ssǝɹddns ɹou ɹɐǝɟ ɹǝɥʇıǝu plnoʍ ʎʇǝıɔos ǝǝɹɟ ʎlnɹʇ ɐ ʇɐɥʇ ƃuıʇnɔolɯnɔɹıɔ suıɐʇuoɔ ǝʇıs sıɥʇ



Monday, October 25, 2010

The continuing Markie Chronicles

My daughter Peace’s tireless forays into genealogy and all of that have been nothing less than astounding. Eye-opening. Revealing.

And all too often, they present even more questions after a few older questions have been answered to some degree. Every time I think she’s unearthed all that could possibly be unearthed--she delivers yet another aged gem.

Know that before she launched into this journey into the nothingness that was my parental historical side of things, I knew my father’s name, his sister’s and his parents names and not much else. Two years ago, I didn’t even know my own father’s birth date.

I knew he was a genius. I knew he was a senior design engineer in aerospace-related stuff and that was about that. For whatever reason, my mother was not very honest with me whereas he was concerned. I’m not sure why, but he was always a closely-guarded secret when the subject came up. And that’s the only thing I hate her for.

Anyway, every time my daughter dredges up some now ancient piece of the puzzle, more and more that I never knew before her most recent discovery is revealed to me, as well as her.

Here’s the latest…

Sarasota Herald Tribune - March 17, 1962

Scheme To Hide 3-Year-Old Backfires On Florida Dad

A Sarasota woman is involved in a complicated scheme to hide a three-year-old boy from his mother and a Florida court.

The woman, Mrs. Jacqueline Andrews of 2051 Ninth St., is aiding her brother, who is the boy’s father, in the scheme. The plan has, in a way, backfired.

The brother is Eugene Cour of Clearwater. According to the Associated Press, Cour himself is now unable to find the boy.

Cour is the senior development engineer at the Minneapolis-Honeywell plant near Clearwater and Friday was in jail. Circuit Judge Charles M. Philips Jr. ordered Cour held until he reveals the whereabouts of his son, Mark.

The story began last summer.

Mrs. Dorothy Cour sued her husband for divorce, charging extreme cruelty. He filed a counter claim, won the divorce and was given custody of their son.

Cour went to Wilkes-Barre, Pa., where Mrs. Cour was living with her parents and got the child.
Mrs. Cour filed a new petition with the court, however, and on Oct. 20 Judge Phillips granted her custody of the child for nine months each year.


A few hours later, Cour and his son disappeared.

Cour was arrested in February in Fort Lauderdale and returned but refused to reveal where his son could be found, and jailed.

Friday, Cour’s attorney, Roland Fox, revealed his dilemma.

Someone else has young Mark, traveling anywhere in the United States or Canada. Cour won’t say who that person is, though there is speculation that it is his wife, Martha, whom he married following the divorce last summer.

Fox said Cour had instructed the custodian to purchase the Chicago Sunday Tribune each week wherever he, or she, might be. He planned to place a classified advertisement in the Sunday Tribune if he wished to contact the custodian.

The ad was to be coded, Fox said, and would notify the custodian to pick up a letter at the general delivery window in the post office in the nearest city with a population of more than 50,000.

Following the recent ruling of the court, Fox said, Cour’s sister - Mrs. Andrews - mailed a letter to every town in the United States and Canada with a population of more than 50,000 - a total of 307 of them.

The letter, part of which was in code, simply set forth what had happened to Cour, Fox said. It didn’t give the custodian any instruction.

“He felt he wasn’t in a position to jeopardize the custodian,” Fox said.

Last Sunday, the coded advertisement ran in the want-ads of the Chicago Tribune. But when Fox picked up a copy of the paper in Clearwater, he found to his dismay that it didn’t contain the classified section. This circulates only in the Chicago metropolitan area, he said.

Arrangements are being made to place a regular display advertisement - coded, of course - in this Sunday’s Tribune. But Fox said they were concerned that the reputation of being a brilliant custodian might miss it.

Why did Cour, who has the man, defy the court?

“It wasn’t a matter of flaunting the law,” said Fox. “He sincerely felt that he was doing what was best for the child.”

Sure, it got a little fuzzy (Bush-speak) there at the end.

Still, though, the latest answers lead to still more perplexing questions. Questions that will probably never be answered in full.

And, yet, they wonder aloud as to why I’m so screwed-up.

Buh-bye

No comments: