Monday, March 30, 2009

No Letter As Of Today

As of 3:00 pm today I haven't received a letter regarding anything to do with Angie Funk or the Roseboro murder case. I fully expect to receive one, if the letter is a result of Angie's displeasure at
having uncomplimentary things said about her.
I don't recall anyone, anywhere posting paragraphs claiming them to be facts other than strenuous opinions as to Angie's character and her behaviors over many years.
No one has claimed to have seen her at the Roseboro home that night that any of us are aware.
Have we surmised that she could have had more to do with the events of the night of July 22, 2008? Yes we have.
In fact, I've tried to find anything positive posted about her other than claims and/or opinions that she is a good mother.
Those opinions, just like all of ours, are relative.
For many people, simply having a geographical region or local community have the opinions they do in this case, that would be enough to make anyone examine their moral compass and consider taking a serious stab at changing their character.
Those closest to her still maintain she has no remorse. How can a person be directly involved in the affair that ended with the death of Jan Roseboro and not be sorry?
I will post any and all responses I get that try to answer that question.
But just as the remorse has never arrived, I doubt that anyone can answer that.
Several times posters at Denverpaonline asked people to step up and share the good things that they know about Angie. Maybe some community contribution she has made, some good works she has done. It would then make this "misstep" seem like a bad choice in an otherwise giving and charitable life.
We're all still waiting...

Your right to refuse phone contact...according to the Pennsylvania Statute

ONE phone call in which all the words were 'neutral' (non-vulgar, non-threatening, etc) is not harassment. If it were, then I could claim that everyone who called me was harassing me.

Did you tell this person not to call you again?

PA Statute 5504. Harassment and stalking by communication or address.(a) Harassment by communication or address.--A person commits the crime of harassment by communication or address when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person: 1. communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or abscene words, language, drawings or caricatures; or 2. communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner; 3. communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or 4. communicates repeatedly in a manner not covered by paragraph (2) or (3).(a.1) Stalking by communication or address.--A person commits the crime of stalking by communication or address when the person engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly communicates to another under circumstances which demonstrate or communicate either of the following: 1. An intent to place such other person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. 2. An intent to cause substantial emotional distress to such other person.

The Search Warrants and The First Amendment

Search warrants were executed, over the protests of counsel of Angie Funk to obtain a blood sample for DNA testing. That is the normal protocol for obtaining blood or serology samples in the process of criminal court proceedings. Nothing new and nothing sinister there. Other than the fact that Angie did attempt to block the testing.
The only thing "searched" was the blood sample. It was available for testing. That testing may or may not have been completed yet.

As for the First Amendment. It frustrates me to read articles, posts and questions where it is clear that the author doesn't truly understand the First Amendment.
As I posted before, it is not blanket protection for newspapers, magazines and now the web.
The First Amendment will protect you if you've done what you do, right, in the correct way. If not, it's not your saving grace.
Here is a great article I've found that will show that things are changing in this electronic age. Forum owners are being filed against and ordered to produce any records that will assist in identifying anonymous posters. Blogs and forums can be dissected and the authors held accountable to set of standards for libel.
Yes, opinion is protected. But if it goes further, and seems threatening or falls under other conditions, you can't hide behind the First Amendment. To sweep it all away with the brush of your hand just tells everyone that you have very little current knowledge as to the state of litigation in this area.

This article is long, so I apologize but take some time to read it. It covers groundbreaking actions! I have others and will post them also in a later post.

Please note that these are current actions!

Judge orders Web site to unmask anonymous posters in libel case

February 10, 2009 (Computerworld) The First Amendment protects the to libel someone, anonymously or otherwise.
A Texas circuit court judge served up a reminder of the amendment last week when she ordered an online news aggregation site to turn over any potentially identifying information it has on 178 people. They had anonymously posted allegedly defamatory comments on the site about two individuals involved in a sexual assault case.
Tarrant County District Court Judge Dana Womack served a subpoena to The company has until March 6 to comply with the order.
The order was issued in connection with a lawsuit that was filed by Mark and Rhonda Lesher (PDF document), a couple from Clarksville, Texas, who had been charged with, but recently acquitted of, sexually assaulting a woman.
Mark Lesher, a practicing attorney in Clarksville and Rhonda Lesher, who operates a beauty salon in the town, were accused last year of the crime against a former client of Mark Lesher.
The two were acquitted on all counts by a jury in Collin County in January after the case was moved in September 2008 to a new venue because of fears that the Leshers wouldn't get a fair trial in Red River County, where the case was originally heard.
Forums flare up
The complaint alleged that media reports about the case generated more than 25,000 comments -- many of them were anonymous and harshly critical of the couple -- on's user forums. The allegedly offensive comments were present on more than 70 individual threats on Topix message boards of nearby Texas communities such as Clarksville, McKinney and Avery, the complaint noted.
The Leshers claimed that the comments were a form of persecution against them and that the anonymous posters had defamed them and tarnished their reputation, their standing in the community and their businesses.
The complaint added that before the case began, neither of the Leshers had any presence on Topix. It claimed that the Leshers were the "victims of a vicious cyberdefamation campaign" that was waged on Topix, and sought actual and other kinds of damages from the as yet unidentified posters of the messages.
William Pieratt Demond, a partner at Connor & Demond PLLC, a law firm in Austin that is representing the Leshers, said that the lawsuit was limited to the posters of only those statements that are arguably defamatory under Texas law.
The allegations in the anonymous postings in question "are so inflammatory and so horrendous under Texas law that no proof of damages is even required" to pursue the lawsuit, Demond said. "All we have to prove is that it was said and damages are presumed under the law."
Topix: We take privacy seriously
Topix CEO Chris Tolles said that his company had received the subpoena and was currently figuring out what exactly it needed to do. "We are not there yet, since it was a large request with lots of detail," Tolles said in an e-mail. "We prefer to make sure requests are clear and specific and not overly broad."
Tolles said that Topix takes privacy issues very seriously and that his firm would not "simply hand over all of our records" without a review of the demand by its lawyers and a discussion of the issue with the court.
At the same time, though, Tolles said libel was a legitimate concern, and that Topix will cooperate with the courts when a valid request for information was made. Topix is reviewing the subpoena to make sure the request is "above a reasonable threshold," he said.
Reminder: Anonymity is not immunity
The lawsuit serves as reminder that online anonymity does not automatically provide immunity against libel charges, said Eugene Volokh, professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles' School of Law.
While the First Amendment provides protections for free speech, "not all categories of speech are protected, libel for instance," Volokh said.
"While people have the right to say things anonymously, if someone sues them of libel, then a court may order others to turn over information about them," Volokh said. "The First Amendment does not prevent the use of judicial processes to uncover the identities of speakers" in cases where libel is suspected.
It is not the first time a court has ordered a Web site or service provider to hand over identifying information on anonymous posters.
The most high-profile example involves two female Yale Law School students who were the targets of a similar flood of highly personal anonymous attacks posted on the AutoAdmit college bulletin board in 2005.
In January 2008, the students got a Connecticut district court judge to issue a subpoena asking the operator of AutoAdmit to hand over any information it had to help reveal the true identities of 39 posters who used pseudonyms on the board.
The subpoena resulted in the lawyers for the two students unmasking the identities of several of the anonymous users behind the postings.
In a blog post related to the case, Volokh noted that while some of the comments against the two students may well have been libelous, some of the statements could also be interpreted as threats of rape and other physical harm against the two.
In similar cases, such comments, whether anonymous or not, "may be constitutionally unprotected, and there would be no bar to tort liability for them," Volokh noted in the blog post.

Search Warrants Are Executed For Blood Sampling

Just to clear up a current question regarding the execution of a search warrant in the Roseboro case....
A search warrant is what is executed when a blood sample is deemed necessary by the participants in a criminal proceeding......
They would need one for Mike Roseboro and they would need one for Angela Funk.

