Walt Gasslers Notes on Dutchman Legend

[cw0909]

a question for those that have, a copy of Walter Gassler's manuscript/ notes
where did you buy/get your copy. im asking because i went looking for a copy
and all i came up with is 2 reference that it was unpublished. i didnt save a link
to the 1st reference, and had cleared my history, so prob lost to me forever LOL
the 2nd reference is from the bibliography of Thomas E. Glover book
The Golden Dream (The Lost Dutchman Mine of Jacob Waltz, Part 1
Published February 2nd 2000 by Cowboy-Miner Productions
The Golden Dream (The Lost Dutchman Mine of Jacob Waltz, Part 1) (Historical and Old West) by Thomas E. Glover ? Reviews, Discussion, Bookclubs, Lists


from the bibliography
Unpublished Manuscripts, Papers and Letters
Gassler, W. (1983) The Gassler Manuscript, GDC, Superstition Mountain Historical Society,Tempe, Arizona.
http://home.teleport.com/~lucca/LostDutchman/Assets/Bibliography.pdf
bibliography link found here
The Books

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[nobodie]

I bought mine in the early 90`s at the Superstition Mountain Museum for$5.00.

 

[anzayounggun]

I know I don't carry much weight in the grand scheme of this argument about who is who, but How can we all believe this is truly his son based on what's he says as common knowledge and a quick bow out after causing a stir. His account is three months old and comes in saying he has had these conversations but can he prove these or should we stick with I am not at liberty to discuss these matters. Just saying I agree with oro although he has no reason to trust me. He is the only one asking objective questions vs loaded questions.

Anyways this was in no way meant to be construed as a attack just looking objectively at the total situation and validity of peoples perceptions of who is who they say they are.

 

[azdave35]

I know I don't carry much weight in the grand scheme of this argument about who is who, but How can we all believe this is truly his son based on what's he says as common knowledge and a quick bow out after causing a stir. His account is three months old and comes in saying he has had these conversations but can he prove these or should we stick with I am not at liberty to discuss these matters. Just saying I agree with oro although he has no reason to trust me. He is the only one asking objective questions vs loaded questions.

Anyways this was in no way meant to be construed as a attack just looking objectively at the total situation and validity of peoples perceptions of who is who they say they are.

to tell you the truth i dont know why anyone is even worried about gassler's notes or manuscript..or his back pack..none of it is going to get anyone closer to finding the ldm or any other mine..it makes for an interesting book or movie but thats about it

 

[Azquester]

Bingo!

The only thing were solving here is honing our typing skills.

to tell you the truth i dont know why anyone is even worried about gassler's notes or manuscript..or his back pack..none of it is going to get anyone closer to finding the ldm or any other mine..it makes for an interesting book or movie but thats about it

 

[Azquester]

If Roland did have more information from his late fathers estate after all he's been through I doubt if he would ever release any of it in the public realm.

Since there's so much controversy over the handling of his Fathers belongings and the lack of security of his private material thus allowing all his supposed notes to fall into an imposters hands I could see why he's so frustrated. Now I know I'll be accused of degrading a man of impeccable integrity namely TK, but you must admit he was the one that passed those materials on with absolutely no proof of the Imposters identity. Can we say that TK is guilty of at least that? Or will those that say he's gilded with gold still never admit he passed those materials on?

Since it is history he admitted he passed those notes on to an imposter without asking for a drivers license or verifying his identity with Walters Wife, or family, he's at the very least guilty of being less than stellar for mishandling a dead persons belongs! It should have been turned over to the Sherriff or the Coroner as soon as he was pronounced deceased! He could have even gave them to BC for handling. If I had someone's notes that they had trusted me with I would not have held on to them for any amount of time. I would have traveled over personally to give my condolences to his wife and gave her the notes. I would not have contacted Unsolved Mysteries and started doing a show about it. That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. And it make's you wonder the motives behind that rather fast move into the public arena with this story. Im not saying it was underhanded or deceitful, just that on the surface it looks bad.

His mishandling of those notes is what this thread and controversy is all about. If it wasn't for that BIG misstep on TK's part and the subsequent fast track TV show we'd have no conspiracy theories flying around. It also would have saved the real RG all this pain dealing with it.

 

[gollum]

ANZAYOUNGGUN,

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Roland Gassler we have here on TNet is the actual son of Walter Gassler. I will not publicly go into detail about how I verified that fact, but I have given that info to a couple of people here.

