This one was on today and it was the first time I had seen it. Shortly after midnight on January 24th, 1987 off duty Los Angeles County, California Deputy Sheriff Charles Anderson returned home with his wife and two young sons from a visit to relatives. Deputy Anderson took his older son age 5 into the house and put him to bed. Apperantly as soon as he exited his son's bedroom he either confronted or was confronted by an unknown person in his home. His wife was out in the car with the younger son that was only a few months old. His wife thought it was backfire she heard when in fact it was two gun shots. His wife went into the house and called for him and when he didnt answer she went upstairs. She found Deputy Anderson laying dead at the top of the steps.

The Burbank police were called to the scene. It appeared at first to be a burglary. However the drawers were opened very neatly, items that were very valuable were left behind. Only a few items were taking and were less valuable than other items left behind. It appeared that someone had staged it to look like a burglary to throw off the authorities. When Anderson's sister was interviewed on UM she said that the expression on his face said it all. She said his eyes were wide open and he had this expression on his face like he knew who it was and that he was shocked that this person was betraying him. The anonymous caller was another one. This guy calls in and was obviously nervous. The cops believe the call was genuine. The guy was very nervous about not only revealing the name of the person that killed Deputy Anderson but was also nervous of his voice being recorded and the call being traced. The detective gave him his private office number to call on but I think the caller got nervous and decided to not call back. I think it was someone that Deputy Anderson knew that murdered him. I think it was someone that Anderson thought he was friends with. Obviously it was unexpected. Was it a friend? Or maybe a fellow cop even? Could be. Why they would want to kill him is anyone's guess. Maybe he knew to much about something? There is definitly more to this case than meets the eye because there is so many unanswered questions.

This one was on today and it was the first time I had seen it. Shortly after midnight on January 24th, 1987 off duty Los Angeles County, California Deputy Sheriff Charles Anderson returned home with his wife and two young sons from a visit to relatives. Deputy Anderson took his older son age 5 into the house and put him to bed. Apperantly as soon as he exited his son's bedroom he either confronted or was confronted by an unknown person in his home. His wife was out in the car with the younger son that was only a few months old. His wife thought it was backfire she heard when in fact it was two gun shots. His wife went into the house and called for him and when he didnt answer she went upstairs. She found Deputy Anderson laying dead at the top of the steps.

The Burbank police were called to the scene. It appeared at first to be a burglary. However the drawers were opened very neatly, items that were very valuable were left behind. Only a few items were taking and were less valuable than other items left behind. It appeared that someone had staged it to look like a burglary to throw off the authorities. When Anderson's sister was interviewed on UM she said that the expression on his face said it all. She said his eyes were wide open and he had this expression on his face like he knew who it was and that he was shocked that this person was betraying him. The anonymous caller was another one. This guy calls in and was obviously nervous. The cops believe the call was genuine. The guy was very nervous about not only revealing the name of the person that killed Deputy Anderson but was also nervous of his voice being recorded and the call being traced. The detective gave him his private office number to call on but I think the caller got nervous and decided to not call back. I think it was someone that Deputy Anderson knew that murdered him. I think it was someone that Anderson thought he was friends with. Obviously it was unexpected. Was it a friend? Or maybe a fellow cop even? Could be. Why they would want to kill him is anyone's guess. Maybe he knew to much about something? There is definitly more to this case than meets the eye because there is so many unanswered questions.


Could've been a fellow cop, but who knows? I felt uncomfortable watching this episode, for some reason.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y77/BigTMan/Eric_the_Midget.gif

This one was on today and it was the first time I had seen it. Shortly after midnight on January 24th, 1987 off duty Los Angeles County, California Deputy Sheriff Charles Anderson returned home with his wife and two young sons from a visit to relatives. Deputy Anderson took his older son age 5 into the house and put him to bed. Apperantly as soon as he exited his son's bedroom he either confronted or was confronted by an unknown person in his home. His wife was out in the car with the younger son that was only a few months old. His wife thought it was backfire she heard when in fact it was two gun shots. His wife went into the house and called for him and when he didnt answer she went upstairs. She found Deputy Anderson laying dead at the top of the steps.

The Burbank police were called to the scene. It appeared at first to be a burglary. However the drawers were opened very neatly, items that were very valuable were left behind. Only a few items were taking and were less valuable than other items left behind. It appeared that someone had staged it to look like a burglary to throw off the authorities. When Anderson's sister was interviewed on UM she said that the expression on his face said it all. She said his eyes were wide open and he had this expression on his face like he knew who it was and that he was shocked that this person was betraying him. The anonymous caller was another one. This guy calls in and was obviously nervous. The cops believe the call was genuine. The guy was very nervous about not only revealing the name of the person that killed Deputy Anderson but was also nervous of his voice being recorded and the call being traced. The detective gave him his private office number to call on but I think the caller got nervous and decided to not call back. I think it was someone that Deputy Anderson knew that murdered him. I think it was someone that Anderson thought he was friends with.

Judging from the details, I suspect that the killer was someone Charles Anderson knew, and that the intruder's only real intention was to kill him.

Okay, I am opening up a very, very old thread but for some reason there isn't a lot on this case.

Alright, I find a couple things perplexing. For starters everything starts out fine. Charlie takes his son up to the bedroom from the car because his wife has a bad back. She stays with the other son in the car momentarily. She hears two "pops" and goes into the house to investigate. She finds Charlie dead at the top of the stairs. Then she runs downstairs goes to the car and picks up her other son and runs.

A couple things that have always made me ponder about the wife:

- there were no other fingerprints in the house other than the family members
- she never saw an intruder
- if there was an intruder how come they didn't find anything (as far as I know) that proved there was forced entry?
- why did her son not wake up when the gunshots were fired?
- if it was a burglary why was nothing valuable stolen?
- the wife is the only witness to anything

Just a thought. I mean, did they look at her closely?

Okay, I am opening up a very, very old thread but for some reason there isn't a lot on this case.

Alright, I find a couple things perplexing. For starters everything starts out fine. Charlie takes his son up to the bedroom from the car because his wife has a bad back. She stays with the other son in the car momentarily. She hears two "pops" and goes into the house to investigate. She finds Charlie dead at the top of the stairs. Then she runs downstairs goes to the car and picks up her other son and runs.

