied this possibility. While Rudolf was in a rough place financially, he felt
he had things under control. His diabetes didn’t seem to bother him too much either. He’d never
shown any signs of depression or voiced a desire to end things. Other guests who interacted with
Rudolf at the BSV Neuburg on the night before he disappeared said he’d seemed like his usual self.
There was no evidence, such as a suicide note or the wrapping up of affairs, to support the
suicide theory either. Regardless, investigators weren’t prepared to rule out that Rudolf had been
keeping some dark thoughts to himself and made a rash decision in his drunken state.
There was just one problem. If Rudolf had gone away somewhere to kill himself, it didn’t make sense that his Mercedes had vanished with him.
The Rupp’s farm was situated within close proximity to the Donau River, the second
largest river in Europe. It could be reached by car from the BSV Neuburg in less than 15 minutes.
Other bodies of water such as Zeller Lake and Irgertsheimer Pond were also less than
10 kilometres from the BSV. A cursory search of the waterways didn’t indicate any cars had
driven over the banks. Police divers took to the waters, but no sign of Rudolf Rupp emerged.
As the months passed, search efforts intensified. Authorities were advised to be on the lookout
for Rudolf’s Mercedes with the licence plate ND-AE 265. Neuburg an der Donau was surrounded
by lowland forests. Police helicopters repeatedly scanned the woods, to no result.
No confirmed sightings of Rudolf came through nor did he touch his bank account,
making it less likely that the farmer had up and left. But there was also no crime scene and no evidence of foul play. Rudolf Rupp had disappeared into thin air.
Intermittent searches of the Donau River continued. By 2003, police had spent 23
days examining the waterways surrounding Neuburg. No sign of the missing farmer or his car emerged.
In November that year, a public prosecutor was assigned to reexamine the two year old cold case.
If there had been an accident or suicide, the prosecutor felt something would have surfaced
by now. Feeling “one hundred percent” certain that Rudolf Rupp wasn’t in any body of water within a
five-kilometre radius of where he was last seen, the prosecutor started considering a new theory.
The mysterious disappearance of Rudolf Rupp had become somewhat of an urban legend for locals of
Neuburg an der Donau. Just before he went missing, Rudolf’s eldest daughter, 16-year-old Manuela,
had become engaged to a young man named Matthias, who moved into the Rupp’s farmhouse.
It was common knowledge that Rudolf and Matthias didn’t get along. Like Rudolf, Matthias had a
proclivity for alcohol and could turn violent when under the influence. According to a neighbour,
Matthias had once showed up at her house drunk and threatened to kill her son. Shortly before
his disappearance, an enraged Rudolf had apparently chased Matthias off his property.
Gossip spread around town that Ruldof’s wife, daughters and future son-in-law could have reached
their breaking point. Tired of Rudolf drinking their remaining money away and running the farm
into the ground, they could have hatched a plan to get rid of him. Although investigators had caught
wind of these rumours early on, there was no evidence to suggest there was any truth to them.
Upon reviewing all the evidence, the public prosecutor wasn’t so sure. Without Rudolf around to work on the farm, his wife Hermine
had been left with no other option but to sell more of the family’s farmland. This was something that Rudolf had been deeply opposed to. It raised some questions.
The prosecutor considered an angle that hadn’t been explored during the initial missing persons
investigation. What if the family was lying when they said Rudolf never came home that night?
At 6AM on Tuesday January 13 2004, a team of investigators arrived at the Rupp’s farm
armed with a search warrant. Outside, the property was in disarray. Rubbish, old furniture and pieces of household junk were strewn about and several large dogs roamed around.
The inside of the house was neglected and dirty, with a terrible stench permeating the air.
Hermine, Andrea, Manuela and Matthias were all still sleeping. Officers shook them awake and ordered them outside as a search of the house commenced.
Investigators made their way to the basement downstairs. The smell was terrible. There, they found cages filled with chinchillas and ferrets.
A neglected dog appeared to be on the brink of death. Meanwhile, the residents were taken for questioning.
At this point, they were only being treated as witnesses. The main aim for investigators was to
establish once and for all whether Rudolf returned home in the early morning hours of October
13 2001. If they could clarify this detail, they could figure out where to go from there.
The now 18-year-old Manuela Rupp firmly denied that her father had ever come home.
Her mother Hermine also denied this, but investigators weren’t convinced. They pressed Hermine and before long, she admitted that her husband had indeed come
home from the BSV clubhouse that night. According to Hermine, she and Rudolf were
standing at the top of the basement stairs when a heated argument broke out between them.
Hermine pushed Rudolf and he fell down the stairs. The fall was fatal. Manuela’s fiancé Matthias
helped Hermine carry Rudolf’s body outside and into Rudolf’s Mercedes. Under the cover
of darkness, they drove the car to the nearby Irgertsheimer Pond and pushed it into the water.
After a few days of questioning, Manuela Rupp caved and corroborated the version of events
provided by her mother, admitting that Hermine had accidentally pushed Rudolf down the stairs.
Andrea Rupp was now 17-years-old. When questioned by police, she said she didn’t know if her father