AZDAVE35,

Maybe, and maybe not.

Nobodie,

Does your typed manuscript/notes give a location for the mine ("X" marks the spot so to speak)?

Bill,

In the spirit of my saying I won't say anything behind someone's back that I wouldn't say to their face, I have to tell you that your blatant attempts at sucking up to Roland have not gone unnoticed by everyone (including Roland himself). The ham handed way you are doing it only makes you look bad (and ridiculous).

I sympathize with Roland, but have not found it necessary to denigrate and attack others in the process of explaining my point. Every time you try and suck up to Roland, you either insult Roy, Tom or Bob. It is not necessary, and because you don't know jack, you don't seem to be able to fathom the possibility that there could be alternate (read more than one) possible explanations for some of the points of contention Roland has. So, instead of taking the time to try and help figure out EXACTLY what happened before blaming or insulting other people, you just jump right out there making yourself look foolish.

So please, if you don't know what you are talking about, please keep your insulting thoughts to yourself. If you have real feedback or information, then by all means stay in the conversation. Everybody here is sick of your BS.

I will admit that I have ascribed bad motivations to Crazy Jake and his crew in my theory of what MIGHT have happened to Walter Gassler. The difference is that Jake was a bad guy. I don't think ANYONE will argue that fact. So, ascribing him unscrupulous motivations is not the same as ascribing unscrupulous motivations to people like Tom Kollenborn or Bob Corbin (the two of them have spent the greatest majority of their lives doing good and becoming a positive part of the history of the State of Arizona). Not knowing EXACTLY what happened, I will give Ton Kollenborn and Bob Corbin the ABSOLUTE benefit of the doubt when they say something. I have also known Roy for quite some time. Both he and Beth have never been anything but kind and honest. Like I stated previously. None of the four of them have ever done anything but act neighborly to me, so my first instinct is to look for an explanation for Roland that answers his questions, but may have been misconstrued or misunderstood, or not fully explained. I am sure Roland has had a lot of grief over this subject over the years, and the answers to his questions may be easier to understand than any of us would believe. I just think that if any of us want to pursue this subject, we should do it with some decorum. Not make any rash accusations or insinuations, until we get to a point (or don't) that we have all the facts.

Take Care - Mike

 

[ConceptualizedNetherlandr]

LOL

 

[cactusjumper]

ANZAYOUNGGUN,

I can tell you with 100% certainty that the Roland Gassler we have here on TNet is the actual son of Walter Gassler. I will not publicly go into detail about how I verified that fact, but I have given that info to a couple of people here.

AZDAVE35,

Maybe, and maybe not.

Nobodie,

Does your typed manuscript/notes give a location for the mine ("X" marks the spot so to speak)?

Bill,

In the spirit of my saying I won't say anything behind someone's back that I wouldn't say to their face, I have to tell you that your blatant attempts at sucking up to Roland have not gone unnoticed by everyone (including Roland himself). The ham handed way you are doing it only makes you look bad (and ridiculous).

I sympathize with Roland, but have not found it necessary to denigrate and attack others in the process of explaining my point. Every time you try and suck up to Roland, you either insult Roy, Tom or Bob. It is not necessary, and because you don't know jack, you don't seem to be able to fathom the possibility that there could be alternate (read more than one) possible explanations for some of the points of contention Roland has. So, instead of taking the time to try and help figure out EXACTLY what happened before blaming or insulting other people, you just jump right out there making yourself look foolish.

So please, if you don't know what you are talking about, please keep your insulting thoughts to yourself. If you have real feedback or information, then by all means stay in the conversation. Everybody here is sick of your BS.

I will admit that I have ascribed bad motivations to Crazy Jake and his crew in my theory of what MIGHT have happened to Walter Gassler. The difference is that Jake was a bad guy. I don't think ANYONE will argue that fact. So, ascribing him unscrupulous motivations is not the same as ascribing unscrupulous motivations to people like Tom Kollenborn or Bob Corbin (the two of them have spent the greatest majority of their lives doing good and becoming a positive part of the history of the State of Arizona). Not knowing EXACTLY what happened, I will give Ton Kollenborn and Bob Corbin the ABSOLUTE benefit of the doubt when they say something. I have also known Roy for quite some time. Both he and Beth have never been anything but kind and honest. Like I stated previously. None of the four of them have ever done anything but act neighborly to me, so my first instinct is to look for an explanation for Roland that answers his questions, but may have been misconstrued or misunderstood, or not fully explained. I am sure Roland has had a lot of grief over this subject over the years, and the answers to his questions may be easier to understand than any of us would believe. I just think that if any of us want to pursue this subject, we should do it with some decorum. Not make any rash accusations or insinuations, until we get to a point (or don't) that we have all the facts.

