Joe Cella, the Hamilton Journal News reporter who never let the Tammen story die and who unearthed essential details about the case even decades later, would be turning 100 today if he were still alive. In April 1977, Joe was quoted in an article in the Dayton Daily News saying: “The university covered it up. They wouldn’t give you any answers.” On Joe’s centennial birthday, I thought it would be fitting to post some additional evidence that supports his cover-up theory.
For a long, long while, I used to believe that Miami University’s administrators and the Oxford PD didn’t have the slightest notion of what happened to Ron Tammen in the days following his disappearance. When they were quoted in the press bemoaning the lack of clues while actively ignoring, you know, actual clues, I just figured they were letting their inexperience show through. They were new at this, you guys. Cut ‘em some slack.
But then, as I discussed in my post “Proof of a cover-up,” it started appearing as if university administrators were purposely withholding key details. First and foremost: No one seemed to want the psychology book that was open on Tammen’s desk to make its way into a news article. Gilson Wright, the Miami journalism professor who also worked as a stringer for area papers, was how they conveniently managed to keep that info away from the interested public. Wright never mentioned the word psychology in any of his stories—ever—even though he would have known about the open textbook’s subject matter at the very latest by April 1954, when Joe Cella, of the Hamilton Journal News, introduced that detail into his one-year anniversary article. In the first 23 years of Tammen coverage, only two reporters—Cella and Murray Seeger, of the Cleveland Plain Dealer—ever mentioned the psychology book in their articles.
That discovery has led me to ask: what else was the university doing to keep details of the case away from the press, and—OK, I’ll say it—namely one member of the press? Although Seeger wrote a nice piece in 1956, he was primarily a political reporter for the Plain Dealer before moving on to bigger outlets, and he wasn’t keeping up with the story like Cella was. Cella was the only non-university-paid reporter who was following the story from the very beginning until 1976, and quite probably until his death in 1980.
Was the university doing anything to keep certain information out of Cella’s hands? For sure.
Last year, before Covid-19 reared its spikey little head, I was spending some time in Miami University’s Archives, and found something I didn’t recall seeing there before. Or, if I had seen it before, it didn’t seem nearly as significant as it does now. Tucked among a hodgepodge of Tammen-related news and magazine articles is an undated, unsourced, one-page sheet that appears innocent enough—a dishy “story behind the story” that someone had typed up on a computer. The font looks like Times New Roman and it was printed on a laser printer. The printer paper looks bright white, not yellowed with age. For these and a few other reasons, which I’ll be getting to in a moment, it appears to have been written fairly recently—long after I graduated from Miami in 1980 and certainly post-Cella. It could have been produced in the last 20 years, or perhaps even more recently than that. It’s too hard to tell.
The write-up has to do with an interview that was conducted with someone who worked for Carl Knox at the time that Ron Tammen disappeared. She was his secretary—that was her official job title—though the write-up refers to her as the “Assistant to the Dean of Men, Carl Knox.” (That’s another clue that the write-up was more recent: over the decades, the terms administrative assistant or administrative professional replaced the word secretary, with the professional association making the change only roughly 20 years ago, in the late 1990s and 2000.)
A sad, albeit surprising aspect of this story is that this person passed away only this year. What I’m driving at here is that it appears that someone who’d worked closely with Carl Knox when Ronald Tammen disappeared was interviewed by someone from the university relatively recently in my estimation, though I don’t know when or by whom. In Tammen world, this was the “get” of all gets. It would have been the closest thing to talking to Carl himself.
I’m not going to share the name of the assistant on this blog site out of respect for the family, who couldn’t recall ever hearing their mother comment on the Tammen case. But I will include the details that this person shared during her interview, which were typed up in bulleted format. The document reads as follows, with the only difference being that I’ve substituted “AD” (short for assistant to the dean) for the woman’s name:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON RON TAMMEN, Jr.
