VT VT - Lynne Kathryn Schulze, 18, Middlebury, 10 Dec 1971

[carbuff]

I don't even believe there's a serial killer involved. I think she just left.

 

[Zephyranth]

Sure appreciate all your thoughts, folks, so very much, and thanks for the health food store recollections, carbuff.

The story suggesting Durst owned All Good Things, and Lynne shopped there December 10, 1971, was in fact a new lead (as of 2012):

"Bowdish was assigned to the Schulze case in 2012....That was the year the department received a tip from someone saying that Durst had owned a store in town when Schulze went missing, Bowdish said. She refused to say who the tipster was..."

The tip came in July, and for some reason Bowdish then went to interview Allen Israel and showed him pictures of Lynne. Israel stated to a local TV station that "a woman policeman" had interviewed him and that he told her he knew both Lynne Schulze and Robert Durst.

At some point near or after Bowdish took the case (trying to get exact dates) a man came to Ripton asking about a particular property sometimes referred to by its old name, the "Charlie Miller camp." Shortly afterward, the town office received a flurry of outside questions inquiries into whether a Robert Durst had lived at that property, but the town staff never found anyone who remembered Durst. The only person on record saying Durst lived there are the Israels, who also lived there ("...after we moved out, Durst moved in.") The police searched the Charlie Miller property at some point. I don't know how many times or how thoroughly, but in 2015 they did apologize for not having searched it in 1971. This nags at me: why apologize for not searching a specific property? This, and the fact that police are acting certain that Lynne is dead, makes me wonder if they are sitting on forensic evidence, or at least a witness statement to a death.

Since Ripton itself has no record of Durst at the property, and the Israels are the ONLY people saying he was in Ripton, it's possible the story of Durst living at the Charlie Miller camp came from the Israels.

It's also possible, however, that someone else was going to police with a story connecting the Israel's to Lynne, and that in response, they inserted Durst into the equation. Either way, Bowdish interrogated Allen Israel after the 2012 tip.

I do think Lynne's dad's connection to the federal hearings may be meaningful, but may simply explain, for example, why he remained silent about Lynne's disappearance for an awkward length of time.

At the moment, though, I'm more interested in why Allen Israel (or someone) would call police in July 2012 with a new memory that 42 years earlier, on December 10, 1071 at 12:30 p.m., Lynne Schulze bought prunes from a man now realized to be Israel's friend Robert Durst. It's just all a little weird. But what missing person's case isn't, I guess.

 

[carbuff]

If the Dursts were renting from someone, there wouldn't necessarily be a record. Who own

I presume you checked under his wife's maiden name as well?

I would agree that the embarrassment factor might be why Otto kept silent. Also, his profession was anathema to many young college students and might have been a source of conflict and part of the reason she decided to leave.

 

[Zephyranth]

If the Dursts were renting from someone, there wouldn't necessarily be a record. Who own

I presume you checked under his wife's maiden name as well?

I would agree that the embarrassment factor might be why Otto kept silent. Also, his profession was anathema to many young college students and might have been a source of conflict and part of the reason she decided to leave.

Btw, a guy named Vilner, who owned the Charlie Miller property between 1971-1972, the same property police have now apologized for not searching back then--said he knew Durst and that Durst had never lived there.

WHY did police in 2015 then act as if Lynne was deceased, and apologize for not searching the Charlie Miller camp? Clearly they feel something happened there, but according to the owner, whatever happened had nothing to do with Durst.

And yet the buck seems to have stopped at the Charlie Miller camp, as far as police are concerned.

The question now is who was REALLY renting the Charlie Miller property in December of 1971.

 

[carbuff]

Btw, a guy named Vilner, who owned the Charlie Miller property between 1971-1972, the same property police have now apologized for not searching back then--said he knew Durst and that Durst had never lived there.

WHY did police in 2015 then act as if Lynne was deceased, and apologize for not searching the Charlie Miller camp? Clearly they feel something happened there, but according to the owner, whatever happened had nothing to do with Durst.

And yet the buck seems to have stopped at the Charlie Miller camp, as far as police are concerned.

The question now is who was REALLY renting the Charlie Miller property in December of 1971.

True.

Though I'm not sure you weren't right the first time: LE may have just jumped on the "big bad serial killer" bandwagon.

 

[Zephyranth]

True.

Though I'm not sure you weren't right the first time: LE may have just jumped on the "big bad serial killer" bandwagon.

A lot of incentive to do that, I suppose; especially if the real killer had been right under their noses the whole time. Easier to chalk it up to a mysterious drifter who is allegedly such an expert at hiding bodies that he's never been convicted of a single murder, and who may or may not actually have been in Middlebury in December of 1971.

Bowdish, per her own statements, has combed extensively through the Ripton town records; she would have easily found--as others have--that Vilner owned the property, and that Durst had never rented from him.

Yet she and the rest of the Middlebury Police Dept felt compelled to continue focusing on the property. Kind of says it all. It's not about Durst--it's seems it's about the property itself, which means either physical evidence, a credible witness regarding a crime, or both.

 

[Pettibon Junction]

They probably wouldn't have rented to Durst but rather to one of the many, many dummy corporations he's infamous for.

 

[Zephyranth]

They probably wouldn't have rented to Durst but rather to one of the many, many dummy corporations he's infamous for.

In that case, Vilner would be lying, because he claims he knew Durst but that Durst never lived at his (Vilner's) Ripton property, the old Charlie Miller camp.

 

[Alleykins]

Lynne's DNA status is:Sample available-Not yet submitted.

