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

[joellegirl]

Thanks joellegirl and docwho3 for the links.

The Crime Library mentions that Ed Gein may have killed Evelyn, but I agree with other posters on this thread - it just doesn't seem likely.

I have a question that someone might be able to answer - had Evelyn ever babysat for the family in that house before? I wonder how she was referred to them.

Yes,it is believed Evelyn had babysat for them once before, in the summer of 1953. I can't remember where I read this (I think in the new book) so I'm not 100 percent sure.

Evelyn's father, Richard Hartley, and the family she was babysitting for, the Viggo Rasmusens, knew each other as both men were professors at the University of LaCrosse. The Rasmusens were at the homecoming game with
their 7 year old daughter, while leaving Evelyn in charge of their
20 month old daughter.

Whenever something tragic happens to someone, we always here how wonderful and perfect they were that we often think all these people couldn't have been so nice. But in Evelyn's case is appears true. She was an honor student, daughter of a professor, third of four children in a respectable family. She was involved in many activities in school, yet was quiet and a bit shy, yet dependable and mature. She played the piano, liked sports. She had some close friends, one who was interviewed for the book. This best friend still gets emotional when thinking of what happened to her friend.

So I don't think Evelyn had some dark side that led to her abduction. She did not appear to be some wild girl with lots of boyfriends. Just your typical straight A girl with glasses, who was nice yet kind of shy, but very involved in her high school experience.

No one could think of anything bad to say about her.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Yes,it is believed Evelyn had babysat for them once before, in the summer of 1953. I can't remember where I read this (I think in the new book) so I'm not 100 percent sure.

Evelyn's father, Richard Hartley, and the family she was babysitting for, the Viggo Rasmusens, knew each other as both men were professors at the University of LaCrosse. The Rasmusens were at the homecoming game with
their 7 year old daughter, while leaving Evelyn in charge of their
20 month old daughter.

Whenever something tragic happens to someone, we always here how wonderful and perfect they were that we often think all these people couldn't have been so nice. But in Evelyn's case is appears true. She was an honor student, daughter of a professor, third of four children in a respectable family. She was involved in many activities in school, yet was quiet and a bit shy, yet dependable and mature. She played the piano, liked sports. She had some close friends, one who was interviewed for the book. This best friend still gets emotional when thinking of what happened to her friend.

So I don't think Evelyn had some dark side that led to her abduction. She did not appear to be some wild girl with lots of boyfriends. Just your typical straight A girl with glasses, who was nice yet kind of shy, but very involved in her high school experience.

No one could think of anything bad to say about her.

I certainly never thought there was a dark side to Evelyn that caused her to become a victim. It doesn't sound like she was the type of person to associate with any "unsavory" characters.

I wish I could figure out why they brought her out through the basement window instead of the front door. There has to be a good reason, as the basement window exit would have been much more difficult than exiting through the front door to their waiting car.

 

[joellegirl]

I certainly never thought there was a dark side to Evelyn that caused her to become a victim. It doesn't sound like she was the type of person to associate with any "unsavory" characters.

I wish I could figure out why they brought her out through the basement window instead of the front door. There has to be a good reason, as the basement window exit would have been much more difficult than exiting through the front door to their waiting car.

Oh, I know you weren't thinking of a dark side. I was just mentioning it as it has come up before wondering if she had some boyfriend over etc(not that that is a bad thing usually).

I added to one of my earlier posts(where I was describing her height and weight) and I mentioned how the book has scenerios about why she may have beem taken out of the house in a way different from the basement window. I guess the window theory is mainly because one of her shoes was found in the basement, and her blood was outside on the ground,and of course the window was opened and all the other windows and doors locked.

I agree it does not make sense to exit through the basement window. There must be more to it that we may never know.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Oh, I know you weren't thinking of a dark side. I was just mentioning it as it has come up before wondering if she had some boyfriend over etc(not that that is a bad thing usually).

I added to one of my earlier posts(where I was describing her height and weight) and I mentioned how the book has scenerios about why she may have beem taken out of the house in a way different from the basement window. I guess the window theory is mainly because one of her shoes was found in the basement, and her blood was outside on the ground,and of course the window was opened and all the other windows and doors locked.

I agree it does not make sense to exit through the basement window. There must be more to it that we may never know.

I'm going to order that book when I get some "spare" money, it sounds interesting.

The other theories for how Evelyn wound up outside the house are feasible. Do you know if the doors in that house locked automatically when they were closed? If they did, then it's possible that Evelyn ran outside and the door locked behind her. If they didn't, then I don't see how the door became locked.

It sounds like the man driving by at 7:15 actually saw the abduction taking place. Certainly if these were people innocently helping an intoxicated friend, they would have come forward after the news of Evelyn's disappearance became known.

 

[joellegirl]

I'm not sure if anyone knows what the doors were like. I would think there should be something in the police files as they usually investigate all the little details. I doubt the doors did that though, unless it was a freak thing or the abductors stopped to lock the door on their way out which is unlikely.


I agree, I think the man driving by did see Evelyn being abducted.

