I watched the segment. Then I re-watched it. Okay look, the guy is one of the more comical characters on UM but I watched it again with the utmost objectivity. I actually went into the segment blindly and ignoring the accusations and actually found that there is little reason to believe Paul murdered Charlotte.

For starters:
- there was never any proof a crime was committed
- there was none of Charlotte's blood found
- there was no motive
- there were no eyewitnesses other than a neighbour who saw what she appeared to be garbage bags in Paul's backseat which would be absolutely insane to unload her body in the day
- Charlotte's mother seemed unstable. Calling your daughter 10-14 times a day is not normal. What on earth would you talk about? "Hey mom, no I'm just having a bowl of cereal. No it's a different one from 5 minutes ago."
- the accusations about the "shed" are one-sided from Charlotte's family which is an opinion I would almost consider worthless
- if you believe Paul, you will believe that people handle stress differently. A missing wife could cause you to pace, or..........CLEAN. Yes that is not a crazy notion.
- he'd need more than one accomplice to move Charlotte and no one saw this but just speculated about it
- footprints near a shed are not unusual and a member of Charlotte's family claims it was Paul's footprint. I personally would not recognize my own footprint if you photographed it
- had there been blood in the house the cops would have found it no matter how much Mr. Clean had been used
- nobody mentions whether or not Charlotte was actually a good housewife. Perhaps she kept the house extremely clean. No one denies this. So it could be true when Paul's mother says "all I did was clean up after some spaghetti"


Lastly, if you are truly innocent and are bombarded with onlookers that are gawking at you I'd want to take off too. Add into the accusations Charlotte's crazy family made and it would be any wonder why you'd want to stay there. This explains skipping the polygraph test because you are in no condition to take it. Tim McClure and David Dowaliby both failed their tests miserably. There are legions of people on here who will proclaim their innocence. Larry Gibson passed one and a ton of people think he is innocent. Not saying I don't trust a polygraph but maybe he was advised not to take one.

Lastly Paul never throws stones back at people in the interview. He surprisingly doesn't get involved in the "he said, she said" crap. It is very possible that Charlotte is sick (something BOTH families agreed on) and while Paul is gone during the day he probably keeps the door unlocked. For whatever reason Charlotte interrupts a home invasion and the rest is history. Paul comes home and she's gone and he doesn't find it weird until later in the day. Remember he has two kids to look after, he has enough to worry about.

Anyway, when you look at it without the UM slant on it, there certainly is a case that Pollis is innocent. My opinion? It isn't important but he most likely is involved, but I won't write it in stone like I did before

Okay....SLAP!! :lol: Certainly entitled to your opinion but I do still think he's guilty. If you're concerned about a UM slant here is the Charley Project page which has mainly the same details.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/p/pollis_charlotte.html

I, like everyone else, found the frequency of phone calls between Charlotte and her mom bizarre but there are a lot of things that point to his guilt. There was blood found in his trunk, just not enough to analyze. The fact he agreed to take a lie detector and then conveniently left town so he couldn't. The people around town and the neighbors I tend to believe. Everyone that saw Paul that day didn't see his children with him and the neighbor saw him loading his car with bags and boxes. I definitely think she met with foul play and the fact that she didn't have her purse with her makes me think she met with it at her own home. The fact that Paul has been in trouble with the law ever since, which certainly doesn't make him guilty of her murder, sure doesn't help us that question his character make him look innocent.

Charlotte Pollis was 5' 7" and weighed 300lbs. It would have been exceedingly difficult to move her and its difficult to imagine how she would have been loaded into the trunk of a car unaided. Her size also makes it difficult to comprehend that how, w/o dismembering her body, Pollis could have removed all traces of her.

While it's obvious that Pollis is a criminal, there's no real evidence that he's a murderer.

Well, let's see... the last anyone heard from Charlotte was at 1:45 AM the day she disappeared. Around 7:00PM, Paul starts to call people, indicating she is missing.

By Paul's own account, there is nothing to suggest Charlotte could have been taken from the home.

His answer to the shed story in the segment is entirely unsatisfactory: first, he says "It's a shed," as if to say, "it had no signifance, so why was her family asking about it?" Then he says he remembers that it had some kind of a key lock, and the key was on Charlotte's keyring, and he would have given them the key if they had asked for it. So, either the shed is irrelevant, or it was relevant, but they never asked about it. Fun.

Paul leaves a note that says, in part, "I would never do anything to harm my wife intentionally." Sounds like a back-handed admission of guilt to me.

He then drops out of sight for three months, though in the segment he tells us he isn't the kind of parent to abandon his children or leave them unattended. This is relevant, because his explanation as to where he was while his wife was disappearing involves his children, whom he says were with him. Named and unnamed eywitnesses who saw him at various points that day contest this.

Not enough for a conviction here, obviously, but it also doesn't look good for Mr. Pollis. A question I have that the segment doesn't answer: did the Pollises have a second car? If they didn't, and Paul says he was out in the family car, then where would she have gone - on foot - the day after a late-night trip to the emergency room?

Well, let's see... the last anyone heard from Charlotte was at 1:45 AM the day she disappeared. Around 7:00PM, Paul starts to call people, indicating she is missing.

By Paul's own account, there is nothing to suggest Charlotte could have been taken from the home.

His answer to the shed story in the segment is entirely unsatisfactory: first, he says "It's a shed," as if to say, "it had no signifance, so why was her family asking about it?" Then he says he remembers that it had some kind of a key lock, and the key was on Charlotte's keyring, and he would have given them the key if they had asked for it. So, either the shed is irrelevant, or it was relevant, but they never asked about it. Fun.

Paul leaves a note that says, in part, "I would never do anything to harm my wife intentionally." Sounds like a back-handed admission of guilt to me.

He then drops out of sight for three months, though in the segment he tells us he isn't the kind of parent to abandon his children or leave them unattended. This is relevant, because his explanation as to where he was while his wife was disappearing involves his children, whom he says were with him. Named and unnamed eywitnesses who saw him at various points that day contest this.

Not enough for a conviction here, obviously, but it also doesn't look good for Mr. Pollis. A question I have that the segment doesn't answer: did the Pollises have a second car? If they didn't, and Paul says he was out in the family car, then where would she have gone - on foot - the day after a late-night trip to the emergency room?

Yes that note he left where he used the word "intentionally" makes me suspect he took part in her disappearance. That and the fact that an innocent man would not flee from the area if he did nothing wrong and also there are no eyewitnesses that can place him and his kids running errands around the city tell me Pollis is hiding something. I think there were at least two people involved in her disappearance, and that makes the "unknown assailant" theory that much more unlikely.

I agree that he is probably guilty, but I think Clockworkhigh, that all of those elements bring more to the case than meets the eye. I mentioned this in another thread, but it just doesn't seem like a cut-and-dry case. I want to know about any prior family rifts before the wife vanished. With an intrusive mother-in-law, I'm curious to hear of the conflicts going on before the case.

I agree that he is probably guilty, but I think Clockworkhigh, that all of those elements bring more to the case than meets the eye. I mentioned this in another thread, but it just doesn't seem like a cut-and-dry case. I want to know about any prior family rifts before the wife vanished. With an intrusive mother-in-law, I'm curious to hear of the conflicts going on before the case.

Right, it does seem to open your mind up as well to other possibilities.

CrystalDawn, I too believe that the circumstantial evidence smacks Paul in the face. His actions don't help him either of course. That being said when you take the slanted version from Charlotte's wacky mother away it at least gives you a more unbias viewpoint to start.

okay, i just watched the segment again yesterday, and while I'm sure I"ll have more to post later, this REALLY struck out at me.

Charlotte and her mom talk on the phone at 1:25 a.m. in the morning. Definintely not normal. Yes, she was at the hospital, but we're talking about a minor ear infection hear. Not life threatening surgery. So you would figure Charlotte would want to get the usual 8 hours of sleep plus extra since she is ill. 1:25 + 8 hours + 9:25 would be the earliest one could expect her to be up. Her mom calls the house at 8:50!!!!, and freaks out that Charlotte is not up yet, "Oh my God, is she o.k. well you have her call me when she gets up will you?" She then calls the house at 10:00 and EVERY TEN MINUTES THEREAFTER!!!

Off the hook. That woman is psychotic and ready for the padded room. She has zero credibility IMO. And being that the vast majority of eyewitnesses turn out to be dead wrong, I don't put much stock into the neighbor's statements. What we're basically left with is a purse. Now Paul himself admits that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. This would be a bold statemnt to make if Paul is guilty, why would he throw suspicion on himself by admitting that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. Because if she didn't take her purse, one would have to assume that she didn't go out voluntarily, which means something happened to her in the house.

As far Paul leaving, he stated that people were driving by and looking into the house non-stop, he was basically being stalked and his privacy was being invaded. I can't blame anyone in that circumstance for wanting to get out of there. He didn't abandon his kids, the segment stated they were at Charlotte's mom's house

more later.

okay, i just watched the segment again yesterday, and while I'm sure I"ll have more to post later, this REALLY struck out at me.

Charlotte and her mom talk on the phone at 1:25 a.m. in the morning. Definintely not normal. Yes, she was at the hospital, but we're talking about a minor ear infection hear. Not life threatening surgery. So you would figure Charlotte would want to get the usual 8 hours of sleep plus extra since she is ill. 1:25 + 8 hours + 9:25 would be the earliest one could expect her to be up. Her mom calls the house at 8:50!!!!, and freaks out that Charlotte is not up yet, "Oh my God, is she o.k. well you have her call me when she gets up will you?" She then calls the house at 10:00 and EVERY TEN MINUTES THEREAFTER!!!

Off the hook. That woman is psychotic and ready for the padded room. She has zero credibility IMO. And being that the vast majority of eyewitnesses turn out to be dead wrong, I don't put much stock into the neighbor's statements. What we're basically left with is a purse. Now Paul himself admits that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. This would be a bold statemnt to make if Paul is guilty, why would he throw suspicion on himself by admitting that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. Because if she didn't take her purse, one would have to assume that she didn't go out voluntarily, which means something happened to her in the house.

As far Paul leaving, he stated that people were driving by and looking into the house non-stop, he was basically being stalked and his privacy was being invaded. I can't blame anyone in that circumstance for wanting to get out of there. He didn't abandon his kids, the segment stated they were at Charlotte's mom's house

more later.

I believe the theory has been brought up before that maybe Charlotte happened upon a burglary or a home invasion and that was the reason why she went missing. I have to ask though, why was nothing taken from the house? And if Charlotte didn't go anywhere without her purse, I think we can say that she didn't voluntarily leave. After all these years and still the only suspect in the case is Paul Pollis...don't you think if other people were involved somebody would have talked by now?

I believe the theory has been brought up before that maybe Charlotte happened upon a burglary or a home invasion and that was the reason why she went missing. I have to ask though, why was nothing taken from the house? And if Charlotte didn't go anywhere without her purse, I think we can say that she didn't voluntarily leave. After all these years and still the only suspect in the case is Paul Pollis...don't you think if other people were involved somebody would have talked by now?

Also (and I hate to keep bringing this up) Charlotte Pollis was a large woman. Unless Mrs. Pollis went at gunpoint, I can't even see how anybody would have been able to abduct her as she would have been able resist the majority of attempts to subdue her based on her size alone.