From an interview with AD, Assistant to the Dean of Men, Carl Knox, at the time of Tammen’s disappearance on April 19, 1953
- At the time, Hueston Woods held a work-camp for prisoners who were about to be released; they worked at clearing away brush from the future site of the lake. These prisoners assisted in the search for Ron Tammen.
- AD’s office was across the hall from Dean Knox’s, with a bench across from her desk. After the disappearance, news reporters would sit on this bench awaiting any new information. On one occasion, AD called across the hall to Dean Knox that he had a telephone call from New York. Although the call had nothing to do with Ron Tammen, the reporters assumed it did, and this is how the rumor started that Tammen had been found in New York.
- As a result of the false New York story (above), a buzzer was installed on AD’s desk so she could notify Dean Knox of his calls without calling out across the hall for the reporters to hear. She was also given a list of words that she should not say aloud in front of reporters.
- After Fisher Hall was demolished in 1978, the wells and cisterns under the building were searched, since they had not been easy to search at the time of the disappearance. No signs of Ron Tammen, Jr. were found.
Before I begin dissecting the summary, please understand that I don’t think AD was in on every single convo surrounding the university’s investigation. Rather, in my view, her comments reflect what Dean Knox and perhaps others would have said to her. That’s what I’m commenting on—the words and actions of AD’s superiors based on her personal account. I’ll also add that the above summary is only someone’s interpretation of what she said during the interview. Unless we have the original transcript or recording, we can’t be sure that whoever wrote these notes did so with 100% accuracy. Plus, they may have left out some important details.
OK, let’s get to it:
1). The date of the interview
The author decided not to add his or her name to the summary, which is aggravating enough for someone like me who likes to contact people who know things about the Tammen case. But it would have been really helpful if they had thought to date it—either typed it in or scribbled it at the top to let us all know when it was written, and in turn, roughly when AD was interviewed. Instead, the first line is so confusing that it takes a couple reads to realize that they’re saying she was the “Assistant to the Dean of Men, Carl Knox, at the time of Tammen’s disappearance,” as opposed to being interviewed at that time, as one Miami staff member had speculated when I’d inquired about it. Based on the evidence I’ve described plus what I’m about to discuss—particularly regarding bullet #3 above—I’ve concluded that it’s a poorly worded phrase, and there’s simply no way the interview happened in 1953. It was later. We just don’t know how much later. I don’t want to get all conspiracy theory–minded on you this early in my blog post, but I mean…did they MEAN to throw us off by not dating it?
2). The work-camp prisoners
Yeah, yawn, we already knew about the prisoners. Good for them. Moving on.
3). The New York rumor
A couple weeks after Ron Tammen disappeared, a rumor had spread across campus about Tammen being spotted in New York. I’ve tried like crazy to find out what the rumor was—it was one of my standby questions for anyone I interviewed who was on campus at the time. No one with whom I spoke could recall the rumor. In fact the only other evidence I’ve had of the rumor was a May 8, 1953, editorial in the Miami Student (p. 2, top left) that stated that a rumor had been circulating that “…Tammen had been located, under conditions that were defamatory to his character.” But according to the same editorial, the rumor was started by an “enterprising student,” and the purpose was to see how fast it would spread. Other than that editorial, which chastised fellow students for disseminating the rumor in the first place (its title was “Must Tongues Wag”), no reporter ever mentioned the New York rumor in an article—not Joe Cella, not Gilson Wright, not even a student reporter.
As we all know, there was another possible New York connection to the Tammen story, though this one came several months later, in August 1953. Could housing official H.H. Stephenson’s potential Ron sighting in Wellsville, NY, have been the basis behind the phone call that Carl Knox had received? Perhaps Cella or Wright or someone else was in the vicinity when the call came in, and Knox was concerned that they’d heard something that he felt shouldn’t be made public. The only person who reported that potential sighting, however, was Cella in 1976, and that article was not based on a rumor or an overheard phone call. It was based on a conversation with H.H. Stephenson, who had worked directly for Carl Knox in 1953. (His title then was director of men’s housing and student employment.)