I guess you could call this my top "cold case" as it is the first one I learned about way back when I was around 11-12 years old. My father was growing up in LaCrosse at the time it happened and I learned about the case from him and my grandmother both who, like most LaCrosse residents who were there at the time, remember the aftermath very well. This is why we are in LaCrosse once or twice a year, visiting family. I always take the time to drive by that house. It just looks so normal. Hard to believe what occured there. Of course that is how it is with all the cases we discuss here-scary things happening in places that seem so normal and safe.

Cases that are a close 2nd with me are the Lyons sisters,Beverly Potts, Janice Pockett...

I am surprised that the La Crosse Tribune makes no mention of the case in today's paper.. Maybe it is because they just did an article in August when Evelyn's graduating class had it's 50th reunion and about the book coming up.

Her abduction has become a part of LaCrosse lore and legend, with just about everone knowing about the case, even if they weren't around then. And the ones who were there remember what they were doing and how it affects them to this day.

 

[docwho3]

I only included the ED G. stuff in case it would be helpful & it was reported that he had a young sometime helper in grave digging (although no one ever proved he helped in snatching victems) but unless it is reported that he had a whizzer I won't think much about it for now.

I still lean towards a botched burglary attempt myself based on the following thoughts so far:
When I asked myself why pick that house the answer was sort of so obvious that I almost missed it. She was baby sitting . . . and that means there was probably not a car there. It was a sign that probably no one was home if the time was after normal work hours. So without knowing the family's habits well (which means they hadn't been stalked and watched much if any) the perp/s got in through an unlatched basement window.

Lets say she heard something in the basement and went down to see what it was,surprising the thief. Maybe she tried to confront him or maybe she just began to scream or maybe she turned around to run back upstairs but it startled him so he hits her with the tool he is carrying, maybe a knife handle or maybe a screw driver or crowbar. But now he's in real trouble because he has harmed a young woman in commission of a crime and anyone else might come on the scene soon. He can't let her live because she could ID him. If he kills her & leaves a body they will know a murder has been committed & will never stop searching and the murder scene itself might leave enough clues behind to trace back to him/them so she must be killed elsewhere where no one knows to look. So he takes her with him/them & they leave without taking anything because they are panicked and feel an overwhelming desire to just get away (before being seen by anyone else) and make the best of an awful situation. Its possible that she either came to again outside and had to be struck again or she struggled once she was outside in an attempt to get away which might account for more blood being there.

I still am thinking burglary so far. But I am always willing to revise that if more evidence proves otherwise. Not sure yet what to make of the tape recording mentioned in another post I saw.

 

[Marilynilpa]

I only included the ED G. stuff in case it would be helpful & it was reported that he had a young sometime helper in grave digging (although no one ever proved he helped in snatching victems) but unless it is reported that he had a whizzer I won't think much about it for now.

I still lean towards a botched burglary attempt myself based on the following thoughts so far:
When I asked myself why pick that house the answer was sort of so obvious that I almost missed it. She was baby sitting . . . and that means there was probably not a car there. It was a sign that probably no one was home if the time was after normal work hours. So without knowing the family's habits well (which means they hadn't been stalked and watched much if any) the perp/s got in through an unlatched basement window.

Lets say she heard something in the basement and went down to see what it was,surprising the thief. Maybe she tried to confront him or maybe she just began to scream or maybe she turned around to run back upstairs but it startled him so he hits her with the tool he is carrying, maybe a knife handle or maybe a screw driver or crowbar. But now he's in real trouble because he has harmed a young woman in commission of a crime and anyone else might come on the scene soon. He can't let her live because she could ID him. If he kills her & leaves a body they will know a murder has been committed & will never stop searching and the murder scene itself might leave enough clues behind to trace back to him/them so she must be killed elsewhere where no one knows to look. So he takes her with him/them & they leave without taking anything because they are panicked and feel an overwhelming desire to just get away (before being seen by anyone else) and make the best of an awful situation. Its possible that she either came to again outside and had to be struck again or she struggled once she was outside in an attempt to get away which might account for more blood being there.

I still am thinking burglary so far. But I am always willing to revise that if more evidence proves otherwise. Not sure yet what to make of the tape recording mentioned in another post I saw.

I was thinking it might be a botched burglary, as well. But then when I read more about it, I'm not so sure. Although there was no car at the house, there must have been lights on inside, which makes me think a burglar would leave that house alone and go for one that was dark.

On the other hand, if someone specifically targeted Evelyn, it seems they could have abducted her off the street, since it appears they had a car. Why wait until she is inside the house, then climb in through a basement window to get her?

There are so many questions, and so few answers, to this mystery.

 

[joellegirl]

I only included the ED G. stuff in case it would be helpful & it was reported that he had a young sometime helper in grave digging (although no one ever proved he helped in snatching victems) but unless it is reported that he had a whizzer I won't think much about it for now.

I still lean towards a botched burglary attempt myself based on the following thoughts so far:
When I asked myself why pick that house the answer was sort of so obvious that I almost missed it. She was baby sitting . . . and that means there was probably not a car there. It was a sign that probably no one was home if the time was after normal work hours. So without knowing the family's habits well (which means they hadn't been stalked and watched much if any) the perp/s got in through an unlatched basement window.

