I would like to ask the family a question, hoping you can answer this. Is the oldest son who was in the home at the time of the fire still living? If he is, would he be willing to speak with me? I can call him so the long distance would be on my bill. I promise to be curteous and kind, as I am always curteous and kind, it is my nature. I just need to ask him a question. I found an report from the fire department, that was posted online. In questioning, he told the fireman that he had gone into the room of his siblings. He stated that they were in their bedroom, each of them in their own beds. He also stated that he tried to wake them, telling them the home was on fire, but found them to be, "Non-responsive", and they did not stir. Believing they were dead already and knowing he could not carry them down the stairs and out the door alone, he opted to run back down the stairs and he and his brothers and father tried to get back into the burning house. They were unable to gain entry, the ladder was missing, and the car would not start to be placed under the room to try and climb onto. After being questioned, his father asked him if he was sure, had he actually seen the bodies. My belief is that, not wanting to put his parents through the turmoil of knowing their children were dead, he opted to let them believe that there was hope. I may be completely wrong on this, but if he did this to spare his parents a lot of pain he felt was unneccessary, I understand that. Only he would have the answer to whether or not he saw his siblings in their room that night, dead or unresponsive, or if he really did tell an untruth to spare his parents so much pain. If he is still alive, would he be willing to speak with me? Or at least write me his account of what happened that night?
WV - Sodder Family - 5 children, Christmas eve 1945 - #2
- Thread starter Amraann
- Start date
- Status
Also, I found someone who did her own research. This is not, I repeat, NOT my work but supports the theory they did die.
LONG, LONG, LONG Sodder Post
There was a number of things that were cut from my piece about the Sodder family to get it down to eight minutes. I’m posting some of it here, and then some comments, for people who are well acquainted with the Sodder story. For those of you not acquainted with the story, none of this will make any sense to you, and you might as well skip this post.
All the newspaper stories in the past seem to be weighted towards the conclusion that the children did not die in the fire. But I found just as much information to indicate that they did. I can see how that happened, though. When I put this story together, after meeting the family, every piece of evidence I found that pointed towards the children’s deaths felt like a betrayal. Who wants to insist the children are dead? I hate saying anything that might remove hope. If 60 years later I am having trouble pointing out anything that might indicate that the children died that night, I can imagine the reluctance of people who had to look George Sodder in the face.
However, even though I think they died in the fire, there is enough genuine weirdness about this whole thing, and a couple of things that were not adequately investigated, that if someday it is learned that the children did not die in the fire I won’t be shocked. But weirdness does not necessarily equal murder, and I don’t think that’s what happened.
I found out all sorts of things, like the fact that some remains were found on Christmas morning (although the family says they were never told this) and also that the oldest son John said he went in and shook his brothers and sisters. The family says he said that out of guilt, because he felt that’s what he should have done, which absolutely could be true. But it could also be true that he did exactly what he said he did.
Here are some sections that were cut from my piece. I talked to a number of fire professionals in Fayettevile (and I talked to a friend in the FDNY before I interviewed them). They all felt it was likely the children died first.
STERLING LEWIS: If it got in the walls, it could literally have traveled straight up, what we call chimney and go straight into the top floor and not even burn the 1st floor. Start in the basement and go to the 3rd floor. Cause fire will jump like that.
Very few individuals burn to death, they’re always dead prior to the fire getting there due to smoke inhalation.
HORN: Why did the two oldest boys make it downstairs and none of the others? Is it possible that some of the children succumbed to smoke inhalation but two didn’t?
STERLING LEWIS. Absolutely. We get that all the time. We’ll find individuals laying in bed, dead, and then we’ll find another individual that’s laying a foot from the door. I mean they were going to get out.
HORN: The family also bring up the fact that they never smelled burning flesh. But Lewis explains that no one would have been standing downwind from a fully involved fire. [And according to witnesses, it was a very windy night.]
[About the Fire Department not arriving until the next morning.]
HORN: It wouldn’t have mattered even if they had arrived. Sterling Lewis, West Virginia State Fire Marshall.
STERLING LEWIS: Let's just say it takes a ten minute drive from the firehouse to the fire, there were no such things as our self contained breathing apparatus, there would have been no entry into that house by a firefighter. So therefore there would have been no rescue. [However, every fire professional I spoke to said they still would have shown up, regardless. Not one of them were trying to excuse Morris. I want to be clear about that.]
HORN: Finally, the one fact that everyone comes back to: little remains were found the next day. And what little was found was internal organs and that just seems, well, weird. [The family was never told that any remains were found, but the State Fire Marshall interviewed everyone who was on site the next morning and four people reported seeing remains, including one of Jennie Sodder’s brothers and a local priest. Whether or not they were being truthful, I cannot say.]
STERLING LEWIS: In a fire, when the rest of the body is absolutely almost destroyed, whatever would be left of entrails a lot of times will turn just a beautiful shade of red. And that's what we look for because then your black and your grays of all the char and everything, this red it jumps out at you.
HORN: All the experts the family consulted agree that more remains would have been found from a fire that only burned for 45 minutes before the roof fell into the basement. But the fire didn’t burn for 45 minutes. It burned all night long and into the next morning. When the fire department did finally appear it was still hot and they had to water the site down before conducting their search. Further, two hours is not even close to a thorough search. Today the search would take days and possibly weeks.
[It wasn’t that the remains were not there, necessarily, but they might have been missed by people who weren’t professionals, and who didn’t search for very long. The search that took place in 1949 sounded even less methodical. At this point, any remains would have been buried under four or five feet of dirt for four years, and a real search would need to be even more painstaking and would take even longer, now we’re talking months.]
The scene was not roped off and guarded, while they weren’t searching. That would never happen today. And because George Sodder bulldozed dirt into it, the scene is was contaminated.
SGT. MIKE SPRADLIN: ... the authorities had know way of knowing if it had been dug and bones planted or bones taken out.
[The family says George filled in the basement because he felt no one was ever coming back. I can totally see him doing this out of grief and frustration. It is understandable.]
HORN: The family held onto a statement made by Ida Crutchfield, who ran a small hotel in Charleston, West Virginia. In 1952, seven years after the fire, she claimed she saw the children a week after the fire. She’d never met the Sodder children, she had only seen their pictures in the paper two years after the fire. Not a credible witness.
SGT. SPRADLIN: For them to be carried out of that house and held against their will for that many years is implausible, because they could have easily escaped their captors. They've grown up, had children of their own, and for them never to try to contact the family is just, I just don’t buy that. From my reviewing of the report there was really no stone left unturned, they tried to find those children if they existed and it was just those children were never located.
BRAGG: There was a guy that committed a theft while the house was burning, he was stealing from one of their out buildings while they were trying to save their children. Now what kind of person would do that? That is just absolutely ... that adds to the mystery of this story 100 percent. It’s just crazy to me.
HORN: But it’s not likely that someone would kidnap the children and then come back and steal some block and tackle, the objects that he confessed to taking. He also said he cut the phone wires, that were indeed cut that night. No one believed him because the phone wires were cut at the top of the phone pole. But that might explain why on the night of the fire, George Sodder never found the ladder that was always leaning at the side of the house. It was used to cut the wires.
HORN: The police also never adequately investigated a man who made threats to the Sodder family before the fire, and who stood to gain financially, from the fire.
