Adolph Ruth's Last Dance

This is a moderated LDM discussion forum for those who prefer to be protected from disagreeable posts. Your moderator is Joe Ribaudo.

NOTE: The moderator will see your IP if you post to this form!

Moderator: Joe Ribaudo

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Adolph Ruth's Last Dance

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:45 am

We have covered this subject many times, but the question of where Adolph Ruth's skull was actually found still has a bit of mystery clinging to it.

It has long been rumored that Ruth's remains were moved from where they were actually found. What is the evidence other than rumor?

From the notes/manuscript and book of Sims Ely comes this passage:

"The discovery was a gruesome one. It resulted from an elaborate investigation carried on by the Arizona Republic. In the thick brush overlooking West Boulder Canyon, about a hundred feet above the canyon floor, the search dogs came upon a skull, with particles of flesh still adhering to it. There was no trace of the rest of the body."
(Emphasis in bold by, Joe)

Some have explained this as being the work of the Bark Family, trying to keep certain facts out of Sims' book. If that were true, wouldn't Sims' version be the same as the published facts and accepted story of the time?

Why would Ely's notes carry this same passage?

Could it be that an important clue was let slip here? We all know that it is unlikely that Ruth could have made it to where his body was found. Why does it seem like we are being led back to Black Top Mesa, Needle Canyon and Bluff Sprinng Mountain? Who wanted future Dutch Hunters to concentrate on that area?

The crazy's will not be allowed to derail this "Moderated LDM Forum".
I was pissed at Joe for creating it, and making me the moderator, but I now see the value and wisdom of it's creation. Fair warning.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

Knun
Part Timer
Posts: 495
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 3:57 pm

Postby Knun » Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:24 pm

Was not Gassler a source for the rumor, when he stated that Tex told him "he (Tex) actually tracked Ruth to the grove of trees and found him there dead...." Supposedly this was at Peters Mesa. Yet, even Gassler seems to doubt this is actually where the body was originally located.

As for the body Sheriff Adams stated in his letter to Senator Hayden "These bones were found on the wall of a little canyon that comes very sharply down the mountainside and runs into Needle Canyon and about three quarters of a mile from where the head was found and the head was found on a mesa about two hundred yards from the Needle Canyon..."

A little different than under a palo verde in Needle Canyon. But not much.

Sims also stated that Adams and Barkley "did make a futher search of that brushy ridge overlooking West Boulder Canyon for the body of Adolph Ruth. Their search was successful. At a considerable distance from...the skull..."

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

The Moving Corpse

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Sat Aug 27, 2005 7:00 pm

Knun,

You are on the money, but you must now have Ruth traveling from Willow Spring to Peter's Mesa.

Lot's to chew on in the Gassler story:

"acccording to Tex Barkeley tracking they went up Peralta Canyon over Fremont Pass down past Weavers Needle to a water hole in West Boulder Canyon."

I thought the accepted story was that they drove around to First Water Ranch and rode in from there. Greg Davis says that is what Tom Kollenborn heard directly from Tex. As far as Greg is concerned, that closes the story of how they went in.

I believe neither route is the truth, and there is reason behind the subterfuge.

Sheriff Adams, who was a very good friend of Tex Barkeley's, wrote:
"We found intact all of his papers including the map or directions to be taken to find the Lost Dutchman Mine which Mr. Ruth was supposed to be trying to locate. After finding and assembling these bones we followed the directions given to reach the alleged Lost Dutchman Mine. This trip took us two days of very hard labor and following these directions we came to the place pointed out in the instructions and found no evidence of any human being ever having been there at any time in the past." (Emphasis in bold by, Joe)

Those guys would have been on horseback. Man who knows what he is doing can go a long way in two days, especially from the spot they were supposed to have found the body.

Who do we trust for the real story on this matter?

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

dutch elm disease
Part Timer
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm

Postby dutch elm disease » Sun Aug 28, 2005 7:02 pm

perhaps more to the point,was it ruths skull? remember halseth first identified it as an indian skull, possibly of a far greater age than ruths would have been.....the so called identification by holmes, in which he stated he recognised it as being ruths due to fact hed met ruth before borders on the hysterically inane. how many of your acquaintances could you recognise by seeing their "decapitated " skull"?..........im not even goinna mention the fact that the probability was that he wasnt murdered at all, methinks thats been discussed before.... :lol:
gasslers document (in my opinion) is vastly overated, reading through it ,it is so disjointed that periodically one might wonder wat on earth hes talking about. as barry storm once said "this myth of rut h has served the dutch hunting community well"....
so much rubbish in books, pamphlets etc has been spouted about the ruth case, methinks the truth is far less mysterious and dramatic than is commonly portrayed. why look for the complicated and mysterious answer ,when the simple solution has more going for it? i.e.....66-76 yr old.....relative greenhorn....heat exhaustion....collapse.....body or remains transported by either flash floods or wild animals or combination of both to wherver from wherever..?
as i stated before hrdlickas reputation wasnt so hot in certain circles, his verdict shouldnt be regarded as sacrosanct. thats not a popular view on here i know and no doubt ill be slated for it..wats new? :lol:

