Identified! NY - Titicus Reservoir, North Salem, White Male, Jun'93 - Andrew Bookless

[vsawyer]

Thank you for this update! What an amazing story...a really interesting chain of events that led to this man's identification, finally.

 

[Earthbound Misfit I]

Absolutely Fantastic! I am glad his family will now have some closure. RIP Andrew.

 

[kylie]

I originally posted this story on 12/31/07 so there must be some mind meld going on! It is so sad to see that he was so promising in high school but became depressed. It would be nice to see a picture of him published at some point. Is he the child in the photograph?

 

[felder]

I hope I am posting this is the correct spot. Moderators, please feel free to move this if I have.

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. — A treasured old photograph, a police investigator's long-shot appeal to the public and a retiree's sharp memory have combined to solve a 15-year-old drowning mystery.

State police in Somers, N.Y., tried for years to identify a body found in the Titicus Reservoir on June 13, 1993, carrying 38 pounds of rocks in a backpack. The man left no clues to his name and matched no local missing-persons reports.


The only lead was a black-and-white snapshot found on the body that showed a grandfatherly man holding a small boy in the crook of his arm, both wearing attire from the 1950s or early 1960s.


Police assumed the toddler was the drowning victim, but years of investigation produced only dead ends. Then, with a few remarkable coincidences last month, Andrew Bookless got back his name.



More at link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327806,00.html



Photo here:
http://www.foxnews.com/

 

[dark_shadows]

Dearest Kylie,:blowkiss:

Thank-you for the thread here.

Respectfully,
dark_shadows

Sometimes things are not always what they appear to be and because the man had rocks in his backpack, it does not mean that suicide is the answer here..

Even the investigators do not know the answer.


Respectfully,
dark_shadows

 

[T-Rex]

I'm so glad you guys posted this here--I just saw the article, and came right over! It's nice to see one of "our" old cases get solved!

 

[lymom3]

That picture always haunted me. If indeed he was the child in that photo then he was loved and happy at some point in his life. It just always seemed so sad to me. He obviously cherished that photo and memories of some time in his early life. It is a shame that his parents didn't know what happened to him before they passed but hopefully they met him again in the world after.

It is a good reminder that there is always hope to solve these cases and there are men and women out there that don't give up.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

OK I guess it is just me, but LE had this photo for 15 years and never noticed the older man in the photo seems be halfway into the ground?! You can see where his body fades and shows the snow plus shrubs, but the child is intact at the same point. They seemed to also miss that this photo survived intact after being underwater for a period of time (they give no indication as to how long he was in the water) which is so unlikely! I think this is all very Bizarre myself!! However, I am glad they figured out the child in the photo is the man who died, but was it murder or suicide? 38 lbs of rocks in a backpack in a reservoir?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327806,00.html

 

[Filly]

SS, reading the article I got confused. That land is where the Bookless home once stood? So, how could the man be sinking? Plus, is it the child who drowned? It's a disturbing photograph. I don't like it. Perhaps it's film from that time. We have tons ofphotographs from around the 40's and early 50's that are fading. The thing is that isn't faded. It appears the man has no lower extremeties. The whole rocks in the bag well that is just bizarre. Thank you for this though. I'd love to know more about this family. Never fails though there's always someobody somewhere recognizes a house or street lamp or something. I enjoy photography, and that's one weird picture.

 

[KatK]

I dunno what they mean about the photo, it was taken cropping the grandfather's legs off, the better to show all of the child. The person who died was the child in the photograph, who was an adult at the time they died. They had a photograph of themselves as a child in their grandfather's arms on them when they drowned themselves. (Is that a kilt the grandfather is wearing in the photo? It looks like plaid, and I think I see part of a Sporran...)

 

[Filly]

I dunno what they mean about the photo, it was taken cropping the grandfather's legs off, the better to show all of the child. The person who died was the child in the photograph, who was an adult at the time they died. They had a photograph of themselves as a child in their grandfather's arms on them when they drowned themselves. (Is that a kilt the grandfather is wearing in the photo? It looks like plaid, and I think I see part of a Sporran...)

See, this is why I missed you so much. KatK always makes sense and brings logic to the game. I gotta look again. The photo was in the water though. No way would a photograph last in water. So, the cops cropped the picture? The Pop got on a kilt? I'mma check it out, Kat. Thanks for your insight.

 

[Filly]

Kat, It may be cropped, but not where the kilt or pants would be because the little boys shoe is parallel to where that part of Pop's body is. Do they wear kilts with a suit jacket? I mean is that appropriate? I worked for a photographer for quite a few years and actually cropped prints. I think if they cropped it then they'd have cropped more from the background. Then again that's how the woman identified where the spot was. Not that it means anything, but it's disturbing to me. Obviously not posed, but it gives me a bad feeling. I don't think these are happy people. Then again well don't mind me.

