That's the best title I could come up with to make my point. Sorry.

I'm sure every once in a while we've all watched UM or some true crime show and heard an interviewee make a statement to which, despite not agreeing with or disbelieving everything else out of the person's mouth, we had to concede the point.

For example, as much as I think Noreen Renier and other psychics are full of it, her point about how people's brains work when they spell I thought had some validity. I've always had a very good memory for certain things like dates. I don't know how or why and I always just took it for granted since I don't remember not having such an ability. I've had people who have known me for years dead serious want to how I ever acquired such a skill.

I actually used a variation of Noreen's argument on a friend of mine when she asked me this for the billionth time. She was Puerto Rican and spoke fluent Spanish, so I calmly asked how her brain instinctively knew how to code switch when she spoke to her grandparents (who knew no English) and speaking perfect English with her non-Latino friends like me. It was like a the light finally came on and she understood my point. Although I don't believe Noreen had any special powers, her point about not always questioning how people got certain talents and abilities because they don't match your own instead of just accepting them and reaping the benefits can be applied to many other life situations. Not some ole psychic bull**** though. But maybe that's just me.

I also always thought Bonnie Haim's father made a fair point (although it was because he was in deep denial) about how Michael's shoeprint being in Bonnie's car in and of itself meant nothing as couples borrow each other's cars all the time.

Good idea for a thread!

Here are a few that come to mind:

1) I think Stuart Heaton is guilty, but I can't disagree with his statement that a carpenter would have cuts on their hands.

2) I also believe Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, but I couldn't argue with his defense attorney who was upset that he had so little time to go through the evidence. The defense should have had way more time to go through everything.

3) I didn't think he was guilty, but the guy who Kurt McFall was staying with, as shady as he seemed, made a good point that it would have been really dumb of him to kill someone when the victim's father knew he was staying with him.

I'm sure there are so many more, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

Even though I don't think they are guilty, I've always never thought there was malice on the part of the investigators/prosecutors in suspecting the Dowaliby's in Jaclyn Dowaliby's murder, and the same with Patty Stallings.

2) I also believe Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, but I couldn't argue with his defense attorney who was upset that he had so little time to go through the evidence. The defense should have had way more time to go through everything.

Although it wasn't mentioned on UM, I read a book about MacDonald which stated that one of things investigators found suspicious about the crime scene was that a magazine with Charles Manson on the cover was sitting on the coffee table (implying of course that MacDonald had studied it and used it as a guide to kill his family). The author correctly points out that the Manson murders had only happened six months prior and if anything, it would have been more unusual for most Americans to have a copy or Time, Life, etc. that DIDN'T have something about the murders on the front page since that was all everyone was talking about at the time.

Seriously. That would be like calling someone a terrorist because they had an article about 9/11 in their home in the early part of 2002.

Even though I don't think they are guilty, I've always never thought there was malice on the part of the investigators/prosecutors in suspecting the Dowaliby's in Jaclyn Dowaliby's murder, and the same with Patty Stallings.
Yes. I think there's a knee-jerk reaction when someone is found to have been wrongfully convicted that the police must have had it in for them the whole time. The immediate response when the person is released is "Well, the police never should have dared to question or investigate them in the first place.".

The truth is that random violent crime against children is much rarer than the media sometimes leads us to believe. When a child is harmed or killed in their own home, police are only practicing basic procedures and common sense by looking at the immediate family. This is different from abject corruption.

In general, I think this attitude comes from the narrative that often gets pushed in true crime shows (particularly the more modern ones) where victims and their families are always seen as right and the authorities are just big mean bullies who only want to get a conviction or antagonize the poor grieving family. There's very little gray area in such narratives.

In general, I think this attitude comes from the narrative that often gets pushed in true crime shows (particularly the more modern ones) where victims and their families are always seen as right and the authorities are just big mean bullies who only want to get a conviction or antagonize the poor grieving family. There's very little gray area in such narratives.

UM was guilty of this too. The Norman Ladner case, for example, when Norman's mother made the claim that an "stranger" told her that she needed to drop looking into Norman's death because they'll never find the person who killed him...and it's presented in the segment as a factual truth.

Yeah, that’s exactly who I thought of when I wrote that. Cheryl Lombardi’s “demonstration” of the bullet hole in Tony’s headboard also falls into this category.

On the ID show Reasonable Doubt, the hosts (a former homicide detective and a defense attorney; not exactly laypeople) will sit down with the relatives of the person who may have been wrongfully convicted at the top of the show to discuss the case and evidence used to convict. A host might say something like “So-and-so’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon” and the family will smugly shoot back with “Well, the police mishandled evidence to frame him/her”. You know it has to be on the tip of the hosts’ tongue to ask “Sorry, but you got your forensic and law degrees from where that you can just make that type of determination.

I never thought of Mary Helen Carr’s (Mac MacDonald’s girlfriend) mother as evil for not simply looking the other way and allowing her underage daughter to date a 20-year-old.

She should have probably been more understanding, but I always felt like the segment’s portrayal of her racing out of the house and snarling at Mac because he made small talk with her daughter about his motorcycle was an exaggeration colored by Mac’s perception of her at the time.

I don’t think Mac was a bad person at all, but I would be curious to know what Mary Helen’s recollections were, particularly since she actually lived with her mother.

Something always rubbed me the wrong way about the interview with Mac's daughter. I thought it was pretty clear that his intentions were good and he acknowledged what he did was wrong, but she sounded skeptical of him the entire time. I am sure at least part of that came from what she heard about him growing up, probably from her grandmother and maybe even from her own mother.

I don't believe Danny Wheeler was Michael Jordan and that he played for the Chicago Bulls.

In all seriousness I didn't believe "Rick" who was the owner of the gun they said was used to kill Morris Davis. Guns don't just get up and walk away.

I also don't believe Donnie Hansen didn't setup his sisters but that ones an obvious one

Something always rubbed me the wrong way about the interview with Mac's daughter. I thought it was pretty clear that his intentions were good and he acknowledged what he did was wrong, but she sounded skeptical of him the entire time. I am sure at least part of that came from what she heard about him growing up, probably from her grandmother and maybe even from her own mother.

Unsolved88, good idea for a thread.

Schmave, I agree. I also think that was one of the most realistic lost loves segments where the ending didn't feel like "happily ever after"

For me one person that I have come around on is Steve Horning from the Patsy Wright segment. I first thought he was suspect and comes off as not sincere in his UM interview (because there was negative tension between him and patsy) but in hindsight it must have been very difficult for him to be in that position.

UM was guilty of this too. The Norman Ladner case, for example, when Norman's mother made the claim that an "stranger" told her that she needed to drop looking into Norman's death because they'll never find the person who killed him...and it's presented in the segment as a factual truth.

I guess I missed this one. Norman's mother was not approached by a man telling her to drop the idea of looking into his death? If I recall didn't she say it herself on the segment that this happened?



Anyway, for this thread, I guess mine would be, if I were playing defense lawyer I would suggest that Steve Page would be an idiot to leave his wife's body a football field away from where he was the entire night. And you know, it actually has some teeth to it too.

Something always rubbed me the wrong way about the interview with Mac's daughter. I thought it was pretty clear that his intentions were good and he acknowledged what he did was wrong, but she sounded skeptical of him the entire time. I am sure at least part of that came from what she heard about him growing up, probably from her grandmother and maybe even from her own mother.