CuMiner
Greenhorn
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Postby CuMiner » Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:20 pm

dutch elm disease,

well, in one short post you managed to slam Brownie Holmes, Walt Gassler and Dr. Hrdlicka . You ended your post by predicting that you would get slated for it. It would be a shame if after you worked so hard to compose your post in the abrasive manner you did, that no one would make your day by not slating you for it.

James Anderson

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Opposing Point Of View

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Sun Aug 28, 2005 8:43 pm

James,

I have argued with DED on this subject before. That's why he wrote his last sentence.

When I argued the point, it was with facts that were easily gathered. he chose to ignore the "facts" and countered with one (1) person's opposing point of view.

Dr. Hrdlicka's background is public record. He was respected, not only in this country, but around the world. That kind of knowledge and respect draws jealousy and attacks from those who don't command the same standing.

Ruth's skull was authenticated as being his, and his alone. This was done through the expertise of Dr. Hrdlicka and Ruth's dentist. It could be further substantiated today, through DNA tests. No reason to do that.

DED is giving something away by using "slated". :wink:

It would be nice to hear your own counter points to DEDs statements.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

CuMiner
Greenhorn
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Postby CuMiner » Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:24 pm

If it's all the same I'll try and post input and exchange ideas and information without knocking or dispariging people. I'm not really into slamming people I never met and flaming them for nothing more than the sake of argument or starting a good fight. But thanks for the offer anyway.

James Anderson

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Nice Spin

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:48 pm

James,

That's a pretty unreasonable spin on what I said. If you are saying I am slaming DED, he is a friend of mine, and can speak for himself.

As I look at our two posts, it seems obvious that you are the one who is "dispariging" DED.

This was my "offer":

"It would be nice to hear your own counter points to DEDs statements."

By your response, it is obvious that you have no "counter points".

If you would like to make an arguement without "knocking or dispariging" DED or myself, try finding some facts to refute what he has said, without making a personal and "abrasive" attack.

You are, of course, welcome here, but don't imagine you will turn this into the same zoo as the one you just left. This is just a suggestion, do as you please, within civil boundries. That also seems to be the direction that Ron is taking with the forum.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

bill711
Expert
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 1:47 am

Ruth,s last dance

Postby bill711 » Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:31 am

To All; first only Ruth was lost in that time period, the skull had skin still on it, that showed that it was recently made- Ruth bones with his steel hip were found not far away-the skull had a bullit hole in it. NOW the rest of the story I think had a LOT of lying in it. Why I do not know! Bill 8)

dutch elm disease
Part Timer
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm

Postby dutch elm disease » Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:35 am

cu miner,
my post was not in any way abrasive or abusive, nor meant to be,so there is no need for me to apologise for it.maybe you might feel there is reason for you to.
joe,no surprise you disagreed with me,but the spirit in which uyou disagreed was refreshing....a welcome change...lets hope everyone continues in that vein.
actually joe,when i initially "criticised hrdlicka some time ago (if criticised is the right word) it was from 2 sources describing him as slipshod, arrogant and underhand.....they arent the only sources out there.....they arent "facts " as such but opinions from activists ,particularly from the larsen bay project,1 novelist, i historian, 2 authors.....now whether personal jealousies or professional jealousies play a part i dont know, and its not the point....those opinions are out there, as are the pro hrdlicka ones of course.
its odd that ANY skull would need to be examined that far "up the ladder" to determine whether said holes were indeed bullet holes...local authorities would have been more than capable of identifying the presence of bullet holes.
im going over old ground here again.....but no one has ever explained or given a believable answer as to why the local police, coroner,and officials involved supposedly "lied" over this incident.
does anybody REALLY believe holmes identified ruths skull in the manner described ?
im not pretending i know the answers ..far from it,just asking few questions ....questions i believe that must be answered in a believable fashion , before any one can seriously begin to believe ruth was murdered.
maybe cu miner has the answers? if so id be glad to hear them :lol:

dutch elm disease
Part Timer
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm

Postby dutch elm disease » Mon Aug 29, 2005 5:08 am

......and of course the official, and i stress the word OFFICIAL verdict was ,and still is death by natural causes.....that in itself is a piece of official evidence that cant easily be ignored.not to say that i believe that everything "official" is 100%truthful ,but you cant just wave it away as though it doesnt exist as easily as that. someone lied,mere incompetence isnt a good enough answer,the question is why? if as suggested anyone who holds the views i have is "trashing" hrdlicka then it follows that anyone who believes hrdlickas verdict is "trashing" the contemporary police, coroners office and others involved.mere numbers involved might pose a few awkward questions.