4). The bench across from her desk
The summary says that reporters—plural—used to sit on a bench across from AD’s desk waiting for updates. That’s rather hard to imagine, given the fact that there were so few clues to begin with and only two newspaper reporters who were covering the story from the beginning: Gilson Wright and Joe Cella. Wright, being a university employee, seemed to have an inside track with Carl Knox. Why would he have to sit on the bench waiting for updates? Besides, with all the university jobs he was juggling—teaching courses, advising student journalists, heading up the news bureau—he had other places to be.
Perhaps a Miami Student reporter had been occupying the bench. But students have classes to attend, and, moreover, there were no bylined Miami Student articles during the spring of 1953. Also, the early Student articles were similar to the articles Wright was submitting to area newspapers, which has led me to infer that Wright authored those as well.
That leaves Joe Cella, although I’m sure Joe was too busy to plant himself outside of Carl Knox’s office for hours on end. Besides, Joe’s best sources seemed to be the students and staff members who were closest to the action as opposed to seated behind a desk in Benton Hall.
As far as radio and TV coverage, there likely was some of that too, especially early on, though any trace of what was broadcast over the airwaves is gone. However, their reporting would have probably been bare-bones, with most of their info coming from Miami’s news bureau, courtesy of Gilson Wright and company. In short, I can’t imagine they’d be camped out either.
My hunch is that whoever was seated there when the New York phone call came in had set up an interview with Knox and was merely waiting…if a reporter was sitting there at all. More on that theory in a second.
5). The buzzer on her desk
Regardless of who was calling from New York and for what purpose, university administrators had clearly been shaken up about it—so much so that they decided to install a buzzer on AD’s desk.
For what it’s worth, the buzzer technology wouldn’t have been a huge technological feat in those days, according to two electrical engineers who weighed in after I put out a call for help on Facebook. (Thanks, Chris and Travis!) People have been ringing doorbells on a widespread basis since the early 1900s, which would basically accomplish the same thing—pressing a button and having it ring, or buzz, in another room with the aid of an electrical wire. (A similar concept is turning lights on and off using a button or toggle switch, connected to a light source by an electrical wire.) For this reason, AD’s buzzer would have been fairly simple for someone with that skill set to put together.
6). More on the bench, the buzzer, and the rumor
But seriously, you guys, how many reporters could there have been sitting on AD’s bench, day in and day out, and were they really creating such havoc around the office that it warranted instituting a secret buzzer system?
To be sure, a missing student is a very big deal. But installing a secret desk buzzer seems to be more like the act of someone who wants to play spy or top-secret government insider. Who were they protecting with their desk buzzer? Not Ron. Not the Tammen family. And honestly, so what if someone from the press overheard that Carl Knox had received a call from New York. No reporter worth his or her stripes would file a story based on that meager amount of info. They’d first ask Knox if the call pertained to Tammen, Knox would say no, and the potential misinformation would be squelched then and there, amIright?
I’m going to propose a different scenario: AD may have been told by Knox that her new buzzer system was because of reporters spreading the New York rumor—which, again, never made its way into newspapers—but I think it went beyond that. Remember that Carl Knox had jotted in his notes the name “Prof. Switzer,” Ron’s psychology professor who I believe was working for the CIA at the time Tammen disappeared. Switzer had even told one of my sources that he had indeed spoken with investigators at that time as well. What if Switzer had informed Carl Knox that Tammen’s disappearance involved a classified government program that’s important for protecting the nation’s security? Knox might have decided that a buzzer system would be a simple, effective way to do his patriotic duty. Incoming phone calls—from New York, D.C., or wherever—would be handled with utmost secrecy, no matter who happened to be standing nearby.
7). The list of words that she should not say aloud in front of reporters
OH. MY. LORD. Talk about burying a lede—this one got pushed to the tail end of bullet #3, after the work-camp prisoners but before the cisterns and wells.