Take Care - Mike

Mike,

As I wrote back on the fourth:

"I believe he is who he says he is......without any proof whatsoever."

Glad to see you catching up with who's who in the zoo. He is still an unknown commodity, while Tom and Bob are well known authorities. The only question left is, is there someone else pulling the strings here? You feeling any tugs yet?

Good luck,

Joe

 

[gollum]

Mike,

As I wrote back on the fourth:

"I believe he is who he says he is......without any proof whatsoever."

Glad to see you catching up with who's who in the zoo. He is still an unknown commodity, while Tom and Bob are well known authorities. The only question left is, is there someone else pulling the strings here? You feeling any tugs yet?

Good luck,

Joe

Nope.

 

[cactusjumper]

Nope.

Mike,

At first they are very gentle, like the weight of a feather. Eventually, you won't be able to resist being jerked like a puppet. I know you are a sharp guy Mike, so eventually you will see someone tying the knot.

You are right on the money with our old friend, WyattWestwood. He's a little less subtle.

Good luck,

Joe

 

[Old]

Okay, lets bring this back into perspective.

The players in this story are being discussed because they put themselves into the story. Mr. Kollenborn has written several articles over time relating the story of Mr. Gassler and his personal role in the story. By his own hand his story has changed three times Significantly. By several other written and televised accounts where he is directly quoted, its has also changed. That's fair game for discussion, fact finding and questioning.

Mr. Corbin himself has not taken a public stance. His wife however did include a narrative of the events in her writings and he has been included as an active associate of Mr. Kollenborn in the chain of events. I give him some leeway to remain private. We didn't make up a story and drag him into it, Mr. Kollenborn did.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Davis have both actively participated in this topic. Mr. Roberts alludes to personal knowledge of the events and provides information that he is one of few who has had access to Mr. Gassler's personal notes. The notes are listed as reference documents in several works on the topic and are listed as being sourced from the private collection of Mr. Davis. Considering what Roland Gassler has provided us, and the story related by Mr. Kollenborn, its a fair question to ask how that came to be. How did those notes get from BC to TK to fake Roland to Greg Davis? When asked they chose to leave the discussion. Each reader will have to make up their own mind on how that sets with them.

I have given Mr. Kollenborn every benefit of the doubt and an easy out in all this. I've said from the beginning I believed there was writer's liberty and some embellishment involved. Its obvious three different versions of the story can not all be 100% accurate. If this was any other author or television show you guys would be on the discrepancies like sharks and you know that's true.

I am a researcher by trade. You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find the nuggets of truth. Just so happens these rocks are in several personal sandboxes. We can either question the discrepancies or take the spoon fed versions as they are offered up. If the general consensus is finding truth is too painful in this instance then I will delete the thread and we can go on to rehashing other topics. But; there will always be the 300 pound gorilla in the room so far as this topic is concerned.

 

[sdcfia]

Okay, lets bring this back into perspective.

The players in this story are being discussed because they put themselves into the story. Mr. Kollenborn has written several articles over time relating the story of Mr. Gassler and his personal role in the story. By his own hand his story has changed three times Significantly. By several other written and televised accounts where he is directly quoted, its has also changed. That's fair game for discussion, fact finding and questioning.

Mr. Corbin himself has not taken a public stance. His wife however did include a narrative of the events in her writings and he has been included as an active associate of Mr. Kollenborn in the chain of events. I give him some leeway to remain private. We didn't make up a story and drag him into it, Mr. Kollenborn did.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Davis have both actively participated in this topic. Mr. Roberts alludes to personal knowledge of the events and provides information that he is one of few who has had access to Mr. Gassler's personal notes. The notes are listed as reference documents in several works on the topic and are listed as being sourced from the private collection of Mr. Davis. Considering what Roland Gassler has provided us, and the story related by Mr. Kollenborn, its a fair question to ask how that came to be. How did those notes get from BC to TK to fake Roland to Greg Davis? When asked they chose to leave the discussion. Each reader will have to make up their own mind on how that sets with them.