[This is Janutolo. But this points to possible arson, not kidnapping, and that’s one area I still have to investigate. From what I was told about him, he was not in need of money, was liked and respected in the community.]
HORN: But even George Bragg, who researched this case and who doesn't believe the children died in the fire, concedes that some parts of the story indicates that they did. In the police report, the Sodder’s oldest son John said he woke the children.
BRAGG: It has been my experience when dealing with police reports and interviews after something like this happens, the first response by the person you are talking to is usually the most truthful, and that was his very first response. He told the state police that he walked into the room and shook the children and told them to come on downstairs, and to me that's the one thing that I cannot understand. That would indicate that those children were in that bedroom.
HORN: The family believes John said that because he felt that was what he should have done. Perhaps he was not the only questioning his actions.
SPRADLIN: Survivor guilt plays into it. The adults get out of the house and the children don't ... I’d always be second guessing myself, maybe I could have done more and more and more ... I'd want to believe that someone else was responsible and those children were alive and being held somewhere ...
STEVE CROOKSHANKS: I've rarely seen a family that had a tragedy like that that did not want to believe, it's a psychological thing, you want to believe that something caused this to happen. This just couldn't have been a natural event.
SPRADLIN: It's similar to suicides ... it's a suicide until a year and a half afterwards, then to the family's way of looking at it it turns unto a murder ... even though they may agree with it for the first year and a half, two years, then all of sudden it hard for them to accept those type of situations.
Those are the cuts I thought people who follow the case might be interested in.
There were all sorts of things I was able to find out that I didn’t use because I knew in the end that the piece had to be 8 minutes.. I’m trying to remember now. The caller who made the wrong number was found by the police and questioned. She was just a neighbor who made a wrong number.
The guy who stole the block and tackle was arrested and paid a fine.
About John Sodder shaking his brothers and sisters. It’s perhaps meaningful that John was the one child who never wanted to talk about the fire, and thought they should just let it die.
The fire wasn’t aggressively investigated at first because everyone was satisfied that they died in the fire. Once it became clear that the family thought the children were still alive, the State Police and the Fire Marshall did investigate. Every theory that was brought forth that could be investigated was investigated, as was every lead, except at this point I can’t tell if they thoroughly investigated Janutolo. They may have, but I haven’t confirmed it yet. But the Sodder family didn't make a lot of noise about Janutolo, and since they didn't hesitate to make their objections known, that seems to indicate they too were satisfied that either Janutolo was not involved or that he was satisfactorily investigated. But still, he was the one person who had a motive (for arson, not kidnapping) and his name should have been all over the files and it wasn’t.
The cut phone wires were never adequately explained. It’s not that they didn’t try, but short of an eye witness, there was no way to know what happened. But it’s another fact that points to a possible crime.
I also found that according to the police and FBI records, at one point the Sodders thought one of Jennie’s brothers had the children in Florida and her own relatives were investigated, and they had to prove their children were their own. (Given that law enforcement professionals agree that if the children were removed from the house that night, either family or friends or relatives of the family were involved, it makes some sense.)
Fire Chief Morris was the one who was told to take care of the remains that were found on Christmas morning. I question the judgement of the fire marshall about leaving something so important in the hands of a volunteer, but I think Morris’s story about reverently burying the remains was possibly a story he made up to cover up the fact that he threw the remains away or just left them there. Then, when George Sodder asked him to show him where he buried them, Morris buried the beef liver so that there’d be something to dig up.
No physical evidence survives to this day, and the scene of the fire was contaminated (as dramatically demonstrated at the 1949 dig) when Mr. Sodder bulldozed the site, so I’m not sure what an excavation would accomplish today, although it couldn’t hurt, I guess. But, as Spradlin points out, since anyone could have removed the bones, or put bones in, it’s not likely to resolve anything one way or another. If the family wants to pursue this option, Spradlin explained, they would need to speak to the prosecutor’s office, although it might be hard to convince them to proceed since the site is contaminated. Again, I personally understand Mr. Sodder’s actions, I do not mean to sound critical, but nonetheless, it did contaminate the scene. (A lawyer could advise them here.)
Most of the people I wanted to talk to are no longer with us, so there is still no way to definitively say what happened that night. People can and probably will going on believing whatever they want.
I want to stress that although I believe the children died that night, I have no way of knowing what really happened. I am sorry if bringing up any of these new facts is hurtful. I could be absolutely wrong wrong wrong, and I am open to people pointing out where I am wrong.
My blog has a comment section, so if anyone, and especially members of the family, want to contest anything I have said, or simply respond, please feel free to do so. The new facts are open to interpretation, and my way of looking at them is only my opinion. As I’ve said before, the facts will not add up the same way for everyone.
Posted by Horn at December 28, 2005 09:45 AM
LONG, LONG, LONG Sodder Post
There was a number of things that were cut from my piece about the Sodder family to get it down to eight minutes. I’m posting some of it here, and then some comments, for people who are well acquainted with the Sodder story. For those of you not acquainted with the story, none of this will make any sense to you, and you might as well skip this post.
All the newspaper stories in the past seem to be weighted towards the conclusion that the children did not die in the fire. But I found just as much information to indicate that they did. I can see how that happened, though. When I put this story together, after meeting the family, every piece of evidence I found that pointed towards the children’s deaths felt like a betrayal. Who wants to insist the children are dead? I hate saying anything that might remove hope. If 60 years later I am having trouble pointing out anything that might indicate that the children died that night, I can imagine the reluctance of people who had to look George Sodder in the face.
However, even though I think they died in the fire, there is enough genuine weirdness about this whole thing, and a couple of things that were not adequately investigated, that if someday it is learned that the children did not die in the fire I won’t be shocked. But weirdness does not necessarily equal murder, and I don’t think that’s what happened.
I found out all sorts of things, like the fact that some remains were found on Christmas morning (although the family says they were never told this) and also that the oldest son John said he went in and shook his brothers and sisters. The family says he said that out of guilt, because he felt that’s what he should have done, which absolutely could be true. But it could also be true that he did exactly what he said he did.
Here are some sections that were cut from my piece. I talked to a number of fire professionals in Fayettevile (and I talked to a friend in the FDNY before I interviewed them). They all felt it was likely the children died first.
STERLING LEWIS: If it got in the walls, it could literally have traveled straight up, what we call chimney and go straight into the top floor and not even burn the 1st floor. Start in the basement and go to the 3rd floor. Cause fire will jump like that.
Very few individuals burn to death, they’re always dead prior to the fire getting there due to smoke inhalation.
HORN: Why did the two oldest boys make it downstairs and none of the others? Is it possible that some of the children succumbed to smoke inhalation but two didn’t?
STERLING LEWIS. Absolutely. We get that all the time. We’ll find individuals laying in bed, dead, and then we’ll find another individual that’s laying a foot from the door. I mean they were going to get out.
HORN: The family also bring up the fact that they never smelled burning flesh. But Lewis explains that no one would have been standing downwind from a fully involved fire. [And according to witnesses, it was a very windy night.]
[About the Fire Department not arriving until the next morning.]
HORN: It wouldn’t have mattered even if they had arrived. Sterling Lewis, West Virginia State Fire Marshall.
STERLING LEWIS: Let's just say it takes a ten minute drive from the firehouse to the fire, there were no such things as our self contained breathing apparatus, there would have been no entry into that house by a firefighter. So therefore there would have been no rescue. [However, every fire professional I spoke to said they still would have shown up, regardless. Not one of them were trying to excuse Morris. I want to be clear about that.]
