WI WI - Evelyn Hartley, 15, La Crosse, 24 Oct 1953

Evelyn was supposedly 5-7 and 126# and wore size 16 jeans as per Charley Project. Talk about size inflation! She would probably wear something like a size 4 in today's vanity sizes. At any rate, she was a woman size girl going by that description and I would think could have put up quite a fight.

It also says she wore a 34-36 (bust measurement I believe) blouse so we are talking near model proportions here.

Claudette said:

If he was far enough away and the lighting was bad he probably wouldn't see the blood imo

Click to expand...

But I wonder if that would be true under scheie's scenario:

"She escapes out the basement window (possibly with stab wounds in her back and legs), and is disoriented, rapidly losing blood, possibly about to faint or lose consciousness, she steadies herself from falling leaving a bloody handprint on a house, while she zig-zags across the yards. The attacker(s) leave the house, and pursue and capture her. She is seen by a witness being taken by two people to a car and then being driven from the area."

Evelyn would be covered in enough blood that I'd think anyone would notice. Remember, she was wearing a white blouse at the time.

The idea of Evelyn climbing out the basement window to get away sure makes more sense than the perp(s) carrying her out that way, I have to admit.

Ok, I am new here, but I spent the last week re-reading all the threads about Evelyn Hartley, and I have a couple of points. My theory is this:

(A) No one seems to really consider the fact that Mr. Rasmusen was a college professor who may have inadvertently confirmed for a shady student that he intended to be at the home-coming game and not at home. TA’s and such may have been aware of the Prof’s personal plans for that evening. A college-age student would be more likely to have access to a vehicle as well. Lie-detector tests were only given to Evelyn’s classmates, not the students of the professor. Perhaps he had a not-so-nice student or one hard up for money.

(B) Also, the issue of lights being on: It is possible that as they tried to break into different houses, they didn’t notice the light on or just figured the owners left the lights on when they went out. I leave lights on when I am not home. Perhaps they peeped in the window and Evelyn was using the restroom. The house would have appeared empty. Also, the radio could not have been that loud as there was a sleeping baby in the other room. Which brings up the point that I think it is interesting Evelyn’s father knocking on doors and ringing the doorbell didn’t wake the baby up.

(C) Another idea to consider is that perhaps the burglar was already in the basement when the family left and he may have thought the entire family was gone, not realizing their babysitter was there. The documentation I have read states that Mr. Rasmusen picked up Evelyn that night. Perhaps the perp. saw him leave and thought the house would be empty, climbed in the window, and was surprised to find that the wife and kids were still home. Soon Mr. Rasmusen returns with Evelyn, there is a brief period of sound, the radio goes on softly, the car drives away, and all gets quiet. At this point the burglar thinks he is alone and makes a noise which Evelyn goes to investigate. At that time she is surprised by the burglar (or perhaps he was startled by her) in the basement and is chased back up the stairs. This is when she loses the first shoe. She bolts for the front door, struggling with the man who has, by now, caught up to her in the living room. She loses her second shoe, has her glasses broken, and begins bleeding in the struggle, but is still able to get out the front door and begins to try to outrun the intruder while screaming. It is at this time, the second perp, who was waiting for the first to let him in the locked house, cracks her over the head with an object, likely the one he used to try to pry the windows that were locked (the neighbor’s house and the bedroom window) taking her completely by surprise. They don’t re-enter the house, but just take her to their car and drive away.

(D) Also, has anyone considered that Evelyn had babysat for this family before so she had some experience with the front door lock? Perhaps she even had a similar style lock on the front door of her own home. It may be complicated for one not familiar with it, but not so much if you use that style every day. It being self-locking does not eliminate the possibility of her exiting that way. In fact, her father exited that way and the door locked behind him.