Lets say she heard something in the basement and went down to see what it was,surprising the thief. Maybe she tried to confront him or maybe she just began to scream or maybe she turned around to run back upstairs but it startled him so he hits her with the tool he is carrying, maybe a knife handle or maybe a screw driver or crowbar. But now he's in real trouble because he has harmed a young woman in commission of a crime and anyone else might come on the scene soon. He can't let her live because she could ID him. If he kills her & leaves a body they will know a murder has been committed & will never stop searching and the murder scene itself might leave enough clues behind to trace back to him/them so she must be killed elsewhere where no one knows to look. So he takes her with him/them & they leave without taking anything because they are panicked and feel an overwhelming desire to just get away (before being seen by anyone else) and make the best of an awful situation. Its possible that she either came to again outside and had to be struck again or she struggled once she was outside in an attempt to get away which might account for more blood being there.

I still am thinking burglary so far. But I am always willing to revise that if more evidence proves otherwise. Not sure yet what to make of the tape recording mentioned in another post I saw.

Very interesting on the burglary scenerio.

I just wanted to mention that it appears one of the struggles happened in the livingroom, as that is where Evelyn's other shoe, eyeglasses, and drops of blood were found on the the carpet.. I read in the book (which has crime scene pictures, including the shoe , blood and glasses on floor) that her school books were strewn (sp?) sbout as well. Because of this it has been always thought the abductors surprised her in the livingroom,after having crept up the basement stairs. She may have run into the basement (or was dragged down there) and that is another reason how her other shoe ended up at the foot of the basement stairs. There was also a step ladder up against the basement window (on the inside) that was most likely placed by the abductors to aid in getting out. The homeowners said the ladder was in the basement for painting. I can see how this may have been a burglary gone wrong that escalated into murder, but it still seems to me somebody was on the prowl that night for a young girl.

I also wanted to mention that the lights were on in the house and Evelyn had turned the radio on, so it was obvious some one was home. When the Rasmusens left the baby was already in bed and Evelyn supposedly sat down in the livingroom, turned on the radio and began to study.When Evelyn's father came to check on her(because he was worried she hadn't phoned home to let her parents know all was well as she usually did) he found all the lights still on and the radio still playing.

 

[docwho3]

Very interesting on the burglary scenerio.

I just wanted to mention that it appears one of the struggles happened in the livingroom, as that is where Evelyn's other shoe, eyeglasses, and drops of blood were found on the the carpet.. I read in the book (which has crime scene pictures, including the shoe , blood and glasses on floor) that her school books were strewn (sp?) sbout as well. Because of this it has been always thought the abductors surprised her in the livingroom,after having crept up the basement stairs. She may have run into the basement (or was dragged down there) and that is another reason how her other shoe ended up at the foot of the basement stairs. There was also a step ladder up against the basement window (on the inside) that was most likely placed by the abductors to aid in getting out. The homeowners said the ladder was in the basement for painting. I can see how this may have been a burglary gone wrong that escalated into murder, but it still seems to me somebody was on the prowl that night for a young girl. . . .

Interesting points. Thanks for the extra info. Ok I can see it being a burglary that escalated. I realize that a burglar might also not mind doing worse in some cases. After all they aren't exactly nice people or they wouldn't be stealing.

. . . .I also wanted to mention that the lights were on in the house and Evelyn had turned the radio on, so it was obvious some one was home. When the Rasmusens left the baby was already in bed and Evelyn supposedly sat down in the livingroom, turned on the radio and began to study.When Evelyn's father came to check on her(because he was worried she hadn't phoned home to let her parents know all was well as she usually did) he found all the lights still on and the radio still playing.

Many people leave the lights on and either a radio or TV on today, & probably did then too, to make it appear someone is home. I figure burglars must pretty mush discount that if they don't see activity at the windows. If she was studying quietly maybe they didn't realize someone was there. They may not have even bothered creeping upstairs. He/They may have just clomped around precipitating an encounter (whether upsatairs or down) much to his/their chagrin. Those details may not be as important though as the overall theory.

If it was a burglary gone bad then looking for a burglar changes the search, in that you look for burglars more than out & out violent types. I guess I mean that I wonder if looking for a specific type of perp might have blinded the eyes of some investigators a little & caused them to not dig as deep into some people as they did into others.

I will mention this question also in case you or someone else might have a possible answer: Why go out the basement window? Unless maybe there was some landscape bush or other thing that might have screened their movements in exiting? It would seem to be much more difficult and if seen people would automatically know they were not honest coming out of the basement window.

 

[joellegirl]

Docwho3,
Marilynilpa and I were discussing the basement window a few posts up.

No one knows for sure how the abductors took Evelyn out of the house but it has always been assumed the basement window because

1) It was the only window open(doors locked) and appeared to be the point of entry.

2)One of Evelyn's shoes was found at the foot of the basement stairs (book has a picture of this, along with other crime scene pictures). It looks like they had dragged her down the stairs .

3) A step ladder had been placed against the window(on the inside)

4)Pools of her blood we found outside this basement window. Investigators believe one man pushed her out of the window, while another was waiting outside to grab her and must have hurt her quite badly at this point to silence her. Neighbors did hear screams around 7:15pm but unfortunatley didn't think anything about them other than maybe it were children playing (usually young children aren't out playing after dark on a cool October night, maybe they were thinking teenagers...). Some neighbors recalled looking outside at that point but they didn't see anything.

