Aldrich Cemetary in Hartland VT. Up-dated from 5/21/08 Valley News
Replies: 1
Aldrich Cemetary in Hartland VT. Up-dated from 5/21/08 Valley News
Here is a copy of todays valley news article. There has to be someone who is a direct descendant of Noah Aldrich who will stand up and defend him.
Cemetery Relocation in Court
Man Cites Zantop Murders as Rationale for Moving Graves
By Mark Davis
Valley News Staff Writer
Woodstock -- Springfield, Vt. businessman Michel GuitÐ offered a new justification yesterday for his controversial request to exhume three bodies and relocate a historic cemetery on his future home in Hartland: He wants to make sure his family is not murdered by strangers, like the two Dartmouth professors who were infamously slain in their Etna home in 2001.
During the final hearing before Hartford Probate Judge Joanne Ertel rules on whether GuitÐ can go forward with his plan for the 170-parcel off Town Farm Road, GuitÐ invoked the memory of Susanne and Half Zantop in arguing that his family would not be safe in their future home if the cemetery remained in its present location and drew unannounced visitors.
“Visitors are sometimes a troubling event when you're at the farm at the end of a road with your wife and children,” GuitÐ said in front of two-dozen opponents who crammed the tiny courtroom. “The family in Hanover that got murdered seven or eight years ago is an example.”
GuitÐ, CEO of Vermont Telephone Co., applied in December to move the remains of Noah Aldrich, a veteran of the War of 1812, and his granddaughters Louisa and Martha Aldrich, which are buried in a 20-by-40-foot cemetery on the hillside property.
GuitÐ has an option to buy the land from a Buddhist monastery contingent on the resolution of cemetery controversy, which has drawn the ire of many community members and historical groups.
Previously, GuitÐ, of Springfield, Vt., has said he wants to build a new home near the cemetery, and that the cemetery would be disturbed by the presence of his home.
Yesterday, during GuitÐ's 40-minutes of testimony -- interrupted only by a few questions, one of which GuitÐ asked that his lawyer ask him -- he offered his latest explanation: He said that keeping the cemetery anywhere near his future home would encourage visitors to enter his property at all hours to visit the graves. That could lead to unknown and perhaps dangerous people coming close to his home, perhaps making him and his family the next victims of a violent crime.
“My concern isn't Dan King (Jerome King's son) coming up the driveway,” GuitÐ said. “It's a truck coming up the driveway at 1 a.m. with guns in it. … The evidence of what happened is that two kids went to that person's house ... and committed two murders. It’s not that there are many people that do something like that. It’s that privacy, and the knowledge of who your guests are, is an important part of living on an isolated farm.”
At the end of the hearing, Ertel said she would soon issue a written decision.
GuitÐ recently received a boost when Marcia Neal of Colorado, one of the two descendants granted legal standing in the case, agreed to drop her objections in favor of an out-of-court settlement.
Yesterday, Neal, who participated in the hearing via telephone, said she was wary of a protracted legal fight, and is convinced that GuitÐ will be respectful in handling the Aldrich remains.
“I had always hoped to be a party to a solution, and it began to look like the case was going to drag on for a long time,” said Neal, a retired teacher. “I came to feel this was the best decision for Noah and Lydia, who really became more to me than names on a genealogy chart. I don't think they'd be wanting to drag this out for a long time. I am sorry many people (in the courtroom) are not happy and I’m sorry they had the impression that I was going to carry this out to the bitter end.”
According to documents filed with the court, Neal was promised input in selecting a new site for her ancestors' remains, and a trip -- at GuitÐ's expense -- to visit Hartland and see the property. Neal could not be reached for comment.
Neal's decision leaves King as the sole complainant. Kings parents owned the land from the 1950s to the 1970s and their ashes are buried in the cemetery.
Yesterday, Lamb, GuitÐ's attorney, argued that since GuitÐ applied to remove only the Aldriches' remains, and not the Kings', that Jerome King has no legal basis for protesting.
King testified that, even if GuitÐ moves only three bodies, the digging will destroy the entire cemetery and therefore disturb his parents.
“You start taking the bodies out, it's not what it once was,” King said. “In principle, the dead should remain undisturbed, wherever they are. My concern is the removal of the three bodies is the first step in a process that obliterates the cemetery.”
The hearing, like most everything else about the saga, took a few unusual turns.
* King represented himself but was called as a witness by Lamb. Lacking the ability to cross-examine himself, King was given the opportunity to essentially submit his own testimony in a monologue.
* King called one witness -- Vermont Old Cemeteries Association secretary Charlie Marchant -- only after Judge Ertel rebuffed Marchant's request that he be able to voice his opinions on the case from his position in the gallery.
* GuitÐ at one point continued talking after Lamb urged him to stay quiet.
After the hearing, King said in an interview that Neal's decision might make it tougher for him to stop GuitÐ.
“I think it may go forward,” King said. “I think she could have saved it if she would have stayed in her original position.”
Legal experts, including Ertel, have said the case may set a precedent in Vermont because proposals to move disturb cemeteries are usually done to make way for a public use, not for a private property owner.
GuitÐ's plan has drawn the objection of the Hartland Historical Society, several veterans groups, the Vermont Old Cemetery Association and Hartland Town Meeting voters, who overwhelmingly voiced their objection in March. The court file is full of dozens of letters objecting to the plan.
Nonetheless, before the hearing, GuitÐ said the opposition was limited to a handful of passionate detractors, whose importance has been exaggerated.