A Call To Amy Rothermel, Esquire

After a few meetings this morning, I hope to speak with Amy Rothermel, Esq., Angie Funk's attorney this afternoon.
I took some time to process the latest happenings involving her client and the letter(s) that were sent. I haven't received one but would expect to, given my outspoken criticism of her client.
I would like to at least introduce myself to her via the phone and make my position known.
I have never seen any member of the Bar as an adversary and actually hold them in awe, given their education and expertise.
I fully appreciate my rights as protected by the First Amendment but I also fully understand an individual's rights to protection from invasion or privacy and stalking and well as libel.
Simply having to read an opinion posted that is negative or insulting isn't grounds for legal recourse. As I have learned, there is no law against having your feelings hurt LOL But there are laws against privacy invasion etc which I posted earlier.
If that were the case, I'd have a slam dunk in my pocket right now against the latest psycho babble I've read. Well, make that the babbling of a psycho lol
In any case, I have no problem discussing any of my blog posts with Ms. Rothermel. I am not "waxing indignant" should she send me a letter as well.
She is doing her job in protecting the rights of her client. And if at any time, my actions breach the law, I stand accountable.
I am a fan of accountability and autonomy.
I came across some legal findings in states other than PA so far, where a judge has ordered a forum owner to produce any and all documentation to assist in revealing the real and true identities of anonymous posters on the forums. There is more than one reference and although it's a slim chance that it will go that far, this attorney could want to be ground breaking in the state of PA.
To quote one attorney, "You are protected under the First Amendment if you are doing it right. If not, you are not."
I know that in the Salisbury, Maryland area a local politico, I believe it was, filed against a blogger for libel but I don't know the outcome of that lawsuit. I'll check it out and post that and some of the references I've found pertaining to libel in the forum setting and blogs in general.
Well, it's off to a few meetings and then hopefully I will be able to speak with Ms. Rothermel.
I hope I can be of some help to her. I know that I will be completely forthcoming at the very least!
But if any forum owner blindly believes that they will never be put in a position to produce any and all information that they possess to assist in the identification of anonymous posters, they have their head in the sand.
The First Amendment is not a shield. The times are changing.
I'll get those references posted about that when I get back later today!

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Sitting Back and Taking A Long, Hard Look At It All...

Since July of last year, many have been focused on the Roseboro case and the pending trial.
Forum posts and blog entries have gone through the roof. People on the street are still talking about it any and every chance they get.
It's been a source of sick entertainment for some, and for others it's just filled a void in their own lives. When the trial is history, they'll move on to the next hot topic.
In the midst of all the attention, posting and hoopla about this case, there has been an air of surreality to it all.
People meeting for lunch and toasting Mike Roseboro on his birthday.
A pool on the birth date of the new baby.
Some of it isn't just in poor taste, it's pathological.

But now, the baby has been born.
The trial is scheduled for July 17, 2009.
There is a sense of hard, cold reality that has landed on all of this.
Not until the trial will we know what the prosecution has in store. Only then will we learn what the defense claims are.
But right now, there is a baby and two little girls who need to adapt to the swirling changes in their lives.
There are children that are still without their mother and father.
Maybe it's the Mom in me but I believe that in the best interest of the Funk/Rudy children, they all need to be left alone. And that includes Angie.
Please do not mistake my words for any change in my opinions of her and her choices or actions.
I just am dumbfounded and sickened that anyone would call her while she was still in the hospital to talk to her about anything related to the case or her new baby.
I see that as a line that never should have been crossed.
There is nothing that needed to be said, no questions that needed to be asked that were important enough to violate her privacy while still in the hospital. That was just too much.
Like a pirhana feeding on fresh meat...that's all it is.
If being a journalist is all about disseminating true information to the masses and bringing issues to the light of day, aren't there ethics involved?
And even if there were no journalistic ethics, what of the ethics and morals of just being a person. Or of being a Mom?
Calling Angie Funk in that hospital was inexcusable.
I guess it's just a case of needing so badly to get the scoop, at all costs....

Ask her anything you like after she and that child have settled in and the girls have some time to adapt to yet another upheaval in their lives.
Use some good judgment and just try doing the right thing.
And if not, I'm sure Ms. Rothermel will do it for you.

Two Berks County Attorneys Just One Block Away From Each Other

It just occurred to me that Alan Sodomsky and Amy Rothermel have offices just a block apart.
I understand Roseboro's choice in Sodomsky, despite that he is a Berks County lawyer. And I surely mean no disrespect whatsoever to Ms. Rothermel, but why does Angie Funk have a lawyer in Berks County and just steps away from Mr. Sodomsky's office?
I wonder if it was a referral.....
Hmm...does this mean that Mike and Angie are technically on the "same side" of this issue?
I may be completely wrong but it doesn't feel as if Mike and his attorney will be going after Angie the way many have anticipated.
If Angie is the prosecution's star witness against Mike and not a hostile witness....would you expect her, being a Lancaster County resident who has met with the Lancaster County authorities numerous times, to have secured the services of a Berks County attorney?
Or did Mike and Angie meet with Sodomsky together and he advised her to seek out Rothermel?
Just wondering.....

My Hopes For Amy Rothermel, Esquire...

I hope she is worth her salt and files for a restraining order if Becky Holzinger continues to call Angie Funk. I haven't changed my opinion of anything Angie has done but I support the law that protects her from the likes of Becky Holzinger. There's a newborn baby that deserves some peace and quiet. So let them settle in. Nothing you have to say to Angie or ask her can't wait until that little baby gets his "sea legs". She's been left a message and an email has been sent. I hope the next step is a registered letter...
But with the automatic refusal to honor the request that she not call Angie again, posted by Becky, I would imagine a restraining order will be forthcoming.
A legitimate journalist wanting to have an interview or statement? A simple no comment would be the reply. Instead they are already asking for Holzinger to not call her again.
This will be something to watch....
My money is on Rothermel....

No one has had such fierce opinions on what Angie Funk has done in her participation in the affair with Mike Roseboro, but even I can't stop thinking about that little one.
He deserves to be loved and to be in atmosphere of peace. Heaven knows he already has one parent that can't make a good decision to save her soul, and one of the candidates for his paternity is sitting in a cell on King Street.
Give it a rest. That baby didn't kill Jan, and that baby didn't ask for any of this.
Let them alone for a while.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Prayers For A Precious Little Boy....

I have been told and also have read that Angie Funk gave birth to a healthy little baby boy yesterday. His name is Matthew Rudy.
On the occasion of the miracle of a baby's birth it is customary for everyone to celebrate and take a moment to appreciate how precious life is.
This little boy's birth has touched many with a sense of sadness as well as prayers and hopes for his life yet ahead.
His mother made some evil choices. The man that may be his father is sitting in jail charged with murder.
And now, this little man is here.
I will keep that baby in my prayers daily. He is still a miracle of God. He is not to blame for anything that led to his birth. He is not guilty of the sins of his father and mother.
What breaks my heart is that because of two emotionally corrupt adults, this little baby came into the world having to bear his mother's maiden name. She is a shameful, evil shell of a human.
I hope once paternity is established he is given his rightful name.
The Roseboro's are good people. That precious baby will never be the subject of scorn at their hands. They aren't capable of it.
I have tears for that baby and I pray to God that everyone around him loves him simply because he exists.
He is not a headline. He is human being. God look over him and wrap Your loving arms around him all the days of his life. This child is a miracle. Please remember that.

Monday, March 23, 2009

A Hearty Recommendation! Family Trees and Your Roots!

In reviewing my research into the murder of Marian Louise Baker, it dawned on me that I need to tell you all just how very important has been in aiding me in my pursuits for information.
I am mildly-ha! addicted to history and even more so to genealogy and family trees!
Several years ago I became familiar with many sites on the web that are available for anyone to research their own family roots. What I didn't realize at the time was just what a wealth of information it could be to researching much more than your own family history!
I have researched my extremely old house thanks to that site. I consider my house a living thing and want to know all that I can about the previous owners and residents. has led me to sources and references not just for my lines, but also has taken me to the places and people that have been an enormous help in my research of The Marian Louise Baker murder.
I have made some contacts that have become friends, and some, although not blood related, are now part of my "family".
So far, I have nothing but praise for Ancestry and the Rootsweb sites! There are others and I will include a list of those later for anyone who wishes to pursue their own research.
Wouldn't it be sad if no one remembers? Each one of us leaves our own little footprint here. We are all someone's son, daughter, wife, aunt, uncle, etc. Those sites allow us to connect to our pasts and even learn about our geological heritage.
Check them out if you haven't already. They are wonderful!

