Elizabeth ‘Betsy’ Ruth Aardsma.

Elizabeth ‘Betsy’ Ruth Aardsma was born on July 11, 1947 in Holland, Michigan to Richard and Esther Aarsdma. Richard Cornelius Aardsma was born on January 15, 1916 in Chicago, IL and Esther Williene Van Alsburg was born on November 4, 1918 in Holland, MI.  Betsy’s father fought in WWII and the couple were married on September 28, 1940 in Holland, MI and went on to have four children together: Carol, Betsy, Kathleen, and David. They both attended Hope College in Holland, which is described as a ‘private four-year Christian liberal arts college known for its academic excellence, top-ranked undergraduate research and rich campus life.’

Betsy grew up in a devoutly religious family and was raised in a middle-class household on leafy West 37th Street in Holland, MI: her dad worked as a sales tax auditor for the state of Michigan Treasury Department (although strangely a single report said he was a psychologist for the Ottawa County Community Mental Health Department), and Mrs. Aardsma was a former teacher and stay-at-home mother. The Aardsma’s lived according to the Reformed Church tradition, a lifestyle that emphasized strong conservative values and religious observance.

In the late 1960’s, Betsy’s hometown of Holland was made up of around 25,000 residents and had strong Dutch-American roots that was reflective her family’s heritage and was founded by Calvinist religious dissidents from the Netherlands in 1847. It was known for being conservative and insular, and as the local saying went: ‘if you’re not Dutch, you’re not much,’ something that was part joke, half belief. At the time, Holland was made up of two main religious denominations: the moderate Reformed Church and the ultraconservative Christian Reformed Church, both of which believed that God’s will determines every event in life (good or bad) and that humans are ‘predestined’ at birth for heaven or hell.

As a child, Betsy displayed a flair for art and poetry, and by the time she was in her early teenage years had developed somewhat liberal ideals (at the time, anyways) and displayed a genuine concern for the underprivileged. An exceptionally strong student, she was known for her intelligence and the well-mannered way in which she presented herself: she graduated fifth in her class at Holland High School and was a member of the National Honor Society (she had a special interest in English, art, and biology); she was also the VP of her sophomore class, the East Unit Vice President of her junior class, and was in an exhibition dance group.

A friend and Holland High School classmate of Betsy’s named Judith Jahns Aycock recalled that she loved their colorful English literature teacher Olin Van Lare, who had been prone to burst into tears while reciting particularly moving passages of poetry. Verne C. Kupelian, a history teacher turned entrepreneur that later opened a teen dance club in Holland that was patronized by Aardsma and her friends, cherished a poem that his one-time student wrote for him long after her death. Dirk Bloemendaal Senior, who taught physiology (which had been an advanced senior-level biology course), remembered that Betsy was a hard worker that did well in a difficult class, one that required students to dissect cats: ‘I think I ended up giving her a straight ‘A’ in the class, and it was not an easy class. She was really the kind of person you love to have in your class.’ Aardsma largely hung out with a group of young ladies that took academics as seriously she did, and according to her best friend, Jan Sasamoto-Brandt (a Japanese-American girl whose parents had relocated to Holland from the West Coast during World War II): ‘Betsy was artistic, and I was bright also. But I was more the serious bright and she was more artistic, so I think we balanced each other pretty well.’

Upon graduating from Holland High School in 1965 Betsy was uncertain of what she wanted to do next with her life: her parents strongly encouraged her to go into medicine, but she felt more drawn to the arts and literature (she briefly entertained the idea of combining her two interests and becoming a medical illustrator), but in the end, she enrolled in the Honors Program at Hope College in the fall of 1965, majoring in pre-med (one of the schools’ stronger programs)… even though (according to Jan Sasamoto-Brandt, who spent all four years in Ann Arbor), Betsy would have preferred to start college at the University of Michigan and even discussed rooming together. But, the Aardsma’s were a Hope College family, and that’s the direction eventually Betsy went in: in addition to both of her parents, her older sister, Carole was also a graduate, and her brother would also one day go.

Aardsma’s freshman year roommate at Hope College was Linda DenBesten-Jones of South Holland, IL, who said she was friendly, accommodating to a fault, and was fascinating to talk to. And according to Tamara Lockwood-Quinn (an acquaintance of Betsy’s and fellow Voorhees Hall resident): ‘when we came to Hope College, it was really strict: lights out at 9 o’clock, chapel three times a week.’ Lockwood -Quinn even wondered if perhaps Aardsma was an early feminist, and she recalled that ‘she wanted to be a doctor. I think that’s pretty feminist. I thought it was kind of gutsy to say you were going to be a doctor. I didn’t know anybody else who was going to be a doctor. In the classes she was in, she was one of the few women in it.’ According to her friend Margo Hakken-Zeedyk, ‘she was always into really deep things and then was just so creative. She had a real good sense of humor, but at the same time, it was a little dry. Real clever.’

Betsy was a beautiful young woman: she stood five feet, eight inches tall, weighed 145 pounds, had hazel eyes, and long brown hair (that had a slight tint of red in it). Intrigued by the larger world, she wasn’t sure if a traditional life of one day becoming a wife and mother was for her, and during her years as an undergraduate student she began to explore some experiences beyond academics: she went on several dates with a few different promising young men, though none developed into serious relationships… however one encounter took a dark turn when the young suitor either threatened her with a knife or pulled one out during an argument; she immediately ended things, and no charges were filed against the young man. Friends recall that where Betsy had never been short of male admirers, she wasn’t boy-crazy and never went out with the same guy for very long.

At some time during her late high school or early college years, Aardsma spent a week on a mission trip in New Mexico teaching art to underprivileged children on a Navajo reservation in a program that had been run by the Reformed Church. Those close to Betsy also said that she also had a dark side, and at times seemed to foresee that her life would one day soon be cut short: a poem she wrote as a high school sophomore titled, ‘Why Do I Live?’ was briefly cited by her pastor at her funeral as evidence that she had ‘accepted God’s will and embraced death’: ‘I am living in preparation for death / What I live for will last. / And increase in the face of eternity.’

Betsy’s unhappiness with her choice of going to Hope College began to grow, and she began to yearn for a more dynamic environment, and in 1967 at the beginning of her junior year she made the decision to transfer to the University of Michigan. When she first moved to Ann Arbor Aardsma found herself somewhat lonely, and even though her high school best friend Jan Sasamoto-Brandt was there, by then she had joined a sorority and the two seemed to have grown apart during their two-years apart. Aardsma missed her Holland friends but kept in touch with them through the US Postal Service, and in a September 1967 letter to a high school friend named Phyllis ‘Peggy’ Wich-Vandenberg (who was a student at Marquette University in Wisconsin): ‘intellectually, this place is not as alive as it should be. I run into asses every day,’ but according to Wich-Vandenberg, she also encountered ‘a good number of acutely aware people’ and was happy that ‘no matter the type of person, U of M had a lot of them.’

During her senior year of undergrad, Betsy shared an off-campus apartment with three other girlfriends that was below a residence that was shared by four brothers of the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity; one of them was David L. Wright, the son of a prominent psychiatrist from Elmhurst, IL. David was a senior pre-med major, and even though the two had met the year prior as juniors, it was their friends that started to push them to get together during their final year. According to Wright (who is now a kidney specialist in Rockford, IL): ‘she was just a very brilliant person, extremely smart. Good sense of humor. Just a wonderful person.’ Betsy and David talked about possibly getting engaged and married in the summer of 1970 but were not ‘officially engaged’ at the time of her murder (according to reports, Wright planned to propose over the upcoming Christmas break).

As content and happy as Aardsma had been during her last spring at the U of M, she was among many young women on campus that was worried about the murders of young females that had started two years earlier… Meanwhile, David became one of sixty-four individuals that had been accepted into the third class of the Penn State College of Medicine in Hershey, which had opened in the fall of 1967. In the spring of 1969, Aardsma graduated from the University of Michigan with her bachelor’s degree (with ‘distinction and honors’) in English… but, as much as she loved and cared for her beau, she had plans of joining the Peace Corps and going to Africa for a year (she applied and had been accepted); the uncertainty of everything made for an unhappy summer in Holland.

In the beginning of the summer of 1969 Aardsma initially told Brandt that she wouldn’t be able to stand up in her wedding later that August because she was scheduled to be shipped off to Africa by then… but, this was before Wright told her that ‘he wasn’t crazy about the idea’ of his girlfriend going away for a year and ‘he wouldn’t wait for her’: ‘she asked if I would wait for her and so forth. And I sort of selfishly said, ‘I just don’t know what will happen.’’ After that, Betsy canceled her plans of going to Africa and she made the decision to follow Wright to Pennsylvania: she enrolled at Penn State in September 1969 with the intention of earning a Master of Arts in English, even though the campus that she would take up her studies the one in State College, PA, which was almost a hundred miles away from the medical school David was attending in Hershey.

Ultimately, Betsy set aside her dreams of volunteering at an international level and once again decided to focus on academics, this time with the goal of one day finding a career as a college English professor. Because of the murders of young coeds in the state of Michigan that had been taking place since 1967, the Aardsma family was relieved that she was getting out of Ann Arbor, and according to her former brother-in-law, David Wegner: ‘when she moved to Penn State, we thought, ‘oh, thank God, she’s at a place where she’s safe, not out at the University of Michigan.’’

The ‘Michigan co-ed murders’ were a series of highly publicized homicides that took place between 1967 and 1969 in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area by an individual that had been given multiple nicknames, including ‘The Ypsilanti Ripper,’ ‘The Michigan Murderer, and ‘The Coed Killer.’ All of the victims were young women between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one and had been bludgeoned, abducted, and raped prior to their deaths; typically, they were murdered by stabbing or strangulation. Their remains were discovered within a fifteen-mile radius in Washtenaw County and on occasion they were mutilated post-mortem; each victim had been menstruating at the time of their death which made detectives strongly speculate had invoked an intense feeling of extreme rage into killer. The prime suspect, John Norman Chapman (who was then known as John Norman Collins) was arrested one week after the final murder; he was eventually sentenced to life imprisonment on August 19, 1970, and is currently incarcerated at Carson City Correctional Facility. Although never tried for the remaining five murders attributed to the Michigan Murderer (or the murder of a sixth girl killed in California whose death has been linked to the others), LEO’s believe Chapman was responsible for all seven murders.

When it comes to being a suspect for the murder of Betsy Aardsma, Collins was already in custody when she was killed in November 1969, as he was arrested earlier that July for unrelated murders; although some investigators feel that it is too much of a coincidence that he killed young women in the same Michigan area where Aardsma was in school, and wonder that it’s possible he may have stalked her then followed her to Penn State and murdered her there.

Going to a school so far away from home offered the twenty-two-year-old graduate student a fresh start, although her workload was incredibly demanding: one of her classes, English 501, which was co-taught by the tough but greatly respected Professor Harrison Meserole, was especially challenging (he handled the early American literature portion of the coursework). But, Betsy was diligent when it came to her studies and for the first eight weeks before her death had spent most of her time outside of class in Penn State’s Pattee Library. She maintained her relationship with David through daily letters and weekend bus trips to Hershey, but the intense academic pressures (on both of them) left little time for socializing. Long-distance telephone calls were expensive in 1969, so she wrote her long distance love a letter every day, with the last one arriving on the morning after her death.

Wright recalled that about halfway through the semester (roughly at the end of October), Betsy seemed troubled about something and told him she wanted to transfer schools and relocate to Harrisburg (which was a twenty-five minute drive versus an almost two hour one) and enroll in courses at the Penn State campus there: ‘in retrospect, when I thought about that, I wondered if she was worried about something up there. My wife’s theory is that she just wanted to move things along and be closer.’ But something seemed to be troubling Aardsma, and according to her former BIL, she had previously expressed a premonition of early death in some of her writings, and it was also around that time that she had told her mother, ‘I don’t know why I’m here. I have this weird feeling about being here.’

By Thanksgiving, Betsy Aardsma had been showing exhibited signs of stress due to the fact that she had fallen behind on an important English assignment, but instead of working on it she spent the day in Hershey in the company of her boyfriend, his roommates, and their girlfriends in the designated dormitory of the female medical students: the women cooked, and it according to David Wright it was ‘a real nice time.’ At some point during that day, Betsy called her family in Holland to wish them a Happy Thanksgiving: David and Carole were in visiting from Madison, WI, and everyone got a chance to chat briefly with her and say hello.

Wright said they briefly discussed the idea of her staying in Hershey for the weekend, but she declined, stating she simply had too much work to do and she needed to do research in the library for her English 501 paper that was due in less than two weeks. When dinner was over, he drove her to a nearby bus stop in the 400 block of Market Street in Harrisburg, and she arrived home later the same day. It was the last time he saw her alive, and according to him, ‘I always wonder if she had stayed down that weekend what would have happened,’ and that not insisting she did so was one of his ‘biggest regrets.’ Betsy and her roommate Sharon Brandt resided in room 5A in Atherton Hall (a dormitory that primarily housed graduate students), and before they went to bed the two chatted about their day and played cards. Brandt would later recall that her roommate seldom pursued ‘extracurricular activities’ outside of academics and spent much of her free time either studying or (on weekends) traveling to Penn State Hershey to be in the company of Wright.

During her short amount of time in graduate school, Aardsma managed to make some new friends at Penn State, among them Linda Marsa, another English graduate student, who said that Betsy: ‘always seemed like a young Katharine Hepburn. You know, with those kind of angular features and this curly, reddish hair that she pinned up. Lean and lanky with that same kind of sarcastic, funny, witty attitude.’ She also said that she knew Betsy loved her boyfriend and went to visit him often, ‘but she had a certain ambivalence that I think was very natural.’ Marsa, who called herself a political radical, said she and Aardsma were as one in the same when it came to their opposition to the Vietnam War, and in a 1972 news article David Wegner said that his one-time SIL had led a campus discussion group against the war on national Vietnam Moratorium Day (October 15, 1969). Additionally, a friend that has never been identified told The Associated Press that Aardsma loved black literature, especially the works of James Baldwin, and in the same news story an unidentified professor said she had ‘the deep sensitivity of an artist for others’ feelings.’`

Shortly before her death, Aardsma had started to express concerns about possibly (one day) becoming a ‘physician’s wife’ and a mother, however none of her journal entries, or the letters she regularly wrote to Wright showed any indication that she had felt any reluctance about her feelings for him. Based on these readings, Pennsylvania State Troopers also said that she did not appear to be interested in another man or had otherwise felt intimidated and/or uncomfortable during the eight weeks she had been enrolled at Penn State: according to the pages of her journal, Betsy seemed normal and devoted to David.

On the afternoon of Friday, November 28, 1969 the campus of Penn State University in State College PA was eerily quiet: most students were home for the long Thanksgiving weekend, leaving the sprawling campus in a state of almost total silence… but, deadlines loomed, and Betsy’s focus was on completing her assignments. Clad in a sleeveless red dress layered over a white turtleneck sweater with a gold watch pendant hanging around her neck, she left Atherton Hall at roughly 3:50 PM with Sharon with plans of a full day of classwork ahead of her (her primary goal that day was to gather materials for a paper in her English 501 course). According to (current) Penn State (and Betsy Aardsma case expert) English Professor Sascha Skucek, the girls made a brief stop in Burrowes Hall to talk to Professor Nicholas Joukovsky during his open office hours, who co-taught English 501 along with the lead Professor, Harrison Meserole. Their discussion revolved around a previous paper Betsy had written, as he had taken an interest in one of her sources, and she told him she would retrieve it during her visit to the library and would bring it to him.

When the girls arrived at the Pattee Library at 4 PM, they confirmed their plans to meet up again later that evening to watch either ‘Easy Rider’ or ‘Take the Money and Run’ at a movie theater near campus then parted ways (although one report says they made plans to meet at 7 PM for dinner): Brandt proceeded to the main reading room while Aardsma made her way to the central stacks (which has been referred to as ‘a labyrinthine,’ and a ‘dimly lit area housing millions of volumes in narrow, multi-tiered aisles designed for storage rather than prolonged occupancy’). Despite the Thanksgiving holiday drastically reducing the number of students on campus that Friday, the Pattee Library remained open and fully operational and recorded 3,343 exits that day (including staff); investigators would later learn that on an average Friday, upwards of 400 people would come and go from the Pattee Library between 4:30 and 5:00 PM, although on the date in question, only about ninety had done so.

A little after 4 PM, Betsy entered Penn State’s Pattee Library through its main entrance, passing the security checkpoint; she exchanged a brief greeting with two classmates from English 501 (Linda Marsa and Bob Steinberg), who were leaving the library together. Betsy then headed for Professor Harrison Meserole’s office in the basement, and according to Priscilla Letterman-Meserole (who at the time was the professor’s secretary but would later go on to be his wife): ‘we had a steady stream of students coming in the afternoon to talk about their research projects. She had on a red dress. I remember I complimented her on her dress.’ When she came up from the basement Betsy placed her purse, jacket, and a book about Africa inside a carrel assigned to her before she made her way towards one of the card catalogs, and it was around this time that she bumped into twenty-three-year-old Marilee Elaine Erdely, who dropped her pencil during the exchange. It didn’t take long for her to find the card for the book that she was looking for, with the system advising her it was in the level two core stacks.

The stacks at the Pattee Library were known for its claustrophobic layout: rows upon rows of shelves obscured everything around it, creating an environment where one’s presence was ‘acutely felt by others but rarely seen because of the height of the stacks of books;’ it’s aisles were barely wide enough for one person go get through let alone two, so visitors had to think ahead when attempting to navigate the aisles. Yet… Betsy seemed comfortable there. An undergraduate student named Carol Manning was in the same area of the stacks as Aardsma, and she had been searching for information related to a term paper. Manning later recalled that afternoon that her pen had died, and she asked Betsy if she could borrow one from her; in response, she smiled at her and handed her one and told her to keep it; by that point in the afternoon, she had already been surrounded by books and had been fully immersed in her work.

At around 4:30 PM assistant stacks supervisor Dean Brungart walked by the area and noticed Aardsma in the aisle, and that two men were lingering a few rows away on the west side of the library, talking to one another quietly. It’s around this time that eyewitness accounts started to become fragmented and inconsistent: Manning reported there had been two men near Aardsma in the level two core, and she described one of them as having ‘dark hair and darker skin,’ and said that he helped her retrieve a book from a high shelf, however Brungart told investigators that there had been ‘two white males in the vicinity.’ It’s also important to note that neither one reported seeing the other that afternoon, and as a result their accounts fueled years of speculation about a possible two-killer scenario. These sightings also pointed to possible outsiders or non-students as the mystery man, but alibis, lack of matching physical evidence, and failure to re-identify suspects led to their dismissal.

Sometime between 4:30 PM and 4:45 PM on the afternoon of November 28, 1969 a still unknown assailant stabbed Elizabeth Ruth Aardsma a single time through the left breastbone with a thin-bladed knife, between rows 50 and 51 of the second level stacks: the precision of the wound (which had gone right between her ribs and went directly into the heart) initially produced minimal external bleeding, as the blade’s narrow profile limited blood flow at the entry point. The entire incident occurred silently, as the young victim didn’t scream nor cry out for help.

At roughly 4:45 PM, a badly injured Betsy stumbled out of the level 2 stacks and into the main circulation area of the Pattee Library and collapsed near the card catalog while in full view of the library. As she slumped to the floor, she finally made some noise, as she pulled books down on herself while she fell: students and library employees watched as she fell to the floor, however they initially mistook the incident for a ‘medical emergency’ (thinking she either fainted due to the stress of finals week, or perhaps suffered a seizure/epileptic episode) largely due to the fact that her red dress hid the extent of her injuries and her lack of reaction hinted towards there not been a violent altercation. A level above, Dean Brungart heard the sound of falling books through a floor vent, but he did not go to investigate, and according to Wayne Baumgardner (one of the librarian’s on staff that day): ‘there wasn’t any kind of real security in the building because it wasn’t considered to be necessary. Once the Aardsma slaying happened, the university put in major security regulations and things and really tightened up.’ There were thought to be nine people that had been within seventy feet of Betsy Aardsma when she was stabbed, but none of them (because of the intervening shelves of books) saw what happened to her.

