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: βThe university covered it up. They wouldnβt give you any answers.β On Joeβs 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 Universityβs administrators and the Oxford PD didnβt 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 βem 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 Tammenβs 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 storiesβeverβeven though he would have known about the open textbookβs 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 reportersβCella and Murray Seeger, of the Cleveland Plain Dealerβever 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, andβOK, Iβll say itβnamely 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 wasnβt 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 Cellaβs hands? For sure.
Last year, before Covid-19 reared its spikey little head, I was spending some time in Miami Universityβs Archives, and found something I didnβt recall seeing there before. Or, if I had seen it before, it didnβt 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 enoughβa dishy βstory behind the storyβ 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 Iβll be getting to in a moment, it appears to have been written fairly recentlyβlong 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. Itβs 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 secretaryβthat was her official job titleβthough the write-up refers to her as the βAssistant to the Dean of Men, Carl Knox.β (Thatβs 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 Iβm driving at here is that it appears that someone whoβd worked closely with Carl Knox when Ronald Tammen disappeared was interviewed by someone from the university relatively recently in my estimation, though I donβt know when or by whom. In Tammen world, this was the βgetβ of all gets. It would have been the closest thing to talking to Carl himself.
Iβm not going to share the name of the assistant on this blog site out of respect for the family, who couldnβt 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 Iβve substituted βADβ (short for assistant to the dean) for the womanβs name:
—Beginning—
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON RON TAMMEN, Jr.
From an interview with AD, Assistant to the Dean of Men, Carl Knox, at the time of Tammenβs 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.
- ADβs office was across the hall from Dean Knoxβs, 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 ADβs 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.
—End—
Before I begin dissecting the summary, please understand that I donβt think AD was in on every single convo surrounding the universityβs investigation. Rather, in my view, her comments reflect what Dean Knox and perhaps others would have said to her. Thatβs what Iβm commenting onβthe words and actions of ADβs superiors based on her personal account. Iβll also add that the above summary is only someoneβs interpretation of what she said during the interview. Unless we have the original transcript or recording, we canβt be sure that whoever wrote these notes did so with 100% accuracy. Plus, they may have left out some important details.
OK, letβs 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 itβeither 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 theyβre saying she was the βAssistant to the Dean of Men, Carl Knox, at the time of Tammenβs disappearance,β 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 Iβve described plus what Iβm about to discussβparticularly regarding bullet #3 aboveβIβve concluded that itβs a poorly worded phrase, and thereβs simply no way the interview happened in 1953. It was later. We just donβt know how much later. I donβt want to get all conspiracy theoryβminded on you this early in my blog post, but I meanβ¦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.

Credit: Ohio Department of Natural Resources Flickr account
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. Iβve tried like crazy to find out what the rumor wasβit 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 Iβve 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 ββ¦Tammen had been located, under conditions that were defamatory to his character.β But according to the same editorial, the rumor was started by an βenterprising student,β 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 βMust Tongues Wagβ), no reporter ever mentioned the New York rumor in an articleβnot 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. Stephensonβs 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 theyβd heard something that he felt shouldnβt 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 menβs housing and student employment.)

4). The bench across from her desk
The summary says that reportersβpluralβused to sit on a bench across from ADβs desk waiting for updates. Thatβs 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 jugglingβteaching courses, advising student journalists, heading up the news bureauβhe 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 Iβm sure Joe was too busy to plant himself outside of Carl Knoxβs office for hours on end. Besides, Joeβs 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 Miamiβs news bureau, courtesy of Gilson Wright and company. In short, I canβt imagine theyβd 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 waitingβ¦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 itβso much so that they decided to install a buzzer on ADβs desk.
For what itβs worth, the buzzer technology wouldnβt 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 thingβpressing 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, ADβs 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 ADβs 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. Theyβd first ask Knox if the call pertained to Tammen, Knox would say no, and the potential misinformation would be squelched then and there, amIright?
Iβm 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 rumorβwhich, again, never made its way into newspapersβbut I think it went beyond that. Remember that Carl Knox had jotted in his notes the name βProf. Switzer,β Ronβs 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 Tammenβs disappearance involved a classified government program thatβs important for protecting the nationβs security? Knox might have decided that a buzzer system would be a simple, effective way to do his patriotic duty. Incoming phone callsβfrom New York, D.C., or whereverβwould 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 ledeβthis 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 βSwitzerβ? βPsychologyβ? βHypnosisβ? Or better yet βPost-hypnotic suggestionβ? Or how about βMKULTRAβ or βProject ARTICHOKEβ? I mean, did ADβs 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, Iβve 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 canβt think of a single time when I was instructed not to say certain words. Were they trying to protect Ronβs 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, thatβs a cover-up.
Incidentally, Iβm 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. Thatβs another reason that I feel that the interview was relatively recent.
One word that Iβm pretty sure wasnβt 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 Miamiβs 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. Iβll tell you here and now, I had no idea that they were considered a safety problem back then. But Iβm not sure students in those days felt that way either. If you type the search term βcisternβ (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 βcisternsβ (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 theyβd 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 donβt want to leave any stone unturned in my research, and that includes learning more about the universityβs cisterns. Earlier this month, I emailed the spokesperson seeking background materials or a conversation on the topic, and so far, I havenβt heard back from him. Iβll keep you posted.
9). The full interview
Although the βCliff Notesβ version of ADβs interview is better than nothing, I really want to read the full transcript. Or better yet, Iβd 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.
Iβve 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 librariesβ 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. Iβll be touching base with them every so often for updates.
Hereβs 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 donβt 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 canβt say that thatβs what happened at this point, but itβs 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 whoβd 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 whatβs happening? I sincerely hope not. Thatβs 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: βWelcome to my world.β And then heβd add, βKeep on it.β
Post-Script:
In light of the new revelations, I rewatched the 1976 documentary βThe Phantom of Oxfordβ 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 doesnβt add anything to todayβs topic. In Part 2 (2:40), he says this:
Carl Knox: In other campuses where Iβve 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, thereβs a lot of information concerning the universityβs investigation that heβs chosen not to say here. Twenty-three years later, he has elected to keep his mouth shutβabout open psychology books and dropped courses, about hypnosis studies, about three amnesiac Ohio youths, about Ronβs 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 aliveβin 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.