Saturday, March 21, 2009

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.

The Marian Louise Baker Murder: A Photo and The Final Resting Place

This is a capture from The Bedford Era including a brief article and one of the few photos of Marian Louise Baker. I have others included in copies of microfiche from the Lancaster Public Library but the copies are too old to scan. Look on the lower right for the article and picture.

As I posted previously, Marian is buried next to her aunt and uncle, Alice and Leroy ODonel in Perry County, PA. The couple, from Conestoga raised her as their own.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Fancy Footwork of The Defense...

Prosecutors bear the burden of proof.
Defense teams need only to create doubt.
While the prosecution can't be "all over the map" in laying out their case, they present to the judge and jury motive, means and opportunity in a cohesive package. It is their job to take the jurors step by step along the path that ends with the crime being committed. And if the jurors are convinced that the crime in question could ONLY have been committed by the accused, the prosecution has done it's job and a conviction is the expected outcome.

The defense doesn't have to take the jury down a path of one scenario. They can present several possible scenarios. And if any of those possible scenarios leads one juror to hold reasonable doubt about the accused's role in the events, an acquittal is the expected outcome.

In the State of Pennsylvania vs. Michael A. Roseboro, the DA's office has to have a plan, focused on one clear and continuous set of events that led to the death of Jan Roseboro.
They will have to show means.... Yes, Mike had the means to kill Jan. She was at home, with him, while three of their children slept. He's a strong man and could have beaten, strangled and struck her with an object.
Mike had opportunity. See above. Jan was there, fully accessible to him. He admits to being on the property with her in the time frame of the crime being committed.
Now for motive.
The DA has Angie Funk as star witness. She already had offered the emails Mike had sent to her, turned over her phone, and gave statements to them including details of her pregnancy.

In the article that follows, I was most interested in what Mr. Sodomsky had to say about Angie Funk..

The attorney for an accused killer told reporters Wednesday that Michael Roseboro did not murder his wife two weeks ago in northern Lancaster County.

"Contrary to published reports and widespread speculation, Michael Roseboro did not kill his wife," Reading defense attorney Allan Sodomsky said. Sodomsky said prosecutors are overlooking important information in the case.

Police said Roseboro killed his wife of 19 years, Jan Roseboro, on the night of July 22nd by beating her, strangling her and then throwing her in the family swimming pool in Reinholds. Roseboro called 911 that night and said he found his wife's body floating in the pool.

While prosecutors indicated there is no evidence a robber may have killed Jan Roseboro, Sodomsky said the killer could have been a robber.

"As soon as the body was released to the family, it was noted that there was approximately $40,000 worth of jewelry missing from Jan's person, that she had on," Sodomsky said.

Prosecutors said Roseboro had a motive to kill his wife because he was having an affair with another woman. Sodomsky said the woman claiming to be Michael Roseboro's mistress is not believable. "She struggles to gain credibility with the people that know her best," Sodomsky said.

Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman reacted to Sodomsky's comments by issuing a statement in which he said he will not conduct the trial in the media.'s not a secret that Angie has been called a liar by many that know her. We all know by now that Angie and the truth aren't close friends.
But she is clearly pregnant. And claims the child is Mike Roseboro's.
She clearly handed over emails that she claims were sent to her by Mike Roseboro. I find it hard to believe that the DA would not have had all the emails investigated by a computer forensics specialist to make sure Angie didn't do some fancy footwork with her computer.
So what does that do for Mike and his defense?
All they can hope for is that the paternity test reveals another man as the father of the baby.

Mr. Sodomsky has had to regroup. His attempt at tearing down Angie's credibility has suffered much as the investigation has moved along. Angie revealed to investigators that she is pregnant. Mr. Sodomsky had to be aware of that thanks to discovery.
Despite her penchant for lying, it appears that so far she can back up her current claims.
All she needs is the correct result on the paternity test.

So what tack will the defense come up with now?
Possibly the robbery theory. I have one question...wasn't it Mike who was the one to receive the body and claim the jewelry was gone?

I hope Mr. Sodomsky doesn't underestimate the intelligence of a Lancaster County jury.

Maybe he'll present evidence that Angie wasn't the love of Mike's life, that he simply used the same lines on her that he used on many of the women he had affairs with.
Many are wondering how many of his former mistresses will testify. Especially the ones that he was sleeping with during the summer of 2008.
There have been stories, and they are as yet unsubstantiated by me, that Mike was known to frequent a local establishment with one of his women.
But I'm sure Mr. Sodomsky will tell us all that a cheater does not a murderer make.
And that is true in some cases.
Angie wouldn't be believable even now with out emails and a pregnant profile to back her story up.
If you were attempting to come up with a defense, what options would you have?

  1. A robber hopped or opened the gate on the fence and beat, strangled and drowned Jan Roseboro. He or she then hung around, washed blood from the area around the pool, off of their hands, cleaned the bottom of their shoes to leave no traceable footprints and left themselves out the gate through which they entered, leaving no fibers, dropped jewelry, hair strands behind.
  2. The aforementioned robber then NEVER hocked or pawned the stolen jewelry. They must have kept it for their own use.
  3. The robbers just happened to choose that house, that night, and that person, fully unaware that the woman they were about to rob and kill had a husband who told his mistress that he was going to tell his wife he was leaving her. It is a total coincidence that they chose that night, hours after the woman's husband had emailed his mistress professing his love, telling her that he had to have her as his wife, and he had to become her husband.
    That qualifies Mike Roseboro for a spot on the show "Worst Week Ever".
Somehow, I just don't think so.......

Thursday, March 19, 2009

I've had the night to sleep on it....I still want to know why Angie didn't want her blood drawn or not drawn until the birth of the baby. Her blood alone doesn't establish paternity of the child.
And all the DNA testing can be done by a buccal swab of all parties involved.
I wonder if the DA has had a DNA sample from Angie up to this point? Lipstick off of a styrofoam or paper coffee cup or cup of water she was given during questioning? A tissue she left behind, soaked in tears over the horrible situation of her lover?
Something just isn't right here.
I've gone back and reviewed it all. Angie is better at manipulating than doing the dirty work herself. But the beating that Jan Roseboro suffered was brutal. It smacked of a girl attack from the start. Angie? I'm not sure. Hired help? Maybe. They wouldn't have had the emotional intimacy to Jan to prevent them from hitting and kicking her the way she was before she was tossed into the pool. The beating indicated rage, hatred, frustration or a complete lack of emotional closeness with Jan.
And the clean up? If there was hired help, a "team" could certainly overtake Jan quickly and forcefully and then have the manpower to get the scene taken care of.
If Mike attacked Jan, I think he'd show more than scratches. I think she would have fought for her life.
We have very little if no blood. We have few if any attack wounds on Mike, received from Jan in defending herself. And what about that jewelry?
The jewelry may in fact be missing. It may be what was used to pay for the beating and murder.
Mike's flat affect after the murder is telling. I think he might have been a bit more emotional or hyped up had he been the only one to physically beat, strangle and drown his wife and then clean up like a mad man.
Instead he was calm. Maybe the enormity of what had just happened was hanging all over him like a wet blanket.
And it surely didn't take him long to drop Angie's name at Jan's funeral. He called her a girl that was "sniffing around" him, and that he wasn't interested.
When Jan's body was claimed by the family is when Mike claims the jewelry wasn't returned to him.
I am anxious to hear the first responders' testimony as to the presence or absence of the jewelry.
It is a matter of Nursing Standards and Practice that any jewelry would have been documented at ECH in detail, down to the color of any stones or gems and the color of the metals. The Nursing and Medical Staff there have never shown anything but professionalism and a keen eye for total patient assessment.
Just my thoughts today....
It really isn't adding up....
And I remembered one comment made by someone very, very close to Angie.....
When asked how Angie felt after the murder, the person, who spoke with her in person stated,
"She was sad. Over losing Mike."
No shame, no embarrassment, no begging for forgiveness of her husband, even if just to make herself look good.
She was still on track. Her eyes have never left the prize.
If she is capable of tearing her daughters' lives apart and ripping the heart out of her husband, stepping over them to get what she wants, why would she hesitate to do anything she needed to to get to Mike. Would Jan Roseboro mean anything to her? Doesn't appear that way, does it?
The Roseboro children and their heartache even at their family dissolving in a divorce court had no impact on Angie. There was no mention of she and Mike having concern over the kids when she testified. She did mention Mike's money though. That was important enough to be discussed. And she didn't even appear to be ashamed to say it in open court.....

