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.

Purpose, Responsibility and Integrity

I often wonder what truly drives most writers to write.
It is that burning desire, or compulsion to get their innermost thoughts, plots, revelations and passions out to the public?
Some write only for themselves. They have no public readers. Much like the diaries we had as kids, journals, private blogs and sites allow some to just share what they need to say just to commit it to time and place.

Depending on the genre, you can sometimes get a feel for what motivates the author.

Novelists often have to tell "the great story". And thank God some of them have.
Poets have to wax poetic. They just have to. It's not a genre that I can fully understand or embrace, but there are some poems, hymns and other pieces that truly do make me feel something. And that, I believe, is why they write.

In the reality-based genre you have true crime, how-to, public commentary, journalism, travel guides, cooking, and so on. This is where it gets sticky.
Even in a historical novel, there has be basis in fact. You can't treat a reader as if they're stupid. If your story is placed in time, the setting and surroundings have to ring true. If they don't, the reader will shut you down in a heartbeat. You've lost them.
Some writers, especially in journalism truly desire to share the truth with the world.
Some are compelled to write with the greater good of the public in mind. They are acting on a need to serve.
On the other hand, some are egocentric. It's not so much the guts of the story but their notoriety for extremism that they strive for.

I've learned that there is a true relationship that can and should be formed with the reader.
The reader extends to you the courtesy of their time and tentative interest.
The writer owes it to the reader to be honest and genuine. And treat the reader with respect.
The writer needs to keep his or her promises to the reader. If you promise follow up, you need to follow up.
If you let the reader down, you decimate the true relationship. The reader learns that the writer can't be trusted and holds no integrity.
It's like dangling a carrot in front of the reader and never letting them have it, despite the promise that one day they'll have that carrot.
Investigative journalism can be gritty and sometimes even dangerous.
If the reporter is indeed on the trail of misconduct, shady happenings and secret scandal, there are those that don't wish the truth to be found out or presented for all to see.
If the revelations of the reporter aren't backed and supported by quantifiable proof, the article or piece ends up being nothing more than a painless jab at the subject.
The longer I write, the more I pay attention to other writers. And I wonder what makes them write.
In some cases it's clear. In others, you can't really be sure.
We all form opinions about the authors we read. Nicholas Sparks doesn't do it for me. Seriously. The last novel I read from Sparks angered me for days. I kept waiting for it to "get good". I was sure that soon I would get to the page where it would all become electric and interesting. It never happened.
Bland and unmoving. To the very end.
He's lost me for good.
No worries, though. He won't miss my dollars on his next novel and there are plenty of other authors for me to read.
My focus right now is on true crime and the impact it has on the victim's family.
It's a "slippery slope" to be sure. But having been able to interact with families of crime victims who have been in the position to see the evil that rained down on their lives, I am now looking at the work of those authors in a far more serious light.
I believe there is a duty owed to the families and the victim.
They deserve to have the truth presented, not skewed or swayed, even to make the victim look more or less than they were in life.
But above all else, their loved ones, families and lives should never be picked over for profit or sensation.
I'll reserve judgement on the upcoming book about the Roseboro murder trial.
Many are surprised at my position and opinion on this, given my love for writing.
I do not support all authors or their motives hands down, without review.
Many were offended by the offering of Mr. Phelps that he would champion Jan Roseboro's memory or character. That was clearly offensive. He never met her, and he'd never know her name had she not been brutally murdered and then cast into to the public limelight. She became a source of profit by publication.
It would be disingenuous to throw "championing" Jan Roseboro as a motive, to the masses, if it's not the truth.
What is wrong with stating that you simply want to tell the story?
The anger at his words came from him sounding rather vitriolic in his purpose. It was overkill, no pun intended.
Just write the book and save the speeches about why you're doing it.
There is a natural anger and resentment felt by loved ones when a stranger swoops down and feasts on their tragedy for profit or fame. Just ask anyone in that position.
The families feel as if the victim is being hurt all over again.
Keep your motives real and honest.
Those that wish to know the story as you have researched it and presented it, will read it.

There used to be such a sense of integrity and truth in the writing realm.
Now it's about dollars and traffic.
And anyone with a computer can call themselves a writer or a reporter. You don't need the credentials at the outset.
But you do have to prove yourself.
Don't mistake numbers and activity for readers respect and admiration. Some read just to see the latest trainwreck.
It's like listening to someone rant and scream endlessly about everything.
After a while, people will tune in just for the entertainment of hearing the noise. The content no longer matters.

What any writer needs to focus on is the truth. Whether it be in a novel, a web blog, a news article or a product review. Do your homework and above all else, keep your promises.
As a society, our attention span is dwindling fast. We can't keep focused on fluff or unkept promises.
If you truly deliver, they'll read and keep reading.
For all the right reasons.

Accountability and integrity need to matter as much as the profits. I refuse to believe there can't be a meeting of those facets.

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 :)