Went back and read BB statement,it said she went shopping in Concord.
MA MA - Joan Risch, 30, Lincoln, 24 Oct 1961
- Thread starter smellsarat
- Start date
HI DetectiveEva,Thanks for your reply.Barb B.did not give a time when she brought Doug to Joans or when he came home.Also did not mention if she saw or spoke to Joan.Barb said lillian came over later,but did not give a time frame.This means Joan ditched the children at seperate times which contridicts what Lillian told le.that her mother brought them back together and said she would be back soon.Im confused!She first used a 2.30pm time when she saw Joan run holding something red,then later in the statement changed the time to 2.15pm. Maybe later barb amended her statement.
In the house and road photographs in the pdf., the one with the five people on the road and across from them is a car.Above the hood and windshield there is a lamp post with a name plate coming off the post.I think it reads The Barkers.Can anyone confirm?
ChuckMaureen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,851
- Reaction score
- 13,059
I agree.
DetectiveEva
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2016
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 11
IMO, it is a little bit unnatural to behave like nearest neighbor, when she saw that something was very strange on the other side of the street (JR ran with something red in her hands) and did not go to ask if she could help, or just out of curiosity.
I see your point.Like neighbors watching out for each other and Joan seemed to be acting like she was under duress.A quick telephone call to Joan to check on the situation might have made a huge difference,but opened other cans of worms that Joan would have to deal with!
Last edited:
There's some interesting stuff at this link. The PDF shows a fingerprint that I assume is alleged to be Joan's from a hospital record. Can you explain or clarify? TIA
The person who wrote the book PDF alleges Joan's neighbors killed her and buried her on nearby property they owned. There are no details or motive, though. Can you elaborate? TIA
Personally, I've found it a bit unusual that there were no records anywhere of Joan's fingerprints to compare with those at the crime scene. I wonder if LE compared the prints at the scene - fingerprints, palm, etc. with prints of neighbors or other acquaintances.
The copies of police reports in the linked PDF clear up a few misconceptions. Joan's husband explains both the empty liquor bottle and the few empty beer cans. He says the empty liquor bottle was from he and Joan having a drink the night before, finishing the bottle. The empty beer cans were from serving some guests at their home a couple days before. He said she probably just hadn't taken out the trash yet.
I'm also dubious of the abortion theory. If Joan had an abortion at home, why would she run outside her house down her driveway "with something red in her hand", then turn around and walk back to the house? And if she decided to "run away", why did she run to the car, walk back to the house, then leave the house again. Just doesn't make sense.
Note, there's also no mention of the neighbor seeing the two tone blue car in the driveway, either. If she saw Joan in her driveway, running to her own car, then she would have seen the two tone car, which was allegedly parked behind it, next to the street.
JMO, someone came into her house while she was alone there with the baby sleeping upstairs, attacked her, took her away from the scene and killed her.
Last edited:
Found an old newspaper article that describes how LE found Joan Risch's fingerprints (under her maiden name Nattras)
and compared them to the prints found at the crime scene. They were not Joan's. They found Joan's fingerprints in the files at the school she and her brother attended when growing up in New Rochelle, NY.
The article also clearly states that Joan's husband believed the only way she left their home was if she was taken away by force. He made indignant rejections of the police theories and said he didn't think she wandered away, had amnesia or left on her own.
His theory was that she was abducted and probably killed. I feel badly for the guy, he had to deal with a lot of crackpot theories from LE and gossip from strangers.
JMO, he was probably right.
My theory: She attracted the attention of a man who lived in the area, possibly someone she knew socially or had met, possibly even a neighbor. He somehow knew her husband was out of town and decided to go to her house and try to have sex with her. She refused, was possibly raped and assaulted. He abducted her, took her elsewhere, killed her and buried or got rid of her body by other means. It's possible some neighbors saw him that day or otherwise knew who he was and helped cover up the crime.
and compared them to the prints found at the crime scene. They were not Joan's. They found Joan's fingerprints in the files at the school she and her brother attended when growing up in New Rochelle, NY.
