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.

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 say.....now 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...

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.