A couple things that have always made me ponder about the wife:

- there were no other fingerprints in the house other than the family members
- she never saw an intruder
- if there was an intruder how come they didn't find anything (as far as I know) that proved there was forced entry?
- why did her son not wake up when the gunshots were fired?
- if it was a burglary why was nothing valuable stolen?
- the wife is the only witness to anything

Just a thought. I mean, did they look at her closely?

It's been some time since I watched it so I can't elaborate. However, my guess would be that Anderson's wife was probably one of the first people cleared. In any murder investigation, the immediate family is investigated first. Since the police were exploring other avenues as discussed on the segment, I think we can assume the wife was cleared.

I read that the woman who confessed to being involved in the death of Carol Montecalvo was a suspect in Anderson's murder at one time, perhaps she still is. Similar MOs in both crimes and I believe Anderon's murder occurred in the same neighborhood a year or less before the Montecalvo murder, but don't quote me on that. Obviously, Carol's husband, Dan Montecalvo, was convicted and sent to prison, for life, for the murder. He has always maintained innocence and was himself the subject of a Final Appeal segment. Unfortunately, the Montecalvo segment didn't touch on the Anderson murder.

Regarding Anderson, I think the police explanation was probably correct. He walked in on someone - wasn't there ransacking? I think the killer (or killers) retaliated by shooting Anderson. They probably escaped from the rear or side of the house so not to be seen fleeing the residence after the sound of the gunshots. This would probably explain why Anderson's wife saw nothing.

Hi everyone,I've just joined this site. The Charlie Anderson murder has just aired on British television and I've been looking on sites like this for any extra information,which is scant.

Mindful of the libel laws let me add something to what Clockworkhigh has written.I don't understand why upon hearing the two shots or car backfires the woman would go into the house..I mean if it were me I'd take my kid and get the hell out of the situation.Statistically a burglar does not like to be confronted so that is also suspicious as there appeared to be no signs of a break-in,so the burglar was either waiting by the side of the house for the family to return which seems unlikely or had hidden inside the house whilst the family were away for the evening. I also don't hear mentioned that the murder weapon was found so I assume it wasn't left by the body. This to me suggests that someone may have paid for Anderson to be killed,and would also explain the telephone call to the Police the day afterwards if the killer had confessed to a relative what he had done in exchange for money perhaps. Remember Anderson was a wealthy man. Apologies if this is an old case for you;there's a huge amount of stuff on this site and I'm just navigating my way around.

I always suspected it was someone that knew him. IIRC, the Police said the robbery looked staged. And I always found it *highly* suspicious that the wife suddenly felt tired and just decided to stay in the car when they arrived home, thus forcing the husband to enter the house alone.

I see two possible scenarios:

1) The wife hired a hitman

2) Some ex con had it out for this guy and tried to cover up his crime by staging a robbery.

Hi everyone,I've just joined this site. The Charlie Anderson murder has just aired on British television and I've been looking on sites like this for any extra information,which is scant.

Apologies if this is an old case for you;there's a huge amount of stuff on this site and I'm just navigating my way around.

Are you new to UM or have you been watching for a while? If you're new I can recommend you some of the best cases. :cool:

Please go ahead.There seems to be a plethora of threads on this site,just not much information on this particular case. I'm more interested in the crime stories than all that Beverly Hills 90210 stuff..

Steve can you tell me which channel you saw it on?

We have Rupert Murdoch's Sky tv here(satellite)..I think it's the CBS reality channel.

Sorry didn't see you were from Wales. Here's the link: any new thoughts?

[QUOTE=Steve_uk]Sorry didn't see you were from Wales. Here's the link: any new thoughts?
Thanks, but I don't think you're allowed to post links to that channel, people can get a bit touchy about it :rolleyes2 I have seen it before it's not one of my favourites I think his wife is responsible somehow, if you want more great segments I would try this thread http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=298060

Oh ok thanks welshman,it will take me some time to study those cases.Yes the link to the Charles Anderson case has been removed.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=300096

Hi this is such a creepy and bewildering case, and I am surprised that no one is discussing about this.

Just watching the segment leaves me with a ton of questions. Either the UM makers conveniently leave certain details out, or the case just did not present any workable clues at all.


1) The first and most boggling question would be: How did the intruder enter/ exit the house ? The segment didnt seem to mention there was any. And considering that Anderson was a seasoned deputy, there was no reason for him not to suspect anything upon entering the house if he noticed his door was tampled with or his window broken into.


2) What reason will it be that Anderson's older son be spared?

Like someone else said earlier, how could it be possible that the elder son not be awakened by the gunshots in the house, or when theres someone else present in there?

Wouldnt the intruder wanna kill the son too, in case the son may identify him? Or hold the son hostage to get to Anderson's wife / make good his escape?


3) In what manner was Charles Anderson shot? Was he shot from the front or the back? I would think the angle where he was shot at could make a big difference in the case.


4) Was the murder weapn ever located? Was it Anderson's own revolver or did it belong to someone else?

I think the police at least would be able to tell from the bullets Anderson suffered what caliber bullets they were and what types of guns could have likely fired them.



5) Was Anderson's wife ever a suspect in the case?

I find it weird that if she saw her husband gunned down in the stairway, wouldnt her immediate concern be her son in the room, and rushed in to see if hes ok?

That would be everybody's instinctive action would it not?

Instead, she rushes down to grab the younger son and called the neighbours for help. This to me just doesnt seem right.


And Charlie's sister mentioned in the segment that Anderson had a wide eyed look, as if he had been shocked, or betrayed, which lingers with her til this day.

Perhaps its exactly what it is. His wife was the one who done him in. Thats why he had that look of disbelief on his face !!

That also explains why police were unable to uncover any fingerprints other than the family's !!



6) As for the strange caller who mentioned he had information regarding the Anderson's murder and didnt want his voice to be recorded.

Just because somebody calls in and claim they have information doesnt necessarily mean its true. It could very well be just a prank call.

I dont understand why they wanna put that much emphasis into that call.