Do you have any idea what I would give to know the words AD was instructed not to say in front of reporters? A lot. I would give a lot. Was one of the words “Switzer”? “Psychology”? “Hypnosis”? Or better yet “Post-hypnotic suggestion”? Or how about “MKULTRA” or “Project ARTICHOKE”? I mean, did AD’s interviewer think to ask the obvious follow-up question: What words were on the list? And if they did ask that question, why would they leave the most important part out of their summary page? Why indeed.
You guys, I’ve worked in several press offices in my career, and have fielded calls on topics that were considered political hot potatoes in their day. But I can’t think of a single time when I was instructed not to say certain words. Were they trying to protect Ron’s reputation? To avoid putting the university in an embarrassing light? Would the words have steered reporters too close to a probable cause for his disappearance? Whatever the reason, if the university was prohibiting the use of certain words to prevent a reporter from learning an inconvenient but potentially significant truth, that’s a cover-up.
Incidentally, I’m quite certain that AD would have never mentioned the forbidden words list back in 1953, when she was working for Carl Knox and the investigation was in full swing. That’s another reason that I feel that the interview was relatively recent.
One word that I’m pretty sure wasn’t on the forbidden list? Cisterns.
8). The cisterns
Speaking of cisterns, in part one (2:47) of the two-part segment on Ron Tammen last month from WXIX (Cincinnati), we were introduced to the concept of open cisterns on Miami’s campus by a Miami University spokesperson. Cisterns are generally described as large tanks that store water, though the cistern that was shown in the news segment was built in the 1800s and looked like a large open hole leading to a bricked-in area underground. I’ll tell you here and now, I had no idea that they were considered a safety problem back then. But I’m not sure students in those days felt that way either. If you type the search term “cistern” (singular) into the Miami Student digital archive for the time period of 1900 to 2020, two articles will pop up, one from 1903 and one from September 1986. The 1986 article discusses a cistern that the university had installed under Yager Stadium to conserve water when maintaining the athletic fields. The 1903 article was about a wrongly translated Latin passage and had nothing to do with cisterns on campus. The term “cisterns” (plural) yielded an article from 2000 about brick cisterns that were discovered during the construction of a park in uptown Oxford.
What AD said, however, was that they’d checked the wells and cisterns under Fisher Hall after the building was torn down in 1978 because they were difficult to get to. Of course, I don’t want to leave any stone unturned in my research, and that includes learning more about the university’s cisterns. Earlier this month, I emailed the spokesperson seeking background materials or a conversation on the topic, and so far, I haven’t heard back from him. I’ll keep you posted.
9). The full interview
Although the “Cliff Notes” version of AD’s interview is better than nothing, I really want to read the full transcript. Or better yet, I’d love to hear the recording. At the very least, I want to know when the interview was conducted and by whom so I can reach out to the interviewer for a conversation about all they remember that AD said, including, hopefully, at least one or two choice forbidden words.
I’ve reached out to senior administration officials for Miami University Libraries as well as Marketing and Communications, including the News Office, for assistance. Currently, the head of the libraries’ department that oversees Special Collections, Preservation and The University Archives is having his staff look for the source materials, though it may take a while due to Covid-19 restrictions. I’ll be touching base with them every so often for updates.
Here’s why I believe the university should still have the source materials: AD and her husband were well known, beloved figures at the university for many years. Although I still don’t know the reason behind the interview, it would make sense if someone had requested it for historical purposes. If that were the case, then tossing the original tape or transcript would be very, very strange, to put it mildly. I can’t say that that’s what happened at this point, but it’s a concern of mine.
Furthermore, as someone who believes in transparency in our public and governmental institutions, let me be transparent regarding my current thinking. In discussing the possibility of a university cover-up, I always gave the people in later administrations a pass. How could they have been privy to information that Carl Knox and his team were discussing off-the-record and in real time? If there was a cover-up, I used to think, it would have been the people who were making those judgment calls back then. Once they died, any evidence of wrongdoing would have died with them.
