Back At The Keyboard!

Hi all! It's been a great week and I've finally got enough done around here to feel as if I can take some time to come back to the blogs!
I made a list tonight of all the daytrips or longer roadtrips I want to make related to the Marian Baker murder.
My son asked me a few days ago why I feel the need to go to the areas or sites related to the case and I had to be honest with him.
I think first of all I truly believe I will come away from it all with a sense of what happened. I have no idea if what I'll come away with will be in keeping with the accepted facts and story, or if I will come away with an even greater sense of covert reasons behind the attack and murder south of Lancaster in 1950.
I hope to create a real timeline, as complete as I can make it for Marian Baker and Ed Gibbs both.
It would be even better to be able to document it all photographically. That may be quite difficult with the chance that previous homes no longer exist, new homes being built on the murder site itself, etc.
Another reason that I feel compelled to do this is to simply make sure that as time goes on, there are some folks who remember Marian Baker. And to some extent, Ed Gibbs too.
They were two young people whose paths crossed and ended up in tragedy for both of them.
Two lives unlived.
When the jury returned with the verdict and sentence of death, even the Judge was stunned.
He did his best to hide it, but he was caught off guard.
When he discharged the jury, he never even thanked them for their service. I think that was in part to his being stunned but also to his shock that the death penalty was handed down.
He presided over the trial in its entirety. He didn't see the death penalty coming.
The horrific tragedy was compounded by the death sentence. The sadness was permeating even further and was so much more widespread.
There is and was some compassion for Ed Gibbs and that has to be acknowledged and accepted as well. Normal people don't bludgeon young girls to death.
And Ed wasn't a monster. He was a tormented and overstressed young man. There were many, many blocks in the road that led him to the wooded area south of Lancaster that cold January day.
And that's IF he did it.
I'm not totally convinced just yet.
I sincerely hope to come away from my own form of revisiting it all with a sense of his guilt or his innocence. That may be too much to hope for.
So, I'm making my plans and trying to do it in a cohesive manner. And once I make the trips, one at a time, I'll document it all here and post all the pics I take.
I just wish I would have been pushier about it all when most of the people "in the know" were still alive. This is going to be extremely hard with them gone. But I love a challenge.

I guess my fascination with what really happened to Marian Baker is very similar to my and others questions as to what really happened in the Roseboro back yard in July of 2008.
We know what happened to Jan. But we don't know how it happened or truly why.
Did Mike snap? Or did he really plan it? Where did the blood go? What caused the puncture wound to Jan's head?
Unless Mike confesses or someone steps forward, we may never know.
Or fifty or sixty years from now, someone may be sitting at a computer, blogging about how the case grabbed a hold of them and how they need to make a road trip to get a sense of what really happened that warm, rainy July night in 2008.....

The Reactions To The News Of An Upcoming Book....

The press release issued regarding William Phelp's plan to write a book about the Roseboro murder has garnered varying responses.
I knew there would be the normally expected backlash of the masses feeling offended that an "outsider", no matter how talented, would profit from writing and publishing anything related to Jan's brutal murder and the tremendous loss her family and friends have suffered.

Being a writer, there is no crime in Mr. Phelps wanting to write a book chronicling the details and events leading up to and including the murder and aftermath.

I believe that there are quite a few who have taken umbrage at his comment regarding Jan's legacy.
This may be a Lancaster County specific response, or it may be an expected response from people in any geographic location.
I fully acknowledge borrowing this comment from Becky's site. It represents the feelings of very many people, most who wish to not post.

1. MysteryScribe August 6th, 2009 at 10:25

   How dare you Phelps? Do you really think it is up to YOU to “transform (Jan’s) legacy into more than a headline”??!!!

   The parent, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, neighbor Jan Binkley Roseboro was has already established that.

   Shame on your audacity.

In layman's terms, and I quote the emailers loosely, they want to know..
"Who the hell are YOU to represent or speak for Jan or in any way act on her behalf????"
Writing a true crime book about the case, the murder and the trial are one thing.
But taking up the "cause" of furthering Jan Roseboro's legacy is best left to those who knew and loved her.
Lancaster County is a tightknit bunch. You can relocate and live there for fifty years. You can work alongside the natives, go to their churches and break bread with them. You will remain an outsider. Truth.
The people of the northern end are hard working, God fearing, loving and giving people.
And they will circle the wagons anytime it's necessary.
Turning the book plan into a cause celebre wasn't a wise decision.
Publishers publish books to turn a profit.
Writer write to feed their soul, share themselves....and make a living.
If this book is intended to stand for Jan Binkley Roseboro in any real sense, then all profits or proceeds need to be donated to a foundation established in her name.
Any other course of action makes the banner- waving tasteless and pedestrian.
No one should be profiting from a book about Jan or her life and death unless they knew her and had the blessing of Jan in their lives.
But if a writer wishes to tell her story, then donate the proceeds.
And if a writer simply wants to write a book about the tragedy, then call a spade a spade and just write the book.
Don't shout from the rooftops that you are here to save the day.
Jan Roseboro doesn't need any help furthering her legacy. They live and breath as I type.
I know that Mr. Phelp's was quite unsure if this "story" had all the twists and turns that he loves to write about. That uncertainty was still on his mind as of a few weeks ago. I have an email that says such.
Now, he has decided to write a book.
Not a problem. I'm actually a fan.
But please, please don't come out of the gate telling the world that your purpose is to further Jan's legacy. You are writing because writer's write. And you are a best-selling author.
Publishing is about money. And this book has the potential to make the publisher and the author quite a bit of money.
That is not treating Jan very well at all. In fact it's feeling like picking over bones.
Donate ALL the proceeds. That would tell us all that this isn't just a way to profit over a heinous, horrible attack and murder of a beautiful Mom and human being.