Hi this is such a creepy and bewildering case, and I am surprised that no one is discussing about this.

Just watching the segment leaves me with a ton of questions. Either the UM makers conveniently leave certain details out, or the case just did not present any workable clues at all.


1) The first and most boggling question would be: How did the intruder enter/ exit the house ? The segment didnt seem to mention there was any. And considering that Anderson was a seasoned deputy, there was no reason for him not to suspect anything upon entering the house if he noticed his door was tampled with or his window broken into.


2) What reason will it be that Anderson's older son be spared?

Like someone else said earlier, how could it be possible that the elder son not be awakened by the gunshots in the house, or when theres someone else present in there?

Wouldnt the intruder wanna kill the son too, in case the son may identify him? Or hold the son hostage to get to Anderson's wife / make good his escape?


3) In what manner was Charles Anderson shot? Was he shot from the front or the back? I would think the angle where he was shot at could make a big difference in the case.


4) Was the murder weapn ever located? Was it Anderson's own revolver or did it belong to someone else?

I think the police at least would be able to tell from the bullets Anderson suffered what caliber bullets they were and what types of guns could have likely fired them.



5) Was Anderson's wife ever a suspect in the case?

I find it weird that if she saw her husband gunned down in the stairway, wouldnt her immediate concern be her son in the room, and rushed in to see if hes ok?

That would be everybody's instinctive action would it not?

Instead, she rushes down to grab the younger son and called the neighbours for help. This to me just doesnt seem right.


And Charlie's sister mentioned in the segment that Anderson had a wide eyed look, as if he had been shocked, or betrayed, which lingers with her til this day.

Perhaps its exactly what it is. His wife was the one who done him in. Thats why he had that look of disbelief on his face !!

That also explains why police were unable to uncover any fingerprints other than the family's !!



6) As for the strange caller who mentioned he had information regarding the Anderson's murder and didnt want his voice to be recorded.

Just because somebody calls in and claim they have information doesnt necessarily mean its true. It could very well be just a prank call.

I dont understand why they wanna put that much emphasis into that call.
A vey good post Xiao. I didn't realize that there was anyone else in the house at the time of the incident. The only thing I disagree slightly on is point 6,where the recipient of the call may have felt there was something in the caller's tone which expressed the sincerity and veracity of the call.

A vey good post Xiao. I didn't realize that there was anyone else in the house at the time of the incident. The only thing I disagree slightly on is point 6,where the recipient of the call may have felt there was something in the caller's tone which expressed the sincerity and veracity of the call.


Sorry Steve, but I didnt quite understand your post.

Of course there had to be someone in the house. Someone had to fire the gun that killed Anderson. No one was supposed to be in the house at that point of time.


And obviously by the time police arrived, the perpetrator was long gone.


The only question was who pulled the trigger?


My best guess is its either his wife who did it, cos naturally assuming his young sons couldnt be responsible for it, and no one else was there at the time..

Or its someone who Anderson arrested before in his police career that beared a grudge, so that person took revenge on him.

These are the most likely persons to have wanted him dead since burglary was ruled out as a possible motive.

Sorry Steve, but I didnt quite understand your post.

Of course there had to be someone in the house. Someone had to fire the gun that killed Anderson. No one was supposed to be in the house at that point of time.


And obviously by the time police arrived, the perpetrator was long gone.


The only question was who pulled the trigger?


My best guess is its either his wife who did it, cos naturally assuming his young sons couldnt be responsible for it, and no one else was there at the time..

Or its someone who Anderson arrested before in his police career that beared a grudge, so that person took revenge on him.

These are the most likely persons to have wanted him dead since burglary was ruled out as a possible motive.

Sorry I have lost touch with this case as there is very little on google I have found and the original televised reconstruction I don't have access to. Are you saying that there was an elder son in the house at the time the father,mother and two boys returned to the house? I had always thought that there was a hitman hiding in that house waiting for the family's return,as there was no gun found at the scene of the crime,but if there was another child inside the house all evening this would seem unlikely. Another interesting fact is that the deceased man was wealthy beyond that of a normal everyday policeman.

Another case that has me spinning... I firmly believe by the facts of a staged robbery, and that Charlie was the only one gunned down (the child in bed was left untouched) that it was a professional hit. Now to who did it is the true question that is being asked here. I think that his cases that he worked on and had a conviction and jail time should be reexamined. He is from Los Angeles area and could potentially gone toe to toe with gangs, drug dealers, mafia, and the like. I agree with other posts that the way the angel of the weapon was and fired could really lead to an MO of a previous offender or a trademark from a hitman. I ruled the wife immediately, because one she had a back injury and would need assistance into house along with the other sleeping child in the car. Two, the evidence (the little I could find) did not point to her in any way. I also believe that perhaps, he stumbled upon something at work (a friend, a partner, etc) and they were involved with one of the groups mentioned above. Please direct me to any additional info that anyone finds on this case, would like to see some justice served for his family.

Another case that has me spinning... I firmly believe by the facts of a staged robbery, and that Charlie was the only one gunned down (the child in bed was left untouched) that it was a professional hit. Now to who did it is the true question that is being asked here. I think that his cases that he worked on and had a conviction and jail time should be reexamined. He is from Los Angeles area and could potentially gone toe to toe with gangs, drug dealers, mafia, and the like. I agree with other posts that the way the angel of the weapon was and fired could really lead to an MO of a previous offender or a trademark from a hitman. I ruled the wife immediately, because one she had a back injury and would need assistance into house along with the other sleeping child in the car. Two, the evidence (the little I could find) did not point to her in any way. I also believe that perhaps, he stumbled upon something at work (a friend, a partner, etc) and they were involved with one of the groups mentioned above. Please direct me to any additional info that anyone finds on this case, would like to see some justice served for his family.

Here is something I posted a year or two ago you might find interesting:

As far as Charlie Anderson, I recently read the book about the Dan Montecalvo case called "Final Vows". Dan Montecalvo was convicted of murdering his wife and his story was featured on the short lived spin-off "Final Appeal" and also on the Spike revamped UM. He claims he is innocent and a mentally unstable neighbor has pretty much confessed that her and her friend were looking for money for drugs one night, broke into their house and killed his wife. This neighbor also seems to be a suspect in the murder of Charlie Anderson. She doesn't come out and flat out confess but does act strangely and he was no doubt killed by a would be robber and another interesting fact is he only lived blocks from the Montecalvo's. Personally I think she's the one who killed Charlie Anderson.

Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?p=4449266#ixzz2IKu12oZX

I find it weird that if she saw her husband gunned down in the stairway, wouldnt her immediate concern be her son in the room, and rushed in to see if hes ok?

That would be everybody's instinctive action would it not?

Instead, she rushes down to grab the younger son and called the neighbours for help. This to me just doesn't seem right.
And Charlie's sister mentioned in the segment that Anderson had a wide eyed look, as if he had been shocked, or betrayed, which lingers with her til this day.

Perhaps its exactly what it is. His wife was the one who done him in. Thats why he had that look of disbelief on his face !!

That also explains why police were unable to uncover any fingerprints other than the family's !!

Read more: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=4761144#ixzz2IkAyYj5h

To also branch off.....to me it does not make sense that she would wait in the car alone with one child while he goes alone upstairs to tuck the other into bed and then wait for him to come back. Bad back or not, she could have brought the other child in and at the very least waited downstairs if she could not take the child all the way up. I don't know, that just does not make sense to me. She was able to take the younger child and run to a neighbor's house, yet she couldn't take him inside at the same time as her husband took the other child in? She also said she heard the noises and went upstairs leaving her other child in the car alone? The killer kindly waited until Anderson had put the first child to bed and then killed him? This isn't making any sense at all.

To also branch off.....to me it does not make sense that she would wait in the car alone with one child while he goes alone upstairs to tuck the other into bed and then wait for him to come back. Bad back or not, she could have brought the other child in and at the very least waited downstairs if she could not take the child all the way up. I don't know, that just does not make sense to me. She was able to take the younger child and run to a neighbor's house, yet she couldn't take him inside at the same time as her husband took the other child in? She also said she heard the noises and went upstairs leaving her other child in the car alone? The killer kindly waited until Anderson had put the first child to bed and then killed him? This isn't making any sense at all.

If she had a bad back, then it makes sense to me that she would have had her husband take both kids into the house. Why take the risk of aggravating your back injury, or simply causing you a lot of pain, when there is a perfectly healthy person there to help you out? Also, maybe her husband was a doting guy who insisted that she stay in the car.

I can also believe how she was able to carry the baby later on: she must have had an enormous amount of adrenaline pumping after discovering her husband, and I'm sure that most parents would do anything in their power to get their child out of harm's way. [And yes, she left their other child in the house, but this also makes sense to me: she could, obviously, have been killed by the assailant if she had continued into the house - thus being no help to any of her children - and she couldn't have carried both of her children out at once, anyway].

I do believe the bare bones of her story, anyway.

How the heck could anyone with a back hurting -so badly- she had to wait in the car, be capable of picking up a child and "running" to the neighbors house? The whole thing stinks! Obviously it was the wifes' doing (whether it was her or she hired a hitman). There was plenty of motive as he was rich and she had a lot to gain in terms of properties and the insurance policies of an officer being slain in his own home. She also knew that because he was a cop, that it could easily be blamed on an ex-con who had an axe to grind after being busted by him. The story makes zero sense. and this woman continues to live in the same home after such a traumatic experience? Doesn't that tell you something? The D.A. should just wake up and indict her already so this mans family can have some peace!

I recently saw the FA segment on Dan Montecalvo for the first time, and think Susan Brown was telling the truth in her confession.

Before I was even finished watching the segment, however, I'd already thought of Charlie Anderson. Given the proximity of the Andersons' home to the Montecalvos' (I initially had no idea they lived so closely to one another), I'd say Susan Brown or one of her associates is probably responsible. Just in terms of accounts of both crimes alone, they're essentially carbon copies of one another.

I recently saw the FA segment on Dan Montecalvo for the first time, and think Susan Brown was telling the truth in her confession.

Before I was even finished watching the segment, however, I'd already thought of Charlie Anderson. Given the proximity of the Andersons' home to the Montecalvos' (I initially had no idea they lived so closely to one another), I'd say Susan Brown or one of her associates is probably responsible. Just in terms of accounts of both crimes alone, they're essentially carbon copies of one another.

Excellent point about how close Anderson and Montecalvo lived together. Although I'm not entirely convinced that Montecalvo didn't have a hand in orchestrating his wife's murder, I think it's a strong possibility that Susan Brown was involved in both homicides. Especially if she was breaking into houses looking for drug money.

Excellent point about how close Anderson and Montecalvo lived together. Although I'm not entirely convinced that Montecalvo didn't have a hand in orchestrating his wife's murder, I think it's a strong possibility that Susan Brown was involved in both homicides. Especially if she was breaking into houses looking for drug money.
You guys are connecting dots that are not even there. I personally know some of the subjects in this case and have been in that house on 1700 Oak St. on many of occasions, although it was nearly a decade after the crime occurred. The wife (Beth Anderson) is a cold human being, but makes it appear as though she is magnanimous by contributing to the community much like a mob boss does in order to win over public sympathy. She was BFF's with one of the most corrupt Mayors in Burbank history Stacey Jo Murphy (google her name along with Burbank mayor in the search)....this was a woman who along with her boyfriend were involved in providing gangs with guns for cocaine. One of the guns ended up killing a law enforcement officer. These are not nice people we are talking about here. It was rumored that Beth was already in a relationship with the man she would eventually marry (a friend of mine) at the time Charley was slain, but both deny it. Of all the times I was invited over there, the subject would only come up if the cops were harassing them again (they had been questioned on many occasions). She never once acted like the broken widow who was still hoping to find the killer of her husband. She had also lost 2 children (deaths) prior to the murder under peculiar circumstances. I want to clarify she never told me anything that would suggest she did it, however, I always had a creepy vibe that she was capable of such. Just my 2 cents.