I have given Mr. Kollenborn every benefit of the doubt and an easy out in all this. I've said from the beginning I believed there was writer's liberty and some embellishment involved. Its obvious three different versions of the story can not all be 100% accurate. If this was any other author or television show you guys would be on the discrepancies like sharks and you know that's true.

I am a researcher by trade. You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find the nuggets of truth. Just so happens these rocks are in several personal sandboxes. We can either question the discrepancies or take the spoon fed versions as they are offered up. If the general consensus is finding truth is too painful in this instance then I will delete the thread and we can go on to rehashing other topics. But; there will always be the 300 pound gorilla in the room so far as this topic is concerned.

You Don't Mess Around With Jim, Jim Croce

" ... You don't tug on superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old lone ranger
And you don't mess around with Jim..."

 

[cactusjumper]

Okay, lets bring this back into perspective.

The players in this story are being discussed because they put themselves into the story. Mr. Kollenborn has written several articles over time relating the story of Mr. Gassler and his personal role in the story. By his own hand his story has changed three times Significantly. By several other written and televised accounts where he is directly quoted, its has also changed. That's fair game for discussion, fact finding and questioning.

Mr. Corbin himself has not taken a public stance. His wife however did include a narrative of the events in her writings and he has been included as an active associate of Mr. Kollenborn in the chain of events. I give him some leeway to remain private. We didn't make up a story and drag him into it, Mr. Kollenborn did.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Davis have both actively participated in this topic. Mr. Roberts alludes to personal knowledge of the events and provides information that he is one of few who has had access to Mr. Gassler's personal notes. The notes are listed as reference documents in several works on the topic and are listed as being sourced from the private collection of Mr. Davis. Considering what Roland Gassler has provided us, and the story related by Mr. Kollenborn, its a fair question to ask how that came to be. How did those notes get from BC to TK to fake Roland to Greg Davis? When asked they chose to leave the discussion. Each reader will have to make up their own mind on how that sets with them.

I have given Mr. Kollenborn every benefit of the doubt and an easy out in all this. I've said from the beginning I believed there was writer's liberty and some embellishment involved. Its obvious three different versions of the story can not all be 100% accurate. If this was any other author or television show you guys would be on the discrepancies like sharks and you know that's true.

I am a researcher by trade. You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find the nuggets of truth. Just so happens these rocks are in several personal sandboxes. We can either question the discrepancies or take the spoon fed versions as they are offered up. If the general consensus is finding truth is too painful in this instance then I will delete the thread and we can go on to rehashing other topics. But; there will always be the 300 pound gorilla in the room so far as this topic is concerned.

Lynda,

I agree that all of these things should be open for discussion. That being said, I think we should all keep in mind that historians write what is currently accepted as the truth. As time goes by, new information becomes available that wasn't known when they wrote their books. Dr. Glover and Helen Corbin's books are prime examples of new facts becoming available, changing their original story lines. Unfortunately, Helen Corbin passed away before the truth of some of the "facts" in her book became available.

Tom Kollenborn and Dr. Glover have rewritten many of their stories to reflect new information that has come to light after their initial publications. Both men have asked the public for any information they may need to be included in re-writes. If you read a lot, you will notices changes in different volumes of the same book.

All of the people we have been discussing here have developed their reputations over many years, good and bad. For someone who has not had that record, it's difficult to accept their judgment's, especially when they are from a place of anonymity, such as you bring to the forum. Mr. Gassler also has no such record, other than being Walter Gassler's son. Tom Kollenborn and Bob Corbin have led very public lives' and have left a record that anyone interested can certainly access.

I am more than proud to call both men friend.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Ponchosportal]

This thread and its' many cast of characters are better than any soap opera, quilting bee, family reunion, etc. than I have ever seen or been to.

Sure glad I only read here to be entertained by your personalities. Awesome site!

Sorry for the interruption; please do continue there is no missing the forest for the trees here. LOL

Have a nice day,
Poncho

 

[deducer]

Okay, lets bring this back into perspective.

The players in this story are being discussed because they put themselves into the story. Mr. Kollenborn has written several articles over time relating the story of Mr. Gassler and his personal role in the story. By his own hand his story has changed three times Significantly. By several other written and televised accounts where he is directly quoted, its has also changed. That's fair game for discussion, fact finding and questioning.