had come home that night. It was only when they told her that her mother had confessed to killing
Rudolf that Andrea changed her story. It was a watershed moment. Andrea admitted that Rudolf
had come home after drinking at the clubhouse. But she added a significant detail. She claimed
that her father had been sexually abusing her for years. It happened again that night.
Afterwards, a fight broke out between her parents and her mother pushed Rudolf down the stairs.
Armed with these confessions, an extensive forensic search was carried out at the
Rupp’s farmhouse. According to Hermine, when Rudolf landed at the bottom of the stairs,
a pool of blood formed under his body which she had cleaned up. Yet, the search of the farmhouse failed to uncover a single trace of blood.
Manuela’s fiancé Matthias, whose surname has been withheld from the public due to
Germany’s privacy laws, was now 20-years-old. Matthias initially denied knowing anything about
Rudolf’s disappearance, but it only took him a few hours to crack. He admitted that Hermine had
killed Rudolf and that he’d helped her dispose of his body and car in the Irgertsheimer Pond.
However, Matthias made no mention of Rudolf being pushed down the stairs. He said Hermine had beat
Rudolf to death with a club. Not only did this contradict the statements from Rudolf’s wife and
daughters, it made the lack of blood spatter in the Rupp farmhouse even more perplexing.
Despite the lack of forensic evidence, the confessions couldn’t be ignored. Hermine, Manuela, Andrea and Matthias were all charged with manslaughter and held in
custody as the prosecutor continued building his case against them. One week after her original confession, Hermine Rupp spoke to the investigators again.
This time, she withdrew her entire confession. Hermine adamantly denied that Rudolf had ever come
home on the night he went missing, and maintained that she had no idea what happened to him.
Two days later, Andrea also retracted her story about her mother pushing Rudolf down the stairs.
According to Andrea, what really happened was that Hermine and Matthias had beaten Rudolf to
death with a club. She later changed her story again, saying it wasn’t a club, but a hammer.
Investigators weren’t sure what to believe. Each confession contradicted the other.
The lack of blood at the property seemed hard to believe given the level of violence described in
each variation of the story. The Rupp’s were taken to their farmhouse to participate in a videotaped
reconstruction of the crime scene in the hopes a clearer picture of the truth would emerge.
On camera, Manuela made a sudden switch from her original story. Instead of describing how her
mother had pushed her father down the stairs, she claimed that her fiancé Matthias had beaten Rudolf
to death with a wooden club. At first, Manuela said that Matthias was the sole perpetrator.
Later that day, she said her mother had also participated in the beating. Using a police mannequin, Manuela demonstrated the way Hermine had whacked Rudolf in the head
several times before Matthias took over. She didn’t know how many times Rudolf was struck
overall, but one thing she was certain of was that there was a lot of blood. Then, in mid-February, Manuela changed her story yet again. She claimed that
her mother had nothing to do with the death of her father, and that Matthias had acted alone.
After beating Rudolf to death, she said Matthias cut up Rudolf’s corpse and fed it to their pet
dogs, which included Dobermans, a Bull Terrier and a German Shepherd. It wasn’t long before Andrea also submitted another version of events.
She maintained that her father had come home and sexually abused her, but this time she added that Matthias found out what was going on and came to her defence.
According to Andrea, Matthias threw Rudolf down the stairs, killing him. He then disposed of both
Rudolf’s body and vehicle. A month later, Andrea said this story wasn’t true either.
She said that Hermine and Matthias had attacked Rudolf on the staircase, after which they’d cut his corpse into pieces and fed it to the dogs.
Investigators struggled to make sense of all the stories. Of the foursome, Matthias was the only one who stuck by his initial version of events - that Hermine had beaten Rudolf
to death with a club, after which he’d helped push Rudolf and his car into the Irgertsheimer Pond.
That was until three months later, when Matthias admitted he’d been lying all along.
According to Matthias, when Rudolf returned home in the early hours of October 13 2001,
he approached his future father-in-law in the stairwell. Using a wooden club, Matthias hit Rudolf from behind and then dragged his body down into the basement.
Matthias was sure Rudolf was dead, until he saw his leg twitch. That’s when he grabbed a
hammer and repeatedly smashed it into Rudolf’s temple. He only stopped when it became stuck.
From there, Matthias dragged Rudolf onto a piece of timber. He used a hacksaw and a hand axe to sever Rudolf’s arms and legs. He cut Rudolf’s body open,
removed his internal organs and used a margarine container to scoop all of the blood into a bucket.
He wrapped the body parts in a garbage bag and carried them out to the toolshed.
Matthias then boiled up a pot of water and placed Rudolf’s head inside. One investigator
asked him why. Matthias responded: “Because I thought it might fall apart easier to hack it.”
Once the skull was boiled, Matthias claimed he smashed it into pieces and mixed it into the
manure pile on the property. The remaining body parts were fed to the pet dogs.
Matthias told interviewing officers: "[The truth] had to come out so that I could be free. Even now in the cell, I can still see these images in front of me.”
Even when using the most advanced technology available, investigators were still unable to