However, if someone who’d been around at that time briefed someone fairly recently, filling them in on forbidden words, for example, and any other pertinent intel from 1953, and if that interview was reduced to a few tamed-down bullet points and the original source materials were discarded to prevent someone like me from finding them? Well, the cover-up would live on. Is that what’s happening? I sincerely hope not. That’s why finding the source materials is so important.
I can only imagine what the late, great Joe Cella would say to me about the possibility of an ongoing cover-up. Probably something like: “Welcome to my world.” And then he’d add, “Keep on it.”
In light of the new revelations, I rewatched the 1976 documentary “The Phantom of Oxford” to listen again to what Carl Knox had to say 23 years after Tammen had disappeared. By then, Knox had moved to Boca Raton, Florida, and was serving as professor of education and vice president for student affairs at Florida Atlantic University.
In Part 1 (9:18), Knox briefly discusses Tammen having left his car behind with his bass inside, which is 100% true, but it doesn’t add anything to today’s topic. In Part 2 (2:40), he says this:
Carl Knox: In other campuses where I’ve been located, there have been disappearances, and there have been tragedies, but nothing which has sort of popped out of, no background of explanation, no way of reasonable anticipation, but just suddenly happening, and there you were with egg on your face, deep-felt concerns, and yet no answers for any part of it.
Ed Hart: And yet something tells you Ron Tammen is alive.
Carl Knox: Yes, I feel this. I feel it keenly.
Knox is believable in the interview, and his facial expressions could best be described as: deeply concerned, which is consistent with what he has to say. But, as we now know, there’s a lot of information concerning the university’s investigation that he’s chosen not to say here. Twenty-three years later, he has elected to keep his mouth shut—about open psychology books and dropped courses, about hypnosis studies, about three amnesiac Ohio youths, about Ron’s proneness to dissociation, about Dr. Switzer, about hidden buzzers and forbidden words.
In fact, the only time Carl Knox truly opens up about the case is in his last sentence. Knowing everything he knew back then, he keenly felt that Ron was alive—in 1953 as well as in 1976. And you know what? I keenly feel it too.
Happy holidays, everyone! Comments are now open. You’re also welcome to air a grievance or two (non-political please) in honor of Festivus, which also happens to be today.
Post-Christmas Post-Script (Dec. 27, 2020)
Hi, all! I’m back. I forgot to make a point in the above post that probably appears like a gaping, cistern-sized hole and it’s been eating at me. It concerns the fourth bullet point that discusses the cisterns and wells. There I was, offering up my reasoning regarding why the interview with AD couldn’t have been conducted in 1953, and I didn’t even bring up the fact that the fourth bullet discusses how they’d searched the cisterns and wells in 1978, when they tore down Fisher Hall. Did anyone else catch that? I mean, clearly, the interview occurred after 1978.
Sorry for the oversight!
I should also add that the same university rep who felt that the interview was conducted at the time of Tammen’s disappearance said that she didn’t think the fourth bullet was related to the interview with AD. But that’s not what the document says. The document says that the additional information was from the interview. So, it occurred after 1978, but, again, I think it was much more recent than that. I’m just hoping to find someone with the institutional memory to recall when the interview took place and with whom.
I can be slightly more sympathetic if the alphabet soup of government agencies were the ones pressuring the University to cover things up, especially in the years following WWII and coasting right into the Cold War. Certainly more understandable than the current college scandals of trying to hide decades of assaults by prominent coaches or doctors.
I also just listened to the April 24, 2020 episode of Stuff They Don’t Want You to Know, and I’m wondering if our friend Gilson Wright wasn’t just told what to do by the uni, but Operation Mockingbird’d.
Great points. It’s a perfect excuse…university officials feel emboldened because they’ve been told they’re protecting our country —and Ron—by covering up certain details of the case. And you raise an interesting question about Operation Mockingbird. (Thanks for the heads up about the podcast, btw…I need to add that to my list!) It’s possible that it wasn’t just the university who warned Gilson Wright, but a rep of a federal agency such as the CIA, which would have been even more impactful. That would certainly help explain his actions. Perhaps Robert Howard was in the room too.