Other scenerios have been discussed but it is just one of the many parts of this mystery that we may never know, unless some one comes forward who knows what happened that night.

From the pictures I have seen of the house taken right after all this happened, there were no bushes planted near that window. It was all very wide open, several new homes with no trees , streets weren't paved yet.

 

[docwho3]

Yes, I had read the posts & mentioned the point again just in case someone had more info or thoughts on it other than those already mentioned.

Before reading on please note that I intend the following only as constructive discussion to be helpful & not meaning to flame anyone. Actually I am very impressed with the intelligence of those posting here. Keep up the good work.

If it can be established that the basement window was chosen as point of egress then it sort of says something about the thinking of the perp/s and it would almost certainly point to there being more than one person being involved. One man might manage to carry or force a young woman out the door of the house but I can't easily concieve of how one peron gets a young woman out a basement window. Even if she was dead already getting her out of a basement window using only one person would be very difficult without help. Two people makes the job doable.

But again, why leave that way?
Even with 2 people involved why not take her out the door of the house?
Unless the window they left from comes out on a side of the house where they could not be seen leaving its extremely stupid to do so much extra work especially for someone who should be in a hurry to leave before being seen.

Were these 2 the most stupid criminals in the past 50 plus years & yet managed to not get caught anyway?
Or -
Were the two dressed in some way that would look as if they belonged messing around the basement windows but would look suspicious if they were seen coming out of the house by the door? Landscaping maybe? Home Inspectors of some sort? Plumbers? Handymen of some sort? (Note:Not meaning to suggest this because I dont think it likely but just to point out a possible connection point:Ed Gein had worked as a handy man quite a bit & so knew how to dress the part. Its not my theory but I felt that to ignore the possibility just because I don't like it would not be right either so I mention it for what its worth.)

If so they might have taken her out in plain sight, perhaps wrapped up in something or maybe not but they pulled it off.

Now after taking the victem out of the house and to a waiting vehicle they could, if they lived out in the country have just taken her out to their land & buried her. End of story.

Or, since it was a new neighborhood, if they actually were plumbers or something like that where they might have an ongoing dig to lay pipe or some similar thing then they might have disposed of the body there & just filled in the dirt with no one ever finding the body unless the pipe needed repaired and that might not happen in their life time.

2 men:Two men ( I think it was reported as 2 but don't remember) were allegedly seen supporting a woman to a car and as much as I would love to have this report prove true I have some doubts even if I don't totally discount it. I remember previous posts mentioning a couple men that had been seen helping a woman to a car. After all this time I think its odd that person had not brought this to police (not meaning to attack anyone by sayng that but just trying to piece these things together) but even if I accept it as true then I have to think that the report of the 2 men & a woman must have been what stuck in the memory and not particularly how they were dressed. Knowing that eyewitness accounts are often wrong in many details especially after so much time has elapsed I am prepared to view the account of the 2 men escorting a woman to a car with the idea in mind that many parts may be misremembered or forgotten as other parts were dwelled upon.

In any case it was the why of the egress point that seemed to wave a flag to be looked at so I asked more about it.

Sorry for being so long winded about it. And who knows, I might be just over analyzing things.

The posts I have seen so far are very good. Keep digging.

Docwho3,
Marilynilpa and I were discussing the basement window a few posts up.

No one knows for sure how the abductors took Evelyn out of the house but it has always been assumed the basement window because

1) It was the only window open(doors locked) and appeared to be the point of entry.

2)One of Evelyn's shoes was found at the foot of the basement stairs (book has a picture of this, along with other crime scene pictures). It looks like they had dragged her down the stairs .

3) A step ladder had been placed against the window(on the inside)

4)Pools of her blood we found outside this basement window. Investigators believe one man pushed her out of the window, while another was waiting outside to grab her and must have hurt her quite badly at this point to silence her. Neighbors did hear screams around 7:15pm but unfortunatley didn't think anything about them other than maybe it were children playing (usually young children aren't out playing after dark on a cool October night, maybe they were thinking teenagers...). Some neighbors recalled looking outside at that point but they didn't see anything.

Other scenerios have been discussed but it is just one of the many parts of this mystery that we may never know, unless some one comes forward who knows what happened that night.

From the pictures I have seen of the house taken right after all this happened, there were no bushes planted near that window. It was all very wide open, several new homes with no trees , streets weren't paved yet.

 

[docwho3]

One more thing actually occured to me about why burglars would choose not to burgle somethng from the house that night. If you had been seen(by the victem) & had decided the person had to be removed & murdered so the body not be found and therefore tied to you then taking anything from the house that didn't already belong to you would connect you to the disappearance & that could be enough to get you convicted of murder even without a body in some states.
(I recently read where someone was convicted of murder based on pictures that they had taken of the victem even though a body was never found.)

Probably the police would start watching fences & such looking for stolen items to pop up if things were taken from the house & it would certainly make them even more likely to look for a burglar above all others. Thats the last thing a pro burglar needs. And if they had taken things but then could not risk selling them and could not afford to be caught with those items to point to connection to a young woman disappearing then there is no point.

 

[Marilynilpa]

Yes, I had read the posts & mentioned the point again just in case someone had more info or thoughts on it other than those already mentioned.