The article also clearly states that Joan's husband believed the only way she left their home was if she was taken away by force. He made indignant rejections of the police theories and said he didn't think she wandered away, had amnesia or left on her own.
His theory was that she was abducted and probably killed. I feel badly for the guy, he had to deal with a lot of crackpot theories from LE and gossip from strangers.
JMO, he was probably right.
My theory: She attracted the attention of a man who lived in the area, possibly someone she knew socially or had met, possibly even a neighbor. He somehow knew her husband was out of town and decided to go to her house and try to have sex with her. She refused, was possibly raped and assaulted. He abducted her, took her elsewhere, killed her and buried or got rid of her body by other means. It's possible some neighbors saw him that day or otherwise knew who he was and helped cover up the crime.
Last edited:
ChuckMaureen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,851
- Reaction score
- 13,059
What do you make of the blood found in the house, mainly in the kitchen with sporadic drops found on the stairs leading to the 2nd floor and drops in the bedroom(s)... and yet, no bloody footprints? An assault but no struggle? Would an injured JR be so cognizant of not stepping in her own blood while being attacked or attempting to escape from an attacker? What about the attacker?
Bloody fingerprint(s) were found on the dial of the wall-mounted telephone. The person who left those prints was *identified* but the name was redacted in the FBI report. Phrasing in the report suggests they do not belong to JR but belong to someone whom the FBI "established" was in the residence for some assumed valid reason. That is an odd revelation: the handset had been pulled from the wall-mounted telephone at some point but who dialed the bloody phone and when? No one dials/ed such a phone without having already grabbed the handset from the cradle. This odd revelation suggests the handset was still attached while a bloodied finger dialed the phone (or the phone proper was already splashed with blood). Who ripped out the handset cord and why? Why was the then-detached handset placed in/on the waste basket and not simply thrown to the floor? The handset was actually 'hung' on the lip of the basket, just like someone would 'hang up the phone'... weird. Was the dial attempt ever completed? Local calls were not recorded back in the day, long-distance calls were. We might assume it would have been a local call but we have no clue.
Judging by the photographs, it seems likely neighbors would hear a vehicle approach the Risch house; do you think the assaulter/abductor arrived on foot or by vehicle?
The neighbor seeing JR 'carrying something red' might suggest JR had already been attacked (the 'red' being a bloodied JR or bloodied clothing). Where was the assaulter/abductor at that time? Why did the attacker not follow her? We could assume JR ran back in to the house to attempt rescue of her baby and the attacker knew she would so they remained inside waiting for her return. Where was his vehicle, assuming he used a vehicle to 'take her elsewhere'?
It is possible someone entered in to the R house at some point and surprised JR upon her return but what evidence is there of such a 'surprise' having occurred. The PDF makes the claim but offers no proof.
There is the report of JR having researched or checked books at a library that related to disappearances and/or other seemingly relevant mysteries. Coincidental? That, along with no (reported) bloody footprints found anywhere in the house makes a 'JR executed her own disappearance' theory just as plausible as a 'stranger in the house' theory; I do not dismiss either theory but there is at least circumstantial evidence that leans toward one of those theories.
JR's research of disappearances.
The bloody paper towel and/or clothing that suggests an attempted wipe/clean up of blood on the kitchen floor.
The 'hung-up on the lip of the basket' of the detached handset.
No bloody footprints, anywhere.
Sporadic drops of blood in other rooms other than the kitchen... odd progression of 'bleeding'.
Blood smears on JR's vehicle in the driveway, including high up on the trunk lid but not on a lower area of the lid.
That is a very strange crime scene.
Last edited:
DetectiveEva
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2016
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 11
I agree with your theory. I believe that she was attacked or even killed in her home, later taken to the car, deported and buried. The evidence is faded traces and unidentified fingerprints in the kitchen.