Jury Thoughts ......

I've always been a people watcher. Without an effort, I observe. It just happens. Sometimes I can almost sense the "story" of a person simply by watching them. When surrounded by large crowds, there are a few singular souls that will snatch my attention quickly.
I had an excellent opportunity to observe some fascinating individuals when I was called for jury duty.
I'm an odd cupcake. When others are cringing at the letter, feverishly trying to come up with a reason, any reason, why they should be excused from their civic duty, I actually get pretty excited about it. Other than the loss of income, should I be seated for a lengthy trial, or God forbid, I end up sequestered, being in the midst of the great minds and the austere, but so imposing atmosphere of the Halls of Jurisprudence stills my thoughts and lowers my head in reverence.
I'm not sure why I have always held the courts and our legal representatives in such awe. But I do.
I considered entering law school when I was soon to receive my first undergraduate degree. But I was so excited about getting married and starting that phase of my life that I only went as far as the interview. Many times since then I have revisited that decision. Not as any disrespect to my marriage or that facet of my life as a whole, but I now have serious doubts as to my ability to actually pull it off anymore in my lifetime.
A high school Social Studies teacher, whom I adored and who had a sense of humor bar none, suggested I become a lawyer all those years ago. He said my ability to argue, apparently with him although I don't recall it, made me tailor made for the profession :)
On my last call for jury duty, I had an eye opening experience.
Seated on the cold hard wooden bench in the cavernous courtroom, packed shoulder to shoulder with my fellow countians, I quietly looked around. And I listened.
I take no action in a courtroom lightly.
What I heard scared me to death.
As part of the jury selection process, the defendant has the right to be present for voir dire.
Before the defendant was brought into the courtroom, I listened as women around me fussed and fumed at having to be there. Many wanted to get back to work. One stated that her manager at Walmart was going to be "pissed" if this took too long or if she got picked.
Not a situation that made me feel hopeful for the sincerity of the process we were about to possibly enter. Or for the defendant.
The defendant was led into the courtroom in an orange jumpsuit.
At this point, no one in the jury pool has a clue as to his charges or the theories of the prosecution or defense.
And then I heard it.
"Well, look at that. He's black? He's guilty!" whispered one woman to my right to another beside her. That brought forth a low wave of chuckles down the line from anyone who could hear her muffled comment.
At that moment, without the benefit of paper and a pen, both not allowed, I desperately tried to commit to memory something about each person I heard laugh and especially of the woman who made the comment to begin with.
I intended to ask to speak with the judge immediately should any of those people be seated for the trial.
It made me sick.
And it made me realize that the defendant's being black was a variable.
That comment could have been made had the defendant been a woman with red hair. Or a man with a beard. Or a young female who may have looked "uppity" or snobbish.
Or a young man with tatoos.
The fate of the defendant was resting on the heads of the people in that jury pool. And several of them took it lightly enough to want to pass a verdict based on not one fact. Just skin color. So that they could hurry up and get back to their register at Walmart.
I kept my eye on them for the remainder of the voir dire.
I was seated as a juror. None of them were, thankfully.
I would like to think, pray actually, that had they been seated, their private self would have risen to the top and they would have helped hand down a verdict based solely on the evidence presented.
I know that the jury of which I was a member took it all deadly seriously.
Not sequestered, but we served for four days. And it got testy. And it bordered on ugly. But we did our duty and followed the rules.
We ignored the tear stained faces in the courtroom. We had to.
We focused on the video and audio tapes that were entered into evidence.
We had to.
We cast off all and any stereotypes of the defendant, the prosecutor and the defense team.
We cast off all stereotypes of fellow jurors.
It is one of the most intense situations a human can find themselves places in but it's the system we've got.
I'd like to think, pray, that Michael Roseboro will be afforded a jury who follows the rules to the letter.
For if he is deemed guilty or not guilty under any other circumstances, or by any other assessment under the guise of just and true evidence, none of us can expect any better treatment under the law should we ever find ourselves being judged by a jury of our peers.
We all need to begin praying for the potential jury pool now. We are that jury pool and we are the defendant. There's a part of us in every facet of this tragedy. And for that reason, we need to do all we can to make sure it is just and right.

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.....

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.

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.

Well...it'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.......