Paul Pollis may be guilty, but after all of these years if he were, why hasn't evidence confirming his guilt come to light?

What we're basically left with is a purse. Now Paul himself admits that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. This would be a bold statemnt to make if Paul is guilty, why would he throw suspicion on himself by admitting that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. Because if she didn't take her purse, one would have to assume that she didn't go out voluntarily, which means something happened to her in the house.

Well, that's not quite all we're left with, which I will get to in a moment. But as for the purse, you raise a compelling point here, but one that I think can be answered. Suppose Paul hit his wife, and she fell down the stairs and broke her neck and dies. He gets a buddy or someone to help him get rid of her body. After he is finished, and he's left enough time go by that he can plausibly claim she went out and didn't come back, he starts calling around to friends to ask if they've seen her, to establish his concern for her whereabouts.

And only NOW does he realize - oh ****, I forgot about her purse! He's only got a few options at this point:

* He can, after having made one or two calls, leave the house and try to get rid of the purse.

* He can admit the purse is there himself, and use it as part of his story for why he became suspicious.

Dumping the purse after having made a call or two could be very risky. I have no idea how nearby Charlotte's mom lived, but if it was relatively close, he'd have the simple problem of not being able to get very far in his effort to dump the purse, because if she gets to his house before he does, he'll have some explaining to dfo as to where he was when she arrives. But even if she lived far away, any witnesses at this point have the potential to be very damaging.

So, I think the purse thing is, in this case, at best inconclusive.

As far Paul leaving, he stated that people were driving by and looking into the house non-stop, he was basically being stalked and his privacy was being invaded. I can't blame anyone in that circumstance for wanting to get out of there. He didn't abandon his kids, the segment stated they were at Charlotte's mom's house.

What you sort of gloss over here is the note Paul left. Granted, it's only circumstantial, and hardly proves anything, but... innocent people don't leave notes like the one Paul left, ordinarily. Reminds me of the O.J. note.

There are two other items that I don't think help Paul at all. First is his own account of what he did that day. In the "main" thread on this case, wiseguy suggested that the kids in the segment seemed to mild-mannered, to which I replied (in post 107 (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=159581&page=8&highlight=Charlotte+Pollis)) that Pollis' account of what he did that day upon leaving his house and going out with his two small children borders on the heroic: from 11 to 4, they went to the pharmacy, the laundromat, the scrapyard, then a stop for fastfood, and then "a couple of hours" of looking at houses for sale. First of all, I find it hard to believe he could keep two small children under any kind of control for that long doing that many errands - eventually they would go bananas. Looking at houses for two hours with two small children in tow, after what had alread ybeen a long day's worth of errands? Seems unlikely.

But, more to the point, depending on what is meant by the idea that they looked at houses (was Paul just driving around looking at them, or was he meeting with a realtor who was showing him houses), one would think this would be an easily verifiable list. Yet police say no one saw the children with him, and the clear implication of that statement to me is that we are talking about more witnesses than just Charlotte's mom and the neighbor (the only two interviewed for the segment). Even the segment says "several" people dispute Paul's claim. Well, where I come from, 2 does not equal several, so I am guessing there are others around town who were not interviewed for the segment but who dispute Paul's claims.

The second thing I don't think helps Paul is the testimony of the cop who did the Luminol test of Paul and Charlotte's house. Whatever you think of Charlotte's family's contention that Paul and his family were vigorously cleaning the house in the hours after he reported Charlotte missing (strange indeed, if true), the proof in the pudding to me is that the cop who was in charge of that test said the house was unusually spotless. With two small children, and only one parent left to do the cleaning, the house is unusually spotless? Sounds fishy to me.

While I know that, in terms of proving guilt in court, you must work from the supposition of innocence down to proof of guilt, for the purposes of investigating, and eliminating unlikely scenarios, it's fair to ask questions like: if Paul didn't do it, who did?

Consider:

* Paul is the last person known to have been with her, at 1:25AM the day she disappeared.

* By Paul's own testimony, there was no sign of any struggle in their home.

* There is apparently nothing to indicate that Charlotte left of her own volition - no note, no clothes missing, etc.

* Since the segment doesn't mention a second automobile, it's likely that either the Pollises didn't have one, or it was still there when Paul says he returned from shopping. Otherwise, locating her missing car would obviously be a focal point of the investigation.

So, if Paul didn't do this, and she didn't walk off on her own, what are we to believe? That someone gined entry into the Pollis home, forced Charlotte out at gunpoint, etc., then took her to some undisclosed location and murdered her?

Possible, but not very probable.

Frankly, in this aspect, it's quite a lot like the Aeileen Conway case. A husband returns home, finds nothing obviously amiss in his home: no immediately apparent signs of a struggle or a burglary, and no indication that anyone was leaving for an extended period of time on her own. Place just looks like an ordinary day was happening. Wife's purse is still in the house. Only thing is that she is nowhere to be found.

Of course, in the Conway case, we have a body and a wrecked automobile, and so we have a very basic idea of what happened (all disputes about the exact circumstances of the crash aside). Here, no body, no missing automobile apparently, and only the husband's contradicted word about exactly where he was that day, and what he did.

Ordinarily, in a case like this, if you cannot make the case against one suspect, you look at others. Only, in this case... what others?

^^^^

If he has the wherewithal to come up w/ a plan to get rid of his wife using an as of yet unidentified "friend", why wouldn't he have simply claimed that Mrs. Pollis fell down the stairs and broken her neck? While that might sound suspicious, given Mrs. Pollis' dimensions, a fall could easily have been explained by her difficulties in getting around.

And where would they dump Mrs. Pollis? Or bury her? It was cold outside so the ground was hard making a burial a difficult for a small person. If she was dismembered, where would they have done it at and when would they have done it?And what would they do w/ the remains?

Mrs. Pollis' size would have made carrying her and disposing of her a difficult undertaking in fair weather much less the snowy and cold conditions during which it was supposed to have happened. The fact that Mr. Pollis would have had to have help (beyond that of his elderly parents) also begs the question of who would have helped him dispose of Mrs. Pollis?
And why hasn't that person been identified?

Interestingly, the Doe Network contradicts Paul Pollis's story (and the UM segment version of the story), saying Paul Pollis made no attempt to contact anyone regarding the disappearance of his wife on the day she disappeared. And yet UM played that tape, which certainly does sound like it was recorded that day. According to the Doe Network, a missing person report was filed by Paul that day, at 11:00PM, "at the behest of her family." Maybe the telephone call played in the UM segment was made after the report was filed? I wonder what the story is there.

I also read the Charley Project website, which perhaps provides an answer: it says Paul called "friends" asking about Charlotte's whereabouts, but not family. What if this is indeed what Paul did - contacted friends, but not the obvious first choice - her mother, to ask where she was. Doesn't that alone cast a whole lot of suspiscion on him? OTOH, the Charley Project version appears to be very nearly a transcription of the UM segment, so maybe this isn't all that useful.

Anyway, unlike most, I don't feel it was necessary that Paul had an accomplice. The clear implication of the eyewitness testimony given by the neighbor is that Paul dismembered his wife's corpse and brought it out of his house piecemeal. That is unusually grizzly, and would presumably have left a whole LOT of blood evidence, but if you used enough plastic trash bags to put underneath her body, and then very carefully and thoroughly cleaned everything afterwards... Pollis would have been lucky, and incredibly cold-blooded, but neither of those seem outside the realm of possibility to me.

And again, if Paul DIDN'T do this, who did? A random stranger entered the home and took her out, without any witnesses, without any sign of even a cursory struggle? Doesn't seem very likely to me.

Interestingly, the Doe Network contradicts Paul Pollis's story (and the UM segment version of the story), saying Paul Pollis made no attempt to contact anyone regarding the disappearance of his wife on the day she disappeared. And yet UM played that tape, which certainly does sound like it was recorded that day. According to the Doe Network, a missing person report was filed by Paul that day, at 11:00PM, "at the behest of her family." Maybe the telephone call played in the UM segment was made after the report was filed? I wonder what the story is there.

I also read the Charley Project website, which perhaps provides an answer: it says Paul called "friends" asking about Charlotte's whereabouts, but not family. What if this is indeed what Paul did - contacted friends, but not the obvious first choice - her mother, to ask where she was. Doesn't that alone cast a whole lot of suspiscion on him? OTOH, the Charley Project version appears to be very nearly a transcription of the UM segment, so maybe this isn't all that useful.

Anyway, unlike most, I don't feel it was necessary that Paul had an accomplice. The clear implication of the eyewitness testimony given by the neighbor is that Paul dismembered his wife's corpse and brought it out of his house piecemeal. That is unusually grizzly, and would presumably have left a whole LOT of blood evidence, but if you used enough plastic trash bags to put underneath her body, and then very carefully and thoroughly cleaned everything afterwards... Pollis would have been lucky, and incredibly cold-blooded, but neither of those seem outside the realm of possibility to me.

And again, if Paul DIDN'T do this, who did? A random stranger entered the home and took her out, without any witnesses, without any sign of even a cursory struggle? Doesn't seem very likely to me.

Dismembering Mrs. Pollis was have been a serious undertaking and would have been exceptionally messy and bloody. Assuming that the police searched the house thoroughly and didn't find an area (or areas) where body could have been cut up, where did he do it?And w/o experience as either a butcher or being some type of killer, how was able to successfully do it w/o cutting himself or damaging the home? And where the instrument that he used to do this?

Here's another thing: Pollis' second wife. Since she was facing an extended period in prison and he decided to testify against her, why didn't she offer some details of his crime in an effort to lessen her sentence? She knew nothing that could useful after being married to him for all of that time? He didn't happen to mention anything about the case of his wife's disappearance in all of those years together?

Finally, there's never been any evidence that Mrs. Pollis is deceased, other than her absence. It is possible that she isn't and simply left the area, however unlikely that may seem. Stranger things have occurred.

Also (and I hate to keep bringing this up) Charlotte Pollis was a large woman. Unless Mrs. Pollis went at gunpoint, I can't even see how anybody would have been able to abduct her as she would have been able resist the majority of attempts to subdue her based on her size alone.

Paul Pollis may be guilty, but after all of these years if he were, why hasn't evidence confirming his guilt come to light?

The whole weight thing would be unimportant if she was abducted at gunpoint and killed elsewhere, but if that were the case, then why did Paul clean his house from top to bottom. The cleaning of the house makes it look like she may have been killed there but if that was the case, how the hell does Paul get her body into his car by himself unless he dismembers it (enter the trash bags).

I personally believe Paul had something to do with it, mainly because of his note that he left saying he "would never hurt his wife intentionally", which sounds like an admission of accidental murder.

The whole weight thing would be unimportant if she was abducted at gunpoint and killed elsewhere, but if that were the case, then why did Paul clean his house from top to bottom. The cleaning of the house makes it look like she may have been killed there but if that was the case, how the hell does Paul get her body into his car by himself unless he dismembers it (enter the trash bags).

I personally believe Paul had something to do with it, mainly because of his note that he left saying he "would never hurt his wife intentionally", which sounds like an admission of accidental murder.