Just got 13 inches of snow and it’s still coming, so work was cancelled and I can sit down and sort through everything. And if printer ink wasn’t made out of unicorn blood, I’d print it all, too. Still might copy everything to Word so I can make notes. 😉 So my thoughts thus far:
1.) I’m not a Miami alum or anything, and the closest I’ve ever been to Oxford is the St. Henry/Celina area north of Dayton. So I had to familiarize myself more with Robert Howard, and found this tidbit of the letter memorializing his passing in 1998 quite telling:
“Bob Howard became the “institutional memory” and chief publicist for Miami University. He was a trusted staff member to four Miami Presidents, and two acting presidents, none of whom ever second-guessed his news judgement.”
I’m also thinking a nice, personalized note to Wright from one of Frank Wisner’s more recognizable journalists would have been a nice, persuasive touch.
2. The STDWYTK podcast: I recommend starting with the December 13, 2013 episode The “Real” Conspiracies which explains the difference between what they call conspiracy realism and conspiracy theory. Also the July 20 2018 episode Conspiracies that Turned Out to Be True.
Otherwise there’s plenty of topics like the UFO/aliens (semi-relevant since Wright-Patt was the epicenter of Project Bluebook and allegedly stores the bodies of extraterrestrials found at Roswell, and yes, Buzz Aldrin saw a UFO, no, it was not extraterrestrial in nature), the likelihood of hidden, underground, and/or underwater military bases, and naturally, lots of CIA and FBI operations, as well as the history of the NSA, which began in the 1950s. There’s also an episode on whether memories can be erased (9-13-2019) although you’ve already covered that pretty well.
That’s an interesting theory re #1. I could buy into it, and it could explain a lot….and I mean a LOT. For example: the missing Miami Student article that discussed Everett Patten leading a faculty panel on Tammen and concluding that it was amnesia/dissociation. I believe my source that he’d read it in the Student. Where did that article go? I’ve wondered if they’d somehow created a replacement edition for posterity minus that article, but it seemed a little far-fetched and I haven’t found any corroborating evidence. But if Wright (and possibly Howard) had been given instructions from powerful people to get rid of it and the resources to do so without leaving a trace, hmmm. Also, thank you for the podcast recommendations. I really need to listen. Right now, I’m reading “Brainwash: The Secret History of Mind Control,” by Dominic Streatfeild, and it’s incredibly helpful as well.
Merry Christmas! I have a question/thought. I’ve always mused that it was curious that the possible sighting of Ron Tammen was done by H. H. Stephenson who reported directly to Carl Knox… I can’t put my finger on it, but it seems quite coincidental that the only person to witness this possible sighting was so extremely connected to the story of the disappearance. Could this possible sighting have been planted by Knox (telling Stephenson to make such a report) or is it a genuine coincidence? When I type that all out, it seems unlikely and I’m curious what you think…
Very interesting–I think you may be the first person to suggest this possibility! You’re right that it’s incredibly coincidental that, of all the people to potentially spot Tammen in Wellsville, it would be Knox’s own employee. And if Knox was changing the narrative of Tammen’s whereabouts the night of his disappearance, as I believe he was, who’s to say that he didn’t suggest this sighting story as well? Although it’s really interesting and might make a lot of sense, my thinking is that it didn’t come from Knox because he never publicized HH’s possible sighting. Also, there was the cryptic note “H.H.S., Aug. 5, 1953, Wellsville, NY” in Carl Knox’s investigation notes. I don’t think it would have been written so cryptically if Carl had asked HH to make that report. Finally, Stephenson did act bemused in 1976 when he told Cella that he was surprised that people were just learning about his potential sighting then, when he’d reported it to Knox the very next day. He also seems very believable in the Phantom of Oxford. But then again, when Stephenson’s son looked in his father’s journal for the Aug 5, 1953 entry, there was no mention of a Tammen sighting…hmmmmmmmmm…..it’s definitely worth pondering a little more. Thanks!