Before reading on please note that I intend the following only as constructive discussion to be helpful & not meaning to flame anyone. Actually I am very impressed with the intelligence of those posting here. Keep up the good work.

If it can be established that the basement window was chosen as point of egress then it sort of says something about the thinking of the perp/s and it would almost certainly point to there being more than one person being involved. One man might manage to carry or force a young woman out the door of the house but I can't easily concieve of how one peron gets a young woman out a basement window. Even if she was dead already getting her out of a basement window using only one person would be very difficult without help. Two people makes the job doable.

But again, why leave that way?
Even with 2 people involved why not take her out the door of the house?
Unless the window they left from comes out on a side of the house where they could not be seen leaving its extremely stupid to do so much extra work especially for someone who should be in a hurry to leave before being seen.

Were these 2 the most stupid criminals in the past 50 plus years & yet managed to not get caught anyway?
Or -
Were the two dressed in some way that would look as if they belonged messing around the basement windows but would look suspicious if they were seen coming out of the house by the door? Landscaping maybe? Home Inspectors of some sort? Plumbers? Handymen of some sort? (Note:Not meaning to suggest this because I dont think it likely but just to point out a possible connection point:Ed Gein had worked as a handy man quite a bit & so knew how to dress the part. Its not my theory but I felt that to ignore the possibility just because I don't like it would not be right either so I mention it for what its worth.)

If so they might have taken her out in plain sight, perhaps wrapped up in something or maybe not but they pulled it off.

Now after taking the victem out of the house and to a waiting vehicle they could, if they lived out in the country have just taken her out to their land & buried her. End of story.

Or, since it was a new neighborhood, if they actually were plumbers or something like that where they might have an ongoing dig to lay pipe or some similar thing then they might have disposed of the body there & just filled in the dirt with no one ever finding the body unless the pipe needed repaired and that might not happen in their life time.

2 men:Two men ( I think it was reported as 2 but don't remember) were allegedly seen supporting a woman to a car and as much as I would love to have this report prove true I have some doubts even if I don't totally discount it. I remember previous posts mentioning a couple men that had been seen helping a woman to a car. After all this time I think its odd that person had not brought this to police (not meaning to attack anyone by sayng that but just trying to piece these things together) but even if I accept it as true then I have to think that the report of the 2 men & a woman must have been what stuck in the memory and not particularly how they were dressed. Knowing that eyewitness accounts are often wrong in many details especially after so much time has elapsed I am prepared to view the account of the 2 men escorting a woman to a car with the idea in mind that many parts may be misremembered or forgotten as other parts were dwelled upon.

In any case it was the why of the egress point that seemed to wave a flag to be looked at so I asked more about it.

Sorry for being so long winded about it. And who knows, I might be just over analyzing things.

The posts I have seen so far are very good. Keep digging.

I totally agree that going out the basement window was probably the least effective way of getting Evelyn out of that house. It just makes no sense. The only scenario in which using the basement window is logical is this - Evelyn heard something, went down to investigate, the burglars (assuming that's what they were there for) panicked and hit her with something. In that case, the basement window makes sense, because why would they want to drag her upstairs and out the door? But this scenario isn't backed up by the evidence - Evelyn's broken glasses and one shoe are upstairs in the house, so it appears she struggled with someone up there.

I suppose it's possible that, after struggling with the burglars, breaking her glasses and losing a shoe, Evelyn ran down into the basement to get away from them. But I doubt she would do that, when she could have run out the front door and screamed for help. And if Evelyn was anything like me, she probably couldn't see too well without her glasses, so she wouldn't want to run down the basement stairs without them.

One other possibility - the burglars hear something that startles them. Maybe a car drives by and they panic, thinking the homeowners are returning. They don't want to be seen going out the door, so they hightail it down to the basement, with Evelyn in tow. One of them climbs out, Evelyn is pushed/pulled through the window, the other one climbs out and they walk to their car.

Three possible scenarios, none of which make a whole lot of sense!

Additionally, I think two men, regardless of how they were dressed, would look suspicious hanging around a basement window at night. Since there were no streetlights, I suppose they could have stayed in the shadows. But what about the evidence that someone tried to pry open a bedroom window before going to the basement window? Did these guys just wander willy-nilly around the house without worrying about being seen?

As far as someone seeing two man with an apparently intoxicated woman, I wonder if this "eyewitness" might be embellishing things a bit (I don't want to accuse the guy of lying!). People tend to "remember" things after the fact that may or may not actually have occurred.

There are an awful lot of unanswered questions.

 

[joellegirl]

I have to run, my kids are home from school, but I wanted to mention that the witness who saw the two men supporting a woman around 7:15 that Saturday night did go to police on Monday, October 26 . He went to work and heard about Evelyn vanishing and realized what he saw may be connected. He was interviewed by detectives right away and did talk with Evelyn's parents. The spot he saw them was between the Rasmusen home and the house where the blood trail ended at the street. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post about him.I mentioned he still remembered it clearly, but he did indeed go to police at the time, as soon as he heard about Evelyn. Looking back he wishes at the exact time he saw them he had done something but not knowing it was an abduction in progress, he didn't as it just seemed they had been partying. He is still alive and is interviewed in the book.