Actually her weight would always be an issue. Let's assume that she was abducted and taken somewhere. After she was killed, how they dispose of her body. Three hundred pounds is a lot of weight to move around, especially if were dead weight.There would also be the logistics of disposing of a body that large,especially in the winter time.

The trash bags might work for disposing of the cut up remains, but anybody that has painted a house can tell you that you need plastic sheeting to keep paint from dripping onto everything. You have to wonder if Paul Pollis just happen to have some plastic drop clothes ready for something like this.

I suspect Paul Pollis had something to do w/ his wife's disappearance, if it was involuntary.

Actually her weight would always be an issue. Let's assume that she was abducted and taken somewhere. After she was killed, how they dispose of her body. Three hundred pounds is a lot of weight to move around, especially if were dead weight.There would also be the logistics of disposing of a body that large,especially in the winter time.

The trash bags might work for disposing of the cut up remains, but anybody that has painted a house can tell you that you need plastic sheeting to keep paint from dripping onto everything. You have to wonder if Paul Pollis just happen to have some plastic drop clothes ready for something like this.

I suspect Paul Pollis had something to do w/ his wife's disappearance, if it was involuntary.It's possible that an individual could have dug a grave for Charlotte before the actual murder. Perhaps this individual blind folded Charlotte, took her to the grave, then shot her. Although, I confess it would be difficult to dig a grave in winter.

The whole weight thing would be unimportant if she was abducted at gunpoint and killed elsewhere, but if that were the case, then why did Paul clean his house from top to bottom. The cleaning of the house makes it look like she may have been killed there but if that was the case, how the hell does Paul get her body into his car by himself unless he dismembers it (enter the trash bags).

I personally believe Paul had something to do with it, mainly because of his note that he left saying he "would never hurt his wife intentionally", which sounds like an admission of accidental murder.

I'm not big on the whole "dismembering" the body theory. There would be blood all over that house and the police found none of it there. Yeah I know the Pollis family allegedly cleaned the house, but with the advent of the fluorescent lights meant to find blood even after it is cleaned it makes you think they'd have found a ton of it. They did not though.

I'm not big on the whole "dismembering" the body theory. There would be blood all over that house and the police found none of it there. Yeah I know the Pollis family allegedly cleaned the house, but with the advent of the fluorescent lights meant to find blood even after it is cleaned it makes you think they'd have found a ton of it. They did not though.
Yes, I would really hope luminal testing was done. If it was, then it wasn't mentioned in the segment and probably nothing was found (or it would have been noted, hopefully). I don't buy that all that cleaning could cover every bit of blood if a truly violent crime had taken place in the residence. I think it would have had to be done in another location.

Yes, I would really hope luminal testing was done. If it was, then it wasn't mentioned in the segment and probably nothing was found (or it would have been noted, hopefully). I don't buy that all that cleaning could cover every bit of blood if a truly violent crime had taken place in the residence. I think it would have had to be done in another location.

Luminal testing was done. It was the officer who oversaw that who said that nothing was found, and that indeed the house was unusually "spotless."

okay.

the bulging shed deal. Is anyone else annoyed that the sister comes over and asks to see the shed? She isn't a police officer, and Paul is under no obligation to show her the shed. And there is little doubt in my mind she searched the entire house looking for things to implicate Paul. Had Paul refused to show the shed to police officers, a la Laura Law, then that would be suspicious. But the sister has no right, and is kind of nervy of her to ask.

Now, if Paul murdered his wife, we have to think about what this would entail.

They got home at 1:25 in the morning. Mom calls at 8:50 (nerve of that woman). You would have to figure that under normal circumstances, everyone in the house would be sleeping from 1:25 - 8:50. So if Paul murdered his wife, then you would have to believe all of the following would be true.

1. Paul murdered his wife shortly after they got home, and spent the rest of the night doing the exhausting task of cleaning up the murder scene, then was up all day Saturday and disposed of Charlotte's body. This would require him to be up least 36 hours or so consecutively, and I would imagine his fatigue would have been apparent. However, there is no mention if Paul appeared to be fatigured or not.

2. Paul was able to physically overcome a person twice his size, and suffered no injuries that we know of.

3. Kill his wife in such a manner that the children have absolutely no knowledge of it, they don't hear or see anything, and additionally, the neighbors don't hear of any altercations, since we don't learn of any. The daughter would go on to issue the "mommy in trash bags" statement, but the police officer interviewed in the segment believes it was coached.

4. He (possibly with the aid of his elderly father) was able to move a body twice his size, multiple times (if the shed theory is to be belived)

When you combine all of that, Paul would have had to undergo some pretty Herculean efforts to have pulled this off.

Additionally, I wanted to point out that there was no history of violence in the Pollis marriage. There were no indications that Paul had ever beat Charlotte, or his children for that matter.

I don't believe Charlotte left volunarily, I think she met with foul play, whether it was Paul or not is undetermined.

What I would like to know is if a phone call was placed to his parent's house after 1:25 in the morning. This may indicate he called his parents asking for help in cleaning up the mess (had he done this). No phone call would probably mean Paul's story that they all went to sleep is more believable.

I also don't think the "I would never do anything to harm my wife intentionally" statment is suspicious. Nobody can prove they won't hurt somebody accidentally someday. And if he was innocent, then he had reason to believe Charlotte might still be alive.

And I must say, I have shifted towards 50/50 with this one. It is mostly due to Charlotte's family, particularly the mother, being totally intrusive and untruthful. While we don't know if Paul committed a crime here, what we do know is that the mother DID commit a crime by abducting her granddaughter.

I also wanted to say that Paul's story of events seems plausible. Charlotte slept in due to being sick, he took the kids out, got Charlotte's medicine, got lunch. Seems reasonable to me.

okay.

the bulging shed deal. Is anyone else annoyed that the sister comes over and asks to see the shed? She isn't a police officer, and Paul is under no obligation to show her the shed. And there is little doubt in my mind she searched the entire house looking for things to implicate Paul. Had Paul refused to show the shed to police officers, a la Laura Law, then that would be suspicious. But the sister has no right, and is kind of nervy of her to ask.

Now, if Paul murdered his wife, we have to think about what this would entail.

They got home at 1:25 in the morning. Mom calls at 8:50 (nerve of that woman). You would have to figure that under normal circumstances, everyone in the house would be sleeping from 1:25 - 8:50. So if Paul murdered his wife, then you would have to believe all of the following would be true.

1. Paul murdered his wife shortly after they got home, and spent the rest of the night doing the exhausting task of cleaning up the murder scene, then was up all day Saturday and disposed of Charlotte's body. This would require him to be up least 36 hours or so consecutively, and I would imagine his fatigue would have been apparent. However, there is no mention if Paul appeared to be fatigured or not.

2. Paul was able to physically overcome a person twice his size, and suffered no injuries that we know of.

3. Kill his wife in such a manner that the children have absolutely no knowledge of it, they don't hear or see anything, and additionally, the neighbors don't hear of any altercations, since we don't learn of any. The daughter would go on to issue the "mommy in trash bags" statement, but the police officer interviewed in the segment believes it was coached.

4. He (possibly with the aid of his elderly father) was able to move a body twice his size, multiple times (if the shed theory is to be belived)

When you combine all of that, Paul would have had to undergo some pretty Herculean efforts to have pulled this off.

Additionally, I wanted to point out that there was no history of violence in the Pollis marriage. There were no indications that Paul had ever beat Charlotte, or his children for that matter.

I don't believe Charlotte left volunarily, I think she met with foul play, whether it was Paul or not is undetermined.

What I would like to know is if a phone call was placed to his parent's house after 1:25 in the morning. This may indicate he called his parents asking for help in cleaning up the mess (had he done this). No phone call would probably mean Paul's story that they all went to sleep is more believable.

I also don't think the "I would never do anything to harm my wife intentionally" statment is suspicious. Nobody can prove they won't hurt somebody accidentally someday. And if he was innocent, then he had reason to believe Charlotte might still be alive.

And I must say, I have shifted towards 50/50 with this one. It is mostly due to Charlotte's family, particularly the mother, being totally intrusive and untruthful. While we don't know if Paul committed a crime here, what we do know is that the mother DID commit a crime by abducting her granddaughter.

I also wanted to say that Paul's story of events seems plausible. Charlotte slept in due to being sick, he took the kids out, got Charlotte's medicine, got lunch. Seems reasonable to me.

There's two things that keep nagging me in this case regarding Paul's guilt. Charlotte's family all agree that she was happy in her marriage, so she really would have no reason to leave voluntarily. This also means that Paul would really have no reason to murder her if everything was ok. There was also no history of violence in their marriage, and again that kind of strikes me as odd for a man who doesn't abuse his wife, and lives in a happy marriage, to just one day suddenly decide to off her and get his family to help him cover everything up. Was there ever a motive presented that Paul would have for killing Charlotte? I can't remember.

I agree wiseguy, that is all pretty interesting. Why would the mother call so damn early after being up so late? What if her daughter hadn't gone to bed immediately after hanging up and needed sleep on top of being sick (even if she HAD gone to bed immediately after the call, she would still need more sleep under a normal situation, and especially when sick!)? She called every ten minutes after Paul said she was sleeping when, at the time, there was no reason to be worried yet. I know some people don't know how to use the telephone properly (when I was still living at home, nearly all of my mother's friends lived under the logic "no one answered...I guess I will call back 8 million times to see if someone does" and drive us all absolutely crazy), and she acts as though her behavior is normal...I wish the interview had shed some light on what Paul thought of his MIL's telephone behavior and attitude before the disappearance.

And, call me crazy, I found Paul's statement "I didn't kill my wife" to actually SOUND very heartfelt and true, even though I think he is most likely guilty. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think someone is innocent just because they sound like it, I just found that to be interesting, because before I had been pretty steadfast in his guilt. Now I'm questioning it more than ever.

this case is baffling in many ways because of the posts on this board. for years this has been a hugely popular case on this site. and everyone, nearly everyone always focuses on the guilt of paul and of the insane behavior of Charlottes mother. To me this is completely bizaare. The mother who stood out, and who is rarely talked about on this board except for a little anecdote, is Pauls own mother. I dont know how you can watch her on screen and not be 100 percent convinced either she was with paul when he killed charlotte, or he called his mom and she came over to clean up and dispose of the body. I never understood the relevance of charlottes mother calling a ton during the day and why it looms so large in everyones mind here. Paul's mother to me, even more than paul himself, screams guilty in this segment. I dont get it.

Charlotte Pollis' mother gets more attention because her behavior (as stated by her) is very bizarre. 10-14 phone calls a DAY is excessive by anybody's standards. Especially since the mother only lived a short way from the Pollis home.Paul's mother was a guarded woman...but she doesn't come across as the psycho that Charlotte's mother was.

There's no proof, other than her absence, that Charlotte Pollis is dead. There was no evidence found in the Pollis home or car (other than the tiny blood drop of unknown origin) that indicates that Charlotte Pollis was killed, dismembered or stored in either one. There are no witnesses to any violent acts against Charlotte by Paul Pollis.

W/ no body, no crime scene and no motive, there's really no case against Paul Pollis.

Was there ever a motive presented that Paul would have for killing Charlotte? I can't remember. Other than getting away from her psycho mother?