In honor of Festivus, I submit my grievance of youthful addiction to cell phones. I know people who, if they are awake, they are talking. Loudly. Boringly. The rest of the world really, really, REALLY doesn’t want to hear about your boring life, and probably the person on the other end of the call doesn’t either. They just want you to stop talking so they can start telling their own loud and boring story to you.
Attention all cell phone users. Quit talking every waking moment. You’re boring. SHUT. UP.
Just watched the clip of Carl Knox again. Strange behavior, although obviously it’s a difficult subject. I don’t know the state of Facial Action Coding System techniques, but it might be worth a look.
Oh, I like that idea. I’ll see what I can find out. Thanks!
Happy Holidays, J! And Festivus too! Kramer style! 😉
First . . .
“and there’s simply no way the interview happened in 1953. It was later. We just don’t know how much later. I don’t want to get all conspiracy theory–minded on you this early in my blog post, but I mean…did they MEAN to throw us off by not dating it?”
You bet it was meant to throw us off! You mean to tell me “someone from the University” did this interview within possibly the last 20 years, didn’t leave their name, nor created their own citation source listing the date, time, place, and location of this interview?! What kind of university person is that?! That would have been the number one thing (and priority) on their mind after transcribing the interview. It just opens the field of a cover-up even more.
But it is odd why the interview happened and took place. If there were details that were never to be released, still, why was it done? It also sounds like the interviewer might have been doing some research on their own too. And didn’t want to declare their identity made public. And I think this could have been done to “throw some scraps” from the table for whoever might be looking for some. And here we are!
Having Knox implement secret buzzers is very strange. Why not just have the AD just transfer his calls to his desk without her having to say anything from her side? It also could have been that he was paranoid too. Perhaps starting to feel that the ‘bench warmers’ weren’t truly reporters at all. One can speculate on that even more!
As for the list of words . . . I presume it must have been quite a list to keep this case hushed!
My hypothetical list centers around the era, events, time and locations, and things Miami officials didn’t want to hear and made further mention of:
*Hoover (not the vacuum company of North Canton, Ohio)
As for the false New York rumor for being the motive behind such a list. I wonder if it was scratched off after Stephenson’s sighting in Wellsville months later? Because of that incident, it’s pretty clear that the first false report had credence, and the cat was now outta’ the bag!
Lol! That’s quite a list of vocabulary words! I have some thoughts to add, but my day’s pretty full today, so I’ll comment at the same time as for others…later this evening. Thanks!
Thanks for these thoughts — always good to have your input. So…why was the interview conducted is a great question. I don’t know the answer, but here’s my guess: as I said before, this person was beloved at the university, as was her husband. And as you may know, Miami has an oral history collection, like many universities, where they interview various people to share their perspective on a given topic. They talk to former Campus Owls, former Miami Student reporters, former Cradle of Coaches members, former presidents…just lots and lots of people. It’s an amazing resource. (https://digital.lib.miamioh.edu/digital/collection/mustories/search/page/1) What if AD had mentioned to someone affiliated with the library that she was Carl Knox’s secretary when Tammen disappeared? They would have been so excited to get her on tape, you know? So let’s say they scheduled an interview, and then, when she discussed some of the actions of her bosses, someone may have decided that they didn’t want to keep the full interview after all. Maybe it implicated some past people. So (again, I’m guessing here) let’s say they typed up a glossed-over summary and discarded the original recording and/or transcript. As I said, I have no clue if this is what happened–and I’m hoping that it didn’t happen that way. But I can see why they would have wanted to interview her.
As for your question about why she didn’t just transfer his calls, I’m not sure her phone had that capability, but I don’t know…
The 3 Stooges Stage a College Cover-up….what in the world? Too many pesky reporters sitting around 24/7 and overhearing all kinds of nefarious messages. This is one more really stupid revelation about Miami.
As for Carl Knox and the “feeling” Ron was alive, I thought that was odd when I first watched the Phantom of Oxford. It seems more sinister now. I’ll watch it again and think more about this.