(E) Another point I have been thinking about: In a documentary from the 1980s you can watch on YouTube, police stated that Evelyn had been laying/laid beside a building for a period of time (long enough for a significant pool of blood to form) before again being moved on. I hypothesize that the perp. that Evelyn encountered in the house did not have a plan to kill Evelyn, but as she ran from the home screaming in an attempt to draw attention to her situation perp #2 hit her with something. I believe he hit her so hard that they felt they had no other choice but to take her with them. Not premeditated at all, but an act of desperation when things spiraled out of control. I can picture them in my minds-eye arguing over what to do with her and the stronger willed of the two winning the argument that they had to finish her, as the case may be, because they had wounded her so badly. I think this was an incident that spun out of control quickly and dire consequences.

Opinions?

Okay. Two days and 516 posts later - I'm caught up.

Something similar happened in MO/KS over the past weekend. Guy got messed up on drugs, knew of a girl he wanted to rape, went to rape her and ended up killing her and her sister. After killing them he left the one girl, Britny's two babies in a crib and took there bodies to a field to dispose. Left a ton of blood.

Anywho, this got me thinking. So a few opinions first:

1. I keep reading that she wasn't "wounded" in the house. Says who? Just cause there's no blood doesn't mean she wasn't hurt/wounded. If someone sucker punched me I'd feel pretty wounded!

2. In regards to the babysitting - it sounds to me like this is a dead end. Really seems like she was nothing more than a back up to the regular babysitter. Perhaps the regular babysitter was asked to homecoming last minute and that's why Evelyn stepped in. She'd babysat before so the Rassmusens (sorry if that's spelled wrong) would be comfortable with her and it's be an easy switch.

3. It sounds like Professor R was at least semi-involved in the community/college. More than likely they used their regular babysitter often enough. A big thing like the college game anyone who knew him would know that the chances were in favour that he'd be at the game.

4. I grew up in a small town and homecoming/football games were much more than that. They were events for the whole family.

5. About the window - in highschool I had a boyfriend who lived in the basement of a 1950s ranch style house. I climbed in and out of that thing more times than I'll ever admit. In the middle of the night/after school/all the dang time. I was 5'6" and 125 lbs in highschool. So close to her height/weight. Never had a problem. Just slid in and he'd catch me. Or he'd push me up and I'd pull out. Having her leave through the window actually seems kind of smart to me.

6. Throwing the clothes out the window: lack of thought. Once I was given this note from a guy that was really embarrassing and I tossed it out the window of my friend's car as we sped down the highway. My thought was just to get rid of it. Out of sight/out of mind. Plus when you're skyrocketing down a highway/rural road you don't think of people going slow enough to see what you through out.

7. Dad thinking blood was from her period. Yeah, that's gross but I could see my dad thinking the same thing. While he's aware of periods and whatnot I could see in the heat of the moment and seeing the blood him trying to grasp for any reason that the blood would be there. Especially if violence isn't something he'd be expecting.

8. Why nobody reported the jacket. I am betting that if this guy was willing to do this to Evelyn then if he did have a wife (which he probably did) she didn't have a good life. She was probably scared and used to violence from him. What if she reported the jacket and it wasn't his? Imagine the punishment for embarrassing him like that. Or what if it was? Most women back then didn't work - what if they had kids? How would she support herself or their kids? And finally - imagine the social embarrassment. It's much easier to turn a blind eye than to shine a spotlight on yourself like that.


With that in mind, here's what I think happened:

{For purposes of this scenario I'm calling the perps Larry and Moe}

Larry and Moe are out getting drunk somewhere. They get it into there head that they're going to rape someone. Knowing that the homecoming and football game is going on Larry mentions that he knows this guy who he thinks would be going and that he'd probably have a babysitter watching his youngest.

They get to the house at/around the time when Mr. Rasmusen and his family are departing. Upon inspecting the property they see Evelyn. Unfortunately they can not get in as the doors/windows are locked -- except one. (in my mind I picture Larry as older, less agile and perhaps a little hefty than Moe) Larry instructs Moe to go retrieve Evelyn and they'll take her elsewhere, rape her and leave her to find her own way home. Larry gives Moe a switchblade to threaten her with.