uncover any traces of blood or other forensic evidence anywhere in the Rupp’s farmhouse.
Matthias provided an explanation for this. When he fatally hit Rudolf in the head, he claimed
it didn’t create an open wound. Investigators repeatedly asked him: “Did you see any blood?”
Matthias shook his head. The investigators pressed on, asking: “Not at all?” Matthias shook his head again, reiterating: “No, there was no blood.”
The manure from the farm had been sold to a neighbouring farmer who had since used
it to spread over his fields. A search of the farmers property turned up 150 pieces of bone.
None were determined to be human. Over the coming months, things only got more complicated. Matthias claimed that both Hermine
and Manuela had encouraged the attack, while also participating in the beating.
He then retracted this, saying he’d acted alone. Manuela later said she was the one who had killed her father by beating his skull with a hammer.
She claimed Matthias then got rid of Rudolf’s body by burning his remains. Manuela flip flopped between several versions of events,
also stating that her father had been sexually abusing her since she was 12-years-old.
By October 2004, ten months after being taken into custody, the stories of all four of the accused finally aligned, but not in the way investigators were hoping.
Hermine, Manuela, Andrea and Matthias had all sought proper legal counsel. All four of them now claimed the police had pressured them to submit false confessions.
Afraid of the repercussions, they complied. Hermine, Manuela, Andrea and Matthias all denied
having anything to do with Rudolf Rupp’s death and formally withdrew their confessions altogether.
The whole situation was a complete mess for investigators. Although they didn’t
know which version of events was the right one, they had no doubt that the group was responsible
for Rudolf’s death. Matthias had provided some insight regarding the conflicting confessions.
He said that after killing Rudolf, the group sat down and discussed what to do if the police came
poking around. They agreed to say that Rudolf had never come home after drinking at the BSV.
If police didn’t believe them, they would say his death had been the result of an accident.
It was possible that the varying confessions had become a confused combination of the fabricated stories and the truth.
There was also the question of motive. Rudolf had no life insurance, so no one in his family stood to benefit financially from his death.
Piecing together the circumstantial evidence, investigators ultimately deduced that things had
become unbearable in the Rupp household. Rudolf was constantly drunk and unpleasant to be around.
The financial problems were causing a great strain on Rudolf and Hermine’s marriage, which was exacerbated by Rudolf’s hesitation to sell off more of his farmland.
For Rudolf’s daughters, they could no longer endure the ongoing sexual abuse, which continued even after Matthias moved in with them. The fact that Rudolf didn’t
get along with Matthias was the final nail in the coffin. It didn’t matter that they
wouldn’t gain financially. The family simply wanted Rudolf out of the picture. Prosecutors believed the most likely scenario was that Rudolf’s family had waited for him
to return home from the BSV clubhouse that October night. Once he was inside, Matthias ambushed Rudolf in the stairwell, hitting him from behind with a wooden club.
Hermine, Manuela and Andrea stood nearby, cheering Matthias on while also hurling abuse at Rudolf.
As Rudolf lay defenceless on the ground, Hermine also hit him in the head, while Manuela and Andrea
kicked him in the body. Once they thought he was dead, the group heaved his body into the basement,
only to realise he was still alive. Matthias took care of this by hitting him in the temple
with a hammer. They left his body there until the next morning, at which point Matthias and
Hermine dismembered his body and disposed of his remains before reporting Rudolf missing.
This just left one question - where was Rudolf’s Mercedes? Irgertsheimer Pond was a popular recreation spot for swimming, kayaking and sunbathing.
Its murky waters had been explored during previous searches for Rudolf, but nothing was found.
Matthias pinpointed the location where he and Hermine claimed to have pushed the vehicle in, but the car wasn’t there either.
In another version of his story, Matthias said that he’d disposed of Rudolf’s Mercedes in a
scrap yard. Although he didn’t say which one, investigators suspected they knew.
Ludwig Hecht was a scrap dealer who lived near the Rupp’s residence and was known to frequent their
farm. Hecht was well known to the police, with an extensive criminal rap sheet dating back to the
1960s. He also owned a scrap pressing machine, giving him the means to dispose of a vehicle.
Ludwig Hecht was taken in for questioning but denied having anything to do with Rudolf
Rupp’s car. Detectives weren’t convinced. Hecth had once been part of a notorious criminal gang and was known to bear hatred towards the police.
Given the lack of forensic evidence found at the Rupp property, the possibility that
Ludwig Hecht could have helped dispose of Rudolf’s body was also considered. A search of Hecht’s scrapyard didn’t reveal anything to tie him to the crime.
But police did find that Hecht had been improperly storing a number of pollutants.
This was considered an environmental violation and carried a hefty fine. Faced with this offence,
there were hopes that Hecht might talk in exchange for some kind of deal. He was held in custody for four months and interrogated multiple
times as the prosecution continued to build their case against the accused. But Hecht never swayed from his story that he had nothing to do with Rudolf Rupp's disappearance. He