Just before the attack, Marilee Erdely had settled herself at a desk just outside the eastern entrance of level two stacks, approximately twenty feet from where Betsy had been working, and she had a clear view of the eastern passage leading into the core. The loud crash associated with Aardsma falling startled both Erdely and Joao Uafinda (an international student from Mozambique that had been browsing books in a different section of the library), and neither recalled seeing anyone enter the stacks during this time. Less than a minute later, Erdely said that a man rushed out of the east passage that had been approximately six feet tall, 185 pounds, with trimmed brown hair; she clarified that he wore a lightweight jacket, slacks, and a plaid button-down shirt (possibly with a tie); Uafinda’s description matched Erdely’s, though he also noted that the man kept his right hand hidden behind him. Both Erdely and Uafinda reported that he said, ‘somebody better help that girl,’ before he quickly turned around and led them toward rows 50 and 51; once there, the man fled down a nearby staircase… But something about this ‘helpful stranger’ didn’t sit right with Uafinda, and he attempted to follow him, but the man quickly shook him.

Because both Erdely and Uafinda would later struggle to identify the suspect and their descriptions varied slightly police were uncertain if there had been one man or two. Analysis of the escape by law enforcement suggested that the individual had possessed a sense of familiarity regarding the layout of the library, as he was able to make a quick getaway without alerting anyone that had been nearby. While nobody on the main floor of the library was yet aware of the homicide that had been taken place only feet away from them, the sight of a black man chasing a white one out of the stacks caught the attention of one young student library employee, who managed to catch a glimpse of the suspect’s face as he made his way to the door; it was this last eyewitness report that helped to confirm that the man attempting to flee not only wore glasses but specifically horn rimmed ones.

Meanwhile, Erdely entered the core cautiously, and what she discovered was absolute chaos, with books lay scattered all over the floor, a heavy metal bookshelf had toppled over, and at the center of it all was Betsy. She had been moving only slightly and had been lying on her stomach. Dropping to her knees, Marliee leaned close to her, panic rising with each passing second: she interpreted the fallen books and the confusion as evidence that her new friend had suffered a medical episode, andwhereshe immediately noticed a small blood spot on Betsy’s sweater, she did not see the one inch wound that laid beneath it, hidden by her clothing. She softly whispered something, but her voice was too weak and quiet to understand. Never leaving Aardsma’s side, Marliee repeatedly called out for help, her voice echoing throughout the otherwise quiet library, and over the next few minutes, at least six people walked by, but none stopped to help. She didn’t move until Patricia Bland (the circulation librarian) came over to assist, and only moments later, Murray Martin appeared, who was the assistant head of the library: he unbuttoned the collar of Betsy’s blouse and attempted to administer a mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, but his efforts were in vain. Another library employee phoned Ritenour Student Health Center at 5:01 PM, which was a few hundred yards from Pattee Library.

Shortly after the call was made a team of student paramedics arrived at the level two stacks, believing they were only responding to a fainting and/or nosebleed incident. Initially, they believed they detected a faint pulse, which offered a fleeting glimmer of hope, but as they carefully turned Betsy over to place her on the cloth gurney, another librarian named Betsy Davis, noted drops of blood falling onto the floor. The EMT’s, with the guidance of the library staff, helped carry Betsy out through the east side of the core and into the larger elevator within the stacks. Erdely, (who remained with Betsy and had been clutching her purse tightly against her chest), followed them into the ambulance and sat in its passengers seat during the short drive to Ritenour Health Centre; in the back, one of the paramedic’s desperately tried CPR.

While the EMT was performing CPR, Dr. Elmer Reed, the on-duty doctor at the time, noticed something unusual: after each compression, a small amount of blood oozed out of her chest. The paramedics once again checked for a pulse, and when they found none (this time they were certain) they cut her clothes off, which finally revealed the wound that had since then gone unnoticed: on the upper left hand side of Aardsma’s chest was a single downward angled incision which sliced all the way through to her heart and severed her pulmonary artery. Upon discovering the fatal wound, Dr. Reed pronounced Betsy Aardsma dead at 5:19 PM; shortly after, a call over the Pennsylvania State Police was made, and her murder investigation officially began (one report incorrectly listed 5:50 PM as Betsy’s TOD).

Back at the Pattee Library, the staff (completely unaware that a homicide had just taken place) began cleaning the scene: books were reshelved, papers were picked up, and a janitor was even called to mop the floor (Betsy had urinated on herself during the incident, and there had been a small amount of blood left behind as well). As a result of this ‘accidental cleaning,’ multiple crucial pieces of trace evidence were lost, including footprints, fibers, and other microscopic traces of DNA; additionally, the students and untrained medical staff that had initially found Betsy and helped move her resulted in additional contamination. The absence of the murder weapon (which investigators felt was a small knife or similar shaped implement) meant no ballistic or tool-mark analysis could be performed, and searches of the stacks yielded no trace of one.

Later, detectives found blood smears on the wall of a nearby stairwell, which suggested that the killer had either wiped the knife off there before fleeing, or he had injured himself with it and in the process of fleeing, accidentally flicked some of his own blood onto the wall. At the scene, blood splatter evidence (which included samples on the floor and displaced bookshelves), indicated that Betsy had fallen in place after she sustained the single stab wound and suggested ‘minimal post-stabbing movement confined to her fall.’ Investigators also found a series of small, freshly spilt blood droplets that matched Aardsma’s blood type in the staircase that led to the level three core stacks, which hinted that her killer fled the scene using this route, however the lack of external spatter greatly limited serological analysis.

At the time of Betsy’s murder in 1969, forensic technicians didn’t properly preserve any biological samples, which as we know would have proven invaluable in more modern times when it comes to genetic testing. DNA profiling wasn’t’ a thing’ until 1984, and in 1969 crime scene experts were unable to match a victim’s genetic material against biological samples (such as blood, hair, or other bodily fluid); despite the fact that blood typing had been around since the turn of the century, there had been an insufficient amount of it found at the scene, and the large amount of contamination had drastically reduced its value (which also led to degraded trace evidence preservation). Forensic artists were later able to come up with a couple of composite sketches of the suspicious figures that had been seen around the library the afternoon of Betsy’s murder, but they eventually proved to be unreliable thanks in part to the poor lighting in the stacks and ‘the fallibility of human memory under a large amount of stress.’

The nearest Pennsylvania State Police barracks was roughly fifteen minutes away on the campus of Rockview State Prison… but the first officer to arrive on scene didn’t come from Rockview: instead, the responding LEO was part-time student and full-time undercover narcotics officer, Investigator Mike Simmers, who reached the Pattee Library at approximately 6 PM and thankfully had the sense to order that the scene finally be secured. Because of the holiday weekend there were a limited number of troopers that were available to assist with the case, as they had assumed jurisdiction as the lead investigative agency responsible for looking into Betsy’s murder. A full search of the stacks did not occur until November 29th, when Pennsylvania State Police began canvassing the campus of Penn State in an attempt to locate possible witnesses.

In an interview, Simmers said they had a few people they believed may have been suspects, but there was never enough evidence against any of them to make an arrest. He also pointed out that the general area of the stacks where Betsy was killed had been known for being a ‘clandestine spot,’ and was often used to stash porn and was had been a popular location for ‘secret homosexual rendezvous’. Trooper Simmers worked tirelessly on the case for multiple months, leveraging his knowledge of the university’s campus to track down and bring in students for questioning.

In the beginning of the investigation, efforts were largely focused on Betsy’s personal connections, which included looking into her boyfriend, David Wright, who said he had been studying with multiple friends in Hershey (which had been verified through multiple witnesses). Broader search efforts extended to door-to-door inquiries of dormitories and buildings that were close to the library in an attempt to identify any potential witnesses that may have observed any unusual activity around 4:45-5:00 PM on the afternoon of November 27th. These initial searches (that were conducted through the end of November and throughout December 1969), aimed to reconstruct foot traffic and secure any overlooked physical trace evidence that may have previously been overlooked.

The lack of video surveillance in the Pattee Library in November 1969 reflected the common technological constraints of that time era, as there had been no closed-circuit recording system that had been installed at the scene, and as a result investigators were forced to rely instead solely on faulty memories and eyewitness testimonies. When they started looking into Aardsma’s background and personal life detectives didn’t find many helpful clues that aided in the investigation, with one of the original investigators referring to her as ‘so damn squeaky clean;’ Retired Pennsylvania State Trooper Leigh Barrows (who worked Betsy’s case from 2008 to 2014), repeated (roughly) the exact same sentiment decades later, and told A&E Crime + Investigation that ‘everybody you talk to always had something good to say about her. They missed her. They couldn’t understand how somebody could do this to her.’

Witness descriptions of ‘transient figures’ in the Pattee Library at approximately 4:30-4:45 PM on November 28, 1969 generated brief leads that resulted in no identifications: a librarian reported seeing a man with wavy blond hair that had maybe been wearing glasses (but maybe not) walk briskly from the card catalog room towards the main exit of the library. Another student named Shirley Brooks came forward and told police that afternoon at around 4:45 PM in the Pattee Library she walked down the stairs into level BA to ask Betsy if she could borrow a pen, and when she made her way back upstairs she had bumped into ‘a tanned, mustached man’ that was wearing a brown overcoat as he had been exiting the level two core stacks. Additionally, a secondhand account from Patricia Bland at the circulation desk implied that a person in a winter coat emerged directly from the southern entrance of level three core into the lobby, telling her, ‘a girl needs help;’ she couldn’t remember whether the person was male or female. Nothing ever came of these reports.

An aerospace historian named Richard Allen had been at the Pattee Library on the afternoon of November 27, 1969, and as he was using a photocopier while waiting for his son, he overheard a seemingly normal conversation between a man and a woman in the general direction of where Aardsma was. Moments later, he heard a metallic crashing noise before a young man whom he described as ‘looking like a student’ ran ‘barreling’ past him; he also described another man in ‘student dress’ leaving the area, whilst casually saying , ‘there’s a girl down there needs help.’ However, in a second interview a week later, Allen claimed a blond man in student dress (‘preppy with khakis’) had exited the level three core west passageway and said, ‘a girl in there needs help.’ The distinction is important because it means Allen may have been on the same level of the core as Betsy, rather than a floor above.

Pennsylvania State Police assigned approximately thirty-five troopers to investigate the death of Betsy Aardsma; they were assigned use of room 109 in the Boucke Building on Penn States campus as a temporary ‘command center’ as they conducted inquiries, and hundreds of students were interviewed in the weeks that followed the murder. In the days that followed the entire campus was unsuccessfully searched in an effort to locate the murder weapon, and a $25,000 reward (the equivalent of approximately $220,800 in 2026) was offered for any information that led to the arrest of the killer of Betsy Aardsma. By December 11, 1969 investigators had conducted close to 1,500 interviews, and two men that had been sought by state police came forward on the sixth and provided their accounts of the event.

Betsy Aardsma’s autopsy was performed by Centre County Coroner Doctor Thomas Magnani at Bellefonte Hospital in Bellefonte, PA; it began at 11 PM on November 28th, 1969, and concluded at 4 AM the following morning. The Pathologist determined that Betsy had been killed as the result of a single stab to the heart (an act that would have required a good amount of strength and force), a wound that severed her pulmonary artery which led to extensive hemorrhaging into her chest cavity, which would have filled her lungs with blood, essentially drowning her (this also would have made her unable to call out for help). Exsanguination had occurred quickly, and Dr. Magnani estimated Aardsma was dead within five minutes. Further examination revealed no evidence of sexual assault.

The coroner noted signs of petechial hemorrhaging on Betsy’s chest (which are tiny, pinpoint-sized red/purple/brown spots on the skin or mucous membranes that are the result of broken capillaries) as well as some minor bruising and abrasions around one of her ears, wounds that were most likely were sustained when she fell to the floor of the library. Doctor Magnani concluded that Aardsma’s killer had intentionally aimed for her heart, suggesting that the act may have been premeditated. Additionally, the angle and depth of the stab wound led him to believe the killer was a right-handed individual who had attacked her face to face.

According to Dr. Thomas Magnani, his ‘findings also suggest that the wound was inflicted with considerable force at the time of a face-to-face confrontation of the victim and the assailant, and that this weapon was held in the right hand of the assailant.’ It is worth noting that most state troopers involved in the investigation believe that the killer grabbed her from behind before he stuck the knife into her chest.

According to Betsy’s autopsy report, her killer used a hunting knife with a one-edged blade that was approximately 0.5 inches wide and 3.5 to 4 inches long; the wound measured one inch wide and three inches deep. Toxicology results indicated no presence of alcohol or drugs in her system. In the Spring of 1970, a knife was discovered underneath some bushes outside the University’s Recreation Building that matched the size and shape of the blade that killed Betsy Aardsma, but due to the length of time that had passed any physical evidence that may have been left behind had eroded away. 

After his son called him to let him know what happened to Betsy, David Wright’s father reached out to the Aardsma family by telephone to offer his condolences… unfortunately, the news hasn’t quite made its way to them yet and it was at that moment that they learned that Betsy had been killed. In the early morning hours of Saturday morning, November 29. 1969Richard and Esther Aardsma’s nephew Ron Cotts (a pilot for Delta Airlines) flew his parents (his mother was Esther’s sister) to Holland to pick up his aunt and uncle; he then flew them all to Chicago, a flight of about two hundred miles, to catch a plane to State College to talk to police and bring Betsy’s body home. According to him: ‘Esther and Dick were absolutely silent from Holland, Michigan all the way to Chicago O’Hare. Almost didn’t say a word.’

Elizabeth Ruth Aardsma was laid to rest on December 3rd, 1969 at Trinity Reformed Church in Holland, Michigan. Her casket remained open throughout the ceremony and (as I did mention earlier), the family’s pastor Reverend Gordon Van Oostenburg recited a portion of the poem she wrote in 1965 titled, ‘Why Do I Live?’ during the service. David Wright said he briefly thought about not attending the funeral because it was ‘so close to finals,’ but his family convinced him that he had to go; he sent a dozen roses to the church, one of which was placed in Betsy’s hands as she lay in the coffin, and according to him: ‘that’s pretty much the only thing I remember. I was sort of in a daze.’ Reverend Van Oostenburg told mourners that her murder had been ’God’s will,’ which (according to one of her friends that had been there) was a statement that outraged most of those in attendance that day, as those who knew Betsy did not believe this to be true and felt that her death had been an unimaginable loss. She was buried in the Aardsma family plot within Pilgrim Home Cemetery.

Following the initial intensive police investigation, Pennsylvania State Police continued actively looking into the murder throughout the 1970’s, conducting supplementary interviews and pursuing leads, including one that involved an anonymous postcard sent from Atlanta (which ultimately led to nothing). Efforts included polygraph tests and hypnosis sessions, along with the creation of multiple composite sketches, but these efforts failed to produce anything useful to help with the investigation.

Into the 1980’s and 1990’s, the probe continued despite a lack of workable suspects, with troopers revisiting prior witness statements and coordinating internally within state police units (even though inter-agency collaboration remained minimal at the time and resulted in no prosecutions). Aardsma’s case file (which was approaching 1,700 pages at this time), documented thousands of interviews and highlighted persistent obstacles detectives ran into along the course of the investigation, which included deceased/relocated POI, conflicting recollections, and limited access to university-held records. By the late 1990’s, momentum had decreased despite the case still being classified as ‘open,’ and by the 2000’s the matter was deemed to be stalled and without any recent ‘fresh breakthroughs.’

There are six main theories as to what may have happened to Betsy:

Theory One, Betsy was Killed by Someone that she knew: this hinges on the deeply personal nature of the murder as well as the circumstances surrounding it: Aardsma had been known for her casual, almost Bohemian sense of style, and it was unusual for her to have worn the clothes she did that day (a red woolen dress and white turtleneck). Her friend Linda Marsa told investigators that her choice of clothing that day had been highly unusual for her, which raises questions about whether she had dressed up with the intent of meeting someone special. When she encountered her assailant, it is highly suspected that he had approached her from the front, and they both would have been in one of the incredibly narrow rows of the stacks, and it would have been next to impossible for two people to pass through at the same time unless one (or both) of them turned sideways. Additionally, she appeared to have made no attempt to flee or scream, and why had there been no defensive wounds found on her hands? This all points towards the idea that Betsy may had known and possibly even trusted her killer. Trooper Simmers shared his own spin on things: ‘personally, I think it was one of her fellow students who knew her. This was up close and personal. I just feel it.’

Theory Two, Betsy’s boyfriend was her Killer: David L. Wright was investigated but was ultimately cleared of any wrongdoing by Pennsylvania State Police: his alibi placed him 100 miles away in Hershey studying with multiple friends at the time of the murder.

Theory Three, A Professor with a Troubled Past Killed Betsy:  One suspect to come under the PA state Police looked into in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma was Robert G. Durgy, an English teaching assistant at Penn State that was originally from the University of Michigan that happened to arrive in the area at around the same time as she did. The TA, who suffered from crippling depression and had an extensive history of self-harm, left State College, PA abruptly the day before the murder, citing ‘medical leave’ from the University. Three weeks after Betsy’s murder, he died at the age of twenty-seven in a car crash near Lansing, Michigan; his widow, Martha described it as most ‘likely a deliberate act.’ Investigators ultimately cleared him of any wrongdoing in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma when they learned he had been out of state at the time.

Durgy was a teaching assistant in English at Michigan when Aardsma was there, and it isn’t too farfetched that she may have been a student in one of his classes (sadly, failed FOIA requests prevent me from verifying this). His widow defended her husband and his reputation, claiming he had been troubled by ‘demons,’ and hinted towards his long history of depression, suicide attempts, and inpatient hospitalizations. She also confirmed that her husband was from Michigan, that he and the victim were both English scholars, and that he and his family left Penn State a day prior to the murder: ‘obviously there was curiosity about all those coincidences, those parallel lines. I certainly never heard her name. She wasn’t an important person or even a familiar person in our lives.’ Mrs. Durgy said her husband was deeply stressed over trying to finish his dissertation along with his inability to carry out his teaching responsibilities at Penn State, and he was officially cleared of suspicion after investigators confirmed he was out of state at the time.

Professor Michael Begnal recalled a moment where Durgy had confided in him that he could no longer face students in his class (although he wouldn’t elaborate as to why), and as a result he needed him to take over some of his lectures. In the aftermath of his quick departure, a rumor began to spread around Penn State that he and Aardsma had been having a scandalous affair and that they had agreed to meet in the stacks that day so that she could give him some bad news (most likely that she was either planning on marrying David or that she was simply breaking up with him). The professor, unwilling to let anyone else have her, immediately took her life on the spot in a sudden fit of jealous rage. The problem was this theory was, there was no mention of Durgy in any of Betsy’s diaries or letters to her loved ones, and her friends couldn’t recall her ever mentioning him a single time. But perhaps most importantly, he’d left Pennsylvania before Betsy was killed and was confirmed to have spent Thanksgiving with his family in MI the night before (he was also said to have been with them the morning after as well).

