Walter S. Zimmerman House

Transcription

[ Music ] >> One of the problems with being the one of the last speakers is that you would have changed your slides around if you knew the tenor of the meeting that you're going to attend. So, I may have-- I probably would have changed things around a little bit but I'm up here now and so I can't make any apologies for that. On the other hand, there's some benefits to this, one of which is in fact maybe the most important one is-- is listening to the tone that's set by the plenary sessions. All of us who listen to some potentially dire predictions from the audience address to the front bench about the survivability, longevity of trace evidence analysis and microscopy on the first day. I think a lot of us have thought about with closing of trace evidence sections and trace evidence sections being reduced in some cases when they still exist. It's nothing more than a laboratory that does let's say GSRs or interprets GSR results. All these are-- or something else more akin to what we might consider the blood alcohol we are doing. And so it's something that's actually challenging scientifically. I maintain and I've maintained with my students in my workshops, I'm not as fortunate as the people who get to have students for their whole academic career. I get-- I've had many of you in the room for a week at a time trying to inculcate some of my ideas. I think people take things better from their professor than they do from their one-week short course instructor. But the thing that I say and that I believe as you'll see because of my historical interest in forensic science or particularly in forensic microscopy is that maybe one way for us to continue to survive and even flourish is to go back to our roots, in which I hope to talk about here and many of which, examples of which we all heard during the week. And by that I mean actually helping police officials who are investigating crimes. Not just preparing our evidence for presentation in court, but helping along where they grab the chances for making mistakes are larger with penalties for guessing wrongly or smaller than they are in the courtroom. What we're actually trying to facilitate the development of an investigation to lead to something. Ray had a great example, Ray Palmer, had terrific examples, something like that I thought on the very first day of the plenary sessions. So with that in mind and my own particular bias, since I'm the one in front of the microphone right now, I can-- I would like to present first of all some historical examples because those are-- so strongly influenced me in my career. When I was a kid with my first microscope, I was one of these rare people who knew from very early on-- I didn't realize it was weird until-- until today. Who knew from a very age exactly what I wanted to do? I got my first microscope as many of you know at 8 years old, I spent money I didn't have to buy microscopes and supplies and things and my long suffering wife Peggy had to put up with things like, "What does this microscope do that these 17other microscopes don't do?" [ Laughter ] >> But nonetheless, I've-- I have found them too useful and I don't regret one single purchase as with most things. The only purchases I regret are the ones that I didn't make as far as microscopes go along the way. But in selected-- so I decided to pursue this from-- for the first part anyway, from the point of view of history, the kinds of cases that got me interested in forensic microscopy in the first place and more importantly, I guess at least in my particular situation, the heroes that I developed at that time and who I have been constantly trying to live up to. Well, since those early days in the great old radio room, it doesn't exist anymore, in Chicago-- with the Chicago public library we'd pull out books and read for the first time about Edward Oscar Heinrich and Edmond Locard and John Vam Ledden-Hulsebosch and Albert Schneider and these people, some of whom I would like to talk to you about a little bit this morning before we get into-- to an actual case where I did this kind of work. So first of all, I had to select some cases and I hope I made a choice. As I say, being at the end of the meeting and hearing every thing has proceeded, I don't know necessarily that I have, but I hope I can interest some of you-- many of you, especially my colleagues who I've been looking at on the podium and who are looking-- some of them who are looking at me on the podium for the last 25, 35, and 40 years in come cases. We'll know some of these cases because we all know about them or they've heard me talking about some of these before. But I hope I got a couple of things and some pictures in the course of-- of my researches over the years, my laboratory researches with my historical researches that allowed me to find pictures and things in some cases of, some of the cases, items of evidence the case for example I have never actually seen with my own eyes but only read about. As I said before, I hope-- especially the younger microscopist excuse me, the younger forensic scientists, trace evidence examiners in this room who are not familiar with these cases will enjoy some of the-- I don't know what the right word is-- find some of the inspiration I guess that I found so many years ago, over 50 years ago