Roughly I take into account three profiles of suspects:
- a person from a near, residencial area,
- someone from her past who has something in common with her (rejected love, revenge)
- a person associated with her family (remember that her parents died in mysterious circumstances).
The role of the nearest neighbor is mysterious. Does not mention the car in the driveway.
I rejected:
- the theory of abortion, because the blood was checked and it was not that kind,
- seeing her on route 2A or 128, because no person who walked has seen her. These are the testimonies of anonymous people, opposite to people who saw a two-color car in the driveway (according to Record American 1962 newspaper: Mrs. Hilda Ziegler, Virginia Keene both saw the car about 3:30 pm, and milkman Bernard Sockette, who noted it five days earlier).
An interesting thing was wrote in the 1996 Boston Globe, it was determined that the police claimed that the car was a police unmarked cruiser! It looks like some kind of misunderstanding because first police car was here at 4:45 pm.
8_28_96_spatterd_blood_and_speculation
Does anybody know if it is possible that all the investigation files will ever be public? For example, in so strict Russia in case of investigation on the Diatlow Pass 1959 (you can enter in google) files were secret for 50 years and now are already public. Interesting for me how is it in the USA?
scruffydog
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
- Messages
- 234
- Reaction score
- 1,480
I also do not agree that Joan disappeared voluntarily. I believe she was assaulted and kidnapped, and later killed. The whole abortion idea does not compute to me. It would be absolutely bizarre to have your baby sleeping, your young child in the immediate area, and call someone over to do a home abortion on you!! I believe perhaps it WAS a man from her past-to me it makes sense that it may be someone from the town they had recently moved from. (As Detective Eva put it-rejected love). Maybe after the initial assault, she begged to see her baby, and was allowed to. That would account for the blood in the baby's room. I think she was initially going to make a phone call-whether to an emergency number if perhaps she saw the person coming-or any normal call, and was attacked in the kitchen.
I think the assault may have continued after coming downstairs, in the kitchen, and when she was unconscious, dead, or hurt and scared to death, she was taken out of her home. Whether dead at that time or at a future time and location, her body was disposed of.
I don't think it's unlikely at all that her daughter is the one who seemed to have tried to clean up, with her brother's clothing, paper towel, etc . Come to think of it, maybe the drops of blood were left by the little girl, going upstairs to see if Joan was in the baby's room.....
I think the assault may have continued after coming downstairs, in the kitchen, and when she was unconscious, dead, or hurt and scared to death, she was taken out of her home. Whether dead at that time or at a future time and location, her body was disposed of.
I don't think it's unlikely at all that her daughter is the one who seemed to have tried to clean up, with her brother's clothing, paper towel, etc . Come to think of it, maybe the drops of blood were left by the little girl, going upstairs to see if Joan was in the baby's room.....
jgfitzge
It's complicated! No, It really isn't
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2016
- Messages
- 403
- Reaction score
- 583
Hi, I go back and forth on this one...I cannot get into her head but it all depends if what she saw gave her a feeling of mild curiosity or concern? I beleive she said her vision was partially blocked by the trees and Joan's car. Strictly speaking, I hear what you are saying. One other thing about BB's statements as I read them, it occurred to me she never mentions what she is doing. What I mean is she says what she saw but never says what she was doing. For example, I was in the yard working, in the kitchen doing dishes as I looked out the window, I was playing with the kids, etc...
jgfitzge
It's complicated! No, It really isn't
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2016
- Messages
- 403
- Reaction score
- 583
Betty, Thanks for sharing this newspaper from October, 1962. Wow...there are a few major takeaways for me! I like your theory, honestly if you read my previous posts it is what I have always felt happened. The two tone car has always held the key to me. The who? Well, am pretty certain it was "local." I never bought the "Girl Gone", abortion, or random intruder theories.
1. The Fingerprints - well then it pretty much seals it for me that someone else was in the house besides Joan during that fateful Tuesday afternoon, and I am not talking about the two year old.
