IL IL - Stanley Skridla, 28, & Mary Jane Reed, 17, Oregon, 1948

[MaryLiz]

Wow... this case is just so strange. The comments under the article are interesting, too.

Horner was the coroner at the crime scene who was quoted in the articles back then, but I read last night that he worked at Unger funeral home, so I was wondering why it was his case since she was buried by Farrell funeral home. This article explains it since Horner didn't do the autopsy.

I know they tried to get DNA from her clothes during the most recent autopsy, but does anyone know whether they tried to get DNA from the skull? Maybe they could do facial reconstruction, but DNA testing would be even better.

This case is beyond strange...and the more I read, the stranger it gets. I read those comments underneath the Sauk Valley article I posted last night...The guy who is ex-mayor, Mike Arians, has a mannequin to symbolize Mary Jane at his place of business? Now I'm starting to really wonder about the wrong skull theory, especially if it started with Arians. According to William Tremble, the former Oregon mortician, her body was intact WITH her skull when they picked her up to take her to the funeral home. So if the wrong skull got in the casket, it had to have happened either at the autopsy or at the funeral home when they embalmed her....which makes no sense at all.

In the combined articles that you posted, birdie, there was a picture of a huge mural-sized drawing of Mary Jane on a wall at Mike Arians' restaurant. I remember seeing that picture a long time ago when I first started reading about this case. It sounds like he is really obsessed with Mary Jane, and maybe not so much with solving the case itself. I don't doubt that he wants to see the case solved but every time I hear of another "shrine" he has made in her honor, I have to wonder, especially with locals who know what is going on making comments like they did below that article.

 

[birdie74]

I agree with you about the skulls and Arians. It's possible that it's someone else's skull, but that would mean such a huge conspiracy that I don't find it probable.

 

[birdie74]

...13 minutes of the audio on a recording of that autopsy are missing.

...moments before the officer hits the off button, an examiner sees what could be critical evidence. "The examiner turned to the detective in charge of the case and said, 'I've never seen this before, this is unusual. I can't turn this over.'"

If it was Mary Jane's skull there during the official 2005 autopsy, I wonder what this statement was about.

 

[kline]

Here's an article from January 2008 that I never saw before. In this article, a retired Oregon mortician disputes the fact that the skull found in the casket was not Mary Jane Reed's. Also, at the bottom it says Stanley Skridla's car was found near the corner of State Route 2 and West Pines Road. But it said the car was earlier seen parked in a local lover's lane on County Farm Road.

Oregon Man Calls Reed Skull Switch Idea 'Ridiculous'

SHAW NEWS SERVICE

OREGON - The idea that the skull in Mary Jane Reed's casket belongs to anyone but her is "ridiculous," said a retired Oregon mortician who helped remove the body of the murdered 17-year-old from a ditch along Devil's Backbone Road.

More at link...


http://www.saukvalley.com/articles/2008/01/03/news/local/30601127851129.txt

So...this would have been the same Mortician who decided to take the cloths that her family provided for burial wrap them in newspapers featuring headlines about the murder and jam them in the burial vault and bury her in the same cloths her bleeding body had lain in a ditch all night with.
Well,im certainly glad such a unimpeachable source came forward to straighten everyone out on this missing skull nonsense...

 

[MaryLiz]

So...this would have been the same Mortician who decided to take the cloths that her family provided for burial wrap them in newspapers featuring headlines about the murder and jam them in the burial vault and bury her in the same cloths her bleeding body had lain in a ditch all night with.
Well,im certainly glad such a unimpeachable source came forward to straighten everyone out on this missing skull nonsense...

LOL! I agree...Now that you mention it, and I reread the article, it said the "he was 25 at the time and working for his brother, the local funeral director." So this William Tremble may not have been a mortician at the time. But it could have been him or his brother who stashed the clothes in there as they were probably the only two there at the funeral home. I completely forgot about the clothes because it wasn't mentioned in the article. But you're right, after considering who could have put those other clothes in the casket, William Tremble is coming off as less than a credible source too. Unfortunately, there aren't too many credible sources in this case at all!

She was buried from Farrell Funeral Home and I'm assuming that was the only one there since it said she was taken to by the local funeral director? I think that was brought up once before but I can't find it.

 

[birdie74]

Kline, you're right that the mortician and local authorities seem very suspicious, but I'm also suspicious of Arians now, so I don't know how to sort out the facts. I wonder whether we could get in touch with Mary Jane's brother and see whether he would want to join WS and help us straighten out the facts. He might be advised not to because of the investigation, and I'm sure there's a lot he couldn't reveal because of the judge's order to keep parts of the case and certain names private, but it might be worth a try.