Seriously - that mom had a very odd look to her eyes and people focus on that. I also remember the size of the HAMBURGER that the daughter had in the backseat! That thing was huge! As a parent myself all I could think of was "Who gives their three year old a hamburger the size of their head?" I kept waiting for it to drop on the floor.

Also - we do not know for sure that Charlotte is dead other than it is highly unlikely that a mom would leave her kids. She seemed to like being a mom.

I don't believe Charlotte left volunarily, I think she met with foul play, whether it was Paul or not is undetermined.

What I would like to know is if a phone call was placed to his parent's house after 1:25 in the morning. This may indicate he called his parents asking for help in cleaning up the mess (had he done this). No phone call would probably mean Paul's story that they all went to sleep is more believable.


I agree with this.

What I would like to know is if a phone call was placed to his parent's house after 1:25 in the morning. This may indicate he called his parents asking for help in cleaning up the mess (had he done this). No phone call would probably mean Paul's story that they all went to sleep is more believable.



I would believe that one of the first things done would be the checking of the phone records. If there was phone calls at 3am, 4am, 4:30am I believe it would have been brought up in the segment. So I do not think he called his parents.

this case is baffling in many ways because of the posts on this board. for years this has been a hugely popular case on this site. and everyone, nearly everyone always focuses on the guilt of paul and of the insane behavior of Charlottes mother. To me this is completely bizaare. The mother who stood out, and who is rarely talked about on this board except for a little anecdote, is Pauls own mother. I dont know how you can watch her on screen and not be 100 percent convinced either she was with paul when he killed charlotte, or he called his mom and she came over to clean up and dispose of the body. I never understood the relevance of charlottes mother calling a ton during the day and why it looms so large in everyones mind here. Paul's mother to me, even more than paul himself, screams guilty in this segment. I dont get it.

Take away the entire idea that we were told that the Pollis' allegedly cleaned the whole house. With that out of your mind listen and watch Paul's mother? Is she anything else but a seemingly sweet and kind old lady that you would let cut in line in front of you at the bank or help carry her groceries to her car? She seemed very normal to me if I were to look objectively

Paul Pollis may be guilty, but after all of these years if he were, why hasn't evidence confirming his guilt come to light?
Well, you got to have the evidence to arrest him, honestly, i am NOT saying he's guilty, but he is VERY suspicious. WHY does he act so defensive??? Why is there an issue with a "shed?" Would the neighbor lie??? and why did he act like a complete smart alec when he said, "i like to live in a clean house?" Anyways, i think he is suspicious and i think he did this and hid the body (either in peices or not) in a trashbag and had help moving it, but until they find evidence they shouldnt and wont charge him. As for the mom calling, she was worried, that happens, MY issue with the mom though is that she took her granddaughter and was and possibly is in trouble with the law now because of it. ADD to that, i think Grandma coached her.

W/ no body, no crime scene and no motive, there's really no case against Paul Pollis.

I have to concur. The mechanics of the potential crime are what strike me: as you stated earlier and wiseguy elaborated on, if Paul did kill Charlotte, either accidentally or on purpose, how would he dispose of the body without leaving any blood evidence? It's impossible to believe he could have carried and/or dragged her whole, and dismemberment would have left evidence - no matter how "clean" the house was. There certainly would have been more then one blood spot in the trunk.

I have to concur. The mechanics of the potential crime are what strike me: as you stated earlier and wiseguy elaborated on, if Paul did kill Charlotte, either accidentally or on purpose, how would he dispose of the body without leaving any blood evidence? It's impossible to believe he could have carried and/or dragged her whole, and dismemberment would have left evidence - no matter how "clean" the house was. There certainly would have been more then one blood spot in the trunk.

Why would his parents both partake in helping him conceal a murder? That seems almost as illogical as there only being one speck of blood found in the car IMO. While I think Paul is guilty, I don't think this crime necessarily occurred at the house.

pauls mom helped him murder charlotte. His mom is involved. plain and simple

pauls mom helped him murder charlotte. His mom is involved. plain and simple

That's a pretty bold statement. Any evidence of this other than what was presented in the UM segment?

Why would his parents both partake in helping him conceal a murder? That seems almost as illogical as there only being one speck of blood found in the car IMO. While I think Paul is guilty, I don't think this crime necessarily occurred at the house.

I didn't suggest his parents helped him.

I didn't suggest his parents helped him.

I apologize. I didn't mean to quote your post. I think I accidentally hit the
QUOTE button instead of REPLY. The post I was referring to was this one:

this case is baffling in many ways because of the posts on this board. for years this has been a hugely popular case on this site. and everyone, nearly everyone always focuses on the guilt of paul and of the insane behavior of Charlottes mother. To me this is completely bizaare. The mother who stood out, and who is rarely talked about on this board except for a little anecdote, is Pauls own mother. I dont know how you can watch her on screen and not be 100 percent convinced either she was with paul when he killed charlotte, or he called his mom and she came over to clean up and dispose of the body. I never understood the relevance of charlottes mother calling a ton during the day and why it looms so large in everyones mind here. Paul's mother to me, even more than paul himself, screams guilty in this segment. I dont get it.

pauls mom helped him murder charlotte. His mom is involved. plain and simple

It doesn't seem all that plain and simple to me. Paul's mother on the surface at least seemed like a nice typical old lady. We have Charlotte's crazy mother claiming that the whole family was cleaning the house excessively. We all know not to take everything that woman says seriously so other than that accusation what is it you have against Paul's mother? Does she look like a weightlifter to you? I hardly doubt she could help carry a body

With an intrusive mother-in-law, I'm curious to hear of the conflicts going on before the case.


This.

My mother-in-law can be a mean-spirited and spiteful woman. She is usually okay to me, but she browbeats the poor bastard who married her and occasionally, my wife. One time, she was berating her for something and I gently tried to come to her defense, hoping to quell the situation with a little tact. When that did not work, I told her "shut your trap." My wife turned on me like a damn viper. It led to a huge fight between us that still gets brought up once in awhile. In the meantime, her mother remains a huge source of conflict, drama, and problems in our relationship and there is an enormous amount of tension in the room whenever she drops by. Interestingly enough, when I brought this up at lunch with my co-workers not too long ago, the sole female at the lunch table kind of stayed quiet and rolled her eyes while the guys and I whooped it up about my satanic in-law.

The lesson here? No matter how screwed up it seems, the relationship between a woman and her mother usually makes sense to them. I don't get it either (and I'm not judging all women here by any means), but when scenarios like this play out, it is usually for the benefit of both parties involved.

How is this relevant? It is almost a certainty that Charlotte's mother and Paul did not get along, and it was probably not always Paul's fault. As bad as Paul is (and I do believe he is a bad guy - he was very cocky and arrogant, he has been in trouble with the law since - even testifying against his wife, and the "intentionally" caveat in his note is in my opinion, a strong indicator of guilt), it sounds like living so close to the in-laws probably had a very detrimental effect on the marriage.

Of course, he doesn't get off of the hook so easily here, either. From a sociological standpoint, this situation is a perfect example of why people should strike out on their own when they get married, move out of the house, etc. Both sets of parents were involved. Charlotte's mother's involvement was obvious, but why in the hell would somebody be helping his or her only son (who is in his 30s) clean his house for any reason?

I've been lurking on this site for a while, but I just saw this episode today, so I thought I'd post. Although there's certainly a lack of concrete evidence against Paul, there were so many things about this case that I didn't understand. The mother calling before 9am and being concerned that her sick daughter was still asleep, the neighbor seeing the car filled with boxes, no one who saw him that day saw him with the kids, the fact that he thought she had gone out in winter even though he had the only car (or if they had 2, the other would have obviously still been there), the family basically thinking he killed her from the get-go (shed), all the cleaning, and Paul's whole demeanor. I thought he was really creepy and strange. I even laughed a little at the "clean house" bit because he sounded so unbelievable.

But I wanted to ask you guys about something I didn't see anyone mention in this thread. Does anyone think Paul could have poisoned his wife? She was obviously sick and taking medication, so maybe he could have given her something to kill her under the guise of medication. Although that would still leave the question of how a man of his size disposed of a woman her size.

okay.

the bulging shed deal. Is anyone else annoyed that the sister comes over and asks to see the shed? She isn't a police officer, and Paul is under no obligation to show her the shed. And there is little doubt in my mind she searched the entire house looking for things to implicate Paul. Had Paul refused to show the shed to police officers, a la Laura Law, then that would be suspicious. But the sister has no right, and is kind of nervy of her to ask.

Now, if Paul murdered his wife, we have to think about what this would entail.

They got home at 1:25 in the morning. Mom calls at 8:50 (nerve of that woman). You would have to figure that under normal circumstances, everyone in the house would be sleeping from 1:25 - 8:50. So if Paul murdered his wife, then you would have to believe all of the following would be true.

1. Paul murdered his wife shortly after they got home, and spent the rest of the night doing the exhausting task of cleaning up the murder scene, then was up all day Saturday and disposed of Charlotte's body. This would require him to be up least 36 hours or so consecutively, and I would imagine his fatigue would have been apparent. However, there is no mention if Paul appeared to be fatigured or not.

2. Paul was able to physically overcome a person twice his size, and suffered no injuries that we know of.

3. Kill his wife in such a manner that the children have absolutely no knowledge of it, they don't hear or see anything, and additionally, the neighbors don't hear of any altercations, since we don't learn of any. The daughter would go on to issue the "mommy in trash bags" statement, but the police officer interviewed in the segment believes it was coached.

4. He (possibly with the aid of his elderly father) was able to move a body twice his size, multiple times (if the shed theory is to be belived)

When you combine all of that, Paul would have had to undergo some pretty Herculean efforts to have pulled this off.

Additionally, I wanted to point out that there was no history of violence in the Pollis marriage. There were no indications that Paul had ever beat Charlotte, or his children for that matter.

I don't believe Charlotte left volunarily, I think she met with foul play, whether it was Paul or not is undetermined.

What I would like to know is if a phone call was placed to his parent's house after 1:25 in the morning. This may indicate he called his parents asking for help in cleaning up the mess (had he done this). No phone call would probably mean Paul's story that they all went to sleep is more believable.

I also don't think the "I would never do anything to harm my wife intentionally" statment is suspicious. Nobody can prove they won't hurt somebody accidentally someday. And if he was innocent, then he had reason to believe Charlotte might still be alive.

And I must say, I have shifted towards 50/50 with this one. It is mostly due to Charlotte's family, particularly the mother, being totally intrusive and untruthful. While we don't know if Paul committed a crime here, what we do know is that the mother DID commit a crime by abducting her granddaughter.

I also wanted to say that Paul's story of events seems plausible. Charlotte slept in due to being sick, he took the kids out, got Charlotte's medicine, got lunch. Seems reasonable to me.

I agree with ya Wiseguy, I have never been 100% convinced of Paul's guilt either. But I know I'm in the minority!!!

I finally got around to rewatching this segment, and decided to watch it more intently than I have before. Here's my take on Paul Pollis:

THE EVIDENCE:
-As far as I can tell, there is only one piece of evidence, which is circumstantial, that could tie him to his wife's disappearance. And that is the small amount of blood found in his trunk. But the amount was so small, it couldn't be tested. The UM segment suggested that there was speculation that Paul put Charlotte's body in the trunk of the car which resulted in the blood. But if the amount was miniscule, just how did Paul kill her? Not to mention that Charlotte was twice his size, and this would have been close to impossible for Paul to transport Charlotte's body out from his house without being seen by anyone.