now actually, well over 50 years ago. When I first discovered what they could do, it made me wanna get my first-- actually, I had a microscope, wanted me to learn more about how to use the instrument. So, I-- I passed up certain people. We've got Martin here from the Netherlands. I was hoping to talk to him, and maybe I'll still have a chance before we break up, about one of my favorite, the one of the least known of the early forensic scientists, CJ van Ledden-Hulsebosch, who practiced in Amsterdam. His father-- his family for many generations were pharmacists but he became a confidant of Locard. He was very well-known. You'll actually see a picture of him later. I'm not gonna-- I'm not gonna be talking about his cases. When Bill talked to you all about the savory subject of vomit and stomach the other day, I couldn't help but think of Albert Schneider. In one of the first cases that he did, who proceeded Kirk out in California and Heinrich for that matter, which was the analysis of a vomit staim that included not only what the person had eaten, but also the medical preparation which had caused the process that resulted in a stain. He also though worked on a fantastic case where a prominent Californian back in the 1920s was threatened by a bomb of dynamite sticks tied together with twine. So in his front porch, the bomb fortunately did not go off before-- I mean it went off-- it did not go off. It was found and dismantled. But on the basis of an examination of the dust particles that were on the string, and interesting in terms of the-- the techniques we talked abut today for sample preparation and analysis, Heinrich-- excuse me, Schneider is no more than his microscope and his reagents-- but he was able to shake the string up in water-- let the water settle and that sedimentation to analyze all the dust. He gave a very complete description of a particular type of farm which includes certain kinds of domestic animals, a stream with vast running water, certain trees, and when the detectives were going out to interview a potential suspect in the case. They actually passed by a farm that had all these qualities and in point effect, it was found that the-- that the farm that they actually did go to, the owner recommended them to the place next door where some disgruntled workers were eventually found to be the ones who had set the bomb had disappeared a short period of time ago. But he has given an exact reconstruction of this. Of course, all of these old-fashioned tools you know. Anyway, so sometimes the old-fashioned tools worked but the brain was sharp and I think that's the thing that distinguishes us. Anyway, so please look at this from the point of view of hopefully being inspirational. If you don't know about these things, finding out a little bit more about some of these people. These were the ones-- were my heroes growing up and also think about the possibility that we can provide-- us collectively and trace of us, we don't always need something to compare with. We can actually help investigators in many cases as long as we're willing to be analysts and not mere comparators, which is in some cases reasons I think why-- and in some cores anyway, traces of this analysis has fallen on rough times. You gotta be able to analyze things. We're chemists, we should be able to figure out what things are. I will just-- one more anecdote before I just start into the actual talk proper. And I'm not doing this to fill the time allotted to me. I do have a lot material I'd like to get by but I think it's important to set the stage. We used to have back in the old days with McCrone Associates, when Dr. McCrone owned it and when he was still alive, we used to have 24 hour-- excuse me, after 5 o'clock at night and going until 9 o'clock in the morning, we had-- we had guards and the guards were drawn from area 1 homicide in Chicago, Sergeant Tom Ferry made a list. Guys wanted to make extra money. One guy went to flight school, another guy got his masters and his Ph.D. in forensic science. He was a police officer. His name by the way you may find amusing. It was-- his parents got a sense of humor. His last name was Manela and his first name was Sam, Samuel Manela, Sam Manela. [ Laughter ] >> So I hope-- Sam Manela was one of the guards and other old MrCrone people may remember him. In any case, they used to love us back at Walters, MrCrone Associates because he said we take this stuff to the crime lab and they say, "Bring something in to compare and we'll tell them and we'll look at it." He said, "You guys, we bring you stuff in from murder cases and you tell us what to look for," because we looked at the stuff, they gave us some ideas and we would help them out. So that was-- to me, as a young microscopist, a kind of a neat opportunity to have in those early days getting stuff right from police and trying to provide investigative leads and trying to play-- it's like when you're first married, my wife once said, "When we were first married it was like we were playing house." In those days I like playing detective. I got the opportunity to look at real cases and sort of figure things out and try in some small way to emulate those heroes from the books I had read about. Locard we just had wonderful session yesterday with-- with-- last night with ASTEE. I mentioned to everybody or most