You guys are connecting dots that are not even there. I personally know some of the subjects in this case and have been in that house on 1700 Oak St. on many of occasions, although it was nearly a decade after the crime occurred. The wife (Beth Anderson) is a cold human being, but makes it appear as though she is magnanimous by contributing to the community much like a mob boss does in order to win over public sympathy. She was BFF's with one of the most corrupt Mayors in Burbank history Stacey Jo Murphy (google her name along with Burbank mayor in the search)....this was a woman who along with her boyfriend were involved in providing gangs with guns for cocaine. One of the guns ended up killing a law enforcement officer. These are not nice people we are talking about here. It was rumored that Beth was already in a relationship with the man she would eventually marry (a friend of mine) at the time Charley was slain, but both deny it. Of all the times I was invited over there, the subject would only come up if the cops were harassing them again (they had been questioned on many occasions). She never once acted like the broken widow who was still hoping to find the killer of her husband. She had also lost 2 children (deaths) prior to the murder under peculiar circumstances. I want to clarify she never told me anything that would suggest she did it, however, I always had a creepy vibe that she was capable of such. Just my 2 cents.

So--we have two very similar murders committed not even a mile apart, in the same city, in the same neighborhood, with the same person admitting to both on one hand.

And on the other, we have one person's musings on how the widow of one of the victims "should" have acted but apparently didn't, and about how she was friends with an apparently terrible mayor, and about how she never once told this person anything that would suggest she even thought about killing her husband, and this is somehow total evidence of her complicity in his murder.

I'll take our "dots", personally.

How the heck could anyone with a back hurting -so badly- she had to wait in the car, be capable of picking up a child and "running" to the neighbors house?

Survival instinct. Never underestimate what the human body is capable of when adrenaline is pumping. She found her husband murdered, that's going to get the adrenaline going, because she needs to get the hell out of there.

Survival instinct. Never underestimate what the human body is capable of when adrenaline is pumping. She found her husband murdered, that's going to get the adrenaline going, because she needs to get the hell out of there.
Absolutely. I would also include adrenaline and determination to get her baby out of the danger as well.

You guys are connecting dots that are not even there. I personally know some of the subjects in this case and have been in that house on 1700 Oak St. on many of occasions, although it was nearly a decade after the crime occurred. The wife (Beth Anderson) is a cold human being, but makes it appear as though she is magnanimous by contributing to the community much like a mob boss does in order to win over public sympathy. She was BFF's with one of the most corrupt Mayors in Burbank history Stacey Jo Murphy (google her name along with Burbank mayor in the search)....this was a woman who along with her boyfriend were involved in providing gangs with guns for cocaine. One of the guns ended up killing a law enforcement officer. These are not nice people we are talking about here. It was rumored that Beth was already in a relationship with the man she would eventually marry (a friend of mine) at the time Charley was slain, but both deny it. Of all the times I was invited over there, the subject would only come up if the cops were harassing them again (they had been questioned on many occasions). She never once acted like the broken widow who was still hoping to find the killer of her husband. She had also lost 2 children (deaths) prior to the murder under peculiar circumstances. I want to clarify she never told me anything that would suggest she did it, however, I always had a creepy vibe that she was capable of such. Just my 2 cents.

Other than your opinion that Charles Anderson's wife acted suspicious after his murder, what other evidence do you have to support your theory? Because there was a woman who confessed to this murder, who was also implicated in another very similar murder that took place less than a mile away from Charles Anderson's house.

I just had a chance to view this segment for the first time. I am shocked that 30 years later, we still do not have any solid leads or suspects. Especially considering that it was a police officer that was murdered.

The shocked look on his face does not mean he knew his killer IMO. He was probably just stunned to see someone with a gun. I would have been.

The shocked look on his face does not mean he knew his killer IMO. He was probably just stunned to see someone with a gun. I would have been.

I agree. I was somewhat surprised an LE officer would say that. They know better than to assume a look on his face meant that. It makes me wonder if there was a bit more to it then what they said in the broadcast.

I just had a chance to view this segment for the first time. I am shocked that 30 years later, we still do not have any solid leads or suspects. Especially considering that it was a police officer that was murdered.

This case was recently referenced on the Investigation Discovery show, "The Perfect Murder", which did an episode on Dan Montecalvo's murder of his wife, Carol. The Montecalvo case was featured in a Final Appeal segment on UM and took place only a few blocks away from Charlie Anderson's murder. Since both crimes occurred just over a year apart and Montecalvo claimed his wife was killed during an attempted burglary, the episode implies that Montecalvo used the Anderson murder as a cover story to give off the false impression that the same suspects were responsible.

However, after watching the "Perfect Murder" episode, I have zero doubt that Montecalvo killed his wife and that the Anderson murder is not connected to his crime at all. But it was still neat to see the Anderson case get some exposure again.

This case was recently referenced on the Investigation Discovery show, "The Perfect Murder", which did an episode on Dan Montecalvo's murder of his wife, Carol. The Montecalvo case was featured in a Final Appeal segment on UM and took place only a few blocks away from Charlie Anderson's murder. Since both crimes occurred just over a year apart and Montecalvo claimed his wife was killed during an attempted burglary, the episode implies that Montecalvo used the Anderson murder as a cover story to give off the false impression that the same suspects were responsible.

However, after watching the "Perfect Murder" episode, I have zero doubt that Montecalvo killed his wife and that the Anderson murder is not connected to his crime at all. But it was still neat to see the Anderson case get some exposure again.

Thanks for passing this along, Robin. I'll have to look up that episode.

So the husband takes one child in the house, the wife is still in or around the car by the time he places the child in bed and turns to walk out...

Why is it taken her so long to get in the house?

She heard what she thought was backfire. So at this time she is letting us know she did not think it was a gun. So why leave the 2nd child in the car? Why did she not take him/her in if she was not worried?

After seeing her husband dead why did she not take the child from his room? Why leave him there? I would have to protect my child.

This just seams a little off here...

So the husband takes one child in the house, the wife is still in or around the car by the time he places the child in bed and turns to walk out...

Why is it taken her so long to get in the house?

She heard what she thought was backfire. So at this time she is letting us know she did not think it was a gun. So why leave the 2nd child in the car? Why did she not take him/her in if she was not worried?

After seeing her husband dead why did she not take the child from his room? Why leave him there? I would have to protect my child.

