This was the case from Harrington, Delaware where Charles Holden's mother, Dorothy Donovan was murdered, supposedly by a hitchhiker that Charles was unable to accommodate. Charles was considered a suspect initially but was quickly cleared by way of blood testing. I was online a couple of years ago looking for information about this case, and something I read (I forget where), was that Charles's sisters Brenda and Diana, who were interviewed in the segment, developed some very sour relations towards their brother in the ensuing years and eventually became estranged from each other. I was wondering if this animosity was triggered by suspicion on their parts that Charles might have been involved, and if so, has anything happened since then that has cast any doubts on the original findings in this case?

This was the case from Harrington, Delaware where Charles Holden's mother, Dorothy Donovan was murdered, supposedly by a hitchhiker that Charles was unable to accommodate.

Not "supposedly". Dorothy Donovan was murdered by a hitchhiker. As implausible as it may sound, Charles Holden was telling the truth all along. The case was solved in 2005, when a man named Gilbert Cannon was linked to the murder via DNA. Cannon pled guilty to the murder and is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

The TV show Forensic Files profiled the murder case in an episode titled "Stranger In The Night." In that episode, it was mentioned that Gilbert Cannon explained how he coincidentally arrived at Dorothy's house: After Charles got rid of him, Gilbert was looking for a house to enter and stay at. But every house he came upon had lights on. That is, until he saw Dorothy's house, where there were no lights on. He broke into the house, not realizing that Dorothy was there.

Not "supposedly". Dorothy Donovan was murdered by a hitchhiker. As implausible as it may sound, Charles Holden was telling the truth all along. The case was solved in 2005, when a man named Gilbert Cannon was linked to the murder via DNA. Cannon pled guilty to the murder and is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

The TV show Forensic Files profiled the murder case in an episode titled "Stranger In The Night." In that episode, it was mentioned that Gilbert Cannon explained how he coincidentally arrived at Dorothy's house: After Charles got rid of him, Gilbert was looking for a house to enter and stay at. But every house he came upon had lights on. That is, until he saw Dorothy's house, where there were no lights on. He broke into the house, not realizing that Dorothy was there.


Glad to hear that this case was solved. It seemed to me from watching it that Charles just didn't seem like the type to be involved, but it did always trouble me that the hitchhiker just happened to find his mom's house.

This was the case from Harrington, Delaware where Charles Holden's mother, Dorothy Donovan was murdered, supposedly by a hitchhiker that Charles was unable to accommodate. Charles was considered a suspect initially but was quickly cleared by way of blood testing. I was online a couple of years ago looking for information about this case, and something I read (I forget where), was that Charles's sisters Brenda and Diana, who were interviewed in the segment, developed some very sour relations towards their brother in the ensuing years and eventually became estranged from each other. I was wondering if this animosity was triggered by suspicion on their parts that Charles might have been involved, and if so, has anything happened since then that has cast any doubts on the original findings in this case?

The animosity was most probably because they blamed Charles Holden for bringing Gilbert Cannon so close to their mother's house so to expose her to danger, even when in fact he attempted to do the exact opposite. But he failed, and I cannot blame the sisters for holding him responsible despite his innocence, even though I sympathize with Charles Holden and I know he meant absolutely no harm. He did his best in the situation, but hell is built of good intentions, and in his sisters' mind he probably didn't do enough.

Dorothy Donovan's murder was a freak accident of circumstances, in as much as the odds that he would happen to enter in Donovan's house were extremely remote. But that in itself is not reassuring to many people. Their mother is still dead, Charles Holden's actions led indirectly to this death, they still need to blame someone for the events to better cope with the situation, and Charles Holden fills the hat.

Yet if he hadn't done anything after picking Cannon up, chances are that Charles Holden would have been the victim. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's almost as if the sisters had wished Charles had died, not Dorothy Donovan. Either way, in his situation, Charles Holden did the best he could to save his skin and his car.

It's possible also that there were already smoldering tensions or strains of contention between Charles and his sisters before, and their mother's brutal death was the last straw for them.

Charles Holden is one of those victims you feel extra-bad for because in addition to having his mother brutally murdered, he has to provide a story to the police that sounds so unbelievable that it'll instantly make Charles the top suspect even though he's telling the truth. If the police there just happened to have a really bad case of tunnel vision, things might have turned out very bad for him.