 

[MaryLiz]

Kline, you're right that the mortician and local authorities seem very suspicious, but I'm also suspicious of Arians now, so I don't know how to sort out the facts. I wonder whether we could get in touch with Mary Jane's brother and see whether he would want to join WS and help us straighten out the facts. He might be advised not to because of the investigation, and I'm sure there's a lot he couldn't reveal because of the judge's order to keep parts of the case and certain names private, but it might be worth a try.

That's a good idea, birdie. I'm suspicious of just about everyone involved in this now except for Mary Jane's brother.

There's the possibility of the wrong skull in the casket, the extra clothes in the vault wrapped in newspapers containing headlines about Mary Jane and Stanley's murder - and then - I forgot to mention in my post above, those 13 lost minutes on the audio tape. And don't forget the fact that the Sheriff didn't want Mary Jane's brother to exhume the body in the first place.

From an article originally printed in the Freeport, IL Journal-Standard:

"Ogle County State's Attorney Ben Roe said the exhumation has been pending for quite some time. It was originally ordered back in April 2004, but then a motion to intervene was filed on behalf of the county sheriff and coroner. Deborah Ellis, the state's attorney at that time, filed the motion, arguing that the case is an open murder investigation and the county has jurisdiction".

If Mary Jane Reed WAS involved with a high-ranking member of the Sheriff's Dept in 1948, I suspect the motion was filed for reasons other than jurisdiction.

 

[MaryLiz]

Here is another new short article from 13 News in Rockford

http://www.wrex.com/Global/story.asp?S=8960989

 

[birdie74]

When I first started reading the comments and articles about Arians, I was thinking that once the skull and bones were released from official custody to Mr. Reed for private testing, that maybe Mr. Arians switched the skulls before they were tested. I figured he might have kept it as some strange souvenir or to add a weird twist to the story to help his movie deal. I think I was wrong about it though.

After being reminded of all the strange things on the other side I think they still outweigh my doubts of Arians. Also, since they x-rayed all the bones before the 2005 autopsy, I'm sure they would be able to prove any switch that happened later. They did say right after the exhumation that the head had been severed, most likely during the first autopsy which seems odd to me.

I think I've been too hard on Arians. I know what it's like to get really intrigued by cases on WS. The first one I got into was the Sodder case, and when a few of my friends found out I was actually taking a day trip to look for clues and meeting strangers to ask them about the case, some friends thought I was nuts and still tease me about it. They don't see why I would care about something that happened before my parents were born to people I didn't know and am not related to. It looks like maybe Arians went over the top with the restaurant and tributes to Mary Jane, but that might be how people see me. He may just be trying to do whatever he can to keep the story alive and get people talking about it more in case it can bring answers.

Before the exhumation, an article said that Arians claimed to have evidence that her head might not have been buried with the rest of her body. I wonder what that evidence was?

 

[kline]

Somewhere on the web is a site for the bar or restaraunt that Mary Jane was last seen at, that I beleive is owned by this Arian fellow There are stories about Mary Jane haunting the place and photos and pen and ink renditions of the photos all over the place its obvious he's pretty spun by her.
Which I can understand ,like you said there are a few of these cases that a person can get kind of obsesive about,(Ive got a couple myself where Ive allowed myself to get a little more emotionally involved then is probably smart)I dont really think it makes him suspicous.
Now the local powers that be on the other hand....
How could they blame anyone for thinking something is not right about the way theyve handled this case from day one till the present?
I know people are often quick to see cover up conspiracies where there are none but that doesnt mean they dont happen and they dont take a lot of people if those people are in the right positions of authority.
And in this case one really has to wonder.

 

[MaryLiz]

When I first started reading the comments and articles about Arians, I was thinking that once the skull and bones were released from official custody to Mr. Reed for private testing, that maybe Mr. Arians switched the skulls before they were tested. I figured he might have kept it as some strange souvenir or to add a weird twist to the story to help his movie deal. I think I was wrong about it though.

After being reminded of all the strange things on the other side I think they still outweigh my doubts of Arians. Also, since they x-rayed all the bones before the 2005 autopsy, I'm sure they would be able to prove any switch that happened later. They did say right after the exhumation that the head had been severed, most likely during the first autopsy which seems odd to me.

I think I've been too hard on Arians. I know what it's like to get really intrigued by cases on WS. The first one I got into was the Sodder case, and when a few of my friends found out I was actually taking a day trip to look for clues and meeting strangers to ask them about the case, some friends thought I was nuts and still tease me about it. They don't see why I would care about something that happened before my parents were born to people I didn't know and am not related to. It looks like maybe Arians went over the top with the restaurant and tributes to Mary Jane, but that might be how people see me. He may just be trying to do whatever he can to keep the story alive and get people talking about it more in case it can bring answers.