There is something very, very wrong here. And the DA may have one accused or alleged killer in jail. But there's more to this story.....

But the little voice is talking, so I'm listening :)

Funny How My Mind Works.......

I've been wondering about Angie Funk's desire to not have blood taken as requested by the State to determine paternity of her unborn child.
Clearly, Angie has made her feelings for Mike Roseboro known and has never changed her stance of wanting a life with him. She told the authorities that she is pregnant with the Roseboro baby.
Then why would her attorney try to block the very test that will eventually reveal the results that Angie already has claimed to be fact, and results that will seal her connection to Mike Roseboro for the rest of their lives?
Even with the final DNA testing being done after the delivery, it's not like Angie to NOT want to rush headlong into any tether to her lover.
Why wouldn't she immediately want to submit to the serology to get this plan on the road?
I am wondering about that right now.
I have no idea if Angie has submitted any forensic evidence to the police, investigators or DA's office. I have no idea how much attention they have paid to her and her involvement in the events that led to Jan Roseboro's murder.
It seems from all that we've read and heard, that Angie hasn't been in the running as a suspect.
Now I not giving up a blood sample that could yield her DNA profile, is she trying to make sure she stays out of the suspect line up?
This is pure speculation, but what if there has been no quantifiable forensic evidence tagged with Angie's ID up to this point. Steadman is after a win. And even if she is a probable suspect, they would never get an indictment unless all involved can see this clearly earning a conviction in the end.
So far, Angie hasn't been mentioned by the DA as a suspect. In fact, he stated that they anticipated no further arrests.
I first questioned if Angie Funk was granted immunity in exchange for her testimony. The trial will reveal that.
But if she hasn't been scrutinized deeply only because the DA feels Mike is the only suspect, what if there are a few unidentified forensic details that they haven't pursued?
If they haven't tested Angie up to this point and she was at the Roseboro home, that blood test could put a hitch in her gitalong.
It may the first concrete forensic comparison sample they have had, of Angie's, to this point.
And that may be why Sodomsky needed just a little more time and asked for the continuance.
To win his client's freedom, Sodomsky has to create doubt. One tactic is to make the jury wonder if someone else did in fact commit the crime. And a good defense attorney will throw anyone in the jury's path to secure an acquittal for his client.

Taking blood out of her arm in no way posed a threat to her unborn baby. So why would Angie Funk NOT want her blood sample taken? Or not taken until after the birth of the baby?
Is it even possible that Mike did find Jan at the bottom of the pool the way he claimed, and that Angie's DNA was at the scene?
I am speculating that one possible scenario is that Angie took care of Jan. Mike found Jan in the pool and didn't know Angie had anything to do with it. But if she left some DNA behind and her blood test is performed, she could be identified by it.
If she would be identified as being at the Roseboro home and they took it a step further and claimed that Angie could have been directly involved in the murder, would Mike be more forgiving of Angie if he pictures her holding their newborn baby?
How could Mike look at the face of his newborn and hate the child's mother? No matter what he may have learned?
Just an idea. I have no facts to back that up.
But ask yourself the same question.
Why would Angie Funk NOT want her blood sample taken? And not want it enough to have her attorney attempt to block it in court?
Remember what we've all heard others tell us about what Angie thinks of Mike's guilt...
She keeps saying she "knows" he couldn't have done it. Hmmm...maybe that's because she knows who DID.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Angie's Face On A Mug? How About A Coaster?

Just when you think it can't get any crazier in the Roseboro murder case arena.....

Were you aware that we can now order coffee mugs, imprinted with Angie Funk's picture? Or how about a set of coasters for that next little neighborhood cocktail party?

You think I'm joking? I couldn't make this stuff up.

Here is a link to a preview version of a photo of Angie with her daughter as it appeared in the Lancaster Newspapers.

The photo is legally copyrighted, so don't even bother to try to copy and save it.

What stuns me is the order form that appears below the picture....Look at the various items and styles you can order of that photo.

Unreal.... Check it out......

And if you place an order, let me know......

The photo and album id: Photo 12626866 Album 154642
Those numbers can be used to locate and purchase the items from LNP.
Here is a link to the page as it appeared in 2005....

Final Accountability: The Long Road To Justice

A date has now been set for The State of Pennsylvania vs. Michael A. Roseboro. On July 17, 2009 the long and tedious work will begin. The initial "housekeeping" and setting the stage will begin. When all of the "business" of the trial is completed, the testimony will begin.
Voir dire will be interesting to say the least. We can all only hope and pray that the jurors will be representative of the citizens of the county and rely only on facts in evidence. I know many people that have remained focused on this case since the first report of Jan Roseboro's death was made public are still claiming to be able to put all personal theories and feelings aside.
As heinous as the crime was, and as much as the loss of a beautiful Mom of four young children breaks my heart, even I could review the evidence at hand and render a vote to verdict based solely on that. Any other option would terrify me. And it should terrify you.
No matter the previous interactions anyone has had with any of the parties involved, Michael Roseboro is supposed to receive a verdict handed down by a jury of his peers after and only after the evidence is reviewed.
The Roseboro jury has a very painful and heartbreaking duty ahead of them. No matter the final verdict, no one will ever come out a winner. There are no fixes here.
I believe that being a juror in this trial will change the lives of those chosen.
Mr. Sodomsky has a long and successful history to bring to the table. His client deserves the best he's got. Sodomsky is skilled and eloquent, knowing that the jury has to accept him before they will listen to him.
DA Steadman has his battle ahead. He bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He represents every citizen of the State of Pennsylvania when he rises to stand at the lectern.
The murder of Jan Roseboro was a crime of murder to her person, and it was a crime against the State of Pennsylvania, and thus, to the society of Pennsylvania.

The time for conjecture and speculation is about to end. Evidence will be presented that hasn't seen the light of day yet. Defense maneuvers that we could only imagine will take on a vivid and colorful life of their own.
This will be a battle.
Mr. Sodomsky bears not ounce of burden in this case or any case in which he defends. He, in all reality, has to do nothing. He could, in a perfect world, never rise from his chair, never enter one item as evidence. He could let the ball in the State's court.
That rarely happens, although there have been cases where the defense is so absent that it might as well as be deemed not presented.
In this case, Mr. Sodomsky simply has to confuse, create wonder and doubt. And that may not be a difficult thing to do.
Mr. Steadman has to convince twelve people of facts and a chain of events beyond a reasonable doubt. They can't "have a good feeling" Mike did it. They can't "bet a dollar to a dougnut" he did it. They have to be sure enough that there is no other answer as to who killed Jan Roseboro.
We can all be grateful for that caveat. Not all countries operate the way we do in the United States.
Now don't get me wrong. I watched every minute of the OJ trial that they televised. And the verdict that resulted sucked the air out of my chest. That still terrifies me. The scientific evidence in that case was over the heads of those jurors. That is clear. And the State of California dropped the ball. They needed to educate that jury in a much more effective way. And they never should have allowed OJ's team to orchestrate the trying on of the gloves. But I doubt today that even if the gloves would have fit, that they would have convicted him. There was far too much going on behind the scenes to get an honest result based solely on evidence. The woman who saw OJ racing away from the area of the murder at the appropriate time, had he been the killer, blew it. She sold her story to a tabloid and her testimony wasn't admitted.
She saw him. Period.
Let's hope there are no missteps in the Roseboro trial. For either side.
There is a time lag between Jan being taken to ECH and the authorities returning to the scene for evidentiary work. Only when the autopsy was done did they return to the scene. There were many hours available for extra clean up and disposal of evidence. I hope that doesn't come back to haunt the State.
Mr. Steadman has a target. Mike Roseboro.
Mr. Sodomsky doesn't need one, but he has several if not more. He has everyone.
The defense doesn't have to prove who did it. They just have to show that everyone and anyone else could have killed Jan. From a mistress of Mike's to a random thug intent on robbing, the candidates only need to muddy up the waters.

