I need to take the time to read back through all the Sodder case threads here. I can't do it right now tho. Three years ago, I was not a member here and could not use the search function. As the the discussion threads closed here, I was unable to find the link to thread #3 at the time, and here we are now on thread #4. This is what I wrote on another discussion forum after a WS member there gave me the links so I could read all the info that had been posted up to that time (december 2011), and I still didn't know where I'd read the info that the house had coal burning stoves. I'm hoping to read through all the threads and links here at WS and see if that's where I got that info.
---
I think the children probably died in the fire.
I wanted to know why no remains were found, since a house fire is unlikely to destroy every sign of them. I did learn that children's bones don't take as much time and heat to disintegrate as those of an adult. Their bones aren't as dense so less remains in a fire would not be unusual. But other house fires have left very large amounts of remains so this would all depend on the circumstances.
I found (can't remember where) information that said the Sodder house was heated with two coal stoves. Coal burns very hot, and depending on the circumstances, could greatly reduce the amount of remains. For example if coal was stored in the basement, then the house with the children's bodies inside collapsed into the basement, then the house was left to burn all night (as it was, since the fire department opted to sit this one out), the bodies would then be in close proximity to the very hot burning pile of coal for hours. I can see where this could have been what happened.
On top of that info, there is no doubt there was planted evidence and a poorly conducted initial search. [During the second search in 1949, they did not screen for small bone fragments or teeth, as they should have, imo, as it seems they were only looking for large portions of remains.] I don't think there were a lot of remains left, maybe teeth and fragments of the larger or more dense bones. After nearly a week of no officials inspecting the site, after promising they would, Mr. Sodder bulldozed over what was left of the house, with the children inside, and made a burial site.
I don't believe the sighting of a child or all the children watching the fire from a taxi. [It had been mentioned in another thread here at WS that some bar patrons heard about the fire, got into a taxi, and drove out to the house to watch it burn.] And I have to discount the sightings of the children after the fire.
These sightings by motel clerks (sighting of one child and of four children) and in FL, someone over hearing a person in a TX border town call another "maurice sodder", etc, were reported way after the fact and done by people who had never met the children.
The photo of the NY school girl in a magazine, as seen by Mr. Sodder, is a look alike, imo. The children were 100% italian, both their parents were born in italy. NY has a huge italian population. Dark haired, dark eyed little girls pictured in black and white photographs can look very much alike.
The photo of "Louis Sodder" sent to the family in 1968 is probably a hoax. A detective magazine had just done a story on the case and within months, the photo is mailed to Mrs. Sodder. It may have been an attempt to help or it may have been a cruel prank, but IMO, it was instigated by the magazine article.
The stories of the mafia or relatives kidnapping the children due to feuds or business intimidation are gossip, imo. If the mafia wanted to intimidate Mr. Sodder, there are better ways than to abduct 5 of his children.
The stories of the children being shuffled off to Italy are also just gossip, imo. IIRC, those stories got started after the billboard went up several years after the fire. IMO, Italy had just come out of a devastating war and those folks were having enough trouble taking care of their own without importing 5 children to feed, clothe, and house. Not to mention the amount of travel required to move the kids half way around the world in the winter. Such an act would have required a network of conspirators, getting the kid's birth certificates and any other papers required for travel and immigration into a foreign country. These kids were all americans, all born in the US. Their only ties to Italy were their parents' extended family. There would be a lot of work involved in getting them out of the US and into another country. Why would someone do that?
Next is the theory that they were kidnapped by an illegal adoption ring. Some, if not all, of the kids were too old for that, and what a weird night to be stealing kids: very cold, high winds, christmas eve, and taken straight from the house while the parents were home. I believe there would have been better opportunities than this one, if illegal adoption kidnappers wanted these kids. Adopting out the older kids for labor might have happened, but again, right after WWII, I think people were just doing their best to take care of themselves without taking on little kids as "labor". Only the 12 y/o girl and 14 y/o boy would be useful for this purpose. The other children would probably be a financial burden until they got older.
The source of the fire, IMO is arson. I don't think it could have been the wiring, even though it's suspected. The family had their wiring recently changed with the installation of a new electric stove and there'd been a strange man commenting on their fuse box a few days prior to the fire. BUT, if the wiring had been at fault, the lights wouldn't have been on in the house, and the house stayed lit, which is how the family was able to get out.
There were corrupt local politics in town and unions/mob/coal wars were going on. At least one man made threats against the family, and then there's the guy who cut the phone line and was stealing equipment the night of the fire. All these could have been situations that resulted in an arson.
I think the intent was to burn down the house with the whole family inside, but some of them escaped. IMO, the best suspect is the thief, who admitted to cutting their electric lines. He only cut the phone line by mistake. (I have no idea why this doofus didn't notice that he'd cut the wrong wires. Cutting live power lines at the top of the pole would have electrocuted him. Maybe he lied and meant to cut the phone line all along, so they couldn't call for help.)
If the thief wasn't an arsonist, what is the likelihood that all these events come into play? It's christmas eve, a monday night, the family's home accidentally catches on fire (or is firebombed by enemies) and in the middle of the night, in this bitterly cold weather, with the house blazing, this man happens by, cuts their phone line, and starts hauling stuff out of the garage?
Now, if the scenario was that the house was on fire, it drew a crowd, and he took the opportunity to steal while everyone's attention was on saving the kids/watching the fire, I could see where he wouldn't be the arsonist. But he cut their phone lines and stole from them. He planned to be there, it wasn't a crime of opportunity.