CuMiner
Greenhorn
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Postby CuMiner » Mon Aug 29, 2005 7:54 am

Let me see, you want me to find facts to refute the statements that Brownie Holmes is hysterically inane ? and that Gassler is vastly overated, disjointed and doesn't know what he's talking about ? or about the so much rubbish in books that have been spouted about Ruth ? and that Dr. Hrdlica's reputation wasn't so hot ?

You're going to have to give a person a little more to go on than that if you want to demand facts to refute those statements. Maybe a few specific examples of the statements would be of help and then maybe someone could form a specific thought on the subject and offer it.

My apologies if that seems like an unreasonable spin, disparaging and abrasive attack to you.

James Anderson

dutch elm disease
Part Timer
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm

Postby dutch elm disease » Mon Aug 29, 2005 8:44 am

cu miner,
i didnt ask you ,or demand that you did anything.you were the one who said my post was abrasive. but nonetheless i will gracefully accept your no doubt heartfelt apology.
nowhere did i state that holmes was hysterically inane, i stated that holmes assertion that he recognised the skull as being that of ruth as anhysterically inane statement....there is a difference....that is not to say it wasnt ruths skull, merely to say that holmes identification of it, based on the fact hed met ruth in real life and recognised him from that is rather silly.
regarding gasslers manuscript, again you misquote me,i said the document was disjointed and at times it was hard to understand wat author was talking about......now maybe gassler knew wat he was talking about, it was not unreasonable to suggest that a reader might find some difficulty in deciphering it.......are you honestly saying gasslers manuscript was not a disjointed affair?
the rubbish about ruth etc,again are u suggesting that every tale regarding ruth is 100% true and reliable?
dr hrdlicka......."wasnt so hot"isnt the expression i used....i said there are alternative views out there,whether you believe or agree with them are a matter for yourself .....my point was that not EVERYONE saw hrdlicka as a paragon of virtue....i also added that wether the criticisms were due to personal or prof reasons i didnt know.....im not gonna sort through for the next few hours finding those sources to quote you...joe , although he is not in agreement with those opinions ,can if he wishes at least confirm those opinions/writings exist,..i sent him copies of 2 examples of this a while ago.if you wish you might do some research on this yourself ..the answers are out there.
your post doesnt seem a disparaging , abrasive or unreasonable attack on me....but it appears that you might be hell-bent on a collision course with me ,judging from your attitude...thats fine.i am trying ,in my own small way to help keep the peace,and will endeavour to do so,disagree all you wish ,its partly what any forum is for..ive no objection. but if at any time i ignore your posts aimed at me,its because i feel your tone and manner leaves something to be
desired....id rather not post than become embroiled in a sarcastic slanging match which will only bring this forum farther down into the mire.
i truly hope that you will not take this as either a disparaging, unreasonable or abrasive reply to you....im sure you wont
yours devotedly
ded

CuMiner
Greenhorn
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Postby CuMiner » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:08 am

I guess I'm going to have to work on the tone and manner of my posts so they don't seems so offensive and abrasive.

If you and Joe could give me some advice on how to post without undue confrontation so as not to seem offensive, make outrageous statements and get into squabbles with my fellow posters it would be greatly appreciated.

I'm new here and don't want to lower the standards.

dutch elm disease
Part Timer
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm

Postby dutch elm disease » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:22 am

cu miner,
im impressed by your attitude, how about trying a small measure of courtesy? anyway enough of such frivolity....regarding hrdlicka...this book might be of some help...Reckoning with the dead:the larsen bay repatriation and the smithsonian institution...tamara l bray (editor)..thomas w killion(editor) 194 pages..publisher prentice hall &ibd november1st 1994.... you might find it interesting

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

How To

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:36 am

James,

This was your post:

"dutch elm disease,

well, in one short post you managed to slam Brownie Holmes, Walt Gassler and Dr. Hrdlicka . You ended your post by predicting that you would get slated for it. It would be a shame if after you worked so hard to compose your post in the abrasive manner you did, that no one would make your day by not slating you for it.

