MA MA - Joan Risch, 30, Lincoln, 24 Oct 1961

[Cedars]

As her daughter was not too far from turning five, she was probably old enough accurately report what she saw or didn't see. She didn't see a visitor. So we can probably assume she was hustled across the street before Joan's "visitor" arrived. Joan didn't even give a heads up to the neighbor. This would seem to indicate Joan expected the arrival of someone she didn't want her daughter to see (or just didn't want her daughter involved with in any way). But it also would tend to indicate this was a short-notice visit as she had made no advance plans with the neighbor. Did she not want to have to explain anything to the neighbor? Did she think it would be so brief a visit visit that she'd be back to get the little girls in a few minutes?

I have no memory of whether phone records were checked at the time, but I do seem to recall that back then only long distance calls could be traced after-the-fact. Local calls weren't billed but were instead part of flat fee billing. So it may be safe to assume the visitor was either local or called Joan from a pay phone to let her know he would be coming by.

However, the timing of taking the kids across the street coincides with her strict 2 pm schedule when the baby would wake up from his nap.

We also don't know what the kids were up to, for example, if they'd started bickering over something - a wise mother would distract them by quickly changing their location/play focus, but rushed back so her baby wasn't upset and wailing in his crib. Young kids have no memory about their own behaviour.

I believe this was a genuine homicide/abduction. Experienced police officers, then and now, saw/see an authentic crime scene that ordinary people don't know how to stage. Or even if they studied crime scene photos in grainy tabloids of the day, it is an actual bleeding body that produces certain pools/drips/smears, not a cloth wiping blood around.

JMO

 

[Cedars]

“From the Daily News article: "He [Droney] wanted Harnois and State Police Detective Chief Michael J. Cullinane to question Risch again and to get Mrs. Risch's medical records from Ridgefield, "because certain key persons are not telling all they know." Well, one "key" person who was talking was 4-year-old Lillian Risch. She said "mommy" sent her to the Barkers”

Thank you, Steve H for retrieving this article. I had seen this before, but I was having trouble finding it. Again, I will say that I do not believe Martin Risch had anything to do with the abduction of his wife, Joan. However, I truly believe law-enforcement felt that he was not 100% forthcoming in his information about his wife. I think one of the people Attorney Droney is referring to in the article is Martin. What I’m saying is I believe that he was concerned about her reputation. If there was any negative information about his wife, I believe he was holding that back. I think he was cooperative, but not overly cooperative.

On another note, I don’t know if anyone else picked up on this. Maybe it was the way the transcript of his interviews were translated but for someone who is well learned and a Harvard graduate, I found his interviews and speech patterns, quite stiff and grammatically awkward. For example, I found Martin Risch's answers to some of the police interview questions odd, like the one where LE asked about whether Joan was possibly pregnant and whether that would have been good or bad news. Instead of saying, "She would have been happy or overjoyed" or better WE would have been happy, he answered it in a clumsy manner with a negative sentence structure. "She would not have been unhappy."

Back in the 60's when they had little forensic techniques to go on, LE were stumbling in the dark. Rather sadly, they sometimes used leaks to sensation-seeking tabloid media like the NY Daily News to try to put pressure on people just to see if they could get them to confess.

Imagine today, if police believed a husband knew more than what he he was saying - would they chat about that to the NY Post? If you recall, a prosecutor in Colorada was disbarred because of talking to the media.

IMO, LE had no real leads and were hoping for a miracle. Like the 1959 Clutter family home massacre documented by Truman Capote- LE would probably never have solved it if they hadn't gotten a tip from the prisoner who'd told the killers all about family...

JMO

 

[HarmonyE.]

However, the timing of taking the kids across the street coincides with her strict 2 pm schedule when the baby would wake up from his nap.

We also don't know what the kids were up to, for example, if they'd started bickering over something - a wise mother would distract them by quickly changing their location/play focus, but rushed back so her baby wasn't upset and wailing in his crib. Young kids have no memory about their own behaviour.

I believe this was a genuine homicide/abduction. Experienced police officers, then and now, saw/see an authentic crime scene that ordinary people don't know how to stage. Or even if they studied crime scene photos in grainy tabloids of the day, it is an actual bleeding body that produces certain pools/drips/smears, not a cloth wiping blood around.

JMO

I'm not sure why Joan would have necessarily wanted to bring Lillian across the street just because the baby was crying or ready to wake up, but I suppose it's possible she wanted the kids out of her hair. It's just odd to me that she didn't mention anything to the neighbor about bringing the kids back or when she'd be back for Lillian. Up until her mother's disappearance later that day, she'd never crossed that street alone before and it just seems that quick knock on the door with a "hey, I'll be back for her by 3" would have been the more typical/normal thing to do. It wasn't a busy street, but a potentially very dangerous one for 4 year old to cross on her own and I'd want the neighbor to also know her own kid was back in the yard. The neighbor said she was not immediately aware her son was back.

I don't think Joan left on her own. I do think mental illness of some sort remains a possibility, and something Martin may have been aware of. She'd had a very tough time growing up. And if this happened today and the husband was cleared, I think LE would have spent much more time on the possiblity of a lover. I also think the neighbor girl's and the mailman's sightings of an unknown car - one that the mailman believed he'd seen there days before as well - are potentially very important sightings.

 

[Cedars]

I'm not sure why Joan would have necessarily wanted to bring Lillian across the street just because the baby was crying or ready to wake up, but I suppose it's possible she wanted the kids out of her hair. It's just odd to me that she didn't mention anything to the neighbor about bringing the kids back or when she'd be back for Lillian. Up until her mother's disappearance later that day, she'd never crossed that street alone before and it just seems that quick knock on the door with a "hey, I'll be back for her by 3" would have been the more typical/normal thing to do. It wasn't a busy street, but a potentially very dangerous one for 4 year old to cross on her own and I'd want the neighbor to also know her own kid was back in the yard. The neighbor said she was not immediately aware her son was back.

And yet, later that same day, Barbara took Lillian back across the street, opened the door and just left her there. Otherwise, she'd have discovered the crime scene. Clearly, Barbara had no concerns whatever about something being "off" with Joan's behaviour.

There's an analysis of the evidence by Paul Holes, who was a cold case investigator for years before catching the Golden State killer, so he's very familiar with analyzing crime scenes from this era.

"This does not look like a staged crime scene, at all. This looks like a legitimate crime scene: staged crime scenes are usually very obvious."

The podcasts are long and full of ads, so this links directly to where he comments on the crime scene photos and detailed information:

https://omny.fm/shows/buried-bones-a-historical-true-crime-podcast-with/vanished-pt-2?t=13m1s

13 minutes into Part 2 of Vanished, Buried Bones podcast Oct 30, 2024.

He also talks about the coat hanger, until 15:45, when there's yet another ad.

In general, he favors the theory she was taken away by a vehicle, and says the alleged highway sightings shouldn't be given much weight, since no one actually stopped and helped the woman at the time, leaving them unverified.