HORN: Finally, the one fact that everyone comes back to: little remains were found the next day. And what little was found was internal organs and that just seems, well, weird. [The family was never told that any remains were found, but the State Fire Marshall interviewed everyone who was on site the next morning and four people reported seeing remains, including one of Jennie Sodder’s brothers and a local priest. Whether or not they were being truthful, I cannot say.]
STERLING LEWIS: In a fire, when the rest of the body is absolutely almost destroyed, whatever would be left of entrails a lot of times will turn just a beautiful shade of red. And that's what we look for because then your black and your grays of all the char and everything, this red it jumps out at you.
HORN: All the experts the family consulted agree that more remains would have been found from a fire that only burned for 45 minutes before the roof fell into the basement. But the fire didn’t burn for 45 minutes. It burned all night long and into the next morning. When the fire department did finally appear it was still hot and they had to water the site down before conducting their search. Further, two hours is not even close to a thorough search. Today the search would take days and possibly weeks.
[It wasn’t that the remains were not there, necessarily, but they might have been missed by people who weren’t professionals, and who didn’t search for very long. The search that took place in 1949 sounded even less methodical. At this point, any remains would have been buried under four or five feet of dirt for four years, and a real search would need to be even more painstaking and would take even longer, now we’re talking months.]
The scene was not roped off and guarded, while they weren’t searching. That would never happen today. And because George Sodder bulldozed dirt into it, the scene is was contaminated.
SGT. MIKE SPRADLIN: ... the authorities had know way of knowing if it had been dug and bones planted or bones taken out.
[The family says George filled in the basement because he felt no one was ever coming back. I can totally see him doing this out of grief and frustration. It is understandable.]
HORN: The family held onto a statement made by Ida Crutchfield, who ran a small hotel in Charleston, West Virginia. In 1952, seven years after the fire, she claimed she saw the children a week after the fire. She’d never met the Sodder children, she had only seen their pictures in the paper two years after the fire. Not a credible witness.
SGT. SPRADLIN: For them to be carried out of that house and held against their will for that many years is implausible, because they could have easily escaped their captors. They've grown up, had children of their own, and for them never to try to contact the family is just, I just don’t buy that. From my reviewing of the report there was really no stone left unturned, they tried to find those children if they existed and it was just those children were never located.
BRAGG: There was a guy that committed a theft while the house was burning, he was stealing from one of their out buildings while they were trying to save their children. Now what kind of person would do that? That is just absolutely ... that adds to the mystery of this story 100 percent. It’s just crazy to me.
HORN: But it’s not likely that someone would kidnap the children and then come back and steal some block and tackle, the objects that he confessed to taking. He also said he cut the phone wires, that were indeed cut that night. No one believed him because the phone wires were cut at the top of the phone pole. But that might explain why on the night of the fire, George Sodder never found the ladder that was always leaning at the side of the house. It was used to cut the wires.
HORN: The police also never adequately investigated a man who made threats to the Sodder family before the fire, and who stood to gain financially, from the fire.
[This is Janutolo. But this points to possible arson, not kidnapping, and that’s one area I still have to investigate. From what I was told about him, he was not in need of money, was liked and respected in the community.]
HORN: But even George Bragg, who researched this case and who doesn't believe the children died in the fire, concedes that some parts of the story indicates that they did. In the police report, the Sodder’s oldest son John said he woke the children.
BRAGG: It has been my experience when dealing with police reports and interviews after something like this happens, the first response by the person you are talking to is usually the most truthful, and that was his very first response. He told the state police that he walked into the room and shook the children and told them to come on downstairs, and to me that's the one thing that I cannot understand. That would indicate that those children were in that bedroom.
HORN: The family believes John said that because he felt that was what he should have done. Perhaps he was not the only questioning his actions.
SPRADLIN: Survivor guilt plays into it. The adults get out of the house and the children don't ... I’d always be second guessing myself, maybe I could have done more and more and more ... I'd want to believe that someone else was responsible and those children were alive and being held somewhere ...
STEVE CROOKSHANKS: I've rarely seen a family that had a tragedy like that that did not want to believe, it's a psychological thing, you want to believe that something caused this to happen. This just couldn't have been a natural event.
SPRADLIN: It's similar to suicides ... it's a suicide until a year and a half afterwards, then to the family's way of looking at it it turns unto a murder ... even though they may agree with it for the first year and a half, two years, then all of sudden it hard for them to accept those type of situations.
Those are the cuts I thought people who follow the case might be interested in.
There were all sorts of things I was able to find out that I didn’t use because I knew in the end that the piece had to be 8 minutes.. I’m trying to remember now. The caller who made the wrong number was found by the police and questioned. She was just a neighbor who made a wrong number.
The guy who stole the block and tackle was arrested and paid a fine.
About John Sodder shaking his brothers and sisters. It’s perhaps meaningful that John was the one child who never wanted to talk about the fire, and thought they should just let it die.
The fire wasn’t aggressively investigated at first because everyone was satisfied that they died in the fire. Once it became clear that the family thought the children were still alive, the State Police and the Fire Marshall did investigate. Every theory that was brought forth that could be investigated was investigated, as was every lead, except at this point I can’t tell if they thoroughly investigated Janutolo. They may have, but I haven’t confirmed it yet. But the Sodder family didn't make a lot of noise about Janutolo, and since they didn't hesitate to make their objections known, that seems to indicate they too were satisfied that either Janutolo was not involved or that he was satisfactorily investigated. But still, he was the one person who had a motive (for arson, not kidnapping) and his name should have been all over the files and it wasn’t.
The cut phone wires were never adequately explained. It’s not that they didn’t try, but short of an eye witness, there was no way to know what happened. But it’s another fact that points to a possible crime.
I also found that according to the police and FBI records, at one point the Sodders thought one of Jennie’s brothers had the children in Florida and her own relatives were investigated, and they had to prove their children were their own. (Given that law enforcement professionals agree that if the children were removed from the house that night, either family or friends or relatives of the family were involved, it makes some sense.)
Fire Chief Morris was the one who was told to take care of the remains that were found on Christmas morning. I question the judgement of the fire marshall about leaving something so important in the hands of a volunteer, but I think Morris’s story about reverently burying the remains was possibly a story he made up to cover up the fact that he threw the remains away or just left them there. Then, when George Sodder asked him to show him where he buried them, Morris buried the beef liver so that there’d be something to dig up.
No physical evidence survives to this day, and the scene of the fire was contaminated (as dramatically demonstrated at the 1949 dig) when Mr. Sodder bulldozed the site, so I’m not sure what an excavation would accomplish today, although it couldn’t hurt, I guess. But, as Spradlin points out, since anyone could have removed the bones, or put bones in, it’s not likely to resolve anything one way or another. If the family wants to pursue this option, Spradlin explained, they would need to speak to the prosecutor’s office, although it might be hard to convince them to proceed since the site is contaminated. Again, I personally understand Mr. Sodder’s actions, I do not mean to sound critical, but nonetheless, it did contaminate the scene. (A lawyer could advise them here.)
Most of the people I wanted to talk to are no longer with us, so there is still no way to definitively say what happened that night. People can and probably will going on believing whatever they want.