 

[joellegirl]

Docwho3-actually the window in question is on the side of the house. The thing is though, from an aerial picture taken at the time(in the book), it looks like the next several lots on that side were empty, so it was wide open. With the full moon, it may have been quite bright since there were no trees.

 

[docwho3]

Docwho3-actually the window in question is on the side of the house. The thing is though, from an aerial picture taken at the time(in the book), it looks like the next several lots on that side were empty, so it was wide open. With the full moon, it may have been quite bright since there were no trees.

I realized that I had missed reading some of the available news articles thinking they were duplicates so I went back to read.
I am researching as I write so this may ramble somewhat:
(Feel free to correct me where I am wrong as the corrections may help other readers too.)

Point about the time involved :Was it at complete night moonlit or not?:
I just reread one othe news articles where the sleeping toddler, who is now grown of course, had this to say:"It was sort of dusk,and I was one of those kids - they'd put me to bed,I'd get up,upand down,up and down, just play my little games and wouldn't settle down,. . ." "This had to be one of the few nights that I went to bed and went to sleep. . . ."
http://lplcat.lacrosse.lib.wi.us/digitalproject/images/hartley/00150015.jpg

Hmmm. . .That happened in October so I would think if it happend at 7:15 pm as one report about a scream seemed to indicate that would indeed be way past dark. Unless you know that "From 1945 to 1966, there was no federal law about Daylight Saving Time. So states and localities were free to choose whether to observe Daylight Saving Time and could choose when it began and ended."- source link
That seems to make it at least possible this crime was committed at, or shortly after, dusk which I find even more interesting. Notable fact:This crime was done on the night of the Lacrosse state Homecoming football game.
It seems probable that this night might have been planned in advance with the thought that most people would be gone to the game. That sort of lets out the "transient" perp theory to my thinking.

I understand that she might not have a good memory of the time but it raises a question which I mean to pose as diplomatically as possible: Although it's wonderful to have a book to help provide info, have you been able to independently confirm the facts in the book?

In the news paper article I read online it mentioned that police were checking on some blood stains on a nearby house or building. Where was this house? The picture seemed to show 2 houses very close to each other or maybe it was a house & separate garage. This is what made me wonder if the window they left through was perhaps near another house or building that would have allowed a hidden exit for them.
http://lplcat.lacrosse.lib.wi.us/digitalproject/images/hartley/00010001.jpg

"Side of the house" - the book said?
Is that maybe the back of the house and not the "side" of the house?
http://lplcat.lacrosse.lib.wi.us/digitalproject/images/hartley/00130013p.jpg

Again, I just now read where window used was at the back: " He tried to enter the house, but all the doors and windows were locked. Except for one -- the back basement window. " (I added the bolding to the word.)
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/gein/vanish_4.html

Trying to get this staright in my head:
Ok, so if the perps knew of the upcoming game in order to plan a crime (burglary or worse), unless it was all coincidence that it was that particualr night,and one of them had a shoe with a circular wear pattern that might indicate a whizzer rider this seems to point towards someone who lived in the area & not a passing stranger with no knowledge of the area. I saw the old catalog prices on some whizzers and they seemed to be expensive for that day and age so this would seem not be a poor mans toy. Another thought:I wonder if fuel powered combustion engine model airplanes which were in use then as the ones with the wire controls would require a person stand in one place & to rotate and might possibly cause a circular wear pattern in a shoe.

So do we have a rich mans son with some clout to stay out of trouble and an older accomplice? I read on of those news report images where it said they "checked out the whizzer riders but found no worthwhile suspects". Note they didn't say there were no suspects to be found but just none that were considered worthwhile. Maybe who he was kept him from being "worthwhile"? Or maybe they should have looked at model airplane enthusiasts.
Don't know how that idea would ever be checked out.

Oh well

 

[Marilynilpa]

I have to run, my kids are home from school, but I wanted to mention that the witness who saw the two men supporting a woman around 7:15 that Saturday night did go to police on Monday, October 26 . He went to work and heard about Evelyn vanishing and realized what he saw may be connected. He was interviewed by detectives right away and did talk with Evelyn's parents. The spot he saw them was between the Rasmusen home and the house where the blood trail ended at the street. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post about him.I mentioned he still remembered it clearly, but he did indeed go to police at the time, as soon as he heard about Evelyn. Looking back he wishes at the exact time he saw them he had done something but not knowing it was an abduction in progress, he didn't as it just seemed they had been partying. He is still alive and is interviewed in the book.

Okay, I'm not trying to disparage this man or his testimony, but I have a question about it. Obviously Evelyn's disappearance was a BIG story. It happened on a Saturday evening, so there must have been television and radio coverage as early as Sunday morning. Yet this man hears nothing about it until he gets to work on Monday?

Also, it was mentioned in an earlier post that this man possibly saw Evelyn twice - once when he saw the two men supporting a woman, and again when he saw a car with one man driving and the other in the back seat with a woman. Sounds like the witness was out and about in the neighborhood quite a bit, to have seen both events that evening. In that case, it seems like he would have seen police cars at the scene the following day and figured that something had happened.