Even if I was totally telling the truth, I would really REALLY hate to be in the position where I had to report a crime to the police where the circumstances seemed too unbelievable to be true.

The animosity was most probably because they blamed Charles Holden for bringing Gilbert Cannon so close to their mother's house so to expose her to danger, even when in fact he attempted to do the exact opposite. But he failed, and I cannot blame the sisters for holding him responsible despite his innocence, even though I sympathize with Charles Holden and I know he meant absolutely no harm. He did his best in the situation, but hell is built of good intentions, and in his sisters' mind he probably didn't do enough.

Dorothy Donovan's murder was a freak accident of circumstances, in as much as the odds that he would happen to enter in Donovan's house were extremely remote. But that in itself is not reassuring to many people. Their mother is still dead, Charles Holden's actions led indirectly to this death, they still need to blame someone for the events to better cope with the situation, and Charles Holden fills the hat.

Well, that would make sense, I guess. This was always a really sad case, and I pretty much thought all along that Charles probably WAS innocent, but everytime I thought about the freak circumstances of the case, I began to wonder just a bit.

Yet if he hadn't done anything after picking Cannon up, chances are that Charles Holden would have been the victim. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's almost as if the sisters had wished Charles had died, not Dorothy Donovan. Either way, in his situation, Charles Holden did the best he could to save his skin and his car.

It's possible also that there were already smoldering tensions or strains of contention between Charles and his sisters before, and their mother's brutal death was the last straw for them.

Well, I guess that would make sense. I always thought this was a pretty sad case, and I pretty much thought all along that Charles Holden probably WAS innocent, but everytime I thought about the freak circumstances of the case, I would start to wonder just a bit.

Thank God this case was solved. This case could have turned extremely bad as without the physical evidence at the house he probably would have been charged with the murder of his mother. Did the high on drugs theory prove correct?

I guess his sisters may hold a grudge against him since he saw this loser heading towards his mothers house and he drove away. I'm glad they updated this case, this guy should be fried for what he did. The sheer brutality of it all doesn't make any sense. He threatened Charles Holden but never actually attempted to attack/stab him, so why be so brutal with Holden's mother? What a sick pathetic excuse for a human.

Thank God this case was solved. This case could have turned extremely bad as without the physical evidence at the house he probably would have been charged with the murder of his mother. Did the high on drugs theory prove correct?

Yes. According to the Forensic Files episode covering the case (available on the site which must not be named), he was "high on cocaine and looking for more."

Thanks!

Terrifying case! :(

To me it always sounded as if Holden had picked up the man for a sexual encounter and then things went wrong. The odds of picking up somebody at random and then that person killing your mother, who lives next door, and not you are so remote that they would almost impossible.

I just have hard time believing portions of his story, although now DNA and the other man's confession essentially close the door on this case.

To me it always sounded as if Holden had picked up the man for a sexual encounter and then things went wrong. The odds of picking up somebody at random and then that person killing your mother, who lives next door, and not you are so remote that they would almost impossible.

I just have hard time believing portions of his story, although now DNA and the other man's confession essentially close the door on this case.

I doubt that Holden picked this guy up for anything sexual. He was leaving a populated restaurant, not some seedy rest stop bathroom. Just seems like an odd place to proposition someone for sex. I think Holden dropped this guy off within a few yards of his mother's driveway/residence (Holden told the guy he could only take him half of the way, and him ending the trip at his residence is logical) which is why the guy targeted his mother. Additionally there were other witnesses at the restaurant that corraborated Holden's story of the man trying to get a ride because his sister just had a kid.

I doubt that Holden picked this guy up for anything sexual. He was leaving a populated restaurant, not some seedy rest stop bathroom. Just seems like an odd place to proposition someone for sex. I think Holden dropped this guy off within a few yards of his mother's driveway/residence (Holden told the guy he could only take him half of the way, and him ending the trip at his residence is logical) which is why the guy targeted his mother. Additionally there were other witnesses at the restaurant that corraborated Holden's story of the man trying to get a ride because his sister just had a kid.

While I'm in now way an "expert" on gay cottaging and cruising, I do know from reading arrest reports here in my city and in other areas, that men proposition other men for sex in a wide range of places. Around here Home Depot seems to get a lot of..."business". Which is part of the reason that I shop at Lowe's.