James Anderson"

I may be wrong, but this does not seem to be a refutation of the contents of DEDs remarks, as much as a personal observation about DED. He has cleared up what he believes to be the fault or faults of each of the three.

It would be easy to make an argument in favor of each person.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

CuMiner
Greenhorn
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Postby CuMiner » Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:52 am

So let me get this straight, you are chastizing me for a post I made about a post, that someone clarified AFTER I made the post ?

I think theres a space and time factor that you may not be taking into account here.

About the book Reckoning with the dead. Yes, I must agree, anthropologists and archeologists of the 1900-1930's do seem backward and uninformed compared to the technology and knowledge possessed by archeologists like Dr. Bray in the 2005 of today.

James Anderson

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Now You Are Getting There

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Mon Aug 29, 2005 11:29 am

James,

You are correct, there was a "space and time" factor there.

In your first post you gave an opinion on an opinion. I was not "chastizing" you. I suggested you might want to respond with facts, rather than personalities.

It takes some time and effort to respond with good sources. Sometimes you can find the information on the internet, in other cases only a book will give you what you need.

I am lucky enough to have a number of books at my fingertips, while home.

I am sure you must have some valid reasons for questioning DEDs opinions, and I assume they did not all come from personal contact with the people in question.

The record of Dr. Hrdlicka's career will contain a great deal more positive than negative information. For his time, he was very well respected.

The subject here is Adolph Ruth. I think we might want to return to it.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

CuMiner
Greenhorn
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:13 am
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Contact:

Postby CuMiner » Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:20 pm

Possibly the reason the coroners verdict for Ruth's death was due to natural causes had something to do with the fact the two doctors that examined the remains back in Phoenix were never given the head to examine.

Sheriff Adams packed Ruths remains back to the coroner without the head. The doctors that did the forensic investigation found no foul play to the lower part of Ruths body so had no other choice than to rule the death natural. The whole process was documented in a report of the Maricopa County coroners office by Olive Taylor. Sheriff Adams refused to submit the head for examination because in his words the head could not be proven to belong to Adolph Ruth. Later on the head was proved to be Ruths but not in Maricopa County, the dental records were confirmed in Washington D.C.

In fact, Maricopa County has never officially admitted the head found belongs to Ruth and according to them the matter is closed.

Odds Halseth, Dr. Hrdlicka and Erwin Ruth refused to sign any of Sheriff Adams reports concerning the death of Adolph Ruth.

Sheriff Adams, Tex Barkley and George Holmes did sign the reports.

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Too Much Work?

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Mon Aug 29, 2005 1:38 pm

James,

You have shown that you are "up" on the subject. Probably more so, than the rest of us. Very informative post.

Paperwork may have had something to do with the findings. On the other hand, all three may have been involved in some kind of cover-up.

What is your opinion of what Sims wrote about West Boulder? Since he repeated it a few times, it's hard to chalk it up as a typo. The description of the ridge does fit the area.

Respectfully,

Joe

Joe Ribaudo
Expert
Posts: 5404
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm

Informative Post

Postby Joe Ribaudo » Tue Aug 30, 2005 9:40 pm

James,

I would really like to read your opinion on the Sims Ely passage concerning "West Boulder".

Your last post showed you to be no casual fan of the history of the LDM and the legends that surround it.

I hope I have not run you off.

Respectfully,

Joe Ribaudo

zentull
Expert
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:15 am
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Postby zentull » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:47 am

So let me see if I understand where this all started. The question actually pertains to the sites of the skull and remains and if they were moved and why?

The fact that Corbin relates the Gassler story and it involves unsubstantiated stories by Barkley that appear to cast him it a bit of a dark light and Kollenborn was a close acquantince of Barkleys, but has not refuted the possible smearing of his friends name always bothers me.

I believe there were some sort of shenanigans involving Ruths skull and body. I believe Barkley manipulated a number of situations involving the superstitions just as the Corbins and Brownie Holmes have. Its not that they have a better idea of location, but possibly information that is only revealed in a tangent or tangents that is undecipherable to most if not all of us.

I find my mind set constantly shifts back to Bluff Springs and Black Top Mesa, though I dont fully understand why. Its as if I am told its not there, so therefore I know somethings wrong, maybe? Jim Bark was far closer to the sources than most of us and Barkley propably knew more than the leading experts on the subject. Why else would everyone treat Magill as a footnote or sometimes as a joke? He actually had a more substantial find and better documented than most other hunters. The book is just a good story we are told. We forget there were eyewitnesses to the guardhouses and tunnel and that Bob Corbin was one of those present. Rather than be investigated as something solid, the pit is restored to natural conditions? So the story is ignored, the evidence is gone and the leading authorities on the LDM just shrug it off. However the stone maps, which are obviously questionable for very good reasons will get a ton of posts and far more serious discussion. Lead a horse to water and if he is thirsty he will drink.