This just seams a little off here...

The entire sequence of events (as depicted in the segment) makes little sense. I feel like if this were to happen nowadays, the wife would have been grilled extensively. She may have been back then, but there is ZERO online about this case and the segment leads you to believe that she was not a suspect.

100% agree, something is just not right here.

They must have cleared her before segment went on and didn't mention it.

I dont see how, so many actions she did or did not take that night just looks so off...

I strongly believe that the wife did it. For one, it seemed like perfect timing for the intruder to have been there, too perfect. Did he wait the entire time they were gone staring out of the window? Also, if she didn't see him come through the front, and he took off through the back, or side, then did he get there on foot? I can't imagine where his vehicle would have been parked.

To go along with my perfect timing for the intruder being there, we also have the perfect excuse, the wife's back. That is a HUGE coincidence that the intruder happened to be waiting idly in the house, and the wife's back just so happened to be hurting so bad that she couldn't walk in the house with her husband. HUGE coincidence.

Now for the "gunshots". The intruder waits until he tucks his son in, and then shoots him, but doesn't harm the child? Also, wouldn't a child hearing those gunshots cry,run, and scream down the steps? Maybe he was a super heavy sleeper (yeah right). Now, the wife comes in, discovers the husband, runs outside, grabs the child in the car, and then screams for help to her neighbors. No problems there, right? Wrong. What about the heavy sleeper son that she completely forgot in his bedroom? I understand people have different reactions to fight or flight, but I feel like a mother would check for her son no matter what. Really odd that she didn't forget the child in the car, but forgot the one in the house.

Now, there's no evidence. None. No fingerprints, footprints, nothing. Only fingerprints they found were the families. Intruder could've been wearing gloves, but why wasn't the door broken in, or forced? Odd. Now the "staged" burglary. If I'm to believe everything, an intruder breaks in, takes time to "neatly" ransack the house, but doesn't take anything? Apparently he's been waiting there for a while, he didn't grab a snack from the kitchen? (I kid)

This is all too coincidental, and convenient for the wife. Her back just happens to hurt so badly when an intruder is in the house, and he doesn't harm the child in bed? It's also obvious she staged the scene. She neatly took things out in a way where they wouldn't have gotten damaged or ruined. And she was also careful to not do any heavy damage. Perfect crime.

I wonder why she killed him though. Insurance money? Spousal abuse? Maybe she/he was seeing someone new and divorce was on the horizon? She was sloppy, but it was somehow brilliant

The entire sequence of events (as depicted in the segment) makes little sense. I feel like if this were to happen nowadays, the wife would have been grilled extensively. She may have been back then, but there is ZERO online about this case and the segment leads you to believe that she was not a suspect.

The problem with the grilling of the wife is that she was the wife of a police officer, who had two children with her, who screamed and panicked to the neighbors. Honestly, most wouldn't even give her a second look as a suspect. She's "the perfect victim" if you will. Why would she shoot her husband with her two children in her care? Also, I'm sure there were no previous records of dispute, so she was treated as more of a victim, then a suspect, given the fact that her children were unharmed.

She knew she would get away with it. The wife of a slain cop, who panics and has her children with her? If people think Jeffrey Macdonald is innocent, then it's clear they're going to think she is innocent.

I just wonder where she hid the gun.

It is not to far off to say she had someone do it for her, Knowing the "person" was in the home she stayed out. But also knowing this person would not hurt the child.

Could a gun silencer been used? If we go under the idea she knew ( I believe this) then the statement she hear a back fire could be a lie and would explain why the child did not hear it.

On the child in the house, how old was he/she? Could the mom had given him/her something to make them extra sleepy?

It is not to far off to say she had someone do it for her, Knowing the "person" was in the home she stayed out. But also knowing this person would not hurt the child.

Could a gun silencer been used? If we go under the idea she knew ( I believe this) then the statement she hear a back fire could be a lie and would explain why the child did not hear it.

On the child in the house, how old was he/she? Could the mom had given him/her something to make them extra sleepy?

The child was around 3, or 4 I believe. Someone could've done it for her, which would make the most sense. But, the problem I'm having is if the neighbors had heard any "gunshots" or "backfires", or had seen anyone entering/exiting the house?

If no one heard/seen anything, then she could've done what she wanted, and then made the rest up later. Still seems ballsy to have an "intruder" shoot your husband, while your kid is sleeping right next door.

I wonder if the father took the kid in the house, she quietly followed, waited until the father put the son to bed, shot the father, quickly staged the scene, and then ran, grabbed the baby, and screamed for help?

A silencer could've been used, but if any neighbors didn't hear/see anything, then it's very likely that she could've easily shot him, took the baby, and just ran out and screamed. The neighbors not hearing/seeing anything makes this difficult.

Regardless of anyone's opinion on the case, I have to laugh at how easy it is to tell the folks on this board that do not suffer from a bad back lol. All I can say is it is one of those things you just don't get unless you have experienced it. I'll comment more on the case itself later. Way past my bed time right now

This (http://articles.burbankleader.com/2002-01-26/news/export11305_1_burbank-police-off-duty-police-officer-tim-stehr) article was from 2002 and was the most recent thing I could find with regards to Anderson's murder. I'm thinking that the cops suspect Anderson's wife now.

On the night of the killing, Anderson came home with his wife, Beth, and two children, police said. As he carried his 5-year-old son to bed, his wife apparently remained in the car with the couple's 1-year-old to collect some items inside. She told police she heard gunshots and ran to a neighbor's home for help. "It's been difficult for us to clarify what happened because [Anderson's wife] has not allowed us to interview her again," Stehr said. Police originally thought Anderson walked in on a burglary, but that theory is changing. In the late 1990s, a tip prompted a yearlong investigation by two detectives. No one was arrested at that time in connection with the killing. "There were indications that the murder was by someone close to the victim," Stehr said, though he declined to elaborate.