Testimony may be given that will reveal parts of lives never before known. Many had no idea that when they had a very temporary fling with Mike or Angie that they would be facing a bailiff or a clerk of the court with their hand on the Bible. It has to seem macabre or surreal to them at the very least.
The combination of Michael Roseboro and Angela Funk was lethal and toxic. And the damage and devastation will go on for years and years. Lives not yet begun will be affected forever. Lives that are so young will never be complete.
A guilty verdict will repair nothing. An acquittal might allow the Roseboro and Binkley families a chance to heal and try to get through the days of their lives with some comfort. The damage done to families throughout the county will remain.
But a true and honest verdict is what our system is all about.
Unless a person steps forward who witnessed what happened at the Roseboro home that night, we have to rely on the jury to sift through it all and make the right decision.
No one wants to see Roseboro get away with murder. And no one wants to see him convicted of a crime he may not have committed. The loss has been so great already.
And at the center of it stands Angela Funk. Due any day now.
I can't imagine being that child, years down the road, trying to make sense of the events that led to my life. People often feel that they carry the stain of their parents or families. That poor baby has been given the worst possible burden to carry. And that burden was given freely by it's mother.
Given the fact that Funk has never made an attempt to "lay low" or avoid public scrutiny thus far, I can't see her stepping off the stage she's created in her own mind anytime soon. Just as she blazed proud all over town in her pregnant glory, she will probably parade that poor baby all over the area as well. She did nothing to shield her daughter's from the glare. And this child will be no different. This child is her badge of fame. After all, why don't we just understand?
Mike loves her, he wants to be with her and have a family with her! Just ask Angie, she'll tell you!
He loves her? He wants to be with her? So he said.... now we'll see what he has to that he's had a chance to see his life as it really is.
If acquitted in the courts, he will never recoup what he's lost as a man and a father. Let's see if Angie is worth all that come trial time.
My guess is that Mike is shoving her under the bus. After all, it was well known that he was seeing other women while he was sleeping with Angie.
There was a woman that he was known to meet right in Reinholds, near the railroad tracks. There was at least one other woman Mike was seeing so often that when the story broke, men and women who knew Mike had mistakenly guessed that it was one of those women that the authorities were referring to when the news broke.
Let's see if they show up at the trial to testify. I hope Angie gets to meet her sisters-in-love.
The other members of Mike's "stable". She just may learn that she wasn't that special after all.
Or was that why she orchestrated the pregnancy behind Mike's back? Did she know? And sealed her spot with an "oopsie"?
Stay tuned...

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The Pregnancy, The Questions and The Fallout

Yesterday's publication about Angela Funk's pregnancy and the pursuit of clinical paternity sure stirred things up!
Those who haven't been following the case closely were shocked, some surprised and many left just shaking their heads.
Now, even more of Funks personal business it out there for all to read.
Alot of people have wondered all along how hard it had to be for Randy for live with the knowledge that she was pregnant to another man. Now he knows that the rest of the local world knows it too.
The ripple effect of this tragedy are so widespread.
Wives have learned that their husbands had affairs with Funk, thanks to a knock-knock, out of the blue from investigators on the case. Husbands have found out the same thing about their wives having dalliances with Roseboro.
Some friends who believed they were real, honest parts of the main players lives have learned that they never really knew these two at all.
Some aren't surprised by any of it. Not even a little bit.
Two people were so self-centered and so without personal restraint that they mowed down lives throughout the county. They couldn't put the brakes on.
Roseboro maintains his innocence so any outpourings of remorse are limited.
Funk has no remorse. She has stated that she "didn't do anything wrong". Really?
I'd love to know what formula she used to come up with that assessment.

So now, a continuance was granted thanks to a petition of the court by Mr. Sodomsky. This case will now drag out even longer. It's the middle of March. The trial was set for July 6, 2009. What on earth do they have on the list now that would require pushing the trial date even further back?
What has changed?
Jan Roseboro is still gone. Funk will deliver on April 1, 2009 give or take two weeks. Do they really believe that there is more exonerating evidence out there to find?
Why did Funk's attorney petition the court to delay the serology?
He wanted it postponed until after delivery, which makes no sense if the testing was not in utero.
It's the paternity that's at issue.
And for that, the child needs to be tested.
Interesting.......See what the professionals have to say:
  1. Can a paternity test be performed without the mother?

  2. Yes. If the mother's participation is not possible, we can perform a motherless paternity test at no additional charge. A motherless test requires more extensive analysis to produce conclusive results, but the results are just as accurate as those of a standard paternity test.

    DDC encourages mothers to participate in paternity testing for the following reasons:

    Mothers who participate are guaranteed to receive a copy of the test results. Due to DDC's strict confidentiality policy, we are only able to release results to those tested, their authorized representatives (such as an attorney), or the tested child's legal custodian.
    Some courts require the mother to participate in a paternity test.
    The mother's participation aids in the analysis of unexpected results. Her participation is especially helpful in the rare cases when a mutation (a random change in the DNA) has affected the results.

The LNP articles never hinted that the testing was in utero, of the unborn child. So what results were they referring to in printing that the results in question weren't available or part of the record?
A simple swab from the inside of the cheek is all that is needed for DNA testing in most cases, if not all. That could be done once the child is born.
In utero testing is contraindicated in cases where the mother is more than 24 weeks along.

Here is the pre-birth scenario:
  1. Can you do a paternity test before the baby is born?

  2. Yes. If the mother is between 10 and 24 weeks pregnant, an OB-GYN can collect a DNA sample from the developing child through either chorionic villi sampling (10-13 weeks) or amniocentesis (14-24 weeks). The baby's prenatal sample is then compared against the mother's and alleged father's DNA samples, which are collected using the standard buccal swabbing method.

    If the mother is more than 24 weeks pregnant, she must wait until the baby is born to do a paternity test. However, a newborn infant can be swabbed any time following birth, so a paternity test can be started soon after the delivery.

So it looks like Funk's blood sample was just taken for even more clarity in case of mutation of genes.....
  1. Can a paternity test be performed without the mother?

  2. Yes. If the mother's participation is not possible, we can perform a motherless paternity test at no additional charge. A motherless test requires more extensive analysis to produce conclusive results, but the results are just as accurate as those of a standard paternity test.

    DDC encourages mothers to participate in paternity testing for the following reasons:

    Mothers who participate are guaranteed to receive a copy of the test results. Due to DDC's strict confidentiality policy, we are only able to release results to those tested, their authorized representatives (such as an attorney), or the tested child's legal custodian.
    Some courts require the mother to participate in a paternity test.
    The mother's participation aids in the analysis of unexpected results. Her participation is especially helpful in the rare cases when a mutation (a random change in the DNA) has affected the results.

So there will be no results until after the birth of the baby, if everyone has followed the accepted protocol.

I am sure Mr. Sodomsky is well versed on all of this by now so perhaps he planned all along to file for the continuance. Having blood samples taken at this time yields no results and would have no impact whatsoever until after the delivery. That leads me to believe he wanted the delay anyway, and planned on it prior to this latest chain of events.

The only thing left to surprise anyone would be for those test results to reveal that Roseboro is NOT the father of the baby. Could it happen? Yep. Nothing about Funk should surprise anyone anymore. But odds are, it's Roseboro's. Funk had him in her sights. And the baby just sealed the deal.