I have no problem with her interview or reaction, frankly the fact that she was even willing to meet him is more than I would expect. If he did not have money there was no way she would have ever wanted contact.
What is telling was that her mother, who was "in love" with him and ran off with the guy clearly came to realize her own mother had been right from the start.

I guess I missed this one. Norman's mother was not approached by a man telling her to drop the idea of looking into his death? If I recall didn't she say it herself on the segment that this happened?
...


For some reason that claim has been doubted around here from time to time. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. Mrs. Ladner takes a lot of criticism she doesn't deserve IMO. To me there is zero reason to doubt this happened, especially when multiple people were present at the time. It would have been debunked years ago for that reason alone if she was lying.

I guess I missed this one. Norman's mother was not approached by a man telling her to drop the idea of looking into his death? If I recall didn't she say it herself on the segment that this happened?

We are given her version of events that this man approached the Ladner's while in the middle of a conversation and told them "they'll never find the man who killed your son". And then he left. They didn't bother to stop the man or try to find out who he was, or ask the coroner. Forgive me if I'm suspicious of this story. IMO, she exaggerated someone telling her to take care of her other children into something sinister.

IMO, she exaggerated someone telling her to take care of her other children into something sinister.

My take on it is that it was someone with experience with parents of teenage suicide victims trying to impart the message to not get hyper-fixated on what happened searching for the unanswerable question of "why" and to focus instead on her living children.

My take on it is that it was someone with experience with parents of teenage suicide victims trying to impart the message to not get hyper-fixated on what happened searching for the unanswerable question of "why" and to focus instead on her living children.

Certainly plausible.

Something always rubbed me the wrong way about the interview with Mac's daughter. I thought it was pretty clear that his intentions were good and he acknowledged what he did was wrong, but she sounded skeptical of him the entire time. I am sure at least part of that came from what she heard about him growing up, probably from her grandmother and maybe even from her own mother.

It’s probably the most uncomfortable reunion in the show’s history…and I always loved those reunions. I don’t fault the daughter for feeling the way she did. Despite Mac’s intentions, he did take off when she was a newborn and having to grow up without him is going to cause a sense of bitterness or anger no matter how well intended he was.

It’s interesting that they didn’t use the traditional happy reunion music for this update like all the others. It’s just continuous sad music throughout. Almost like the UM producers knew this was a downer and they were just pointing out the obvious.

It probably would have been better if there was no on camera reunion for this case and Stack simply told the viewers of the reunion like with Alethea Everitz’s siblings reunion and Carolyn Smith’s reunion with her sons Charles and Christopher.

It’s probably the most uncomfortable reunion in the show’s history…and I always loved those reunions. I don’t fault the daughter for feeling the way she did. Despite Mac’s intentions, he did take off when she was a newborn and having to grow up without him is going to cause a sense of bitterness or anger no matter how well intended he was.

It’s interesting that they didn’t use the traditional happy reunion music for this update like all the others. It’s just continuous sad music throughout. Almost like the UM producers knew this was a downer and they were just pointing out the obvious.

It probably would have been better if there was no on camera reunion for this case and Stack simply told the viewers of the reunion like with Alethea Everitz’s siblings reunion and Carolyn Smith’s reunion with her sons Charles and Christopher.

I still just don't see it with Mac's daughter as to how she was rude or anything. She could be described as "taken back" if anything. But that's it. She still said she welcomed him into the family.

Mac McDonald spent less than 5 minutes with his newborn daughter before taking off and waiting 40 plus years to start looking for her. I'd cut his daughter some slack in this instance, considering she had a father who actually raised her.

As an adoptee with an absent biological father( he abandoned our family) I can put myself in her shoes. However, if my bio father had come back and was genuinely contrite, I’d like to think I would’ve given him a chance. I know Mac’s daughter agreed to, there was just something in the way she said what she did that was off. I didn’t believe her.

It's been pointed out that she wasn't mentioned in his obituary.

I think we all could agree that there are many, complicated layers to the whole story with Mac McDonald, Mary Helen Carr, her mother and their daughter. Perhaps Mac and Mary Helen truly loved each other and wanted to be together, but I can't blame her mother for reacting the way she did to her underaged daughter seeing someone who was, in the eyes of the law, an adult. Furthermore, given Mac's history with Mary Helen's mother and his own, basic, youthful ignorance at the time, I could understand (if not condone) why he chose to cut-and-run when he met his daughter for the first time, but I also agree that the "right" thing to do in that situation would have been to stay and face the proverbial music, regardless of whether the authorities were indeed there to arrest him.

Like I said, it's complicated; and because it's complicated, I don't blame the daughter or Mary Helen for being reticent (for lack of a better word) to welcome Mac back into their lives. I just hope the three were able to come to some sort of understanding before Mac had passed away.

i don't know if i'd say i disagree with her, but the case of chuck morgan is one of my favorites, because of how mysterious it is. normally in a segment we have 2 or 3 people, even more telling us about the case, what they saw, what happened..... which usually matches up more or less.

like i say i have no reason to believe she's a liar, she doesn't seem to be lying, she actually comes across as being confused by it all. but if we take away everything that ruth morgan said, then all we have is a dead body in the desert, theres no other family member, neighbour or anyone to back her up.

some podcast, maybe trace evidence uploaded their episode on the case to youtube, and in the comments about 5 or 6 years ago someone had written

"there was a lot more to this and my family than what was said"

or something along those lines.....


clicking on the youtube account of this person there are videos of bake sales in tucson, if it is his daughter or not, i do believe that ruth morgan knew something, something she never told the police or UM.

like i say i have no reason to believe she's a liar, she doesn't seem to be lying, she actually comes across as being confused by it all. but if we take away everything that ruth morgan said, then all we have is a dead body in the desert, theres no other family member, neighbour or anyone to back her up.

This is such a classic case. But I agree that I wish we had more information.

Like the first time Chuck disappeared. He was missing for three days. Are we to believe that he was never reported missing? This beloved father of 4 going missing would have been all over the local news at the time.

I think back in the 70's, you had to wait multiple days to report someone missing but I think by day three, Ruth would have been in the clear to get someone to investigate this.

This is such a classic case. But I agree that I wish we had more information.

Like the first time Chuck disappeared. He was missing for three days. Are we to believe that he was never reported missing? This beloved father of 4 going missing would have been all over the local news at the time.

I think back in the 70's, you had to wait multiple days to report someone missing but I think by day three, Ruth would have been in the clear to get someone to investigate this.


It's like having a book with maybe 40% of the pages missing, it's pretty much impossible to reach a conclusion. the thing is, when we have this lack of information, a big part of the case that would help us put things together better, is it because "they" reallly don't know, and it is a mystery, or we're not being told the whole story??

UM seems to go down the "the mob was money laundering in AZ, and chuck got killed because he was in too depp, or it was the government..."

but the mob doesn't send you home after 3 days with strange chemicals in your throat and your pants around your ankles! i can't see that being standard CIA protocol either...

So that leaves us with ruth morgans account of events, could you imagine your loved one going missing for 3 or 4 days and not even asking him where he had been? it's easy to say he told her nothing for her own safety but i dunno...

I think she knew something more, maybe a lot more.

I, for one, don’t think Jule Caylor makes that good of a salad.

