hi iive just been reading through a transcript of a taped interview by ex don s club president fred guirey made in march 1976.several pages concern adolph ruth .he says that private investigators had a viable suspect but declined to prosecute only because mrs ruth would not come to arizona to swear out the necessary warrant.is this true?
also from the interview and i quote.
LT DAVIS :do you recall the name of the suspect?
GUIREY: no i dont. i understand that one of them was serving time in florence(9arizona state prison) and the other one died someplace out of state.
does anyone know if any of the contemporary "suspects" fit that profile.? two obvious names might present themselves buyt whether keenan or purnell ever spent time in prison i have no knowledge. thanks
fred guireys interview pertaining to ruth
don,
Don poses an interesting thought. I remember seeing that before. I am curious if anyone can remember any specifics. Is there anything to substaniate what Ruth told Fred Guirey?
However, that brings to mind two things.
It could be that Erwin was exaggerating to Fred Guirey to make an interesting story. Erwin was not above doing that... It could be that he was referring to Purnell and Keenan - who at one time were both considered suspects. It could have been that at one time the authorities want to proceed further and wanted the backing of the Ruth's. However, if my understanding of law is correct, the Sheriff would hardly have needed the "permission" of the Ruth family to pursecute a murderer. Murder is murder. Erwin always believed there was foul play and was frustrated with the authorities. This story could have been contrived to convey to Guirey his frustrations.
The second thing this brings to mind is Glen Magill's "references" to Keenan and Purnell in "The Killer Mountains." For some reason Magill and Gentry give psuedonyms to these two - though, I cannot fathom why... They and their names were already well known. To hide them behind "fake names" was pointless. It was also well known that they were supposedly cleared. Yet, to this day there are those that doubt that. However, Magill and Gentry were obviously referring to them. After "finding the mine" Magill contacted the wife of one of these two and she told Magill that Ruth had given her husband "the map"... This stunned Magill as it indirectly implied foul play was involved. Then a son got on the line and told Magill to get lost - his mother shouldn't have talked to him... Did that incident happen? Or was that a little creative licence on Magill's part to make an interesting anecdote?
Since no one was charged with anything, I find it hard to believe that any suspicions of the time ever could have amounted to anything. They all panned out as nothing. But then again, the authorities ruled death by accidental/natural causes... So, it is hard to say what the authorities really thought...
We can speculate a lot about what happened. but, at this late of a date, we may never know what the truth ever was...
Don poses an interesting thought. I remember seeing that before. I am curious if anyone can remember any specifics. Is there anything to substaniate what Ruth told Fred Guirey?
However, that brings to mind two things.
It could be that Erwin was exaggerating to Fred Guirey to make an interesting story. Erwin was not above doing that... It could be that he was referring to Purnell and Keenan - who at one time were both considered suspects. It could have been that at one time the authorities want to proceed further and wanted the backing of the Ruth's. However, if my understanding of law is correct, the Sheriff would hardly have needed the "permission" of the Ruth family to pursecute a murderer. Murder is murder. Erwin always believed there was foul play and was frustrated with the authorities. This story could have been contrived to convey to Guirey his frustrations.
The second thing this brings to mind is Glen Magill's "references" to Keenan and Purnell in "The Killer Mountains." For some reason Magill and Gentry give psuedonyms to these two - though, I cannot fathom why... They and their names were already well known. To hide them behind "fake names" was pointless. It was also well known that they were supposedly cleared. Yet, to this day there are those that doubt that. However, Magill and Gentry were obviously referring to them. After "finding the mine" Magill contacted the wife of one of these two and she told Magill that Ruth had given her husband "the map"... This stunned Magill as it indirectly implied foul play was involved. Then a son got on the line and told Magill to get lost - his mother shouldn't have talked to him... Did that incident happen? Or was that a little creative licence on Magill's part to make an interesting anecdote?
Since no one was charged with anything, I find it hard to believe that any suspicions of the time ever could have amounted to anything. They all panned out as nothing. But then again, the authorities ruled death by accidental/natural causes... So, it is hard to say what the authorities really thought...
We can speculate a lot about what happened. but, at this late of a date, we may never know what the truth ever was...
That Guirey story does sound a little suspicious, doesn’t it? I’m not familiar with it though, is it available somewhere for reading?