2. Martin Risch's Theory - he believes she was abducted by force and slain? This is the first I heard of this one from MR. OK, not to split hairs but are we talking abduction by a total stranger or by someone JR or MR knows? Any statements I read by him seemed to indicate she had some type of amnesia and she was still out there. Thus, never changing the phone number or never declaring her dead.
3. LE "Certain Key Persons not Telling us All they Know" - I have read this comment from LE before and I believe and have stated before that MR while cooperative was not overly helpful. I believe he always knew more than he stated. In thinking about this further, LE may be including Barbara Barker into this category as well.
4. Lillian Risch seeing a "strange man"and mommy said she was going out - Wow, never read this quote before. Now, look before everyone comes down on me about the observations of a four year old, I believe her. She didn't say a "strange woman" or one of the neighbors. But, this "strange man" was no burglar, I believe her mother knew the man.
Again, thanks for the posting.
ChuckMaureen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,851
- Reaction score
- 13,059
sbm
Interesting articles.
I'll offer some thoughts regarding information provided in the Oct 14, 1962 article:
Re: the photo captioned as a State Policeman holding the "damaged" phone that was "ripped from the wall". The problem is, the base of the phone was NOT "ripped from the wall" as is clearly evident in a crime scene photo. The base phone was still attached to the wall, with only the handset detached. That was either sloppy reporting, or intentional misleading by LE (SOP). Either way, that leaves at least some of the information in the article in question. What is and what isn't accurate / factual?
Re: Lillian Risch's comment, "strange man". I suspect that was the man from the cleaners who stopped by to pick up MR's suits.
Re: "more complete blood report. That JR remained listed as a "missing person" after the unreleased report could indicate LE believed JR was still alive at that time. Note the original Harvard blood report indicated that it was "human", not that it was JR's (at least, that isn't in the article). I am not sure LE officially determined the blood belonged to JR... especially noting LE believed JR to still be alive at that time. Also note an FBI report indicated the estimated blood volume found at the scene was not significant (re: as to cause death).
Re: "fingerprints" recorded while attending grammar school. That would place the time frame in the 1940s. Was that a regular practice in New Rochelle / New York? It wasn't where I'm from, never had been, isn't now AFAIK. Interesting. Did LE attempt to match the provided prints (from grammar school) with possible JR prints LE could have found in the R's bedroom(s) or bathroom(s) or other rooms, such as on a hairbrush handle, toothpaste tube, faucets, mirrors, makeup paraphernalia, cradle, crib, bottles, cabinet and drawer handles, television knobs, liquor bottle, beer cans, etc.? No mention of any such attempt to ascertain said prints by LE. Not that I don't trust the "grammar school" prints, but that was twenty years earlier... why would a grammar school retain such records for twenty+ years? That's a lot of kids and lots of storage space. Lucky, I guess. Were the neighbors' prints checked for a match? We may safely assume so, noting an FBI report indicated fingerprints were found on the phone dial and were *identified*... but the name is redacted in the released document. This point always strikes me as odd. If it was JR's prints, why not confirm? Who else could they belong to if not JR, with LE being able to identify the person AND accept the fact they dialed the phone while it was bloody or their fingers were bloody... even though the handset was not attached? Odd. Odd. Odd.
Re: "mysterious phone calls"; whenever the grandfather answered the caller would hang up. Did the caller hangup only when the grandfather answered or when anyone answered? Was the grandfather the only person to ever answer the phone at that time? Were those calls from a reporter(s) attempting to speak with MR and they hung up when the grandfather answered? What was the history of such calls from reporters, friends, family, etc.? If someone says "I don't want to talk about it" often enough, an inquisitor likely would become frustrated over time, with each the attempt at each effort diminishing, to the point where they don't even speak. Just something to keep in mind, given that it was reported that MR eventually refused to speak of the case. Or, were the calls a taunt from the assailant, noting the handset had been ripped from the base phone?