 

[KatK]

I meant the person taking the picture didn't photograph the grandfather from just below the waist down. And look at that metal thingy, it's too low to be a belt buckle, see how the pants come up? I think it's a sporran fastened on him, and I see what looks almost like a plaid pattern. But I can't see so well either. Can anyone blow up the picture and post a link please? It's gonna nag at me until I can see it bigger... *sigh*

Photographs have survived fire, and being out in the elements. They used better quality paper way back when. The idea that the photograph somehow survived doesn't suprise me. Remember it was in a frame, tucked into the grown grandson's clothing. It might have taken a while to get wet, and there might have been some kind of airtight seal that took a while to be breached too? If it is an old frame, never opened and the like, it might have been specially sealed, or some kind of seal formed over the years?

ETA: Yes, they sometimes do, for weddings or special Scottish events. (Maybe it was Burns Night, since its winter? Robert Burns.) I've seen special "Jacobite" suits that have kilts, sporran, socks shoes and all. I'll see can I dig up some picutres. Look at that metal, rounded thingy against the dark of his pants, what is that? It isn't the grandson's shoe. It's about the shape of a belt buckle, but a BIG BIG one, but it is way too low to be a belt buckle.

 

[KatK]

See here for a rather formal example of wearing a suit shirt/jacket with a kilt.

 

[KatK]

Hmm, ok might not be a sporran. I just saved the image to my desktop, and then I could make it bigger. I can see the grandfather's hat under the arm on the right side of the photo, and looks like his gloves under that (Maybe? Might just be old photo, bad eyesight and the shrub, but that *is* a hat he has, and of course he would have, he's a gentleman, they wore hats at that time.) same arm's elbow. (The arm on the other side of the little boy. Or, is it a satchel?! The round thing under his hand, photo damage, satchel, or hat? That gleaming reflective looking area to the side of the child's foot, what is it? Photo damage? Just how bad has my eyesight gotten now, anyways?! ) It might be some kind of damage to the photo, and not a sporran. From a non-enlarged photo though, it had the placement, and shape of one. :crazy: :blushing:

 

[fivekidz4me]

I had to read this story several times to finally understand it!
31 year old man drowns in Somers, NY (backpack filled with rocks) and he was holding this particular picture in a glass frame as he drowned. (which explains why the picture was in pretty good condition)

Police have been searching for the people in the picture, figuring the drowned victim was the youngster in the photograph. (why else would the 31yo man have this particular picture with him)

So the police try to id the people in the photo, to no avail for years, thinking it was taken in Massachussets because of the streetlight.

A lady noticed that the picture was taken in Brookhaven, NY (she saw building landmarks) and they finally figured out who the drowned man was. (The picture was taken on the property the mans family owned--so they checked dentals and they matched)

That was the most confusing story--or else I'm just too tired! Rest in Peace Andrew

 

[Filly]

LOL this will be making us all go bonkers. I have no way to enlarge it. If it was in a glass frame that'd make it more prone to damage I'd think unless like ya said Kat back then the quality of the paper etc. was better. You should never, ever clean with liquid the glass on a picture frame without removing the photograph first and be sure it's completely dry before ya put the print back in. O.K. more important I wonder why he had this just one picture with him? How very sad. Kat thank you for all of your sharing. I mentioned before you share knowledge, but not in a condescending way. Man, my pet peeve is condescention. I'm not educated, and well put it bluntly my daughter and my ex husband both downright condescending. "Oh look at this article. Never mind you won't understand it and don't know anything about it". So, thank you. I'm going to get a magnifying glass for this baby.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I have looked at this photo time and time again. It makes no sense. There is no reason for the man to fade at the waist, imo, and you shouldn't be able to see the snow and the bushes directly behind him while the baby's shoes in the same area remain intact. It doesn't look like a double exposure either...which could explain it. He is dressed like my father used to and the pin on his lapel could be a chamber of commerce pin, a small flag, or having to do with the Masonic Lodge.

I have never seen a frame that is airtight, if those are made, I would love to have them! I have seen old photos that are waterdamaged and there is no way this one looks to have been underwater at all.

Yes, the child in the photo is the person who drowned. A woman did finally recall the building and helped put it together to find out who he was. He was 31 years old when he died.

I just find it very odd that even the reporter made no mention of the oddity of the photo itself. They aren't very detail oriented, are they? LOL

 

[Pharlap]

I believe it's a double imposed picture.
Back then you can take one picture on top of another,
IF you didn't forward to the next picture to be taken.
I've done it many times....

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Yes, but you will see the background of the first photo melding into the background of the second one making it appear "off" or blurred. This is a crisp photo and I don't believe it can be a double exposure.