I, for one, don’t think Jule Caylor makes that good of a salad.
:lol: I swear I experienced the Mandala Effect for that. I could have sworn there was a goofy picture of him with the salad when it happened but nope, just a post. I must have made it up (or wished) there was a picture of him grinning with a salad.

It's like having a book with maybe 40% of the pages missing, it's pretty much impossible to reach a conclusion. the thing is, when we have this lack of information, a big part of the case that would help us put things together better, is it because "they" reallly don't know, and it is a mystery, or we're not being told the whole story??

UM seems to go down the "the mob was money laundering in AZ, and chuck got killed because he was in too depp, or it was the government..."

but the mob doesn't send you home after 3 days with strange chemicals in your throat and your pants around your ankles! i can't see that being standard CIA protocol either...

So that leaves us with ruth morgans account of events, could you imagine your loved one going missing for 3 or 4 days and not even asking him where he had been? it's easy to say he told her nothing for her own safety but i dunno...

I think she knew something more, maybe a lot more.

I actually never thought of chuck having a mistress. That could explain the woman who called Ruth. Surely Ruth had to question another woman calling her regarding her husband. The most interesting part of Ruth’s testimony IMO is her account of the men who came to search her house. If that is true then it really showcases something that resembles organized crime.

Wayne Hecker is one that I would bring up. I think he should have been more tactful with his interview. In the past I was very critical of his interview and I actually at one point thought he was guilty, but now I can of have a better understanding of what he was trying to say.

the guy who represented the company that dale kerstetter was working for. I think that his comments were horrible. He called dale a marginal employee. I appreciated that he brought up dale’s heroism. But I thought his comments were poor given that dale was a veteran who most likely was killed on the job. Devil’s advocate: I think the company was legally trying to protect itself, but that is one of my least favorite interviews from UM.

I actually never thought of chuck having a mistress. That could explain the woman who called Ruth. Surely Ruth had to question another woman calling her regarding her husband. The most interesting part of Ruth’s testimony IMO is her account of the men who came to search her house. If that is true then it really showcases something that resembles organized crime.


UM talks about two scenarios, organized crime, that the bonnanos using certain arizona laws were money laundering there, and that chuck was working for the government and either way got in over his head, knew too much and was off'd.

But if you cross the mob, you do a jimmy hoffa, they don't send you home with strange chemicals in your throat and your pants around your ankles at 3am! like i've said before i can't imagine it being some deep state tactic either. if you cross people at this level like UM suggests then you just go missing, never to be seen again...

Ruth says that 2 FBI agents came to her house, the FBI deny it, and naturally they would if there some kind of conspiracy. but maybe they didn't and ruth for whatever reason is lying.

the point of this thread is playing devils advocate, on face value ruth doesnt seem to be a liar, but i find it interesting that we only have her version of events, theres nobody there backing her up, theres no neighbor, family member, someone who worked with chuck...

so if we take away everything that ruth said, that only she claimed happened, the phone call from green eyes, the fbi agents, chuck returning home with a strange chemical in his throat....

then we're just left with a dead man in the desert.

then we're just left with a dead man in the desert.

Gunpowder residue was found on Morgan's hands, his gun was used to shoot him at the top of his head, and he was wearing a bullet proof vest when he was found. He disappeared twice and his family never reported either to the authorities. This case reminds me of the Mike O'Mara case, where he goes out to commit suicide but makes it look like foul play so the family can collect life insurance. My best guess was that he was involved in something shady with organized crime, and was spooked by either them or the justice department's investigation and became more and more paranoid. A serious organized crime syndicate would have made Morgan disappear; not shoot him in the middle of nowhere with his own gun and not make it look like an obvious suicide.

.

the guy who represented the company that dale kerstetter was working for. I think that his comments were horrible. He called dale a marginal employee. I appreciated that he brought up dale’s heroism. But I thought his comments were poor given that dale was a veteran who most likely was killed on the job. Devil’s advocate: I think the company was legally trying to protect itself, but that is one of my least favorite interviews from UM.

I totally agree! the company sh-it all over him, yet employed him for over 27 years and when given the chance to let him go, kept him on in another capacity, so how could he have been so bad?

it never made sense to me that dale would do this, he had just bought a new truck, obviously had a family that loved him, a home... he'd have had to split the money from the platinum with at least one other person, maybe 2 or 3, and with it being so hot, never got full value from it from a buyer, if it was worth 250k, they were only going to get maybe 150k for it on the black market, maybe less, split that by 2 o 3 people?

even if he got 75k, 80k... it wasn't worth it. the company seemed too keen to put the blame on him, i think they did an inside job for the insurance money, the company already had losses, thats why they let so many people go and later it closed...

Gunpowder residue was found on Morgan's hands, his gun was used to shoot him at the top of his head, and he was wearing a bullet proof vest when he was found. He disappeared twice and his family never reported either to the authorities. This case reminds me of the Mike O'Mara case, where he goes out to commit suicide but makes it look like foul play so the family can collect life insurance. My best guess was that he was involved in something shady with organized crime, and was spooked by either them or the justice department's investigation and became more and more paranoid. A serious organized crime syndicate would have made Morgan disappear; not shoot him in the middle of nowhere with his own gun and not make it look like an obvious suicide.


But that still leaves a lot of questions right? we have zero evidence that he was involved in organized crime, but if what you're saying is correct, and who knows, why this whole ruse?

lets say you're right, for whatever reason chuck wants to kill himself, why go missing for 4 days and come back talking about strange chemicals in his throat? why buy a gun and a bullet proof vest? why have someone called "green eyes" call his wife to say he's fine?

why all the 2 buck bill in his pocket with names and maps? why the bible codes?

is ruth a part of this? did she know he killed himself? if so, why go on UM to push strange lies? and if she wasn't lying, how does this tie into his suicide?

i don't think he was involved in organized crime, tony soprano doesn't have someone called green eyes calling you up before whacking you.

none of it makes sense and we only have ruths version, if ruth is lying, which we should always think is an option, then it just gets stranger.

UM talks about two scenarios, organized crime, that the bonnanos using certain arizona laws were money laundering there, and that chuck was working for the government and either way got in over his head, knew too much and was off'd.

But if you cross the mob, you do a jimmy hoffa, they don't send you home with strange chemicals in your throat and your pants around your ankles at 3am! like i've said before i can't imagine it being some deep state tactic either. if you cross people at this level like UM suggests then you just go missing, never to be seen again...

Ruth says that 2 FBI agents came to her house, the FBI deny it, and naturally they would if there some kind of conspiracy. but maybe they didn't and ruth for whatever reason is lying.

the point of this thread is playing devils advocate, on face value ruth doesnt seem to be a liar, but i find it interesting that we only have her version of events, theres nobody there backing her up, theres no neighbor, family member, someone who worked with chuck...

so if we take away everything that ruth said, that only she claimed happened, the phone call from green eyes, the fbi agents, chuck returning home with a strange chemical in his throat....

then we're just left with a dead man in the desert.

Actually those tactics are exactly in line with what organized crime or the intelligence services might do. And his eventual death is also exactly in line as well. To assume that either group only kills people Jimmy Hoffa style is very much incorrect. Sometimes that is the case, but others are purposefully meant to be found as a warning to others. And not everyone can be killed, sometimes its necessary to find out where they have hidden evidence or other information that can't be allowed out.

I believe every word she said, it fits well known patterns of operation.