Re: geranium plants left on the R's doorstep (assumed anonymous, but we do not know if JR knew the source) shortly before JR's disappearance and a potted plant left on the R's doorstep by anonymous five weeks after JR's disappearance. I am curious if JR and/or MR knew who left the geranium plants. No report is found that provides that information. How did the neighbors know the plants (before the disappearance) were for JR? Was there a card or note? Did JR tell the neighbors? Would JR tell the neighbors but not tell MR?
Other thoughts: if JR were attacked, could near-by neighbors hear scream if she had done so from the kitchen or from elsewhere in the house? Why would JR run to outside of the house and not scream for neighbors to help / call police? If a mother was frightened enough to run from a house in which her baby remained, I would expect her to scream for help at that opportunity. If JR were being chased outside, how is it the neighbor did not see anyone chasing her? The various alleged sightings of a muddied or bloodied JR roaming highways, how does that fit in with abduction? Abducted and released? Did JR escape from a vehicle? If JR was in such a present state of mind to escape why would she also not attempt to flag down passing vehicles?
There is so much we don't know, even after all these years.
Interesting articles.
I'll offer some thoughts regarding information provided in the Oct 14, 1962 article:
Re: the photo captioned as a State Policeman holding the "damaged" phone that was "ripped from the wall". The problem is, the base of the phone was NOT "ripped from the wall" as is clearly evident in a crime scene photo. The base phone was still attached to the wall, with only the handset detached. That was either sloppy reporting, or intentional misleading by LE (SOP). Either way, that leaves at least some of the information in the article in question. What is and what isn't accurate / factual?
Re: Lillian Risch's comment, "strange man". I suspect that was the man from the cleaners who stopped by to pick up MR's suits.
Re: "more complete blood report. That JR remained listed as a "missing person" after the unreleased report could indicate LE believed JR was still alive at that time. Note the original Harvard blood report indicated that it was "human", not that it was JR's (at least, that isn't in the article). I am not sure LE officially determined the blood belonged to JR... especially noting LE believed JR to still be alive at that time. Also note an FBI report indicated the estimated blood volume found at the scene was not significant (re: as to cause death).
Re: "fingerprints" recorded while attending grammar school. That would place the time frame in the 1940s. Was that a regular practice in New Rochelle / New York? It wasn't where I'm from, never had been, isn't now AFAIK. Interesting. Did LE attempt to match the provided prints (from grammar school) with possible JR prints LE could have found in the R's bedroom(s) or bathroom(s) or other rooms, such as on a hairbrush handle, toothpaste tube, faucets, mirrors, makeup paraphernalia, cradle, crib, bottles, cabinet and drawer handles, television knobs, liquor bottle, beer cans, etc.? No mention of any such attempt to ascertain said prints by LE. Not that I don't trust the "grammar school" prints, but that was twenty years earlier... why would a grammar school retain such records for twenty+ years? That's a lot of kids and lots of storage space. Lucky, I guess. Were the neighbors' prints checked for a match? We may safely assume so, noting an FBI report indicated fingerprints were found on the phone dial and were *identified*... but the name is redacted in the released document. This point always strikes me as odd. If it was JR's prints, why not confirm? Who else could they belong to if not JR, with LE being able to identify the person AND accept the fact they dialed the phone while it was bloody or their fingers were bloody... even though the handset was not attached? Odd. Odd. Odd.
Re: "mysterious phone calls"; whenever the grandfather answered the caller would hang up. Did the caller hangup only when the grandfather answered or when anyone answered? Was the grandfather the only person to ever answer the phone at that time? Were those calls from a reporter(s) attempting to speak with MR and they hung up when the grandfather answered? What was the history of such calls from reporters, friends, family, etc.? If someone says "I don't want to talk about it" often enough, an inquisitor likely would become frustrated over time, with each the attempt at each effort diminishing, to the point where they don't even speak. Just something to keep in mind, given that it was reported that MR eventually refused to speak of the case. Or, were the calls a taunt from the assailant, noting the handset had been ripped from the base phone?