-There was also the testimony of Paul's neighbor, who said she saw Paul standing near his car, which was full of boxes and bags. I'm assuming the implication is that Paul was either hauling Charlotte's body, or getting rid of evidence tying him to the crime. But his neighbor says there was "no sign of the children". So where were they? And just how did Paul get Charlotte's body into a car full of "bags and boxes"? Couldn't it be that Paul was getting the car ready for errands, before he put the kids in it, when the neighbor drove by? And isn't ten after 11 a bad time to haul a dead body out of a house and put it into a car?

CHARLOTTE'S FAMILY:
-I never noticed, until I read through this thread, that Charlotte's mother does not play with a full deck. When she said she talked to her daughter 10-14 times a day, I thought ok they're just really close to one another. Then her mother goes on to say that she called her at 1:30 a.m. in the morning after her trip to the hospital, presumabely to let her know that everything was fine. Nothing wrong with that, just seemed like a mother worried for her daughter. Her mother then calls the next day at 9 o'clock to see how she's doing. Maybe Charlotte was an early bird, or didn't like sleeping in, so I didn't find it that odd that her mother called her at 9, since she was probably concerned about Charlotte (since she went to the hospital). Paul answered the call at 9 and told Charlotte's mother that she was still in bed resting, just as the doctors told her. Then her mother called an hour later and continued to call every ten minutes because no one answered the phone! This is when the craziness really began to shine through. Your daughter is supposed to be resting, why was she so alarmed at the fact that no one was answering the phone? Granted, had she been calling all day, I can see that warranting being worried, but an hour after talking to Paul? Come on. What exactly was there to be worried about? Paul had already made it known that she was supposed to be resting, so why automatically assume the worst because no one answered an hour after your son-in-law told you that your daughter was asleep? Not to mention that Charlotte did not go to sleep until close to two in the morning! Who in their right mind would think their daughter would be up and ready to talk on the phone will little sleep and an ear infection? In the UM segment her mother said, "I think Paul got angry and he struck her and he couldn't stop himself. I think Paul killed my daughter." Yet there was never any indication that Paul was violent or abusive, and by all accounts the couple was happy.

-Charlotte's brother, mother, and sister all said on the UM segment that Paul and his parents cleaned the house from top to bottom in the days after Charlotte's disappearance. Even the investigator interviewed said that the house was spotless, which was very unusual to him. My question here is, how in the hell would Charlotte's immediate family know what was going on in Paul's house? Just how did they know that they were there cleaning from top to bottom all day? Where they watching them the entire day? I don't think so. Or was it more likely that Charlotte's family stopped by Paul's house to check out what was going on, saw Paul's mother cleaning the floor (since one of the children spilled something) which set off this whole conspiracy about Paul and his parents attempting to cover something devious up? And what about the luminol testing? There was countless cases in which luminol testing was done on an area that was thoroughly cleaned, which still revealed blood stains. Yet there was none found in the Pollis residence. So either Paul Pollis could put Billy Mays to shame in a cleaning contest, or there was never any blood in the house to begin with.

-Charlotte's sister then goes into detail about the two sets of footprints that led back to the shed in the Pollis's backyard. The sister says, "The doors were bulging pretty much out of the shed. They just had like a regular padlock on it and it kind of bothered me the way the shed was because the doors weren't flush against it. So I'd gone into the house and I had asked Paul for the keys." But then it's Charlotte's mother, not her sister that says Paul became angered about the request. For one thing, the sister honestly has no business poking around in the shed. She doesn't work in law enforcement, isn't a trained investigator, and she really has no right to demand that Paul open it. And this was the same day Charlotte was reported missing, why was she so insistent of checking out the shed, let alone the backyard? Why would Charlotte's family even suspect Paul in anyway at that point? Shouldn't they have been going around town looking for her or possibly her vehicle? The Charley Project website then states "Charlotte's brother returned to their home the following day and saw that the shed doors were closed normally. He looked inside and noticed that all of the items had been shoved to one side." So how did the brother gain access to the shed, if Paul had the only key? I know in their minds they are speculating that Paul had Charlotte's body in the shed, which is why it was "bulging", but then moved her body after the sister left. But isn't it just as likely that Paul, angered at the insistance that Charlotte's sister let her go poking around the shed refused her request, but perhaps the brother came over the next day more calm and level headed and Paul had no problem with it? If the brother "looked inside" the shed, then Paul obviously let him in or gave him the key. The sister goes on to add, "I looked at Paul's shoe prints and they were the same footprints that were in the snow. And the other footprints were fairly large with a shoe boot who I can suspect would've been his father's but they you know, I can't be definite on that." No **** sherlock! Charlotte's sister was not a detective, nor an investigator, nor in any way shape or form a forensic expert. So how in the hell did she determine that they were Paul's foot prints? And if they were, who cares? It was his house! And she gets downright close to libel in stating that the other foot prints could be Paul's father's. By this point in the segment I realized the entire family wasn't playing with a full deck, not just the mother.

I got the impression (based solely off of the UM segment) that Charlotte's family were very tactless and thought nothing of who or what their implications and gossip mongering could have hurt. This just seems like a scorned family, who holds Paul responsible their loved one's disappearance, spreading gossip, rumors, and half-truths.

PAUL'S ACTIONS:

-A lot has been made on the fact that Paul came off horrible in his interview on UM. Some people said he was very arrogant, and sometimes smug in his responses. Let's assume for a second that he is 100% innocent. His wife had been missing for two years at the time of the taping of the UM segment, which was a whole two years of Charlotte's family and the people in the surrounding areas suspecting and publically naming Paul as a murderer. He had every right to be bitter and smug in his interview.

-I have stated previously that an innocent man does not flee, nor does he leave a note saying he would never hurt his wife intentionally, but after re-watching the segment Paul actually does offer a decent enough explanation. No one really knows what they would do in a situation like that, but if the people in the town really were driving by gawking at him, not to mention the murmurs around town that he killed his wife, then I could see how someone would want to get away from it all.

-All accounts indicate that the Pollis's marriage was a happy one, and Paul was not abusive in any way towards Charlotte. He took her to the hospital late at night over a routine ear infection, which does not seem like the actions of someone planning on killing their wife and hiding their body. Seems like the actions of a man who truely does care for and loves his wife.

-Paul called their friends the same day Charlotte disappeared. The phone message played on UM sounds legit IMO, and either Paul is a wonderful actor or he was honestly worried about where his wife's whereabouts. This was an age before cell phones, and I could see how Paul would initially suspect Charlotte went off with a family member or friend before he got back. And Paul himself is the one that brings up her purse, saying she wouldn't go anywhere without it. Why would he feel the need to even bright this up if he's guilty, which would implicate him more than help clear him? Why not dispose of the purse as well, so it would appear as though Charlotte simply took off to start a new life?

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

-IMHO, the only way Charlotte Pollis could have been taken out of her house, without causing a stir, would have to have been at gunpoint. I don't think there was any firearm ever tied to Paul Pollis, or it would have been mentioned on UM or the Charley Project website. So I do think it's possible (as in the Ayleen Conway case) that maybe Charlotte did disrupt a burglary attempt. Maybe there was a burglar/s who watched Paul and his children leave, and then they decided to break in figuring no one was home. But they discovered Charlotte was in fact still home, which is why they aborted their original plan and took her out of the house and killed her at an unknown location. And it's also possible that the burglar/s may have known either Charlotte and/or Paul, so they killed her out of fear of being identified. I honestly do think that scenario is just as likely as Paul Pollis being responsible in Charlotte's disappearance.

CONCLUSION:

-Is Paul innocent or guilty? I'm honestly still on the fence on this one. I used to think he was guilty, but these points I have presented in my post make me question that. However, Paul is still contradicted by several people who in fact did say they saw him but not his kids. Yet Paul said he had his kids with him the entire afternoon. For Paul to have pulled all of this off he would have had to accomplish some insurmountable feats. For one, he would have had to have moved a body twice his size without being noticed. Although it's entirely possible that Paul had help in the crime, who exactly would have helped? The Pollis's were happily married, which would seem to indicate to me that Paul's parents loved Charlotte. Would they really stand by and let their son get away with murder, or even worse, actually help their son cover it up? Really? Both parents? Paul would have had to have killed his wife shortly after she got off the phone with her mother at 1:25 a.m. He then would have had to have moved her body, possibly to the shed, possibly with help (which would take more time for an accomplice to arrive to help move Charlotte's body). Then he would have had to have started cleaning up the crime scene. This would mean that Paul would have had little to no sleep that night since he was up all night concocting the perfect crime. Yet there was no indication given by anyone that saw him that Saturday that he was fatigued or exhausted. And he would have had to have pulled all of this off within earshot (and possibly eyesight) of his children, all the while keeping up the facade that nothing was wrong (feeding them breakfast, running erands, etc.). And if the neighbor who claims to have seen Paul and his car backed up towards his porch shortly after 11 in the morning is correct, where were the kids? It's possible that Paul could have called his parents to come pick them up, or watch them, yet we have no eyewitness testimony that placed the parents at Paul's house until Sunday. I honestly do not think Paul Pollis could have been able to commit the perfect crime. Even LE had to concede that there was "no evidence that a crime was even committed". You really have to sit back and ask yourself, is Paul Pollis really that intelligent and cunning that he could have pulled this off? And if so, why? Until there is new evidence brought to light, the case of Charlotte Pollis is still an unsolved missing persons case.

-IMHO, the only way Charlotte Pollis could have been taken out of her house, without causing a stir, would have to have been at gunpoint. I don't think there was any firearm ever tied to Paul Pollis, or it would have been mentioned on UM or the Charley Project website. So I do think it's possible (as in the Ayleen Conway case) that maybe Charlotte did disrupt a burglary attempt. Maybe there was a burglar/s who watched Paul and his children leave, and then they decided to break in figuring no one was home. But they discovered Charlotte was in fact still home, which is why they aborted their original plan and took her out of the house and killed her at an unknown location. And it's also possible that the burglar/s may have known either Charlotte and/or Paul, so they killed her out of fear of being identified. I honestly do think that scenario is just as likely as Paul Pollis being responsible in Charlotte's disappearance.



Nice entire post, but this part stuck out for me. I agree with you, there are ample reasons why Charlotte could be missing. She could have been abducted for sure. While it is unusual for a burglar to happen Saturday morning/afternoon it does still happen and Charlotte could just be collateral damage in the way of it.

Besides, the accusations that Paul dragged Charlotte into the shed are borderline crazy. For starters if this is true, Paul is incredibly ballsy to have her dead body in the shed all the while reporting her missing. That's gutsy right there and it reminds me of Vince Vaughan's character at the end of the movie Starsky and Hutch (the drugs in the car). So how is it any stranger that Charlotte at gunpoint can get dragged out of her house in broad daylight then Paul putting her body in the shed? There could be witnesses to either one of those things and it isn't unusual if no one saw that. Do you watch your neighbour everytime they bring garbage on the curb for example?

