Build a case in favour of these guys. Better yet, state your opinion on WHY you think they might be innocent if you go against the grain and believe it. I used these names because they are almost universally thought to be guilty around here. Add another universally guilty guy (Mark Nichols, Don Sherman) if you'd like

No bodies discovered, nobody in prison. You can't prove they done it.

(This may not qualify as a case but has worked for so many.)

I would have to watch the Paul Pollis case again, it's been awhile since I've seen it. But I've been starting to have doubts on that one, and I base that solely on Charlotte's mother being an absolute nutcase, from her abducting her granddaughter to calling Charlotte 15 times a day, I wouldn't put it past her to exagerrate and or outright lie about stuff.

Jule Caylor. I have great doubts that an individual who was in fact responsible for his wife's disappearance would blatantly say he's more or less glad she's gone in front of a national audience, much less have concerns there may be foul play involved. I get the feeling that he believes Dottie undoubtedly left on her own to begin life anew, and IMO, all the evidence seems to point in that very direction, from her secretiveness to her "blossoming" as a stronger, more independent individual.

In Paul Pollis' "defense":

1) His wife weighed almost 300lbs and wouldn't been easy for two fully grown adults to move, especially as "dead weight."
2) The police apparently never recovered any usable forensic evidence from the storage building behind his house.

Build a case in favour of these guys. Better yet, state your opinion on WHY you think they might be innocent if you go against the grain and believe it. I used these names because they are almost universally thought to be guilty around here. Add another universally guilty guy (Mark Nichols, Don Sherman) if you'd like

It's not up to us, or anyone, to prove these people innocent. They are innocent until and unless the state PROVES them guilty.

Almost all of these cases are the same: no actual evidence of a crime. We presume the supposed victims are dead, but without a body or at least sufficient blood evidence (i.e., enough that it's certain someone died), we can't actually say. If/when bodies turn up in any of these cases, indictments might follow.

I would have to watch the Paul Pollis case again, it's been awhile since I've seen it. But I've been starting to have doubts on that one, and I base that solely on Charlotte's mother being an absolute nutcase, from her abducting her granddaughter to calling Charlotte 15 times a day, I wouldn't put it past her to exagerrate and or outright lie about stuff.

Hmmm, interesting. This is the most defense I have ever seen for Paul Pollis on here. Yes Charlotte's mother did seem a little nutty but if anything it would explain the more reason why Paul would want to off Charlotte. The thing with Paul is that the circumstantial evidence splashes him in the face so badly here. It's hard to ignore. I agree that it might just take more than two men to carry Charlotte away since she weighed so much. I suppose if I were a lawyer I would bring that up

Hmmm, interesting. This is the most defense I have ever seen for Paul Pollis on here. Yes Charlotte's mother did seem a little nutty but if anything it would explain the more reason why Paul would want to off Charlotte. The thing with Paul is that the circumstantial evidence splashes him in the face so badly here. It's hard to ignore. I agree that it might just take more than two men to carry Charlotte away since she weighed so much. I suppose if I were a lawyer I would bring that up

well, when I reflect on it, alot of what made Paul seemed guilty, were accusations from the family. The bulging shed, the meticiously cleaned house, the "mommy in a trash bag" statement. Paul Pollis is no pillar of society, but Charlotte's mother is just off-the-wall crazy and I can't autmotically believe anything that comes out of her mouth. Then you have witness accounts of Paul's packed car and his avoidance of lie detector tests, but as we know from many other UM cases, that hardly proves he's guilty.

Even though he took a plea deal and served time for her murder, I've never been totally convinced that Bob Hall killed his wife. I know the majority of people around here seem to believe he did it, but there's just too much doubt in my mind that he could have pulled it off. I do believe he was a sleazy con man and didn't sense much sincerity during his UM interview when he talked about how much he loved his wife, but that doesn't mean he's a murderer. I just don't see how he could have randomly found his wife at nighttime on a road that he didn't even know she was going to be on, and managed to kill her and drive back home in the very short timeframe it had to have taken place in. All while he was intoxicated too.

