A Few Questions Now Answered in The Roseboro Murder Case

Given the sheer amount of speculation that continues to swirl around the Roseboro murder case, it isn't easy to review what has been made public and then readdress some of the questions.
Reviewing it all in some cases just leads to more questions.
Only at the trial will the details of evidence be made public, and with each new revelation i.e., Angela Funk's pregnancy and claim that the child is indeed Mike Roseboro's, the strategy must change, even if just a bit.

Some facts that have stood out after a close review of all press conferences, the Affidavit of Probably Cause, etc. :

The murder occurred on July 22, 2009. Only after the completion of the autopsy on July 23, 2009 was it clear that it was a homicide.
The scene was fully released to Mike Roseboro after a walk through the night of the tragedy and wasn't resecured until after the autopsy and the appropriate filings to obtain a search warrant.

Mr. Sodomsky was retained by the Roseboro family "shortly after his wife's death". That is a direct quote from the defense attorney. They wanted the best and they called him. Quickly.
It is noted that they literally went to the top of the heap. If it was clear that this was a robbery/killing, then I wonder why they sought out perhaps the number one defense attorney of record? I believe that they weren't just making sure that Mike was protected under the letter of the law, but they were actively seeking a master of strategy. Simple legal defense was far from what was clearly needed from the start.

Angela Funk and Mike Roseboro spoke on the telephone within one hour of the estimated time of Jan's death. Estimated times of death are not exact nor are they precise. That call could have happened immediately prior to the attack and murder or could have been going on at the time events began to unfold. It was stated by the DA that within one hour of the estimate time of death of Jan, Mike told Angie Funk that he was leaving his wife for her. If the call had been completed within that hour, do the cell towers show the proximity of each person participating in that call?

Mr. Sodomsky has reported that "the family" claims that approximately $40,000 worth of jewelry were missing from Jan's effects when the body was released after autopsy. He clearly stated that it included a necklace and rings. That jewelry, if Jan was wearing it, would not have been removed prior to autopsy. She was pronounced dead upon arrival at ECH. If the jewelry was indeed present, the nursing notes will include a detailed description of each and every piece of jewelry she was wearing. Testimony of the first responders may detail if any jewelry was noted at the time of her treatment. In many cases, ACLS and responders have been accused of stealing jewelry, cash, wallets etc. from patients. In most cases those accusations are unfounded and I have no doubt as to the integrity of the responders who cared for and tried to revive Jan Roseboro. I am hopeful that they have a recollection, at least and documentation, at best, as to any jewelry present. If the jewelry was present while Jan was reading by the pool, would the approximate hour and a half alone with her husband have given him time to remove the jewelry after the fact, setting up his claim of a robbery/killing?

And was it only AFTER the body was released to the family that Mike suddenly realized the jewelry was gone? He stated that he pulled Jan to the side of the pool, apparently up and out of the water, tried to give her CPR, which requires tilting the head back, giving breaths and chest compressions and at no time did he notice THEN that the jewelry was missing? He appeared so calm to the responders that they remarked about it. He wasn't too overcome with emotion to be unaware of anything as significant as his wife's rings and necklace being gone?
Mr. Sodomsky stated that anyone that knew Jan knew that she always wore the jewelry that is now claimed to be missing. Why didn't Mike tell the police the jewelry was missing that night?
He would have noticed. If he was pacing around the pool area, watching them try to revive Jan, wondering who on earth could have done this to his wife, I think he might have noticed if her necklace and rings, and more were gone. If it was a part of what made her, her, Mike would have noticed. I would imagine I would have and I've have pointed that out to the police immediately in my frantic pleas for them to find the monster that did this.
I do have to mention that the lack of a mention of Mike's claim that the jewelry was stolen on the Affidavit of Probable Cause doesn't necessarily mean that he didn't make that claim. I do find it hard to believe that the DA would omit that. Normal procedure would be for it to be a part of the record and then state that his claims were unfounded. The Affidavit does state that there was no sign of forced entry or robbery, but doesn't mention any claim of missing items or jewelry.
Personally, I think that could be sticking point that might haunt them. It may be that the jewelry wasn't believed to be missing. But not mentioning a claim of robbery on the Affidavit or any other public record of the case looks questionable.
One other area of concern to all is the DA's public comment that they "have much work to do". That struck me as odd and was clearly mentioned by Mr. Sodomsky. I have to agree that usually the work comes first, then the arrest. Not the other way around. That public utterance by the DA may be another alligator waiting to bite him in the posterior.

The DA indicated that only after Angie Funk's safety was ensured by Mike's arrest did they feel secure in unsealing the court documents. Who believed that Mike would harm Angie? Was it the DA? Was it Angie? Given her desire to have a life with him, I doubt that she was gripped with fear. What prompted the DA to entertain the possibility of Mike "going after" Angie Funk once she had given information to the investigators?

It is clear that Mr. Sodomsky had disdain for Angie Funk and her claims of being Mike's mistress. He reiterated that the Roseboros had been married for nineteen years. What story did Mike tell his defense attorney at the outset to make Mr. Sodomsky make such unfounded statements? He called into question Angie Funks credibility.
How long did it take Mike to fess up to his attorney that what she claimed was the truth?
It has to be extremely difficult to represent a client that isn't open and honest with you.

Family members were uncooperative. That could mean several things. The children could have been shielded from interrogation, no matter how gentle. But why would any family member not want full disclosure of what anyone witnessed that night? Mike is the only person to claim that all three minor children were asleep. That can't be corroborated by anyone at time of the attack.

Not part of the public record but reported to some by those close to Jan is the notice of her being distracted and not herself at least from the previous Thursday prior to the murder. Was that indeed the day Mike informed her of the divorce to come?
It is also noteworthy that the wound on Jan's head was described as a puncture wound. To date, I haven't found any notations of a crushing skull wound. There is a vast difference between a puncture wound and a crushing injury. Was Jan backhanded by someone wearing a ring bearing the monogram "L"? Did Louis Roseboro, dapper and classy as he was, wear an insignia ring? Was it given to Mike? Just a few thoughts there. My thoughts. Not attributed to anyone.
I remember Louis Roseboro clearly and wish I could remember his jewelry.

It is clear that the DA doesn't support the theory that this was a crime of passion. He clearly believes it was premeditated. And in that light, the severe beating that Jan endured is even more ghastly.

I suppose that Mr. Sodomsky jumped the gun on worrying about a possible change in venue.
His description of the news and media coverage of the case being "extensive" was far less than even he expected.

This case will stay in Lancaster County.