was eventually released and charged with an 8,000 Euro fine in relation to the mis-stored chemicals.
In the lead up to the trial, Hermine Rupp and her two daughters were presented with an option.
Confess to the truth and they would all serve their sentences in the same prison. But they
didn’t budge from their story that they’d given false confessions under pressure from the police.
The manslaughter trial commenced in April 2005. The prosecution case relied heavily
on the defendants' retracted confessions. Videos were played of the accused as they
took police through a reenactment of their alleged crimes. Despite the fact that each
story contradicted the other, the prosecution linked them to form a consistent factual event.
A forensic pathologist provided an explanation for the lack of blood spatter or DNA found at
the crime scene. They explained that both the killing or Rudolf and the dismemberment
could have been relatively bloodless and that “there probably wasn’t any spurting bleeding.”
Cleaning measures would have been adequate to remove all traces. The pathologist believed that
the descriptions of the attack originally provided by the accused sounded completely plausible,
albeit lacking in detail. There was just one thing they weren’t sure about. Part of the prosecution’s
case was that Matthias had crushed Rupert’s bones and buried them in the manure pile. According to
the pathologist, if this was true, at the very least residue of the bones would have remained.
The defence described any statements made by their clients as “pure imagination.” They blamed
the false confessions on the fact that their clients were all of below average intelligence
and therefore didn’t have the mental capacity to withstand the pressure of the interrogations.
The four accused had IQ’s ranging between 53 and 71. They were also initially questioned at length
without any legal representation, making them quote: “at the mercy of the police officers.”
These preliminary interrogations hadn’t been recorded, meaning there was no way to know
what was discussed during this crucial time before the official interrogations commenced.
According to Matthias, it was only after the police threatened him with violence that he made up the story about dismembering Rudolf’s body.
Investigators testifying at the trial firmly denied this. After 23 days of testimony, the court
agreed that the confessions were real and all four of the accused were declared guilty. The judge
announced: “The terrible act was proven by the many statements... All in all, it turns out there
was a clear and essentially consistent picture, so that there can be no doubt as to the truth.
No one can seriously believe that the horrific descriptions were made up by the accused."
Hermine and Matthias were each handed eight year sentences. Manuela and Andrea, who were
being tried as juveniles, weren’t found guilty of manslaughter, but of aiding and abetting.
They were sentenced to three and a half and two and a half years in youth detention respectively.
Following the verdict, a report handed down by the judge provided another possible explanation for
the lack of forensic evidence. The report said: “The court is considering the possibility that
the defendant could have fed the remaining body parts to the pigs. The Chamber is aware that pigs,
being omnivores, would also eat the rest of the body parts including the bones.
It is quite conceivable that feeding the pigs constitutes an even more terrifying
disposal of the corpse for the defendant than throwing it in the manure heap, since the pigs are ultimately eaten by humans as part of the human food chain.
There is a possibility that the pigs have even been eaten by the family themselves.”
Four years passed, during which Manuela and Andrea served their time and began to move on with their lives as they waited for their mothers release.
In February 2009, a surveyor from a hydroelectric power plant was conducting a routine inspection of
the Donau Reservoir in the municipality of Bergheim. Using a sonar device to scan the
waters beneath his boat, he detected two objects. Closer inspection revealed them both to be cars.
As was routine, the police were notified so that the cars could be salvaged. On Tuesday March 10, a police diver took to the cold waters and identified the first car
to be an old Opel Kadett. He swam down for a second time. Through the murky waters, he recognised the unmistakable shape of a three pointed
star - the Mercedes brand emblem. The diver swam to the rear of the submerged vehicle.
The licence plate was covered in algae. He scraped it off and got a closer look.
Though visibility was poor, he could make out what it said: ND-AE 265. It was Rudolf Rupp’s car. And behind the wheel was Rudolf’s body.
Word of the discovery quickly reached the press. Camera crews and reporters watched
as search and rescue divers disappeared under the water to attach a rope to the rear axle of
Rudolf’s Mercedes. On the river bank, a crane started hauling the vehicle out of the water.
To the experienced rescue crews watching on, it was clear that the crane was lifting the
car at too high of an angle. They tried to alert the driver but it was too late.
With the front of the vehicle pointing downwards, the dense mud that packed the
inside of the car shot forwards, causing the windscreen to shatter and burst out.
Masses of mud rushed back into the water, taking Rudolf’s body with it. After a frantic search, divers managed to fish the corpse out of the murky waters.
With Rudolf’s body safe on shore, investigators were stunned. The cold water of the Donau had preserved his remains fairly well. While some parts had
been eaten by fish, Rudolf’s body was mostly intact. And there were no obvious injuries.