Theory Four, Betsy was Killed by Drug Dealers: this (farfetched) theory suggests that Aardsma may have accidentally stumbled across a drug deal in progress while she was doing research in the Pattee Library level two stacks. Phyllis Wich-Vandenberg later recalled being questioned by detectives about whether her friend would have ‘reported’ such an encounter: ‘I said no, she would have kept on a merry way and acted like she didn’t see it.’ Live and let live, that’s how things ‘rolled’ back then and it was a common motto for many college students in the 1960’s when it came to casual drug use. Betsy was a modern-day woman, after all. LEO’s also followed a lead into a drug dealer from Philadelphia, but it was eventually determined that this person was elsewhere at the time Betsy was killed. It has been further speculated that she may have possibly been targeted because she was working as an undercover agent (although this theory has been largely debunked by those that knew her); a slightly different substance-related theory that investigators briefly considered was that she had been murdered due to an unsettled drug debt. It is important to bring up that although Betsy did smoke cigarettes and very occasionally drink, friends were adamant that she was not a user of drugs.

Theory Five, Betsy stumbled upon some sort of unusual sexual encounter and was killed to ensure her silence: this theory gained attention because of what state police investigators and Penn State Chemistry Professor Mary Willard found near where Aardsma was murdered. The late professor (who had been seventy-one at the time of the investigation) frequently helped state police analyze lab work from crime scenes, and according to Troopers Simmers and Jan Hoffmaster, she went with them to the stacks armed with a black light and luminol, which revealed the presence of human bodily fluids (largely semen). According to Trooper Kent Bernier: ‘it was everywhere. I mean, there was a lot of that going on in that area.’

In a section of the core that had been used to store desks and spare shelving located only a few aisles from where Aardsma had been murdered, investigators observed a desk with a seat pulled backwards: atop it was a half-empty can of POP (not soda) and a stack of about twenty to thirty heterosexual and homosexual pornographic magazines, some of which were dated as recently as October and November 1969 (I also read that they were found stuffed among the shelves in the area where she was stabbed). Although partial fingerprints were obtained from the beverage, they did not match any within police databases and any prints that were found upon and within the magazines had been smudged and were unusable.

However, State College Borough Police investigator Roger Smith deemed this scenario improbable, citing the absence of direct corroborating witness accounts or physical links to specific individuals, saying: ‘I just can’t buy into that theory too deep, but I know that was one thing that was discussed.’

Other sex related theories included the possibility Betsy may have accidentally stumbled upon an exhibitionist, or a man engaging in masturbatory fantasies, which was given particular credence by investigator Michael Mutch, who speculated Aardsma had observed two men engaged in sexual behavior, had recognized one or both of them, and had been killed in order to prevent her divulging to others what she had seen.

Theory Six, Betsy was killed by a serial killer, possibly Ted Bundy or the Zodiac Killer: every once in a while, I see Ted’s name brought up relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma, as it was heavily documented that he attended Temple University in Philadelphia in 1969. Theodore Robert Cowell (later Nelson, then eventually Bundy) spent the first five years of his life residing at his grandparents’ house in the Roxborough neighborhood of Philadelphia, PA; in 1950 he relocated (along with Louise) to Tacoma, and moved in with his Great Uncle Jack (I don’t think I need to go into yet another full history of TB so I’m going to skip ahead a bit). According to the ’1992 FBI TB Multiagency Team Report,‘ at the end of 1968 Ted quit his job at the Queen Anne Safeway and relocated to the East Coast, where he lived with his Aunt Julia in her apartment outside Lafayette Hill. He enrolled in classes at Temple University in January 1969 but never finished out the semester, and in May 1969 he returned to the East Coast and stayed with friends in San Francisco for ‘two or three weeks.‘ Later that month he moved back to Tacoma, where he found brief employment at a local sawmill, and in September he moved into the Rogers Rooming House in Seattle and began dating single mother Elizabeth Kloepfer.

Per Mike Simmers, people who have studied the Bundy case in depth claim he had been seen driving along Interstate-80 in PA at roughly around the same time that Aardsma was killed… but the reports didn’t exactly line up, as the dates had been several weeks before the murder. Where some investigators do feel it was possible that Ted was responsible for Betsy’s murder (especially since she perfectly matched the description of one of his victims), most point out that he typically bludgeoned his victims then strangled and raped them afterward; additionally, no records have ever placed him at Penn State.

In addition to Ted Bundy, some true crime buffs speculate that the Zodiac Killer could be responsible for the murder of Betsy Aardsma (though most experts do not agree). Although the timing of the murder coincides with his activity, they were separated by significant geographic distance, as the Zodiac murders took place in California and rarely (if ever) took place indoors; additionally, there was a total absence of his signature correspondence at or near the crime scene. Theories attempting to link Aardsma to the Zodiac largely revolve around circumstantial parallels to the 1966 Cheri Jo Bates murder in Riverside (which also took place near a university library), as well as a 1978 letter that cryptically hinted at some out-of-state murders. However, this connection has several major holes: firstly, the Zodiac Killer was infamous for craving attention, and would often demand publication of his ciphers, and was known to take credit for his atrocities. Aardsma was stabbed a single time in a public, crowded university library without her killer leaving behind any identifying letters, symbols, or taunts; there is also no verifiable evidence that the Zodiac Killer was ever in Pennsylvania at the time of the murder.

Suspects: William Spencer: one of the primary suspects that Pennsylvania State Police focused on in relation to the death of Betsy Aardsma was a forty-year-old teacher, artist, and sculptor named William Spencer, who had relocated to PA from Boston shortly before the murder. Upon looking into his background, Spencer had quite a scandalous background: in May 1960 he co-founded the Caffè Lena with his first wife in Saratoga Springs, NY, and some point after earning his degree a university had rescinded a teaching offer after he was arrested for growing marijuana. Only a few years prior to him moving to Pennsylvania he left his first marriage to chase after his (eventual) second wife Nancy, who had been an undergraduate student at Skidmore College at the time they met. In the fall of 1969, Spencer taught sculpture at a nearby local college while his wife studied for her PhD, and at some point earlier in the semester he told investigators that Aardsma had agreed to pose naked for one of his classes, a bold claim that her friends and family dismissed outright: those that knew her described her as a modest, reserved young woman, a fact that made Spencer’s claims that she offered to pose naked completely implausible. Detectives also noted that all (known) nude models who had participated in his classes traveled from The University from Philadelphia, which further discredited his claims.

Spencer was first reported to police as a potential suspect for Aardsma’s murder after allegedly confessing to having ‘killed that girl in the library’ at a Christmas 1969 faculty party; these claims culminated in his being formally questioned by investigators in early 1970, when he changed his tune slightly and said that he had only been ‘acquainted’ with Betsy and she had agreed to pose nude for his sculpting classes to earn ‘extra money.’ He also said in that same interview that he had been in the same part of the Pattee Library at the time she had been killed and had caught a glimpse of who did it (he claimed the man had been ‘wearing an overcoat’), and he even offered to construct a bust of the individual he had seen for investigators (which he later did provide to the task force). Although his confession and successive statements initially raised suspicions, investigators eventually were about to dismiss him as a suspect, as his claims lacked credibility and were unsupported by evidence or corroborating testimonies. Additionally, investigators did not feel that he would have had enough time to have gotten to know Aardsma before she was murdered (as he had moved there after her, only weeks prior).

Larry Maurer: a Penn State graduate student and classmate of Betsy in an English literature course, Larry Maurer had met Aardsma several weeks before she was killed, and he had even taken her out for coffee on at least one occasion (he followed up by asking her out for a movie, which was an offer she politely declined). No documented animosity existed between them, but investigators initially scrutinized him due to his recent acquaintance with the victim and his inconsistencies during multiple interviews that took place on the day of the murder: according to detectives, his behavior during questioning (which had been described as ‘taunting’ and ‘suggestive of guilt’) further raised suspicions, which prompted multiple repeat conversations. During his initial interview he very casually brought up that he carried a knife around with him, and when he was pressed about it, he clarified that he used it to ‘cut cheese, not stab young women.’ Speculation of a motive arose due to their limited interactions, with made some officers theorize he had unrequited affections for the pretty young victim, or she straight-up rejected him (though no concrete evidence supported such claims and police found no indication of conflict). Maurer’s involvement in Penn States’ ROTC program also drew attention to him, and shortly after Betsy’s homicide, he abruptly left Penn State and enlisted in the Army, a move that some saw as suspicious. Investigators further speculated that a military issued bayonet may have been the one that inflicted the fatal wound through Betsy’s heart.

Some reports claim that Maurer had been described as ‘an eccentric character’ by his peers, and he had been deeply fixated on Betsy even after she told him she was not interested in him romantically. He was ‘a country boy’ as well as an avid outdoorsman, and was also skilled in basic anatomy, which was a fact that made detectives wonder if he would have been able to execute the precise wound that took the life of Betsy Aardsma. So, thinking they had their man, the Pennsylvania State Troopers brought him in for a polygraph, but he passed with flying colors, which combined with the fact that he was a few inches too short and a few shades too blonde to match the description given by Joao Uafinda and Marliee Erdely, forced them to move on and seek a more appropriate suspect. Oddly enough, one presented itself in direct connection to Larry: his former roommate, Rick Haefner. Maurer went on to find employment with the National Security Agency.

Richard Charles Haefner: perhaps the most widely accepted killer of Betsy Aardsma is Dr. Richard Charles Haefner, a twenty-five-year-old geology graduate student that took her on a few dates and lived in the same dormitory as she did. Haefner first came to the attention of investigators only days after the murder, when Betsy’s roommate, Sharon Brant, suggested police interview him: per Brandt, Haefner had visited their room on more than one occasion in the weeks prior to the murder.

Richard Charles Haefner was born on December 13, 1943 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania to George and Ere Haefner. The younger of two sons (he had an older brother named George), Richard excelled at academics (he was especially strong at the natural sciences) and was described as a well-respected but socially awkward individual that was known for his eccentric behavior and bouts of explosive anger. According to his ‘FindAGrave’ page, Haefner was a ‘talented but deeply troubled Geologist who is remembered today as much if not more for his violent and unpredictable nature as he is for his work in the field of geology and petrology.’ He got his Bachelor of Science in Geology from Franklin and Marshall College in 1965, his Masters in Geology from Penn State University in 1969, and his PhD (also in Geology from Penn State) in 1972.

Haefner told police that he’d met Betsy not long after she’d moved into Atherton Hall in September 1969 and that he took an immediate liking to her; not long after that, he claimed they’d begin seeing each other as ‘more than just friends or neighbors.’ Throughout the month of October, he took Aardsma out on various dates around State College: they went out for ice cream at the Penn State creamery then drove her out to Bellefonte Lanes to go bowling, and one evening he treated her to dinner at the Nitny Lion Inn on the Northern Extreme of Campus. Towards the end of the month, he said they made plans to go on a drive together, but a ‘sudden illness’ dashed those plans, and shortly after, Betsy withdrew from their budding romance completely, citing the fact that she had a boyfriend in Hershey and was choosing to focus on him.

Haefner told investigators that because he was a geology student he would have had little reason to go to the Pattee Library (which primarily serviced the students in the schools College of the Liberal Arts), and his ‘library of choice’ was in the Deike Building, where the majority of the University’s earth science reference materials were kept. When questioned about how and when he’d learned about Betsy’s murder, he claimed to have found out later the same day: on the evening of November 28, 1969 he had been eating dinner in the hub building at the center of campus when he had first heard circulating rumors of a student having been murdered at the Pattee Library, when he found out who it had been he left the dining hall feeling sick because ‘his former girlfriend had been murdered.’ When the interview came to an end, investigators deemed he showed no sign of hostility towards Betsy.

In 1976 (after a falling out with his former student), Haefner’s mentor at Penn State Dr. Lauren Wright (no relation to David Wright) reported a suspicious encounter with his student on the evening of Betsy’s murder. An internationally renowned expert regarding the geology of Death Valley, Dr. Wright recalled Haefner arrived at his house on the evening of November 28. 1969 just as he and his wife had sat down to have dinner at roughly 6 PM in a state of panic: he exclaimed, ‘have you heard a girl I dated was murdered in the library?’, then proceeded to ask if there had been any news in the papers about Betsy Aardsma being killed in the Pattee Library. As we know, the murder had just happened less than two hours prior, making it nearly improbable that a news report had been published, and this account directly contradicted the statement that Haefner made to police about his whereabouts that night.

Had investigators bothered to look into Haefner’s past related to his hometown of Lancaster, PA they would have discovered a treasure trove of scandals, as he had quite a few skeletons buried deep in his closet: Rick first became known to police at the age of nineteen in the fall of 1962 when he was a sophomore at Franklin and Marshall College, and he committed an unsavory act with an underaged male elementary school student. At the time, he had been a counselor for the Lancaster YMCA, and where it’s unclear exactly how far things went, Haefner somehow managed to avoid arrest, and as result that single failure would have severe consequences for a number of young boys in the area, particularly the members of Boy Scout Troop 24, where he had recently taken a position as assistant scoutmaster.

Michael Whitmer would later recall to investigators that at first Haefner seemed like a really cool, smart guy who treated the boys (many of them up to a decade younger than him), as if they were his friends or younger brothers… but it was all just a ruse intended to gain their trust so that he could violate it for his own sick sense of satisfaction, something Whitmer realized for the first time when his best friend Dave broke down to him about something deeply inappropriate that Haefner had done to him while on a camping trip in the summer of 1965. Dave himself would later come forward and admit that it was not the first instance of abuse at the hands of Rick and that he had done it three or four additional times in 1963 and 1964; he said that when his parents found out, they complained to the scoutmaster, who also happened to be the parish priest of the church that hosted Boy Scout Troop 24.

Father Stephen E. Popovich brought Haefner in for a meeting which may or may not have been under the seal of confession, and where it’s unclear if he admitted to anything during that discussion, it led the priest to conclude that the accusations were legitimate and that he was ‘sick beyond help.’ After that, the troop removed Rick from his position and even took it a step further and informed the national headquarters of the Boy Scouts of America, which led to a lifetime ban from the organization… but of course, nobody had thought to contact the police.

Because the authorities were never made aware of the incident, Haefner managed to hold on to his job with the Lancaster Recreation Commission as a playground supervisor, which allowed him to gain the trust of a single mother, who in turn gave him permission to take her ten and eleven-year-old sons on five day vacation to Ocean City, Maryland in August of 1965; during the trip, he made victims of them both. Thankfully, the brothers had the sense to tell their mother upon returning home, and even though she confronted both Haefner and the chairman of the recreation commission, Philip Bomberger III, who ultimately choose to side with the abuser and against doing the right thing. In the end, Bomberger attempted to assess what had happened and tried his best to help Rick deal with his demons, which included a closed-door meeting with him on August 30, 1965 in which he had appeared very nervous and shaken after he was informed how the victim’s mother had reacted to the news; he also said that he only felt compassion for her and that if he had done anything wrong, he wasn’t aware of what it was.

During that meeting Haefner guilt tripped Bomberger by saying if he ever went to the cops and if people found out what he’d done, his only choices would be to either run away or kill himself… so, instead of turning him in, Bomberger asked the opinion of medical professionals, one of them being Dr. Charles H. Curtis (who was actually the victim’s physician), who understood why someone might be reluctant to report the crime, but did say he was leaning towards reporting it himself. It was eventually decided that if Rick was willing to start psychiatric care, then the police would not be notified of what he did in Ocean City; shortly after, Rick began seeing Dr. Curtis on September 13th, 1969, however, the therapy sessions were short lived and ceased after he moved across the state and began his graduate studies at Penn State. It never dawned on the doctor to check in with Haefner to make sure he was continuing to receive care while in State College.

Rick Haefner’s mom Ere seemed to be the type of parent that had no problem covering for her son and was also most likely the driving force behind his decision to start dating women, Mary Kelling being one of them. And while Dr. (Lauren) Wright may have been unsure of Rick’s involvement in Betsy’s death, he was certainly aware of his almost aggressive pursuit of Kelling, who had met on Thanksgiving Day in 1967 while doing field work in Death Valley, California. It was also around this time that Wright first began to wonder if there may have been something wrong with his student (at least as it pertained to his sexuality), and while it appeared that he didn’t surmise JUST how deviant he was, he eventually figured out that Haefner was not a typical heterosexual male and even commented to his other students that he wasn’t sure if he liked girls.

Rick met Mary Kelling while doing field work with Dr. Wright in Death Valley, California in 1967, (they went out to Shosonyi around the start of the fall term on October 1, 1967 along with another student named Joe Head); because they were there for the Thanksgiving holiday, Dr. Wright arranged for the three of them to have dinner with the family of his friend Bernice Sorrel, and it was that evening that Rick met Mary, who at the time had been a senior English major at Smith College in Northampton, MA. Mary was beautiful, with deep chocolate eyes and dark brown hair she wore short and styled in a bob, and where Head didn’t remember seeing the two engage in any noticeable interaction that evening, it was obvious that the young lady had made quite an impression on Rick. And it wasn’t hard to see why: she was beautiful, carried herself well, and was academically gifted… she even had dreams of one day entering the Peace Corps and going to Liberia, which is obviously something that Betsy (who looked remarkably similar to Mary) wanted to do as well. The biggest obstacle for Rick was that Kelling seemed to have absolutely no romantic interest in him whatsoever.

Rick, not knowing how to approach a woman like a normal young man, showed up at her dorm room in the spring of 1968: he had driven 400 miles from Penn State to Smith College, asked around campus as to where he could find her, then knocked on her door to tell her how he felt about her. There had been no calls, no letters… the two literally had never even spoken aside from a few polite exchanges on Thanksgiving. Mary asked him to leave then immediately phoned Bernice to tell her about the bizarre and somewhat threatening encounter; when they hung up, Ms. Sorrel then called Lauren Wright to complain about his protege’s behavior. Despite this, Dr. Wright continued to work with Haefner, and he even had him return to Shosonyi with him the following year to do more fieldwork, and didn’t even have the sense to tell him to stay away from Mary: he simply made sure to closely observe them together, and in the end, Wright seemed to have been satisfied by his young protégé’s behavior. But Dan Stevens, another Penn State graduate student that came along to help with the trip, felt perturbed by Haefner, who he found to be nerdy, annoying, and had always been ‘always looking down at him through horn rimmed glasses.’

In 1975 Rick was selected as the new head of the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History, which came with a prestigious teaching position at University of Southern California in LA… but in August of that year, two young boys that had worked in the Haefner family rock shop would separately come forward and accuse him of having touched them inappropriately, and as a result he was charged with involuntary deviant sexual intercourse and corruption of a twelve-year-old boy. Although his subsequent trial resulted in a hung jury, these accusations resulted in the recension of his job offer and did irreparable damage to his reputation.

After this, Haefner began filing a number of vindictive lawsuits against anyone that accused him of any and all wrongdoing, and where he was successful in his attempt to expunge the records pertaining to his arrest and trial in 1981, he was later convicted of assaulting a woman in 1998 after he dragged her from her car and beat her until he dislocated her jaw; he has also stood accused of harassed his neighbors and was arrested more than once for shoplifting. In 2009, one of Haefner’s nephews contacted Derek Sherwood to divulge that after his initial arrest in approximately 1975, he had overheard a heated conversation between him and his mother, who had been aware of several accusations of pederasty that had been made over the years against her son. The overall context of the conversation indicated that he had confessed to Ere (at some point in time) of killing Betsy, and she ended the exchange with the phrase: ‘you killed that girl, and now you’re killing me!;’ also during that same encounter, she had also gave Rick a hard time for coming to the attention of the police after ‘all her effort’ to protect him’ on the previous occasion.

In recent years some of the young men that Rick had ‘befriended’ came forward and said that he had taken them on ‘field trips’ to Penn State, and on one occasion he took one of them to the same library stacks where Betsy has been killed and directed him to stand in one spot. He then took a step back, and where the kid initially thought that he was going to show him something interesting, he then said (with a weird, almost satisfied expression on his face) that a girl he had known (or dated) had been murdered in the exact same spot he was standing in.