And maybe the "my sister's having a kid" ruse was used by the guy to get rides and then he would either rob the drivers or have sex w/ them. It wasn't made clear in the update whether the story he was telling was even true.

One of the oddest details of this story is the amount of time that elapsed between when the killer was picked up from the restaurant (according to Holden) and when the police officer arrived. We are led to believe that in a little less than an hour that:

1) He picked up the killer.
2) Was threatened by him, escaped and drove away.
3) Returned to find the same killer walking up to his mother's home.
4) Went to a neighbor's home and called the police.
5) The killer broke into his mother's home, killed her and fled the scene.
6) The police arrived shortly and found his mother's body.

All of this occurred in less than an hour? W/O anybody seeing the killer flee the area? An area, with which the killer was unfamiliar (I say that because nobody seemed to have recognized the composite nor the description given of the killer) meaning that it was unlikely that he was from there.

The timeline is all wrong. The killer would have still been in the area after the attack and barely had enough time to kill anybody, much less leave the DNA evidence used to convict if we are to believe Holden's time line.

That and the fact that Holden was a single man living alone w/ no apparent female companion makes me believe that there was more to this story than he was telling. And obviously the killer has little incentive to announce the fact that he's gay (or bisexual) before he goes to prison. I can't imagine that knowledge would be...helpful to him...when he got there.

DNA says the killer committed the crime. His confession seals it. I'm just curious about the "whys" at this point than anything else.

While I'm in now way an "expert" on gay cottaging and cruising, I do know from reading arrest reports here in my city and in other areas, that men proposition other men for sex in a wide range of places. Around here Home Depot seems to get a lot of..."business". Which is part of the reason that I shop at Lowe's.

And maybe the "my sister's having a kid" ruse was used by the guy to get rides and then he would either rob the drivers or have sex w/ them. It wasn't made clear in the update whether the story he was telling was even true.

One of the oddest details of this story is the amount of time that elapsed between when the killer was picked up from the restaurant (according to Holden) and when the police officer arrived. We are led to believe that in a little less than an hour that:

1) He picked up the killer.
2) Was threatened by him, escaped and drove away.
3) Returned to find the same killer walking up to his mother's home.
4) Went to a neighbor's home and called the police.
5) The killer broke into his mother's home, killed her and fled the scene.
6) The police arrived shortly and found his mother's body.

All of this occurred in less than an hour? W/O anybody seeing the killer flee the area? An area, with which the killer was unfamiliar (I say that because nobody seemed to have recognized the composite nor the description given of the killer) meaning that it was unlikely that he was from there.

The timeline is all wrong. The killer would have still been in the area after the attack and barely had enough time to kill anybody, much less leave the DNA evidence used to convict if we are to believe Holden's time line.

That and the fact that Holden was a single man living alone w/ no apparent female companion makes me believe that there was more to this story than he was telling. And obviously the killer has little incentive to announce the fact that he's gay (or bisexual) before he goes to prison. I can't imagine that knowledge would be...helpful to him...when he got there.

DNA says the killer committed the crime. His confession seals it. I'm just curious about the "whys" at this point than anything else.

I think if the restaurant was a few miles away from Holden's residence, all of this could have happened within the timeline given. Let's assume that the drive from the restaurant was 5-10 minutes away from Holden's house, he then tries to get the guy to exit his vehicle but the guy refuses and then threatens him (take off another 10-15 minutes) and Holden escapes. This would give the guy a total of approx. 45 minutes maximum to commit this crime and flee. And if Holden did in fact drop this guy off practically in front of his mother's residence this could be possible. In his confession the killer stated he was looking for a house without lights and that's why he picked Holden's mothers house. The brutality of the crime tells me that he was startled to find someone actually home, and immediately after murdering her he fled the scene. I actually think the only thing Holden may be "hiding" is the distance he drove away from his house after dropping the guy off, he probably just drove away until he couldn't see the guy anymore and then turned around and went back to his residence. I know Holden was scared of this man, but if you saw him walking up to your elderly mothers residence wouldn't you make some sort of effort to stop him?

I think if the restaurant was a few miles away from Holden's residence, all of this could have happened within the timeline given. Let's assume that the drive from the restaurant was 5-10 minutes away from Holden's house, he then tries to get the guy to exit his vehicle but the guy refuses and then threatens him (take off another 10-15 minutes) and Holden escapes. This would give the guy a total of approx. 45 minutes maximum to commit this crime and flee. And if Holden did in fact drop this guy off practically in front of his mother's residence this could be possible. In his confession the killer stated he was looking for a house without lights and that's why he picked Holden's mothers house. The brutality of the crime tells me that he was startled to find someone actually home, and immediately after murdering her he fled the scene. I actually think the only thing Holden may be "hiding" is the distance he drove away from his house after dropping the guy off, he probably just drove away until he couldn't see the guy anymore and then turned around and went back to his residence. I know Holden was scared of this man, but if you saw him walking up to your elderly mothers residence wouldn't you make some sort of effort to stop him?

Hmm... you might have a point there. He may have driven away much farther than he implied in the segment. If that's the case, that makes it very odd that he was able to return in enough time to see the man walking towards his mother's home.

If the killer fled on foot, at night, you would have to expect that he would have been at the most several miles from the crime scene unless he was some type of an athlete. You would also assume that he would be bloody and/or dirty after fleeing through the countryside.

Holden (from watching the segment) was obviously mentally slow and may have gotten the amount of time that elapsed mistaken. However, the timeline is still skewed given that killer escaped on foot. Had the killer taken a vehicle , that would have explained how he wasn't found by the police if they were looking for him just after the murder.

I am surprised that Holden didn't even honk his horn in an attempt to scare the killer off. That would have been the easiest thing to do, IMHO.

Hmm... you might have a point there. He may have driven away much farther than he implied in the segment. If that's the case, that makes it very odd that he was able to return in enough time to see the man walking towards his mother's home.

If the killer fled on foot, at night, you would have to expect that he would have been at the most several miles from the crime scene unless he was some type of an athlete. You would also assume that he would be bloody and/or dirty after fleeing through the countryside.

Holden (from watching the segment) was obviously mentally slow and may have gotten the amount of time that elapsed mistaken. However, the timeline is still skewed given that killer escaped on foot. Had the killer taken a vehicle , that would have explained how he wasn't found by the police if they were looking for him just after the murder.

I am surprised that Holden didn't even honk his horn in an attempt to scare the killer off. That would have been the easiest thing to do, IMHO.

He should have ran him over. If he did flee on foot, he could have stolen someone's car, or actually walked/ran to a payphone (seems unlikely since this would potentially expose him to being caught) and got a ride, or he just may have slipped through the cracks. The search of the residence would have taken several minutes since his mother was found upstairs, and Holden and the officer first searched his residence before going over to his mother's house. This would have given the creep even more time to flee.

I think Holden is holding back more then he was telling, but with the killer caught, case closed.

Something just doesn't add up. If it were me, and I saw some psycho I just threw out of my car going towards my mothers house I would have ran him over or attempted to get help.

Maybe he assumed this guy would just walk away, or maybe because they went to his house first he assumed the guy would rob his house and that would be the end of it.

No offense to Mr. Holden, but I think you folks are overlooking the fact that the guy doesn't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer (pun intended). I doubt he planned anything or lied about the timeline.

Mind boggling case, maybe he knew beforehand where he lived, Charles took off in the opposite direction to where he was living too. Maybe the killer saw Charles that second time and then knew he was in the vicinity of Charles' house.

sorry for bumping an old thread but I think the only thing Holden may be hiding is that he may have revealed where he lived or the killer saw his address on something in his car

I know I've said this in other threads on the case but I feel it bears repeating - I'm from that area and there's a ton of space between houses. I found the address of the mother's house and yeah, it's a remote farmhouse on the end of a long road that has no other houses on it. It's really not weird at all that the hitchhiker chose her house - at the time it would've been the only house around for quite some distance.

this case was on HLN, on one of their tv shows on the weekend.

I remember at the end of the show, they said the hitchhiker was high on crack at the time, and picked that house at random, because it was the first house he saw after the confrontation. I mean it was a DNA match, the guy had already been serving time, or did serve time before.

I will try to remember what show it was on HLN, mystery decetives it might of been. it was f.f
Forensic Files season 12 episode 41 stranger in the night

i will try to see if it is on some website, i know we can't post unsolved on here but i have not seen any rules about other shows.

I will try to remember what show it was on HLN, mystery decetives it might of been.