“I see the opposition as much less that I initially thought it was. It's a bunch of people who are very enthusiastic, but add up to six or seven,” GuitÐ said, barely audible over the chatter of a dozen opponents waiting to file into the courtroom.
Cemetery Relocation in Court
Man Cites Zantop Murders as Rationale for Moving Graves
By Mark Davis
Valley News Staff Writer
Woodstock -- Springfield, Vt. businessman Michel GuitÐ offered a new justification yesterday for his controversial request to exhume three bodies and relocate a historic cemetery on his future home in Hartland: He wants to make sure his family is not murdered by strangers, like the two Dartmouth professors who were infamously slain in their Etna home in 2001.
During the final hearing before Hartford Probate Judge Joanne Ertel rules on whether GuitÐ can go forward with his plan for the 170-parcel off Town Farm Road, GuitÐ invoked the memory of Susanne and Half Zantop in arguing that his family would not be safe in their future home if the cemetery remained in its present location and drew unannounced visitors.
“Visitors are sometimes a troubling event when you're at the farm at the end of a road with your wife and children,” GuitÐ said in front of two-dozen opponents who crammed the tiny courtroom. “The family in Hanover that got murdered seven or eight years ago is an example.”
GuitÐ, CEO of Vermont Telephone Co., applied in December to move the remains of Noah Aldrich, a veteran of the War of 1812, and his granddaughters Louisa and Martha Aldrich, which are buried in a 20-by-40-foot cemetery on the hillside property.
GuitÐ has an option to buy the land from a Buddhist monastery contingent on the resolution of cemetery controversy, which has drawn the ire of many community members and historical groups.
Previously, GuitÐ, of Springfield, Vt., has said he wants to build a new home near the cemetery, and that the cemetery would be disturbed by the presence of his home.
Yesterday, during GuitÐ's 40-minutes of testimony -- interrupted only by a few questions, one of which GuitÐ asked that his lawyer ask him -- he offered his latest explanation: He said that keeping the cemetery anywhere near his future home would encourage visitors to enter his property at all hours to visit the graves. That could lead to unknown and perhaps dangerous people coming close to his home, perhaps making him and his family the next victims of a violent crime.
“My concern isn't Dan King (Jerome King's son) coming up the driveway,” GuitÐ said. “It's a truck coming up the driveway at 1 a.m. with guns in it. … The evidence of what happened is that two kids went to that person's house ... and committed two murders. It’s not that there are many people that do something like that. It’s that privacy, and the knowledge of who your guests are, is an important part of living on an isolated farm.”
At the end of the hearing, Ertel said she would soon issue a written decision.
GuitÐ recently received a boost when Marcia Neal of Colorado, one of the two descendants granted legal standing in the case, agreed to drop her objections in favor of an out-of-court settlement.
Yesterday, Neal, who participated in the hearing via telephone, said she was wary of a protracted legal fight, and is convinced that GuitÐ will be respectful in handling the Aldrich remains.
“I had always hoped to be a party to a solution, and it began to look like the case was going to drag on for a long time,” said Neal, a retired teacher. “I came to feel this was the best decision for Noah and Lydia, who really became more to me than names on a genealogy chart. I don't think they'd be wanting to drag this out for a long time. I am sorry many people (in the courtroom) are not happy and I’m sorry they had the impression that I was going to carry this out to the bitter end.”
According to documents filed with the court, Neal was promised input in selecting a new site for her ancestors' remains, and a trip -- at GuitÐ's expense -- to visit Hartland and see the property. Neal could not be reached for comment.
Neal's decision leaves King as the sole complainant. Kings parents owned the land from the 1950s to the 1970s and their ashes are buried in the cemetery.
Yesterday, Lamb, GuitÐ's attorney, argued that since GuitÐ applied to remove only the Aldriches' remains, and not the Kings', that Jerome King has no legal basis for protesting.
King testified that, even if GuitÐ moves only three bodies, the digging will destroy the entire cemetery and therefore disturb his parents.
“You start taking the bodies out, it's not what it once was,” King said. “In principle, the dead should remain undisturbed, wherever they are. My concern is the removal of the three bodies is the first step in a process that obliterates the cemetery.”
The hearing, like most everything else about the saga, took a few unusual turns.
* King represented himself but was called as a witness by Lamb. Lacking the ability to cross-examine himself, King was given the opportunity to essentially submit his own testimony in a monologue.
* King called one witness -- Vermont Old Cemeteries Association secretary Charlie Marchant -- only after Judge Ertel rebuffed Marchant's request that he be able to voice his opinions on the case from his position in the gallery.
* GuitÐ at one point continued talking after Lamb urged him to stay quiet.
After the hearing, King said in an interview that Neal's decision might make it tougher for him to stop GuitÐ.
“I think it may go forward,” King said. “I think she could have saved it if she would have stayed in her original position.”
Legal experts, including Ertel, have said the case may set a precedent in Vermont because proposals to move disturb cemeteries are usually done to make way for a public use, not for a private property owner.
GuitÐ's plan has drawn the objection of the Hartland Historical Society, several veterans groups, the Vermont Old Cemetery Association and Hartland Town Meeting voters, who overwhelmingly voiced their objection in March. The court file is full of dozens of letters objecting to the plan.
Nonetheless, before the hearing, GuitÐ said the opposition was limited to a handful of passionate detractors, whose importance has been exaggerated.
“I see the opposition as much less that I initially thought it was. It's a bunch of people who are very enthusiastic, but add up to six or seven,” GuitÐ said, barely audible over the chatter of a dozen opponents waiting to file into the courtroom.