Mr. Corbin himself has not taken a public stance. His wife however did include a narrative of the events in her writings and he has been included as an active associate of Mr. Kollenborn in the chain of events. I give him some leeway to remain private. We didn't make up a story and drag him into it, Mr. Kollenborn did.

Mr. Roberts and Mr. Davis have both actively participated in this topic. Mr. Roberts alludes to personal knowledge of the events and provides information that he is one of few who has had access to Mr. Gassler's personal notes. The notes are listed as reference documents in several works on the topic and are listed as being sourced from the private collection of Mr. Davis. Considering what Roland Gassler has provided us, and the story related by Mr. Kollenborn, its a fair question to ask how that came to be. How did those notes get from BC to TK to fake Roland to Greg Davis? When asked they chose to leave the discussion. Each reader will have to make up their own mind on how that sets with them.

I have given Mr. Kollenborn every benefit of the doubt and an easy out in all this. I've said from the beginning I believed there was writer's liberty and some embellishment involved. Its obvious three different versions of the story can not all be 100% accurate. If this was any other author or television show you guys would be on the discrepancies like sharks and you know that's true.

I am a researcher by trade. You have to turn over a lot of rocks to find the nuggets of truth. Just so happens these rocks are in several personal sandboxes. We can either question the discrepancies or take the spoon fed versions as they are offered up. If the general consensus is finding truth is too painful in this instance then I will delete the thread and we can go on to rehashing other topics. But; there will always be the 300 pound gorilla in the room so far as this topic is concerned.

First, if you delete this thread, you are trashing (and disregarding) the efforts of the posters who have posted in this thread, and some of them have posted extensive information. You are, furthermore, doing this only because one or two posters have taken things the wrong way- that is their problem, though, not yours.

Second, as I have mentioned before, this is a subject where none of the source participants were interested in preserving or making history, but were bent on concealing it, or otherwise being deceptive. The same follows for secondary sources, or subsequent generations of hunters who sought to distort history, or in extreme cases, destroyed it, and even people associated with it. That is what the idea of buried treasure does to people- it distorts priorities and reality. This is just the nature of how things are with this subject, and if neither you or any of the other posters are willing to accept that with this, very little is black or white, then this is probably not a good use of your time.

As a good researcher you would know that you, alone, are responsible for determining what is the truth and what is not, based on serious legwork and firsthand research, not hearsay via a forum. If you are a researcher by trade, as you say, you would already have developed a methodology for sorting out the truth.

Accusing Tom K., even implicitly, of creating discrepancy in sharing information is redundant on a few points. First, it won't get you closer to the truth. Second, he is under absolutely no obligation to reveal any more than he cares to, to anyone. If that makes him appear to be a discrepant writer, so be it. That's not a crime. And neither is switching positions. Bob Schoss has blatantly contradicted himself on two different shows, probably intentionally. I imagine he had a good laugh over it.

And last, what is preventing you from reaching out to Bob or Tom K., personally, to find out about what happened, for yourself? Wouldn't that be far more productive instead of insinuating and/or ascribing unwarranted motives towards them on a public forum?

 

[cactusjumper]

I recently conveyed a story to Dr. Glover that a friend told me a number of years ago. Unfortunately, my memory of the story was not so good, pretty much the same problem on my friend's last name. Luckily, I sent a copy of the story to my friend and he corrected me.....barely in time for Thomas to correct his story. No malice was intended by me, but it could have ended up published for folks, like here, to pick it apart some number of years down the road.

Since Roland has chosen to voice his displeasure here, it would be helpful to know just how, specifically, he feels he has been harmed. It might make it easier for us to sympathize with him.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[cactusjumper]

Speaking of changing stories, I should have made this observation:

I will be 72 next month, and the last ten or eleven years have not been kind to my memory. Even though I know my memory may be somewhat skewed due to the effects of Agent Orange, bone spurs on my spine, heart attack, water on the brain and two brain bleeds........I think that's most of it, I still like to tell the stories that I think I remember well.

Some of you, rightly, have questioned my veracity as well as my integrity. The last being without any basis whatsoever. After over fifty years of LDM and Superstition memories, I hope to be forgiven if my stories have changed a bit. It hasn't been on purpose. Don't believe I have harmed a single soul.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

 

[Old]

Well thought out post Deducer. I agree on most all of your points. A few points of disagreement, but over all, well said.

