I guess I have been watching too many episodes of Forensic Files but this case really parallels Tim McClure in that neither seem smart enough to cover their tracks. I certainly would not be the least bit surprised to find out he was guilty after all but I really don't see this as an obvious miscarriage of justice like Donnie Hansen.

This is exactly how I feel.

It's weird to me that a case like Christi Nichols can be universally agreed upon that Mark had something to do with it, but someone (IMO) equally (painfully, obviously) guilty as Jule Caylor still has doubters.

Totally speculating here, but I wonder if it has to do with the fact that:

1. Unlike other spouses who have abruptly disappeared, there was some thin evidence that Dottie was trying to live a separate, perhaps “secret” life. She joined the women in transition group, she transferred money to a secret bank account, she set up a post office box so she could receive mail without Jule’s knowledge. I suppose the question becomes were these signs indicative that she was trying to run away to start a new life or was she trying to separate from Jule possibly with the intention of a legal separation or divorce. Personally, I suspect that latter. However, Jule’s supporters have used the former as evidence that she was planning her disappearance.

2. Jule’s aloofness during the UM interview. While he’s not vehemently protesting his innocence like some spouses, he just comes off as if he doesn’t care about the whole thing and just wants to move on. I think this behavior is interpreted by some as evidence of factual innocence BECAUSE he is so disinterested. Assuming he’s guilty, it’s an interesting approach to the question. You almost have to wonder if he’s compartmentalized the whole issue and has moved on in his own way. Or, he sees disinterest as the way to go in terms of increasing his own credibility in the eyes of the police. In any event, it’s a tack you don’t see in many other UM cases with blatantly guilty parties.

Totally speculating here, but I wonder if it has to do with the fact that:

1. Unlike other spouses who have abruptly disappeared, there was some thin evidence that Dottie was trying to live a separate, perhaps “secret” life. She joined the women in transition group, she transferred money to a secret bank account, she set up a post office box so she could receive mail without Jule’s knowledge. I suppose the question becomes were these signs indicative that she was trying to run away to start a new life or was she trying to separate from Jule possibly with the intention of a legal separation or divorce. Personally, I suspect that latter. However, Jule’s supporters have used the former as evidence that she was planning her disappearance.

Emphasis mine.

Although it wasn't mentioned on the segment, a letter found in Christi's car indicated she may have been planning to do a similar thing. I seem to remember it was addressed to another man--presumably the man Christi had been seeing just before her disappearance-- and something along the lines of "I will get in touch with you after Christmas". Several of the articles about the case and Christi's Doe Network and Charley Project profiles make mention of it. I reckon the difference rests primarily on the fact that Dottie's plans were discussed extensively on her segment, whereas Christi's weren't even mentioned at all. Had these details been mentioned in the segment, I wonder what influence, if any, that would've had on our opinions.

2. Jule’s aloofness during the UM interview. While he’s not vehemently protesting his innocence like some spouses, he just comes off as if he doesn’t care about the whole thing and just wants to move on. I think this behavior is interpreted by some as evidence of factual innocence BECAUSE he is so disinterested. Assuming he’s guilty, it’s an interesting approach to the question. You almost have to wonder if he’s compartmentalized the whole issue and has moved on in his own way. Or, he sees disinterest as the way to go in terms of increasing his own credibility in the eyes of the police. In any event, it’s a tack you don’t see in many other UM cases with blatantly guilty parties.

This is precisely how I felt for the longest time. I figured the guy has to be telling the truth, or he's the most self-assured, arrogant SOB that ever walked the earth.

Emphasis mine.

Although it wasn't mentioned on the segment, a letter found in Christi's car indicated she may have been planning to do a similar thing. I seem to remember it was addressed to another man--presumably the man Christi had been seeing just before her disappearance-- and something along the lines of "I will get in touch with you after Christmas". Several of the articles about the case and Christi's Doe Network and Charley Project profiles make mention of it. I reckon the difference rests primarily on the fact that Dottie's plans were discussed extensively on her segment, whereas Christi's weren't even mentioned at all. Had these details been mentioned in the segment, I wonder what influence, if any, that would've had on our opinions.

Ahhh yes, I forgot there was an alternate theory in the Christi Nichols case. It would be interesting to know how forum opinions would change if that information had been presented. As a stand alone piece the segment is slanted pretty heavily against Mark Nichols and it seems as though many of the opinions here are in that direction as well.

This is precisely how I felt for the longest time. I figured the guy has to be telling the truth, or he's the most self-assured, arrogant SOB that ever walked the earth.

Well, you know, I'm not usually the type to talk about myself on here, but I will concede that I first saw this segment when I was very young and I did find Jule Caylor somewhat sympathetic. I had an ex-girlfriend who put me through the mill, and after all of that, frankly, my attitude was similar in that if she disappeared, I could have cared less. I suspect that, at the time, my belief in his innocence was more a projection of feelings about myself.

Of course, I now see the substantial flaws in that line of thinking. It is a slippery slope, but we must do our best to leave our personal feelings and biases out of any sort of serious analysis or discussion. I would never assume that how I feel is exactly how anyone else feels. There is just far too much variation in human emotions and behavior.