Gunpowder residue was found on Morgan's hands, his gun was used to shoot him at the top of his head, and he was wearing a bullet proof vest when he was found. He disappeared twice and his family never reported either to the authorities. This case reminds me of the Mike O'Mara case, where he goes out to commit suicide but makes it look like foul play so the family can collect life insurance. My best guess was that he was involved in something shady with organized crime, and was spooked by either them or the justice department's investigation and became more and more paranoid. A serious organized crime syndicate would have made Morgan disappear; not shoot him in the middle of nowhere with his own gun and not make it look like an obvious suicide.

False. Making deaths look like suicides is a very common tactic when trying to cover up wrongdoing or distract negative media attention. There is nothing mandating organized crime make people disappear, often that draws far more attention than making it look like they were suicides.

Actually those tactics are exactly in line with what organized crime or the intelligence services might do. And his eventual death is also exactly in line as well. To assume that either group only kills people Jimmy Hoffa style is very much incorrect. Sometimes that is the case, but others are purposefully meant to be found as a warning to others. And not everyone can be killed, sometimes its necessary to find out where they have hidden evidence or other information that can't be allowed out.

I believe every word she said, it fits well known patterns of operation.


it's not incorrect, could you give me an example of where an organized crime group, and UM like many others point to the bonnano family, have kidnapped someone for 4 days, then sent him home, pants around his ankles talking about a strange chemical in his throat that could drive him insane?

i'm from NY where there is and always has been a high OC presence, i've never heard of the gambinos using crazy madness inducing liquids to intimidate people, i've never heard of the genovese family having someone call their victims wife quoting bible verses...

so that leaves the government, would they do something like this? well, maybe, but why? isn't it all a little silly and far fetched? why play all these games? why have the mysterious "green eyes" quoting bible verses? why put 7 spanish names on a 2 dollar note, why the tooth wrapped up in his pocket?

it's like if you gave a story assignment to an 11 year old, it would be great, but fitting. the problem is we have nobody to back up ruth morgans side of the story, she's the only person telling us what happened. if your wife or husband went missing like this, wouldn't you ask him at least where he had been? was he in the back of a car? a warehouse? she asked him nothing.

we've become too wrapped up in this amazing story, and thats why i love it, the mysterious green eyes quoting bible verses, spanish names and maps on a 2 dollar bill, possible government and mob involvement, a guy going missing twice, strange liquids that could drive him insane....

it's fascinanting, it's very hollywood, but maybe thats what it is, FICTION, and the truth is a lot more simple.

the guy who represented the company that dale kerstetter was working for. I think that his comments were horrible. He called dale a marginal employee. I appreciated that he brought up dale’s heroism. But I thought his comments were poor given that dale was a veteran who most likely was killed on the job. Devil’s advocate: I think the company was legally trying to protect itself, but that is one of my least favorite interviews from UM.

I agree. Their intentions were obvious. They never should have had one person guarding a massive building that size with THAT amount of platinum in the first place. Blaming everything on Dale was an easy out for them.

But that still leaves a lot of questions right? we have zero evidence that he was involved in organized crime, but if what you're saying is correct, and who knows, why this whole ruse?

lets say you're right, for whatever reason chuck wants to kill himself, why go missing for 4 days and come back talking about strange chemicals in his throat? why buy a gun and a bullet proof vest? why have someone called "green eyes" call his wife to say he's fine?

why all the 2 buck bill in his pocket with names and maps? why the bible codes?

is ruth a part of this? did she know he killed himself? if so, why go on UM to push strange lies? and if she wasn't lying, how does this tie into his suicide?

i don't think he was involved in organized crime, tony soprano doesn't have someone called green eyes calling you up before whacking you.

none of it makes sense and we only have ruths version, if ruth is lying, which we should always think is an option, then it just gets stranger.

It could be a lot of red herrings. I think thecars brings up a good point about the suicide angle and you also made a good point about only having Ruth’s accounts for a lot of the details regarding Chuck’s alleged poisoning. I think if you take her at face value there’s a lot of theories that we could talk about. Like perhaps chuck was threatened or tortured by someone. A jealous husband, or Organized Crime? We know that there was a law enforcement agent that was interviewed that claimed that other officers fled the area due to fear of crime. That may not have been at all related to chuck, it could have just been general information that was added to spice up the segment.

I think chuck was having an affair, if it is indeed true that he was in a motel with another woman. I mean why would you be alone with someone like that? Anyway it’s also possible that he may have taken drugs or poisoned himself the first time and it didn’t kill him. He could have been lying to Ruth about the FBI stuff. The 2$ bill could have been a ruse to make it look like he didn’t kill himself.

I agree. Their intentions were obvious. They never should have had one person guarding a massive building that size with THAT amount of platinum in the first place. Blaming everything on Dale was an easy out for them.

I’ve always wondered if dale’s family has any legal recourse to take against the company especially given their poor comments and claims that they made about Dale in the segment. The comments themselves are not a crime, but I wonder if the company had some liability for Dale’s death. I don’t think I’ve ever read anywhere that they took any legal action. I guess the biggest issue would be not being able to prove that Dale indeed died on the job. I would argue that they can prove that platinum was stolen and that Dale disappeared.

It could be a lot of red herrings. I think thecars brings up a good point about the suicide angle and you also made a good point about only having Ruth’s accounts for a lot of the details regarding Chuck’s alleged poisoning. I think if you take her at face value there’s a lot of theories that we could talk about. Like perhaps chuck was threatened or tortured by someone. A jealous husband, or Organized Crime? We know that there was a law enforcement agent that was interviewed that claimed that other officers fled the area due to fear of crime. That may not have been at all related to chuck, it could have just been general information that was added to spice up the segment.

I think chuck was having an affair, if it is indeed true that he was in a motel with another woman. I mean why would you be alone with someone like that? Anyway it’s also possible that he may have taken drugs or poisoned himself the first time and it didn’t kill him. He could have been lying to Ruth about the FBI stuff. The 2$ bill could have been a ruse to make it look like he didn’t kill himself.


but it can't be everything, lets break it down...

what makes people think, and in reality the only reason why we think that chuck could have be involved in some strange and underworld activity is the story that ruth morgan tells us, his wife, of these strange chemicals in his throat, going missing and coming back at 3am "i can't tell you anything" buying a gun.... because theres zero other evidence to link him to any of this.

but then we can't say that ruth was lying, because then what basis would we have to believe that any underworld activity was going on and then lead to his death or suicide?

if we are saying that ruth lied, then what basis do we have to believe that charles morgan was anything more than an average middle age husband and business man? who wasn't exact a milionaire, with all due to respect, charles morgan was pretty average...

so where are we getting all this underworld conspiracy stuff from? well it comes from ruths version of events, that point to that, but if she's lying?

you're saying that chuck was both being hunted and suicidal at the same time, which doesnt make sense. it can't be every theory at the same, you know what i mean?

maybe there are some red herrings, but i don't believe that a suicidal man would buy a bullet proof vest! again! it can't be both! you can't be afraid for your life, but desperate to end it. it makes no sense.

as for the affair? maybe. but i think we're attributing way too much to a very average man.. chuck morgan, government inteligence asset with links to organized crime that is both suicidal and in fear of his life, while having an affair.....


fascinating but not likely

but it can't be everything, lets break it down...

what makes people think, and in reality the only reason why we think that chuck could have be involved in some strange and underworld activity is the story that ruth morgan tells us, his wife, of these strange chemicals in his throat, going missing and coming back at 3am "i can't tell you anything" buying a gun.... because theres zero other evidence to link him to any of this.