An autopsy confirmed that Rudolf’s skull was completely unharmed. There was no sign of bleeding in his brain or any other head injury. Although the flesh on Rudolf’s
neck was no longer intact, his torso and spine were completely unharmed. There was no sign of
internal bleeding or cardiac arrest. Toxicology tests revealed no traces of poison or other drugs,
although it was possible that any toxic substances had been washed out after years underwater.
Ultimately, it was unclear whether Rudolf had still been alive when he entered the water and
the cause of his death couldn’t be determined. One thing was certain. Rudolf hadn’t been beaten to
death, nor had he fatally fallen down the stairs. He hadn’t been shot or stabbed. And he certainly
hadn’t been dismembered and fed to the farm animals. In fact, not a single sign of violence
was found anywhere on Rudolf’s body. THE MERCEDES Rudolf’s Mercedes was analysed to see if it could shed some light on what happened.
Two keys were needed for Rudolf’s car - one to unlock the doors and another to start the engine.
One set of keys were found in Rudolf’s pocket, but there was no key in the ignition.
Furthermore, the engine showed no signs of “water hammer,” which is what happens when
the drive unit sucks in water instead of air. This led one motor vehicle expert to conclude
that the engine wasn’t running when the vehicle was submerged into the river. However, this didn’t necessarily mean that Rudolf’s car had been deliberately pushed in.
When the Mercedes was hauled from the water, the gear stick was in the ‘park’ position.
If the engine was off and the car was in park, it would have been near impossible for someone to push it over the embankment.
The car could have been towed directly into the water from a trailer, with Rudolf’s already
deceased or unconscious body inside. But back in April 2004, police divers had already searched the
exact spot near the Donau Reservoir where Rudolf’s car was eventually found. This raised the question
of whether it could have been dumped or driven into the water elsewhere and then washed further
downstream. The power plant worker who discovered the car didn’t think so - the current wasn’t
strong enough. They deemed it much more likely that the car had been missed by mere metres during
the original search, thus sitting undiscovered at the bottom of the river for a further five years.
Three weeks after Rudolf’s body was found, he was given a church burial in his hometown.
His wife and daughters were not among the few family members who attended the funeral.
A wooden cross placed on his gravesite said nothing about the events or assumed
an accurate timeline of his death, stating simply: "Rudolf Rupp 1949-2009". The discovery of Rudolf’s body was the talk of the town. Media gathered outside the Rupp’s vacant,
neglected farmhouse. Hermine Rupp’s red Audi was still parked outside, while Hermine herself continued to serve her sentence for her husband’s death.
Many assumed that she would be released and that all four of the accused would be acquitted.
After all, the revoked confessions that had formed a major part of the original verdict
had now been proven untrue and therefore many considered them to be worthless. The discovery of Rudolf’s body also raised suspicions about how the “confessions” came
about in the first place. If the confessions weren’t accurate, then how had all four
defendants provided a somewhat consistent, albeit muddled, false version of events?
Hermine’s defence lawyer Klaus Wittman told Spiegel Online: "When a corpse fed to dogs suddenly sits in a car in the Donau, this clearly refutes
the confessions of the accused and thus the basis of the verdict in this case.”
Klaus believed that a retrial was essential, saying: "Anything else would be a scandal.”
However, the regional judge stated that retrials were only permitted when newly discovered facts
could lead to an acquittal. In this case, he felt the original trial had proven beyond doubt that
Rudolf hadn’t died by accident or suicide, but had been killed by the four accused.
It didn’t matter if they’d lied about the way Rudolf was killed or disposed of, their motives
remained the same and their revoked confessions still supported other elements of the crime.
While the autopsy report found no injuries on Rudolf’s spine, the flesh on his neck was
no longer intact. According to the pathologist, the possibility that Rudolf had been strangled,
suffocated or had his throat slit couldn’t be ruled out. When Rudolf’s body was initially
discovered, he was kneeling in the driver’s seat, facing towards the rear of the vehicle.
The pathologist believed this strange position could be explained by rigour mortis having
already set in when Rudolf’s body was placed in the car. He also said it was possible that
Rudolf’s body had been kept in a freezer and then placed in the car in a frozen state.
Essentially, the judge ruled that it didn’t matter how Rudolf had died, it had already been proven that Hermine, Matthias, Manuela and Andrea were complicit in killing him.
Their request for a retrial was rejected. In November 2009, the now 54-year-old Hermine Rupp was released from prison after serving
five of her eight year sentence. Her early release had nothing to do with the recovery
of her husband’s body eight months earlier, but was due to her being a first time offender who
was deemed to no longer pose a threat. Matthias was released shortly after. Although this meant
that all four of the accused were now free, their defence team continued to fight for a new trial.
It didn’t matter that they’d already served their time - many believed they had been wrongfully
convicted. Without a retrial, justice wouldn’t prevail and the stigma against them would remain.
As Hermine’s lawyer explained: "My client doesn't want to be branded a murderer."