Didn't know my anonymity was an issue. I thought I babbled too much as to background experiences and why I bring them to the table when I come in from left field on some subjects.

Over the time I been here I've told you all where I live, my work and hobbies, my marital status, my retired husband's work and history. Told you about my daughter and grand daughter. My community affiliations, my deceased brothers and their families, my religious and fraternal affiliations and political leanings. Of my travels and why I went. I don't think I've been all that secret <g> but I could be wrong.

Don't think I've told you about my prior work, didn't think it was all that relevant. But; for what its worth and in the interest of full disclosure, I was the VP and Operations Manager of the Mid Atlantic region of a Fortune 500 insurance and financial corporation with a 42 million dollar annual budget employing over 300 people and riding herd over more than 2000 agents. I had direct reports of upwards of 40 employees, 22 of those being attorneys and 5 CPAs. Retiring in 2004 after 33 years employment. In retrospect, retiring then was the best decision I ever made. Took up my current independent company in 2008 devoted to the hands on aspects of my prior work that I enjoyed the most - the research. Recognized from the bench as an expert witness in several jurisdictions. That, and a buck 2.50 might get me a cup of coffee.

I enjoy panning for gold and live in striking distance of the gold belt of Virginia and North Carolina. Occasionally order pay dirt from reputable dealers. I've got a couple ounces stashed away and its mighty pretty. Never done any hard rock mining and never plan to. Never plan to hunt the LDM on site. No thanks, the days that would have been possible are long gone. The extent of my hunt is right here in this format. No books, no movies, no plans for any. Not my thing.

I'm probably the most boring person you could want to know. What ever you want to know, just ask. I can't think of any skeletons lurking about that would interest anyone. But; ya never know.

As to all things LDM I have found very little that folks are willing to share beyond what is already in print. Totally understandable.

Early on I came to the realization that personal investigation and gathering of material would be required to be able to speak and think about this "hobby" with any degree of intelligence. Most folks only share what they want you to have or believe. Even less so with perfect strangers. Don't think there is much room for real enlightenment using that method. I did find the subject interesting and thought there were research methods that "might" bear fruit if followed. At least in sorting out fact from fiction. And; they have. I often follow left field leads from obscure angles. Others better than I have, most often, already covered the most obvious paths.

Doesn't mean I have any vast collection of data. I don't. Its a bit eclectic. In many instances, incomplete, but; I dare say enviable, in some instances. But; what I do have I can rely on with a high degree of confidence. Certainly enough to have its own built in BS detector.

And; I dare say, that's more than most folks here ever reveal about themselves.

 

[gollum]

I recently conveyed a story to Dr. Glover that a friend told me a number of years ago. Unfortunately, my memory of the story was not so good, pretty much the same problem on my friend's last name. Luckily, I sent a copy of the story to my friend and he corrected me.....barely in time for Thomas to correct his story. No malice was intended by me, but it could have ended up published for folks, like here, to pick it apart some number of years down the road.

Since Roland has chosen to voice his displeasure here, it would be helpful to know just how, specifically, he feels he has been harmed. It might make it easier for us to sympathize with him.

Good luck,

Joe Ribaudo

Joe,

I don't know that Roland has ever said he was harmed by anything. He had several questions, and there were some inconsistencies that he wanted to find explanations for. Some of the more indelicate questions may have been better asked outside of a public forum, but here we are.

Lynda,

I have not spoken to either Tom K or Bob C regarding this, so I won't try and put words in either of their mouths. Coming from the viewpoint of a disinterested third party, I can see very mundane explanations for some of the questions raised so far. Like I stated previously; If Walter gave his written manuscript to Bob C to hold, then how did Tom K have it to give to the fake Roland? They both knew each other quite well. They were the last two people (that anybody knows of) to speak to Walter. Tom may have been looking at it trying to see if it might give any clues as to exactly what happened to Walter. It may have been something as simple as Bob letting Tom borrow the manuscript, and the "fake" Roland happened to show up when he had it. If that were the case, then I am sure Tom would have thought it was legitimately the property of the Gassler Family, and that is why he gave it to the "fake" Roland. That is one of a thousand possibilities (both good and nefarious) that I can imagine.

Mike