She has dental available
https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/6975/0/

 

[Zephyranth]

Lynne's DNA status is:Sample available-Not yet submitted.

She has dental available
https://www.findthemissing.org/en/cases/6975/0/

Thank you Alleykins, appreciate that link.

DNA samples were apparently taken from her parents in 1992; I wonder if that's what this refers to?

 

[Alleykins]

Thank you Alleykins, appreciate that link.
DNA samples were apparently taken from her parents in 1992; I wonder if that's what this refers to?

It's possible they have a sample but it's not in CODIS? Sometimes the samples are held locally, I believe.

 

[Zephyranth]

Could've sworn the original Burlington Free Press article on Lynne's disappearance, published January 24, 1972, was linked in this thread but can't find it (granted, I'm a bit wiped today!) Here it is, for good measure. One immediate question I have is why the parents' declaration of Lynne's age as 17 years old is ignored by all--all journalists and websites I've read say she was 18. The original article even gives her birthday, February 9, 1954 though I haven't seen a single missing person's site reference that date. Certainly her parents knew her age, and birthdate. The other weirdness is that she is reported by most as being "on the way to her English final exam," when in fact that exam was not scheduled until the following Tuesday, December 14. Lynne allegedly disappeared Friday, December 10 (though some sites report it as Saturday, December 11). The short of it is that I think her parents' original press statement ought to be taken very seriously, when it comes to basic details like this, and it's incredibly weird to me that it seems not to be. View attachment 110187

 

[Zephyranth]

Well, you heard it here first: The tipster's claim that Lynne "bought prunes at All Good Things" is not true.

Because the store was not called All Good Things on December 10, 1971. It was still called OM Natural Health Foods.

Small detail? I don't know. Seems like more revisionist attempt to connect Durst, conveniently, to a disappearance that seems to have happened before he got to town (if in fact he ever did, which I'm starting to seriously doubt).

 

[Zephyranth]

The March 4, 1971 ad for OM actually listed David & Rita Vilner as the proprietors.

 

[Zephyranth]

I have a question into the dean of Middlebury College as to whether exam schedules are available from the 1970s; I think it would be interesting to confirm which exam was being held that day, at what time, etc., mainly because there seems to be such confusion on that point. Another detail nagging at me is Lynne's age; her parents stated to media that she was 17, but in nearly every media source thereafter, she was listed as 18. It could simply be that since her 18th birthday was in February, early media reports would have switched to her then-current age during the most intense phase of the search that first year.

The FBI became involved; I wonder if it's at all possible to FOIA any of those records? I've never initiated a FOIA request before, but would be interested to hear from any of you who have.

 

[Zephyranth]

The Banner's wording makes it completely ambiguous (to my reading) as to whether Lynne left or took several items incl most importantly, the hiking backpack:

"According to Mrs. Erica Wonnacott, Dean of students at Middlebury, the girl left behind in her room all of her clothing and personal effects except what she was wearing, her checkbook and I.D. card and a hiking backpack." (Bennington Banner, January 24, 1972).

My instinct is to read it as "the girl left behind all of her clothing and personal effects except 1) what she was wearing, 2) her checkbook and ID and 3) a hiking backpack."

But legally, it could be translated as "left behind all of her clothing and personal effects (except what she was wearing), her checkbook and ID, and a hiking backpack."

Huge difference.

I continue to think the school was eager to avoid liability, and wanted to emphasize anything showing Lynne might have left voluntarily. My question is whether the school administration was being completely honest. WAS it a hiking backpack, or just a school backpack, for example?

 

[Alleykins]

I took it to mean she left behind everything except what she was wearing, her checkbook, etc, but I see how that could be interpreted two ways.
Not sure what to make of the backpack description, I would hope the word hiking was added to be more descriptive, because there is a difference between them.

 

[Zephyranth]

That's definitely how I read the Banner's initial statement, too. And yet in subsequent stories we have:

"They searched her room and found all of her belongings, including her ID and her checkbook — $30 had been cashed on the day of the exam." (Addison Independent, Aug 2006)

"She left her identification, checkbook and all her personal belongings behind when she vanished." (Charley Project)

"She left behind all of her personal property, including her wallet and sleeping bag." (Doe Network)

Etc.

But the school's statement certainly implies the opposite--that she took her checkbook, ID, and a hiking backpack.

 

[Alleykins]

That's definitely how I read the Banner's initial statement, too. And yet in subsequent stories we have:

"They searched her room and found all of her belongings, including her ID and her checkbook — $30 had been cashed on the day of the exam." (Addison Independent, Aug 2006)

"She left her identification, checkbook and all her personal belongings behind when she vanished." (Charley Project)

"She left behind all of her personal property, including her wallet and sleeping bag." (Doe Network)

Etc. But the school's statement certainly implies the opposite--that she took her checkbook, ID, and a hiking backpack.

Yes, it does, so it makes me wonder if the other sources read it the opposite of the way we did due to the ambiguity of the original statement. I guess we would have to look at the original source, which, I'm assuming would either be the police report and/or the one from the school.

 

[carbuff]

In the 70's, there weren't many backpacks designed for school use, and the ones that were generally appealed to younger students and were generally rather flimsy, so many if not most older students used a regular hiking backpack. (In this part of the world, it was likely an LLBean pack. Or JanSport. Or left over from Girl Scouts.)

I notice another article mentioned a sleeping bag. Makes it sound like she was an outdoors type. Not significant, just gave me a sudden glimpse into her personality.