Moe enters with ease, surprises Evelyn. Evelyn puts up a fight so he punches her in the stomach, eye, somewhere that will surprise her/knock the wind out of her but wont cause her to bleed. He shows her the knife and demands that she exit through the window since that's where Larry is waiting. Evelyn being scared complies with the hope that if she behaves she wont be hurt. However once she climbs out the window and sees Larry and has a better idea about how much trouble she's in. This is the point where she screams -- what was it 3 times? 2 and a half? While she's screaming either Moe stabs her in the side/stomach (don't want to stab too high or too low as they still have hopes of rape). Maybe Larry punches her in the face as well. So she's bleeding and injured. They threaten to hurt her further if she does anything else to attract attention.

At this point Mr. X sees two men assisting Evelyn to their car. Being that she's not crying or screaming he probably just glanced their way. Can you blame him? Not really. I've seen drunk people all the time and all I do is glance and shake my head. Even if she was bleeding it was dark and I'd have just assumed it was vomit. Perhaps she vomited as well.

So they get her in the car and their driving down the main road to LaFarge. My guess is that they had her in the backseat and finally had a chance to see how much blood was all over them. So Larry (who I'm picturing in the back seat with Evelyn because he's an eager beaver) tosses his jacket out the window. Then he rapes her. They pull over to switch places and this is where the tennis shoes get tossed out in addition to her bra and panties -- because I mean, honestly, why take off those things unless you're going to have sex with her? Maybe she gets raped again. Probably not. I see Moe as being in over his head and regretting this already.

I also picture these men as the blue collar type. Construction workers.. hunters.. men of the land. I'm guessing once they realized she's dead they drag her out into the woods and leave her. Probably near LaFarge since they didn't search that far out. I'm guessing she was eaten by wildlife and her bones where scattered and probably still there today.

Several years later when Moe has distanced himself from Larry and is known as harmless drunk he starts telling his tale of the biggest regret in his life. Only nobody takes him seriously.

---

That's all I've got. But I just wanted to say to MaryLiz, JoelleGirl, PunkLuv, Richard, DocWho, Mariyln and I know I'm missing someone or two - it's been a pleasure reading through the 8 or so years that you've been posting on this thread. It's hard not to consider you all friends!!

--Leah

mrsfauller said:

Okay. Two days and 516 posts later - I'm caught up.


8. Why nobody reported the jacket. I am betting that if this guy was willing to do this to Evelyn then if he did have a wife (which he probably did) she didn't have a good life. She was probably scared and used to violence from him. What if she reported the jacket and it wasn't his? Imagine the punishment for embarrassing him like that. Or what if it was? Most women back then didn't work - what if they had kids? How would she support herself or their kids? And finally - imagine the social embarrassment. It's much easier to turn a blind eye than to shine a spotlight on yourself like that.

Click to expand...

I agree, and getting a visual on the jacket would have been much more difficult in those days than it would be now. Not everyone had a TV. As you've said, perp's wife probably didn't lead an easy life. She might not have even known there was anyone looking for the owner of the jacket. Of course, she would know that her husband was missing his jacket, but she didn't dare question him about it. Or if she did, he bullied her into silence.

and

Welcome to WS mrsfauller! We're glad you're here!

Educ8rkids said:

Not premeditated at all, but an act of desperation when things spiraled out of control. I can picture them in my minds-eye arguing over what to do with her and the stronger willed of the two winning the argument that they had to finish her, as the case may be,

Click to expand...

I agree that this wasn't premeditated.

I also think that once they got Evelyn outside, one of them threw his denim jacket around her shoulders to 'cover her up' and so no one would notice the blood or her injuries as they 'walked' her down the street. I think that's why the blood wasn't noticed by Mr. X.

and

Welcome to WS educ8rkids! We're glad you're here!