Re: geranium plants left on the R's doorstep (assumed anonymous, but we do not know if JR knew the source) shortly before JR's disappearance and a potted plant left on the R's doorstep by anonymous five weeks after JR's disappearance. I am curious if JR and/or MR knew who left the geranium plants. No report is found that provides that information. How did the neighbors know the plants (before the disappearance) were for JR? Was there a card or note? Did JR tell the neighbors? Would JR tell the neighbors but not tell MR?
Other thoughts: if JR were attacked, could near-by neighbors hear scream if she had done so from the kitchen or from elsewhere in the house? Why would JR run to outside of the house and not scream for neighbors to help / call police? If a mother was frightened enough to run from a house in which her baby remained, I would expect her to scream for help at that opportunity. If JR were being chased outside, how is it the neighbor did not see anyone chasing her? The various alleged sightings of a muddied or bloodied JR roaming highways, how does that fit in with abduction? Abducted and released? Did JR escape from a vehicle? If JR was in such a present state of mind to escape why would she also not attempt to flag down passing vehicles?
There is so much we don't know, even after all these years.
Skigirl
Verified expert in neuroscience & psychology
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,783
- Reaction score
- 15,722
RSBM for space
I grew up not far from New Rochelle and I can say that for many years, our school district, in cooperation with the police department, finger-printed every child in town as an anti-abduction measure (or, more accurately, as a recovery after abduction measure). A card was also made for the parents. I was fingerprinted in the late 1970s or early 1980s, and by then, it had been an annual ritual for years. I recently found my own fingerprint card in my mom's files after she passed away. I don't know how common it was in other areas of the country, or if schools in Westchester are still doing it, but it was very common in Westchester County, New York for many years.
Regarding screaming: I have been startled before at home and screamed and it didn't at all rouse the attention of the neighbors, even when I lived in an apartment...and I have also had the experience of hearing a scream, thinking, "was that a scream?" and then, when not hearing sustained screaming or knowing where it came from, have just let it go.
Last edited:
jgfitzge
It's complicated! No, It really isn't
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2016
- Messages
- 403
- Reaction score
- 583
Hi Skigirl,
I concur with both your points, especially the screaming thought process. I go through the exact same process, "was that a scream?" then you wait for the next occurrence, then back to what you were doing.
On the school finger printing process, I thought I remember reading schools in the NY/NJ area started doing this as a preventative measure after the Lindbergh kidnapping/murder.
ChuckMaureen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,851
- Reaction score
- 13,059
Good point. The phone would have been mounted approximately 48-50 inches from the floor to the bottom of the phone proper, placing the dial height at approximately 54-56 inches; it seems reasonable to assume a 4 year old could reach it, and would be a likely person to attempt to dial and not realize/understand the handset was not attached.
ChuckMaureen
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,851
- Reaction score
- 13,059
I forgot about the Lindbergh kidnapping (referenced in this reply: MA - MA - Joan Risch, 30, Lincoln, 24 Oct 1961). It makes sense that schools would obtain and retain records of fingerprints for reason similar to this case.
When we hear (what sounds like) screaming or yelling, we take notice. We focus and attempt to ascertain a source and direction, if possible. We don't outright dismiss. Even if we think it sounds like children playing we focus for a bit, and note the time. We continue listening intently to be sure of what we think we heard.
I would hope the R's neighbors, having had children of their own would have focused upon hearing screaming, if it ever occurred. That, we might never know.
I still have issue with a neighbor having seen JR running around her driveway "carrying something red" but JR not screaming if she was being chased or escaping from an intruder and the neighbor not reporting seeing an unknown vehicle in the R driveway. It would have been apparent.
If an assailant had parked a vehicle a short distance from the houses he/she still would have had to force/carry JR to that vehicle, a reckless move.