everyone was there. There's a terrific award given out and thanks to Chris Taylor who actually visited with Edmond Locard's daughter and granddaughter. ASTEE anyway now, has a legitimate high-quality award to pass out. For those of you who weren't there, you'll find-- I think there's a unanimous decision that the best person in the U.S. and the world got it. Scott Ryland who I think we all owe a lot-- a lot to and-- anyway, there was a general happiness going on Scott got this award. But anyway, it really is a serious and it's named in honor of Locard. Well Locard there's actually two recent biographies-thanks to Patrick Buzzini I found it all at once. In buying the one, I found the other. And if you work through the French well enough, although I may have some misconceptions nonetheless. So you know, Locard-- the date is important because we're gonna talk about it. Somebody else was born two years later. He was born in-- who you haven't heard about or not much. Some of you may have heard about him. In 1887, Saint-Chamond, France, he came from a pretty you know, a good family. He studied to be a medical doctor. He studied-- one of to influence though in his later years La medecine, the famous French medical jurist and eventually as we all know, he went on to form an internationally renowned laboratory and all of invoke one of the few principles of the-- the forensic science has on us all, a hybrid science as Kirk said. But we have some-- we need to have some principles of our own in Locard's exchange principle even though he himself did not call it that and while-- there are various people saying different things I think was L.C. Nichols, who first called it that in his book on Scientific Invesitagion and primes others may dispute that. But in any case, we invoke that and we have Locard to thank for. And all of you who worked in many areas, almost every area that consider in forensic science, he studied documents, he studied weapons and of course, well, I shouldn't say of course, but to me, the most interesting thing was that he studies dust, which is the field of microscopy I was interested in. There are-- there are French-- his writings were in French but he did have some of his articles translated and the ones that are most accessible fortunately for me were the-- is the three-part series on the analysis of dust traces which appear in the old and now defunct-- the long defunct American Journal of Police Science, which became the journal criminal-- on criminology at some point. Anyway, Locard was interested not only in writing and doing research and writing about his ideas on Mason, at that point of forensic science but he also did case work and he-- stayed on the case with others. So if you want to-- even though there's some articles which are very hard to find and they-- who knows where they're existing or-- but if-- I heard-- read for the time in a few of his works. You will also-- for the first time about the analysis of dust and earwax for example. And, you know, nasal cavities. So he looked at these things, they first heard-- he talks about Professor Picasso who took a walk with the students enviorness of France and then they analyzed all the layers of the shoe to see where they had walked and they got it all correct. They waited-- until after it rains so they had ideal conditions. But I'll talk to you about a real case of that sort done in those days. So people were-- they were experimental. They did things as scientists. They didn't perhaps and they didn't have a couple of methods of the luxury of some of the things that we talked about at these meetings as far as standard method and so forth-- forth goes. But what they did have working are some passion for what they did. They had the intellectual capacity. They fully utilized the instruments, instrumentation and techniques of chemistry, biology, physics that were available to them at that time. And they were like-- people often point to the forefathers of America. We had these wonderful people, intellectuals, George Washington certainly Thomas Jefferson and-- and Franklin. I mean people-- world, or now I don't know about Washington, but certainly Thomas Jefferson and Franklin were world renowned as-- as scholars and in Franklin's case, as a scientist. We're fortunate in those days of forensic science to actually have those kinds of people doing this work. I didn't realize that again as a kid reading these things. I just though they were neat cases and things I wanted to learn how to do. Locard I thought this is appropriate this meeting where ASTEE played such a big role. Locard who you see on your right sitting next to people you may not have seen pictures of but there-- there's certainly-- some of these names were brought up before certainly it felt Locard's immediate right. He-- just out of curiosity anyway know who stay right next to Locard on the right. That's Georg Popp who's been talked about several times in regard to the first-- the first recorded cases of forensic geology. Next immediately to his right his right is CJ van Ledden-Hulsebosch from Netherlands and then [inaudible] from Vienna. In fact this meeting was held in Vienna and unfortunately I cut them off because of the picture, I want to be as large as possible. Mark Bischof who's from Lausanne was the immediate successor of Rodolphe