but then we can't say that ruth was lying, because then what basis would we have to believe that any underworld activity was going on and then lead to his death or suicide?

if we are saying that ruth lied, then what basis do we have to believe that charles morgan was anything more than an average middle age husband and business man? who wasn't exact a milionaire, with all due to respect, charles morgan was pretty average...

so where are we getting all this underworld conspiracy stuff from? well it comes from ruths version of events, that point to that, but if she's lying?

you're saying that chuck was both being hunted and suicidal at the same time, which doesnt make sense. it can't be every theory at the same, you know what i mean?

maybe there are some red herrings, but i don't believe that a suicidal man would buy a bullet proof vest! again! it can't be both! you can't be afraid for your life, but desperate to end it. it makes no sense.

as for the affair? maybe. but i think we're attributing way too much to a very average man.. chuck morgan, government inteligence asset with links to organized crime that is both suicidal and in fear of his life, while having an affair.....


fascinating but not likely

I agree with you that we only have Ruth’s account on a lot of the details which opens the door for a lot of different possibilities which I think are all rabbit holes. Then I agree with thecars that he most likely committed suicide and staged it to look like he was murdered. Just because he was wearing a bullet proof vest doesn’t mean he could not have shot himself. I only brought up the affair because why else would another lady call Ruth after chuck’s death? And I don’t see why Ruth would have lied about that phone call. Average men can have affairs, that’s what makes them average imo.

I agree with you that we only have Ruth’s account on a lot of the details which opens the door for a lot of different possibilities which I think are all rabbit holes. Then I agree with thecars that he most likely committed suicide and staged it to look like he was murdered. Just because he was wearing a bullet proof vest doesn’t mean he could not have shot himself. I only brought up the affair because why else would another lady call Ruth after chuck’s death? Average men can have affairs, that’s what makes them average imo.

an average man can have affairs, of course, but we're saying at the same time that this average man was in so deep with either organized crime and/or government inteligence agencies, that he wanted to off himself.

yet wanted to protect his life so much, that he bought a gun, a bullet proof vest and changed certain routines when it came to driving to the office everyday.

you see what i'm getting at? it can't be both. a man who commits suicide doesn't need to make it look a certain way, once that bullet hits his brain then theres no consequences. he won't see the results.

i don't think he killed himself, but i also don't think he was involved in some crazy underworld CIA program, the truth is much simpler, much closer to home.

an average man can have affairs, of course, but we're saying at the same time that this average man was in so deep with either organized crime and/or government inteligence agencies, that he wanted to off himself.

yet wanted to protect his life so much, that he bought a gun, a bullet proof vest and changed certain routines when it came to driving to the office everyday.

you see what i'm getting at? it can't be both. a man who commits suicide doesn't need to make it look a certain way, once that bullet hits his brain then theres no consequences. he won't see the results.

i don't think he killed himself, but i also don't think he was involved in some crazy underworld CIA program, the truth is much simpler, much closer to home.
I don’t agree. He could have been breaking laws, running from real threats or imaginary ones, cheating on his wife, and also committed suicide. Even if he wasn’t having an affair he was obviously lying to his wife or leaving her out of his personal and business affairs. It actually makes more sense to me that he may have gotten overwhelmed with everything and decided to end it all. There is no playbook for why and how people do things. Sometimes it just happens that way and we are left to wonder why. There are many other segments of suicide where people are wanting to look at every other angle aside from suicide to make an unexplained death seem more mysterious than it was.

I don’t agree. He could have been breaking laws, running from real threats or imaginary ones, cheating on his wife, and also committed suicide. Even if he wasn’t having an affair he was obviously lying to his wife or leaving her out of his personal and business affairs. It actually makes more sense to me that he may have gotten overwhelmed with everything and decided to end it all. There is no playbook for why and how people do things. Sometimes it just happens that way and we are left to wonder why. There are many other segments of suicide where people are wanting to look at every other angle aside from suicide to make an unexplained death seem more mysterious than it was.


why is this case so fascinating? why after over 40 years or something are we here talking about it? because it doesn't make sense. it's not a crazy theory to think he killed himself, nor is it a crazy theory to believe he was having an affair. at this point any theory is on the table, because it's still unsolved.

but...what is a fact is that we have no real reason to believe anything, you can look at 95% of UM cases and based on something arrive at a sensible conclusion, you could be wrong, of course, but there would be a reason why you think like you do.

but theres no reason, no evidence to believe that chuck morgan was working with organized crime, with the goverment, that he had an affair, that he killed himself or that there was a reason for him to be killed. zero, nothing. nobody could say "i think he was bla bla bla, because bla bla bla..." we know nothing!

we need a reason to think that chuck morgan would want to put 3 bullets in his brain right? was he terrified because he was working on some international conspiracy? playing the gangsters off againist the feds and viceversa? got in too depp and off'd himself? maybe, but we need a reason,a motive to think that, and what do we have?

we have his wife telling us he came home at 3am with his pants round his ankles saying he'd been given a drug that would make him crazy. theres nothing else., so thats one hell of a stretch.

you mentioned an affair, i'm not saying that i believe it, but once i read a theory that chuck went missing many times, and even though "thecars" says no, ruth did report it to the police, anyway... but that chuck was having affairs, ruth hired a hitman and killed him, and all her UM story was complete BS! it never happened.. do i believe it? mmmm no, not really. but it's more believable than bonanno and CIA assets playing them off against each other, then killing himself after buying a gun, bullet proof vest and other things as a means to saving his life, yet wanted to die....

I don’t agree. he may have gotten overwhelmed with everything and decided to end it all. .

but overwhelmed with what? what is the evidence or even the slighest bit of suggestion that charles morgan was involved in anything dangerous or anything that would make him want to end his life?

i could even accept a bit of local informed rumor that chuck was involved with something, but we have nothing. based on your theory, a man goes missing twice, he was having an affair, then kills himself in the desert.

but theres somthing huge missing here

ok, but why? where and why do "overwhelming" things come in? which i assume is organized crime and some deep state or whatever?

you accept that ruth morgan could have been lying about everything, you accept that there are red herrings, ok, so we have a a dead man in the desert who killed himself, but why?

but overwhelmed with what? what is the evidence or even the slighest bit of suggestion that charles morgan was involved in anything dangerous or anything that would make him want to end his life?

i could even accept a bit of local informed rumor that chuck was involved with something, but we have nothing. based on your theory, a man goes missing twice, he was having an affair, then kills himself in the desert.

but theres somthing huge missing here

ok, but why? where and why do "overwhelming" things come in? which i assume is organized crime and some deep state or whatever?

you accept that ruth morgan could have been lying about everything, you accept that there are red herrings, ok, so we have a a dead man in the desert who killed himself, but why?

Deep state haha..no


something had him overwhelmed for him to engage in the behavior that he did, if he was genuinely living in fear for his safety or his children's safety.

It depends on what he was actually doing. that I do not know the answer. Was he scamming in his business? Was he cheating on his wife? Did he have someone who threatened him or his family? Those are all things that when combined together could create a lot of stress for someone.

Chuck had gun powder residue on his hands? if that is true then that is direct evidence that he fired a weapon. which leads one to ask was he setup or did he stage the scene to look like a murder?

Ruth said that a woman 'green eyes' called her. if that is true that is evidence that he might have been having an affair.