I think that's it: Mystery Detectives, which I believe is one of the many other names of Forensic Files. The only other show it may have possibly been was Nancy Grace Mysteries and I think she usually sticks to the more high profile cases.

I think that's it: Mystery Detectives, which I believe is one of the many other names of Forensic Files. The only other show it may have possibly been was Nancy Grace Mysteries and I think she usually sticks to the more high profile cases.
yeah you are right, looks like i didn't edit in time

Forensic Files season 12 episode 41 stranger in the night

While I'm in now way an "expert" on gay cottaging and cruising, I do know from reading arrest reports here in my city and in other areas, that men proposition other men for sex in a wide range of places. Around here Home Depot seems to get a lot of..."business". Which is part of the reason that I shop at Lowe's.

And maybe the "my sister's having a kid" ruse was used by the guy to get rides and then he would either rob the drivers or have sex w/ them. It wasn't made clear in the update whether the story he was telling was even true.

One of the oddest details of this story is the amount of time that elapsed between when the killer was picked up from the restaurant (according to Holden) and when the police officer arrived. We are led to believe that in a little less than an hour that:

1) He picked up the killer.
2) Was threatened by him, escaped and drove away.
3) Returned to find the same killer walking up to his mother's home.
4) Went to a neighbor's home and called the police.
5) The killer broke into his mother's home, killed her and fled the scene.
6) The police arrived shortly and found his mother's body.

All of this occurred in less than an hour? W/O anybody seeing the killer flee the area? An area, with which the killer was unfamiliar (I say that because nobody seemed to have recognized the composite nor the description given of the killer) meaning that it was unlikely that he was from there.

The timeline is all wrong. The killer would have still been in the area after the attack and barely had enough time to kill anybody, much less leave the DNA evidence used to convict if we are to believe Holden's time line.

That and the fact that Holden was a single man living alone w/ no apparent female companion makes me believe that there was more to this story than he was telling. And obviously the killer has little incentive to announce the fact that he's gay (or bisexual) before he goes to prison. I can't imagine that knowledge would be...helpful to him...when he got there.

DNA says the killer committed the crime. His confession seals it. I'm just curious about the "whys" at this point than anything else.

That's because you're somewhat ********. Eyewitnesses saw the guy looking for a ride, it's clear Holden, who is trustworthy and probably prone to undue guilt, let him in. It was some black thug, whose sense of violence and aggression is much more typical than other populations (not racist but a cultural point, and solving crimes has no room for PC dogma), flipped out on him, he got away, the suspect leaves in total rage looking to take out his anger somewhere else (probably, and as it turned out, was high). Where you get a gay encounter is beyond me, unless you're a pervert or paranoid.

Charles is clearly a good soul but dimwitted. Socially functioning people know at least one person like that (or should).

Your timeline is also bad. The road was isolated, and the turning point to Holden's home was roughly three miles down. That is a 7 minute drive, at most. The scuffle between the two from start to finish was probably no more than 5 minutes (12 minutes total). He drove off as the suspect is walking toward the first house without lights (no more than 5 minutes). The suspect calls the police, and the cops do a search (no more than 15 but probably 10 minutes). Roughly 40 minutes. My hunch is the cops sent another squad to search for the suspect, who probably ran through the woods to clean up.

Your gay escapades angle is just beyond weird, and your justification is even weirder.

He should have ran him over. If he did flee on foot, he could have stolen someone's car, or actually walked/ran to a payphone (seems unlikely since this would potentially expose him to being caught) and got a ride, or he just may have slipped through the cracks. The search of the residence would have taken several minutes since his mother was found upstairs, and Holden and the officer first searched his residence before going over to his mother's house. This would have given the creep even more time to flee.

Yes. That's probably why his sisters hate Charles. The way Charles went about the whole thing was not brave in the least. In fact, it was cowardly and pathetic, and it led to his own mother getting killed. He didn't have to run him over, but he could have done a warning sign like honk the horn until the suspect just ran away. But he did nothing, drove off with his tail between his legs, and called the cops.

I think Holden is holding back more then he was telling, but with the killer caught, case closed.

Something just doesn't add up. If it were me, and I saw some psycho I just threw out of my car going towards my mothers house I would have ran him over or attempted to get help.