As for many of the other guilty-looking candidates, the only way I would ever try to claim their innocence is by using "they're too much of an idiot to have gotten away with it" defense. When I look at Mark Nichols' UM interview, I am always astonished that a guy like him has managed to go 23 years now without doing something extremely stupid (such as getting drunk and spilling the beans, a la Chad Noe) to implicate himself. I guess I'd just sleep a lot better at night not believing that incredibly unintelligent people could manage to get away with the perfect murder for their entire life.

Even though he took a plea deal and served time for her murder, I've never been totally convinced that Bob Hall killed his wife. I know the majority of people around here seem to believe he did it, but there's just too much doubt in my mind that he could have pulled it off. I do believe he was a sleazy con man and didn't sense much sincerity during his UM interview when he talked about how much he loved his wife, but that doesn't mean he's a murderer. I just don't see how he could have randomly found his wife at nighttime on a road that he didn't even know she was going to be on, and managed to kill her and drive back home in the very short timeframe it had to have taken place in. All while he was intoxicated too.

Exactly. It seems rather far-fetched to me, too.


I used to be dead-set on the idea that Don Dixon was guilty of murdering Eric Tamiyasu. Now I'm not completely sure, and that's only because I made a point to watch and re-watch his interview the other day. I get the feeling that maybe it's not that Dixon is lying under malicious pretenses--maybe he's simply exaggerating actual events, or fabricating details for dramatic effect.

The "I said a prayer" thing is a prime example. That seems the stuff of novels and movies, IMO, and I certainly don't see someone like Don Dixon remaining composed and calm enough to do such a thing--although it sounds rather noble and poetic. Tamiyasu's sister claimed that Dixon called her in a state of hysteria after allegedly happening upon her brother's body, and Tamiyasu's friend Eric made the very memorable comment that Dixon "lives in a fantasy world." If we take the two at their word, and couple that with Dixon's melodramatic interview and perhaps exaggerated testimony of the nature of Dixon and Tamiyasu's relationship, it isn't so difficult to conceive that he might not be responsible--just a drama queen. That's all speculatory, of course.

For the record, I still lean towards the conclusion that Dixon killed Tamiyasu, however.

I used to be dead-set on the idea that Don Dixon was guilty of murdering Eric Tamiyasu. Now I'm not completely sure, and that's only because I made a point to watch and re-watch his interview the other day. I get the feeling that maybe it's not that Dixon is lying under malicious pretenses--maybe he's simply exaggerating actual events, or fabricating details for dramatic effect.

Yeah, as weird as Dixon may look, I've encountered way too many people in my life with his personality type, who will greatly exaggerate, dramatize or flat-out make up details in their stories just to look more important and put more attention on themselves. Of course, when you do that after finding a dead body, it's going to look mighty suspicious, but who's to say Don doesn't act the same way about every little mundane thing that happens in his life?

That's not to say I believe he's innocent of murder, of course. There's just WAY too many other suspicious or weird things in this case for him to ever be at the very top of my all-time guilty suspects list.

well, when I reflect on it, alot of what made Paul seemed guilty, were accusations from the family. The bulging shed, the meticiously cleaned house, the "mommy in a trash bag" statement. Paul Pollis is no pillar of society, but Charlotte's mother is just off-the-wall crazy and I can't autmotically believe anything that comes out of her mouth. Then you have witness accounts of Paul's packed car and his avoidance of lie detector tests, but as we know from many other UM cases, that hardly proves he's guilty.

By the way in response to what someone else said, NONE of these suspects are guilty.........right now. They are innocent according to the law. What I am trying to do is picture yourself as a lawyer of them, or a friend, or whatever, how would YOU stick up for them and defend them? How would you explain the reasoning behind Paul Pollis disappearing for 3 months and failing to take a lie detector test?

Anyway, good post. I agree that if you take the accusations away from the family Paul Pollis looks far less guilty. The tool shed thing is all speculative, although if I were Paul - and innocent - I'd have thought it was a pretty darn good idea to open the tool shed rather than start an argument with the family in which they remember.

I guess another thing I will add in defense of Paul (hard to believe I am doing this) is that there was little motive to kill Charlotte. No mention of life insurance. No affairs or anything, the worst he seems to have dealt with is a nutty family. On top of that there is no actual evidence that a crime was actually committed. I suppose I would cling to that idea if I were his lawyer.