An appeal was submitted to the State Supreme Court of Bavaria, where authorities disagreed
with the regional judges ruling that it didn’t matter how Rudolf was killed. The request for a retrial was granted. Regardless of the outcome,
the defendants couldn’t be sent back to prison, but it gave them the chance to clear their names.
By the time the re-trial began in October 2010, Matthias and Manuela were no longer a couple.
The youngest Rupp daughter, Andrea, was heavily pregnant and unable to stand trial.
The decision was made to continue without her. The prosecution submitted that the manslaughter conviction for Matthias and Hermine be upheld.
While the prosecutor admitted that “not everything in this process went perfectly” and that the investigation had clearly gone awry, he said there was no
doubt as to what happened to Rudolf Rupp in the early morning hours of October 13 2001.
The motives presented in the original trial remained unchanged - Rudolf Rupp was an abusive alcoholic and his family wanted him out of the picture.
But the method of murder changed based on the new forensic evidence. After returning home from
the BSV Neuberg, the prosecution presented that Hermine pushed Rudolf down the stairs. As he lay
on the landing, Hermine and Matthias beat Rudolf with a wooden plank in the neck area. As per the
pathologists report, it also couldn’t be ruled out that they’d strangled Rudolf or slit his throat.
Matthias and Hermine managed to load Rudolf’s unconscious body into his car and dispose of
it in the Donau River. The E230 model Mercedes didn’t require the key to be in the ignition or
the brake to be applied for the gears to be changed. The gear stick was also able to be
moved very easily during the rescue mission, therefore it was suggested that the gear
could have moved to the ‘park’ position after the car was already in the water.
Andrea and Manuela likely knew that their father was attacked, but didn’t know whether he was dead or alive. Regardless, all four of the
accused agreed to lie to detectives if they came sniffing around. The prosecution agreed
that the daughters be acquitted, even if their knowledge of the crime remained questionable.
The defence team argued that all four of the accused be acquitted and compensated to the
sum of 100,000 euros combined for their years of wrongful imprisonment. It wasn’t the defence’s
job to prove how Rudolf died, but simply to prove that their clients weren't involved.
Based on the evidence, they believed that a drunken accident or suicide couldn’t be ruled out.
When the car windscreen had smashed during the rescue mission, any other evidence that might
have been mixed in with the mud had disappeared into the river. Therefore, it was possible that
the key had been in the ignition but had been ejected over time and was lost in the mud.
The only other items found in Rudolf’s Mercedes were his mother’s death certificate and a letter from the tax office.
The defence team believed this added weight to the theory that Rudolf had taken his own life.
Diaries owned by Andrea and Manuela had been taken by police during the initial murder investigation.
There was nothing to indicate either of the girls guilt in their fathers death. On the contrary,
in one entry, one of the Rupp daughters had written: “Dad, we need you, please come back.”
Forensic experts concluded that blows to the neck would have only caused a brief loss of
consciousness - a few minutes at most. One defence lawyer said: "This would hardly allow, under the
specific circumstances, to drive a person to the Donau in a car and drown in an unconscious state."
The defence also countered that if any weight was going to be placed on the since retracted
confessions, at no point in any of those statements did any of the accused mention
a beating to the neck region. Nor did they ever mention the Donau River as a dumping ground.
As the defence pointed out, the crucial point in the case was whether or not Rupert Rupp returned home on the night in question, and this couldn’t be proven.
Therefore, an accident or suicide could not be ruled out. The tactics used by police to elicit confessions from the accused were heavily criticised.
The defence argued that the original investigators were so convinced they had the right people,
they’d asked leading questions in order to extract statements that supported their belief
of what had happened to Rudolf. In none of the original interrogations did any of the accused
mention Rudolf falling down the stairs, or being fed to the dogs. It was only after
investigators put these scenarios to them that they began to say those events had happened.
The fact that the confessions had come out in dribs and drabs and changed over time was proof to the defence of their inaccuracy.
One defence lawyer said: "In my view, the only conceivable way the accused could have come up
with these details is that the details were made known by the interrogating officers.”
A police officer who had obtained Matthias’s first confession was asked why a three hour in-depth
preliminary conversation hadn’t been recorded. The officer explained that they’d just been getting
to know each other. It was only when Matthias admitted that Rudolf Rupp had come home on the
night in question that the official interrogation began and things were formally documented.
Interrogation records presented in court showed just how much Manuela’s statements contradicted
themselves. Sometimes she said her mother beat her father, other times she made no mention of it.
Manuela testified that she’d only provided these details after the lead investigator provided her
with this version of events. This particular investigator was excused from testifying on
the grounds that they were suffering from psychological problems and that being put