Maybe he assumed this guy would just walk away, or maybe because they went to his house first he assumed the guy would rob his house and that would be the end of it.

"If it were me"...you know, other people exist other than you. People have different responses to different things. Most people don't treat every customer seriously, but I do. Doesn't make me criminal, just an outlier. Human variation is like that...why that needs to be explained is beyond me.

I'll add as well that you have no clue what you would have done in that situation unless you were in that situation. People talk a lot of **** in general. But it's surprising to see how people react in critical situations. As a general rule, you'll find more cowards than you will find brave people, hence why the word "brave" exists - a word that denotes an exception.

That's because you're somewhat ********.

since that was in response to cocytus, it made me giggle.

I never understood cocytus's "trolling for gay sex" angles. Half the cases we discussed it seems he incorporated that element somehow, and it was always out of complete left field.

Then again, there were a lot of things I didn't understand about cocytus, nor do I particularly want to.

It was some black thug, whose sense of violence and aggression is much more typical than other populations (not racist but a cultural point, and solving crimes has no room for PC dogma)

Matt C, is that you?

Matt C, is that you?

well-played.

Matt C, is that you?

I have no idea who Matt C is. I've just been around and have friends from every social class, race, and almost all First World nationalities.

It's not to say that white trash hicks aren't capable of excessive violence. I exclude serial killers (who are proportionately white anyhow, contrary to mainstream press stereotypes) because practically all have a psychological condition that leads to excessive violence - and thus aren't run-of-the-mill types. Isolating to run-of-the-mill types, black violence tend to be far more excessive in degree than from other groups - excessive relative to motivation of revenge and/or the gains of the crime. This Delaware case is a great example of a guy who went off the deep end to his degree of violence relative to the circumstances leading to the incident. He killed like it was a crime of passion relative to a basic robbery. Now, you can say it was the drugs. Sure, I can buy that. But it is also empirical that though drugs amplify one's reactions, reactions don't come out of a vacuum. (A similar phenomenon exists with people who are intoxicated and their behaviors under intoxication. Naturally violent people are more violent when drunk. Naturally passive people don't exhibit nearly as much violent. This is an issue of statistical frequency, obviously.) Similarly (and in fairness), the white trash guys from Missouri who took the nice banker, strapped him to a chair, and dumped him in a river were similarly violent. However, the frequency is stark in contrast. Stats from the Justice Department prove this overwhelmingly, and such talking points (for whatever their worth) are used by Bill O'Reilly to emphasize "a culture of violence" mentality within lower class black populations. (I don't disagree with that thesis but will say for a number of reasons that there is a genetic component that I won't go into, but the scholarship is available between lower IQs, higher testosterone, etc. that vary substantially in effect within human populations for reasons related to natural selection, which can have a substantial effect over three generations even. However, I don't emphasize the genetic angle in most cases simply because there isn't a solution to genetics, whereas a cultural problem like no fathers at home, unemployment, and high illegitimacy amplify these issues unnecessarily.)

I'm critical of all groups to some degree. "Black crime" is also overwhelmingly confined to its own population, thus it has little effect on whites past taxes to fund a prison-industrial complex, public schools, and the like. One thing that gets me about suburban whites is, despite their attempts at being PC and making stupid talking points like "They can say ***** but I can't, WTF!!!!", they seem more intimidated by the fact that gangs of blacks horde up mall breezeways and thus intimidate them. It's laughable. Personally, I've always been much more worried about rich frat white guys in a group jumping me than blacks lol.

Ironically, blacks would benefit more from me as the Emperor of Murika than from the status quo. For one, I find it to be inhumane and cruel to incarcerate guys (most of whom are black) for 25-to-life on drug charges. Policies such as "three strikes and you're out" are nothing more than ways for the status quo to do a policy of racial cleansing under the premise of "protecting our children" and other similar nonsense. In reality, the status quo is exploiting a substantial segment of the population in order to benefit low- and middlebrow knuckleheads who fill the ranks of police, prison, and the legal system (judges, lawyers, clerks). All such a criminally exploitative structure does is ensure the imprisoned population stays out of prosperous employment to fuel a public sector that can only be sustained by cumbersome taxation. Taxation --> less savings --> less investment --> less capital --> less jobs (thus more corporations) --> less competitive wages. Everyone gets robbed from working class white proles who buy into that con of a system to people who are too stupid to know any better, just because Bill Clinton sheds a tear on MLK's birthday.