I want to stress that although I believe the children died that night, I have no way of knowing what really happened. I am sorry if bringing up any of these new facts is hurtful. I could be absolutely wrong wrong wrong, and I am open to people pointing out where I am wrong.
My blog has a comment section, so if anyone, and especially members of the family, want to contest anything I have said, or simply respond, please feel free to do so. The new facts are open to interpretation, and my way of looking at them is only my opinion. As I’ve said before, the facts will not add up the same way for everyone.
Posted by Horn at December 28, 2005 09:45 AM
Teresa Larson
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 799
- Reaction score
- 151
How would they have found internal organs? I think they would have burned up in the fire? Their bones wouldn't have so why were none ever found? The fire wouldn't have burned hot enough to cremate them. There are too many discrepancies in the details concerning the fire. As I have stated in some of my other posts back in those years the coal miners and the mafia did not get along Mr Sodder owned his own trucking business. He may not have paid his dues to the mafia. The children could have been taken to Italy and were told the rest of the family died or they could have been threatened not to make contact or their parents would be killed. Hopefully some day we will have the answers.
What looked like "internal organs", were entrails, which turn a bright red color after being cooked, and they would have survived. I have also done a TON and I do mean a TON of research on the Mob. The mob, ESPECIALLY back in the day NEVER was to harm women, children, the elderly, etc. They were NEVER supposed to take anything out on children or wives of the accused. If they were going to do something, arson and kidnapping would have been the LAST thing they would have done. Reason for that is simple::: They would not have risked their own necks, because the mob didn't operate like that. They still don't. My grandmother was a mobster's girlfriend. She became pregnant, and the two of them had my dad. He was abusive, and a mob boss of his saw her wearing dark sunglasses. He pulled them off, and saw her black eye. Two days later the boss and three of the boss's buddies beat the living crap out of him and that was the last day my grandma ever saw him.
Anyways, the point being, I hate to tell you this, but odds are... Odds are those children died that night. Believe me, I wish I had better news to report to you.
Also, the son told the fireman who asked him questions, he saw their bodies in their room. Why would he lie? Let's be totally logical here. Why would he lie about that?
Anyways, the point being, I hate to tell you this, but odds are... Odds are those children died that night. Believe me, I wish I had better news to report to you.
Also, the son told the fireman who asked him questions, he saw their bodies in their room. Why would he lie? Let's be totally logical here. Why would he lie about that?
I suggest reading this part of my post very carefully, for full understanding.
Finally, the one fact that everyone comes back to: little remains were found the next day. And what little was found was internal organs and that just seems, well, weird. [The family was never told that any remains were found, but the State Fire Marshall interviewed everyone who was on site the next morning and four people reported seeing remains, including one of Jennie Sodders brothers and a local priest. Whether or not they were being truthful, I cannot say.]
STERLING LEWIS: In a fire, when the rest of the body is absolutely almost destroyed, whatever would be left of entrails a lot of times will turn just a beautiful shade of red. And that's what we look for because then your black and your grays of all the char and everything, this red it jumps out at you.
HORN: All the experts the family consulted agree that more remains would have been found from a fire that only burned for 45 minutes before the roof fell into the basement. But the fire didnt burn for 45 minutes. It burned all night long and into the next morning. When the fire department did finally appear it was still hot and they had to water the site down before conducting their search. Further, two hours is not even close to a thorough search. Today the search would take days and possibly weeks.
[It wasnt that the remains were not there, necessarily, but they might have been missed by people who werent professionals, and who didnt search for very long. The search that took place in 1949 sounded even less methodical. At this point, any remains would have been buried under four or five feet of dirt for four years, and a real search would need to be even more painstaking and would take even longer, now were talking months.]
The scene was not roped off and guarded, while they werent searching. That would never happen today. And because George Sodder bulldozed dirt into it, the scene is was contaminated.
SGT. MIKE SPRADLIN: ... the authorities had know way of knowing if it had been dug and bones planted or bones taken out.
[The family says George filled in the basement because he felt no one was ever coming back. I can totally see him doing this out of grief and frustration. It is understandable.]
Finally, the one fact that everyone comes back to: little remains were found the next day. And what little was found was internal organs and that just seems, well, weird. [The family was never told that any remains were found, but the State Fire Marshall interviewed everyone who was on site the next morning and four people reported seeing remains, including one of Jennie Sodders brothers and a local priest. Whether or not they were being truthful, I cannot say.]
STERLING LEWIS: In a fire, when the rest of the body is absolutely almost destroyed, whatever would be left of entrails a lot of times will turn just a beautiful shade of red. And that's what we look for because then your black and your grays of all the char and everything, this red it jumps out at you.
HORN: All the experts the family consulted agree that more remains would have been found from a fire that only burned for 45 minutes before the roof fell into the basement. But the fire didnt burn for 45 minutes. It burned all night long and into the next morning. When the fire department did finally appear it was still hot and they had to water the site down before conducting their search. Further, two hours is not even close to a thorough search. Today the search would take days and possibly weeks.
[It wasnt that the remains were not there, necessarily, but they might have been missed by people who werent professionals, and who didnt search for very long. The search that took place in 1949 sounded even less methodical. At this point, any remains would have been buried under four or five feet of dirt for four years, and a real search would need to be even more painstaking and would take even longer, now were talking months.]
The scene was not roped off and guarded, while they werent searching. That would never happen today. And because George Sodder bulldozed dirt into it, the scene is was contaminated.
SGT. MIKE SPRADLIN: ... the authorities had know way of knowing if it had been dug and bones planted or bones taken out.
[The family says George filled in the basement because he felt no one was ever coming back. I can totally see him doing this out of grief and frustration. It is understandable.]
The older brother was John who is now deceased. Where did you find the information (which is quite interesting), about John making the statement that he found the children unresponsive. The only thing I have heard was that one of the boys, which I beleive to be George, thought he heard them answer when he called to them. I would love to know your source on the internet.
Also, John's grandson was active on the board at one time. You may want to PM him-Jonathan Bandy. He may be able to answer any questions you may have.
My mother once told me about a cousin of her's that died in a fire at 12 years old in the 1920's. This was back in the country, no running water in the house, and no fire department. In other words, the was no means to stop the fire what so ever until it had completely burned and the ashes cooled. The house burned, and after the ashes were cooled enough to look for Emily, the only thing left were many bones. Multiply that by four, and there should have been many bones left by the Sodder children.
Thank you so much for your posts. They are very informative and brought the board alive again.
Teresa Larson
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 799
- Reaction score
- 151
Where is it posted that the older brother tried to wake his younger siblings? IF that was the case then why did the family search for them all these years? I also find it hard to believe that he would have went out the door without his brothers and sisters. IF they would have died in the fire there should have been bones but none were ever found. Also you said he talked with the firemen when did he do that? Because none ever showed up on the night of the fire. I am very familiar with the mob I have family in New Jersey and I go there quite often so I know first hand. I stated before the mob and the coal miners did not get along back then. I think the whole investigation was botched because the people doing it were aware of the Mafia's involvement.
Than you know they have a rule to not harm children and women, the sick and the elderly or infirm. With such a rule what makes you believe that they would have totally gone against this rule and in fact harmed innocent children, who had nothing to do with their father's choice to not pay dues, etc? They would be much more likely to break the father's legs than to kidnap small kids. That's the first thing. If you have evidence to the contrary, please let me know and I will certainly take that into consideration.