Richard Charles Haefner died at the age of fifty-eight in the bathroom of a Las Vegas hospital on March 19, 2002 after a tear in his aorta (a congenital heart defect) caused him to bleed out into his lungs (which ironically is a similar manner of death endured by Aardsma.) His grave marker is placed with his family in Lancaster, but he was in fact cremated and it is not known for certain if his ashes are buried there or not. According to Haefner’s ‘FindAGrave’ page, he was a ‘talented but deeply troubled Geologist who is remembered today as much if not more for his violent and unpredictable nature as he is for his work in the field of geology and petrology.’ Ultimately, no physical evidence has ever linked Richard Haefner to the murder of Betsy Aardsma, and as a result he was never charged, however according to Sascha Skucek; ‘he is the best suspect, but I don’t like that people act like it’s been solved. There is not a smoking gun that says he did this.’

A Stalker?: although investigators found no proof that Aardsma had been stalked during her short amount of time at Penn State, many years after her death a campus security guard would recollect to author Derek Sherwood that one evening as he performed his security rounds in the days prior to her murder, he had observed Betsy typing alone in the Pattee Library. The former officer recalled that at the end of the night he asked her if she wanted him to walk her to her dormitory, to which she said: ‘No. The guy who lives upstairs isn’t around, so I’ll be fine.’ As I said earlier, Richard Haefner lived in the same residence hall as Betsy, however there was never any clarification as to who she was referring to.

Despite the best efforts of the Pennsylvania State Police and the President of the University, Eric Walker (who had conducted his own private investigation into Aardsma’s murder), the case gradually went completely cold, and over the years things took on almost a supernatural aspect: on the twenty-fifth anniversary of Betsy’s death someone left a candle burning in exact spot in the library where she had been fatally wounded, along with an original newspaper clipping about the crime and a message that read, ‘RIP Betsy Aardsma, born July 11, 1947, died November 28, 1969. I’m back.’ A similar spectacle was discovered in a different part of the library in 1999, however investigators believe both incidents were pranks.

Conclusion: The Aardsma family endured decades of unresolved grief following Betsy’s murder, with her parents channeling their loss into supporting other families who had experienced the murder of a child. After the murder, Penn State made no attempt to keep in contact with the Aardsma’s, and it almost appeared that they tried to brush the entire thing under the rug; according to Mrs. Aardsma in an interview with Ted Anthony of The Daily Collegian in 1989: ‘when it happened the school was quite nice, but we really never met with the administration. I think they were very worried the University would get a bad name. So the victim is sort of pushed aside, I guess.’ Betsy’s brother and two sisters have maintained privacy regarding the incident and decline most interview requests, with her sister Carole saying, ‘I’ve said all I’m going to say.’ Betsy’s police file (which spans sixty-five years and consists of over 3,000 pages) remains sealed to the public as of June 2026.

Richard Cornelius Aardsma died at the age of eighty on January 4, 1997 in Holland, Michigan, and Betsy’s mother Esther died at the age of ninety-three on September 4, 2012 in the Brookcrest Nursing Home in Grandville. According to her obituary, she was a longtime volunteer at Holland Community Hospital, who had at one time recognized her service to them with a ‘4,000 hour award.’ Carole Aardsma was once a teacher before she changed career paths and became a Reformed Church minister; she currently lives in Holland, MI. Richard and his wife Marilyn reside in Holland and he is a retired graphic artist for the Kent County School system in Michigan, until he retired and now he creates (beautiful) paintings, which are featured on his website. Betsy’s younger sister Kathy found success as an art instructor in Amesbury, MA before she retired, and currently lives with her husband Art in Holland, MI.

Works Cited:
Daly, Kim (November 28, 2025). ‘The Fatal Stabbing of Penn State Student Betsy Aardsma Remains Unsolved More Than 55 Years Later.’ Taken June 12, 2026 from aetv.com
DeKok, David (2014). ‘Murder in the Stacks: Penn State, Betsy Aardsma, and the Killer Who Got Away.’
Sherwood , Derek (May 30, 2018). ‘Justice Perverted: The Molestation Mistrial of Richard Charles Haefner.’
Sherwood , Derek (December 7, 2011). ‘Who Killed Betsy? Uncovering Penn State University’s Most Notorious Unsolved Crime.’
Skucek, Sascha. (January 1, 2025). ‘Blood & Burden: The Enduring Mystery of Betsy Aardsma. Taken June 12, 2026 from statecollegemagazine.com
Smart, Gil. (October 10, 2010).’Who killed Betsy Aardsma?’ Taken June 12, 2026 from lancasteronline.com

The Aardsma family in the 1950 census.
Betsy from the 1963 Holland High School yearbook.
During her sophomore year in high school Betsy was the vice president of her class, picture from the 1963 Holland High School yearbook.
Betsy Aardsma’s junior year picture from the 1964 Holland High School yearbook.
Betsy in a group picture from the junior exhibition dance group taken from the 1964 Holland High School yearbook.
Betsy and some of the other junior class officers from the 1964 Holland High School yearbook.
Betsy’s senior year picture from the 1965 Holland High School yearbook.
Betsy Ruth Aardsma.
Betsy and her friends from their 1965 graduation from Holland High School. Photo courtesy of David DeKok.
Betsy Aardsma from the 1967 Hope College yearbook.
Betsy Aardsma from the 1969 Michigan State University yearbook.
The Aardsma Family’s home located at 117 East 37th Street in Holland, MI.
A handwritten letter from Betsy to a friend.
The route from Penn State in State College where Betsy attended school to the medical school in Hershey that her boyfriend David L. Wright attended.
A map of The Pattee Library in relation to the Aardsma murder scene, at the Penn State library. Courtesy of WebSleuths user ‘AKWilks.’
The layout of the Pattee Library Central Core, Level 2, photo courtesy of ‘The Lore Lodge.’
The layout of the Pattee Library Central Core in 1969 versus in 2026, courtesy of ‘The Lore Lodge.’
Dean Brungart, an employee of the Pattee Library at Penn State, pointing to a spot on the floor at Level 3 (which is identical to Level 2 where Betsy was found) on the afternoon of Friday November 28, 1969.
A Penn State University security officer standing near the site where Betsy Aarmsda was killed.
The aisle where Betsy Aardsma was murdered taken on the morning of November 29, 1969. In 1969, it went level one, level two, level three, in 2026 it goes level B, level B, AA, level one. So, when Betsy went down to the level two core stacks, that means she went to the level between the basement and the first floor of the library, which today would be level BA (it’s also important that this level is only accessible via the central staircases). Photo courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Police.
Betsy’s certificate of death.
Some details about Betsy’s death taken from a page of her sutopsy report.
An offer of award for information regarding the death of Betsy Aardsma, courtesy of The Collegian Archives. Published in The Centre Daily Times on March 10, 1970.
Betsy’s funeral card.
A spooky little ghost on level two of ‘the stacks’ close to where Betsy was killed, photo courtesy of Sarah Desiderio.
The sketch of the man who said, ‘someone better help that girl,’ as provided by Marliee Erdely.
A sketch of the man seen leaving the library as he was being pursued by Joao Umberto Uafinda.
The final resting place of Betsy Aardsma.
A picture from Dateline asking for more information about the murder of Betsy Aardsma.
One of the books written about the murder of Betsy Aardsma, written by Derek Sherwood.
Another book written about the murder of Betsy Aardsma, written by David DeKok.
A comment made on Betsy’s Websleuth’s page made by Derek Sherwood that mentions the website that he used to run in relation to Betsy’s murder.
A comment made on Betsy’s Websleuth’s page made by the user ‘MaryLiz.’
A comment made on Betsy’s Websleuth’s page made by Derek Sherwood.
A newspaper clipping from before Betsy’s murder that mentions her hosting a party at her house published in The Holland Sentinel on June 3, 1963.

Betsy’s name is listed amongst the name of local college graduates that was posted in The Holland Sentinel on June 17, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Holland Sentinel on November 29, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Grand Rapids Press on November 29, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Pittsburgh Press on November 30, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Daily News on November 30, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Scrantonian Tribune on November 30, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Kalamazoo Gazette on November 30, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Detroit Free Press on November 30, 1969.
An short blurb about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Bay City Times on November 30, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Cleveland Press on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Quad-City Times on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in Philadelphia Daily News on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Niles Daily Star on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Muskegon Chronicle on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Daily News on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Ann Arbor News on December 1, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Ann Arbor News on December 2, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Jackson Citizen Patriot on December 3, 1969.
An article about Betsy I found on Ancestry, dated December 3, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Kalamazoo Gazette on December 4, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Kalamazoo Gazette on December 5, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that also mentions an earlier Penn State murder, that of Rachel Hutchinson Taylor in 1940 that was published in The Express on December 5, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Kalamazoo Gazette on December 6, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Patriot-News on December 9, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Jackson Citizen Patriot on December 9, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Patriot-News on December 12, 1969.
An article about the investigation into the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Flint Journal on December 14, 1969.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Grand Rapids Press on January 8, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 16, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 19, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 20, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 21, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 22, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 29, 1970.
Part one of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 5, 1970.
Part two of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on January 5, 1970.
An article about the investigation into the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Traverse City Record-Eagle on January 8, 1970.
Part one of an article mentioning the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Centre Daily Times on January 9, 1970.
Part two of an article mentioning the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Centre Daily Times on January 9, 1970.
An article about the investigation into the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on February 2, 1970.
An article about the investigation into the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on February 9, 1970.
An article about the investigation into the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on February 12, 1970.
An article about the investigation into the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on February 18, 1970.
An article about the investigation into the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on March 5, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on March 9, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Grand Rapids Press on March 10, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Centre Daily Times on March 12, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Tyrone Daily Herald on March 13, 1970.
An article about a kidnapping case that mentions Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Progress on March 20, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Centre Daily Times on April 14, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Pittsburgh Press on April 19, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Centre Daily Times on May 1, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Centre Daily Times on May 28, 1970.
An article about a reward in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma resulting in no good leads that was published in The Muskegon Chronicle on June 2, 1970.
An article about no new news in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on July 3, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on August 7, 1970.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Time on November 11, 1970.
An article about Carole Aardsma seeking information in relation to the murder of her sister that was published in The Valley Independent on January 20, 1972.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Centre Daily Times on November 28, 1979.
An article abut the murder of Betsy Aarmsda published in The Philadelphia Inquirer on July 31, 2008.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Kalamazoo Gazette on August 3, 2008.
Part one of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Patriot-News on December 8, 2008.
Part two of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Patriot-News on December 8, 2008.
Part three of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Patriot-News on December 8, 2008.
Part one of an article about recent advancements in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on October 25, 2009.
Part two of an article about recent advancements in relation to the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on October 25, 2009.
Part one of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Grand Rapids Press on October 10, 2010.
Part two of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Grand Rapids Press on October 10, 2010.
The third part of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Sunday News on October 10, 2010.
Part one of an article bout the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era on November 22, 2013.
Part two of an article bout the murder of Betsy Aardsma that was published in The Intelligencer Journal/Lancaster New Era on November 22, 2013.
The first part of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Daily Item on October 13, 2014.
The second part of an article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Daily Item on October 13, 2014.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Centre Daily Times on November 30, 2014.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Centre Philadelphia Inquirer on February 22, 2015.
An article about the murder of Betsy Aardsma published in The Morning Call on April 14, 2015.
A picture of Atherton Hall, where Betsy lived at the time of her murder. Picture taken in June 2026.
Burrowes Hall, where Betsy stopped with Sharon to speak to Professor Nicholas Joukovsky before she went to the library.
The entrance to Burrowes Hall.
The outside of the Pattee Library in June 2026.
The Dr. Keiko Miwa Ross Garden Terrace located on the west side of Pattee Library (outside the Collaboration Commons), picture taken in June 2026.
A close-up shot of The Dr. Keiko Miwa Ross Garden Terrace, picture taken in June 2026.
One of the entrances to the Pattee Library at Penn State, picture taken in June 2026.
One of the entrances to the Pattee Library at Penn State, picture taken in June 2026.
One of the entrances to the Pattee Library at Penn State, picture taken in June 2026.
One of the entrances to the Pattee Library.
The outside of the Pattee Library at Penn State, picture taken in June 2026.
The outside of the Pattee Library at Penn State, picture taken in June 2026.
The main lobby of the Pattee Library at Penn State, picture taken in June 2026.
The entrance of the Pattee Stacks. picture taken in June 2026.
The spot in the current level BA stacks (in 1969 it was the level two stacks) where Betsy Aardsma was stabbed, picture taken in June 2026.
The Mineral Sciences Building, where Rick Haefner would have done a large amount of his graduate course work, picture taken in June 2026.
A close-up shot of The Mineral Sciences Building, where Rick Haefner would have done a large amount of his graduate course work, picture taken in June 2026.
The Dieke Building on Penn State’s campus in State College where the library Rick Haefner would have spent a large amount of his time studying, picture taken in June 2026.
Marilee Elaine Erdely from the 1964 Hopewell High School yearbook.
Joao Umberto Uafinda, who died in 1996 in Mozambique, Africa.
Lauren Wright. Photo courtesy of ‘The Lore Lodge.’
Professor Harrison Meserole. Photo courtesy of ‘The Lore Lodge.’
Professor Nicholas Joukovsky; he earned his AB from Princeton University in 1961 (AB is short for Artium Baccalaureus, which is Latin for Bachelor of Arts), his MA from the University of California, Berkeley in 1963, and his Doctor of Philosophy from Oxford University in 1971.
William Spencer in 1965, photo courtesy of Derek Shurwood.
A clipping that mentions sculptor William Spencer that was published in The Boston Globe on October 1, 1967.
A picture of a young Richard Haefner with his parents at Lake Strause in Bethel Township, PA.
A picture of a teenage Richard Haefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on July 30, 1960.
Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1958 Franklin and Marshall College yearbook.
Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1960 McCaskey High School yearbook.
Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1960 McCaskey High School yearbook.
Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1958 Franklin and Marshall College yearbook (bottom row, middle).
Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1960 McCaskey High School yearbook.
Richard C. Haefner’s senior year picture from the 1961 John Piersol McCaskey High School yearbook.
Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1961 John Piersol McCaskey High School yearbook.
Another shot of Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1961 John Piersol McCaskey High School yearbook.
Another shot of Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1961 John Piersol McCaskey High School yearbook.
Richard Haefner in a group picture from the 1964 Franklin and Marshall College yearbook.
Richard Haefner wearing a pair of horn rimmed glasses.
Richard Haefner.
Richard Haefner.
A newspaper clipping mentioning Richard Haefner that was published in The Gazette and Bulletin on January 30, 1945.
Rich Haefner’s name is listed amongst those who won a science contest in an article that was published in The Lancaster New Era on February 24, 1956.
Rich Haefner’s name is listed amongst those who won a science contest.
An article about Rick Haefner taking an eight-week Astronomy course that was published in The LNP Lancaster Online on December 28, 1958.
The article related to Haefner being picked as ‘Teen of the Week’ published in The Lancaster New Era on July 30, 1960.
A picture of Rick Haefner in a pool with some young boys, from an article that was published in The Lancaster New Era on July 25, 1963.
An article about Rick Haefner working with young boys in the summer of 1963 that was published in The Lancaster New Era on July 25, 1963.
Rick’s name in an article about filing an application to become a teacher that was published in The Standard-Speaker on March 25, 1964.
Rick Haefner’s name in a list of local graduates that was published in The Lancaster New Era on June 3, 1965.
A newspaper clipping about Rick Haefner being featured in an Earth Science Show that was published in The Lancaster New Era on February 25, 1966.
A newspaper clipping about Rick Haefner teaching ‘rural youths’ that was published in The Lancaster New Era on August 10, 1967.
An article written but the Curator of Paleontology of the North Museum of Franklin and Marshall College that mentions Richard Haefner that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on October 21, 1971.
A short write-up about Richard Haefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on September 28, 1972.
A newspaper article about Richard Haefner facing morals charges that was published in The Lancaster New Era on August 16, 1975.
A newspaper article about Richard Haefner being in ‘who’s who’ that was published in The Lancaster New Era on September 10, 1975.
A newspaper article about the morals trial of Richard Haefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on January 28, 1976.
A newspaper blurb about the morals trial of Richard Haefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on January 29, 1976.
Part one of an article the morals trial of Richard Haefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on January 30, 1976.
Part two of an article the morals trial of Richard Haefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on January 30, 1976.
An article about Richard Haefner being convicted of contempt that was published in The Lancaster New Era on February 2, 1976.
Part one of an article about Richard Haefner being convicted of contempt that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on February 6, 1976.
Part two of an article about Richard Haefner being convicted of contempt that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on February 6, 1976.
An article about a series of pretrial motions in relation to the trial of Richard Haefner being heard that was published in The Lancaster New Era on May 19, 1976.
Part one of an article about Rich Haefner’s sodomy trial that was published in Ther Boca Raton News on May 26, 1976. ·
Part two of an article about Rich Haefner’s sodomy trial that was published in Ther Boca Raton News on May 26, 1976. ·
A newspaper article about Rich Haefner losing his second bid to block his second trial that was published in The Lancaster New Era on June 25, 1976.
One of the very few newspaper articles that I was able to find where Richard Haefner was not being some sort of aggressor that was published in The Lancaster New Era on March 19, 1976.
An article about Terry Hess being re-arrested on perjury charges in relation to the court hearing of Rich Haefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on June 24, 1976.
An article about Rich Haefner morals trial being ordered delayed that was published in The Lancaster New Era on August 31, 1976.
An article about Rich Haefner seeking some official court tapes that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on September 9, 1977.
Part one of an article about some lawsuits filed by Rick Haefner that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on October 7, 1977.
Part two of an article about some lawsuits filed by Rick Haefner that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on October 7, 1977.
An article about how Rick Haegfner angered city council members by asking them if police were allowed to accept ‘rewar:ds’ that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on October 26, 1977.
The Lancaster New Era on December 1, 1977.
d
Part one of an article about no new trial being allowed for Richard Hefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on March 13, 1979,
Part two of an article about no new trial being allowed for Richard Hefner that was published in The Lancaster New Era on March 13, 1979.
The Lancaster New Era on April 6, 1979.
The Lancaster New Era on December 26, 1979.
The Lancaster New Era on January 26, 1980.
The Lancaster New Era on March 8, 1980.
Lancaster New Era on March 29, 1980.
The Sunday News on October 5, 1980.
Intelligencer Journal on January 20, 1981.
LNP Lancaster Online on February 8, 1981.
Lancaster New Era on February 12, 1981.
The Lancaster New Era on January 27, 1983
The Intelligencer Journal on July 22, 1983.
The Intelligencer Journal on January 11, 1985.
The Intelligencer Journal on January 11, 1985.
Lancaster New Era on January 15, 1985.
The Intelligencer Journal on October 22, 1988.
The Intelligencer Journal on October 22, 1988.
Lancaster New Era on December 19, 1991.
Lancaster New Era on December 19, 1991.
Intelligencer Journal on December 20, 1991.
Intelligencer Journal on December 20, 1991.
An article about Richard Haefner being charged in relation to a of custody case that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on May 30, 1992.
An article about Richard Heafner being cleared of custody charges that was published inThe Intelligencer Journal on July 28, 1992.
An article about Richard Heafner being cleared of custody charges that was published in The Lancaster New Era on July 30, 1992.
Part one of an article about the Haefner brothers getting into an altercation with police that was published in The Lancaster New Era on October 6, 1994.
Part two of an article about the Haefner brothers getting into an altercation with police that was published in The Lancaster New Era on October 6, 1994.
Part one of an article involving stolen money and Richard Hefner that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on June 10, 1993.
Part two of an article involving stolen money and Richard Hefner that was published in The Intelligencer Journal on June 10, 1993.
An article about Richard Haefner hosting a ‘Gemboree’ that was published in The Daily News on August 16, 1995.
Part one of an article about Richard Haefner pulling out of a geology show that was published in The Daily News on August 13, 1997.
Part two of an article about Richard Haefner pulling out of a geology show that was published in The Daily News on August 13, 1997.
The home Richard Haefner lived in his entire life located at 217 Nevin Street in Lancaster, PA.
The gravestone of Richard C. Haefner.
The cover of the book Derek Sherwood wrote about Richard Haefner titled. ‘Justice Perverted: The Molestation Mistrial of Richard Charles Haefner.’
Haefner
Ted Bundy’s whereabouts in 1969 according to the 1992 TB Multiagency FBI Team Report.
A map of the I-80 across the US.
Cheri Jo Bates, who was killed in Riverside, California on October 30, 1966.
The poem that was found at the Riverside Community College Library i relationship to the murder of Cheri Jo Bates.
 Rachel Hutchinson Taylor, who was seventeen when she was stabbed on Penn State’s campus in 1940.
A newspaper article about the Michigan Coeds Murders that was published in The Saginaw News on June 22, 1969.
A police diagram that was released to the media on June 10, 1969 that showed the locations of the first five victims that were linked to the Michigan Coed Murderer.
An old b&w picture of John Norman Chapman next to a more recent one.
David L. Wright.
Dr. David L. Wright.
Dr. David Wright.
Dr. David Wright’s information taken from the website of the medical practice that he is employed at.
Richard Aardsma’s WWII draft card.
Some information related to Richard Aardsma’s time in the military.
A picture of Ethel Aardsma from the 1938 Alma College yearbook.
Richard Aardsma’s senior picture from the 1940 Hope College yearbook.
A picture of Ethel Aardsma from the 1940 Hope College yearbook.
Ethel Van Alsburg-Aardsma.
Betsy’s parents’ marriage certificate dated September 28, 1940.
A newspaper clipping about the Reformed Church that mentions Richard Aardsma that was published in The Holland Sentinel on October 21, 1954.
A picture of Carole Jean Aardsma from the 1960 Holland High School yearbook.
Richard Aardsma’s picture from the 1965 Holland High School yearbook.
A newspaper clipping announcing the engagement of Betsy’s sister Carole published in The Holland Sentinel on May 29, 1965.
A newspaper clipping announcing the engagement of Betsy’s older sister Carole that was published in The Muskegon Chronicle on June 3, 1965.
A picture of Carole Aardsma on her wedding day that was published in The Muskegon Chronicle on August 30, 1965.
A newspaper clipping about the wedding of Carole Aardsma and David Werner that was published The Muskegon Chronicle on August 30, 1965.
Richard Aardsma from the 1967 Holland High School yearbook.
A picture of Kathy Aardsma from her time on the gymnastics team taken from the 1972 Holland High School yearbook.
A newspaper clipping about the engagement of Richard Aardsma and Marilyn Rigby that was published in The Grand Rapids Press on November 30, 1974.
A newspaper clipping about the wedding of Richard Aardsma getting married to Marilyn Rigby that was published in The Grand Rapids Press on January 11, 1975.
A newspaper clipping about Kathy Aardsma participating in a teachers program at the University of Michigan that was published in The Holland Sentinel on May 8, 1975.
A newspaper clipping about Carole Aardsma speaking at the Second Reform Church sthat was published in The Grand Rapids Press on August 7, 1987.
A newspaper clipping mentioning Carole Aardsma that was published in The Grand Rapids Press on April 27, 1991.
The final resting place of Richard C. Aardsma.
The final resting place of Esther W. Aardsma.
Mrs. Aardsma’s obituary published in The Grand Rapids Press on September 6, 2012.
Betsy’s sister, Carole.
Reverend Carole Aardsma’s picture from the website of Christ Memorial Church.
Betsy’s sister, Kathy Tessimond.
Richard Aardsma.
A painting created by Betsy’s brother, Richard Aardsma.
A write-up about Richard Aardsma’s artwork taken from the Hope College website.
The Haefner family’s information from the 1950 US Census.
Richard Haefner’s parents on their wedding day on November 6, 1934 at St. James Catholic Church in Lititz, PA.
Richard Haefner’s parents, George and Ere.
Ere Josephine Seaber-Haefner.
A wedding announcement for Era Seaber and George Haefner’s wedding that was published on November 7, 1934.
Richard’s brother, George P. Haefner Jr. taken from the 1959 Elizabethtown College yearbook.
The Obituary for George P. Haefner that was published on December 30, 1983 in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
An article about George P. Haefner Senior’s autopsy results that was published in The Lancaster New Era on December 30, 1983.
An article about the death of George P. Haefner Senior that was published on December 30, 1983.
The obituary of Ere Haefner.