I'm not 100% certain of any of this, I'm just saying that it is possible that he was living a double life of some sort and was lying to Ruth about things.

and I agree with your theory that there was not some type of CIA conspiracy going on. As far as organized crime I do not know. One of the key aspects of Ruth's account that I wish could be substantiated are the 2 men came to her house posing as FBI. if that actually happened then maybe chuck was involved in some type of illegal activity that involved multiple parties.

Deep state haha..no


something had him overwhelmed for him to engage in the behavior that he did, if he was genuinely living in fear for his safety or his children's safety.

It depends on what he was actually doing. that I do not know the answer. Was he scamming in his business? Was he cheating on his wife? Did he have someone who threatened him or his family? Those are all things that when combined together could create a lot of stress for someone.

Chuck had gun powder residue on his hands? if that is true then that is direct evidence that he fired a weapon. which leads one to ask was he setup or did he stage the scene to look like a murder?

Ruth said that a woman 'green eyes' called her. if that is true that is evidence that he might have been having an affair.

I'm not 100% certain of any of this, I'm just saying that it is possible that he was living a double life of some sort and was lying to Ruth about things.

and I agree with your theory that there was not some type of CIA conspiracy going on. As far as organized crime I do not know. One of the key aspects of Ruth's account that I wish could be substantiated are the 2 men came to her house posing as FBI. if that actually happened then maybe chuck was involved in some type of illegal activity that involved multiple parties.


you can believe that something overwhelmed him so much that he wanted to take his own life, but it seems you don't know what that thing was, so why believe it?

there is conflicting things when it comes to the gun powder found on his hand, some sources say there wasnt any, and some say it was on his left hand when chuck was right handed

https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Charles_Morgan


also no fingerprints were found on the weapon. now add to that, that someone we are told killed himself just happened to have a bullet proof vest on, had bought a gun and insisted on changing his route to work all in the name of being afraid for his life.... does this sound normal? does it add up?

your first sentence says he was in fear of his safety, he clearly was, someone so worried about his own safety doesnt't just go and put a bullet in their own head a month later.

we need to establish why we believe he was having an affair, maybe he was, but a 20 second phone call from green eyes quoting a bible verse and going missing for 3 days isn't proof nor even a whiff of adultery.

we also need to establish why we believe he put a bullet in his own head, zero evidence he had any connection to the criminal underworld, government agencies...

we have no reason to believe anything.

you can believe that something overwhelmed him so much that he wanted to take his own life, but it seems you don't know what that thing was, so why believe it?

there is conflicting things when it comes to the gun powder found on his hand, some sources say there wasnt any, and some say it was on his left hand when chuck was right handed

https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/Charles_Morgan


also no fingerprints were found on the weapon. now add to that, that someone we are told killed himself just happened to have a bullet proof vest on, had bought a gun and insisted on changing his route to work all in the name of being afraid for his life.... does this sound normal? does it add up?

your first sentence says he was in fear of his safety, he clearly was, someone so worried about his own safety doesnt't just go and put a bullet in their own head a month later.

we need to establish why we believe he was having an affair, maybe he was, but a 20 second phone call from green eyes quoting a bible verse and going missing for 3 days isn't proof nor even a whiff of adultery.

we also need to establish why we believe he put a bullet in his own head, zero evidence he had any connection to the criminal underworld, government agencies...

we have no reason to believe anything.

These are just opinions and theories. and this is a segment that I have flipped and flopped on more than once because the segment presents a lot of information. As I have gotten older I have grown very skeptical of a lot of the conspiracy angles that UM presented in certain segments, this being one of them. I understand why they did it though. One is free to believe whatever they think happened, or not to believe it if there is lack of evidence. That is one of the best things about the show as RS says "you be the judge." if we were in a real court room then I would have a hard time proving anything with what was presented in this segment. It is possible that he was murdered.

it's not incorrect, could you give me an example of where an organized crime group, and UM like many others point to the bonnano family, have kidnapped someone for 4 days, then sent him home, pants around his ankles talking about a strange chemical in his throat that could drive him insane?

i'm from NY where there is and always has been a high OC presence, i've never heard of the gambinos using crazy madness inducing liquids to intimidate people, i've never heard of the genovese family having someone call their victims wife quoting bible verses...

so that leaves the government, would they do something like this? well, maybe, but why? isn't it all a little silly and far fetched? why play all these games? why have the mysterious "green eyes" quoting bible verses? why put 7 spanish names on a 2 dollar note, why the tooth wrapped up in his pocket?

it's like if you gave a story assignment to an 11 year old, it would be great, but fitting. the problem is we have nobody to back up ruth morgans side of the story, she's the only person telling us what happened. if your wife or husband went missing like this, wouldn't you ask him at least where he had been? was he in the back of a car? a warehouse? she asked him nothing.

we've become too wrapped up in this amazing story, and thats why i love it, the mysterious green eyes quoting bible verses, spanish names and maps on a 2 dollar bill, possible government and mob involvement, a guy going missing twice, strange liquids that could drive him insane....

it's fascinanting, it's very hollywood, but maybe thats what it is, FICTION, and the truth is a lot more simple.


Alright, lets deal with this.

"could you give me an example of where an organized crime group, and UM like many others point to the bonnano family, have kidnapped someone for 4 days, then sent him home, pants around his ankles talking about a strange chemical in his throat that could drive him insane?"

No, and to ask for an example is ridiculous.
First, events like that rarely happen exactly the same way twice. Have organized crime groups used intimidation tactics before? Obviously. Have they sent people home with warnings? Oh yes. This exact format? Odds are against it.
Second, the vast majority of such events are not publicized or known. Its not like you look it up on Google and get a list of these. So the fact that we don't have an identical case to reference means nothing, because even if 10 of them happened odds we would know about it are near 0.

Its great that you are from NY, and yes there has always been OC there, but that does not make you an expert on organized crime. You have not heard of most of what has gone on in NY even if you think you have.
Furthermore, most organized crime is not of the Godfather variety you see in movies and on TV and that New Yorkers tell tall tales about to impress each other. Most organized crime isn't like that. In short, it doesn't matter what you think you know about NY crime families, because that is almost certainly not what he was dealing with.

So no, that does not leave the government, it leaves most organized crime along with potentially some rouge element in the government.

No 11 year old could have written this. It has too many key details that give it away as an authentic event.
The fact that no one is there to back up Ruth Morgan means nothing, because no one would reasonably be in such a position. Again, expecting evidence where you reasonably should not and then pointing to its absence as proof it was fake is not a sound reasoning.

Alright, lets deal with this.

"could you give me an example of where an organized crime group, and UM like many others point to the bonnano family, have kidnapped someone for 4 days, then sent him home, pants around his ankles talking about a strange chemical in his throat that could drive him insane?"

No, and to ask for an example is ridiculous.
First, events like that rarely happen exactly the same way twice. Have organized crime groups used intimidation tactics before? Obviously. Have they sent people home with warnings? Oh yes. This exact format? Odds are against it.
Second, the vast majority of such events are not publicized or known. Its not like you look it up on Google and get a list of these. So the fact that we don't have an identical case to reference means nothing, because even if 10 of them happened odds we would know about it are near 0.