Archibald Reiss. And Reiss was the founder of probably the oldest, certainly the oldest continuing institute of Forensic scienc. We have two people who've actually graduate, maybe more that I know of, in this room right now who graduated from that program. Claude Rowe and Pedro Puzzini they trace their lineage back to Reiss who started even before Locard did. In fact Locard was a great of Reiss and vice versa. Unfortunately Reiss got religion, you might say, became an advocate for the Serb cause after the first world war and sort of gave up his forensic science duties to this but Mark Bischof took off-- continued. Anyway, the point of this picture is though, I would encourage the-- the founding members of ASTEE to get together and take a picture because in 30 or forty years or may be longer people are gonna be given a talk about this and they would like to have a picture to show of all who-- who got together all these well-known criminalists who got the other forensic scientist and sit around the table there founding, you know, the founding members of ASTEE. So, I recommend they had to. It's nice to have pictures of things. I just love being at meetings with Ed Suzuki because Ed's always got his camera and I have always great pictures of a lot of meetings because Ed's always taken-- taking good shots of things. Kirk of course-- well I shouldn't say of course. Kirk you couldn't find out with these other people without reading about Kirk and we have a number of Kirk graduates, I'm looking at Keith Inman up right here. Well have these Kirk people in the room. People-- people I know, admire-- in fact everybody from Kirk's program that I'm aware off turns out to be a great forensic scientist just like Peter Forrest turned out, first rate people. But Kirk who was originally a biochemist really took of after the second world war with using his knowledge of chemistry and microchemistry and microscopy to really start systematically examining traces evidence-- at least for those of us in the United States. So, we'll talk about earlier cases, been interesting enough, they were also in Berkeley where Kirk was settled down but-- but I'd like to-- I'm gonna make you read something here, ask you to read something. This is from Kirk I could have quoted a lot more but you wouldn't have read it. I'm hoping that with this much, you might actually read some of what he had to say and I will read it for you if you're too lazy. A meticulous and thorough nature of the work which is necessary in the examination and segregation of microscopic evidence is a detriment to its general use. In real life, it probably is. Probably lab managers don't' like their people spending all that much time to this. >> It's at best-- excuse me, it's at times trying on the patience and requires a significant amount of time, again another thing laboratory directors don't like. But again, as we all know, unlike CSI, it actually takes us time to do this stuff. It must always be remembered and this is, I've skipped down that the proof of a single fact is more important than any number of theories, hunches or at leads or hunches. Microscopic evidence is capable of providing facts of great significance. And I could have quoted Kirk, ad nauseam as they say because he had so many good things to say. I correspond with Kirk when I was a kid. And I've lost my letter from Kirk. A couple of years ago, Keith Inman who's now in charge of Kirk's archives was going through it. He didn't tell me, he just one day sends me in the mail I got to thing, there is the carbon copy of Kirk's response in my original, my very first when we were taught, I wrote to Kirk, my original handwritten letter, my 15-year-old letter, whether it was handwriting at that time. So, thank you very much Keith for this. So, it's a terrific memento to him. And he was nice. I was some dumb kid from Chicago and he wrote me this letter, other letters and things over the years and we were in constant-- I shouldn't say constant-- has an intermittent contact over the years and he would always graciously reply to any letter I had including later on in my army intelligence days when he wrote to me in Germany. He had cancer at that time already so I thought that it was not gonna be possible for me to ever be his student. But he gave me good advice on science and I'd give it to-- I'd give it to my own sons, I'd give it to my own students. One of which is you might think it with your own children that you want to do also is-- one piece of advice I would like to give you, I'm paraphrasing, close to quoting as I can, is whenever you take a course in science, remember to understand the principles and don't just learn enough to pass the examinations. And that has proven such great advice over the years. All these little things we learn about physics and chemistry, the facts, the details are so extremely useful in day-to-day work. I love pointing that out to students. You know you thought that wasn't useful to see it really is. It really works, science works. Moving on to the topic, main part of the topic at hand, today, microscopic trace evidence is used almost exclusively in the courtroom to help with the case one way or another. Although an example showed here, that's not always the case right in the office. It can be used for investigative leads. However, it was formally utilized