As for "No Bones", we keep coming back to that. I would like to know if anyone has any idea as to what type of nightgowns and pajamas the Sodder children were wearing. This case was in the FBI files, and I think it shows that bones, can, indeed, disintegrate into almost nothing. And before you read it, I know what a lot of you are going to say, well they found teeth, they thought, so why weren't the children's teeth found? My answer to that is because, as stated in an earlier post, the search back than was not thorough, nor was it done by professionals. Anyway, read this first, and I am going to post something else in a few minutes. So just hold on please, I have three children and it takes me a while to make a post.
As for "No Bones", we keep coming back to that. I would like to know if anyone has any idea as to what type of nightgowns and pajamas the Sodder children were wearing. This case was in the FBI files, and I think it shows that bones, can, indeed, disintegrate into almost nothing. And before you read it, I know what a lot of you are going to say, well they found teeth, they thought, so why weren't the children's teeth found? My answer to that is because, as stated in an earlier post, the search back than was not thorough, nor was it done by professionals. Anyway, read this first, and I am going to post something else in a few minutes. So just hold on please, I have three children and it takes me a while to make a post.
[SIZE=+2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]FBI Debunks Spontaneous Human Combustion[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]Despite Investigation, Believers Still Cite the Supernatural[/SIZE]
By Todd Venezia
NEW YORK (APBnews.com) -- For hundreds of years, mystery lovers have theorized about spontaneous human combustion -- the strange physical phenomenon that allegedly turns its victims into columns of fire, without an apparent spark and without doing damage to anything else around. [SIZE=+2]Despite Investigation, Believers Still Cite the Supernatural[/SIZE]
By Todd Venezia
Stories of death by such magic flames have been written about since Charles generations of believers in the paranormal. These rumors have proved so persistent that they are still commonly accepted as fact on the Internet, on television and in the minds of many people today.
But almost 50 years ago, a source no less authoritative than the FBI testing lab came to a different conclusion on the issue of "SHC" after examining the immolation of an elderly St. Petersburg, Fla., woman who mysteriously burned to cinders in her easy chair.
'Absolutely no evidence'
Instead of finding a case worthy of the X-Files, the lab discovered that spontaneous human combustion is, in fact, a lot of nonsense.
"It is not generally realized the extent to which the human body can burn once it becomes ignited," the bureau wrote in a report now posted here for the first time online. "It was formerly believed that such cases arose from spontaneous combustion or the burning was sometimes attributed to preternatural causes.
"There is, however, absolutely no evidence from any of the cases on record to show that burning of this nature occurs."
Before the bureau's dismissal of the spontaneous combustion rumors, the 1951 case of Mary Hardy Reeser's burning had stumped local police.
On July 1, the grandmotherly 67-year-old -- upset over a delay in plans to move back to Pennsylvania -- took a dose of the sleeping pill Seconal to calm herself and settled into her easy chair to have a smoke.
It was her usual ritual, but that night it would have tragic consequences.
Nothing but cinders -- and one foot
At about 8 a.m. the next morning, Reeser's landlady, Patsy Carpenter, arrived at her door with a telegram bearing news of the impending move. When Carpenter reached for front door, however, she found the knob hot and became suspicious.
When she went inside, she found a tableau that would stun the city of St. Petersburg and provide fodder to paranormal enthusiast for decades.
In a quiet corner of the apartment's iving room, strewn over a burnt easy chair, lay Reeser's ashen remains. There were teeth and bone, and a small clump of soot that some observers initially took to be the woman's shrunken skull. Reeser, in fact, was so thoroughly immolated, the local press started calling her "cinder woman."
The only part of the woman's zaftig body still intact was her left ankle and foot, which was still wearing an undamaged shoe.
But this fire -- which was hot enough to destroy a human body -- did not destroy several items sitting just a few feet away, including things as flammable as a pile of newspapers. And the only damage to the structure of the house was some charring to the carpet and a layer of soot and grease high on the walls of the room.
Turning to the FBI for answers
Police were stunned. How could this happen? It seemed possible that Reeser could have fallen into a deep sleep from the pills and dropped her cigarette onto the highly flammable rayon acetate nightgown she was wearing.
But how could a cigarette fire destroy a body? Maybe if gasoline or some other accelerant was used it could explain this level of burning. But no such liquid was found at the scene. Some writers at the time quoted the proprietors of a crematory as saying their furnaces reached 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit and still did not completely destroy bone, as was done in the Reeser case.
And even if the fire from a cigarette could get that hot, how could such a roiling blaze fail to spread to the many flammable items sitting just feet away and, ultimately, fail to consume Reeser's home?
With this mystery fueling a firestorm of rumor even hotter than the fire that killed Reeser, St. Petersburg police chief J.R. Reichert turned to the FBI for answers.
On July 7, 1951, he sent a box of evidence from the crime scene to bureau Director J. Edgar Hoover. The package included glass fragments found in the ashes, six "small objects thought to be teeth," a section of the carpet, the surviving shoe and a host of other items that could hold some clue as to the cause of the blaze.
Also included was a note saying: "We request any information or theories that could explain how a human body could be so destroyed and the fire confined to such a small area and so little damage done to the structure of the building and the furniture in the room not even scorched or damaged by smoke."
A human candle wick
The FBI's answer was simple -- though not intuitive. And, ultimately, not everyone accepted it.
The bureau ruled Reeser died from a phenomenon known today as "the wick effect," in which a small simmering fire sparked by something such as a cigarette grows to an intense heat with the body's own fat acting as fuel source.
The fat, in effect, seeps into the victim's clothes and causes the victim to burn like the wick of a Coleman lantern.
This process causes great heat in the immediately vicinity. But the heat only goes straight up, leaving flammable items next to the fire as unharmed as a camper sleeping next to a crackling campfire.
"Once the body starts to burn," the FBI wrote in its report, "there is enough fat and other inflammable substances to permit varying amounts of destruction to take place.
"Sometimes this destruction by burning will proceed to a degree which results in almost complete combustion of the body."
Body fat as fuel
The FBI determined that Reeser's death was a case of an elderly woman who made an unwise decision to fire up a cigarette while waiting for her sleeping pills to take effect.
The cigarette likely toppled out of her mouth and onto her chest, igniting her highly flammable bedclothes. The fire began to smolder, and Reeser likely began to be badly burned. She was so doped up, though, she probably never knew what was going on.
As the blaze grew, the overweight woman's copious fat liquefied and provided the fuel. This turned Reeser into a giant candle in the middle of her living room. The heat rose and scorched the cement ceiling. But the heat, which was intense in the inches near Reeser's body, never spread beyond the vicinity of her body before the fuel was exhausted.
This gruesome scenario, described by FBI scientists nearly 50 years ago, is what skeptics say is the most common cause behind most of the more than a dozen cases of fire death attributed to spontaneous human combustion over the years.
Experiment on a pig
"People wonder how these kinds of things happen," said Dr. John De Haan of the California Criminalistics Institute. "It turns out the subcutaneous body fat of animals is a pretty good fuel. It has about the same caloric content as candle wax."
To test this theory, De Haan recently wrapped an entire pig carcass in cotton and set it on fire. Gasoline was used as an accelerant to mimic a blaze started by a cigarette.
