Hey everyone. I have been intermittently interested in this case for several years, but have only now done significant research after sharing the story with some friends and getting their feedback. I will state up front that a) I do believe the fire was arson; and b) I do think the missing children survived the fire. In my view, point A is almost indisputable, and point B, while I do believe it, is admittedly up for debate and is far some settled truth. This is also my first post here, so please be gentle.
At this point, I'd say everyone is familiar with the facts of the case, at least if you're posting on this forum. I originally was writing out the entire case summary, but I figured that was a waste of time and text as most of you know what happened. The primary reasons why I believe the fire was most definitely arson and not an accident are the ladder, the cut phone line, and the existence of new wiring in the house for the stove. The ladder was not in its usual position the night of the fire, and rather than being somewhere on the property in a position that indicated recent use but with negligence in replacing it to its spot, it was found at the bottom of an embankment 75 feet away. This is a clear act of sabotage, as it was tossed away in such a manner that the Sodders would not be able to find it in crunch time as they tried to fight the fire and/or rescue the others they thought were inside. When the phone line repairman came, he informed the Sodders that it had been cut through, not burned up in the fire as they had originally believed. This, obviously, would have made it impossible to call for help from the fire department, although they probably wouldn't have done much even if they had been reached. And as for the wiring, it had just been replaced and inspected for the new stove they had installed early that fall. The inspector said that it looked perfectly fine. For these reasons, arson looks extremely likely to me.
In regards to the missing children, the entire debate in my view hinges upon if they ended up making it to bed that night before the fire. If they had indeed made it to their room before the blaze, then I would believe that they died in the fire, as some kind of abductor or kidnapper making their way up a flight of stairs to the kids rooms, and then managing to take all five kids, all the while remaining completely undetected by any of the other family members seems very unlikely to me. But, I don't think this is what happened. The lack of remains found at the site either after the fact or in the 1949 excavation proves this to me. Even if two hours isn't enough time to fully search the rubble, I'm sure a crew of at least four men (George, George Jr, John, and the chief, but probably more since a few other firemen must have come) would have found at least something. They probably didn't just stand around and stare at the pile, I'd imagine they dug through it at least a bit, and four or more men would have likely at least stumbled upon a skull or large bone or something somewhat obvious, even if they didn't have the proper training to know what to look for. A large bone like a femur or especially a skull would have been very obvious, even to the untrained eye. The odds of the fire burning hot and long enough to completely incinerate the kids, including their bones, is unlikely. In a proper cremation, it takes a heat of 2000F over two hours to turn bones to ash, as told to Jennie by the local crematorium. Even then, the remaining bone fragments are often ground into finer powder so they can be spread more easily, and this is after a professional cremation job. This was a wood fire, that actively burned for roughly 45 minutes. Even if you argue it smoldered throughout the night, a smoldering fire would not create the heat needed to completely do away with human bones. Even if you don't accept the initial search, a through excavation was done at the site by George in 1949, with help from the Smithsonian. This search was fine enough to find objects as small as coins and a paper dictionary, but didn't find bones? To me, the only explanation is that there were no bones to find, meaning the kids could not have been in the house as it burned.
I don't think its a coincidence the kids who's fate remains unclear were the same ones allowed to stay up late downstairs to play with their gifts and their supervisors, aside from Marion who was there but fell asleep. I think the kids were either taken, lured, or even convinced to leave from the downstairs sometime between 10 PM when Jennie went to bed and 12:30 AM when the phone rang and she noticed the lights were still on and Marion asleep on the sofa. This would be easier than some here have said it would. They could have had a gun and/or knife flashed at them with the "finger pressed to the lips" gesture for silence; they would have all understood that. Alternatively, someone could have lured them out somehow, whether by promises of Santa, toys, candy, or whatever. Even if you would say that luring a 14 year old like Maurice would be difficult, he could have seen the younger ones be lured and ran after them to try and save them, and then he alone was taken by force once outside. Alternatively, they could have been taken as Maurice and Louis finished their chore of getting the animals in for the night, with the girls in tow. In any event, they had to have been taken with either a light struggle or no struggle at all, or if the struggle took place outside. Otherwise, Marion would have woken up. As others have said, establishing what time Marion fell asleep would be critical in setting up some sort of timeline, as it would narrow the possible window for the kidnapping. So, to establish and clarify, my theory is that the five playing with their gifts were taken or lured out of the home between whenever Marion fell asleep and the 12:30 AM phone call that woke Jennie and caused her to notice the undone chores. This would also explain why the indoor chores were left unaccounted for, as the kids had been removed from the house before they could be completed.