Lastly, I know Paul has had some trouble with the law after this. A lot of it can do with the fact that this changed his life. He could have become a bitter man, resentful of the accusations, he could easily have become a different person. It still doesn't make him a murderer though

I wanted to comment on two things.

First, the reason Paul could be acting so defensively is because of his mother-in-law. The woman was extremely intrusive. Seriously, calling every 10 minutes? When she KNEW her daughter was ill enough to have gone to the ER at 1 in the morning?! Who does that? I know from my own life that I am immediately defensive when I merely think my m-i-l's name. She doesn't even have to be there, or talking. The instant I think her name, I get defensive. The woman is obnoxious and toxic, and she criticizes everything I do, and I'm a good person! So I can only imagine how Paul's m-i-l criticized him. I mean for pete's sake, she complained that he and his parents cleaned too thoroughly.

Then, about why would someone help their 30 year old son's house? It happens. My m-i-l drove me NUTS after my older son was born. I made the mistake of extending her a welcome to visit for a week, and the woman went out and bought cleaning supplies, because she didn't like mine (and I am a very clean person, I used to clean houses for a living and I did a very good job). She did that the day she arrived. Then she proceeded to make a total nuisance of herself. So as unbelievable as it was (and believe me, it was shocking to me, considering the state of her own house), some mothers do clean their 30-something son's houses.

Paul's mom seemed rather quiet and private to me, like she didn't know who to trust, but that she clearly couldn't trust her son's in-laws. I had the feeling she didn't expound on things because she didn't want to accidentally hand more ammo to the in-laws. It was horrible enough with the m-i-l planting that story in the little girl's head.

My husband and I think Paul is innocent. The most they had was a drop of blood in the trunk, and to be honest, if person is cut up, there's going to be more than a drop of blood leaking through a bag, if there is a hole big enough for a drop to get through. But, about the blood drop, too, have any of you ever injured yourself while working on your car? I have. The drop of blood in the car doesn't really mean much to me.

We couldn't see Paul and his dad, nor Paul and his mom moving a body as big as Charlotte's, and if her sister is to be believed, only 2 people would have moved Charlotte to the shed. Which, if you're going to get rid of a body, why in the world would you stash it in a storage shed that was clearly not big enough? Especially if you knew her family would be hell bent on blaming you.

I think the intruder theory sounds plausible.

One point about the whole cleaning issue - Paul stated that he was looking at houses for sale. Could the cleaning have been part of just getting ready to move or sell their current house? Maybe Paul had planned on cleaning out a lot of things in preparation for a move, and that's what all the bags were.

Another possibility - could Paul have been involved in drug activity - selling, perhaps? Maybe there was some evidence to that effect in the house that he wanted to get rid of. If Charlotte was abducted, could that be a possible motive - maybe someone had a beef with Paul over drugs? Who knows. It would explain why Paul wasn't very forthcoming with other details - perhaps some would incriminate him for something else.

Another possibility - could Paul have been involved in drug activity - selling, perhaps? Maybe there was some evidence to that effect in the house that he wanted to get rid of. If Charlotte was abducted, could that be a possible motive - maybe someone had a beef with Paul over drugs? Who knows. It would explain why Paul wasn't very forthcoming with other details - perhaps some would incriminate him for something else.

That's a very intriguing point, one I've never thought of. It also account as to why someone would break in his house during the daytime on a Saturday, possibly to look for the drugs.

the only way Charlotte Pollis could have been taken out of her house, without causing a stir, would have to have been at gunpoint. I don't think there was any firearm ever tied to Paul Pollis, or it would have been mentioned on UM or the Charley Project website. So I do think it's possible (as in the Ayleen Conway case) that maybe Charlotte did disrupt a burglary attempt. Maybe there was a burglar/s who watched Paul and his children leave, and then they decided to break in figuring no one was home. But they discovered Charlotte was in fact still home, which is why they aborted their original plan and took her out of the house and killed her at an unknown location. And it's also possible that the burglar/s may have known either Charlotte and/or Paul, so they killed her out of fear of being identified. I honestly do think that scenario is just as likely as Paul Pollis being responsible in Charlotte's disappearance.

First off, let me compliment you on an excellent post. While overall, I'm still inclined to believe that Paul Pollis is guilty, you do bring up a lot of valid points that any good lawyer would use to provide reasonable doubt in a courtroom. This should provide a good understanding about why Paul has never been charged and should definitely not be charged unless stronger evidence can be found.

However, the thing that cannot sway over to the "Paul Pollis is innocent" side is the question that if he wasn't responsible for Charlotte's disappearance, what DID happen to her? To quote the infamous words of Lisa Penz: "She's 300 pounds. Someone like that doesn't just get lost in a crowd!". While your idea of a botched burglary is interesting, I just can't see anyone taking her out of the house at gunpoint. If a burglar broke in and was surprised to find Charlotte at home, I find it more likely that they would just kill her right there and flee. Kidnapping someone from their home at gunpoint in broad daylight on a Saturday is a huge risk, and it would be greatly compounded if the victim was 300 pounds, especially if she was ill at the time and in a weakened condition. Not to mention that this perpetrator somehow disposed of her body so well that there hasn't been any trace of Charlotte for over a decade. Paul's defenders say it would have been nearly impossible for him to properly dispose of Charlotte's 300-pound body by himself, but that logic applies to anyone.

In the end, it's just hard for me to imagine a burglar or unknown assailant feeling the need to get Charlotte out of that house. The only perp who would be desperate enough to not allow her body to be found there is Paul Pollis.

In the end, it's just hard for me to imagine a burglar or unknown assailant feeling the need to get Charlotte out of that house. The only perp who would be desperate enough to not allow her body to be found there is Paul Pollis.

Let's say there were two men involved in this "home invasion". One who knew both Paul and Charlotte, the other was not. They break in the home, thinking that no one is there, and find Charlotte. As their panic begins to set it, Charlotte starts angrily questioning the man she knows with what he is doing in her house, etc. and he tells her if she cooperates with them, they won't harm her. Gunshots in a residential area on a Saturday afternoon are not going to go unnoticed, so they decide to take Charlotte with them. This is when the reality sets in (to the man that knows her) that the only way he can silence her is by killing her. And unfortunately that's what happens.

Let's say there were two men involved in this "home invasion". One who knew both Paul and Charlotte, the other was not. They break in the home, thinking that no one is there, and find Charlotte. As their panic begins to set it, Charlotte starts angrily questioning the man she knows with what he is doing in her house, etc. and he tells her if she cooperates with them, they won't harm her. Gunshots in a residential area on a Saturday afternoon are not going to go unnoticed, so they decide to take Charlotte with them. This is when the reality sets in (to the man that knows her) that the only way he can silence her is by killing her. And unfortunately that's what happens.

That's certainly possible. I'll grant you that if these assailants were able to get Charlotte out of the house without drawing any attention, it would be far easier for them to dispose of a 300-pound body without it being found than for Paul to do the same thing in a limited timeframe with his kids around and his in-laws breathing down his neck.

While I think this theory is a longshot, it would account for one detail that's always troubled me: the neighbour seeing Paul in his driveway during the time he was supposed to be running errands. What if this eyewitness was responsible for Charlotte's disappearance (or was covering up for someone else who was) and made up this sighting in order to deflect all the suspicion onto Paul?

While I think this theory is a longshot, it would account for one detail that's always troubled me: the neighbour seeing Paul in his driveway during the time he was supposed to be running errands. What if this eyewitness was responsible for Charlotte's disappearance (or was covering up for someone else who was) and made up this sighting in order to deflect all the suspicion onto Paul?

We all know, thanks to UM, how unreliable witnesses can be. I think either she saw Paul before he started out to run errands, or simply got her time wrong when she saw him. Think about it, she drove by and saw Paul on an unsuspecting Saturday morning, why would she feel the need to note the time and remember it? It was before Charlotte was missing, so no one in the town knew anything was amiss.

i still feel the same way i felt years ago when i saw the case. i can't say for certain that Paul is guilty, BUT he did act suspicious. i mean, what's up with that shed and blood in his trunk??? why did he act like a smart alec when it came to the clean house line??? what is up with all the cleaning, even the police noticed this from what i saw. now i DO think Paul's daughter was coached and the neighbor could be off on the time, but most of his suspicion was brought on himself, BUT without a body and solid evidence, you cant say for certain he's guilty or that a crime has been committed.

I had no idea until reading another thread that Paul and Charlotte's daughter was abducted by Charlotte's mother until reading another thread! I think she has since been found, but makes me wonder about Charlotte's mother. Maybe LE has been looking in the wrong direction all along.

Paul is soooo guilty!!!

About the missing daughter, I couldn't find any information on her. All I could find was a thread that said she was found and that she has been removed from all the different "missing" sites. HOWEVER, I googled Layla Nagi and got a facebook page for someone by that name. She's got long dark hair, a bit of an olive tone to her skin, and she's around the right age to be her! Then, I googled Charlotte Nagi and got a facebook page for her, and I'm 99% sure it's the grandma. I compared the two facebook pages and both profiles have a few common "interest" groups that they coincidentally both belong too. I think I have found our missing people! Check it out and let me know what you guys think!

Paul is soooo guilty!!!

About the missing daughter, I couldn't find any information on her. All I could find was a thread that said she was found and that she has been removed from all the different "missing" sites. HOWEVER, I googled Layla Nagi and got a facebook page for someone by that name. She's got long dark hair, a bit of an olive tone to her skin, and she's around the right age to be her! Then, I googled Charlotte Nagi and got a facebook page for her, and I'm 99% sure it's the grandma. I compared the two facebook pages and both profiles have a few common "interest" groups that they coincidentally both belong too. I think I have found our missing people! Check it out and let me know what you guys think!

That is Charlottes daughter.. if u notice on her pics, she has a pic of charlotte

I compared the two facebook pages and both profiles have a few common "interest" groups that they coincidentally both belong too. I think I have found our missing people! Check it out and let me know what you guys think!

I definitely think that's her grandmother.

While I think this theory is a longshot, it would account for one detail that's always troubled me: the neighbour seeing Paul in his driveway during the time he was supposed to be running errands. What if this eyewitness was responsible for Charlotte's disappearance (or was covering up for someone else who was) and made up this sighting in order to deflect all the suspicion onto Paul?

I always found the neighbour's sighting unreliable. I mean, she sees Paul in his own driveway putting somethings in his vehicle (possibly even his kids). How strange is that? Not strange at all. And the tool shed thing? What is so suspicious about a tool shed having footprints in the snow going towards it. I mean, SHOULDN'T there be footprints there? Isn't that the point? And it comes from Charlotte's crazy family too thinking that her body might be in there. Yeah, and Paul and whoever is going to help him move a 300lb. body out of a shed AFTER all eyes are on it right? Doubtfully. Nothing was ever in there in my opinion.

I think Charlotte was abducted personally. Or she wanted to get away from it all. That family of hers was nuts. She wouldn't be the first one to start a new life. But I still lean on a burglary gone wrong and she is the collateral damage that gets taken away with the perpetrators.

I remember one of Charlotte's relatives believing that her remains were in the shed because it was "bulging". Okay, I understand that Charlotte was a large woman, but to imply that she was so big that she would cause that shed to bulge, well...that's a bit of a stretch for me.