under intense questioning could trigger severe depressive symptoms. Later speaking about this
decision to the press, Manuela’s lawyer said: "Who thought about the traumatization of my client?”
The accused mostly sat through the proceedings without showing any emotion. That was until a former cellmate of Hermine Rupp’s took the stand.
She alleged that Hermine had confided to her in prison that Matthias had killed
Rudolf using a baseball bat. Hermine, who was in ill health and required a walking frame,
got up and left the courtroom in a rage, saying: “I’m going now, this is all too stupid for me.”
When she returned, she denied having ever spoken to the woman, calling her a “lying pig.”
The former owner of the BSV Neuburg who had been the last to see Rudolf Rupp alive testified that
after Rudolf went missing, Hermine came to the clubhouse to pay off her husband's tab but didn’t
ask anything about his whereabouts. This was in direct contrast to an earlier statement provided
by the owner, in which he said Hermine did ask about Rudolf. Hermine launched forward in her
chair, wildly shaking her head and finger at his inconsistency. For the prosecution,
the fact that Hermine was getting restless was used as further proof of her guilt.
Ludwig Hecht, the scrap dealer who had been accused of disposing of Rudolf’s Mercedes
also took the stand as a witness for the defence. According to Hecht, the police had pressured him
to admit he was involved in the crime. When he refused to sign a statement admitting to this,
Hecth alleged that one officer in the presence of others held a gun to his head and threatened him,
saying: “This is about murder. We’re allowed to do anything.’” When he still refused to sign it,
Hecht alleged that the lead investigator offered him a deal: admit that Rudolf’s Mercedes had been
in his scrap yard, and the environmental violation against him would be dropped.
The verdict was delivered in February 2011. Based on the kneeling positioning of Rudolf Rupp’s body
when his Mercedes was found, presiding Judge Theo Ziegler ruled out the possibility that
Rudolf had died by accident or suicide. The fact that his car or wallet weren’t stolen were proof
that he hadn’t been the victim of a random opportunistic attack, but a targeted homicide.
Judge Ziegler defended the investigators who had obtained the revoked confessions and denied
the accusation that they’d used unethical tactics or applied unnecessary pressure.
He believed the accused were pretending to be less intelligent than they really were, and could
provide no explanation for why they had provided false statements. Judge Ziegler concluded that
someone in the Rupp household had killed Rudolf, he just couldn’t be sure exactly who or how.
Therefore, Ziegler said he had no choice but to acquit each of the defendants. However, he denied their requests for compensation.
As far as Judge Ziegler was concerned, Hermine, Matthias, Manuela and Andrea had chosen to make
their false statements. Therefore, they only had themselves to blame for their convictions.
For the defence team, the verdict was only half a victory. Outside court, one of the lawyers told the press: “We won, and we lost.”
In the wake of the verdict, scrap dealer Ludwig Hecht was charged with making false
accusations against the police. At his trial, a representative for the public prosecution
labelled Hecht “the scum of humanity” and called for a prison sentence of 20 months.
The judge acquitted Hecht, citing reasonable doubt as to whether he had fabricated the allegations.
Over the years, lawyers for Hermine, Matthias, Manuela and Andrea continued to fight for financial compensation for the time their clients spent in prison.
They argued that the accused didn’t invent the false confessions that led to their convictions
alone, but under pressure from the interviewing officers. Their appeals have all been denied.
Professor Guenter Koehnken is an expert on false confessions. He examined the video footage of the
accused giving their statements to police for a television special on the Spiegel Panorama
network and was shocked by what he saw. To Professor Koehnken, it was obvious that the
video recordings were intermittently turned off, at which point new information was given to the
accused during undocumented conversations. When the camera started recording again,
the accused would then suddenly reveal information that they’d previously been denying.
At no point in the footage did any of the authorities address these discrepancies.
To understand how someone could give a false confession, Professor Koehnken urged viewers to consider the whole picture and not just the final outcome. He explained that in
this case there were a variety of factors at play, including insecurities, low IQ’s and possible
mental illness, factors which were exacerbated by isolation in custody and illegal questioning over
several weeks. Watching the footage, Professor Koehnken stated: “I’m at a loss for words.”
Speaking to the same program, the public prosecutor who had spearheaded the original
conviction against the four accused was asked how he felt when Rudolf Rupp’s body was recovered from
the Donau River. The reporter asked: “Did you think, oh damn it, now I’ve got a problem.”
The prosecutor responded: “No, why would it be a problem?” The case gained massive media attention in Germany not just because of the bizarre circumstances,
but because it shattered the longstanding belief that the German legal system does not produce
wrongful convictions. After the retrial, the judge from the original trial defended the original
verdict, saying: “I never want to sentence anybody unjustified. But on the other hand
you also need to see that we are only human. And therefore we can also be subject to human error.”
The truth about Rudolf Rupp’s death remains a mystery.