Now, we get to the "why" of the equation. So far, I don't think any of what I've said is all that new, at least some other posters in this thread have put out the same theories as me, if not all together, then in parts. However, this is where I believe I have some new perspectives. When I told this story to my friends, they said they thought the kids had been taken back to Italy to live with George's brother who originally accompanied him on the journey to Ellis Island. While I don't think George's brother was involved, I do think the kids ended up back in Italy after surviving the fire. The photo of "Louis" is key in this. Many have pointed out the numbers on the back of the photo are a postal code for Palermo, Sicily. This is significant. It also is potentially significant that postal codes were introduced to Italy in 1967, and the Sodder's received the photo in 1968. Maybe he was waiting until he was able to give a precise but also subtle location of them, or at least of him. Others have said the photo is a fake, and was not of Louis due to some differences in features. To this, I offer a few rebuttals. First, I believe that parents would instinctively know that kind of thing as some kind of parental instinct. Also, people's features do change as they age, and I believe the man in the photo does bear a significant resemblance to the photo of 9 year old Louis. Lastly, and here's the first part of my theory that is new: what if the photo isn't of Louis, but someone connected to him somehow? What if the man in the photo is rather his brother, Maurice, and it was sent to them by Louis as a way to inform the parents of both of their survivals? What if it is of the man who took them away from the house and was trying to give them a clue toward the perpetrator? That is admittedly a bit of a stretch, but it's within the realm of possibility. In any event, I believe the photo to be genuine, or at least that it came from Louis Sodder and was sent to his parents. After all, he presumably would have remembered his old address even many years later while living a new life. Parents drill their home address into their kids in case they ever get lost, or at least I know mine did, and I bet back then it was even more significant due to the lack of instant communication. Therefore, it is my belief that one or more of the kids ended up in Sicily after surviving the fire, and used the postal code and photo as a clue for their parents as to their whereabouts.
Finally, we ask the question: how did the kids end up in Sicily? This is where I believe my present working theory is most original and will provide the most potential new insight or perspective into this decades old case. As others have mentioned in the thread, many of the immigrants in the Fayetteville area returned to Italy at least once in their adult lives, and some of them periodically. Another key detail to the story is the insurance salesman, and his threat to the Sodder's on account of George talking smack about Benito Mussolini. Many people in this thread, it seems, have interpreted that as George only doing so in the later years of the war, or immediately leading up to the fire. However, the Sodder couple had lived in the area since the early 1920s, right around when Mussolini rose to power in Italy, in 1922. It is not out of the question that George, seeing what was going on over in Italy early on, didn't like what he was seeing, and made that clear to those around him even in the early years of Mussolini's reign. In the 20s, Mussolini was very popular among Italians and Italian immigrants, as he and his party represented a chance at change. Even in my own personal life, I recall a girl I went to school with telling a story about how her grandmother, who was born in and grew up in Italy, still raves about Mussolini very warmly, even in the 21st century. Therefore, many in the immigrant community in the area likely were very enthusiastic about Mussolini, especially in the 1920s and early 1930s before the war highlighted his incompetence and evil for the world to see. Even as he lost the support of the majority throughout the war, it was likely that he still had some diehard support for his party and movement, even after he was deposed from power and executed, and Italy defeated by the Allies. My theory is this. The insurance salesman, still a Fascist sympathizer even after the war had concluded, was angry at George Sodder for speaking out against Mussolini for so long and so loudly. He makes a trip back to Italy, and tells his Fascist buddies about this fellow back in America making a lot of noise against Fascism for two decades, and that he was violating traditions of the Italian people and forbidding his children from speaking Italian or embracing their culture. They decide to teach the guy a lesson, and set to work a plan for burning down his farm and harming his children.
Another angle that has been talked about extensively is the Sicilian Mafia. As many skeptics have correctly pointed out in this thread, Mussolini's Fascist government made it a point to explicitly target and eliminate the influence of the Mafia, as it undermined the power of the government in the areas where the Mafia held significant sway. Mafia personnel also helped Allied troops take back Sicily and Southern Italy from the Germans and the remnants of Mussolini's government. As such, the Mafia would never attack someone on behalf of remarks against the Fascist government. But, I still think they're involved. Here's what my theory is. The Mafia, back in Italy, overhears or otherwise somehow figures out the plan of the Fascist sympathizers to take out the Sodders. Hearing this, and having it go against everything they stand for (pro-Fascism, killing women and children instead of just the man they have the problem with, etc) decided that they will step in. They either travel to America or get in touch with their associates in Fayetteville (which I'm sure there were at least some), and inform them that they will try to do their best and intervene on behalf of the Sodders. They arrive at the house just before the fire, and do their best to rescue all the kids they can. Knowing they might not have had the time or transport space to save everyone, they save the five kids they see still awake playing downstairs, just before the Fascists come and burn down the house. This could also corroborate the eyewitness account of the kids in the car heading away from the blaze. They then go to a motel for the night in nearby Charleston, where they are seen by the waitress. Not wanting to seem suspicious, they snap at her and do their best to silence her. They make it back to Italy, kids in tow, and return to Palermo, a longtime Mafia stronghold. With the kids in their debt for saving their lives from the fire, they integrate them into being part of the Mafia family, telling them either that their parents and siblings were killed in the fire intended to kill them as well, and/or that if they try and reach out to their parents, compromising the family business, they would be in deep trouble. This would also explain the postal code from Palermo, the cryptic letter and photograph, and why the children never reached out to their parents aside from the one photo they got.
I hope you find my new theory plausible, or at the very least entertaining. I also apologize for such a long post, but this story has so much meat on it and so many essential details it's difficult to properly summarize in a concise manner. I look forward to reading new responses.
