An Invitation That Is Always Open

I particularly like this picture of Marian. She was at work at F&M, around 1948, Such a horrible tragedy.
I am aware that some of Marian's family that I have not yet met or spoken to are reading here. As you all must know by now, I am approaching this revisit with compassion, respect and a search for the final truth. Contact me as you feel comfortable. As others have learned, I do not betray trust. I hope to hear from you soon. I will continue to pray for Marian and for those who still love her dearly to this day.

Always Returning...

It's been a very long time since I've been here. Life takes over and there just aren't enough hours in a day, or in a month, to attend to all the facets of our lives that should be tended to.
That being said, I now have some time. Unexpected and unfamiliar but here just the same.
Marian Louise Baker is never forgotten. She taps on my shoulder often reminding me that she is still waiting for someone, anyone to let the world know what a gift and blessing she was and that her untimely murder back in the Camelot days of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania should be remembered.
Nothing can change what happened that day. Nothing can erase the horror and brutality of that heinous afternoon by the Harnish cottage. But just as the murder of Jan Roseboro in more recent days clearly screamed that intersection life lines can sometimes lead to an unescapable conclusion, the murder of Marian Louise Baker was in the cards.
Ed Gibbs chose Marian. Or at least his depraved and violently electric mind chose her. But there was to be a victim, don't ever doubt that. The actual identity and circumstances of the killing were variable. A classic case of Marian being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But the bubbling, fermenting and oozing hate that was smothering Ed Gibbs was going to be released somewhere, on someone.
It may be easy now to look at the whole sad story and say "Of course!" It seems fairly clear that the players in Gibb's life set the scene years earlier. Crazy lines intersected and Marian Louise Baker paid the price.
It's occurred to me that Helen Gibbs dodged the bullet, or the lugwrench. I often wonder what kept Ed from snapping and killing the one female in his closest proximity. Perhaps it was the timing. Helen wasn't an arms length away from him that cold, gray January day. Marian was.
I wonder if Helen ever shuddered through the years knowing just how chillingly close she came to a brutal death.
Ed Gibbs killed Marian Louise Baker. But he had co-conspirators.
His parents, his teachers, his past girlfriends. Every human being that reminded him that he has no choices in life, no free will to succeed, to fail or to be human.
What is most astounding is that at the time that the people in Ed Gibb's life were binding him emotionally so tight that was snap was inevitable, they really had no clue.

Why Revisit This All Now?

I needed to get my notes and my thoughts together for this post.
I've been asked why I feel so compelled to revisit this crime at this late date. The question wasn't a challenge to my efforts, it was a sincere and genuine question asked by someone who truly wanted to gain a glimpse into my motivation for learning all I can about Marian, her life and the crime commited against her so long ago.

I thought the answer would be difficult to explain but it's not.

Why revisit this all now, so many years later?

Because Marian Louise Baker deserves to have the truth told of her character, her person, her morals and her value and worth not only to those that loved her by blood, but also to those who knew her, worked with her, went to school with her and simply spent time in her company.

Marian made an impression on the people she met. Her goodness was apparent.
She had so many good qualities that I am sincerely sorry I never got to meet her.

But the drive behind my efforts are due to the misinformation and fallacious information that was disseminated by the press and by the author, Richard Gehman.

Facts were presented that weren't facts.

The motives behind the fallacies are numerous. I can't alter them now.

But I can make sure I tell the whole story of the person that is Marian Louise Baker.
She was much more than a simple county girl who happened to work as a secretary at Franklin and Marshall.
She touched lives and she was someone to be looked up to.
I need to correct the misinformation and tear down the fallacies in a concrete way.
She deserves to have the truth told. Once and for all.
She needs to be remembered for the good soul she was, not the subject of curiosity by those that love a good scandal.
I simply want to remove the undeserved innuendo and rumor that was intentionally placed on Marian Louise Baker to sell books and newspapers.
I simply want the truth to be known by everyone.

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 wonder....by 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.

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.