Monday, March 16, 2009

When Common Knowledge Becomes The News

Today, the Lancaster Newspapers published a story acknowledging the pregnancy of Angela Funk of Denver. Angela Funk is the admitted mistress of Michael Roseboro, who is currently awaiting trial for the murder of his wife of nineteen years, Jan Binkley Roseboro on July 22, 2008.
Many have questioned why this wasn't published prior to today.
As I was told by an Editor of the Lancaster Newspapers, they publish when news is news, not word on the street or innuendo.
Due to the court activity associated with the Funk pregnancy, this is now a matter of public record.
It was also reported that Allan Sodomsky, the defense attorney representing Roseboro filed for a continuance.
This is now, even more than before, a tango.
As the State of Pennsylvania, under the guise of the District Attorney, takes a step forward, the defense takes a step back. And so the dance goes.
Perhaps Mr. Sodomsky was counting on Funk's counsel's success at blocking any serology testing until a later date. That hasn't happened so the defense needs to regroup a bit, which is not out of the ordinary.
With Sodomsky's success rate, the side steps and dips he orchestrates aren't random nor are they thrown against the wall to see what sticks.
Roseboro is in good hands as far as a knowledgeable strategist is concerned. Many pray the DA is up to the challenge.
So now, it's a matter of public record that Angie Funk is bearing a child due on April 1, 2009, and claims the child is Roseboro's. The DNA test will tell the tale.
It has been "word on the street" that Randall Funk, Angie's husband, did have a vasectomy.
At this point, as I've said before, we can only surmise that the unborn child is Roseboro's baby.
Angela Funk has a long and colorful history of promiscuity and usually with married men.
Odds are that it is Roseboro's baby, but I'll wait for the serology and DNA assays to remove all doubt.
As I posted earlier, if the estimated date of delivery is April 1, 2009, then Angie Funk may have clearly known she was pregnant by July 22, 2008, the day that Jan Roseboro was beaten and drowned.
Angie and Mike had sex in Mount Joy the day of the murder.
They also spoke on the phone not long before the murder.
If Angie knew she was pregnant and had already discussed leaving her husband and starting a life with Roseboro, I find it hard to believe that she hadn't told Mike.
Angie takes what she wants. And she wanted Mike.
Married woman do not get pregnant by accident when their husbands have had a vasectomy.
This was a well orchestrated plan by Angie Funk.
The DA indicated that their case is based on the belief that Mike needed an out and he needed it "now".
What was the rush?
The rush was the baby. The baby that Angie told him about.
I believe she pushed him into a confrontation with Jan that night.
The room was getting smaller for Roseboro. He had a wife and children, business and income on one hand. On the other he had his pregnant lover. Now the clock was ticking.
Everything could be managed in the end if Jan didn't try to clean him out, take him to the cleaners.
I don't think the conversation went well that night at the Roseboro home.
Things hadn't been okay for a few weeks.
Mike had already told Jan in the previous two weeks that he wanted a divorce. And Jan's friends clearly saw a difference in her mood and demeanor after that.
Did she have a gut feeling that he really meant it this time? Was all her efforts, pain and heartache to keep her family together a waste?
If Jan wanted to give it one last, sad try and refused to even discuss divorce with Mike that night, did he snap?
Did he see Jan standing there in his way?
Words can get heated. Did Jan tell him that she'd call his father and mother and put an end to this nonesense as she had in the past?
Was that the last straw for Mike? His pregnant mistress was so close...All he had to do was make sure the money was still his, and get free....
One person stood between Mike and his life with Angie. And that was Jan Roseboro.
What needs to be proven also is whether the attack and murder was actually premeditated or if Mike acted in the heat of passion.
Was the "tool" used to strike Jan in the head nearby, placed there in advance by Mike, orchestrating the destruction of this branch of the Roseboro family as we knew it?
Or did he grab it in a fit of rage, having been pushed to the edge by Angie, on the phone?
There are still some very questionable things remaining in this case. Hopefully they will be addressed at trial.
If not, we may never get the truth of what happened that night.
What family members was the DA referring to when he reported that some were being uncooperative?
What other phone calls did Mike make that night immediately after he claims he found her in the pool?
Were any other family members there when the first responders arrived?
Was anyone seen leaving the Roseboro property before the first responders arrived.
There are a few questions about the actions of those close to Mike in the hours and days immediately after the killing. Some people acted very out of character. In ways that others noticed.
Why didn't Mike go with Jan to the Ephrata Hospital?
Why was his affect so flat and calm?
Where is the blood?
Who in the family or close circle is close enough to Mike to consider helping him clean it all up?
I can only pray that the DA has those answers and will reveal them at the trial.
Only after that, if not answered can any of us voice what we now believe to be oddities in the aftermath of the murder.
There is far more to this story than we know. I just hope there isn't far more than the DA knows.

Are You Paying Attention?

It was reported this morning that in Philadelphia, a juror currently seated in the Fumo trial Twittered about it and apparently made a post on his or her Facebook account. The article, from the MyFoxPhilly website appears below.
Also, below is a repost of a blog entry I made on the If You Want To Know The Truth blog here on
In that post I told you all that a poster on a small town community forum shared with all that she had received information about the Roseboro defense through an individual claiming to have been given that information directly by an aide who works for Mike Roseboro's defense attorney, Allan Sodomsky. The impropriety of that chain of gossip got the attention of many who read the forum and I know that Mr. Sodomsky's firm was notified. What his plan is for dealing with that is unknown at this time, but it could be something, among other things, that he sticks in his pocket to use as ammo to file for a mistrial. We'll have to wait and see.
That aide losing her job would be the least of the fallout from that information being posted. Think people! If you aren't sure what you're going to share is appropriate, ask someone or check it out. Op Ed and opinion posts are one thing, but when you claim to have facts and you post them and your source, it becomes a matter of public record.
Here is the Sodomsky post followed by the Fumo story from Fox News....

Mr. Sodomsky's office......

Mr. Allan Sodomsky's office received a complaint via email about the possibility of one of his staff discussing the Michael Roseboro murder case. What information was shared wasn't clear but it didn't seem to be of extraordinary importance.
The State of Pennsylvania statues regarding lawyer-client confidentiality extend to paralegals, secretaries, receptionists, scopists, transcriptionists and other ancillary staff.
In the event of a breach of the statute, the employee can suffer as little as a reprimand or as much as a civil suit being filed against them.
The complaint resulted from a post on a public forum by a party who claimed to have heard information third hand, with the original reporter being the employee of the law firm.
Whether the employee in question actually violated the confidentialty of the firm is unknown at this time. All that is known is that the poster claimed, publicly, that she was given the information by a party who was personally known to the law firm employee.
It might have been a wiser thing for the forum poster to not share what she had been told. Most people would recognize that repeating any information related to a defendant in a murder trial, from an aide of the defense attorney might cause a problem for that employee, the defendant or the firm itself.

Fumo: Motion Filed For
Possible Mistrial

Juror Discussed Case On Facebook,

PHILADELPHIA - Defense lawyers, in the corruption trial of ex-Pennsylvania Senator Vince Fumo, are calling for an immediate halt in jury deliberations.

Sunday, the defense filed a motion after learning a juror was posting comments about deliberations on Facebook and Twitter.

Fox 29's Steve Keeley reports, the defense wants U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter to replace one or more jurors or consider declaring a mistrial.

The defense motion cites a Facebook post late Friday that allegedly tells friends to expect a "big announcement" on Monday and a Twitter message that same day stating "This is it ... no looking
back now!"

Fumo, a long-powerful Philadelphia Democrat, is charged with defrauding the Senate, a charity and a museum of $3.5 million, and with destroying evidence.

The juror has not been identified.

The trial has been underway for five-months.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

The Marian Baker Murder

My research into Pitman, New Jersey, the hometown of killer Edward Lester Gibbs, led me to these photos and postcards. I posted them randomly.
I have been to Pitman once and plan to return. I want to get current photos of these locations and take some shots of the home where he grew up, the cemetery where he is buried.
In the meantime, this is what I have of the life history in visual form, of Edward Lester Gibbs.

This is where Ed graduated from high school prior to entering the service and then attending college at F&M in Lancaster, PA.

This is not the church where Edward Lester Gibbs married his bride, Helen. That poor woman had no idea what she had signed on for. Ed also reportedly worked for a while at the Esso Station that appears on the card.

The wedding reception the new Mr. and Mrs. Edward Lester Gibbs was held here at the Hotel Pitman. Nothing but the best for their son, some residents of the town felt that perhaps the Country Club would have been more fitting.

Another view of the Hotel Pitman.