Richard Charles Haefner versus the County of Lancaster, PA, August 11, 1981.

Haefner v. Lancaster County, Pa., 520 F. Supp. 131 (E.D. Pa. 1981).
Citation: 520 F. Supp. 131, docket Number: 81-0922, August 11, 1981.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 520 F. Supp. 131 (E.D. Pa. 1981)
Richard D. Haefner versus the County of Lancaster, PA. et al. Civ. A. No. 81-0922.

Harvey S. Miller, Christopher W. Mattson, Lancaster, Pa., Richard R. Galli, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, District Judge Troutman:

The policies supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983,[1] include compensating individuals deprived of federal rights by action taken under color of state law.[2] Claims for injury must be presented in a timely fashion.[3] Congress did not establish a federal statute of limitations for actions brought in federal court under Section 1983, and, therefore, the state statute of limitations for the cause of action most nearly analogous thereto must be “borrowed”.[4]

In the case at bar, plaintiff alleges unlawful arrest, physical and mental abuse during police custody and prosecution of criminal charges against him without probable cause, claims which most nearly resemble state tort actions for assault and battery, false arrest and imprisonment and malicious prosecution.[5] Pennsylvania law requires institution of suit for such claims within two years of accrual.[6] Federal law *133 determines when a federal claim “accrues”[7] and identifies the date as that point in time when the injured party knows or has reason to know of the injury forming the basis of the action.[8]

In the case at bar, plaintiff knew of the injury inflicted by the alleged assault and battery and false arrest and imprisonment when those events occurred in August 1975 and arguably continuing through February 1976. His failure to press these claims within two years bars prosecution irrespective of their merit.[9]

Plaintiff’s claim for malicious prosecution must also be dismissed. To recover therefor, plaintiff must establish that the prior state prosecution terminated in his favor.[10] That is, plaintiff must show that the prior action disposed of the charges in a manner inconsistent with guilt.[11] An indecisive disposition, such as a hung jury, will not suffice, for a prosecution based on probable cause does not deprive a defendant of civil rights within the meaning of Section 1983. No federal claim can exist without proof that the prior state criminal prosecution ended in a manner inconsistent with guilt.[12]

In the case at bar, the state court declared a mistrial after the jury could not reach a verdict. Ultimately, on appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court’s premature discharge of the jury prevented defendant’s retrial in light of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.[13] The prior state action, therefore, did not terminate in a manner inconsistent with defendant’s guilt.[14]

Finally, plaintiff has also failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).[15] This subsection affords a remedy to the *134 victim of a conspiracy to impede or obstruct the “due course of justice” with the intent to deny him the equal protection of the laws. Plaintiff has alleged that defendants’ conspiracy denied him of due process and equal protection of the laws, but he has not alleged that defendants conspired against him because of his membership in a class defined in an invidiously discriminatory manner. Claims under Section 1985(2) must allege a racial or invidiously discriminatory class-based animus.[16] Accordingly, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint will be granted.[17]

NOTES
[1] This section provides that

[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

[2] Parratt v. Taylor, _ U.S. _, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981), Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 1991, 56 L. Ed. 2d 554 (1978), Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S. Ct. 1042, 55 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1978).

[3] Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, 321 U.S. 342, 64 S. Ct. 582, 88 L. Ed. 788 (1944).

[4] Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 100 S. Ct. 1790, 64 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1980), Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 421 U.S. 454, 95 S. Ct. 1716, 44 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1975).

[5] See, for example, Polite v. Diehl, 507 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1974), Hileman v. Knable, 391 F.2d 596 (3d Cir. 1968), and Onley v. Simms, 476 F. Supp. 974 (E.D.Pa.1979); Specifically, plaintiff contends that defendants conspired to secure a criminal prosecution against him on charges known to them as false. Additionally, defendants induced plaintiff to submit to a lie detector test, urged other individuals to persuade plaintiff to enter a plea of guilty, gathered background information on prospective jurors, threatened and intimidated various witnesses which plaintiff called in his defense, paid money to witnesses for favorable testimony, and isolated plaintiff in a prison cell known as the “hole”, allegedly designed to cause occupants severe emotional trauma.

[6] 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 5524(1).

[7] Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920, 101 S. Ct. 1368, 67 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1981).

[8] See, United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111, 100 S. Ct. 352, 62 L. Ed. 2d 259 (1979). Cf. Bayless v. Philadelphia National League Club, 579 F.2d 37 (3d Cir. 1978) (under Pennsylvania law the statute of limitations for personal injury actions begins to run when the plaintiff knows or reasonably should have known of the cause of the injury). See also Grabowski v. Turner & Newall, 516 F. Supp. 114 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff’d, 651 F.2d 908 (3d Cir. 1981) and Anthony v. Koppers Co., _ Pa.Super. _, 425 A.2d 428 (1981).

[9] Pangrazzi v. United States, 511 F. Supp. 648 (E.D.Pa.1981).

[10] Everett v. City of Chester, 391 F. Supp. 26 (E.D.Pa.1975). See also Davis v. Chubb/Pacific Indemnity Group, 493 F. Supp. 89 (E.D.Pa. 1980), in which the court suggested several “indecisive” terminations which would not support a malicious prosecution claim: a charge withdrawn pursuant to an agreement with the accused or withdrawn out of mercy requested or accepted by the accused, the entry of a plea of nolo contendere or a pardon by the executive. The court held that a termination through an Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition Program (ARD) was similarly “indecisive”.

[11] Thomas v. E. J. Korvette, Inc., 329 F. Supp. 1163 (E.D.Pa.1971), rev’d on other grounds, 476 F.2d 471 (3d Cir. 1973).

[12] Singleton v. City of New York, supra.

[13] See Commonwealth v. Haefner, 264 Pa.Super. 144, 399 A.2d 707 (1979).

[14] Formal abandonment of charges by the prosecutor as the necessary consequence of a procedural error committed by the trial judge and barring re-prosecution because of the Double Jeopardy Clause cannot be considered as termination inconsistent with guilt.

[15] This subsection provides that: [i]f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror; or if two or more persons conspired for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing, or attempting to enforce, the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws;

[16] Jones v. United States, 536 F.2d 269 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1039, 97 S. Ct. 735, 50 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1977); Cf. Griffin v. Breckinridge, 403 U.S. 88, 91 S. Ct. 1790, 29 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1971) (under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) plaintiff must allege a class-based discrimination).

[17] Plaintiff’s failure to state any claim under §§ 1983 and 1985(2) justifies dismissal of the complaint as to all defendants. Carey v. Beans, 500 F. Supp. 580 (E.D.Pa.1980), aff’d, 659 F.2d 1065 (3d Cir. 1981), Dezura v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 470 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Pa.1979), aff’d, 612 F.2d 571 (3d Cir. 1980); Jurisdiction over plaintiff’s pendent state claims will be declined. Plaintiff can assert no right thereto. Gibbs v. United Mine Workers of America, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S. Ct. 1130, 16 L. Ed. 2d 218 (1966). See also, Gallo v. Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, 488 F. Supp. 502 (E.D.Pa. 1980).

Richard Charles Haefner versus the County of Lancaster, PA, June 25, 1982.

Haefner v. County of Lancaster, PA, 543 F. Supp. 264 (E.D. Pa. 1982). Citation: 543 F. Supp. 264, Docket Number: 82-1018.
Date: June 25, 1982, US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Richard C. Haefner versus the county of Lancaster, PA.; the Lancaster County Prison. Police Department: Jerry P. Crump, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lancaster Police Department; Howard H. Snyder, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lancaster Police Department; James Burkey; Kevin Burkey; Thomas Dommel, individually and as Captain of the Guard at Lancaster County Prison; Randy Klivansky and Kathleen V. Mumma, individually and as an employee of the County of Lancaster, Court of Common Pleas.
Civ. A. No. 82-1018, US District Court, ED Pennsylvania.

Richard R. Galli, Philadelphia, Pa., for Dommel and Mumma; Christopher W. Mattson, Lancaster, Pa., for City of Lancaster; J. Richard Gray, Lancaster, Pa., for Klivansky.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, District Judge Troutman:

Res judicata rests upon considerations of “economy of judicial time and public policy favoring the establishment of legal relations”. Sea-Land Services v. Gaudet, 414 U.S. 573, 578, 94 S. Ct. 806, 811, 39 L. Ed. 2d 9 (1974), quoting Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S. Ct. 715, 719, 92 L. Ed. 898 (1948). Described as a “fundamental rule of substantial justice” rather than a “mere matter of practice or procedure inherited from more technical times” it should be “cordially regarded and enforced by the courts”. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 401, 101 S. Ct. 2424, 2429, 69 L. Ed. 2d 103, 111 (1981) (quotations omitted). Res judicata serves the salutary purposes of “encourag[ing] reliance on judicial decisions [and], bar[ring] vexatious litigation [while] free[ing] courts to resolve other disputes”. Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127, 131, 99 S. Ct. 2205, 2209, 60 L. Ed. 2d 767 (1979). In order to successfully invoke its protections, three prerequisites need be established: the parties to the instant suit must be the same or in privity with those in the prior litigation; a court of competent jurisdiction must have entered a valid, final judgment on the merits; and the present action must concern the same subject-matter or cause of action as the prior suit. Coggins v. Carpenter, 468 F. Supp. 270, 280 (E.D.Pa.1979). Finding that these conditions have been met, we grant defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Plaintiff originally instituted suit against a plethora of Lancaster City and County public officials and private citizens and charged them with violations of The Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and state claims based upon tortious conduct. Specifically, plaintiff’s first suit alleged that in his business as a rock collector he had employed, and then fired, defendant K. Burkey. In retaliation for his firing, K. Burkey allegedly conspired with co-defendants J. Burkey and Klivansky to secure a criminal prosecution of plaintiff. The three defendants then supposedly met and conspired with law enforcement officials who arrested plaintiff and charged him with corruption of a minor, and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. Thereafter, defendant law enforcement officials subjected plaintiff to harassment, intimidation and abuse and, along with other defendants, maliciously prosecuted plaintiff for crimes which they knew he did not commit. To effectuate their illegal conspiratorial goal, various defendants committed perjury at plaintiff’s preliminary hearing and subsequent trial, sought to illegally pressure plaintiff into tendering a guilty plea, improperly investigated and interviewed potential jurors and threatened and intimidated defense witnesses. Upon completion of plaintiff’s trial, which ended in a hung jury, he was sentenced to prison this for contemptuous conduct. While in the county prison, plaintiff was allegedly subjected to various abuses and forced to reveal information critical to and necessary for his defense at re-trial.

*266 The Commonwealth’s attempt to re-try plaintiff was successfully blocked by decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, grounded upon double jeopardy considerations. See Commonwealth v. Haefner, 264 Pa.Super. 144, 399 A.2d 707 (1979). We dismissed plaintiff’s first suit because it was time-barred. See Haefner v. County of Lancaster, 520 F. Supp. 131 (E.D.Pa.1981), aff’d, 681 F.2d 806 (3d Cir. 1982).

Plaintiff’s current suit is predicated upon the same general events outlined above; they commenced in August, 1975. Additional allegations are contained in the instant suit, which, plaintiff urges, assert a new dimension to the prior suit and obstruct or exclude application of res judicata. Specifically, plaintiff now informs the Court that he was subjected to multiple prosecutions. The first lawsuit was predicated upon false charges inspired by defendant K. Burkey. The case at bar, plaintiff asserts, is grounded in false charges inspired by defendant Klivansky. Unlike the “Burkey-inspired” charges, the “Klivansky-inspired” charges were not the subject of the mistrial which eventually resulted in litigation before the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Moreover, plaintiff now argues that the “Klivansky-inspired” charges were outstanding until March 7, 1980, at which time they were nolle prossed on the basis of insufficient evidence. The unlawful conspiracy now alleged and relating to the “Klivansky-inspired” charges includes defendants’ supposed failure to comply with a Court order requiring them to expunge plaintiff’s arrest record. See Commonwealth v. Haefner, 291 Pa.Super. 604, 436 A.2d 665 (1981).

We turn now to our analysis of the issue involved. The first element necessary to establishment of a res judicata bar, the requirement that the subsequent action be brought against the same parties as the initial action, is met here. The presence of defendant Mumma, the only defendant not named in the first suit, does not compel a contrary result. Coggins v. Carpenter, 468 F. Supp. at 280.

We have equally little trouble finding that the second required element, a final, valid judgment on the merits, is met. A dismissal for failure to state a claim is a “judgment on the merits”. Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. at 399, 101 S. Ct. at 2428, n. 3, 69 L. Ed. 2d at 109, n. 3; Hubicki v. ACF Industries, Inc., 484 F.2d 519, 523 (3d Cir. 1973); Hayes v. New England Millwork Distributors, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 459, 461 (D.Mass.1980); Coggins v. Carpenter, 468 F. Supp. at 280. Likewise, dismissal of a suit as time-barred establishes a res judicata bar. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Randell, 485 F. Supp. 39 (S.D.N.Y.1979).

The third element, whether this suit concerns the same subject-matter as the first one, is the final subject of inquiry. Plaintiff argues that the factual predicate of this suit is grounded in the “Klivansky-inspired” charges while the basis of the first suit was the “Burkey-inspired” charges. Moreover, since the “Klivansky-inspired” charges were not terminated until some time after the “Burkey-inspired” ones and because they included the improper failure to expunge plaintiff’s arrest record, plaintiff asseverates that this suit is a separate cause of action. Finally, plaintiff points to Fed.R. Civ.P. 18(a) which provides that “[a] party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim … may … join … as many claims … as he has against an opposing party” (emphasis added), and urges that he was not required to bring all claims against all parties in the first suit. We disagree.

A res judicata bar is erected against suits which seek to relitigate issues which “were or could have been raised” in the first action. Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., _ U.S. , , n. 6, 102 S. Ct. 1883, 1889, n. 6, 72 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1982). In determining what was or could have been raised in the first suit and whether the same claim is again raised, courts are required to determine the degree of consanguinity between the two suits.

Numerous formulae, each attempting to make that determination, have developed. Some courts consider whether the “same *267 evidence supports both claims and whether the essential facts in the second [suit] were present in the first”. Tucker v. Arthur Anderson & Co., 646 F.2d 721, 727 (2nd Cir. 1981). Others hold that “different legal theories” spawned by a “single alleged wrong” may not form the basis of a second suit. Cemer v. Marathon Oil Co., 583 F.2d 830, 832 (6th Cir. 1978).

The Third Circuit has articulated this standard:

If the second suit relates to the same cause of action as the first … it can be said that the first judgment dismissing the previous suit “with prejudice” bars a later suit on the same cause of action.
Gambocz v. Yelencsics, 468 F.2d 837, 842 (3d Cir. 1972) (emphasis added) (quotations omitted). Another way of expressing the focus of the court’s inquiry requires reference to whether the claims “arose out of the same transaction” Cramer v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp., 582 F.2d 259, 267 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1129, 99 S. Ct. 1048, 59 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1979), or are predicated upon the same “liability creating conduct”. Ley v. Boron Oil Co., 454 F. Supp. 448, 450 (W.D.Pa.1978). See also Borough of Lansdale v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 517 F. Supp. 218, 222 (E.D.Pa.1981); Coggins v. Carpenter, 468 F. Supp. at 280; Sims v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 463 F. Supp. 1068, 1069 (E.D.Pa.1979).