In the test, the pig fat leeched into the cotton and caused the fire to simmer for hours, eventually destroying the pig's entire body. Such decimation of bones happens as the fat fire rises to the 1,700- or 1,800-degree heat of a crematory at the immediate point where it touches bones and sinew. This sort of fire, it turns out, actually does more damage than a flame coming from outside the body, such as in a house fire.
"The elderly, the infirmed and sometimes the inebriated are the ones that are most likely to start an accidental fire in their bedding or clothes ... and then be overcome," De Haan said. "So the fire starts literally near them, but not on them, and then it's the fire from the furnishing that actually gets the process going. By that time they've succumbed."
From 'pyrotrons' to Dickens
Despite the experiments and explanations of scientists, the legend of spontaneous human combustion goes on.
Over the years, it has been attributed to many causes from ball lightening to subatomic particles dubbed "pyrotrons" that SHC believers say get out of control and cause a person to just burst into flames.
In the 1800s, the legend of spontaneous human combustion often was supported by members of the temperance movement, who saw it as a way to scare people off drink. The legend said that too much liquor or beer could soak one's body so completely with alcohol one would become intensely flammable.
Charles Dickens even described such a scene in his novel Bleak House.
"Call the death by any name your Highness will, attribute it to whom you will, or say it might have been prevented how you will, it is the same death eternally -- inborn, inbred, engendered in the corrupted humours of the vicious body itself, and that only -- spontaneous combustion, and none other of all the deaths that can be died."
But despite the theories, and literary heritage of the SHC story, skeptics say that most of cases follow a similar, mundane plotline: An incapacitated, often elderly person (sometimes drunk or on sleeping pills) dressed in flammable clothing or sleeping in a flammable place decides to smoke, or comes into contact with a flame for some other obvious reason.
"What's happening is a lot of people who are putting out the notion of spontaneous human combustion are primarily mystery mongers, and they are in the mystery-mongering business," said Joe Nickell, a writer for Skeptical Inquirer magazine. "They are trying to convince you that if you don't know what the explanation is, therefore it's supernatural, and that is a logical fallacy."
Disputing the wick effect
One investigator who viewed the Reeser case as an unknowable mystery -- and possibly as a case of spontaneous human combustion -- was Dr. Wilton Krogman, who wrote a well-known article in the 1960s disputing the FBI's findings.
According to skeptics, Krogman's was the most common pro-SHC argument: Because there are some unknowable details, and because theories such as the "wick effect" cannot be 100 percent proved because no one ever sees these fire start, then anything could have happened, even the supernatural.
"I find it hard to believe that a human body, once ignited, will literally consume itself -- burn itself out, as does a candle wick, guttering in the last residual pool of melted wax," Krogman wrote. "Just what did happen on the night of July 1, 1951, in St. Petersburg, Florida? We may never know, though this case still haunts me."
But the doctor's article wasn't the only attempt to explain the death.
The FBI file posted here contains numerous notes and letters from the pubic positing theories on how the woman could have died. They came from as far as Oklahoma City, where a welding company worker put his expertise to work just six days after the fire by suggesting to Hoover that an oxy-acetylene torch could have been used.
Another man, from Woodbury, N.J., suggested that an as yet unknown cancer could have made her body temperature rise to over 15,000 degrees.
The file also contains several letters from other police departments that said they had similar cases of what they thought might have been SHC.
Family denies the supernatural
The letters kept coming even after the FBI's findings were reported in the press. Just too many people did not believe the empirical evidence.
This atmosphere wasn't helped by the St. Petersburg police chief himself, who, after the answers came in from the FBI, still said: "This is the most unusual case I've seen during my almost 25 years of police work. ... Since we have had hundreds of suggestions as to how this incident may have happened, I am not closing the door on the case yet."
Reeser's family is also still haunted by her death -- nearly five decades later.
Over the years, they never liked the attention the unusual demise attracted. Her son, Richard, who died about a year and a half ago, had always agreed with the FBI findings and disputed conclusions such as Krogman's.
"My husband always hated all this stuff," Ernestine Reeser, Mary Reeser's 88-year-old daughter-in-law, told APBnews.com. "He tried to tell people that she burned up slowly and naturally and there was no artificial business there. It was just a natural situation, though it was an unusual situation. There wasn't anything supernatural there."
Stacy Horn, an investigator who did her own research talked with a retired fireman who showed up the next morning, after the house had gone down in flames. He is the one and only surviving fireman who showed up on that night. Here is part of her transcript.
I found out all sorts of things, like the fact that some remains were found on Christmas morning (although the family says they were never told this) and also that the oldest son John said he went in and shook his brothers and sisters. The family says he said that out of guilt, because he felt thats what he should have done, which absolutely could be true. But it could also be true that he did exactly what he said he did.
_--- First responses are often the truth. He later changed this story when his parents asked him over and over if he was sure, had he actually seen his siblings in the room. I believe GUILT made him recant. He was probably wondering why he didn't make sure they left the room, wondering why he didn't try to carry them out, why he didn't scream for his father and brothers to help him carry them out of the room. I know why, it's called fear and it is perfectly reasonable that he was frightened. Fire is scary. And if he thought even briefly that they were already dead, and not just passed out, why risk his life and his parents life to carry out nothing more than just bodies?
I found out all sorts of things, like the fact that some remains were found on Christmas morning (although the family says they were never told this) and also that the oldest son John said he went in and shook his brothers and sisters. The family says he said that out of guilt, because he felt thats what he should have done, which absolutely could be true. But it could also be true that he did exactly what he said he did.
_--- First responses are often the truth. He later changed this story when his parents asked him over and over if he was sure, had he actually seen his siblings in the room. I believe GUILT made him recant. He was probably wondering why he didn't make sure they left the room, wondering why he didn't try to carry them out, why he didn't scream for his father and brothers to help him carry them out of the room. I know why, it's called fear and it is perfectly reasonable that he was frightened. Fire is scary. And if he thought even briefly that they were already dead, and not just passed out, why risk his life and his parents life to carry out nothing more than just bodies?
And btw, I lived in New Jersey since the day I was born until I left at the age of 22. I didn't just visit, I grew up there, had friends whose family were in the mob, and my grandma told me all kinds of stories about being a mobster's girlfriend, my dad is the son of a mobster. So there you go. I KNOW a lot of these things. And one of the rules was never to hurt children, or the elderly. They wouldn't have taken things out on a child without there being some sort of retribution, believe me. And 99% of them wouldn't have risked it.
On a side note, why would the family still be looking? Welp, in the transcript of the one woman talking to the fire department, as they said, things change, not the facts but things do change in the mind's of the victims. The parents didn't want to believe John, that he had seen his siblings in their beds, that he had tried to awaken them, they wanted to believe something else.
I think the lack of bones and other body matter fueled what they wanted to believe, and gave them some sort of hope. It is very sad if John ended up lying to his parents, to help ease off some of their pain. If this is the case, than poor John spent the rest of his life, listening to people talking about his siblings, listening to his parents find one new lead after another, and follow up on each one. It must have torn him up inside to know he couldn't tell them the truth, (he already lied to cover up the truth), and to watch them going crazy and chasing lead after lead, after lead, to no avail.
When the story talks about John wanting to let the stories die, not wanting to search with his siblings, I think there has to be a reason. And I think the reason is because John Knew what happened, and knew there was no reason to search. Because he knew the truth.