I'll update with more photos as I get them, and also clearly lay out the timeline of Ed Gibbs life as it led him to the cold January afternoon where he beat the life out of Marian Louise Baker.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Estimated Dates of Conception

Most doctors and nurses agree that calculating an exact date of conception is hardly possible. But we can all come up with a very close guestimate as to that date.
Several websites allow you to calculate "back" given the estimated date of delivery.
For example, if an EDD is April 1, 2009, the calculator estimates the date of conception to be July 9, 2008. Here is a calculator site you might want to check out:

Now most people assume you need to have missed at least one cycle for a pregnancy test to accurately detect the presence of hormones secreted in the event of pregnancy.
I can tell you all, firsthand, that as of my first pregnancy, in 1984, there was test in existence that could tell you yes or no within a few days of conception. I had that test in a Lab Center not far from the Berkshire Mall. Not in keeping with protocol, I obtained the test on my own, but the results had to be reported to my Ob/Gyn. I arrived to have the blood drawn in the early afternoon and those results were available after 5 pm.
My Ob/Gyn and I had differing opinions as to my being pregnant or not. I was sure I was. He said I wasn't. And he wanted me to wait a few weeks to see what would shake out.
I have no patience and I wanted to know....NOW.
So, Angela Funk could have conceived as early as July 9, 2008 and she surely could have known about that pregnancy on July 22, 2008, the day that Jan Roseboro was killed.
Was that what Angela was speaking to Mike about on the phone prior to the brutal attack and murder of Jan?
This is all based on the published reports that Angie's EDD is April 1, 2009. Given her penchant for lying, that date could be totally off the mark. Only Angie knows for sure.
But if she is due on 4/1/09, she knew about the pregnancy by the night of July 22nd.
With the error of margin in determining due dates, this may never be clearly answered. But we all need to pay close attention to the date of the delivery. She may claim prematurity, she may claim to be way overdue....
I believe Mike Roseboro needs to petition the court for DNA testing. Angie's the friendliest girl in town. To the married men, anyway.

The Ambiguity Of The "Tool" And The "Letter L"

It has occurred to me that all of us that are following the course of events in the Roseboro murder case may be dealing with some misunderstanding or some ambiguity in the little facts that have been publicized to date.
Many of us have wondered about the mention of the "L-shaped wound" that Jan Roseboro suffered prior to winding up in the swimming pool of her back yard.
I know that I was one who tried to determine just what "tool", as the DA's office called it, would have left the impression of an "L" on a person's skull.
After numerous reviews of all that has been publicized so far, I think we "overthought it".
Not until the trial will we know the DA's theory in any concrete sense, but the articles and the quotes that have been published have not been clear and not all have been factual or true to quoting the person in the article.
At this point, it seems more factual to state that Jan Roseboro suffered an "L-shaped wound" to the area of her head behind the left ear. This wound "would have caused significant bleeding."
It wasn't stated clearly, ever, whether the wound was clearly in the shape of an L or if it bore the impression of the letter "L".
It is the former, apparently, not the latter.
It has been made public, however, that the authorities believe the wound to have been caused by a tool.
Many items, when used to whack someone in the head, from behind, can cause an L-shaped wound. A common 2X4 would do that. The edge and side are at a ninety degree angle.
But they have claimed it was a tool. Would a hammer do it? Would a level?
What common tools are found in most every household in America? What tools would be lying nearby, clearly accessible, in the home or by the pool?
If the events of that night were not planned, and Michael Roseboro "snapped", what tool could have possibly been nearby, benignly, just part of the daily life of a typical American family?
If Jan was attacked inside her home and then taken out to the pool, what tools did Michael Roseboro have that would have become an instant weapon of attack?
Jan Roseboro was struck from behind, by a person, wielding a tool, that left a bleeding wound behind her ear. That wound was L-shaped. That tells me it was a flap injury.
Cranial lacerations bleed profusely.
Was she struck with such force by the person wielding the tool that she flew into the pool as a result of the strike?
Were the wounds that appeared all over her body open or closed? Should anyone have expected those wounds to leave a great amount of bleeding? Or was the expected blood flow primarily from the head wound?
Kicking, beating and strangling Jan could have produced some blood, in all probability, just a small amount.
Did the fight take place by the side of the pool, where she was beaten and struck? And when she attempted to get away from her attacker, did he or she then grab the tool and strike Jan in the back of the head with sufficient force to throw her into the pool, unconscious? Or did the force of the strike throw her into the pool, injured but alert, where her attacker then forced her underwater until she was dead?
That would certainly explain the lack of blood evidence in any great amount.
When Jan entered the pool she was alive. But was she conscious? She drowned. That is a fact. But did the autopsy reveal any signs of her being held forcibly under the water?
There wasn't the need for an extensive clean up as many of us have surmised. There just wasn't that much blood outside the watery confines of the family pool.
And what little blood may have been flung by the attacking injuries, that clean up was minor compared to the optional possibilities.
The lack of blood evidence is what the defense is hanging Michael Roseboro's freedom and life on.
The lack of blood evidence is what the prosecution is hanging his conviction on.
There was no great clean up as we thought. Jan Roseboro bled into the pool for the most part.
Any additional blood would have been poolside, where the first responders found her, supposedly receiving CPR from her husband. We do know that she did shed a great deal of blood on the gurney once placed there.
But one question does arise....
Was that "tool" left nearby to be used when she turned her back? Was an argument or fight even necessary or expected? Or was Jan going to be bludgeoned and thrown into the pool by the force no matter the course of events that night?
Michael Roseboro had a phone conversation with Angela Funk that evening.
And Jan Roseboro died.
If not for the sheer brutality and number of attack wounds all over Jan's body, this may have looked like a slip-and-fall drowning.
One gash in her head could have been attriubuted to be the cause of a fall into the pool, with a resultant drowning. There may have been suspicion, but this also may have gone down in the books as a terrible accident.
If Michael Roseboro simply wanted to be free to marry Angela Funk and planned to kill his wife, why would he beat her so savagely?
If this was a premeditated murder, why didn't this case go the way of Laci Peterson, with state-wide searches and pleas for information? Jan could have just "disappeared".
If Mike wished his wife dead and planned for that, how easy would it have been to have staged a "suicide"? Their marriage certainly had enough heartache for some to wonder if she might have not been able to take any more pain.
The beating that Jan Roseboro suffered prior to drowning is a key element of this case and is screaming for attention. The beating that she suffered after her husband had a phone conversation with Angela Funk.
How much louder can that scream?

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The Roseboro Crime Scene

In reviewing numerous news videos of the scene of Jan Roseboro's brutal killing, I began to wonder about the comments and reports that there was "no blood" found at the scene.
If true, that surely will be one of the strongest arguments offered by the defense. But to subscribe to that line of defense, you have to use an alternate "wrap" to your thought process.
They may claim that if Michael Roseboro snapped, and brutally attacked his wife, there would be blood evidence gleaned from his clothing, his body and his surroundings.
Conversely, the lack of blood evidence makes a strong case against Michael Roseboro.