I’m no lawyer, but I can’t imagine how Mrs. Ruth’s reluctance to come to Arizona would have any effect on the prosecution of a murder case. If, as Don said, it was private investigators that had a viable suspect, all they would have to do was turn the evidence over to the authorities for criminal procedures to go ahead.
If the story originated with Erwin Ruth (which Don doesn’t state, but S.C. seems to indicate), it seems to me, after reading Glover’s book, that he was the kind of guy who wasn’t too shy at all about stretching the truth.
And as far as The Killer Mountains goes, it’s a good read, but it has always struck me that not just Glen Magill, but also the book’s author, Curt Gentry, were more than happy to exaggerate things to make their story more dramatic. After all, they lacked the necessary ending (the actual discovery of the LDM) that would have made it a spectacular tale, so they had to inject thrills where they could.
On the other hand…
If was Purnell and Keenan that Guirey was referring to, they sure do seem like the likely suspects if Ruth was indeed murdered (which I’m guessing is the case). The alibi that supposedly clears them (that they were out joyriding with their girlfriends in Ruth’s car at the time of his death), doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in their characters, does it? I wonder if a slight error in estimated timing by the county investigators wouldn’t invalidate that alibi.
But S.C. is right: like so many aspects of the LDM story, all we can do at this late date, with limited information, is speculate…
I’m no lawyer, but I can’t imagine how Mrs. Ruth’s reluctance to come to Arizona would have any effect on the prosecution of a murder case. If, as Don said, it was private investigators that had a viable suspect, all they would have to do was turn the evidence over to the authorities for criminal procedures to go ahead.
If the story originated with Erwin Ruth (which Don doesn’t state, but S.C. seems to indicate), it seems to me, after reading Glover’s book, that he was the kind of guy who wasn’t too shy at all about stretching the truth.
And as far as The Killer Mountains goes, it’s a good read, but it has always struck me that not just Glen Magill, but also the book’s author, Curt Gentry, were more than happy to exaggerate things to make their story more dramatic. After all, they lacked the necessary ending (the actual discovery of the LDM) that would have made it a spectacular tale, so they had to inject thrills where they could.
On the other hand…
If was Purnell and Keenan that Guirey was referring to, they sure do seem like the likely suspects if Ruth was indeed murdered (which I’m guessing is the case). The alibi that supposedly clears them (that they were out joyriding with their girlfriends in Ruth’s car at the time of his death), doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in their characters, does it? I wonder if a slight error in estimated timing by the county investigators wouldn’t invalidate that alibi.
But S.C. is right: like so many aspects of the LDM story, all we can do at this late date, with limited information, is speculate…
Reply
Let's not lose sight of don's original question. Even though Erwin Ruth was the source of the reference to a suspect, there still could have been a kernel of truth behind it. And it makes one wonder who Erwin was talking about.
I tend to think it was either Pernell or Keenan. But who knows...
Guirey and a group of Dons made a pubicity trip to Washington DC in the late 1940s. This is related in Greg Davis' "A Don in Washington." While there - among many things - they met and talked with Erwin Ruth. Not only did Erwin fill Guirey's ear with his tales - he also gave the Dons a little gift. It is the map we now call the "Profile Map." This map was subsequently used by the Dons as a "treasure map" on Dons Treks into the Superstitions, but also appeared in some newspaper articles and "Arizona Highways" magazine in the early 1950s. Thus, Ruth somewhat "misled" Glen Magill years later when he indicated that he had never given anyone but Magill a copy of the map.
I tend to think it was either Pernell or Keenan. But who knows...
Guirey and a group of Dons made a pubicity trip to Washington DC in the late 1940s. This is related in Greg Davis' "A Don in Washington." While there - among many things - they met and talked with Erwin Ruth. Not only did Erwin fill Guirey's ear with his tales - he also gave the Dons a little gift. It is the map we now call the "Profile Map." This map was subsequently used by the Dons as a "treasure map" on Dons Treks into the Superstitions, but also appeared in some newspaper articles and "Arizona Highways" magazine in the early 1950s. Thus, Ruth somewhat "misled" Glen Magill years later when he indicated that he had never given anyone but Magill a copy of the map.