On the other hand the circumstantial evidence screams guilty. If Charlotte wasn't killed by Paul where is she? There didn't seem to be any sign of a robbery/struggle in the house. There wasn't any witnesses seeing her taken anywhere. Nothing. Just the obsession of her mother wondering why Charlotte hadn't called her at the minimum quota of 10-14 times a day. :rolleyes:

Other names:

Mike Morris - Hmmm, I can't think of any really. Two Mary Morrises being killed. The whole cell phone thing, the life insurance policy. I wouldn't know where to begin to proclaim his innocence since I can't think of anything.

Larry Gibson - There wasn't a body found. Tommy is still missing and despite serving a jail sentence, Larry still denies that he killed Tommy. The testimony from the daughter screams of a little girl getting "coached". Not to mention a little boy getting kidnapped on his front lawn has happened before and will happen again. Especially if they know that the Cop father goes for a jog that'll last 20 minutes everytime. I guess that would be my defense for him. Not to mention there isn't a trace of Tommy anywhere, not then, not now.

Its tough building a case in favor of any of these guys. The only thing that comes to mind would be that Chad Noe didn't know the 3 were going to be murdered that day. He could have known his mother had something planned and didn't want to know the details. He really didn't seem intelligent enough to carry something like this out. I think the mother was the 'brains' behind it and I use that term loosely.

Granted I don't really believe that theory but if I were to build a case for him, thats what I would choose.

By the way in response to what someone else said, NONE of these suspects are guilty.........right now. They are innocent according to the law. What I am trying to do is picture yourself as a lawyer of them, or a friend, or whatever, how would YOU stick up for them and defend them? How would you explain the reasoning behind Paul Pollis disappearing for 3 months and failing to take a lie detector test?

Anyway, good post. I agree that if you take the accusations away from the family Paul Pollis looks far less guilty. The tool shed thing is all speculative, although if I were Paul - and innocent - I'd have thought it was a pretty darn good idea to open the tool shed rather than start an argument with the family in which they remember.

I guess another thing I will add in defense of Paul (hard to believe I am doing this) is that there was little motive to kill Charlotte. No mention of life insurance. No affairs or anything, the worst he seems to have dealt with is a nutty family. On top of that there is no actual evidence that a crime was actually committed. I suppose I would cling to that idea if I were his lawyer.

On the other hand the circumstantial evidence screams guilty. If Charlotte wasn't killed by Paul where is she? There didn't seem to be any sign of a robbery/struggle in the house. There wasn't any witnesses seeing her taken anywhere. Nothing. Just the obsession of her mother wondering why Charlotte hadn't called her at the minimum quota of 10-14 times a day. :rolleyes:

that's just it though. The people that are claiming there was an argument to open the shed is the family. If you believe everything the family says, then yeah, Paul Pollis looks pretty guilty. But when you realize that, at least the mother, is not playing with a full deck, then you come to the conclusion that it's pretty much he said/she said.

And Paul's leaving for 3 months - I imagined he did that to clear his head. No doubt the family was non-stop harassing him and accusing him of murder, I'm sure he wanted to get away from that.

Not taking a lie detector doesn't bother me. Doyle Wheeler didn't take one, and I think he's innocent.

So if you take away the nutty's mother statements, the supposed eyewitness account (and I think we all know how often eyewitnesses are wrong watching UM), and the failure to take a lie detector (which have been known not to be 100% accurate), we're really not left with a whole lot.

that's just it though. The people that are claiming there was an argument to open the shed is the family. If you believe everything the family says, then yeah, Paul Pollis looks pretty guilty. But when you realize that, at least the mother, is not playing with a full deck, then you come to the conclusion that it's pretty much he said/she said.

And Paul's leaving for 3 months - I imagined he did that to clear his head. No doubt the family was non-stop harassing him and accusing him of murder, I'm sure he wanted to get away from that.

Not taking a lie detector doesn't bother me. Doyle Wheeler didn't take one, and I think he's innocent.