I have been completely unsuccessful in my attempts to find any documentation of random, sudden killers hanging around their crime scene to clean up the mess. Those that attack like a thief in the night usually exit the same way, and in a hurry.
I do think, however, that there was some evidence found on the grounds that we are just unaware of. While viewing one of the videos, I noticed a yellow stack marker placed on the concrete by the Roseboro pool.
That particular marker was labelled with the number "4".
We can only surmise that there are other markers labelled "1", "2" and "3".
It only stands to reason that there has to be some evidence against Michael Roseboro other than a gut feeling, knowing that he was home at the time of the attack.
Even discovering his ongoing affair with Angela Funk isn't enough to bring charges.
No DA worth his salt, or a desire to maintain his gainful employment in the county would rush headlong into charging a suspect without some level of evidence that they feel sure will obtain a conviction.
Many have been very uncomfortable with DA Steadman's comments that even with charges successfully leveled against Roseboro, he claimed that there was still much work to be done.
Most of us agree that the work to obtain a conviction, as far as gathering evidence, should have been, for the most part, done before the charges were levelled.
Steadman gave many the impression that he obtained the charges and detention of Roseboro on the lowest common denominator of evidence that convinced Judge Hamill but then had to bulk it up with substance after the fact.
It very well may be that they do have more evidence than the public is aware of. They can't
play their case out in the public view in totality at the hearing to bind over.
That is just common sense.
The only requirement for acquittal is one juror having reasonable doubt. And that is entirely possible in this case, given what we all know at this point. Perhaps the evidentiary submissions at trial will reduce that doubt completely.
In discovery, I'm sure the defense has turned over every stone to formulate many different possibilities for who killed Jan Roseboro, how they did it and why.
They are only required to create dust and smoke.
Michael Roseboro will be tried by a jury of his peers. I don't know if that brings a level of comfort to him or scares him to death.
All one has to do is sit in the midst of a potential jury pool in any courthouse and listen. What you will hear from those seated around you should scare the hell out of you. Some just want the proceedings over with so they can get back to work. Some will openly admit to already believing the guilt or innocence of the accused, based on something as simple as the defendant entering the courtroom for the voir dire.
Michael Roseboro has already been convicted by many in the court of public opinion. Some are enjoying the horrific situation as if it were a circus or a party to attend.
Others are still so conflicted.
Most are waiting to see the evidence presented.
I do wonder about one thing though......
The DA's office is judged on successful convictions of those it charges with a crime.
In some cases, those charges and the ensuing trial are following a path that they believe is the best chance of winning. Does that always mean that the person charged is truly the one who commited the crime? Or just the one they feel they can get convicted?
There are people walking the streets today simply because the weight of evidence against them is insufficient to garner a conviction. It doesn't mean they are innocent of the crime.
If presented with several scenarios for the death of Jan Roseboro, was her husband charged because the DA believes it to be the truth and has evidence to support that belief?
Or was he charged because of a LACK of evidence in the other scenarios?
Is it easier to charge and work for a conviction against him rather than deal with the lack of evidence against some person yet unknown who could have attacked and killed Jan Roseboro as part of a drug deal gone bad? A payback crime? An impatient and sociopathic girlfriend of Michael Roseboro who saw her plan being thwarted by Jan?
This is far from a cut-and-dried case.
I sincerely hope that as the trial begins and progresses, the evidence will be presented to either convince a jury of guilt or innocence.
For the families involved, there can be no peace or healing until they can find a scenario that they can believe, as horrible as it may be. But being able to know, even the evil, gives them a point from which they can begin to breath again.

Monday, March 9, 2009

The Player or The Played? For real.

I posted a while back on a different site an op ed piece entitled, "The Mistress of the Game".
I've been doing a bit more research, much as I can until records are available, unsealed and completed by the upcoming trial. And what strikes me as more and more evident, is that Angela Funk orchestrated the chain of events that led to the brutal death of Jan Roseboro.

I was told by witnesses to Angie's behavior that she has always been flirtatious. The initial attention of any man was welcomed easily. Only later would she learn more about the strangers that gave her a second glance. If they seemed "a good catch" she would allow more attention and return it in kind. Others she knew about prior to the flirtations. If they passed muster, she was "in" for the run.
I asked about the married men that she had slept with in the past. In most cases, women are known to pursue married men because those men seem "safe". They are already married, legally and emotionally entwined to another woman. The mistress can have her fun and then walk away. No commitment, no ties, no washing dirty socks on Saturday for the guy.
But that's not the case with Angela Funk. She didn't pursue married men because they were "safe". She pursued them because they were "established". Most if not all had homes of their own, a steady job and some money in the bank. There would be none of that tiresome waiting for the guy to build up a bank account, qualify for a mortgage, get a raise, become financially solvent.
It was a ready-made deal.
Angela Funk has been on the career track.... but in her bedroom, not the boardroom.
She climbs the the next mattress. Or funeral home office, as was the case until the horrible murder of 2008.
When Michael Roseboro approached Angela Funk about getting together she had a choice. Most married women don't accept invitations from men other than their husband. They may be flattered, they may feel a boost to their self-esteem that another man has found them attractive, but they don't take the man up on the offer.
Angela Funk did. And a whole lot more.
While they were having their first lunch date, Randy was working. Earning money to feed his girls and his wife. And to pay the bills.
While they were having lunch, Jan was being a Mom and a great member of the community. She was being Jan. Providing a happy home for her children and her husband.
Had Angela Funk had the character and morals to say no, Jan Roseboro would be alive today.
Yes, Mike would have chosen another chippy. But I don't think he'd have found one quite as cunning and devious as Angela Funk.
Angela smelled money. And prestige. She had plans.
Angela Funk was planning to leave Randy, sue him for divorce (or talk him into suing her and paying all costs) as well as filing for an exhorbitant amount of child support for the girls.
She would convince Mike Roseboro to leave Jan sooner rather than later. And she'd make sure that Mike didn't lose his money or his interest in the business because of it. Only seven weeks into the affair, Angela had already pointed out to Mike that Jan would clean him out if she found out about them.....
And only seven weeks into the affair, Angela Funk got her hands on the ticket out of her current station in life. Angela Funk made sure to maximize her chances of getting pregnant.
A baby on the way would be all she needed to put the push on Mike to leave Jan now.

The pregnancy was not an accident.
Mike was clearly in love with Angie, but as of July 22, 2o08 no real date had been set for telling the spouses about the ends of the marriages. Unbelievably, Mike and Angie had looked at wedding dresses, but the hard cold facts about getting attorneys and planning every-other-weekend child visits hadn't been settled.
That wasn't enough for Angela Funk. She considered herself lucky enough to have gotten the attention and infatuation of a "good catch" in Roseboro, in her eyes. And she wasn't about to lose her grip on him. Angela is a cheater. She knows how cheaters operate. She knows how short their attention span can be. She's cheated for years, on many people.
She knew in her gut that if things didn't move along, Mike would soon spot a younger, prettier, hotter woman. And Angela's plans to move up the ladder would be over.
None of us know right now just how Mike felt about Angela Funk. His emails, sappy and icky as they are, may be the truth of how he felt. We know he was sleeping with Angie often. From that we can only surmise he liked the sex.
But Mike has been a runner most of his adult life. He's been with women far prettier than Angela Funk. Women far more educated, far more interesting and far better off. Some wonder if those emails were just Mike...being Mike. Telling Angela what he thought he needed to tell her to keep her available and willing. She wouldn't be the first woman he's lied to repeatedly.
But in either case, no plans were set in concrete. The leaving of the spouses was still a nebulous concept.
Until July 22nd.
Angie and Mike had sex that day in her family's apartments in Mount Joy while her mother-in-law cared for her girls.
Phone calls were made between Mike and Angela several times after that tryst in Mount Joy.
On the evening of July 22nd, they spoke on the phone.
And Jan Roseboro died.
The phone calls are not insignificant! Angela said something that night that started a chain of events that left Jan Roseboro dead in her own pool.
Did she tell Mike she was pregnant? Did she know she was? Did she not know and lie anyway?
Did she threaten him? Threaten to stop seeing him, giving him an ultimatum?
Or did Mike balk at telling Jan anything? Did he plan to use Angela for fun, as he had other women? And if he balked, did Angela Funk decide no one was going to interfere with her plans?
Did she go to the Roseboro home that night?
Did she attack Jan? Or at least help clean up the scene?
It is entirely possible that Mike Roseboro met up with the player of all time. Angela may have played him into a corner he couldn't hope to get out of any other way than killing Jan. Or at least helping clean up the scene after a horrible attack from Angela.

If Jan Roseboro was killed by a random person, what are the odds?
I would say then that Mike Roseboro has the worst luck on the planet?

Could it be possible that Mike did not kill Jan?
Is it possible that Jan was killed in a case of mistaken identity?
It is all possible. At this point, not probable, but yes it's possible.

But in keeping with the odds, Angela Funk orchestrated the dance that destroyed lives all around her. The only life not destroyed is her own. With no morals, she can't feel the pain of all she has already lost.
She wears her illegitimate pregnancy like a badge of honor. She is deluded.
The other victims here are the children.
For what Angela Funk has done to all of them, the unborn, included, she needs to be held accountable.
I'd be terribly interested in finding out if there is a civil recourse that can be taken against her.
In the civil arena, she wouldn't need to defend to a reasonable doubt. Just a preponderance of the evidence.
Could her actions have led to the death of Jan Roseboro to a preponderance of the evidence?
I do think so.
And the only thing Angela Funk hates losing more than another woman's husband, is money.