Case 255: Rudolf Rupp

When 52-year-old German farmer Rudolf Rupp failed to return home from a night out drinking in the town of Neuburg an der Donau, several questions were raised. Had Rudolf accidentally driven into the nearby Donau River? Had he taken his own life? Or was he the victim of something more sinister?

The police turned to Rudolf’s wife Hermine and their two daughters, Manuela and Andrea, for answers, opening up a can of worms that no one could have seen coming.

CREDITS

Narration – Anonymous Host Research & writing – Elsha McGill Creative direction – Milly Raso Production and music – Mike Migas Music – Andrew D.B. Joslyn

SOCIAL LINKS

Website https://www.casefilepodcast.com Facebook https://www.facebook.com/casefile Twitter https://twitter.com/case_file Instagram https://www.instagram.com/casefilepodcast Patreon https://www.patreon.com/casefile Casefile Presents https://casefilepresents.com

RESOURCES

For all credits and sources, please visit https://casefilepodcast.com/case-255-rudolf-rupp

Brief Summary

Rudolf Rupp's disappearance leads to family confessions, a body discovery, and a controversial retrial revealing unresolved mysteries.

Key points

Rudolf Rupp's Disappearance. On October 12, 2001, Rudolf Rupp vanished after a night out, leaving his family in distress.
Confessions and Contradictions. The investigation revealed conflicting confessions from Rudolf's family, complicating the case.
The Discovery of Rudolf's Body. Rudolf Rupp's body is found in his submerged Mercedes, raising questions about his death.
Confessions Under Pressure. The accused claim their confessions were coerced, leading to a retrial.
Ludwig Hecht's Testimony. Hecht claims police pressured him into false confessions, even threatening him with a gun.
Verdict Delivered. Judge Ziegler rules out accident or suicide in Rudolf's death, confirming targeted homicide.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

Rudolf had been summoned with an affidavit regarding unpaid debts.

8:02WatchJul 15, 2023

Tension

85/ 100High tension

More from Casefile

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.