So if you take away the nutty's mother statements, the supposed eyewitness account (and I think we all know how often eyewitnesses are wrong watching UM), and the failure to take a lie detector (which have been known not to be 100% accurate), we're really not left with a whole lot.

Hmmm, you might be onto something. Yes I do believe eyewitness accounts can be false. In this case the neighbour was witnessing her own neighbour not a stranger. She couldn't have mistaken Paul for anyone else. She was specific that he looked her right in the eye. Is this accurate? It sounds like it is, or maybe it's a small town grasping at straws and someone is looking for attention.

Funny you bring up Doyle Wheeler. No one was guilty in that segment as we found out. But it does bother me a bit with the lie detector being ignored by Pollis. Taking off for 3 months to clear his head, hmmm, okay I'll buy that for the sake of argument and to be honest it could have been anything. Paul for all we know could have suspected who abducted his wife and this is what he was dealing with over three months. Maybe his own internal investigation with some shady people because of some shady dealings by Paul.

Good job though, your arguments would get a jury to at least ponder and have some doubts of their own.

Hmmm, you might be onto something. Yes I do believe eyewitness accounts can be false. In this case the neighbour was witnessing her own neighbour not a stranger. She couldn't have mistaken Paul for anyone else. She was specific that he looked her right in the eye. Is this accurate? It sounds like it is, or maybe it's a small town grasping at straws and someone is looking for attention.

Funny you bring up Doyle Wheeler. No one was guilty in that segment as we found out. But it does bother me a bit with the lie detector being ignored by Pollis. Taking off for 3 months to clear his head, hmmm, okay I'll buy that for the sake of argument and to be honest it could have been anything. Paul for all we know could have suspected who abducted his wife and this is what he was dealing with over three months. Maybe his own internal investigation with some shady people because of some shady dealings by Paul.

Good job though, your arguments would get a jury to at least ponder and have some doubts of their own.

Paul initially stuck around for quite a bit, and then left. So it's not like he left right away. The police did search the house and I think the only thing they discovered was that her purse was still there.

I also wanted to mention this: they theorize that Paul and his father would have been able to move the 300 pound Charlotte, but I don't know. Paul is a toothpick of a man, and the father was quite elderly. Additionally, in the Morris Davis segment, the brother mentions "when we finally had enough people to move him...he was a big guy" this hints that several people (presumably young and fit) were required to move Morris, and I think he weighed less than Charlotte.

Paul initially stuck around for quite a bit, and then left. So it's not like he left right away. The police did search the house and I think the only thing they discovered was that her purse was still there.

I also wanted to mention this: they theorize that Paul and his father would have been able to move the 300 pound Charlotte, but I don't know. Paul is a toothpick of a man, and the father was quite elderly. Additionally, in the Morris Davis segment, the brother mentions "when we finally had enough people to move him...he was a big guy" this hints that several people (presumably young and fit) were required to move Morris, and I think he weighed less than Charlotte.

Hmmm, interesting. Yeah Paul Pollis looked like a stiff breeze would blow him over. No doubt in my mind he needed more than his ancient parents to help him move the body.

I've always leaned towards guilty with Pollis, but the strange family angle causes some troubling elements to the case, making it not so cut-and-dry as some might think. And Paul definitely would have needed more of an accomplice than his father to move his wife had he committed the crime.
Wiseguy, you are absolutely right. While the shed is interesting, we really only have one side of the family's acknoledgement of it and-from what we know- that side has some oddness to it. I myself am extremely close to my mother and we talk on the phone maybe once a day or every other day. 10 to 14 seems way strange, especially if the two lived not very far from one another.

I've gotta give Wiseguy182 major props, this is the first halfway convincing case for Paul Pollis' innocence that I've ever read, which I thought would be practically impossible!

I still believe he's guilty, of course, but I also can see why they would never try to charge him without a body. Any good defense lawyer would be able to successfully question the credibility of Charlotte's family and create enough reasonable doubt in spite of the seemingly overwhelming circumstantial evidence. When most guilty husbands try to say that their wife just ran off, you know they're completely full of it, but in this case, the missing party had a crazy, overbearing mother who called her 10-14 times a day, so it wouldn't seem that implausible to a jury that she'd want to get away from that.