FindingJoanieHall said:

Bothers me a lot the family won't give dna. Doesn't poor Evelyn deserve to perhaps be identified & buried with dignity if ever found? I just do not understand begrudging their sibling this.

Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this.

From everything I've read and learned about the family, they are very loving and supportive of each other.

There is probably a very compelling, and personal, reason the family will not provide DNA samples.

FindingJoanieHall said:

Bothers me a lot the family won't give dna. Doesn't poor Evelyn deserve to perhaps be identified & buried with dignity if ever found? I just do not understand begrudging their sibling this.

Click to expand...

SBM

FindingJoanieHall, do you have a link to the article about the Hartley family not giving DNA? I have never heard that and would like to read what is said.

Thanks.

Someone asked upthread why Evelyn's sanitary pad was not found with her panties since she was on her period. As someone from the generation before stick-on pads, let me tell you about sanitary belts. Back then sanitary pads were not stuck to panties as they are today. Women had to wear elastic belts with clips that held the pads in place. (They were a misery! I hope whoever invented the modern style is very rich, because he/she deserves it!)

It would be quite possible, therefore, for the underwear and pad to end up in completely different places.

I don't know why that there is so much debate about this case. Read Judge Gollmar's book about the Ed Gein case. He makes it perfectly clear that Gein was responsible for the kidnapping and murder of this girl.

In addition to the fact that Gein was visiting just two blocks away on the night of the crime only two teenaged (private parts) were found in his house. There were only two teenage missing girls at that time in history (anywhere near Wisconsin) and he makes a pretty good argument that one of the (private parts) belonged to Evelyn.

Falcon500 said:

I don't know why that there is so much debate about this case. Read Judge Gollmar's book about the Ed Gein case. He makes it perfectly clear that Gein was responsible for the kidnapping and murder of this girl.

In addition to the fact that Gein was visiting just two blocks away on the night of the crime only two teenaged (private parts) were found in his house. There were only two teenage missing girls at that time in history (anywhere near Wisconsin) and he makes a pretty good argument that one of the (private parts) belonged to Evelyn.

Click to expand...

Gein went for already deceased and/or older women. Also it is very likely more than 2 were missing in the area, they probably were not reported missing. Communications were VERY different in the 50s. Think about how many are missing from one state right now - it wouldn't be that significantly different. Can you paraphrase the arguments? I am interested in the theory.

Claudette said:

Gein went for already deceased and/or older women. Also it is very likely more than 2 were missing in the area, they probably were not reported missing. Communications were VERY different in the 50s. Think about how many are missing from one state right now - it wouldn't be that significantly different. Can you paraphrase the arguments? I am interested in the theory.

Click to expand...

As you probably know Gein collected body parts from his murder victims and from bodies that were dug up. There were vulvas all over the place. Two vulvas were those of teenage girls. No teenage girl had been buried anywhere near Gein's town during that time. Since he was visiting a couple blocks away at the time of the disappearance of Ms. Hartley and the vulva of a teenage girl was found in his house Judge Gollmar was convinced that Gein had killed her and her body parts were in Gein's house.

Today it would be a simple matter of doing DNA testing to find out whose body parts were in that house. In the 1950's in that rural area hardly any testing was done and the body parts were eventually disposed of.

In my thinking Ms. Hartley was most certainly murdered by Gein.

I'd like to know how it could be determined that a deteriorated vulva came from a teenager or a 50 year old woman. We had an unidentified woman found here several years ago who was described as being in her 30s but when she was identified it was found that she was 14 (and that was a whole recently deceased body in a more recent time).

STANDREID said:

I'd like to know how it could be determined that a deteriorated vulva came from a teenager or a 50 year old woman. We had an unidentified woman found here several years ago who was described as being in her 30s but when she was identified it was found that she was 14 (and that was a whole recently deceased body in a more recent time).