Years ago someone took me to the supposed spot where Ruths skull was found. It did vaguely match the picture I had seen. It was creepy, but I now throw that to the superstitions of youth. This person was going to take me to where the body had been found, but I was actually more interested in doing some climbing than hike to a supposed spot a distance away. I do believe the person was trying to imply something by showing me those spots, but again I did'nt want to cut into my climbing schedule.

As far as Ruths skull, at least now we have pictures made public of both sides, which further substantiate the gunshot theory. It is interesting to wonder why the photo took so long to be made public. It was there in plain view, just no one thought of answering the questions that lingered so long.

So did Ruth get anywhere? I doubt it. Was he close or on the right track? Possibly. Is there disinformation out there to mislead one way or the other? Definitely.

dutch elm disease
Part Timer
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:06 pm

Postby dutch elm disease » Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:28 pm

Were the guardhouses(if they existed) ever satisfactorily explained?as i recall wasnt sidney brinkerhoff called in to examine magills "find",even did a series of radio or tv broadcasts on the progress of the group if i recall correctly.,and as far as i remember no definitive conclusion was reached
as for ruths skull i doubt if anyone could do anything but guess whetheror not they were bullet holes from just looking at photo(s)...i dont think the answer is there.

zentull
Expert
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:15 am
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Postby zentull » Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:32 am

Brinkerhoff said the guardhouses could be of mexican or spanish origin. There were/are 4 that surround the cave/tunnel area. The book states that no pictures of the "tunnel" in the cave turned out. There are propably pictures then of the cave ( There is a picture taken from the opening ) and guardhouses, just they were never made public. I am sure since Magill figured these were clues and he was in the vincinity, they were kept mysterious for what he felt were good reasons. Other than the pit area he worked, no one here has admitted visiting the other sites. In fact everyone doubts they exist. I dont know if it is because it interferes with each individuals educated guess where the mine is or that the area has been searched so many times. I only know of two pictures of the pit area and both do not give away the location. That the pit was possibly a Peralta prospect and the cave area was utilized for some purpose is obvious. The pit possibly was one of the covered mines the Apaches have talked about. There should be a number of them. The LDM however was not covered we are told. It was more difficult to get to. That Helen Corbin uses a photo from that broadcast of Bob Corbin but does not reference the " Dutchman mine" is odd. When telling a good story, some things get left out, I am sure Magills investigations and research was not fully revealed. He was still hunting the mine when the book went to print. Ely and Bark thought that was the right area. Magill was positively sure. Adolph Ruth was in that vincinity. Were they all steered there wrongly? Magill and Ruth perhaps, but Bark and Ely were searching from firsthand information.

zentull
Expert
Posts: 1037
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 11:15 am
Location: Surprise, Arizona
Contact:

Postby zentull » Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:35 pm

Again back to the subject, Why would anyone place the skull that great of a distance from the Body? Was it meant to be misleading then pressure arose to find the remains? Did the skull show up and Barkley went to locate the body knowing someone fooled with it? So did Barkley put the body in one place to lead everyone away and the possible murderer or someone else relocate the skull to throw out a clue that everyone was being deceived? Gasslers story opens up a Pandoras box of questions. Gassler even believes that Barkley sent him off on wild goose chases for things unrelated.

Here is my take on Gasslers story. Barkley felt bad that Ruth took off and was propably dead. Realizing the problems that would occur being in a closer proximity and easier access to the ranch, he moves the body to a more remote area. Barkley had no attachment to the oldman, they just recently met.If this was done a few people knew the truth or guessed at it. He may have wanted to protect the guys that took Ruth in realizing they would look guilty if he was found closer to camp. We dont really know his relationship with those 2 men. Barkley obviously was possesive of what he saw as his land. Perhaps Holmes or someone else found the skull, or Barkley felt bad about Ruths family at that point, and relocated it figuring that would put the family at ease. Holmes it was said would not tolerate a bad word about Barkley, so maybe he was used as part of the ruse.

Then again, perhaps Barkley just made up the story to amuse Gassler. Seems odd that Gassler is the single source of the tale.

One thing is certain to me, Adolph Ruths death seems to be awfully mysterious and the events purposely misconstrued for reasons unknown.