So there you go, that is what I think. Next step ::: I would like to get in touch with the family. They are going to need a court order. I think the grounds need to be thourghly searched by a team of experts, and I think that any small pieces of bones found need to be examined. Sometimes even a small piece of bone can contain DNA which can than be tested against the surviving members of the family, (the youngest sister would be the best possible match), and see if there is anything left. In my opinion, even finding one child's DNA from the five would be enough to put this to rest. I think it needs to be done. Everyone deserves this mystery to be put to rest.
On a side note, why would the family still be looking? Welp, in the transcript of the one woman talking to the fire department, as they said, things change, not the facts but things do change in the mind's of the victims. The parents didn't want to believe John, that he had seen his siblings in their beds, that he had tried to awaken them, they wanted to believe something else.
I think the lack of bones and other body matter fueled what they wanted to believe, and gave them some sort of hope. It is very sad if John ended up lying to his parents, to help ease off some of their pain. If this is the case, than poor John spent the rest of his life, listening to people talking about his siblings, listening to his parents find one new lead after another, and follow up on each one. It must have torn him up inside to know he couldn't tell them the truth, (he already lied to cover up the truth), and to watch them going crazy and chasing lead after lead, after lead, to no avail.
When the story talks about John wanting to let the stories die, not wanting to search with his siblings, I think there has to be a reason. And I think the reason is because John Knew what happened, and knew there was no reason to search. Because he knew the truth.
So there you go, that is what I think. Next step ::: I would like to get in touch with the family. They are going to need a court order. I think the grounds need to be thourghly searched by a team of experts, and I think that any small pieces of bones found need to be examined. Sometimes even a small piece of bone can contain DNA which can than be tested against the surviving members of the family, (the youngest sister would be the best possible match), and see if there is anything left. In my opinion, even finding one child's DNA from the five would be enough to put this to rest. I think it needs to be done. Everyone deserves this mystery to be put to rest.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 184
The Charleston Gazette
Sunday, Nov 14, 1948
Fayette Family Seeks 5 Children Some Believe Dead
By John G Morgan
Sunday, Nov 14, 1948
Fayette Family Seeks 5 Children Some Believe Dead
By John G Morgan
If so, it's good to meet you. If not sorry, guess I got my lines crossed. Either way, that news article I would like to point out was done years after the fact. The day after the fire, supposedly John had tried to rouse his brothers and sisters, according to a fireman who questioned him.
I have a few questions, I was hoping that some of the family could answer.
1. Is it true, that John was the one sibling who wanted to let things die, and never wanted to speak about the night in question?
2. Did George Sodder have any enemies, besides the known mafia ties, who wouldn't have hesitated hurting the children?
3. I read that a man in town threatened to hurt the children, is this true?
4. Is it possible... And this is going to sound a bit far fetched, and I don't believe it is true, but is it possible at all that George would have hurt his own children? Was he ever abusive as far as anyone knows? And if so, is it at all possible that the children left on their own? Runaways, perhaps?
5. I read in one piece that John Sodder told a grandchild of his that the other children were still alive, and that things were better left alone. Is there any truth to this or is this a lie?
6. Was anything going on, out of the ordinary, before the children either died or disappeared? Any possibility that one of the girls had a boyfriend, could one of them have been pregnant and not told anyone, anyone acting sick or different? Any acts of violence by the boys, did any of the kids get into a fight with another child? If you don't know, can you find out?
7. Could it be possible, that the fire department didn't want the families to see the bodies? Okay... Here is my thought. If the fire department did find bodies, and they were so badly burned, perhaps they believed it would have been kinder to just tell the family there were no remains. Because I think many families would have wanted to see the bodies had they been found, and all I can think is if there was skin left on the bodies, and they were so badly mutilated perhaps the fire dept took it onto there own to spare the family pain, and instead caused a huge mystery. It would explain the cover up of the liver, etc.
Please let me know. And one more thing, I know the family is confused, but it would not hurt to get a court ordered dig of the area, and find out if there is anything left. The sooner the better, and hopefully have it finished while the youngest sister is still alive to be tested against any DNA evidence that might be found. Please let me know if you would be willing to have this done. Our technology is MUCH better than it was in 1945 or even 1949, heck it's even better now than it was in the 1990's. That would be my suggestion. If no evidence is found I will keep looking for you until it is resolved, or I am dead. But please do this just to be sure.
I have a few questions, I was hoping that some of the family could answer.
1. Is it true, that John was the one sibling who wanted to let things die, and never wanted to speak about the night in question?
2. Did George Sodder have any enemies, besides the known mafia ties, who wouldn't have hesitated hurting the children?
3. I read that a man in town threatened to hurt the children, is this true?
4. Is it possible... And this is going to sound a bit far fetched, and I don't believe it is true, but is it possible at all that George would have hurt his own children? Was he ever abusive as far as anyone knows? And if so, is it at all possible that the children left on their own? Runaways, perhaps?
5. I read in one piece that John Sodder told a grandchild of his that the other children were still alive, and that things were better left alone. Is there any truth to this or is this a lie?
6. Was anything going on, out of the ordinary, before the children either died or disappeared? Any possibility that one of the girls had a boyfriend, could one of them have been pregnant and not told anyone, anyone acting sick or different? Any acts of violence by the boys, did any of the kids get into a fight with another child? If you don't know, can you find out?
7. Could it be possible, that the fire department didn't want the families to see the bodies? Okay... Here is my thought. If the fire department did find bodies, and they were so badly burned, perhaps they believed it would have been kinder to just tell the family there were no remains. Because I think many families would have wanted to see the bodies had they been found, and all I can think is if there was skin left on the bodies, and they were so badly mutilated perhaps the fire dept took it onto there own to spare the family pain, and instead caused a huge mystery. It would explain the cover up of the liver, etc.
Please let me know. And one more thing, I know the family is confused, but it would not hurt to get a court ordered dig of the area, and find out if there is anything left. The sooner the better, and hopefully have it finished while the youngest sister is still alive to be tested against any DNA evidence that might be found. Please let me know if you would be willing to have this done. Our technology is MUCH better than it was in 1945 or even 1949, heck it's even better now than it was in the 1990's. That would be my suggestion. If no evidence is found I will keep looking for you until it is resolved, or I am dead. But please do this just to be sure.
I now have read several different versions as to what happened in reguards to the children who died/disappeared and to John Sodder.
Version 1 --- John Sodder left the upstairs in the dark and didn't even know if the children were upstairs or not.
Version 2 --- John Sodder told a firefighter the next morning he had gone into the other children's room and tried to awaken the children, shaking them before going downstairs and out of the home. He later recounted this testimony and stated he just said it because he should have done it.
Version 3 --- John Sodder told a firefighter that he called to the younger siblings on his way downstairs and thought he heard them call back to him. He later recounted this testimony and told them he just said because he should have done it.
Can the family please direct me to which statement is acurate? Did he at first tell the police he had shaken the children, did he not say that and say he called to them and thought he heard a response, or did he say he just left the home and had no idea where these children were?
Version 1 --- John Sodder left the upstairs in the dark and didn't even know if the children were upstairs or not.
Version 2 --- John Sodder told a firefighter the next morning he had gone into the other children's room and tried to awaken the children, shaking them before going downstairs and out of the home. He later recounted this testimony and stated he just said it because he should have done it.
Version 3 --- John Sodder told a firefighter that he called to the younger siblings on his way downstairs and thought he heard them call back to him. He later recounted this testimony and told them he just said because he should have done it.