My whole game is simple: I don't buy into post-Nuremberg narratives of victimology, which is an inherently conspiratorial structure that gives fuel to mediocre undergrad pseudo-intellectuals and implements a type of Nietzschean power struggle as the basis behind race-based policies that do nothing for the population but to legally designate them as too weak to fend for themselves against the very institution that holds them back for its permissiveness.

My views are pretty complex. I have no clue who Matt C is, but I don't obsess about race. In analyzing cases on UM, I do profile race and am accurate to a great degree. A good example is when that celebrity was killed outside of LA by two black males. Those two black guys who were said to have known the victims' routine wouldn't have been able to recon there because affluent neighborhoods like that would have called the cops. Added by the fact that the guy was wealthy, it reeked of a contract killing. Thus, perhaps for lack of evidence, it's surprising it took nearly twenty years to arrest the guy who ordered the hit. Another case had some old lady get hung outside her house, in the woods. Cops thought the guy was a traveler, which struck me as stupid. No guy trolls the woods anywhere unless he's a local or he's the East Area Rapist - and even that guy did recon for months and thus would have an executable path, which had a degree of scary precision, unlike that guy who hung that woman, which struck me as sloppy. (That was **** detective work by the way. I probably would have busted the guy pretty quickly just by checking who moved out of the area, especially in a small town. Guys tend not to stay in a area where they just committed a murder.)

Anyway, I'm a military theorist and historian, hence why dark/realistic views on the world. :) I'm going over a lot of the Unsolved Mysteries episodes now since I have a long, overdue vacation.

How far was his moms house from when he drove off?

hard to say what I would exactly do in that situation but the one thing I know I wouldn't do is leave with him near my moms place. No way no matter how crazy the guy was. I would have at least grabbed a tire iron and made sure he didn't go near my mom.

How far was his moms house from when he drove off?

hard to say what I would exactly do in that situation but the one thing I know I wouldn't do is leave with him near my moms place. No way no matter how crazy the guy was. I would have at least grabbed a tire iron and made sure he didn't go near my mom.

I'd guess no more than 2/10th of a mile. The entire route was three miles, and he hits a turn at some point that leads directly there.

HOLY BUMPMAN!!!

I was just watching this on Forensic Files, and while they caught the guy and the case is closed, Charles is lying about something.

I think Charles lied about where he dropped the perp off at. I think he dropped the perp off right by his house, or he pointed to where he lived at. I'm not believing he just randomly found his house out of a slew of others. I'm sure he pointed to where he lived and said "that's my house man, I'm not driving further than that". Or he parked in front of his house and the dude broke in.

I still don't believe it. And when they interviewed the perp, I doubt someone who was completely high on drugs, remembered a crime verbatim like that from years ago. I'm sure he remembered but not "I ran pass every house that had it's lights off". I'm sure he was coached on what to believe.

I'm sure he was coached on what to believe.

By whom and for what purpose?

It was some black thug, whose sense of violence and aggression is much more typical than other populations

How the hell did I miss this nonsense?

Typical racist stereotype.

By whom and for what purpose?

The police to try to tie in the murder with Charles testimony. The man is obviously 1000% guilty, but I don't believe he by passed all of those houses, and in the grace of God just happened to choose Charles.

After they proved he did it, I think they just believed whatever Charles said. I'm not saying it's a grand conspiracy, but I do think Charles showed him where the house was, even if it wasn't on purpose.

How the hell did I miss this nonsense?

Typical racist stereotype.

As a black "thug", I found his entire post hilarious :lol:

I first saw this when I was in my early teens, home alone, at night -- and I can't think of a single thing in my life that has crept me out more. It has always stuck with me. And now to see that the killer was caught...such a relief!

Although... now that I'm older...I'm a bit more critical of Charles' story. Like, why did he only think something was seriously wrong once he and the officer went inside the home and his mother didn't answer? The broken backdoor window didn't clue him in?

Also, you'd think since there were witnesses who corroborated the story of the hitchhiker at the restaurant, that UM would've picked an actor who actually matched the description. The update of the actual killer shows a darker skinned black man, while the actor in the segment was very, very light. Did Charles Holden ever say that the hitchhiker had lighter skin or did UM just do a bad job at casting?