The “liability creating conduct” complained of in the first suit appeared, at that time, to relate to a series of charges allegedly motivated and inspired by defendants K. Burkey and Klivansky. For example, the first complaint charged that both defendants worked for plaintiff and conspired inter se to willfully subject him to false criminal charges. First Complaint ¶¶ 17, 19. Without any attempt to distinguish between the conduct of defendants K. Burkey and Klivansky, it alleged that both of them filed false charges with law enforcement officers. First Complaint ¶¶ 20, 21. The next allegation of joint K. Burkey/Klivansky misconduct asserted that plaintiff was arrested due to the false information which both defendants knowingly provided. First Complaint ¶ 22. Continuing, Klivansky and K. Burkey, along with other defendants, knowingly continued to conspire to have plaintiff maliciously prosecuted. First Complaint ¶ 28. Thereafter, K. Burkey and Klivansky agreed to give false testimony against plaintiff. First Complaint ¶ 32. Specific allegations of joint K. Burkey/Klivansky misconduct are no longer alleged after paragraph 32 of plaintiff’s first complaint. However, Klivansky was separately charged with accepting an undisclosed sum of cash in exchange for testimony favorable to the Commonwealth. First Complaint ¶¶ 35, 36. Finally, Klivansky committed perjury. First Complaint ¶ 38.

Plaintiff, as outlined supra, now alleges that separate charges were spawned by defendants Klivansky and K. Burkey and that the “Klivansky-inspired” conspiracy still may not have terminated in that plaintiff’s arrest record may not have been expunged. These current assertions are insufficient to defeat the application of res judicata because both suits arise out of the same core of “liability creating conduct”. A fair reading of the two complaints demonstrates that plaintiff’s “core complaint” is the same in both suits. True, the outer periphery of the second suit is not exactly co-extensive with the first. However, it complains of conduct which “was or could have been” litigated in the first suit.

Both suits charge a conspiracy by defendants to knowingly subject plaintiff to false and unwarranted criminal prosecutions for specified crimes. The core of operative facts alleged in both suits commenced in the summer of 1975, and continued thereafter.

Plaintiff is now attempting to engage in a post-hoc redrafting of his initial complaint by explaining that, contrary to a plain reading thereof, it only charged a “Burkey-inspired” conspiracy. As such, plaintiff seeks to impermissibly limit and narrow the scope of his first complaint. However, the requirement of notice pleading mandates a broad, generous reading of complaints. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S. Ct. 99, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957). This rule is *268 not altered when considering the breadth of a complaint for res judicata purposes. Blair v. City of Greenville, 649 F.2d 365, 368 (5th Cir. 1981).

Finally, plaintiff’s valiant attempts to distinguish the scope of the two suits are unsuccessful because plaintiff was aware of defendants’ “liability creating conduct” with regard to the “Klivansky-inspired” charges when he filed his initial suit. As such, he was required to allege its existence therein. Accord, Id. (res judicata bars suit based upon conduct which antedated final judgment in the first suit); Crowe v. Leeke, 550 F.2d 184, 187 (4th Cir. 1977) (res judicata precludes litigation of defendants’ conduct which occurred prior to entry of the first judgment).

An appropriate order will issue granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.

‘Geology of the Shoshone Volcanics, Death Valley Region, Eastern California,’ Written by Richard Haefner (MA Thesis).

Geologic Setting:

Within the Black Mountains block of the Death Valley region of eastern California is a terrane composed primarily of Cenozoic intrusive and extrusive rocks, which covers an area of about 1,300 sq km. The volcanic rocks of this terrane are predominantly rhyolitic but also include dacitic, andesitic, and basaltic units. They appear to be genetically related to the Cenozoic deformational features of the block (Noble and Wright, 1954; Wright and Troxel, 1971a, 1971b). The extrusive rocks that have been mapped thus far are mostly lava flows and air-fall tuffs, but ash-flow tuffs form much of the lower part of the volcanic sequence in the southern part of the field (L. A. Wright, personal commun.). Included within the rhyolitic rocks is an accumulation of lava flows and tuffs, as much as 900 m thick, to which the name “Shoshone Volcanics” is here applied and which is the subject of this summary report.

High-altitude imagery of southern and central Death Valley. Image NASA ERTS 1125-17554 band 7, 25 November 1972; copy produced by Drew P. Smith, California Division of Mines and Geology.

Although the field is incompletely explored, it appears to consist dominantly of acid intrusive and extrusive rocks; rocks of intermediate to basic composition are also present but subordinate,

Clastic sediments derived from the igneous rocks, together with evaporites, were deposited in local basins (Drewes, 1963). Some of these rocks contain commercial borate deposits. Two major sediment accumulations have been named Copper Canyon Formation (Curry, 1941; Drewes, 1963, p. 32) and Furnace Creek Formation (Noble, 1941, p. 956).


DESCRIPTION

The Shoshone Volcanics are exposed almost continuously in a belt about 26 km long, which extends northward (Fig. 1). They also are exposed in more westerly parts of the Greenwater Range and in the Black Mountains.

Figure 1. Distribution of the Shoshone Volcanics in southeast Greenwater Range (Eagle Mountain quadrangle) and Dublin Hills (Shoshone quadrangle).

In the area of Figure 1, the Shoshone Volcanics overlie Cambrian sedimentary rocks, Cenozoic quartz monzonite plutons, and older acid volcanic rocks with an erosional unconformity. The contact between the two accumulations of volcanic rock shows marked angular discordance. Southwest of the area shown in Figure 1, the Shoshone Volcanics also overlie ash-flow tuffs and andesite lava flows. The eroded surface of the Shoshone Volcanics is in turn overlain by air-fall tuffs and lava flows of the Greenwater Volcanics. This contact commonly also shows angular discordance. As the dip direction of all three volcanic accumulations is generally eastward, the angular unconformities suggest continued eastward tilting of fault blocks during emplacement of the volcanic rocks. Dark colored lava flows of basaltic and andesitic composition overlie the Shoshone Volcanics in some places.

The Shoshone Volcanics are prominently layered, the layers producing a striped landscape colored in various shades of pink, yellow, and gray. A regular sequence of layers is obvious, even from a distance. A yellow layer is generally overlain successively by a gray layer, a pink layer, locally a second gray layer, and another yellow layer (Table 1). At many localities, three or four of these sequences are exposed in layer-cake fashion on a single slope, individual sequences being 45 to 120 m thick. The sequences on steeper slopes produce cliffs (gray and pink layers), alternating with benches (yellow layers).

TABLE 1. TERMINOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION OF LAYERING IN SHOSHONE VOLCANICS
table

As the volcanic rocks dip eastward, the best views of the layer sequences are from the west side of the mountains. The sequences in the Dublin Hills are among the best exposed (Chesterman, 1973) and are also easily accessible. These dominate the view eastward as one travels toward Salsberry Pass from Greenwater Valley.


CORRELATION AND AGE

The Shoshone Volcanics are equivalent to a part of Drewes’s “older volcanics” in the Funeral Peak quadrangle to the west of the area shown in Figure 1 (Drewes, 1963). This unit is lithologically similar to the Shoshone Volcanics even to the zones within individual lava flows, and it also overlies eroded quartz monzonite plutons and underlies Greenwater Volcanics.

A tentative age for the Shoshone Volcanics may be inferred from isotope ages of rock units elsewhere in the volcanic field. Fleck (1970, p. 2810) reported seven K-Ar ages for “older volcanics” from the Funeral Peak quadrangle: three from Dante’s View and four from Hidden Springs, The dates from Dante’s View (6.32 ± 0.13, 6.34 ± 0.13, 6.49 ± 0.13) are clearly younger than those from Hidden Spring (8.02 ± 0.16, 7.60 ± 0.30, 7.77 ± 0.15, 8,02 ± 0.16). These yield an early Pliocene age for Hidden Spring and a middle Pliocene age for Dante’s View, based on the time scale of Evernden and others (1964). Although the “older volcanics” of Drewes include more than the equivalent of the Shoshone Volcanics, the early to middle Pliocene dates fit the permissible interval allowed the Shoshone Volcanics by radiometric dating of the quartz monzonite plutons and the Greenwater Volcanics. The former have yielded middle to late Miocene K-Ar dates (Stern and others, 1966; Armstrong, 1966). The Greenwater Volcanics, on the other hand, have yielded late Pliocene K-Ar dates (Fleck, 1970). The early to middle Pliocene age for the Shoshone Volcanics thus indicated may be refined when more detailed correlations of volcanic units are made, and when the age of the volcanic rocks underlying the Shoshone Volcanics is better known.


PETROGRAPHY

The Shoshone Volcanics consist primarily of four lithotypes: (1) gray perlitic vitrophyre, (2) red-brown to pinkish-gray felsophyre, (3) yellow felsophyre, and (4) yellow devitrified tuff (Table 1).

Phenocrysts of the Vitrophyre and Felsophyre. Phenocrysts comprise 3 to 20 percent of the total rock volume (Table 2); the remainder is glass or cryptocrystalline groundmass. Some of the layer sequences are crystal rich, others are crystal poor (Haefner, 1972). The Dublin Hills sequences are crystal poor. Crystal-rich sequences overlie crystal-poor sequences in the vicinity of Brown Peak.

TABLE 2. APPROXIMATE MODAL COMPOSITIONS, BY CONVENTIONAL POINT COUNTING

Crystal-poor eruptive unit*
(4,200 points)
(%)
Crystal-rich eruptive unit&dagg;er
(2,000 points)
(%)
Groundmass (glass)97.7581.8
Plagioclase2.0211.7
Biotite0.120.6
Hornblende0.074.7
Opaques0.021.2
Augite/hypersthene0.02tr.
Total100.00100.0
*Dublin Hills, average of 21 vitrophyre thin sections from one lava flow.
West of Brown Peak, average of 10 vitrophyre thin sections from one lava flow.

Plagioclase, the only feldspar, forms the largest (4 mm) and most abundant phenocrysts. Most crystals are andesine, but the composition ranges from oligoclase to labradorite.

Hornblende forms euhedral prisms to 1.5 mm long. It occurs as ordinary hornblende (pleochroic in green and brown), and as the varieties variously known as oxyhornblende, lamprobolite, or basaltic hornblende (pleochroic in red, green, and brown). Crystals of the latter variety are commonly rimmed with opaque minerals. Oxyhornblende occurs only in the pink felsophyre; ordinary hornblende occurs in the vitrophyre and yellow felsophyre.

Biotite occurs as euhedra to 1.5 mm in maximum dimension. It, too, occurs as two varieties: ordinary biotite (pleochroic in green and brown), and a type which, by analogy with hornblende, may be called oxybiotite (pleochroic in red, green, and brown). Oxybiotite is commonly rimmed with opaques, and it occurs exclusively with oxyhornblende in the pink felsophyre.

Opaque minerals, largely magnetite, occur as small anhedral to euhedral grains from dust size to 0.3 mm, and as larger masses partly to completely replacing oxyhornblende and oxybiotite. Orthopyroxene and clinopyroxene form euhedral phenocrysts that may be as large as the hornblende and biotite but are much less common.

A xenocrystic character is inferred for some grains that are rounded or embayed. Quartz grains as much as 1 mm in diameter occur in a few thin sections and are consistently rounded or embayed. Species that occur as phenocrysts also commonly show such outlines.

Groundmass of the Vitrophyre and Felsophyre. The glass groundmass of the vitrophyre commonly is gray to black. Brown glass occurs as a local variation that is mixed in swirls and patches with gray glass. The glass contains abundant pyroxene crystallites of several habits. Perlitic structure is nearly ubiquitous. In thin section, concentric fractures outline spheres with centers spaced at intervals of 0.5 to 1.0 mm and associated with a boxwork of planar fractures. Spherulites, 0.1 to 30 cm, occur in the glass but are confined to the several meters of vitrophyre along the margins of the red felsophyre (Fig. 2). Some spherulites are hollow and contain quartz crystals, agate, or opal.

Figure 2. Features of typical eruptive unit in Shoshone Volcanics.

The groundmass of the yellow felsophyre is cryptocrystalline. The presence of the alteration mineral jarosite is indicated by x-ray diffraction analysis. Magnetite commonly is absent. Relict perlitic fractures are locally present, indicating that the yellow felsophyre groundmass was originally glass, and that it acquired its present crystallinity through devitrification.

The groundmass of the red felsophyre is cryptocrystalline. The red to pink color, which is particularly conspicuous around magnetite microphenocrysts and around the opacitized rims of oxyhornblende and oxybiotite, is produced by abundant patches of hematite. In contrast to the vitrophyre and yellow felsophyre, the red felsophyre is vesicular; small vesicles to 2 mm are nearly ubiquitous, but large vesicles to 1 cm also occur, most of them adjacent to the vitrophyre (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Distribution of megascopic vesicles in red felsophyre.

Devitrified Yellow Tuff. The same phenocryst species as found in the vitrophyre and felsophyre are found in the tuff matrix. The matrix has been devitrified and is now cryptocrystalline, with only rare traces of the original glass shards. Magnetite appears to be absent in the matrix, whereas jarosite is present. Essential pumice lapilli (devitrified) and accidental lapilli and blocks of volcanic rocks are the most common clasts; clasts of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks are rare. Vitrophyre clasts are absent nearly everywhere, but yellow and red felsophyre clasts are common.

Two localities have been found where the tuff is not devitrified. The most accessible of these is the lowest tuff exposed on the west side of the Dublin Hills where vitrophyre lapilli and glass shards are abundant, and jarosite does not occur in the matrix.

Paleomagnetic Properties of the Rocks. Ninety-six determinations of paleomagnetic direction were made on vitrophyre and red felsophyre of the layer sequences only because yellow felsophyre and tuff commonly are not magnetically susceptible. In each case, strike and plunge of the remanant magnetization was determined. As the rocks are relatively young, the orientation of the remanant magnetization should approximately parallel the magnetic direction of the Earth’s present field, after correcting for postcooling deformation.

All the layer sequences examined exhibit normal polarity, except for specimens from exposures of one layer sequence, which are reversed (NW1/4 sec. 3, T. 22 N., R. 5 E.).

All the vitrophyre samples, including those from the reversed sequence, have directions of remanant magnetization which parallel that predicted from the present field (Fig. 4). However, among specimens from the red felsophyre zone, fewer than half have remanant directions that parallel the predicted direction; the remainder have remanant directions with widely varying strikes and plunges. It appears that only the vitrophyre can be relied upon to be a faithful recorder of the Earth’s magnetic field at the time of emplacement.

Figure 4. Determination of paleomagnetic direction.


INTERPRETATION OF THE LAYER SEQUENCES

Types of Deposits. Within each yellow layer is a deposit, about 9 m thick, of well-stratified tuff. The remainder of the layer is yellow felsophyre (Table 1). The tuffs, which consist of interbedded lapilli-rich and lapilli-poor strata, are interpreted as air-fall tuffs. The tuff deposits divide the yellow color bands into additional mappable units, or zones (Table 1).

The sequence of zones between tuff deposits is interpreted as a single rhyolite lava flow (Fig. 2; Haefner, 1969). Glass shards, fiamme, and other characteristics of ash-flow deposits are absent in these zones. In addition, laminae in the red felsophyre zone are locally warped into folds, indicating that the magma flowed as a coherent mass. That this sequence of zones constitutes only one lava flow is evidenced by exposures of flow margins. Four flow margins are exposed in the Dublin Hills; at such localities, the red felsophyre constitutes a core, around which are wrapped the upper vitrophyre and yellow felsophyre zones to become the lower vitrophyre and yellow felsophyre zones (Fig. 5).

Figure 5. Cross-section sketch of lava flow margin in exposure of Shoshone Volcanics near Miller Spring. Flow margin overlain by another eruptive unit of Shoshone Volcanics. Not drawn to scale; length of section approximately 250 ft.

Alteration. The yellow felsophyre is interpreted as altered vitrophyre (Haefner, [969, 1973). Evidence for this inference is the presence of relict perlitic fractures and the observation that yellow felsophyre merges with unaltered vitrophyre inward from both the upper and lower flow surfaces. Thus, a lava flow appears to consist essentially of a red felsophyre core encased in a vitrophyre sheath; the outer portions of the sheath have been altered, as have adjacent tuff deposits. Alteration is expressed as devitrification, the growth of jarosite, and the disappearance of magnetite.

Altered acid volcanic rocks are usually distributed about centers of fumarolic or hydrothermal activity. The Shoshone lava flows are unusual in that the altered rock occurs as a sheet like body at the glassy top and at the glassy base of each lava flow. However, such alteration may not be unique to Death Valley; there are at least two localities in the Soviet Union from which apparently similar altered lava flows of acid composition have been described (Nasedkin, 1963).

A hypothesis for the origin of this alteration in the Shoshone Volcanics, which involves the interaction of magmatic with meteoric volatiles during the cooling of the flows, has been presented elsewhere (Haefner, 1969, 1973).


EMPLACEMENT OF A TYPICAL ERUPTIVE UNIT

Crust of the Active Lava Flow. At the top of each lava flow that is overlain by a tuff deposit, veinlets of tuff extend downward into the flow, outlining individual blocks of yellow felsophyre (altered vitrophyre); locally, the blocks are pumiceous. These blocks apparently constituted a rubble crust formed by the chilling and breaking of lava on the upper surface of the active flow. The crust, about 4.5 m thick, composes only 3 to 9 percent of the total flow thickness; furthermore, crustal thickness does not depend on the thickness of the lava flow (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Thickness of upper crust of rubble in six lava flows of Shoshone Volcanics.

Evidence of a rubble crust at the base of the lava flow would be generally difficult to detect, because tuff veinlets do not outline the rubble blocks. Nevertheless, ghostly remnants of angular blocks in the yellow felsophyre (altered vitrophyre) are observable at some localities and apparently originated as rubble. The lower crust is relatively thin, and massive, unaltered vitrophyre composes most of the part of the flow that underlies the red felsophyre zone (Fig. 2). If the lower crust was about as thick as the upper crust, then 80 to 95 percent of the lava flow remained liquid while the flow was active.

This large proportion of liquid magma contrasts with that inferred for many other acid lava flows, which are block lavas. These contained a much higher proportion of rubble during their active stage than do the flows of the Shoshone Volcanics. The overlying flows of the Greenwater Volcanics, exposed near Brown Peak, are block lavas. One measured section shows a flow to have been 70 percent rubble and only 30 percent liquid during its active stage.

Formation of Massive Vitrophyre. Adjacent to the rubble crusts are thick layers of massive gray vitrophyre and massive yellow felsophyre (altered vitrophyre). Together they form a sheath that encases the red felsophyre core of the flow. Patches of gray vitrophyre within the massive altered vitrophyre resemble rubble crust (Fig. 2), but they are not, because flow laminae or layers of spherulites can be traced across the patches into the adjacent vitrophyre, thus demonstrating that the patches are not rotated blocks.

The massive vitrophyre, fresh and altered, represents lava which must have chilled to a glassy rock only after movement of the lava ceased. Otherwise, the chilled glassy rock would have been broken and become part of the rubble crust. This chilling took place at least in part after the flow margin stopped advancing, because the massive vitrophyre sheath extends to the flow margin (Fig. 5), The chilling to form vitrophyre could have begun in less mobile parts of the flow during the active stage, particularly in portions of the flow near the vent (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Interpretation of emplacement of an eruptive unit. Massive vitrophyre may have formed in stable crust areas of active lava flow but also formed after lava flow ceased advancing. Not drawn to scale.