I've always been suspicious of the wife's story to begin with. I used to believe, due to the close proximity to the Dan Montecalvo case, that Suzan Brown could've been involved in Anderson's murder, but after watching the more recent ID show about Montecalvo's case, there's no doubt in my mind that Montecalvo is guilty, and that his wife's murder is totally unrelated to Anderson's. Who stays inside the car while you just pulled up to the house after midnight? Let's say she did have a bad back and that she didn't want to leave the younger son out in the car alone. As soon as she hears pops, which she initially thought was a car backfiring, she goes into the house by herself, leaving her younger son out in the car alone. Then when she finds Anderson, she runs out and gets her other son out of the car and goes to a neighbor's house. So her back wasn't bad enough to where she couldn't carry the younger son. And she also left her older son in the house, possibly with the murderer still inside. Why would you do this unless she knew that the older son was not going to be harmed. Which leaves no room for her innocence, IMO.

So many things wrong with her story it drives me nuts.

The wife's back probably made it painful but not impossible to run/move quickly. I see no suspicion based solely on the back angle.

So obvious the wife was involved-she just happens to have a bad back so doesn't go into the house, she doesn't see or hear anybody exiting the house & then refuses to help the investigation in any way after her initial statement that evening-does this strike anybody as the actions of a grieving wife wanting to find those responsible? Disgusting she did that with her kids there with them. The staged burglary means whoever was there was there purely to kill-her lover, a hitman she hired?

So obvious the wife was involved-she just happens to have a bad back so doesn't go into the house, she doesn't see or hear anybody exiting the house & then refuses to help the investigation in any way after her initial statement that evening-does this strike anybody as the actions of a grieving wife wanting to find those responsible? Disgusting she did that with her kids there with them. The staged burglary means whoever was there was there purely to kill-her lover, a hitman she hired?
Yes definitely suspicious. Has there been any recent news?

So obvious the wife was involved-she just happens to have a bad back so doesn't go into the house, she doesn't see or hear anybody exiting the house & then refuses to help the investigation in any way after her initial statement that evening-does this strike anybody as the actions of a grieving wife wanting to find those responsible? Disgusting she did that with her kids there with them. The staged burglary means whoever was there was there purely to kill-her lover, a hitman she hired?

Wife hiring a hitman or a lover to kill Charlie sounds correct.

I think that's the most likely scenario.

I doubt the wife would hire a hitman with her child being in the house with him. I think maybe somebody was looking for something and Anderson walked in and surprised them. Creepy case.

I doubt the wife would hire a hitman with her child being in the house with him. I think maybe somebody was looking for something and Anderson walked in and surprised them. Creepy case.

People do, it would actually make the police suspect her less. That he was allowed to put the kid to bed & exit the room before being executed speaks volumes. Looking for what? Nothing was taken, jewellery & other high value goods were left in plain sight, while the drawers had been rummaged through in an unconvincing way-it was obviously a lame attempt to make it look like a burglary gone wrong. The wife after making her statement has refused to assist the police in any way & refused to appear in the segment, unless the police accused her of murdering him on that night which is unlikely then what reason would she have for not assisting if she wasn't involved?

Unless Anderson had an enemy related to his work with law enforcement, the wife is the only viable option, IMO. An unrelated 3rd party who was simply there to burglarize the house would have done so at a more opportune time (not around midnight), and I doubt they would have murdered him within seconds of him entering the house.

BUMP

I've always wondered why the anonymous phone call to the police was played up so much in the segment. The caller never gave any viable information (at least not mentioned in the segment) and he promised to call back but never did. The police wanted to find the caller. I wonder if he dropped a name or nugget about the case not mentioned in the segment which made the police believe that he did in fact have information about the murder.

Here is an article from 12 years ago (2007). Seems Anderson's widow has since remarried and divorced since the murder:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailynews.com/2007/01/29/probe-ongoing-in-cops-slaying/amp/

i'm not convinced the wife did it....however it's just as possible she did do it. Without more information...I couldn't find too much online that wasn't covered on the show...it's hard to say which way it could go.

This (http://articles.burbankleader.com/2002-01-26/news/export11305_1_burbank-police-off-duty-police-officer-tim-stehr) article was from 2002 and was the most recent thing I could find with regards to Anderson's murder. I'm thinking that the cops suspect Anderson's wife now.



I've always been suspicious of the wife's story to begin with. I used to believe, due to the close proximity to the Dan Montecalvo case, that Suzan Brown could've been involved in Anderson's murder, but after watching the more recent ID show about Montecalvo's case, there's no doubt in my mind that Montecalvo is guilty, and that his wife's murder is totally unrelated to Anderson's. Who stays inside the car while you just pulled up to the house after midnight? Let's say she did have a bad back and that she didn't want to leave the younger son out in the car alone. As soon as she hears pops, which she initially thought was a car backfiring, she goes into the house by herself, leaving her younger son out in the car alone. Then when she finds Anderson, she runs out and gets her other son out of the car and goes to a neighbor's house. So her back wasn't bad enough to where she couldn't carry the younger son. And she also left her older son in the house, possibly with the murderer still inside. Why would you do this unless she knew that the older son was not going to be harmed. Which leaves no room for her innocence, IMO.

From that article:

Asked if she was frustrated with the case, Beth Anderson paused.

"I'm frustrated that my husband is not here with me to raise his

children," she said.

Does anyone else find this response odd? I'd imagine if you lost your partner you would talk about how much you miss them; how much they meant to you; how much you cared and loved them etc..

I'm sure she has been under surveillance over the years and mustn't have made mistakes or she would have been arrested by now.

Does anyone else find this response odd? I'd imagine if you lost your partner you would talk about how much you miss them; how much they meant to you; how much you cared and loved them etc..

Yes it's odd, IMO, because she actually paused before answering. She had time to come up with an answer and picked that one.

This one has always frustrated me. My inclination is to say that Charlie's wife may have gotten away with a crime but the specifics of exactly what happened are particularly confounding to me. I wish "The Trail Went Cold" would cover this one at some point.

This one has always frustrated me. My inclination is to say that Charlie's wife may have gotten away with a crime but the specifics of exactly what happened are particularly confounding to me. I wish "The Trail Went Cold" would cover this one at some point.