i was thinking maybe that keenan and purnell werent the suspects purely for the reason that guirey said hed forgot their names.he surely knew that they had took ruth into the mountains and i think it hardly likely he would have forgotten.as sc remarked even gentrys substitition of fictional names misled no one.unless of course he was concerned about a possible libel case. if so he could of said when asked for their names,id rather not say or something similar.but he didnt.
i too was a bit concerned about the prosecution being stopped because of mrs ruth not following it up-it doesnt really make sense.about as much sense as the coroner saying a bullet in the skull=death by natural causes lol.the ruth case has always facinated me .but the more i read about it .the stronger my opinions become that in all possibility there was no bullet hole -there was no beheading and in all probality no foul play-but still the doubts persist for me anyway.
aaah ! sweet mystery of life
i too was a bit concerned about the prosecution being stopped because of mrs ruth not following it up-it doesnt really make sense.about as much sense as the coroner saying a bullet in the skull=death by natural causes lol.the ruth case has always facinated me .but the more i read about it .the stronger my opinions become that in all possibility there was no bullet hole -there was no beheading and in all probality no foul play-but still the doubts persist for me anyway.
aaah ! sweet mystery of life
Reply
don,
Good point. I believe you are correct. If it was Keenan or Purnell, Guirey would have remembered that. So, maybe it was someone else who Erwin Ruth was talking about.
One other thing... Ruth's skull was found a long distance from where his remaining remains were eventually found. But, the skull found by Brownie Holmes and the group he was guiding had no jaw bone.
There are pictures of Ruth's remains and amoung them is the jaw bone. What does this mean? Well... put two and two together... It indicates to me that the jaw bone came off the skull as the body "decomposed" or was "eaten away" near the remains - and the skull somehow got separated from the rest of the body after the jaw came off. Carried away by critters or varmits? Could be. Did it "roll" down there? Well... Glover points out that an expert of forensic medicine says that delicate bones around the nose would have become damaged if the skull had gotten knocked around too much. They weren't... This almost implies the skull might have had to have been "set" where it was found....
Good point. I believe you are correct. If it was Keenan or Purnell, Guirey would have remembered that. So, maybe it was someone else who Erwin Ruth was talking about.
One other thing... Ruth's skull was found a long distance from where his remaining remains were eventually found. But, the skull found by Brownie Holmes and the group he was guiding had no jaw bone.
There are pictures of Ruth's remains and amoung them is the jaw bone. What does this mean? Well... put two and two together... It indicates to me that the jaw bone came off the skull as the body "decomposed" or was "eaten away" near the remains - and the skull somehow got separated from the rest of the body after the jaw came off. Carried away by critters or varmits? Could be. Did it "roll" down there? Well... Glover points out that an expert of forensic medicine says that delicate bones around the nose would have become damaged if the skull had gotten knocked around too much. They weren't... This almost implies the skull might have had to have been "set" where it was found....
I guess we’re drifting off the original subject here, but anything related to the Ruth story is interesting as far as I'm concerned.
Apparently it’s always going to remain up in the air whether Ruth died accidentally or was murdered. Two things swing my opinion slightly in the direction of the murder theory. One is the Hrdlicka report, of which I have heard no convincing rebuttal. The second is the location of Ruth’s body and its distance from his camp; around 5 miles of rough walking. If Ruth was indeed as physically frail as commonly believed, it’s hard to see him dayhiking that far in the summer heat. On the other hand, maybe he was less disabled than we have been led to believe.
It seems there’s little doubt that Ruth’s skull didn’t get to the location all by itself. Whether it was a human or some other animal who moved it, I have no idea.
Just another one of the mysteries that make this subject so interesting, I guess…
Apparently it’s always going to remain up in the air whether Ruth died accidentally or was murdered. Two things swing my opinion slightly in the direction of the murder theory. One is the Hrdlicka report, of which I have heard no convincing rebuttal. The second is the location of Ruth’s body and its distance from his camp; around 5 miles of rough walking. If Ruth was indeed as physically frail as commonly believed, it’s hard to see him dayhiking that far in the summer heat. On the other hand, maybe he was less disabled than we have been led to believe.
It seems there’s little doubt that Ruth’s skull didn’t get to the location all by itself. Whether it was a human or some other animal who moved it, I have no idea.