Its great that you are from NY, and yes there has always been OC there, but that does not make you an expert on organized crime. You have not heard of most of what has gone on in NY even if you think you have.
Furthermore, most organized crime is not of the Godfather variety you see in movies and on TV and that New Yorkers tell tall tales about to impress each other. Most organized crime isn't like that. In short, it doesn't matter what you think you know about NY crime families, because that is almost certainly not what he was dealing with.

So no, that does not leave the government, it leaves most organized crime along with potentially some rouge element in the government.

No 11 year old could have written this. It has too many key details that give it away as an authentic event.
The fact that no one is there to back up Ruth Morgan means nothing, because no one would reasonably be in such a position. Again, expecting evidence where you reasonably should not and then pointing to its absence as proof it was fake is not a sound reasoning.

I'm confused, i gave a list of what Ruth Morgan claimed happened and then said that OC crime like the bonanno family and inteligence agencies don't usually act like this. that they don't send you home after a 3 day kidnapping with your pants around your ankles and strande madness inducing chemicals in your throat.

you said "that's exactly what they do"

so i've asked you for an example? anything, and you say it would be ridiculous to ask for examples?

if you can't give me one example of anything like this, then you can say it's their standard MO to do these things? it doesn't make sense.

I'm confused, i gave a list of what Ruth Morgan claimed happened and then said that OC crime like the bonanno family and inteligence agencies don't usually act like this. that they don't send you home after a 3 day kidnapping with your pants around your ankles and strande madness inducing chemicals in your throat.

you said "that's exactly what they do"

so i've asked you for an example? anything, and you say it would be ridiculous to ask for examples?

if you can't give me one example of anything like this, then you can say it's their standard MO to do these things? it doesn't make sense.

Its ridiculous to expect that exact type of intimidation to have been used in a case that also becomes known to the public at large. Its a fallacy of wanting an over specific example and wanting an example from an incident unlikely to be widely known.

But intimidation is a standard tactic of organized crime, and if you claim otherwise all it proves is you don't know anything about the subject.

Ever read up on the drug cartels in Mexico? Body parts strewn all over for the purpose of intimidation. Now you tell me, if a group is violent and bold enough to hack dozens of people up and spread them all over the place as a warning, what on earth would stop them from roughing a guy up and sending him home with a warning?

False. Making deaths look like suicides is a very common tactic when trying to cover up wrongdoing or distract negative media attention. There is nothing mandating organized crime make people disappear, often that draws far more attention than making it look like they were suicides.

I know that if I wanted to make something look like a suicide, I would have left the victim's bullet proof vest on. Very savvy organized crime move right there. And this was two months after abducting him and letting him go back to his wife and children (of which none of them were ever harmed or threatened). Solid organized criminal activity!

But that still leaves a lot of questions right?

Sure does.

we have zero evidence that he was involved in organized crime, but if what you're saying is correct, and who knows, why this whole ruse?

Mental illness brought on by paranoia.

lets say you're right, for whatever reason chuck wants to kill himself, why go missing for 4 days and come back talking about strange chemicals in his throat? why buy a gun and a bullet proof vest? why have someone called "green eyes" call his wife to say he's fine?

"Green eyes" could have been a mistress, and the ridiculous "they painted this drug in my throat that can irrevocably destroy my nervous system if you call the doctor or the police" story was the result of his romp with "green eyes" for three days.

why all the 2 buck bill in his pocket with names and maps? why the bible codes?

Maybe Morgan was writing down other people involved with what he was also involved in?

is ruth a part of this? did she know he killed himself? if so, why go on UM to push strange lies? and if she wasn't lying, how does this tie into his suicide?

I don't think she's lying, but she's extremely naive.

don't think he was involved in organized crime, tony soprano doesn't have someone called green eyes calling you up before whacking you.

It's possible that he wasn't. That doesn't mean he himself wasn't doing something shady or illegal.

none of it makes sense and we only have ruths version, if ruth is lying, which we should always think is an option, then it just gets stranger.

I don't think she is lying, but I think she was naive to believe everything that Chuck was alleging. The two men showing up to ransack the house could have been associates of his looking to see if he kept any records of the illegal activities they could have been involved in.

If Morgan was deathly afraid of some organized crime syndicate that wanted him dead, he certainly put a lot of other people in harms way: his father (who he went to on the morning of his second disappearance and told him that there was a letter detailing the who, what, and why he was dead...which has never been found), "green eyes", and his wife and potentially children.

Its ridiculous to expect that exact type of intimidation to have been used in a case that also becomes known to the public at large. Its a fallacy of wanting an over specific example and wanting an example from an incident unlikely to be widely known.

But intimidation is a standard tactic of organized crime, and if you claim otherwise all it proves is you don't know anything about the subject.

Ever read up on the drug cartels in Mexico? Body parts strewn all over for the purpose of intimidation. Now you tell me, if a group is violent and bold enough to hack dozens of people up and spread them all over the place as a warning, what on earth would stop them from roughing a guy up and sending him home with a warning?


it's not a fallacy, you said you "thats exactly what they do" so i've asked you for an example. we've had decades of government witnesses people who have turned against OC, we have whistleblowers within the government...

if anything of what ruth morgan claimed was "normal" like you say, and you must have a reason to believe "that "its exactly what they do" then there would be something, anything....

Sure does.



Mental illness brought on by paranoia.



"Green eyes" could have been a mistress, and the ridiculous "they painted this drug in my throat that can irrevocably destroy my nervous system if you call the doctor or the police" story was the result of his romp with "green eyes" for three days.



Maybe Morgan was writing down other people involved with what he was also involved in?



I don't think she's lying, but she's extremely naive.



It's possible that he wasn't. That doesn't mean he himself wasn't doing something shady or illegal.



I don't think she is lying, but I think she was naive to believe everything that Chuck was alleging. The two men showing up to ransack the house could have been associates of his looking to see if he kept any records of the illegal activities they could have been involved in.

If Morgan was deathly afraid of some organized crime syndicate that wanted him dead, he certainly put a lot of other people in harms way: his father (who he went to on the morning of his second disappearance and told him that there was a letter detailing the who, what, and why he was dead...which has never been found), "green eyes", and his wife and potentially children.


But it can't be everything! you say that all of this is paranoia brought on my mental illness, which could be very true. but then he was he was afraid of some OC group?

What i'm saying is we have no basis in order to believe any of this, maybe he was having an affair, but going missing for 3 or 4 days and someone called green eyes calling the house quoting the bible doesn't really give us any evidence of adultery.

theres nothing linking him to organized crime groups, we have nothing to suggest he was involved in anything inteligence related.

The problem with this segment is that we only have ruth morgan telling the story, every other segment we have 3 or 4 people offering their version of events, this time we have nothing. Maybe Ruth was naive, but i find it hard to believe that her husband went missing for days, and she simply went back to making his dinner and not a word about what happened or where he was... being naive or caring about "her safety" so not telling her, naaa...

like i say, take everything that she said out of this, and what do we have? just a dead man in the desert.

At this point, believing that Ruth had him killed for the life insurance money, then later invented all this stuff as a means of creating another narrative... is much more believable than secret CIA and organized crime links with madness inducing chemicals in his throat....

but it can't be "he was mentally ill and therefore paranoid, but he really was doing something top secret, he wore a bullet proof vest, yet killed himself while all the time still not too busy to have an affair.."

But it can't be everything! you say that all of this is paranoia brought on my mental illness, which could be very true. but then he was he was afraid of some OC group?