Yeah, I agree, on both counts. The call from New York could have been his aunt from Poughkeepsie. (I’m just making that up, but you know what I mean..) No self-respecting reporter would go running off with that “hot” lead. Here’s something I was wondering: let’s say Carl did follow up on HH Stephenson’s potential sighting in Wellsville and called the hotel. Maybe the FBI’s Buffalo office even followed up on it, because I do think the FBI was more involved in the search than they claim to have been. If Carl received a call from the FBI in New York, he might have decided then that they needed to start implementing some precautionary measures to keep things quiet…including a secret buzzer.
If only we could know the words on that list! What an intriguing find this interview reduction is – congrats!
Are you saying at the end of your post that you think Ron is still alive in 2020, though? If so, that seems like a new take based on your thinking about the 1973 and 1995 FBI document implications.
That comment by Knox in The Phantom of Oxford has always come off as haunting. Men in his line of work are not apt to make comments based on “feel,” it seems to me – and like diplomats, are very precise and careful with words. By saying he “feels” Ron is alive, he’s safely out of any legalistic territory and is free to send out the huge wink-wink that I think most of us (like you, Jennifer) think the comment was meant to be. After more than twenty years’ worth of contemplating the case, who knows what sorts of perspectives he had developed about what he privately knew.
One more question – can’t help it – since I first saw it linked from your site, Jennifer, I was impressed by the thoroughness of Phantom. Have you ever thought about doing a post on the making of the film itself? It appears that they were as painstakingly detailed and accurate as possible in the reenactments. Isn’t that Ron’s doorway in the shot at the end? The dorm room desk scene looks like it has modern furniture, but is that the inside of Ron’s room as it appeared in the 70s? And Mrs. Spivey’s actual porch in the reconstruction of Ron’s “visit” to Seven Mile?
Great comments and questions! Actually, I was saying at the end that I think Ron was still alive in 1976, but I don’t think he’s alive now—unless the FBI purged his prints for no apparent reason, that is. I’ll come back later with additional thoughts/responses—need to run somewhere now.
I’m back. 🙂 I’ve addressed your first question, so let’s move to your 2nd and 3rd questions/observations. Regarding Knox’s comments, I’m going to riff a little here because I don’t know what was going on in his mind, but if he knew as much as I think he knew, he wouldn’t have really wanted to take the interview at all. He probably felt as if he had to or else it would have looked odd for him not to be there. Maybe someone from Miami asked him to do it for that reason. He takes it, but he says pretty much nothing at all…and you know the producer would have chosen the footage with the best quotes. The only thing of substance that he says is that he feels Tammen is alive. I’m thinking that he didn’t know specifically what happened to Tammen but, when he was in the thick of the investigation, he may have been told things like “Don’t worry, he’s fine. We’re taking good care of him”…things like that. Or “Just say blah blah blah to anyone who asks, and it’ll be fine.” But after 23 years, he may have had some regrets/second thoughts about how everything was handled. Dr. Switzer wasn’t exactly the most likable of fellows, after all. And in 1976, there was a lot in the news about the CIA’s antics during MKULTRA. Maybe he started to put two and two together? So I just wonder if some of that may have come into play. One thing I’ve learned is that he didn’t stay at Miami terribly long, at least by the standards of the day. In 1959, he became dean of men at the University of Illinois, which is where he’d gotten his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate degrees, and then he went to Florida Atlantic University at Boca Raton in 1967, where he retired in 1981.
I agree that the Phantom of Oxford was well done, and I do believe they had a lot of assistance, certainly from Cella, but also from people at the university. It’s so cool to see everyone and hear their voices. And yes, I do believe they paid close attention to details to make it as realistic as possible. Someone told me that they’d even bought the 1939 Chevy Sedan especially for that shot of the car sitting in the parking lot with the bass in the back seat. I’m not sure about the other specifics, but I have a source who I think could give me more detail on the lengths they went to for that project. It’s an interesting idea…thanks!