Three Trips To The Harnish Cottage and The Hidden Clothing

Ed Gibbs made three distinct trips to the Harnish cottage in West Lampeter Township on January 10, 1950, if he is to be believed. It's already clear that Ed Gibbs lied about much surrounding the events leading up to and including the murder of Marian Louise Baker.
It's difficult to determine if he injected any truth to his statement about his activities after the murder.
His first trip to the cottage was with Marian in his car. He killed her there.
After bludgeoning her to death, he dragged her body down by a garbage dump on the property after having tossed her pocketbook a short distance from where he had killed her. He then got back in his car and drove back to the F & M campus.
He claims he then got undressed, took a shower and returned to his room to get dressed.
He took his coat, sweater and socks and placed them on the backseat of his car and drove back to the Harnish cottage. Gibbs admitted that the coat, sweater and socks were bloody and that is why he wished to dispose of them.
When he got to the Harnish cottage on trip number two, he picked up her purse and left the scene, driving out toward Maple Grove. Behind Maple Grove, the threw the lug wrench, his socks, his sweater and coat as well as Marian's umbrella into the stream. He then got back in his car and returned to the college again.
He picked his wife up at Armstrong Cork Company at the end of her shift .
At 7:30 pm that same night, he took a shovel from the basement of East Hall and drove back out to where Marian's body remained. This would be the third trip to the Harnish cottage.
He claims he took the shovel with him to dig a grave but the many roots prevented him from doing so.
He dragged Marian to the excavation under the cottage, covered her with corrugated tin and a saw horse, scattering leaves around the area and lastly placing the incinerator at the spot where he hid Marian's body.
He then drove to Stump's Service Station and disposed of Marian's rings. He didn't return to the scene of the crime after that he says.
The next day, though, he went back to Maple Grove and grabbed the jacket out of the stream where it was still floating.
On Gibbs' last trip to the cottage the night he killed her, in the dark of night, with a flashlight he purchased on South Prince Street enroute, he removed rings from Marian's fingers but claimed he didn't know why he did so.
After his confession, Gibbs accompanied the police to the attic of East Hall on the F & M campus and showed them where he had hidden his bloody clothes. They found his brown corduroy jacket and his sweater. The socks weren't located at that time. So far, I don't know if they were found later or not.
The complete transcript may tell me that.
The next morning, the authorities were able to locate Marian's purse, the lug wrench and the umbrella, or what was left of it after Gibbs had broken and bent it to make it easier to dispose of.

It strikes me as extremely remarkable that Gibbs not only returned to the murder scene once, but three times.
Three times within less than twenty four hours of killing Marian.

Marian and Nancy Stonesifer had a good laugh when Marian had returned from lunch at the college cafeteria. Marian was rushed, sitting at her desk without removing her coat and realized she had forgotten her umbrella. Much like myself, apparently Marian had quite a habit of losing or forgetting umbrellas! :)
She must have gone back for it. It was with her when Ed Gibbs killed her.
I am now curious as to where Ed Gibbs was when Marian went back for her umbrella.
She took the CTC bus from the corner of College and James Streets. The Sigma Pi house was on James Street. I don't know exactly where. But I wonder if Ed had encountered Marian or spoke briefly with her, knowing that she was headed downtown.
Why did Ed Gibbs tell another student that he had driven Marian downtown that day?
That statement still makes no sense.

My biggest question tonight is this.
Ed Gibbs claimed that he remembered nothing except reaching over to choke Marian, chasing her and continuing to choke her. What he related after that point he claims he had to surmise because he had no memory of it, but came to conclusions based on what he saw when he "came to".
He said that he must have hit her with the lug wrench because of all the blood and the lug wrench in his hand.
He had blood on his jacket, his sweater and his socks. So much blood that he needed to get out of them, get a shower and then dispose of them.
If there is blood flowing to the extent that it greatly covers a jacket, the sweater under the jacket and your socks, how do you NOT get blood all over your trousers or pants?
Not once was Gibbs trousers or pants mentioned.
Again, the official transcript may clear that up. But nowhere, to date, are his trousers even mentioned.
Given that he probably had his shoes on, how much of his socks were exposed? How much was covered by his pant legs?
If Ed Gibbs had trousers on, the blood would have been prevented from soaking his socks by his trouser legs.
Did he scrub his shoes? No mention of them appears anywhere either.
He mentioned that on the second trip to the Harnish cottage, he had taken a towel with him to clean the handle of the inoperative pump on the property. After killing Marian he tried to pump water to wash his bloody hands but was unsuccessful. Worried that his fingerprints could be taken from the handle, he made sure to clean it with the towel.
He never wavered in his story of having choked her, then getting the keys out of the ignition of his car, going to the trunk, grabbing the lug wrench and then "apparently" beating Marian to death.
The autopsy didn't reveal much severe damage to the structures of her throat or trachea.
And if she was at least unconscious from the choking, giving him time to walk to his car, get the keys, go to the trunk, grab the lug wrench, then how did she receive the wounds to the different locations of her head?
The largest wounds weren't in the same anatomical location or region of the skull. One was right frontal, the other left parietal. The left parietal wound extended into and through the ear canal. The force used was monstrous.
She wasn't unconscious enough to be rendered immobile. And he certainly didn't have the opportunity to just saunter to the car for the keys and the lug wrench. Marian wasn't immobilized when he struck her with the lug wrench. Her wounds tell that clearly and unequivocally. In a murderous rage, the killer doesn't lay the weapon down, turn the victim's head to the side and then resume the beating.
Marian sustained other injuries. I will confirm that when I view the photos from the crime scene and the autopsy.
I in no way wish to upset her loved ones with my frank discussion of the physicality of the attack. It is just extremely important to finally understand what Ed Gibbs really did to Marian that day. He lied throughout the trial, even to his own attorney.
The quotes attributed to Hense Brown are confusing. He was sure Ed wasn't telling the whole story.
Clearly. Brown saw the photos and read the report. He KNEW Ed wasn't telling the whole story.
Several people knew that to be a fact. Brown had caught him in several lies.
How and why that was never entered into the court proceedings is an issue unto itself. We'll cover that later.
It is vital to understanding how very innocent Marian Baker was in the progression of events that day.
The lies started when Ed Gibbs offered her a ride. And he stuck to his lies to the bitter end.
He took her life, he helped take a bit of her reputation and he took the truth with him.
Marian deserves that the truth be told, finally.
I can't help but feel that the timing here is significant.
There is a time for everything. And perhaps there were factors in place, people still loving and missing Marian so over the past sixty years that it just wasn't the time for the truth to be told just yet, in the way that it needs to be told. I'm sure no one who ever knew her or loved her wanted the lies and innuendoes to go on; it just hurt so much to delve into it again.
Marian deserves the truth. And she deserves to have the respect that she was shown when she was alive.
Those who really knew her, loved her, worked with her and spent any time with her knew the real Marian.
She was meticulous, witty, funny, caring and a lady.
Those who knew her knew the truth.
It's sad that because of what was done to her, in the societal time in which it occurred, she was presented in a questionable light. And the pain and frustration of having to live with those undeserved rumors and a sullied reputation has to come to an end. And the truth will do that. It will finally show everyone, especially those who never had the privilege or honor of knowing her, just what Marian Baker was made of.
Marian was "good stuff". She still is :)

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 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?