Formation of the Felsophyre Core. An emplaced and cooling lava flow consisted of a molten core surrounded by a vitrophyre sheath (Fig. 7). The layers of massive vitrophyre must have continued to thicken as cooling proceeded, until conditions favored creation of features that characterize the lava flow core, namely, vesicularity, hematite stain, oxyhornblende and oxybiotite, and primary cryptocrystallinity, as contrasted with crystallinity caused by devitrification.

Except for local pumiceous rock in the rubble crust, only the felsophyre core is vesicular. This indicates that the lava, instead of degassing completely when it reached the Earth’s surface, retained an appreciable quantity of gas in solution until after the flow was emplaced and had cooled for some time.

Lava flows of basic composition are generally devoid of evidence of delayed vesiculation, probably because they have a lower melt viscosity. The proportion of acid lava flows that display evidence of delayed vesiculation, is unknown, because detailed descriptions of the interiors of acid lava flows are rare. The delayed vesiculation probably is responsible for the other characteristic features of the red felsophyre, based on the following evidence: On heating in air to about 750°C, ordinary hornblende changes to oxyhornblende (Belovsky, 1891; Kozu and others, 1927; Barnes, 1930). This process is one of oxidation and is accompanied by resorption around the crystal margins, the products generally including iron oxides and pyroxene (Deer and others, 1962).

The conversion of ordinary hornblende to oxyhornblende and of biotite to oxybiotite in the flow interior probably occurred with vesiculation, the exsolved gases providing the necessary oxidizing environment. Because hematite, the colorant of the lava flow core, is concentrated around oxyhornblende and oxybiotite crystals, it probably formed as a resorption product.

Because oxidation is an exothermic process, additional heat probably was generated in the molten lava flow core upon vesiculation. The oxidation of hornblende, experimentally, suggests that the temperature of the molten core was at least 750°C when the oxidation began. The additional heat provided by the oxidation apparently was sufficient to maintain the vesiculating molten core in a liquid state long enough for ions to migrate through the miscous melt and organize themselves as minute crystals. Thus the cryptocrystallinity of the red felsophyre groundmass also appears to have been favored by the delayed vesiculation.

Vesicle Collapse in the Felsophyre Core. The walls of vesicles are more coarsely crystalline than the rest of the ground mass. Streaks of similar material, observed in thin section, demonstrate the partial to complete collapse of vesicles (Fig. 8). Collapsing may have occurred when exsolving gases became depleted in the melt, or when the falling temperature caused a reduction in gas pressure to the point where it could no longer support the vesicle walls. The relatively large vesicles, which occur at the top and base of the red felsophyre zone, may have become “frozen” in highly viscous lava close to the chilled vitrophyre.

Figure 8. A. Photomicrograph of collapsed vesicles in red felsophyre (crossed nichols). Coarsely crystalline walls of vesicles show as light streaks. Arrows point to tridymite, which filed in partially collapsed vesicles, Light streak above tridymite patch on right is completely collapsed vesicle, without tridymite filling. Length of photo, 3 mm. B. Large vesicles in red felsophyre near bottom of zone. Vesicles are lined with druses of silica minerals.

The peculiar paleomagnetic properties of the red felsophyre may be related to vesicle collapse. About 40 percent of determinations on red felsophyre yield magnetic directions that parallel the predicted directions of the rocks. The red felsophyre, even though it has been oxidized by exsolved gases, evidently can be a faithful recorder of the Earth’s magnetic field, just as the vitrophyre can. Thus, the remaining determinations that do not yield the predicted magnetic direction seem best explained by mechanical rotation of mineral grains perhaps related to vesicle collapse. No other rotation is apparent as the paleomagnetism of the massive vitrophyre, particularly in the flow margins, demonstrates that the Curie point in the outer part of the lava flow was crossed only after the lava flow had stopped advancing. If this interpretation is correct, then the collapse of vesicles in the red felsophyre took place below 580°C, the measured Curie point of the rock.

Mechanism of Lava Flow Advance. Since freshly fallen tuff is notoriously susceptible to erosion but is conformable with the overlying flows, the lava flows must have moved over the tuff immediately after the tuff was deposited. Therefore, tuff is taken to represent deposits of explosions that cleared the vent just prior to a flow effusion.

The tuff deposits, which were unconsolidated lapilli and ash at the times the lava flows moved over them, are virtually undisturbed. Typically, the tuff fragments that are mixed into the overlying lava flow rock occur within 10 cm of the contact. In addition, the surfaces of the tuff layers apparently are unscoured by the overlying flows. Individual layers at the tops of tuff deposits can be traced for nearly 1 km. Therefore, a typical lava flow advanced without disturbing the underlying loose tuff. The nature of the flow margins and the existence of rubble crust at the base of the typical flow indicate that it advanced with a simple rolling tractor-tread motion, the crust that formed at the upper surface being dragged beneath the flow as it advanced (Fig. 7).

Although the areal extent of individual lava flows is obscured by abundant faults, individual flows have been traced continuously for as much as 5.5 km. A lava flow in the Dublin Hills that contains distinctive fragments of basaltic rock may be correlative with a similar lava flow exposed as far as 19.3 km north of the Dublin Hills.

Considered as a group, the lava flows of the Shoshone Volcanics appear to have filled the valleys. A map of the area near Brown Peak in the Eagle Mountain quadrangle, for example, shows flows accumulated which filled an ancient valley that possessed a relief of about 300 m (Haefner, 1972, Pl. 2).

The tractor-tread motion, the large proportion of liquid lava in the active flows, and the apparent extensiveness of some lava flows suggest a high fluidity for the Shoshone lava flows. This might be an effect of high initial temperature (Gibbon, 1964), but the presence of phenocrysts of the lava suggests a limited temperature range comparable to the range of the relatively viscous lava assumed for the porphyritic flows of block rhyolite. Thus, apparently high fluidity of the Shoshone rhyolite lava flows is more likely an effect of a high content of dissolved volatiles than of a high initial temperature, the volatiles being largely retained in solution during the advance of the flows.


REFERENCES CITED

Armstrong, R. L., 1966, K-Ar dating using neutron activation for Ar analysis: Granitic plutons of the eastern Great Basin, Nevada and Utah: Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acts, v. 30, no. 6, p. 565-600.

Barnes, V. E., 1930, Changes in hornblende at about 800°C: Am. Mineralogist, v. 15, p. 393.

Belovsky, Max, 1891, Über die Anderungen, welche die Optischen Verhältnisse der gemeinen Hornblende beim Glühen erfahren: Neues Jahrb. Mineralogie, Bd. 1, p. 291-292.

Chesterman, Charles w., 1973, Geology of the northeast quarter of Shoshone quadrangle, Inyo County, California: California Div. Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 18.

Curry, H. D., 1940, Mammalian and avian ichnites in Death Valley [abs.]: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 52, no. 12, p. 1979.

Deer, W. A., Howie, R. A., and Zussman, J., 1962, Rock-forming minerals, Vol. 2: New York, John Wiley & Sons,

Drewes, Harald, 1963, Geology of the Funeral Peak quadrangle, California, on the east flank of Death Valley: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 413, 78 p.

Evernden, J. F., Savage, D. E., Curtis, G. H., and James, G. T., 1964, Potassium-argon dates and the Cenozoic mammalian chronology of North America: Am. Jour, Sci., v. 262, p. 145-098.

Fleck, R. J., 1970, Age and tectonic significance of volcanic rocks, Death Valley area, California: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 81, p. 2807-2816.

Gibbon, D. L., 1964, Origin and development of the Star Mountain rhyolite [Ph.D. dissert.]: Houston, Rice Univ., 119 p.

Haefner, Richard, 1969, Emplacement and cooling history of a rhyolite lava flow and related tuff at Deudman Pass, near Death Valley, California [M.S. thesis]: University Park, Pennsylvania State Univ., 82 p.

______ 1972, Igneous history of a rhyolite lava flow series near Death Valley, California [Ph.D. dissert]: University Park, Pennsylvania State Univ., 281 p.

______ 1973, Alteration of rhyolite near Death Valley, California: A newly recognized phenomenon: Geol. Soc. America, Abs. with Programs (Ann. Mtg.), v. 5, no. 7, p. 647,

Kozu, S., Yoshiki, B., and Kani, K., 1927, Notes on the study of the transformation of common hornblende into basaltic hornblende at 750°C: Tohoku Univ. Sci. Repts., 3d ser., v. 3, no. 2, p. 143-159.

Nasedkin, V. V., 1963, Water-bearing volcanic glasses of acid composition—Their genesis and alteration: Acad. Sci. USSR (text not translated).

Noble, L. F., 1941, Structural features of the Virgin Spring area, Death Valley, California: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 52, no, 7, p. 941-1000.

Noble, L. F., and Wright, L. A., 1954, Geology of the central and southern Death Valley region, California, in Jahns, R. H., ed., Geology of southern California: California Div. Mines and Geology Bull. 170, p. 143-160.

Stern, T. W., Newell, M. F., and Hunt, C. B., 1966, Uranium-lead and potassium-argon ages of parts of the Amargosa thrust complex, Death Valley, California: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 550—B, p. 142-147.

Wright, L. A., and Troxel, B. W., 1971a, Thin-skinned megaslump model of Basin Range structure us applicable to the southwestern Great Basin: Geol. Soc. America, Abs. with Programs (Ann. Mtg.), v. 3, no, 7, p. 758.

______ 1971b, Evidence for tectonic control of volcanism, Death Valley: Geol. Soc. America, Abs. with Programs (Cordilleran Sec.), v. 3, no. 2, p. 221.

High-altitude vertical aerial photograph near southeastern end of Greenwater Range. Pale-colored racks in left of center of photograph are marine Tertiary volcanic rocks described by Haefner [see preceding article]. The rocks also crop out on northwest [left] side of Dublin Hills [right of center]. Amargosa River flows south across photograph. Pale-colored area on right is underlain by flat-lying lake sediments deposited during an interval when the flow of the Amargosa River was blocked. Part of photo U.S. Air Force 374V 197, 6 September 1968; courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey.

Richard Charles Haefner versus the City of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, June 22, 1983.

Haefner v. City of Lancaster, PA, 566 F. Supp. 708, Docket Number: 83-604, June 22, 1983.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 566 F. Supp. 708 (E.D. Pa. 1983).


566 F. Supp. 708 (1983)Richard HAEFNER versus the CITY OF LANCASTER, PA.; the City of Lancaster, Pa. Police Department, John Wertz, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lancaster, Pa. Police Department; Richard Shertzer, individually and as a Police Officer of the City of Lancaster, Pa. Police Department, and John Does 1-10.Civ. A. No. 83-604.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.June 22, 1983.

George C. Werner, Lancaster, Pa., for defendants.
MEMORANDUM

District Judge Troutman: Plaintiff, in Haefner I, instituted suit against a host of Lancaster City and County public officials and private citizens and generally charged them with conspiring to illegally secure his conviction. We dismissed the suit because it was time-barred. Haefner v. City of Lancaster, 520 F. Supp. 131 (E.D.Pa.1981), aff’d, 681 F.2d 806 (3d Cir.), cert. denied _ U.S. _, 103 S. Ct. 165, 74 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1983). Subsequently, in Haefner II, plaintiff alleged that he was subjected to a series of illegal conspiracies and that the complaint then at bar inveighed against conduct not litigated in Haefner I. We disagreed and held that our disposition of Haefner I erected a res judicata bar to the allegations of Haefner II. Haefner v. County of Lancaster, 543 F. Supp. 264 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff’d, 703 F.2d 550 (3d Cir. 1983). Defendants, moving to dismiss, argue that res judicata also bars this action. We agree and grant the motion.

The complaint at bar alleges that [o]n or about February 6, 1981, plaintiff entered the lobby of the Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. building at 3 West King Street in the City of Lancaster, Pa., with the intent of conducting his lawful business, particularly of investigating some of the aforesaid policies, customs, or decisions of the defendant City and Police Department, and of arranging for publication of a news story concerning the same.

Complaint ¶ 13. Continuing, the complaint at bar also alleges that defendant police officer Wertz stopped plaintiff and requested that he produce proper identification even though he, Wertz, knew the plaintiff. Thereafter, Wertz began interrogating plaintiff and, when plaintiff sought to obtain a pen with which to record Wertz’s name, defendant Wertz arrested plaintiff for disorderly conduct. While in the illegal custody of Wertz and other defendants, plaintiff was purportedly subjected to abuse and torture from which he still suffers anguish, trauma and depression. Finally, plaintiff alleges that his trial for disorderly conduct was aborted on March 5, 1981, when the charges were dropped. See, Complaint ¶¶ 14-27.

Similar allegations of official misconduct were made in Haefner II. There plaintiff alleged that [o]n February 6, 1981, while plaintiff was engaged in an investigation related to his expungement petitions and appeals, members of defendant Police Department, in furtherance of a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of his right to a fair and impartial criminal trial and other related proceedings, arrested plaintiff on a charge of disorderly conduct, took plaintiff to the defendant Police Department’s station house, where they verbally abused and physically beat plaintiff. As a result of this unlawful conduct, plaintiff abandoned his investigation.

Haefner II amended complaint, both Haefner II and the case at bar complain that on February 6, 1981, plaintiff, while investigating official misconduct, was subjected to a false arrest. Continuing, the two complaints allege that plaintiff was subjected to physical beatings, verbal and emotional abuse while suffering the illegal detention. Simply stated, the two actions complain of substantially similar conduct. The only distinction between Haefner II and the case at bar is that the current complaint highlights a portion of the allegations contained in Haefner II. The allegations contained in Haefner II closely tracked those of Haefner I; both suits alleged that numerous defendants subjected plaintiff to false and unwarranted criminal prosecutions for various sex offenses. Haefner II also charged that following *710 plaintiff’s acquittal on the criminal charges, defendants violated an order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas and failed to expunge his arrest record. Most critically, Haefner II lodged allegations not made in Haefner I: it contended that on February 6, 1981, while investigating defendants’ failure to expunge his arrest record, plaintiff was verbally and physically abused. This same incident forms the basis of the current action.

Plaintiff, opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment, argues primarily that Haefner II cannot support a res judicata bar to this action because our disposition of that case did not amount to a final judgment “on the merits”.[1] Specifically, plaintiff asserts that because our order of dismissal in Haefner II did not state that it was “with prejudice” it thereby was entered “without prejudice” pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 41(b). Hence, plaintiff claims, we neither considered nor addressed the merits of Haefner II and the res judicata requirement of a judgment “on the merits” has not been met.

Resolution of whether our dismissal of Haefner II was “on the merits” is assertedly governed by Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265, 81 S. Ct. 534, 5 L. Ed. 2d 551 (1961). It held that a dismissal based upon plaintiff’s failure to comply with a “precondition requisite” does not create a res judicata bar to a subsequent suit. Id. at 285, 81 S. Ct. at 544. Therefore, when a complaint fails to meet a “condition for filing suit” its dismissal does not operate as an adjudication on the merits. Truvillion v. King’s Daughters Hospital, 614 F.2d 520, 524 (5th Cir.1980). Hence, such a dismissal cannot support a res judicata bar. Accord, McCarney v. Ford Motor Co., 657 F.2d 230, 233-34 (8th Cir.1981) (Prior dismissal for lack of standing does not erect a res judicata bar); Johnson v. Boyd Richardson Co., 650 F.2d 147, 148-49 (8th Cir.1981) (Failure to name a proper party does not erect a res judicata bar).

Haefner II was not dismissed, however, for any failure to comply with a jurisdictional “precondition requisite”. Rather, that case was dismissed on the strength of the res judicata bar created by Haefner I’s dismissal as being untimely. Such a dismissal in Haefner I created a res judicata bar to the second suit by this plaintiff. Chang v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, 549 F. Supp. 90, 95 (N.D.Ill.1982); Waschovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Randell, 485 F. Supp. 39, 42 (S.D.N.Y.1979). Accord, Comer v. Marathon Oil Co., 583 F.2d 830 (6th Cir.1978).

Although the “outer periphery” of Haefner II was not “exactly co-extensive” with Haefner I, res judicata nevertheless barred the second suit because the “core complaint” of the two suits was the “same”. Haefner II, 543 F. Supp. at 267. See, Poe v. John Deere Co., 695 F.2d 1103, 1106 (8th Cir.1982) (Res judicata arises even though the parameters of the second suit do not track those in the first suit with “mathematical precision”.) We also held in Haefner II that plaintiff could not litigate the events of February 6, 1981, in that suit because he was aware of them prior to March 9, 1981, the date upon which he filed Haefner I. Moreover, plaintiff was also aware of the now plead February 6, 1981 events prior to the date of Haefner I’s dismissal. See, Haefner II, 543 F. Supp. at 268, citing, Blair v. City of Greenville, 649 F.2d 365, 368 (5th Cir.1981) and Crowe v. Leeke, 550 F.2d 184, 187 (4th Cir.1977). Plaintiff may not now attempt to relitigate a claim which could have been litigated in Haefner I and which was specifically plead in Haefner II.

Simply stated, Haefner I’s dismissal as being time-barred operated as an adjudication on the merits and foreclosed plaintiff’s complaint in Haefner II. The current action merely rehashes allegations which we *711 previously held are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Even if we accepted plaintiff’s current assertion that Haefner II’s dismissal was not “on the merits” and that it cannot support a res judicata bar, litigation of this action is precluded by the res judicata bar created by Haefner I. We do not, however, accept plaintiff’s assertion that our dismissal of Haefner II was “without prejudice”. We believe that our dismissal of Haefner II must be accorded the same preclusive effect as the judgment upon which it was predicated. Accordingly, we will grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

NOTES: [1] The other elements of establishing a res judicata bar are, as we observed in Haefner II, that the parties to the instant suit must be the same or in privity with those in the prior litigation. 543 F. Supp. at 265. See also, Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S. Ct. 411, 414, 66 L. Ed. 2d 308 (1980). Plaintiff does not appear to contest the fact that defendants at bar are in privity with defendants in Haefner II.

Richard Charles Haefner versus James Burkey (et al), Submitted April 6, 1993, Decided May 28, 1993.

Full Name: Haefner v. Burkey
Citations: 534 Pa. 62, 626 A.2d 519
Date: May 28, 1993
534 Pa. 62 (1993).

Richard Haefner, Appellant, v. James BURKEY; Kevin Burkey; Randy Klivansky; Jerry P. Crump; Edward H. Snyder; Kathleen V. Mumma; and Barbara A. Dommel, Administratrix of the Estate of Thomas G. Dommel, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, submitted April 6, 1993. decided May 28, 1993.

Robert D. Beyer, Lancaster, for J. and K. Burkey. George C. Werner, Kristina M. Kurjiaka, Lancaster, for J.P. Crump & Edw. H. Snyder. Christopher S. Underhill, Lancaster, for (Disinterested). Stephen W. Cody, Lancaster, for R. Klivansky.

Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT. Justice Larson: Appellant Richard Haefner appeals from the order of the Superior Court affirming the grant by the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County of preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer 415 Pa.Super. 662, 601 A.2d 376 (1991). This appeal stems from a malicious prosecution action commenced by appellant in which he contends that appellees James Burkey, Kevin Burkey and Randy Klivansky, who were minors at the time, conspired with appellees Jerry P. Crump and Edward H. Snyder, local law enforcement officials, to charge appellant falsely with morals offenses. Appellant also contends that the appellees harassed him, interfered with his defense, intimidated witnesses and jurors, bribed witnesses and jurors, and committed perjury.