Nice to see you back. Sent you a pm. :)

I still think there's a chance (if you believe Dan Montecalvo did not murder his wife) and that Susan Brown's confession she burglarized the home that she could have been involved in Anderson's murder as well. I believe both houses weren't too far from each other and the murders occurred a little over a year apart. Susan was a known drug addict so she could have broke into Anderson's house to look for things to steal to sell for drug money and they came in while her (and a possible accomplice) were inside. I wonder if any dna was ever found at the scene.

I just happened to be watching the segment of the murdered deputy Charlie Anderson and thought I would do some googling. I just found this on FB:

https://www.facebook.com/events/585155815290496/

Looks like she died in January.

Wow...good find. What do you all think about this case. From what I have read on this case, looks like DA had a suspect and brought to a grand jury, but they didn't think they had enough evidence. I always thought it was the wife they brought before the grand jury. Sad that these two boys lost their father at such a young age.

The fact that she only let police interview her once was enough for me to believe she was responsible.

I'm guessing she paid someone.

Her story never added up to me. She just gave me the creeps

Do you guys think that Charlie Anderson's wife may be hiding something? Do you think she may have hired someone to kill Charlie Anderson? Or possibly know who did it but is afraid to say? Or doesn't want to say? What do you guys think?

Yes but it's only a suspicion. She probably drank herself to death from remorse.

Do you guys think that Charlie Anderson's wife may be hiding something? Do you think she may have hired someone to kill Charlie Anderson? Or possibly know who did it but is afraid to say? Or doesn't want to say? What do you guys think?

I think the wife knows more than she is telling. I remember reading something about her getting remarried shortly after Charlie's murder, and it was suspected that this was the man she was having an affair with. I'd say they are the 2 prime suspects.

She only let police interview her once. There's something seriously wrong there.

I believe she was responsible.

I definatly think she is responsible. Shocked to see that it seems like she was close to both her sons. I just found it so odd that she sat in the car while he took the first boy in and if that was my husband I would help the cops out in any way I could. I think she hired someone to be a hitman, gave him access to the house to wait until they came home. The hitman allowed him to put the kid to bed and then shot him.

This was the deputy who was gunned down in his house in 1987 after he went inside the house first and left his wife and other son in the car, supposedly she couldn't carry the child in because she had a back injury.

Apparently the next day someone called in claiming to know the identity of the shooter, but during the call got cold feet cause he was scared the call was being recorded. They told him to call back on a recorded line and he never called back.

I personally have always been skeptical about witnesses who call once claiming to have information and then never call back, I think they are often just cranks. Same with the Cathy Hobbs witness. Michael Lee Lockhart was later revealed to be her killer and the info the witness called in with didn't even jibe, it was a false license number that didn't even exist. Lockhart himself may have been the caller. I think the caller Deputy Anderson's case may have even been the killer himself toying with the cops.

But I always thought to, was Charlie's wife ever seriously investigated as a suspect? She was the last person to see him alive, she reported the murder. Her reason for not going in the house seemed somewhat suspicious to me, though I suppose if she had a back injury and couldn't carry their son into the house she may not have wanted to leave him in the car alone. But it seems awfully convenient she just happened to be left in the car when the killer was waiting inside.

Also, no foreign fingerprints were found in the house, only family members. And supposedly regarding Charlie's death stare a relative remarked that he looked massively betrayed with his look. Not much bigger betrayal than to be gunned down by your own spouse.

What do you all think?

I definatly think she is responsible. Shocked to see that it seems like she was close to both her sons. I just found it so odd that she sat in the car while he took the first boy in and if that was my husband I would help the cops out in any way I could. I think she hired someone to be a hitman, gave him access to the house to wait until they came home. The hitman allowed him to put the kid to bed and then shot him.

I was surprised as well. However, I've noticed a lot of children who are raised by suspected killers will usually end up brain-washed. Usually they become more involved with their kids and shower them with attention when they have to live with the knowledge of what they have done.

The main thread for Charlie Anderson I believe is here: https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=175011

And it has a lot of information including someone who knew his wife.

Charlie's wife, Beth Anderson, died this year at 64.

That closes the case in my eyes although her boyfriend at the time (according to the thread) may have been involved. She only allowed police to interview her once which says a lot.

One of the details the police divulged is how a real burglary will result in many drawers and fixtures being opened because they don't know where the most valuable things are. In this case, the police mentioned only one drawer per fixture was opened. The only other person in the house that would know where the most valuable things are would be his wife.

The main thread for Charlie Anderson I believe is here: https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=175011

And it has a lot of information including someone who knew his wife.

Charlie's wife, Beth Anderson, died this year at 64.

That closes the case in my eyes although her boyfriend at the time (according to the thread) may have been involved. She only allowed police to interview her once which says a lot.

One of the details the police divulged is how a real burglary will result in many drawers and fixtures being opened because they don't know where the most valuable things are. In this case, the police mentioned only one drawer per fixture was opened. The only other person in the house that would know where the most valuable things are would be his wife.

Sorry. I figured there was probably a thread about it somewhere but had never seen it.

I agree too. I wasn't aware of the affair and quick remarriage, but that certainly doesn't pass the smell test.

Sounds to me like to much emphasis may have been put on the phone call and that she should have been the prime suspect all along. The phone call was in all likelihood a crank.

Sorry. I figured there was probably a thread about it somewhere but had never seen it.

I agree too. I wasn't aware of the affair and quick remarriage, but that certainly doesn't pass the smell test.

Sounds to me like to much emphasis may have been put on the phone call and that she should have been the prime suspect all along. The phone call was in all likelihood a crank.

Don't be! I just figured this thread would be of great interest as it has a lot of good discussions and information.

Have you read this article? One of the most audacious articles I've ever read:

https://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank-leader/news/tn-blr-xpm-2002-01-26-export11305-story.html

It's like the police might have had this article published to put pressure his wife.

I also think the Unsolved Mysteries segment wasn't about jumping straight to a robbery theory. They never mentioned Beth as a suspect or POI yet they chose an actress that looked exactly like her. Maybe the point was to get viewers to question the wife's story and to put pressure on her. An article was featured in the Burbank newspaper that Unsolved Mysteries would be airing Charles' unsolved homicide a week before it aired. So I'm sure many Burbank residents were watching.