that I hope to show by several historical examples and then one recent example from my casework. It was formally used extensively in this way. One of the things about using it that is gonna trouble people who only want to do standard methods and can't do things outside of that range is the fact that it is not rely on these artificial constructs, these SOPs and cookbooks. Where it does rely on though is something that goes back much further as a scientific method. That's the way you analyze unknown materials. That's the way you analyze unknown phenomena and try and make some attempt to understand them. And then there can often be great pressure not to do that. In fact, one of the things which although it's good for business is not good for forensic science they don't think, is that we get cases from all over the world now because their people are not qualified to do something and yet they send it to us assuming that we are qualified to do it. I assume that we are. We don't take on cases that we don't think we can't do well but it's sad from the point of view-- in fact the first day when Dr. McCrone sold McCrone Associates and I quit to start Microtrace, the only thing I missed was colleagues. It's gonna be sad to come to one of these forensic trace evidence meeting and find that there are no colleagues in the audience to list in the papers or give talks on what they've done. We have to somehow, in addition to having all these things done to us become advocates for science, the science part of forensic science. And without-- we further turned off the power and everything else stopped. I'll stop there. Anyway, these people were accused to using evidence from dust and other debris. In addition all kinds of other things, of course there's fingerprint going on, early experience and firearms comparison and so forth. I'd like to talk first about probably one of the best known cases ever. But in my case it's the one that after-- I heard about Locard first, but I haven't heard about fellow on Berkeley, Edward Oscar Heinrich. He was ahead of Bachelor of Science in chemistry which he had to work for. He arrived Berkeley with a couple of dollars in his pocket, but he had studied with a pharmacist. In fact he originally wanted to be a pharmacist, he had learned from long hours of study, he learned a lot of practical chemistry. It's kind of like to think my brother and I learned in our home lab when we were kids. I mean, nowadays you can hardly-- in the university they don't want you to make bromine-- you know we're making it in our basement and stuff like that when we were kids extracting these things. But anyway, he had an interesting career. I mean he was a city manager for a while in a city. He came back, took over for this fella name Theodore Kike that was a document examiner in Berkeley, took over his practice and it was a document examination practice which Heinrich did. He expanded to other things and played a prominent role in the Hindu-Goddard case that's called it was during the second world war when the German council was trying to get Indians and British under the British Raj to revolt so British troops would be taken away from the other battlefronts and have to go to India and there were a lot of messages that passed that through, U.S., they brought in Heinrich to analyze the inks and everything, in fact he said he could not do a good examination of the documents himself unless he learned the languages and the dialects. And so he thought it was nuts but the British provided him with tutors, he learned them well enough to be able to actually read the documents in the original languages and then take all that into accounts. So when you talk about what you need to know in certain cases, I think there is an example there. Sometimes you need to know very little. Sometimes you needed a good deal. It depends-- it's question-dependent, what question has been asked and that again, that doesn't fit very well into the standard methods but it fits very well into the human mind that's an inquiring mind. Anyway, the case that's got my attention and perhaps they say most of the people might have heard this but may haven't seen some these pictures before. On October 11, 1923, southbound express train, train number 13 was of all things passing through tunnel 13 Siskiyou Mountains not far from Ashland, Oregon and Bonnie Yates is where she lives right now, not far away at all from where Bonnie lives. Host on the train at one end of the tunnel, other guys were waiting at the other line, well it came out they stopped the train when it was just outside the tunnel, the engine, the tender and the mail cart just behind it just come out of the tunnel when it was stopped and there were words what the fireman and the brakeman, but anyway, in a short period to make a long story short and it is a long story, but interesting story, the fireman, the brakeman, the engineer and eventually you see the postal clerk were all lying dead. They were all shot. Some fellows there was a ridge from the side because some people came down from the side, they were waiting on the other end of the tracks after it was stopped and in a scene which could only I think have been reminisced into the movie of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, remember when they blow up the mail cart? They blow up the