I remember one of Charlotte's relatives believing that her remains were in the shed because it was "bulging". Okay, I understand that Charlotte was a large woman, but to imply that she was so big that she would cause that shed to bulge, well...that's a bit of a stretch for me.

Yeah, how rude huh? And what sloppy "killer" would leave her in the shed in such an obvious manner?

Yeah, how rude huh? And what sloppy "killer" would leave her in the shed in such an obvious manner?

Charlotte's sister made a stupid comment about the footprints leading to the shed. She said that the other set of footprints "were fairly large with a shoe boot who I can suspect would've been his father's but they you know, I can't be definite on that." Why would you even made a ludicrous statement like that? She's no shoe/footprint expert, didn't even know the type of shoe Paul's father wore, and what motive would his father have in helping his son dispose of his daughter-in-law's body?

I originally thought Paul was guilty but between re-watching it and reading this thread I'm pretty convinced he didn't kill his wife.

3 theories I've thought about:

1. Charlotte had gotten tired of dealing with her family, husband, kids, everything she had at that point. She had arranged in advance for a friend to pick her up that day while Paul was out with the kids. That would give her time to get away and maybe even borrowed some money from her friend to start a new life somewhere. The trip to the hospital with the ear infection was just an unlucky occurrence. As I recall, they spent so much time dealing with Paul and him calling his friends and family that they never even mentioned talking to Charlotte's friends to see if they knew anything.

2. Some robbers, viewing from a bad angle, saw Paul and his kids leave the house and assumed Charlotte was with them. They waited a few minutes, made their way to the house, started to rob it only to find Charlotte still in the house. Charlotte was taken, maybe under some false pretense as a hostage and she'd be returned without harm, and then later disposed of.

3. Charlotte was "abducted" by her own family. It came across like the family had it out for Paul and didn't have anything nice to say about him, leading one to believe they've never liked him. Maybe after Paul left, her parents came over, picked her up and had her taken to a deprogrammer. It makes Paul look guilty, they get their daughter back without having to deal with him and everything returns to status quo for them since before Charlotte and Paul met. It sounds ludicrous I know, it sounded better at 1am when I first thought about it, but maybe there's a 0.000001% chance that's what happened.

You know, I never really suspected that Charlotte's family had anything to do with her disappearance before, but one thing has always troubled me. Mrs. Nagi claims that she was so concerned about Charlotte's illness that she kept calling the house every ten minutes before 11:00 that morning with no answer. But how often did she try to call the house during the rest of the day?

Considering how phone-crazy Mrs. Nagi was, I always found it surprising that Paul was the one who called her to mention Charlotte was missing. I figured that a neurotic woman with a history of 10-14 phone calls per day would get frantic after about an hour or two of no answer and then rush over to the house to check on Charlotte herself. Did she not try to call after 4:00 when Paul claimed he returned home? It just seems strange to me that she would make all those phone calls in the morning, yet sit on her hands for several hours until Paul finally contacted her!

Charlotte's sister made a stupid comment about the footprints leading to the shed. She said that the other set of footprints "were fairly large with a shoe boot who I can suspect would've been his father's but they you know, I can't be definite on that." Why would you even made a ludicrous statement like that? She's no shoe/footprint expert, didn't even know the type of shoe Paul's father wore, and what motive would his father have in helping his son dispose of his daughter-in-law's body?

Yeah, I've been married to my wife for 4 years and I can't say for sure what size her shoe is. I mean, I couldn't say the size of my parents shoes either. I could ballpark it I suppose, but who really pays attention to the shoe size of a person?

You know, I never really suspected that Charlotte's family had anything to do with her disappearance before, but one thing has always troubled me. Mrs. Nagi claims that she was so concerned about Charlotte's illness that she kept calling the house every ten minutes before 11:00 that morning with no answer. But how often did she try to call the house during the rest of the day?

Considering how phone-crazy Mrs. Nagi was, I always found it surprising that Paul was the one who called her to mention Charlotte was missing. I figured that a neurotic woman with a history of 10-14 phone calls per day would get frantic after about an hour or two of no answer and then rush over to the house to check on Charlotte herself. Did she not try to call after 4:00 when Paul claimed he returned home? It just seems strange to me that she would make all those phone calls in the morning, yet sit on her hands for several hours until Paul finally contacted her!

This, among other little things, is another reason to believe that Paul just might in fact be innocent. He was the one who called around to several people to see if they saw Charlotte (a pretty brazen thing to do if he did in fact murder her the night before), and he was the one who contacted Charlotte's family to tell them she was missing. And he also volunteered the information about finding her purse and how she would never go anywhere without her purse. If he did murder her, why even mention the purse at all? He could have disposed of it with the hopes that people would simply think Charlotte ran off, but he didn't. To top it all off, he was the one who took her to the hospital late that night. What argument could have transpired that night (shortly after 1:30 a.m. after Charlotte got off of the phone with her mother) that would have angered Paul soooo bad to the point of murder (especially since both families claim that there was no history of abuse in their relationship)? I just don't see it.

This, among other little things, is another reason to believe that Paul just might in fact be innocent. He was the one who called around to several people to see if they saw Charlotte (a pretty brazen thing to do if he did in fact murder her the night before), and he was the one who contacted Charlotte's family to tell them she was missing. And he also volunteered the information about finding her purse and how she would never go anywhere without her purse. If he did murder her, why even mention the purse at all? He could have disposed of it with the hopes that people would simply think Charlotte ran off, but he didn't. To top it all off, he was the one who took her to the hospital late that night. What argument could have transpired that night (shortly after 1:30 a.m. after Charlotte got off of the phone with her mother) that would have angered Paul soooo bad to the point of murder (especially since both families claim that there was no history of abuse in their relationship)? I just don't see it.

Well, I don't believe Paul ever tried to push the "Charlotte took off on her own" theory, so it would probably make sense on his part to leave the purse behind and make people think she was the victim of an abduction. However, I will concede that unlike, say, Mark Nichols or Larry Gibson, Paul did initially act like a normal person would probably act if they discovered a loved one had gone missing (well, at least until his strange decision to clean the house the next day). When Nichols and Gibson announced their loved one was missing, their first course of action involved taking off on their own to "search" and avoiding other people for awhile, whereas Paul was actively contacting people to enquire about his missing wife.

I don't know, I used to think Paul Pollis was the guiltiest person to ever appear on UM, but I'm definitely not as sure as I used to be and this case seems to be a lot more complex than at first glance.

If Paul didn't run off and leave that strange, "I would never hurt my wife intentionally" note, I don't think that much focus and attention would be on Paul. Like RobinW said, he acted "normal" as a grieving/worried husband would act had their loved one just disappeared so it's a hard call in this case.

Well, I don't believe Paul ever tried to push the "Charlotte took off on her own" theory, so it would probably make sense on his part to leave the purse behind and make people think she was the victim of an abduction. However, I will concede that unlike, say, Mark Nichols or Larry Gibson, Paul did initially act like a normal person would probably act if they discovered a loved one had gone missing (well, at least until his strange decision to clean the house the next day). When Nichols and Gibson announced their loved one was missing, their first course of action involved taking off on their own to "search" and avoiding other people for awhile, whereas Paul was actively contacting people to enquire about his missing wife.

I don't know, I used to think Paul Pollis was the guiltiest person to ever appear on UM, but I'm definitely not as sure as I used to be and this case seems to be a lot more complex than at first glance.

Remember one thing about the "cleanliness" of the house. Paul's mother claims she only cleaned up the floor once to get rid of some spilled spaghetti. It is Charlotte's questionable family that said the house was constantly being cleaned. I don't think we should trust the word of these people to be honest. Their credibility with me is low.

And yes, the police did say the house was unusually clean, but it could be that they just like a clean house. Some people do. Paul says that in the interview and while he seems smug and annoyed by the question I am starting to "get" why he might have reacted the way he did in the interview. I mean, everyone where he lives is fingering him, it would bother me too.

I also never thought about the fact that Paul himself found the purse. That just doesn't sound like a guy trying to hide something. If anything he's stupid for revealing where her purse is if he's the murderer. If he were smart he would at least like the idea of two options being there. She ran off or was abducted. With the purse there - that he could have easily dumped - it makes it less likely she took off.

Remember one thing about the "cleanliness" of the house. Paul's mother claims she only cleaned up the floor once to get rid of some spilled spaghetti. It is Charlotte's questionable family that said the house was constantly being cleaned. I don't think we should trust the word of these people to be honest. Their credibility with me is low.

Yes, and I've also considered that if Paul and his family were doing a thorough cleaning of the house to destroy evidence, I find it much more likely that they would choose to do it BEFORE Paul called Charlotte's family to tell them them she was missing, so I can believe that people might be reading too much into it.

To bring up the Mark Nichols comparison again, there was an example of a husband who was clearly taking the time to destroy all the evidence and cover his tracks before he officially reported his wife missing.

Has there ever even been a motive presented as to why Paul would have killed Charlotte? Even Charlotte's family has admitted that the marriage was not abusive, and that both of them were happy at the time of her disappearance. I wonder why Charlotte's mom felt the need to think that Paul got angry and hit her and couldn't stop.

Has there ever even been a motive presented as to why Paul would have killed Charlotte?

Paul found out that night Charlotte was cheating on him? You'd think after all this time that something would have come up or been revealed by either a family member or a friend or even a neighbor who heard arguing but I don't recall ever hearing anything that would lend itself to a motive.

I wonder why Charlotte's mom felt the need to think that Paul got angry and hit her and couldn't stop.

Just speculation but normally a parent wants justice for their daughter's disappearance/possible murder, so in this case they went after the obvious possible culprit.

Has there ever even been a motive presented as to why Paul would have killed Charlotte? Even Charlotte's family has admitted that the marriage was not abusive, and that both of them were happy at the time of her disappearance. I wonder why Charlotte's mom felt the need to think that Paul got angry and hit her and couldn't stop.

None that I ever heard. Someone said he may have found out she cheated on him. Well, I doubt that at 1:25am after a day when she is sick and probably just dead tired that she would talk about her infidelity.

I don't know why Charlotte's mother and family turned on Paul so quickly. When I think of someone like Larry Race's in-laws who were adamant he did not kill their daughter I figure that's the way to go unless you have physical evidence in your back pocket. Charlotte's mom went as far as saying that they had to go as far and get rid of all the black plastic bags because the daughter said she last saw mommy in there. That just sickens me to be honest. I mean, do you want the truth or just a whirlwind of lies? And people are suspicious that Paul left for three months huh? I'm not.

Has there ever even been a motive presented as to why Paul would have killed Charlotte? Even Charlotte's family has admitted that the marriage was not abusive, and that both of them were happy at the time of her disappearance. I wonder why Charlotte's mom felt the need to think that Paul got angry and hit her and couldn't stop.

I know that Paul has gotten into trouble with the law several times since Charlotte's disappearance, including him and second wife getting arrested in 2006 for embezzling $1.6 million from a dialysis clinic. The fact that Paul turned state's evidence against his wife and got her sent to prison for 25 years would seem to speak volumes about his character.