He could have been fearful of what would be uncovered in the land fraud case where he was to be a witness for the state.

What i'm saying is we have no basis in order to believe any of this, maybe he was having an affair, but going missing for 3 or 4 days and someone called green eyes calling the house quoting the bible doesn't really give us any evidence of adultery.

Coming home after disappearing for three days with one plastic binding around one of your ankles, one plastic binding on both hands, a missing shoe, and then claims that you were attacked by a shadowy organization who painted your throat with a drug that could cripple or kill you if you called the police or the doctor? If my wife came home like that, I wouldn't suspect she was kidnapped by the mob.

theres nothing linking him to organized crime groups, we have nothing to suggest he was involved in anything inteligence related.

Which makes his behavior even more bizarre and less likely to be truthful.

The problem with this segment is that we only have ruth morgan telling the story, every other segment we have 3 or 4 people offering their version of events, this time we have nothing. Maybe Ruth was naive, but i find it hard to believe that her husband went missing for days, and she simply went back to making his dinner and not a word about what happened or where he was... being naive or caring about "her safety" so not telling her, naaa...

You also have Don "I've never met a conspiracy theory I didn't love" Devereaux who likes to insinuate things based off of little to no evidence. Example: he says "there is a great likelihood that Mr. Morgan was doing something with the government"...where?! Where is there any evidence, outside of him being a witness in a state land fraud case, that he was doing something with the government?

At this point, believing that Ruth had him killed for the life insurance money, then later invented all this stuff as a means of creating another narrative... is much more believable than secret CIA and organized crime links with madness inducing chemicals in his throat....

I agree that the organized crime angle to this is ridiculous.

but it can't be "he was mentally ill and therefore paranoid, but he really was doing something top secret, he wore a bullet proof vest, yet killed himself while all the time still not too busy to have an affair.."

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am saying that Chuck was involved with something shady with whatever this fraudulent land deal investigation was looking into. He was fearful of either his own downfall as the result of the investigation OR fearful of retaliation of whoever was being investigated. He maybe even was threatened. He starts doing all of these odd things (modifying his car, carrying a cache of ammunition and weapons) because he's paranoid at this point. Paranoid and scared people still carry on extramarital affairs. He was seen by multiple witnesses in the days after his second disappearance at several hotels and restaurants in West Tucson. His erratic movements would suggest someone who was constantly moving out of some sort of paranoia; not that he was scared of some shadowy organized crime that put a hit out on him.

He could have been fearful of what would be uncovered in the land fraud case where he was to be a witness for the state.



Coming home after disappearing for three days with one plastic binding around one of your ankles, one plastic binding on both hands, a missing shoe, and then claims that you were attacked by a shadowy organization who painted your throat with a drug that could cripple or kill you if you called the police or the doctor? If my wife came home like that, I wouldn't suspect she was kidnapped by the mob.



Which makes his behavior even more bizarre and less likely to be truthful.



You also have Don "I've never met a conspiracy theory I didn't love" Devereaux who likes to insinuate things based off of little to no evidence. Example: he says "there is a great likelihood that Mr. Morgan was doing something with the government"...where?! Where is there any evidence, outside of him being a witness in a state land fraud case, that he was doing something with the government?



I agree that the organized crime angle to this is ridiculous.



I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am saying that Chuck was involved with something shady with whatever this fraudulent land deal investigation was looking into. He was fearful of either his own downfall as the result of the investigation OR fearful of retaliation of whoever was being investigated. He maybe even was threatened. He starts doing all of these odd things (modifying his car, carrying a cache of ammunition and weapons) because he's paranoid at this point. Paranoid and scared people still carry on extramarital affairs. He was seen by multiple witnesses in the days after his second disappearance at several hotels and restaurants in West Tucson. His erratic movements would suggest someone who was constantly moving out of some sort of paranoia; not that he was scared of some shadowy organized crime that put a hit out on him.


I get what you're saying, it's just that the point of this thread is to play devils advocate, every podcast, every documentary or book or whatever on this case goes down the same route, that there was something dark, shady and mysterious going on, the CIA, the mob....

And i'm not saying that i believe that ruth morgan was lying, but what if she was? it's an interesting angle. because she has nobody to back her up and without taking into account what she says, then like i've said before theres just a corpse in the desert.

there are 1000s of UM segments, but i think theres only maybe a dozen that stick out because no matter what you do, you can't really come to a conclusion, something seems to contradict it. like the cindy james case, blair adams....

what leads us to believe that chuck was involved in something sinister is the whole story of him coming home from wherever saying he had chemicals in his throat and had been working for the government...

But like you say, it could all have been chuck lying because he was with someone in a hotel, but if chuck can lie, so can his wife.

40 something years right? and this case hasn't been solved, maybe it's because we've spent too long looking at it from a very sinister angle, when the truth was much simpler and much more closer to home, without any shady dealings...

40 something years right? and this case hasn't been solved, maybe it's because we've spent too long looking at it from a very sinister angle, when the truth was much simpler and much more closer to home, without any shady dealings...

No, the reason it is unsolved is because he was killed by professionals, who also made a botched hit on an investigator hitting a 3rd party and took out another guy who had evidence he was going to turn over to said investigator.

The reason we have not seen this solved is right in the segment, an investigator who said more than one LE officer not only left the area, but left the US in fear of their lives. Getting to the bottom of this was probabally impossible from the beginning.

No, the reason it is unsolved is because he was killed by professionals, who also made a botched hit on an investigator hitting a 3rd party and took out another guy who had evidence he was going to turn over to said investigator.

The reason we have not seen this solved is right in the segment, an investigator who said more than one LE officer not only left the area, but left the US in fear of their lives. Getting to the bottom of this was probabally impossible from the beginning.


you can believe in whatever you want, and yeah i believe that there are conspiracies, dark things in this world, but to believe in something, when you have nothing to back it up, zero, zip, nothing... is just silly and naive.

what evidence do we have that charles morgan was involved in anything? because his naive wife or even liar wife said he came home with madness inducing chemicals in his throat and his pants around his ankles?

we need more, a lot more, you said that these things were standard OM from organized crime groups and inteligence agencies, but you can't explain why.

saying everything is a conspiracy "but asking me why i think it's a conspiracy is a fallacy" just doesn't cut it.

Sure does.



Mental illness brought on by paranoia.



"Green eyes" could have been a mistress, and the ridiculous "they painted this drug in my throat that can irrevocably destroy my nervous system if you call the doctor or the police" story was the result of his romp with "green eyes" for three days.



Maybe Morgan was writing down other people involved with what he was also involved in?



I don't think she's lying, but she's extremely naive.



It's possible that he wasn't. That doesn't mean he himself wasn't doing something shady or illegal.



I don't think she is lying, but I think she was naive to believe everything that Chuck was alleging. The two men showing up to ransack the house could have been associates of his looking to see if he kept any records of the illegal activities they could have been involved in.

If Morgan was deathly afraid of some organized crime syndicate that wanted him dead, he certainly put a lot of other people in harms way: his father (who he went to on the morning of his second disappearance and told him that there was a letter detailing the who, what, and why he was dead...which has never been found), "green eyes", and his wife and potentially children.

3 day romp haha. Yeah I agree. I don’t know why I never really thought about that before. I also don’t think Ruth was lying or purposely withholding anything. I think she wanted to believe in her husband and there’s nothing wrong with that. I also find her naive, yet sincere.