Maybe he did see what he claimed to have seen, but I wonder if LE took him seriously? I've read a couple of old newspaper articles about this case and don't remember any reference to an eyewitness possibly seeing the abduction in progress. I'll look through some more and see if I can find a reference to the eyewitness. If he isn't mentioned in any of the articles, I'd take that as a sign that LE didn't believe him to be credible.

If he actually did see this take place, that man must have felt awful knowing he could have possibly prevented the men from taking Evelyn away.

 

[joellegirl]

Okay, I'm not trying to disparage this man or his testimony, but I have a question about it. Obviously Evelyn's disappearance was a BIG story. It happened on a Saturday evening, so there must have been television and radio coverage as early as Sunday morning. Yet this man hears nothing about it until he gets to work on Monday?

Also, it was mentioned in an earlier post that this man possibly saw Evelyn twice - once when he saw the two men supporting a woman, and again when he saw a car with one man driving and the other in the back seat with a woman. Sounds like the witness was out and about in the neighborhood quite a bit, to have seen both events that evening. In that case, it seems like he would have seen police cars at the scene the following day and figured that something had happened.

Maybe he did see what he claimed to have seen, but I wonder if LE took him seriously? I've read a couple of old newspaper articles about this case and don't remember any reference to an eyewitness possibly seeing the abduction in progress. I'll look through some more and see if I can find a reference to the eyewitness. If he isn't mentioned in any of the articles, I'd take that as a sign that LE didn't believe him to be credible.

If he actually did see this take place, that man must have felt awful knowing he could have possibly prevented the men from taking Evelyn away.

Back in 1953 there was no local tv station in LaCrosse, it came in 1954. By the time word got out about the missing babysitter it was around 10pm (police had been called sometime around 9:30pm) and most people did not hear about it until the next morning, unless they lived right there, happened upon it, saw the police searching,or heard by word of mouth that night.It was on the radio on Sunday, but who knows, maybe this man just didn't hear about it until Monday if he didn't have the radio on or was busy on Sunday.. don't know why his brother in law didn't call and tell him about it.I'm not sure about newspaper articles about what he saw but they most likely would have been in the LaCrosse Tribune, which I remember is not in Newspaper Archives. The Chicago Tribune was also very active in this case, and I don't recall seeing them in Newspaer Archives either. When i had my subscription, I never saw any articles from both Tribunes. Not all of the LaCrosseTribune articles on the Hartley are posted on the LaCrosse Library site. And there were ALOT. This man's identity was withheld by the police and he was known as Mr.X., Now 83 years old, his real name is in the book. I am only going by what I read in this book, and another book called "Getting Away with Murder" by Ed Baumann. I've always had the impression that the police did take this witness seriously, but I could be wrong.

The reason this man saw them twice was he was in the neighborhood picking up his brother -in-law to go to the homecoming game. He first saw the men and woman while on his way to pick up his brother-in-law. After he had picked him up and was heading out of the subdivision to the game is when he saw who he thought to be the same group in the car. I get the impression he did not live in this neighborhood, just his brother-in law. One interesting thing is when he dropped his brother-in law back home at what he thought was approx 9:45 he didin't notice any police around, yet they were already there.

It is all very confusing I agree.

 

[joellegirl]

I realized that I had missed reading some of the available news articles thinking they were duplicates so I went back to read.
I am researching as I write so this may ramble somewhat:
(Feel free to correct me where I am wrong as the corrections may help other readers too.)

Point about the time involved :Was it at complete night moonlit or not?:
I just reread one othe news articles where the sleeping toddler, who is now grown of course, had this to say:"It was sort of dusk,and I was one of those kids - they'd put me to bed,I'd get up,upand down,up and down, just play my little games and wouldn't settle down,. . ." "This had to be one of the few nights that I went to bed and went to sleep. . . ."
http://lplcat.lacrosse.lib.wi.us/digitalproject/images/hartley/00150015.jpg

Hmmm. . .That happened in October so I would think if it happend at 7:15 pm as one report about a scream seemed to indicate that would indeed be way past dark. Unless you know that "From 1945 to 1966, there was no federal law about Daylight Saving Time. So states and localities were free to choose whether to observe Daylight Saving Time and could choose when it began and ended."- source link
That seems to make it at least possible this crime was committed at, or shortly after, dusk which I find even more interesting. Notable fact:This crime was done on the night of the Lacrosse state Homecoming football game.
It seems probable that this night might have been planned in advance with the thought that most people would be gone to the game. That sort of lets out the "transient" perp theory to my thinking.

I understand that she might not have a good memory of the time but it raises a question which I mean to pose as diplomatically as possible: Although it's wonderful to have a book to help provide info, have you been able to independently confirm the facts in the book?

