Two of the most ill-advised attempts to convince the viewer of their innocence I've ever seen - possibly the worst two.

Scores out of ten if we can for:-

Artistic merit
Convincing empathy
Plausability
Likelihood of being innocent
Did the TV appearance help them?

While most people definitely believe Paul Pollis killed his wife, there is a pretty good thread here casting some reasonable doubt on his guilt.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=277571

Of course, I still remain convinced Paul is guilty, but upon a closer inspection, the idea of him being able to successfully get rid of his wife's body in such a limited timeframe (and doing it so well that it has remained undiscovered for over a decade) is not as plausible as it sounds, and I'm not as 100 % sure as I used to be. I can definitely understand why no one's ever tried to charge him without a body.

There is ZERO doubt, however, that Mark Nichols successfully got away with the murder of his wife and he may be the most lucky suspect ever featured on UM. If he had committed the crime a couple years later, I'm sure forensic technology would have advanced far enough that they could have built a case against him even without Christi's body.

If I had to score both men, I would give Mark Nichols a big fat ZERO in all categories (and would be compelled to give him a negative score for "convincing empathy"). Paul Pollis is a lot harder to rank, but I might at least give him between a 2 and a 4 in most categories.

While most people definitely believe Paul Pollis killed his wife, there is a pretty good thread here casting some reasonable doubt on his guilt.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=277571

Of course, I still remain convinced Paul is guilty, but upon a closer inspection, the idea of him being able to successfully get rid of his wife's body in such a limited timeframe (and doing it so well that it has remained undiscovered for over a decade) is not as plausible as it sounds, and I'm not as 100 % sure as I used to be. I can definitely understand why no one's ever tried to charge him without a body.

There is ZERO doubt, however, that Mark Nichols successfully got away with the murder of his wife and he may be the most lucky suspect ever featured on UM. If he had committed the crime a couple years later, I'm sure forensic technology would have advanced far enough that they could have built a case against him even without Christi's body.

If I had to score both men, I would give Mark Nichols a big fat ZERO in all categories (and would be compelled to give him a negative score for "convincing empathy"). Paul Pollis is a lot harder to rank, but I might at least give him between a 2 and a 4 in most categories.

Good post - like you, I have Polis a narrow winner here. Nichols is worse than a cold fish, positively sub-zero and appears to possess not even a trace of emotion. An utterly dreadful performance and one that a decent lawyer would strongly advise against!!

Funnily enough, watched that Jule fella whose wife ran away/went missing, depending on your perspective and concluded that although he was not much more warm/cuddly than either Nichols or Polis, there's a good chance his ex just upped sticks and ran. I may be howled outa town for thinking that.

Funnily enough, watched that Jule fella whose wife ran away/went missing, depending on your perspective and concluded that although he was not much more warm/cuddly than either Nichols or Polis, there's a good chance his ex just upped sticks and ran. I may be howled outa town for thinking that.

I used to be on the fence about Jule Caylor because he even though he acted like a cold jerk during his UM interview, there really wasn't any strong evidence that he could have been responsible for his wife's disappearance. However, a lot of information I've learned about the case which was not mentioned on UM has leaned me towards his guilt.

A reporter who wrote a story on the case actually posted in this forum several months ago and shared a lot of interesting info that made Jule look pretty suspicious.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=275124&page=2

I used to be on the fence about Jule Caylor because he even though he acted like a cold jerk during his UM interview, there really wasn't any strong evidence that he could have been responsible for his wife's disappearance. However, a lot of information I've learned about the case which was not mentioned on UM has leaned me towards his guilt.

A reporter who wrote a story on the case actually posted in this forum several months ago and shared a lot of interesting info that made Jule look pretty suspicious.
http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=275124&page=2

Thanks for that Robin - much appreciated.

Some very interesting material in that lot - the letter does sound out of sync with his personality. Coulda been written as a way of leading Law Enforcement off the scent, for sure.

Tips the scales by a margin, no argument there. I'd still be far from certain about his guilt and more in the 'on the fence' category though...

I found it telling when Mark Nichols spoke of the ridiculousness of burying his wife's body at the dump as if he was saying "Well...I didn't do THAT." To me it was his way of not lying while not addressing the question as to whether or not he killed his wife.

they're both cut from the same evil cloth

Two of the most ill-advised attempts to convince the viewer of their innocence I've ever seen - possibly the worst two.

Paul Ferrell and Glen Consagra are my personal pick for the worst two interviewees who attempted to prove their innocence. They offered NOTHING in regards to any actual evidence that would help clear them. But back to the topic at hand.