Just another one of the mysteries that make this subject so interesting, I guess…
thirsty
i noticed in your post that you enquired whether the transcript was available anywhere.i meant to answer but got sidetracked.i obtained it from the arizona historical society after enquiring whether any information in written form concerning lost dutchman mine was available in their archives.anyway to cut it short they informed that for 4cents per photo copied page(if my memory serves me correct) they could supply a wealth of newspaper articles dating back as far as waltzs obituary and before. so for me it was mmoney well spent .for 60 dollars or thereabouts which inclhuded postage to the united kingdom i recieved a large amount of newspaper clippimngs magazine articles, documents, covering the history of the mine -the characters involved-and also some of the b.s too lol.i hope this helps. by the way this was several years ago so undoubtedly the price has increased but even so im sure it qwould be cheaper than buying document by document .
i noticed in your post that you enquired whether the transcript was available anywhere.i meant to answer but got sidetracked.i obtained it from the arizona historical society after enquiring whether any information in written form concerning lost dutchman mine was available in their archives.anyway to cut it short they informed that for 4cents per photo copied page(if my memory serves me correct) they could supply a wealth of newspaper articles dating back as far as waltzs obituary and before. so for me it was mmoney well spent .for 60 dollars or thereabouts which inclhuded postage to the united kingdom i recieved a large amount of newspaper clippimngs magazine articles, documents, covering the history of the mine -the characters involved-and also some of the b.s too lol.i hope this helps. by the way this was several years ago so undoubtedly the price has increased but even so im sure it qwould be cheaper than buying document by document .
fred guirey's interview pertaining to Ruth
The information that I have speaks of Keenan and Purnell actually being inmates in Florence Prison, out on work detail. They are number one suspects, but the bigger question is who put them up to it.
fred guirey's interview with Ruth
Let me first make a statement here. I like everyone else have read cover to cover Sims Ely and all others and although great reading it all has lead me down a trail to nowhere. It is of course all a process of learning , and without knowing most of it you would not continue to delve deeper. So I of course go on alot of what I've seen instead of what I have not seen. That is why so many continue to discuss all of the well known information. After all it is all we have . When new information surfaces , as some things in Helen Corbin's book , it sends a wave of interest, just because it is so new. As mentioned by some on this sight theywere going to do further research into the supposed shipment the Dutchman made. Well it is the same for me , and that has been the journey I have been on since I researched Ted Cox's information. It is from him and his eye witness account when he was present at the ranch when Ruth's murder was planned . He knew these men well and states that Keenan and Purnell were paroles from Florence Prison and carried out Ruth's murder. Again all this is in my book, so read between the lines. I just can't get excited about the old vanguard information , too much. Many of us have come,some of us have saw, and not many have conquered yet , but in our own way maybe someday we will.
Did Cox indicate that Keenan and Purnell were out on work detail, or that they were parolees? Have you found any independent confirmation that they were inmates during that time period? This is all interesting. Did Tex Barkley generally have current or former prison inmates hanging around his ranch mingling with his guests?
fred guirey's interview pertaining to Ruth
Wiz,
Cox's words were actually that Keenan and Purnell were paroles. That could mean anything from on parole, having to do work outside the prison, or whatever. I have tried to confirm this from other sources , and haven't been able to. Based on other information that I have been able to verify from Cox, I don't doubt many things he proclaimed , at least as far as some of the history that went on in Arizona. Not only did Tex have some of this convict labor, but Frazier used alot of prison labor , be it road crew or parole, to build roads , work on ranch etc.Maybe sonmebody else can verify that Keenan and Purnell were paroles. Let us know if you do.
Cox's words were actually that Keenan and Purnell were paroles. That could mean anything from on parole, having to do work outside the prison, or whatever. I have tried to confirm this from other sources , and haven't been able to. Based on other information that I have been able to verify from Cox, I don't doubt many things he proclaimed , at least as far as some of the history that went on in Arizona. Not only did Tex have some of this convict labor, but Frazier used alot of prison labor , be it road crew or parole, to build roads , work on ranch etc.Maybe sonmebody else can verify that Keenan and Purnell were paroles. Let us know if you do.
Old Archive
I wanted to remind everyone that the Ruth topic has been discussed before at length on this forum. One can check-out the "Old Forum Archive" and read the previous discussions. The postings are very thought provoking.