Can the family please direct me to which statement is acurate? Did he at first tell the police he had shaken the children, did he not say that and say he called to them and thought he heard a response, or did he say he just left the home and had no idea where these children were?
Teresa Larson
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 799
- Reaction score
- 151
The fire couldn't have burned hot enough to cremate the bones There should have been lots of bones and there was none! I asked several fire officials about this and they all said a house fire couldn't have burned hot enough. I also never said the Mafia hurt the children BUT they would have taken them. They already did a search of the ground where the Sodder house sat a long time ago and didn't come up with anything. (read back further in the post)
Taking the children would be the same as hurting the children. This is something the mafia didn't do. Did they kidnap people? Yes, ADULTS. Not kids, that's my point. Believe me, a five year old would cry and cry when she was taken from her parents, and this was not something the mafia was into, at least not back in 1945.
Now, allow me a minute to look at this back post about the second dig, which I believe happened back in 1949 or so.
Now, allow me a minute to look at this back post about the second dig, which I believe happened back in 1949 or so.
First off, as for the above FBI post, it is entirely possible for a fire to burn hot enough to do this. Not in an hour or so, but that fire burned all night, and that is definitly possible. If the FBI admits a woman burned to death with nothing else being touched in her apartment and newspapers being close, it is more than possible for the children's bones to be gone and turned into ash in a fire that burned throughout the entire night and well into the morning.
As the firemen stated, the ground was so hot the next morning they had to pour water on the area before they could even search. Pretty hot if you ask me, to still be hot the next morning when it is a cold day in late December.
As for a second search wasn't that done in like 1949? We didn't have experts like we do today, and I suspect that if a search was done now, by today's experts, they might find something.
Next thing, as to what started the fire, if this was arson and someone deliberatly threw a burning bomb onto the home, welp I think that could generate the heat needed to disentegrate everything.
One thing that does NOT add up, which gives some credence to the theory the children were kidnapped, was the picture supposedly of Louis. At first, I thought you got me there. However I was thinking...
Someone else from the family may have sent the picture TO louis. Not OF Louis. And the number on the back of the photo. A#####, look up the number, it's an area in Sicily. I figure since they are from Italy, a family member may have sent it to the family. Maybe forgot to put in a letter that went with it. The family resemblance would be there, because it would be from someone within the family.
On a side note, for those who do not know, Sodder, The Last Name, WAS changed. When the Soddu's came from Italy, they change their name to Sodder. In fact, I did some extensive research into looking for anyone with the name Louis Soddu, Jennie Soddu, Maurice Soddu, Betty Soddu, or Martha Soddu. Can't find anyone with these names under or even near the same ages of these children. I checked just in case. Nothing.
And what do you think of my idea that the fire department wanted to spare the family the pain of seeing remains? It was reported that some remains were found, and some bone, but the family reports never being told that. Wondering if bodies were withheld for the family's own good, so they wouldn't see the charred remains.
As the firemen stated, the ground was so hot the next morning they had to pour water on the area before they could even search. Pretty hot if you ask me, to still be hot the next morning when it is a cold day in late December.
As for a second search wasn't that done in like 1949? We didn't have experts like we do today, and I suspect that if a search was done now, by today's experts, they might find something.
Next thing, as to what started the fire, if this was arson and someone deliberatly threw a burning bomb onto the home, welp I think that could generate the heat needed to disentegrate everything.
One thing that does NOT add up, which gives some credence to the theory the children were kidnapped, was the picture supposedly of Louis. At first, I thought you got me there. However I was thinking...
Someone else from the family may have sent the picture TO louis. Not OF Louis. And the number on the back of the photo. A#####, look up the number, it's an area in Sicily. I figure since they are from Italy, a family member may have sent it to the family. Maybe forgot to put in a letter that went with it. The family resemblance would be there, because it would be from someone within the family.
On a side note, for those who do not know, Sodder, The Last Name, WAS changed. When the Soddu's came from Italy, they change their name to Sodder. In fact, I did some extensive research into looking for anyone with the name Louis Soddu, Jennie Soddu, Maurice Soddu, Betty Soddu, or Martha Soddu. Can't find anyone with these names under or even near the same ages of these children. I checked just in case. Nothing.
And what do you think of my idea that the fire department wanted to spare the family the pain of seeing remains? It was reported that some remains were found, and some bone, but the family reports never being told that. Wondering if bodies were withheld for the family's own good, so they wouldn't see the charred remains.
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,875
- Reaction score
- 184
Not even remotely. And even if I were, I would not be inclined to answer any of your questions.
Teresa Larson
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 799
- Reaction score
- 151
The family in Italy would have already known that Louis was missing or dead. I am sure even if that was the case the Sodders would have known it was another family members picture. I am sure there has been a few freak times where nothing was left of a person after a fire however there would have had to be some kind of fire excellerant to make the fire burn hotter. The fire at the Sodders wouldn't have been hot enough. Their house could have also been a big one which would have made it possible to burn for a long time. Winter has nothing to do with whether a fire will burn hotter not unless it was snowing very hard or sleeting which would have helped put it out. I also have an older friend that lived and worked in the coal mines many years ago They had to get away because the Mafia was so bad back then. They even had to change their name. When she read this post last year (I sent it to her) The first thing she said was the Mafia took the kids and had the fire set. Her husband worked in the mines 40 years ago. We are not going to agree about any of this You have your theories and I have mine. It's OK lol 
BTW the dig wasn't done that long ago.
BTW the dig wasn't done that long ago.Believe me, I'm not saying it was impossible for the kids to still be alive. I am not following my heart or anything else, I am simply trying to look at the evidence. Right now to me, it seems pretty far fetched. I understand the mafia was bad, I'm certainly not singing their praises. What I am saying is that I do not believe they would take away the kids. And usually, the simplest explanation is the right one. I think we as a society, tend to overthink things, and make mountains out of molehills. One thing I am willing to concede to however, is that it is entirely possible for the mafia to have started the fire. I do not believe the fire was started by faulty wiring. But I don't think the kids were taken alive by the mob.
Here are some things to support that.
First off, I think that no matter what, the kids would have made noise, and lots of it. Perhaps the older children would have kept quiet if there was a gun involved, but there was a five year old child. I think she would have been crying and screaming if someone took her from her bed.
Than there's the fact that no one has heard from these children for years and years and years. Eventually I think that curiousity would have gotten one of them. Someone would have wanted to visit their parent's grave, someone would have wanted to check to see if there were any aunts or uncles or cousins or anything out there, or one of the kid's kids would have come forward asking questions, about their parents growing up in WV, or the kids would have been told of the fire, or something. Curiousity, would get one of them. And don't tell me that keeping them in Italy would have stopped that.
Here are some things to support that.
First off, I think that no matter what, the kids would have made noise, and lots of it. Perhaps the older children would have kept quiet if there was a gun involved, but there was a five year old child. I think she would have been crying and screaming if someone took her from her bed.
Than there's the fact that no one has heard from these children for years and years and years. Eventually I think that curiousity would have gotten one of them. Someone would have wanted to visit their parent's grave, someone would have wanted to check to see if there were any aunts or uncles or cousins or anything out there, or one of the kid's kids would have come forward asking questions, about their parents growing up in WV, or the kids would have been told of the fire, or something. Curiousity, would get one of them. And don't tell me that keeping them in Italy would have stopped that.
- Status