POLLIS:
Artistic merit - ?
Convincing empathy - 6 (He did sound sincere on the call placed to his friends house when looking for his wife. And he did show some emotion when talking about his reasons why he fled the town.)
Plausability - 7.5 (The fact that he has such a limited time to pull of this crime is a big factor in helping establish his innocence. And there was ZERO evidence of physical abuse, and both Charlotte's and Paul's parents/family agreed that their marriage was a happy one. The night before Charlotte died, Paul took her to the hospital for an ear infection. An odd thing to do for a man planning on killing her anyway.)
Likelihood of being innocent - 4.5 (Despite the holes in the theory that "Paul did it", there has never been a suspect of substance that has surfaced after all of these years. That's pretty damning.)
Did the TV appearance help them? I'd say in a way. Paul himself may not have helped, but having his mother appear on camera may have helped the image of his background. I think to some Paul came off as a heartless bastard, while to others he came off bitter and had a reason to be (namely Charlotte's crazy family). So I'd say it's 50/50.

NICHOLS:
Convincing empathy - 0 (No emotion whatsoever. Even his "plea" for his wife to return was laughable.)
Plausibility - 0 (As others have stated, his story makes no sense. And his ability to name every single piece of his wife's clothing that was missing is extremely suspicious).
Likelihood of being innocent - 0 (Everything in this case points to Mark Nichols and no one else.)
Did the TV apperance help them? Nope. If anything, Mark's interview made him look that much more guilty.

Jule Caylor because he even though he acted like a cold jerk
With Jule....he came out and said "Well my life since Dotty has been gone is pretty good!"

I mean, who says that??? If there was not a missing person it would be almost funny.

Mark or Paul? Paul (and this in not saying too much) came off as SLIGHTLY more smart than Mark. Neither are too bright but Mark's way off talking made him look like a big dumb doofus.

Then again if Paul managed to kill his wife adn get rid of her rather large body and NOT get caught.......guess he has a few functioning brain cells.

Mark.....not so much.

Didn't Nichols say some fool thang about tossing his wife on the bed, injuring her thumb, and it was really no big deal? He came across as the kind of guy who thinks a woman needs a smack now and then to keep her in her place.

I sure hope Christie's kids turned out okay.

Didn't Nichols say some fool thang about tossing his wife on the bed, injuring her thumb, and it was really no big deal? He came across as the kind of guy who thinks a woman needs a smack now and then to keep her in her place.

I sure hope Christie's kids turned out okay.

Yes he did say he tossed her on the bed and she injured her THUMB. No, jackass, you injured her thumb when you were getting physical with her.

One part of the story that may have been overlooked was the babysitters testimony about the change in routine when they came home from a night out. I baby sat A LOT during my youth and a change in routine was big. I baby sat for one family on a regular basis - he ALWAYS drove me home, ALWAYS paid in cash. Now if the mom has driven me home and wrote me a check I would have remembered that night. (Kinda the opposite of the Nichols but then again no one ever ended up dead in my world.)

Just that babysitter is ADAMANT that she never saw Christi that night is highly suggestive that he did away with her that night. Was their time in the bar ever proven?

And the suitcase...."If my wife packed a suitcase I would have NO IDEA what she packed. Mark knew every last item!" I had to laugh at this one too. Laughing at the detective's musings, not Mark. Most men are just not that into packing and suitcases. But big doofy Mark knows every last detail!!

And the suitcase...

My dad spent decades as a long distance truck driver. He also believes the woman is supposed to do everything, including serving the man his meals. SERVE, not just prepare the food and put it on the table, but serve it completely before she is permitted to eat. (He will get his own soda because no one else in the family can prepare the crushed ice the way he likes it! :crazy: ) If he wants another helping or a condiment, she gets up from the table and gets it for him.

Anyway, my mom always packed his suitcases for travel, and this was done as frequently as twice a week. Since he's a neat freak, he told her exactly what to pack, depending on the trip, how many of each item to pack, and what part of the suitcase to put it in.

I guarantee that at any given time, if he were asked what his wife had packed, he'd get stuff wrong. He'd get "shaving kit" right, but the number and kinds of socks, underwear, t-shirts, jeans, jacket, and so on.... no way would he get it so completely right, even though it was done at his direction, as Mark Nichols did about his wife's packed clothes.

Nichols had to have packed Christie's suitcase himself.

Plus, I totally agree with you on the babysitter scenario.

Plus, I totally agree with you on the babysitter scenario.

Thank you! Again, she was sober (unlike potential witnesses in the bar) she probably was VERY aware of the time, so as to provide a timeline. When I babysat as a teen, let me tell you: those late nights I was VERY aware of the time. I wanna go HOME!

The cleaning of the house (Per Paul Polis) was odd but really does not prove anything. Yes the walls were washed but WHEN were they washed? Some people are REALLY into clean houses and frasnkly I had never even heard of anyone washing walls until I was in my early 20's. My childhood house was clean but we didn't wash the walls.

Noth guys were gross and the REALLY sad part of the Mark Nichols case is telling the kids that "Mommy ran off." To let your kids think that when YOU killed her......beyond yuck.