Appellant was arrested and charged with corruption of minors and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse based on *64 allegations made by appellees Kevin Burkey and Randy Klivansky. Appellant’s first trial, which involved the alleged criminal conduct against appellee Kevin Burkey, resulted in a mistrial declared prematurely by the trial judge following the jury’s announcement that it could not reach a unanimous verdict after several hours of deliberation. Although the Commonwealth attempted to try appellant again, the Superior Court quashed the indictment because a retrial would have violated appellant’s double jeopardy rights. Commonwealth v. Haefner, 264 Pa.Super. 144, 399 A.2d 707 (1979). Subsequently, the Commonwealth nolle prossed the remaining charges against appellant, which involved the alleged criminal conduct against appellee Randy Klivansky, based on insufficient evidence.

Appellant then commenced the first of two federal civil rights actions alleging unlawful arrest, physical and mental abuse during police custody and prosecution of criminal charges against him without probable cause. Appellant also included pendent state claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. The federal court dismissed the complaint and held that the federal claims were either time barred or failed to state a claim upon which federal relief could be granted. Haefner v. County of Lancaster, 520 F. Supp. 131 (E.D.Pa.1981), aff’d, 681 F.2d 806 (3d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 874, 103 S. Ct. 165, 74 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1982) (Haefner I).

Subsequently, appellant brought a second federal action based on essentially the same facts. The court dismissed the federal civil rights claims because Haefner I acted as res judicata to bar reconsideration. The court then granted appellant’s request to transfer the pendent state claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. Haefner v. Lancaster County, 543 F. Supp. 264 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff’d, 707 F.2d 1401 (3d Cir.1983) (Haefner II).

In the Court of Common Pleas, appellees filed inter alia preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. The trial court granted the preliminary objections because it found that *65 the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was barred by the statute of limitations and because Haefner I and Haefner II acted as res judicata to bar consideration of the malicious prosecution claim. As a result, the trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint.

On appeal, the Superior Court concluded that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was indeed time barred. The court also concluded that the federal court did not exercise jurisdiction over appellant’s malicious prosecution claim, and therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s malicious prosecution claim because of res judicata.

The Superior Court, however, affirmed the dismissal of appellant’s malicious prosecution claim because it held, sua sponte, that appellant failed to establish a right to recovery as a matter of law. The court based its decision on the fact that neither of the initial criminal actions against appellant terminated in a manner consistent with his innocence. This appeal followed.[1]

In order to subject a person to liability for malicious prosecution, the criminal proceedings must have terminated in favor of the accused. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 658 (1977). Appellant argues that the declaration of a mistrial in the first criminal proceeding against him and the subsequent quashing of the indictment by the Superior Court represents a termination in favor of appellant. We agree.

The Restatement (Second) of Torts specifically delineates what constitutes termination in favor of the accused:

§ 659. Manner of Termination Criminal proceedings are terminated in favor of the accused by (a) a discharge by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing, or (b) the refusal of a grand jury to indict, or *66 (c) the formal abandonment of the proceedings by the public prosecutor, or (d) the quashing of an indictment or information, or (e) an acquittal, or (f) a final order in favor of the accused by a trial or appellate court.
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 659 (emphasis added).

In the case herein, appellant’s criminal trial ended in the declaration of a mistrial. When the Commonwealth later attempted to retry appellant, he filed a pretrial motion to quash the indictment. The trial court denied the motion, and appellant appealed to the Superior Court, which granted appellant’s motion to quash because a second trial would be violative of his right not to be placed in double jeopardy. See Commonwealth v. Haefner, 264 Pa.Super. 144, 399 A.2d 707 (1979). Because appellant’s indictment was quashed, the criminal action terminated in favor of appellant pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 659(d). Therefore, the Superior Court erred in finding that appellant did not establish any right to recovery as a matter of law as to the first criminal action against appellant.

We likewise find that the Superior Court erred in finding that the second criminal action against appellant, which ended in the entry of a nolle pros by the Commonwealth, did not terminate in favor of appellant. The prosecution formally abandoned the criminal proceedings against appellant when it nolle prossed the remaining charges because of insufficient evidence.[2] As such, the proceedings terminated in favor of the appellant pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 659(c). “[I]f the defendant is discharged after abandonment of the charges by the prosecutor, or the charges are withdrawn by the prosecutor, this is sufficient to satisfy the requisite element of prior favorable termination of the criminal action.” Woodyatt v. Bank of Old York Road, 408 Pa. 257, 259, 182 A.2d 500, 501 (1962).

*67 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Superior Court and remand to the Court of Common Pleas for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

MONTEMURO, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

CAPPY, J., files a concurring opinion.

CAPPY, Justice, concurring.

I concur only in the result reached by the majority.

I agree with the learned court below that termination of the criminal proceedings in favor of the plaintiff means more than mere termination. “Proceedings are `terminated in favor of the accused,’ [for purposes of a malicious prosecution action], only when their final disposition is such as to indicate the innocence of the accused.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 660 Comment a (1977). See also Junod v. Bader, 312 Pa.Super. 92, 458 A.2d 251 (1983). However, contrary to the Superior Court, and consistent with the majority’s holding herein, I conclude that where the criminal charges lodged by a private complainant are “nolle prossed” for lack of sufficient evidence or are withdrawn by the private complainants particularly where the statute of limitations has expired without the charges being reinstated the termination is consistent with innocence. Compare Woodyatt v. Bank of Old York Road, 408 Pa. 257, 182 A.2d 500 (1962) (discharge after abandonment of charges by the prosecutor or charges being withdrawn by the prosecutor, although not a determination of merits, is sufficient to satisfy element of favorable termination of the criminal action).

I disagree, however, with the majority’s holding that the proceedings on the other charges against Appellant terminated in his favor. I agree with the Superior Court that discharge of a criminal prosecution as a result of a mistrial is not a termination that is consistent with innocence. See Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 193-194 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 920, 101 S. Ct. 1368, 67 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1981). I believe that the majority opinion improperly focuses its inquiry *68 upon the subsequent quashing of the indictment upon the Commonwealth’s attempt to retry Appellant. I also point out that the indictment was quashed on double jeopardy grounds, and not for a reason consistent with Appellant’s innocence. Thus, I am constrained to concur only in the result.

NOTES
[1] On appeal to this Court, appellant does not challenge the Superior Court’s determination that his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was time barred.

[2] We note that the charges were never reinstated, and the statute of limitations has since expired.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania versus Richard Charles Haefner: Argued December 6, 1977, Decided March 9, 1979.

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Richard Charles Haefner, Appellant. 264 Pa. Superior Ct. 144 (1979), 399 A.2d 707.

Argued December 6, 1977, decided March 9, 1979.

*145 Richard A. Sprague, and with him, Pamela W. Higgins and Michael K. Simon, Philadelphia, for appellant.

D. Richard Eckman, District Attorney, and with him, John A. Kenneff, Assistant District Attorney, Lancaster, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

VAN der VOORT, Judge: The appellant, Richard Charles Haefner, was charged with involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and corruption of the *146 morals of a minor. A jury trial commenced on January 27, 1976, in Lancaster County and on February 3, 1976, the presentation of evidence having concluded, the case was submitted to the jury. As more fully detailed below, the trial judge, on the latter date, sua sponte declared a mistrial, based upon the jury’s failure to arrive at a verdict.

Thereafter, the appellant was scheduled to be tried again on the same charges. Inter alia, he filed a pretrial motion to quash indictments, based upon the argument that the trial court erred in its declaration of a mistrial, and that a second trial on the same charges would therefore be violative of his right to not be placed in double jeopardy. The lower court denied this motion and the appellant, on June 29, 1976, appealed that denial to our Court. The Commonwealth filed a motion to quash the appeal, contending that the order denying the appellant’s motion to quash the indictments was interlocutory. This Court granted the Commonwealth’s motion.

Appellant thereafter filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. That Court, by a Per Curiam Opinion, on June 3, 1977, held that a denial of a pre-trial motion to quash an indictment, where the motion alleges that a second trial will violate a defendant’s right not to be placed twice in jeopardy, is a final order, immediately subject to appellate review upon an appeal. Commonwealth v. Haefner, 473 Pa. 154, 373 A.2d 1094 (1977) (Former Chief Justice Jones not participating; Dissenting Opinion filed by Justice O’Brien, in which Justice Nix joined). Thus, the case was remanded to our Court for a determination of the appeal on the merits.

The record shows that appellant was tried before a Lancaster County jury from January 27, 1976 through February 3, 1976 on charges that he had engaged in indecent sexual contacts with a minor. Twenty-nine (29) witnesses testified during the course of the five days of trial. We need only highlight some of the most salient evidence and events of the trial for purposes of this Opinion.

The alleged victim was a twelve year old boy who claimed that the appellant, who employed him and other youths in a *147 small family business, had engaged in sexual contacts in a garage which was part of the business premises. The incident was not reported to anyone by the boy until a month and a half after it allegedly took place. The appellant, who completely denied the charge, was an educator of some standing who had no prior criminal record.

After the trial court charged the jury on the morning of February 3, 1976, it retired at 11:50 A.M., to begin deliberations. A luncheon recess in these deliberations was observed. At 5:10 P.M., the jury returned to the courtroom, whereupon the following colloquy evolved:

THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, has the jury reached a verdict? BY THE FOREMAN: No, sir. THE COURT: Well, members of the jury, as I stated and as you fully realize, this trial started last Tuesday, and I know you’ve been deliberating all afternoon, I know that the charge to the jury was completed about ten minutes of eleven. I understand that you returned from your lunch about 1:00, and have been deliberating since then. And under these circumstances, I’m going to direct that you return to the room for further deliberation, and I want to say to you that in order to return a verdict, each juror must agree thereto, that jurors have a duty to talk with another and to deliberate with a view to reaching an agreement, if it can be done without violence to individual judgments. Each juror must decide the case for himself, but only after an impartial consideration of the evidence with his fellow jurors. In the course of deliberations, a juror should not hesitate to re-examine his own views and change his opinion if convinced he should do this. No juror should surrender his honest conviction as to the weight or effect of the evidence solely because of the opinion of his fellow jurors or for the mere purpose of returning a verdict. And, having stated that to you, members of the jury, I’m going to direct that you now return for further deliberation.
*148 The jurors retired again at 5:10 P.M., to resume their deliberations. However, at 5:35 P.M., the jury returned to the courtroom, whereupon the record shows the following:

THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, the Court has been informed that the jury has a question, and the question is written out, is that correct? BY THE FOREMAN: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: Will you hand it to the Clerk, so he can hand it to me, please, Sir? (Whereupon, the Court examines the question, at this point.) THE COURT: Will counsel approach the bench? (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record, at this point.) THE COURT: A question which has been addressed to The Court is: Your Honor, we the jury would like to hear the testimony of Sergeant Crump and Sergeant Snyder pertaining to the events which took place in the police station when questioning the Defendant. Also, the cross examination of the prosecuting officers. Members of the jury, the conduct of a trial requires that it is your recollection of the testimony which will be used in your deliberations. You have heard the testimony from the witness stand, you have heard the arguments of counsel, and you have heard The Court’s instructions as to the law and the responsibility of the jury and so, it will be necessary for you in your continuing deliberations, to rely solely on your recollection of the testimony which was given. Now, it’s The Court’s understanding, you are ready to go for dinner and it is twenty of six, so you will be taken by the Tipstaff for your dinner and then, you can deliberate further after dinner.
The jury then left the courtroom for supper and at 6:38 P.M., resumed deliberations. When they next returned to the courtroom it was 9:15 P.M., and the following colloquy took place:

*149 THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, the jury has been deliberating since I imagine about 1:00, the charge was completed about a quarter of twelve, and I understand that you went to lunch and your returned about 1:00, and were here until about 6:30, and then I understand you came back between 7:30 and a quarter of eight. It’s now after 9:15, which means that you have been deliberating about seven hours, and viewing your best recollection to the deliberations, the conversations, discussions, the vote that you had, and the discussion you’re presently having, I want to ask you, Mr. Foreman, whether in your opinion, if there is further deliberation, it is your belief that this jury will be able to arrive at a verdict in these cases. BY THE FOREMAN: Your Honor, I believe we may. THE COURT: You believe you may? BY THE FOREMAN: I believe we may. THE COURT: You may reach a verdict and therefore, I direct that you return to your jury room to further deliberate. I wanted to inquire in view of the time that has transpired, so you go back to your room and deliberate further. Thank you.
The jury retired again at 9:20 P.M., to deliberate, but less than one hour later, at 10:15 P.M., the jurors again returned to the courtroom. The record sets forth further discussion:

THE COURT: Mr. Foreman, I have received a message which causes me to ask you whether it is your belief at this time, the jury will reach a verdict? BY THE FOREMAN: No, Your Honor, I don’t think we will ever reach a verdict. THE COURT: You feel you’ve explored every possibility? BY THE FOREMAN: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: And you feel you’ve had sufficient time? BY THE FOREMAN: Yes, Sir. THE COURT: And you feel the jury will not be able to reach a verdict? BY THE FOREMAN: I have been informed of that, yes, sir. *150 THE COURT: The Court then declares a mistrial of these two cases.
The sole issue for this Court’s determination is whether the lower court erred in its declaration of a mistrial in all of the circumstances of this case. The basic constitutional precept which must guide us is the prohibition against double jeopardy set forth in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which has been held applicable to state trials under the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1969). There are no standardized guidelines nor any predetermined periods for juror deliberations prior to the time when a mistrial may be declared, so as to permit the retrial of a criminal defendant. Commonwealth v. Monte, 459 Pa. 495, 329 A.2d 836 (1974); Commonwealth v. Coleman, 235 Pa.Super. 379, 341 A.2d 528 (1975). The length of jury deliberations is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge (Commonwealth v. Campbell, 445 Pa. 488, 284 A.2d 798 (1971)), but any doubts concerning the existence of cause to support the declaration of a mistrial are to be resolved in favor of an accused defendant. Commonwealth v. Howard and Banks, 233 Pa.Super. 496, 335 A.2d 489 (1975). As to cause, really the crucial determination in any case such as this, it has long been established, that the jury should not be discharged in the absence of “manifest necessity” for the trial judge to do so. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L. Ed. 2d 165 (1824); Commonwealth ex rel. Walton v. Aytch, 466 Pa. 172, 352 A.2d 4 (1976). If such manifest necessity does not exist, double jeopardy attaches and a retrial of the defendant is not permitted.

We have examined the record as a whole in the instant case and have some doubt as to the existence of a manifest necessity for the dismissal of the jury. In these circumstances, we must resolve this doubt in favor of the accused, and hold that a retrial of appellant is barred. Several factors coalesce in producing this conclusion.

The jury in this case was discharged, sua sponte, by the trial judge, at 10:15 P.M. The jurors had begun their *151 considerations just before noon the same day, after five days of trial, and after hearing the testimony of twenty-nine witnesses, arguments by counsel, and extensive instructions by the court. Their deliberations were abbreviated by luncheon and supper breaks, as well as by four separate return visits to the courtroom. On the first such visit, apparently at the request of the trial judge, the foreman, in response to the court’s questioning, stated that no verdict had been reached. The judge gave the jurors a short additional instruction.[1] Only a few minutes later, the jury returned with a request that they be permitted to review the testimony on direct and cross-examination of two witnesses. The trial judge declined to permit such a review and released the jurors for supper. The judge recalled the jurors again at 9:15 P.M., to ask if it was believed that a verdict would be possible. The foreman immediately replied in the affirmative, and the judge released them for further deliberations. The fourth visit by the jury to the courtroom, since beginning deliberations at midday, was fifty-five minutes after it had been announced by the foreman that a verdict could be achieved. However, on this last occasion, the foreman for the first time stated a belief that no verdict could be reached. After asking the foreman a few short questions, the court declared the mistrial. In these circumstances, especially including the complex and conflicting testimony and other evidence to be considered, and the length of the often interrupted jury deliberations, we cannot find that a manifest or absolute[2] necessity existed, at the time for the discharge of the jury. In reaching this conclusion, we find the facts of this case closely analogous to those established in Commonwealth v. Baker, 413 Pa. 105, 196 A.2d 382 (1964), where the Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion. See also United States ex rel. Webb v. Court of *152 Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, 516 F.2d 1034 (3rd Cir. 1975).

The dismissal of the jury in this case came less than one hour after the jury foreman expressed the feeling that a verdict could be reached. It also occurred at the first instance at which the court had any indication that the jurors were having difficulty in reaching an agreement. While it was not absolutely necessary to do so, the trial judge made no searching inquiry of each juror.[3] See Commonwealth v. Bartolomocci, 468 Pa. 338, 362 A.2d 234 (1976); Commonwealth v. Coleman, supra; Commonwealth v. Howard and Banks, supra, at footnote 5. Such a practice is preferred. Also, the trial court failed to solicit the views or consent of either the prosecution or the defense prior to the declaration of a mistrial, a procedure which is not mandated, but might have been helpful in resolving doubts about a discharge of the jury. See Commonwealth v. Baker, supra. Under all of these circumstances, and considering the record as a whole, we find an absence of the required absolute or manifest necessity for the discharge of the jury. A retrial, in these events, would violate the appellant’s double jeopardy rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Appellant’s motion to quash indictment is granted, and he is ordered discharged.

PRICE, J., files a dissenting opinion.

JACOBS and WATKINS, former President Judges, and HOFFMAN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

*153 PRICE, Judge, dissenting:

The pivotal question is whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding manifest necessity to warrant declaring this mistrial. Since I believe that that discretion was properly exercised, I would affirm the denial of the motion to quash in the lower court.

I agree that doubt must be resolved in favor of appellant, however, I would not find a doubt under the circumstances here presented.

The trial judge did not assume a deadlock on the jury. The jury, through the foreman, stated the belief that the jury would never be able to reach a verdict. This was done in open court with all of the jurors present. The trial court had the benefit of the reactions of the jury. None of the jurors offered any contrary view when the foreman informed the court of the deadlock. Commonwealth v. Bartolomucci, 468 Pa. 338, 362 A.2d 234 (1976).

I find no requirement that each juror be questioned. Indeed, the court in Bartolomucci, supra, declined to express a view on such a procedure. And, in keeping with the discretion involved, I note the following excerpt from the trial judge’s remarks at the time the mistrial was declared:

“This has been a difficult case from many angles and in many respects and obviously, you have served very conscientiously, you have given to it your best, and I thank you very much for what you have done. Not every case is resolved by the jury, and you’ve not been able to resolve this one. But it’s written all over your faces that you’ve given it your real consideration, you’ve given it real effort, and I thank you and I congratulate you.” (NT 616) (Emphasis added).
Such a clear indication that the trial judge read the reaction of the jury as agreement with the foreman’s answers, as set forth in the majority opinion, leaves no doubt in my mind that the mistrial was properly declared.

Further, the record reveals no request by appellant to poll the jury, nor does it reveal an objection to the declaration of *154 a mistrial. Under Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974), errors not objected to at trial will not be reviewed on appeal. I believe appellant has waived his right to the relief the majority grants.

I would affirm the court below.

NOTES
[1] No issue is raised concerning the propriety of the additional instruction. Commonwealth v. Spencer, 442 Pa. 328, 275 A.2d 299 (1971).

[2] Our Supreme Court has declared that a “manifest necessity” in these circumstances is the equivalent of an “absolute necessity.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 413 Pa. 105, 196 A.2d 382 (1964).

[3] Such an inquiry would have been valuable here, where the jury foreman told the trial judge, when asked if he felt the jury would not be able to reach a verdict: “I have been informed of that, yes, sir.” (Emphasis supplied). Such a response raises questions of whether the foreman’s assessment of irreconcilable conflicts in juror’s attitudes was shared by all of the jurors. See United States ex rel. Webb v. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, supra, at 1043-1044, on this issue.