In the news paper article I read online it mentioned that police were checking on some blood stains on a nearby house or building. Where was this house? The picture seemed to show 2 houses very close to each other or maybe it was a house & separate garage. This is what made me wonder if the window they left through was perhaps near another house or building that would have allowed a hidden exit for them.
http://lplcat.lacrosse.lib.wi.us/digitalproject/images/hartley/00010001.jpg

"Side of the house" - the book said?
Is that maybe the back of the house and not the "side" of the house?
http://lplcat.lacrosse.lib.wi.us/digitalproject/images/hartley/00130013p.jpg

Again, I just now read where window used was at the back: " He tried to enter the house, but all the doors and windows were locked. Except for one -- the back basement window. " (I added the bolding to the word.)
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/gein/vanish_4.html

Trying to get this staright in my head:
Ok, so if the perps knew of the upcoming game in order to plan a crime (burglary or worse), unless it was all coincidence that it was that particualr night,and one of them had a shoe with a circular wear pattern that might indicate a whizzer rider this seems to point towards someone who lived in the area & not a passing stranger with no knowledge of the area. I saw the old catalog prices on some whizzers and they seemed to be expensive for that day and age so this would seem not be a poor mans toy. Another thought:I wonder if fuel powered combustion engine model airplanes which were in use then as the ones with the wire controls would require a person stand in one place & to rotate and might possibly cause a circular wear pattern in a shoe.

So do we have a rich mans son with some clout to stay out of trouble and an older accomplice? I read on of those news report images where it said they "checked out the whizzer riders but found no worthwhile suspects". Note they didn't say there were no suspects to be found but just none that were considered worthwhile. Maybe who he was kept him from being "worthwhile"? Or maybe they should have looked at model airplane enthusiasts.
Don't know how that idea would ever be checked out.

Oh well

I was wondering about how dark it was at 7:15 as well as the surviving toddler mentioned (as an adult of course) that it was sort of dusk. I asked the LaCrosse Library, and they said Wisconsin didn't observe Daylight Savings Time until 1957, so on October 24, 1953, the sun set at approx 4:48pm. So it must have been quite dark at 7-7:15, except the light of the full moon, which isn't usually brighter until later in the night. It was early in the evening, but defintitely past dusk. Even with Daylight Savings Time, it is dark by 7pm on October 24, at least in Wisconsin .

The photos of the house and neighborhood in the book are police photos. I have seen the house myself as well. so I can see how the neighborhood is layed out-more homes now but the streets are the same. All the of the police photos identify the basement window on the south side of the house as the one that was open. You can still see this window from the street. Other pictures show that south of the house were several empty lots at that time. Some accounts of the case may have mistakes, like saying the window was in the back. But 99 percent of everything I have read puts the window on the side.

I have analyzed all the pictures myself and have concluded some of the newspaper pictures are showing neighboring houses, not the Rasmusen home. The one you linked to showing Evelyn's father I believe is the side of the Rasmusen house. The house that had the blood smear, which was behind the Rasmusen home, kind of kiddy-corner a few houses down. I wish i could draw a map on here, it would explain it better. If you get the book you will see copies of Tribune articles that aren't on that website(that has some of the articles reprinted) and there are several photos of the neighborhood and how it was layed out, and the supposed path that the abductors dragged Evelyn across the yards. Plus some of these newspaper articles are real grainy and hard to make out the pictures. I can see what looks like a neighboring house, but I think it could simply be the sky in the background.

I haven't done any independent investigation, I'm just going by what i have read in the book and newspapers. I believe the author had good sources for the book , from the LaCrosse Police files and LaCrosse library archives, as well as personal accounts of witnesses, and friends. When analyizing this case my head spins as so much is a mystery.

 

[Richard]

...Trying to get this staright in my head:
Ok, so if the perps knew of the upcoming game in order to plan a crime (burglary or worse), unless it was all coincidence that it was that particualr night,and one of them had a shoe with a circular wear pattern that might indicate a whizzer rider this seems to point towards someone who lived in the area & not a passing stranger with no knowledge of the area. I saw the old catalog prices on some whizzers and they seemed to be expensive for that day and age so this would seem not be a poor mans toy. Another thought:I wonder if fuel powered combustion engine model airplanes which were in use then as the ones with the wire controls would require a person stand in one place & to rotate and might possibly cause a circular wear pattern in a shoe.

So do we have a rich mans son with some clout to stay out of trouble and an older accomplice? I read on of those news report images where it said they "checked out the whizzer riders but found no worthwhile suspects". Note they didn't say there were no suspects to be found but just none that were considered worthwhile. Maybe who he was kept him from being "worthwhile"? Or maybe they should have looked at model airplane enthusiasts.
Don't know how that idea would ever be checked out. Oh well

I cannot say for certain whether or not flying model airplanes had come into popularity by 1953. As a kid, I recall seeing them for the first time in the late 1950's. The Boy Scouts of America "Handbook for Boys", as well as their magazine "Boys Life" used to advertise those airplanes by 1960, but I looked in a 1951 copy "Handbook for Boys", and could not find any advertisements for them. There were numerous other advertisement pages for hiking shoes, rifles, bicycles, etc.

Having flown model planes, I don't recall having any circular wear patterns on my shoes. You normally would fly the planes on a soft grass field, to avoid hard crash landings, and because there just weren't very large blacktop or paved areas to fly in. Also, you go around by stepping, not by pivoting in place on your shoe.

I would think that maybe a motorcyclist who did "donuts" might wear down his shoes in a circular pattern, or maybe someone who operates some type of machinery with his foot might wear the shoe down in such a pattern. Some tractors and heavy equipment have accellorators or brakes which had metal "teeth". Perhaps a person who had a tendency to twist his foot on such a pedal might wear a circular pattern into it.

I have never heard the term Whizzer Rider. Is that some sort of bike?