Before the exhumation, an article said that Arians claimed to have evidence that her head might not have been buried with the rest of her body. I wonder what that evidence was?

I really don't think deep down that Arians' intentions aren't true. I know he wants to see the case solved. I know what it's like to get obsessed with these cases too. I would do a lot of traveling to check some of them out if I could.

Birdie, I always read the Sodder thread and am impressed with what you have done and the information you have found out. I don't think it's crazy at all to drive somewhere to look into a case once it gets under your skin.

Maybe I was too hard on Arians, too but after reading those comments from locals who are more involved with what is going on than I am here in Ohio, I just thought the mannequin was a little much. Like I said, I don't doubt his intentions are good. And he at least is someone who will speak up for Mary Jane's brother and help him out. As ex-mayor he surely has connections that are very helpful to Warren Reed.

I'm in total agreement with kline about the local LE in this case. I don't want to come right out and accuse them of a cover-up, but their actions certainly speak towards one.

 

[StealthTheory]

I'm a bit confused. Was Arians alive when Reed was and Skridla were murdered? When was he mayor? I'm not saying he does have anything to do with it, but his actions are a bit much.

 

[MaryLiz]

I'm a bit confused. Was Arians alive when Reed was and Skridla were murdered? When was he mayor? I'm not saying he does have anything to do with it, but his actions are a bit much.

No, he wasn't alive when they were murdered. He was mayor in 2002 but I don't know how long before that he was elected or how long after 2002 he was mayor. He didn't hear about this case until after he was in office. Here is a link to an article from 2002 before they exhumed the body. It was one of the articles birdie74 left the link to in an earlier post.

http://www.rrstar.com/news/x1136594908

 

[birdie74]

I believe I read that he was elected in 1999, and that was when he heard about the case.

 

[kline]

You know its kind of strange ,but maybe it gave me alittle insight perhaps into Arians feelings but as I was looking at the various photos of Elizabeth it struck me that she looked more like some contemporary edgy young actress portraying someone in the 1940's then someone actually from that era.
I could see how it would be easy to get a little obsessed if you were prone to it.
Its amazing that someone who has been gone for so long could have that kind of power.

 

[StealthTheory]

Thanks for explaining.

If he truly did predict that the head buried with her was not hers, and that turns out to be true, I hope someone sits down with him and makes him give up how he knew.

 

[birdie74]

It sounded to me like he did present evidence to the court about the possibility that her head wasn't buried with her body. Maybe we can find out what evidence that was, but my guess is that since it wasn't in the papers we read, it's probably included in the judge's gag order.

 

[librarian_mama]

So...this would have been the same Mortician who decided to take the cloths that her family provided for burial wrap them in newspapers featuring headlines about the murder and jam them in the burial vault and bury her in the same cloths her bleeding body had lain in a ditch all night with.
Well,im certainly glad such a unimpeachable source came forward to straighten everyone out on this missing skull nonsense...

Just reading the posts here...but Mary Jane's body was "not in good shape"--it may not have been possible to redress her body. Also, any newspapers at the time would have had these headlines--it could be that newspapers were used to wrap clothes the family provided. Perhaps they just didn't want to tell the family that the corpse was too far gone to dress. Maybe they didn't want to place the clothes in the actual coffin, so they were just put in the container outside the coffin. Just a thought.

 

[StealthTheory]

Just reading the posts here...but Mary Jane's body was "not in good shape"--it may not have been possible to redress her body. Also, any newspapers at the time would have had these headlines--it could be that newspapers were used to wrap clothes the family provided. Perhaps they just didn't want to tell the family that the corpse was too far gone to dress. Maybe they didn't want to place the clothes in the actual coffin, so they were just put in the container outside the coffin. Just a thought.

I could easily believe that. The only part that is still really odd is them leaving her clothing outside of the coffin, unless they forgot until the last minute.
If her head really is missing the first place they should check is in Arians' mannequin! :waitasec:

 

[kline]

Just reading the posts here...but Mary Jane's body was "not in good shape"--it may not have been possible to redress her body. Also, any newspapers at the time would have had these headlines--it could be that newspapers were used to wrap clothes the family provided. Perhaps they just didn't want to tell the family that the corpse was too far gone to dress. Maybe they didn't want to place the clothes in the actual coffin, so they were just put in the container outside the coffin. Just a thought.

but since they found her body the day after she was killed I wouldnt think it would be in that bad of a state of decomposition.
heck from what I read about the exhumation its still not in that bad a shape for one thats been buried since 1948.