Discovery of Frank Peterson’s body

Jon Ritz’s discovery of Frank Peterson’s body turns an ordinary evening dog walk into the first eyewitness account of the crime scene. Ritz’s description gives Detective Anderson concrete evidence about the location and circumstances of the discovery; the later investigation, however, shows that strong physical clues did not settle who was responsible and that the rush to arrest Terry Maitland carried consequences the investigators could not undo.

The Evening Walk

Ritz went out with Dave, the family beagle, at about six in the evening. The routine followed the household’s schedule: Dave ate at five, Ritz and his wife Sandy had dinner at five-thirty, and Ritz took the dog outside while Sandy did the dishes. Ritz initially digressed into the division of household work, then acknowledged that he was rambling. Anderson let him tell the story in his own way. Ritz also asked to be called Jon rather than Mr. Ritz, a name that recalled the teasing nickname he had heard as a schoolboy.

The walk took them along a gravel path through the trees. Ritz recalled seeing a van with no windows, double doors at the rear, and the general appearance of a small company’s work vehicle. He thought it might have been an Econoline but could not identify the model with certainty. There was no company name on it. The van was dirty, its tires muddy, and Dave sniffed at them before continuing along the path. These details were observations, not a firm identification of the vehicle or its owner.

Following the Trail

After they had gone about a quarter of a mile, Dave began barking and plunged into bushes to the right. Ritz tried to pull him back, then shortened the retractable leash and followed, thinking at first that the dog might have picked up the scent of a raccoon. There he found several drops of blood on leaves and a larger splash on bushes farther along. The blood looked fresh. Dave kept pulling toward the trail, while Ritz tried to control him and push through the branches.

As Ritz followed the blood, he heard an engine start behind him. He remembered its loud, rough rumble, which suggested to him a damaged muffler, but he could not identify the vehicle from the sound. At the time, his attention remained fixed on the blood and on keeping Dave from dragging him forward. Only later did he consider the possibility that the killer might have been in the trees watching him. Ritz said the thought frightened him in retrospect; at the scene, he was scared but continued because he thought someone might be hurt.

Ritz estimated that he first saw the blood trail around twenty or twenty-five minutes past six, though he had not checked his watch. Dave led him into a small clearing, a secluded nook with a granite bench at its center. Ritz found the bench covered in blood, with more beneath it, and Frank’s body on the grass beside it. His account established the clearing as the point where the trail ended and the body was found.

What Ritz Saw

Ritz described Frank as a boy lying on his stomach, with his head turned toward the path and his eyes open. He reported that Frank’s jeans and underwear had been pulled down and that a dead branch was present at the scene. The branch was bloody, part of its bark had been stripped, and Ritz saw a handprint on it. These observations made the branch and its handprint important physical details in the early account, without identifying who had left the print.

Dave stopped barking and howled. Ritz’s attention shifted from controlling the dog to the human consequences of what he had found. He asked Anderson whether the police would catch the person responsible. Anderson answered that they would. The exchange places the discovery at the beginning of the investigation: an eyewitness can describe the scene and ask for justice, but the description alone cannot establish the perpetrator’s identity.

The Investigation’s Early Certainty

The discovery fed into a rapid decision to arrest Terry Maitland at a crowded Flint City Golden Dragons game. Ralph Anderson was tense and regarded the case as personal. The police force had only three full-time detectives; Jack Hoskins was away, and Betsy Riggins was assisting the State Police on another part of the evening’s work. These pressures formed part of the circumstances in which the arrest was carried out, though they did not verify the evidence against Maitland.

Before the arrest, Anderson had told Bill Samuels that the investigators lacked background information and that Maitland would claim an alibi. Anderson would have preferred to investigate the alibi first, identify its weaknesses, and then make the arrest. Samuels argued that the case had to move quickly: if Maitland killed one child, he might harm another. Anderson shared the certainty that they had the right man, yet also recognized that the usual procedure would have been to investigate further. His fear of another child becoming a victim helped override that caution.

That certainty weakened when information emerged that Maitland had been elsewhere at relevant times. Anderson later recalled witnesses who placed him with teachers, as well as details suggesting that someone impersonating him had taken Willow Rainwater’s cab to Dubrow and parked the white van behind Shorty’s Pub. He also reconsidered how conveniently Maitland had appeared in a recorded question-and-answer session at Harlan Coben’s talk and how perfectly the fingerprints on a book seemed to support the case. Faced with evidence that did not fit together, Anderson could no longer say that he knew Maitland was guilty.

Consequences and Significance

The gap between Ritz’s detailed eyewitness account and the unanswered question of identity is central to the event’s significance. He could describe the muddy van, Dave’s behavior, the fresh blood, the clearing, the bench, and the handprint. None of those observations, by itself, explained how the evidence connected to a suspect. The discovery provided the investigation with a compelling scene, but the police treated their interpretation of that scene as more certain than their knowledge justified.

Anderson later described himself as having gone blind and as having made a grave mistake by failing to check Maitland’s movements before the arrest. His reflection connects the discovery to the investigation’s central failure: urgency and confidence narrowed the inquiry before the apparent alibi had been tested. The original account remained a vivid record of what Ritz encountered, while the subsequent contradictions forced Anderson to distinguish what the scene established from what the investigators had assumed.