Click to expand...

The judge doesn't go into that but I would assume that a doctor specializing in that kind of thing can tell the difference between a fully formed vulva of an adult and that of a teenager.

By the way the "judge" that I am talking about is the judge who presided at his trial and sanity hearing. He also visited Gein in the nut house several times after he was convicted. He was privy to information that was not made public and took a great interest in both Gein and his victims. He was convinced that Gein had bodies all over and that some were buried on his farm but no attempt was ever made to find them.

STANDREID said:

I'd like to know how it could be determined that a deteriorated vulva came from a teenager or a 50 year old woman. We had an unidentified woman found here several years ago who was described as being in her 30s but when she was identified it was found that she was 14 (and that was a whole recently deceased body in a more recent time).

Click to expand...

I agree. I haven't read the book, so I don't know everything which went into making this theory "perfectly clear," but for me it would need to be more than the sexual organ to be convinced. I'm not a doctor, but I'm quite skeptical that a reasonable identification of age could be made from only dried tissue, particularly a vulva.

As for the claim that no other young women were missing in that area...is there some reason to believe the vulvas were able to be dated precisely enough to determine when the tissue was initially removed from the victim? As previously mentioned, people in all eras have gone missing without notice or report. Even with all the "Big Brother" "high-tech" world we're in, people vanish. I can't imagine it was different in the fifties.

I don't know a whole lot about Gein...I find him so particularly scary that I haven't delved much into his crimes...might have to check out that book if I'm brave enough.

In any case, I'm always hopeful when I see Evelyn's thread at the top, and appreciate everyone's posts.

Just reading the reviews on amazon was creepy enough. Not on kindle, for anyone else who wondered.

flourish said:

I agree. I haven't read the book, so I don't know everything which went into making this theory "perfectly clear," but for me it would need to be more than the sexual organ to be convinced. I'm not a doctor, but I'm quite skeptical that a reasonable identification of age could be made from only dried tissue, particularly a vulva.

As for the claim that no other young women were missing in that area...is there some reason to believe the vulvas were able to be dated precisely enough to determine when the tissue was initially removed from the victim? As previously mentioned, people in all eras have gone missing without notice or report. Even with all the "Big Brother" "high-tech" world we're in, people vanish. I can't imagine it was different in the fifties.

I don't know a whole lot about Gein...I find him so particularly scary that I haven't delved much into his crimes...might have to check out that book if I'm brave enough.

In any case, I'm always hopeful when I see Evelyn's thread at the top, and appreciate everyone's posts.

Click to expand...

:goodpost:

Although anything is possible, I have never felt Gein was connected to this case. While it is true he was in La Crosse the evening Evelyn disappeared, based on his other crimes I just don't see this being Gein's work. JMO

But it's great to have new ideas to discuss, and I always keep an open mind on this case.

Today marks 59 years since Evelyn forever vanished into the night. It appears we do not seem to be any closer knowing what happened than we were that night.

I am also curious as to why the Hartley family hasn't submitted DNA for testing against any bodies that may be found....I am truly disturbed by that and can't understand why they wouldn't want answers!! I would be giving DNA to everyone if it finally meant getting answers to what happened to my little girl! Totally in left field, but could there be a chance that Evelyn was not their biological daughter??

Shamrocker99 said:

I am also curious as to why the Hartley family hasn't submitted DNA for testing against any bodies that may be found....I am truly disturbed by that and can't understand why they wouldn't want answers!! I would be giving DNA to everyone if it finally meant getting answers to what happened to my little girl! Totally in left field, but could there be a chance that Evelyn was not their biological daughter??

Click to expand...

There's a chance but it's her siblings that don't want to give dna, her parents passed - remember they were probably in their 40s or 50s in 1953. You can tell though that she's related to them, they all look alike in their newspaper pictures! All tall and willowy with dark hair and very similar facial features.