mail there is nothing left and the poor mail cart died. He is the fourth victim. I was thinking that whenever I'm telling the story, I think of that scene in Butch and the Sundance where Robert Redford says to Paul Newman, "I think you used enough dynamite there Butch?" Anyway, that was the problem these guys had, maybe they got the idea for the movie from that. But anyway, it was blown up, but the guys got no money but they hightailed it, as they would seem in those days. The only piece of evidence, or there are couple piece of evidence that are left behind and police dogs couldn't find any but-- they sent people out, they got posses and stuff out there, looked all over the place, couldn't find anything. But they did have squirred away there was a detonator the fellow who got on the back of the train, had dropped a .45 caliber automatic and there was a pair of greasy overalls. After some period of time, the overalls, the posse, I guess which they had in 1922, in those days, decided that the battery that was with the detonator and the grease stains looked a lot like a stuff you might pick up in a mechanics place, so they went on, mechanic walks out into town, mechanic walks out, he's go greasy overalls, they arrest him, but there's nothing else on the guy. They've got nothing else and several days later, they finally decide that they are going to seek outside help. So at this point you've got the government involved, you've got the postal inspection service, you've got the Southern Pacific Railway investigator's involvement and of course the local police, and they're all trying to figure out what's going on, but the feds, remember had worked with Heinrich before on World War I stuff and other kinds of things. So they said "Let's call to Heinrich", so they sent the stuff down to Heinrich and a couple of days later, they get the report back and this is the part that I love when I was a kid. Well eventually they got a telegram first which said, "You're holding the wrong man. The man you want is about somewhere at 20 to 28 years of age. He is about five feet ten inches tall. He has light sandy hair. He is a lumberjack who works in the Pacific Northwest. He is a very fastidious person, and by the way he is a left-handed lumberjack." And so they read this report and they say, "Sure." [Laugher] But the government people had worked with Heinrich before. So they decided to jump on a train, one that wasn't gonna be blown up and run down to-- come down to Berkeley. They met with Heinrich in his laboratory and he explained all his conclusions. He said you arrested a lumberjack because of the grease on his clothes, well I examined the grease, it's not grease, first of all it's pitch and more specifically it's pine pitch. And he goes on and on and he did have some lucky breaks in this case. He got the hairs, so he got the hair color, the age list on the descriptions, now in the Bancroft Library in Berkeley, Paul Dougherty has been there and somebody else. I can't remember, he's been looking through Heinrich's papers which were all there. In the presentation it says or in Eugene Black's book, The Wizard of Berkeley it says that this is, I tracked this back, this was actually an Austrian medical-legal expert who said, you tell the age of a person by cross-section of the hair and then looking at the rings just like three rings and sort of count them up. [Laughter] So I don't know if Heinrich told them that or if that was something that came. Anyway I don't think we can-- we can-- but maybe Heinrich was lucky on that one. They got the hair color, cause they're stuck in the buttons. He decide he was a lumberjack but a number of things first, he got pine pitch on his clothes, the way the pants were rolled up and they got the hight guy from making measurements which you now finally you know, you can see the actual overalls themselves. That's in front of the door in Heinrich's laboratory. You'll see a picture later of Heinrich, I think I've got it in here and those are his bookshelves on either side. But anyway, he said he was fastidious because he found fingernail clippings in the pocket, usually when clip their fingernails they toss them somewhere else, this guy clipped them and stuck them in his pocket, and he said he was a left-handed lumberjack because he found first of all Douglas fur in the pockets, but he didn't find them in the left hand pocket if you are standing with your axe chopping a tree one would expect that you would get the any particles to come off in the right side but they're on the left side, so he postulated anyway that this person was a left-handed lumberjack. But anyway, Heinrich then really wowed them. After he went through all of this and explained how he'd reach all of his inferences, he gave them the name of the person who owned the overalls. Now that was a bit of luck. But Heinrich said that always takes me at least 24-hours to examine some clothes and everybody had gone over these things before, yeah of course not many systematic fashion, not like we would. But he said, I always make a point of reaching in every pocket, emptying everything, pulling it out, in fact I-- that advice has served me well over the years and I suspect that those that are trained well are also the same thing, but you can tell so much of the dust in somebody's pocket. We had for example