I also don't want to see this thread run dry so I will use that as an excuse to offer some more half-baked thoughts or at least my thought process. Among the most curious aspects of this note is the fact that is it unsigned. If you believe (as I have) that the writer was trying to provide post-mortem evidence of what happened to him if he ended up missing, it is particularly odd that he does not obviously identify who “he” is. I have a couple of theories why the writer seemingly omitted this crucial information:
1. The writer presumed that the location of the bottle would make it clear who wrote the note. Under this theory, the bottle would have been buried on land or near a dwelling owned by, or closely associated with, the writer. A parcel or dwelling closely associated with, but not owned by, the writer would be difficult to research several decades later because an “association” well known to the writer’s contemporaries may not be known or documented years after. Ownership is generally documented in this era and there is some ability to research ownership.
I looked into location/ownership a little bit based on the location description Rodgerdodger provided. I tried to use the location of the railroad tracks, Silver Creek, and County Road 2 as reference points. I think the area where note was found may have been in Haverhill Township, Olmstead county, which falls just across the Rochester border. See map linked here.
County Map, Atlas: Olmsted County 1928, Minnesota Historical Map Zoom in on the NE corner of Rochester and follow the river and RR east into Haverhill. Here are a few additional maps:
a. 1896 map of Rochester (but includes land in Haverhill)– is there a JH Rulon (Rolland?) in the area?
http://geo.lib.umn.edu/plat_books/olmstead1896/reference/map02007.jpg
b. 1928 land plat for Haverhill – look for creek and RR in southwest corner. No names jump out to me.
Haverhill Township, Atlas: Olmsted County 1928, Minnesota Historical Map
c. 1950 land plat for Haverhill - look for creek and RR in southwest corner. No names jump out to me.
Haverhill Township, Rochester, Atlas: Olmsted County 1950c, Minnesota Historical Map
2. The writer presumed that the paper used would identify the writer to contemporaries. The question is essentially whether the writer viewed the “Butcher’s Daily Receipt” as his letterhead, or an identifier sufficient to identify him to contemporaries. This could be so if: (a) there were so few butcher shops/ slaughter houses in the area that reader would have no question that it was “the butcher” meat cutter, etc. that went missing; (b) the receipt combined with the location sufficiently identified the writer. That would mean that there was a butcher shop or slaughter house in the location and that the writer was an owner or well-known employee; (c) this specific “Butcher’s Daily Receipt” was used by a specific butcher shop/slaughter house and that contemporaries would have made that association.
3. The writer separately communicated with someone about his identity – The theory here is that the writer told a loved one/friend/etc to go find a buried bottle at location X if anything every happens to me and that the note would explain the circumstances. I don’t favor this theory because, if the buried note was preplanned, I would expect the note to be more thorough and organized. I think the note has the appearance of being rushed and/or written under duress. [I also don’t favor this theory because it will probably mean we will hit a dead end.]
4. The writer presumed that identifying his attackers was sufficient to identify him – Under this theory, the writer must have assumed that the attackers were well known and that their harassment of him was so well known that contemporaries would readily identify the victim. I don’t favor this theory because, if the harassment and threats are so well known, why would the writer make this attempt to communicate this information? I don’t think the note is written for future generations because the partial names and references presumes some contemporary knowledge on the part of the reader. Then again, he treated the note/bottle more like a time capsule than a clue that could be stumbled upon by a contemporary.
5. The writer DID sign the note – Obviously, the note is not the embodiment of precision and clarity so it is difficult so say what role was played by each person identified.
a. Is the writer Arty Kennedy? That name appears at the top of what may be the first page and is somewhat disjointed from the rest of the names and identifiers. The two names that follow (Rolland and Hubachek) have identifiers. Essentially, “page 2” would be conveying the following. “I’m Arty Kennedy [or whatever that name says] and here is my statement. This is about Frank Rolland who was the boss in 1936 and Frank Hubachek from Chipawa Falls, WI. He ran a saloon there from 1900 to 1910. Frank Rolland and Frank Hubachek worked together on Arthur Holet’s farm [not sure about proper name but I think it’s identifying a specific farm] from 1895 to 1899.” Then it goes onto into describe what happened and introduces the new characters (Zahedrik and the other Holet – Joe) + spouses. Are these farm laborers fighting over a job or favored position?
b. Is the writer Harriet Tang or Jang? – this is the hazy name on the reverse of the “Butcher’s daily receipt” Maybe. Maybe the writer is a she but, for reasons I cannot explain, I just don’t see it. Its worth exploring if this is an identifier. Assuming we could nail down the spelling, the name seems unique enough to potentially track.
6. The writer is delusional – a few posters suggested this and I was initially resistant – mostly because I preferred a narrative where these things actually happened rather than being imagined by the writer. Under this theory, the writer escaped from the Rochester State Hospital, which was an asylum very close to this location. Before he can be captured, the writer rushed to identify those who were trying to kill him. Paranoid delusions about people trying to kill you would seem to be the precise symptoms that land someone in an asylum and, even though I don’t know much about mental illness, I think it is true that paranoid or delusional people like this are desperate to communicate the threat and have someone believe them. And they may feel like their caretakers are part of the problem. That may explain the desire to escape and to hide the note – and it may explain the odd decision to bury the information the writer was seemingly desperate to communicate. It may also explain the really strange failure to sign the note. I also think it explains the odd variability in detail. For instance, the writer says the specific type gun Rolland was threatening to use but only vaguely references what the dispute is about. Consider also the incredibly important and incredibly vague statement on which the writer devoted an entire page “He just robbed me and robbed them here too.” The letter also meanders on details without ever clearly explaining “He” “Them” or “here.” I used to work for a congressman and he would get lots of mail from clearly delusional people (because congress and the CIA have mind control devices and put voices in our heads). Those letters were very similar in that they contained very specific details while at the same time being utterly incomprehensible and impossible to follow.
We may be able to test this theory through research. I have not yet found records for the Rochester State Hospital but they may have records of escapes. The names in the note could also be the writer, other patients, or hospital staff that were either part of the delusion or part of team attempting to recover the writer.