However, I'm not sure Paul ever had any trouble with the law before Charlotte went missing. It's possible that the whole experience helped turn him towards a life of crime or he simply used to be a lot better at not getting caught. If Paul was doing something illegal like money laundering while he was married to Charlotte and she found out about it, that's one possible reason he could have killed her, accidentally or otherwise. While returning home from the hospital at 1:25 AM would seem like a strange time for this to happen, I suppose it's possible the subject could have come up when Charlotte noticed Paul had a lot more money than normal to pay for the hospital visit or medication for her ear infection.

I know that Paul has gotten into trouble with the law several times since Charlotte's disappearance, including him and second wife getting arrested in 2006 for embezzling $1.6 million from a dialysis clinic. The fact that Paul turned state's evidence against his wife and got her sent to prison for 25 years would seem to speak volumes about his character.

However, I'm not sure Paul ever had any trouble with the law before Charlotte went missing. It's possible that the whole experience helped turn him towards a life of crime or he simply used to be a lot better at not getting caught. If Paul was doing something illegal like money laundering while he was married to Charlotte and she found out about it, that's one possible reason he could have killed her, accidentally or otherwise. While returning home from the hospital at 1:25 AM would seem like a strange time for this to happen, I suppose it's possible the subject could have come up when Charlotte noticed Paul had a lot more money than normal to pay for the hospital visit or medication for her ear infection.

That's what's so weird about this case for me. Charlotte was most likely killed sometime between 1:25 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. the next day. I just don't see what could have happened in that small time frame that would have resulted in Paul killing Charlotte. Not to mention if the eyewitness neighbor who saw Paul loading his car around 11:00 a.m. that morning, then that makes the window even smaller for Paul to have successfully pulled this off.

That's what's so weird about this case for me. Charlotte was most likely killed sometime between 1:25 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. the next day. I just don't see what could have happened in that small time frame that would have resulted in Paul killing Charlotte. Not to mention if the eyewitness neighbor who saw Paul loading his car around 11:00 a.m. that morning, then that makes the window even smaller for Paul to have successfully pulled this off.

And if he killed her by striking her, how the hell was there no blood left behind? Even with cleaning "all day", the luminal test would have found something. The only blood found was a microscopic amount in the trunk, and that could have been something like Paul cutting his finger, and blood dripping in there.

If he did it, he would have pulled off the perfect crime in a short amount of time.

This is definitely a case where the more you think about it, the more you change your original thought.

Ok I've been thinking about this case a lot recently. I do think Paul's actions after Charlotte's disappearance were very suspicious (the note left behind, the embezzlement charges, etc.). However, I don't think he could have committed this crime alone. The only way Paul Pollis is guilty in the presumed death/murder of Charlotte Pollis is if he had an accomplice. The time frame is too small, Paul was too small to move Charlotte on his own, and I don't think Paul would have been that smart to pull this off alone. With that being said, the only conceivable way that Paul could be guilty would be something along the lines of this scenario:

Shortly after returning from the hospital, Paul and Charlotte get into some sort of argument that turns violent. Paul then either strangles or smothers Charlotte to death, and then begins to plan a way to dispose of her body. He must be tired (since it's sometime after 1:25 a.m.), so he does get some sleep. The next morning he wakes up with the children and acts like nothing happened. I think Charlotte very well could have been dead in their bedroom the entire time. Paul then would have figured he had to hide her body until later (since he had his kids with him), so he begins to make room in the shed out back. I think this may have been what the neighbor (if she's right) saw when she drove by around 11:00 a.m. Paul was moving boxes into his car from the shed to make room for Charlotte's body. Then, he drives around town looking for the perfect spot to dump Charlotte's body (the kids may have been with him, they may have been elsewhere I don't think we'll ever know). Then he returns home later, gets some unknown accomplice to help him move her body from the house to the shed and then starts the ruse of calling friends to see if anyone has seen her. Next sometime during the night he and his accomplice take the body from the shed and move it to either his or his accomplice's vehicle and dispose of it at some unknown location. Sometime after that he returns the boxes and other odds and ends from the shed and continues with the ruse that Charlotte possibly ran off.

I think this scenario (if Paul is truely guilty) is the only one that would fit all of the known evidence. There would be no blood, there would be no cleaning necessary, and it would account for the way the shed was described by Charlotte's family AND verify what the neighbor saw at 11:00 a.m. The only things that need to be proven are:

-The motive Paul would have for killing Charlotte.
-The identity of Paul's accomplice.
-The motive Paul's accomplice would have in helping cover up the murder of Charlotte.

How likely is it that Paul would have been able to convince anyone to help him dump his dead wife's body? And why hasn't this person came forward by now? Even with an anonymous tip or something of that sort? Even if Paul claimed she died "accidentally", you would think his accomplice would have came forward by now with some information. The only other way that Paul could have pulled this off is if he hired someone to come abduct Charlotte while he was out driving around town with his children. But would Paul have had the means to hire someone smart enough to pull this off and be able to conceal Charlotte's body so well that it hasn't been found all of these years? There are just too many questions in this case to conclusively say, "Yes Paul Pollis is definitely guilty.", IMHO.

The cleaning thing strikes me as possibly a red herring. Some people deal with stress by cleaning to keep busy. When my grandmother died, I remember standing on a chair, washing the windows. I am not a cleaner. It was like I was on autopilot (I was a teen at the time.) Also, if someone in the family had anxiety/OCD tendencies, stress cleaning is pretty typical. The luminol found nothing. I lean towards the cleaning being a coping mechanism of wanting to do something but not knowing what to do.

The cleaning thing strikes me as possibly a red herring. Some people deal with stress by cleaning to keep busy. When my grandmother died, I remember standing on a chair, washing the windows. I am not a cleaner. It was like I was on autopilot (I was a teen at the time.) Also, if someone in the family had anxiety/OCD tendencies, stress cleaning is pretty typical. The luminol found nothing. I lean towards the cleaning being a coping mechanism of wanting to do something but not knowing what to do.

Yeah, me too. I don't think anyone ever said "Well, they were slobs so why was the house so clean?"

As for the shed thing, I have often wondered one thing. Charlotte's family was concerned about the shed "bulging". Well, if they thought Paul was guilty and they wanted the shed open then how hard is it to grab an axe and open it?

This is my thought. The family wasn't as skeptical at first as they let on. There is a minor question about the shed but in retrospect now that they suspect Paul 100% the shed becomes an issue. Honestly, if that was potentially my mother or sister in there I'd be camping out overnight waiting for the key to open it. If you were that concerned that her dead body could be in there then you simply put, would get into the shed. If you're wrong, you give Paul $50 for a new lock/doors.

So I basically think this is such a cop out from the family. All of the sudden they remember footprints and a locked shed and assume Paul dumped the body there. In the segment Charlotte's crazy mother says Paul said: "The shed has nothing to do with Charlotte." I can relate to that. The way that loony family was I can assume they probably kept pestering him about it and he felt it was counterproductive (and probably a little offended) to think her body is in there. Paul makes a point in the segment that I agree with, if they wanted to get into the shed they could have.

out of there after you've been accused.

I'd like to know what the current situation is between the two families, where are the children currently? still with Charlotte's mother?

The time frame is too small

correct, i've thought that for awhile.

Plus, you have to figure that Paul would know that Charlotte's mom would be calling at her usual 14 times a day like she always did, and would freak out if she didn't answer, so that lessens the time frame even more. And sure enough, she was calling at 8:50 after her daughter went to bed at like 1:30 and was sick. I don't know that he would have had time to do everything he would have had to with her calling every 10 minutes.

I have never flipped flopped an opinion on a case before, like this one.
This is what I see.
Paul is an ass. Or as they say "short dude issues" Cocky guy, pokes fun when he shouldn't. Be the creep around the pool table eye ballin' ya. Comes off as a dick.
What do we know of Charolette? She "seemed" happy in their marriage. Her own family stated this.
The house was clean. Okay. So is mine. Super clean. I have the remarks "Can eat off her floors"
Her mother, is a nervous pervous type who calls frantically. She reminds me of that one aunt we all have. "OMG-your baby has a rash. Go to the ER NOW, she could be dead soon!" Did Charolette want to leave all that? Could she in that state? Ii hear severe earaches are horrible. Did her mom know something? Did her mom find out a friend was taking her away from it all? I don't think so..but I don't know.
Everyone keeps picturing a blood bath. Maybe he strangled her? You can kill people without drawing blood and she wouldn't fight much being so sick and tired.
Had he already planned to kill her before this night? Called "his accomplice" and say plan is still on-just later? Did they have a huge life insurance pay off?
I am sooo confused and everyone has such a great theory. I tried to see both sides. When people say he did it because he was an ass...I picture *******s Ii know lol none have killed..that I know of lol The whole "oh she left it all" and went where? Any family outta state she was close to?? I do like the theory he cleared the shed to make room for her...is that when he dropped the kids at Charolettes grandmas or was that another case? Confused! lol

Before reading this thread, I was convinced Paul was guilty. But after reading some great points brought up, I don't think he did it. Charlotte's overbearing mother got me thinking, what if Charlotte was getting tired of being constantly nagged by her mother? Could this be a motive for her to just get up and leave? Women abandoning their families is not unheard of. I grew up with a girl who's mother just up and left her family one day. Just left her husband a dear John letter and started a new life.

When someone commits a murder there's usually a strong motive behind it. While a haven't watched the segment in quiet some time, I don't remember anything about an insurance policy or either party having an affair. So what would be Paul's motive? By all accounts Paul and Charlotte had decent marriage.

After reading this thread a few things stood out to me:

1. Charlotte's sister seemed really upset about the "bulging shed". She was so concerned she didn't contact the police right then? Did she ever have the police check out the shed? I'm starting to wonder if Paul is right and this conversation never happened.

2. The cleaning. Even if Paul did kill Charlotte in the house no amount of cleaning would clean it all up. Even if the Police were inept they could be able to find something. Blood can seep through a carpet and linoleum and end up on the sub floor. Heck, the police were able to find a small amount of blood in the trunk but none in the house? Not possible.

3. The neighbor seeing trash bags and boxes being loaded into the car. This implies that Charlotte was dismembered. If Paul did this in the house or the shed, there would be a lot blood. Too much for Paul and his family to clean up.

Even though Paul is guilty for being a douche and disappearing after Charlotte went missing, that doesn't make him a murderer. There's no proof a crime was even committed.

There is little doubt in my mind that he's guilty, just because there is no other probable alternative.

I do find the cleaning thing dubious, especially because I find it hard to believe his innocent little mother following through to help her son in a murder coverup—she just seemed too unassuming—but I do think the toolshed incident was suspicious.

I googled his name after watching the segment last night, and he has apparently been arrested multiple times over the years for various things, mostly marijuana possession it looks like, but I think there were other charges. I particularly feel for he and Charlotte's children; can't imagine what that's like. I wonder if they have any relationship with him or not?

lol Paul Pollis posts some of the most random sh%t on Facebook


https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100009363155409&fref=ts

Another thing Paul said he went out on errands that day with the kids yet nobody saw the kids with him,then where were the kids?at home working the their sick/possibly dead mother?

3. The neighbor seeing trash bags and boxes being loaded into the car. This implies that Charlotte was dismembered. If Paul did this in the house or the shed, there would be a lot blood.


And he would have done this with kids underfoot no less.

SHE CRIES WHEN SHE SEES A BLACK TRASH BAG