Totally speculating here, but I wonder if it has to do with the fact that:

1. Unlike other spouses who have abruptly disappeared, there was some thin evidence that Dottie was trying to live a separate, perhaps “secret” life. She joined the women in transition group, she transferred money to a secret bank account, she set up a post office box so she could receive mail without Jule’s knowledge. I suppose the question becomes were these signs indicative that she was trying to run away to start a new life or was she trying to separate from Jule possibly with the intention of a legal separation or divorce. Personally, I suspect that latter. However, Jule’s supporters have used the former as evidence that she was planning her disappearance.

2. Jule’s aloofness during the UM interview. While he’s not vehemently protesting his innocence like some spouses, he just comes off as if he doesn’t care about the whole thing and just wants to move on. I think this behavior is interpreted by some as evidence of factual innocence BECAUSE he is so disinterested. Assuming he’s guilty, it’s an interesting approach to the question. You almost have to wonder if he’s compartmentalized the whole issue and has moved on in his own way. Or, he sees disinterest as the way to go in terms of increasing his own credibility in the eyes of the police. In any event, it’s a tack you don’t see in many other UM cases with blatantly guilty parties.


Pretty much what I was going to say.

A guilty pleasure of mine is going back and reading the illogical and nonsensical takes throughout various posts in this thread. "Jule liked dogs, so he couldn't have killed Dottie", and "maybe Dottie plotted to have Jule murdered, she did like to throw things at him" were my favorites.

If you have Facebook, go look up Jule (he's easy to find). He posted some rant about climate change back in September, and since he kept it public, someone commented, "That’s terrible to hear. But seriously, where’s Dottie?" Almost every post of his has comments from people trolling him over Dottie. Someone keeps copying and pasting my post (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5002661&postcount=60) from page 4 in his comments.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

If you have Facebook, go look up Jule (he's easy to find). He posted some rant about climate change back in September, and since he kept it public, someone commented, "That’s terrible to hear. But seriously, where’s Dottie?" Almost every post of his has comments from people trolling him over Dottie. Someone keeps copying and pasting my post (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5002661&postcount=60) from page 4 in his comments.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I’m generally not a fan of social media trolling (especially trolling of non-public figures), but…I suppose I’m willing to make an exception in this case.

I bet that Mr. Caylor thought his segment would air on network TV a few times and then be forgotten. Instead, it’s still being viewed and discussed more than three decades later!

If you have Facebook, go look up Jule (he's easy to find). He posted some rant about climate change back in September, and since he kept it public, someone commented, "That’s terrible to hear. But seriously, where’s Dottie?" Almost every post of his has comments from people trolling him over Dottie. Someone keeps copying and pasting my post (https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=5002661&postcount=60) from page 4 in his comments.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

OMG. On my way! Not to troll, but to read and laugh. Obviously. I'd never troll. Me? Never.

Okay. I'm back.

That's hilarious. My favorite: "Hi Jule, I urgently need to you contact me with the whereabouts of Dottie's remains."

Also, I have to add that it's really fun to see old comments from these boards out there in the wild. It's not my site, but it still makes me happy and proud to know that lots of folks are reading and participating in these discussions! :)

Reading through the older pages, has it ever been established that wiseguy wasn't actually Jule?

Reading through the older pages, has it ever been established that wiseguy wasn't actually Jule?

Most of what wiseguy posted was just wrong in general, imo

Most of what wiseguy posted was just wrong in general, imo

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the consensus around here.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that was the consensus around here.

she/he hasn't posted since 2018 so i guess that's a good thing

The guy just seems way to relaxed to be a killer. I don't know, maybe that's just me. The marriage was ending, he was moving, why kill her?

The fact that there is no evidence that anything happened and no evidence - other than Jule saying so - that she was dropped off at the BART station bothers me. Because I can't fully commit to either side. If you were that arrogant, then you clearly know where she is buried and that she will never be found. Like something along the lines of having her cut up into cement blocks and thrown into the bottom of the lake or ocean. She'll never be found that way, so you can be confident with that. Or...................it is because he knows he didn't do it. Honestly, it is one of those I think, and I am not sure which one.

So I did look on his Facebook profile. Yeah, people call him out on his posts. You know, the funny thing is he can easily set his account where only his friends can post. I am not sure why he doesn't do this. He seems to be married again and has talked about his kids on one of the posts. So, he has children I guess? According to a Facebook post back in 2013 he and his wife are retired and they have grandkids in Seattle. His wife's name is Barbara. I mean, it isn't as if she doesn't know his history, or the accusations behind it. Heck, even Dennis Depue found a girlfriend and was living with her while he was on the run (she didn't know who he was though).

I don't know, I see that he gets cut up a lot in his comments. He doesn't respond to them much by the looks of it, but he has responded to a couple of them. I won't get involved in that because I just don't think we should harass the guy over accusations. He could be innocent, I just can't join in on that.

My question is how can there be no leads either way by now?


On a side note, I've always thought that a young Dottie in the pictures was pretty cute. Just her look, I don't know. Girl next door type maybe.