in Illinois, we had a little boy who was found decomposed and brand new-- what appeared to be brand new clothes, one of the things they will prove they're brand new clothes if you ever reach in the bottom of your pockets, unless the clothes are new if they've been washed even once they're certainly removed more. Let me see if I can-- I actually haven't worn these pants before. [Laughter] But I guess they're not having-- I was going to plot a clump of lint for you. There's always a clump of lint with stuff as soon as you wash your clothes. Anyway, he reached in-- there was a pen pocket and then he reached them because-- oh one of the things he found was kinnikinnick which is a local-- in the northwest, it's some of these Indian tobacco and it is used by people, who often roll their own cigarettes in those days. So he started looking around for cigarette papers. When he reaches inside and pulls out, well smelled rather damp but he can see it wet and everything is all messed up. But he unrolled it and once the cigarette wrapper, it was a registered mail receipt. And by using chemicals, UV light, iodine stain, I think he was able to actually bring out names on there and it was registered, could be traced back by the postal department to Hugh DeAutremont. So the authorities jumped on this. They went on to visit the parents, the boys have been missing for a couple of weeks and they were going off on some moneymaking adventure and they hadn't seen him since. Well it turns out that there were three DeAutremont boys. And two of them were twins and one of them was not, but they'd all gone missing together. At that point according to the records, the largest manhunt in U.S. history began because it turned out to be the last of the big time old west train robberies. In fact well, I have an interest to it and hopefully some of you have an interest in this, the other group of people were not so close to him, that's all the train enthusiast, old-fashioned train enthusiast looked back to this as like the great final triumph of the old-time train robbers. Well I guess its not a triupmh, as it turns out you'll see they didn't get away with it. But at this point, they still haven't gotten away wit any money, they just disappeared. Anyway they kept raising the ante on this and finally, let's see, do I have that actual books, no, not yet. Finally they did about 1927, a sergeant coming back from the Philippines on duty in San Francisco was looking in the post office which I used to religiously go on the post office when I was a kid after reading this to look at a lot of the posters, I don't know if they have them in the post office anymore, but I used to look at them copied out all the names and make drawings. And anyway they were, never did me any good. Never capture a criminal that way, I have to tell you. [Laughter]. But anyway, he said, one of the extra ones, I don't remember which one it was, he said, "That's corporal so and so from Manila." So they had corporal so and so report to his commanding officer, they put him on a boat for San Francisco, he got the boat with federal agents were waiting for him, they picked him up and they brought him for trial. Well that after all these years later, this brought back all the information in the papers about the case and they also discovered the twins were both working in a steel mill in Ohio. So they were also brought in, but Hugh, Roy, I can't remember which one it was, anyway Roy or Ray. Anyway, one of them was put on trial, first they had a mistrial, Heinrich testified in respect it is interesting to read the testimony that exists. As you can see the picture of the actual coming after the picture of the actual tunnel 13 and for they have think Ed Espinosa who is fanatical about all of this case as I am. He's been trying to track down, so in fact, Bonnie brought me the breaking news flash that all the court records at least that are available in Medford no longer exist. But anyway, there is some stuff about it, and Heinrich went through the same kind of picky-ukne kind of a defense, withering defense examination that we go through today on the stand. So I thought that was kind of interesting factor which I'd never really know about, certainly not mention in a lot of the other accounts. They just talked about a California professor finds a left-handed lumberjack. Anyway they were found ahead of trial, a mistrial first and the second trial I'm sure what it, was convicted, the other two confessed and up until recently one of them went insane in prison actually. One of them died in prison and one of then was actually released like 1978 or '72 or something like that. So, kind of-- kind of an interesting case all around, but at least I just show you there is tunnel 13, you see the little white dot at the end, we walked all the way from there up to the front and Ed took that picture of me standing up there on a snowy day, but that's-- so it's all been reinforced now. The tracks by the way from the rust, I don't think it's being used, you can see what it looked like back at that time that further on your left was taken at the time of the case. So I just think it's interesting because of the tools of the time and without standard operating procedures and stuff, Heinrich managed to actually provide a very significant investigative lead in this case.