Deputy Sheriff Charles Anderson

[kadrmas15]

This one was on today and it was the first time I had seen it. Shortly after midnight on January 24th, 1987 off duty Los Angeles County, California Deputy Sheriff Charles Anderson returned home with his wife and two young sons from a visit to relatives. Deputy Anderson took his older son age 5 into the house and put him to bed. Apperantly as soon as he exited his son's bedroom he either confronted or was confronted by an unknown person in his home. His wife was out in the car with the younger son that was only a few months old. His wife thought it was backfire she heard when in fact it was two gun shots. His wife went into the house and called for him and when he didnt answer she went upstairs. She found Deputy Anderson laying dead at the top of the steps.

The Burbank police were called to the scene. It appeared at first to be a burglary. However the drawers were opened very neatly, items that were very valuable were left behind. Only a few items were taking and were less valuable than other items left behind. It appeared that someone had staged it to look like a burglary to throw off the authorities. When Anderson's sister was interviewed on UM she said that the expression on his face said it all. She said his eyes were wide open and he had this expression on his face like he knew who it was and that he was shocked that this person was betraying him. The anonymous caller was another one. This guy calls in and was obviously nervous. The cops believe the call was genuine. The guy was very nervous about not only revealing the name of the person that killed Deputy Anderson but was also nervous of his voice being recorded and the call being traced. The detective gave him his private office number to call on but I think the caller got nervous and decided to not call back. I think it was someone that Deputy Anderson knew that murdered him. I think it was someone that Anderson thought he was friends with. Obviously it was unexpected. Was it a friend? Or maybe a fellow cop even? Could be. Why they would want to kill him is anyone's guess. Maybe he knew to much about something? There is definitly more to this case than meets the eye because there is so many unanswered questions.

[Beetlejuice69]

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

This one was on today and it was the first time I had seen it. Shortly after midnight on January 24th, 1987 off duty Los Angeles County, California Deputy Sheriff Charles Anderson returned home with his wife and two young sons from a visit to relatives. Deputy Anderson took his older son age 5 into the house and put him to bed. Apperantly as soon as he exited his son's bedroom he either confronted or was confronted by an unknown person in his home. His wife was out in the car with the younger son that was only a few months old. His wife thought it was backfire she heard when in fact it was two gun shots. His wife went into the house and called for him and when he didnt answer she went upstairs. She found Deputy Anderson laying dead at the top of the steps.

The Burbank police were called to the scene. It appeared at first to be a burglary. However the drawers were opened very neatly, items that were very valuable were left behind. Only a few items were taking and were less valuable than other items left behind. It appeared that someone had staged it to look like a burglary to throw off the authorities. When Anderson's sister was interviewed on UM she said that the expression on his face said it all. She said his eyes were wide open and he had this expression on his face like he knew who it was and that he was shocked that this person was betraying him. The anonymous caller was another one. This guy calls in and was obviously nervous. The cops believe the call was genuine. The guy was very nervous about not only revealing the name of the person that killed Deputy Anderson but was also nervous of his voice being recorded and the call being traced. The detective gave him his private office number to call on but I think the caller got nervous and decided to not call back. I think it was someone that Deputy Anderson knew that murdered him. I think it was someone that Anderson thought he was friends with. Obviously it was unexpected. Was it a friend? Or maybe a fellow cop even? Could be. Why they would want to kill him is anyone's guess. Maybe he knew to much about something? There is definitly more to this case than meets the eye because there is so many unanswered questions.

Could've been a fellow cop, but who knows? I felt uncomfortable watching this episode, for some reason.

[Kane]

Originally Posted by kadrmas15

This one was on today and it was the first time I had seen it. Shortly after midnight on January 24th, 1987 off duty Los Angeles County, California Deputy Sheriff Charles Anderson returned home with his wife and two young sons from a visit to relatives. Deputy Anderson took his older son age 5 into the house and put him to bed. Apperantly as soon as he exited his son's bedroom he either confronted or was confronted by an unknown person in his home. His wife was out in the car with the younger son that was only a few months old. His wife thought it was backfire she heard when in fact it was two gun shots. His wife went into the house and called for him and when he didnt answer she went upstairs. She found Deputy Anderson laying dead at the top of the steps.

The Burbank police were called to the scene. It appeared at first to be a burglary. However the drawers were opened very neatly, items that were very valuable were left behind. Only a few items were taking and were less valuable than other items left behind. It appeared that someone had staged it to look like a burglary to throw off the authorities. When Anderson's sister was interviewed on UM she said that the expression on his face said it all. She said his eyes were wide open and he had this expression on his face like he knew who it was and that he was shocked that this person was betraying him. The anonymous caller was another one. This guy calls in and was obviously nervous. The cops believe the call was genuine. The guy was very nervous about not only revealing the name of the person that killed Deputy Anderson but was also nervous of his voice being recorded and the call being traced. The detective gave him his private office number to call on but I think the caller got nervous and decided to not call back. I think it was someone that Deputy Anderson knew that murdered him. I think it was someone that Anderson thought he was friends with.

Judging from the details, I suspect that the killer was someone Charles Anderson knew, and that the intruder's only real intention was to kill him.

[Clockworkhigh]

Okay, I am opening up a very, very old thread but for some reason there isn't a lot on this case.

Alright, I find a couple things perplexing. For starters everything starts out fine. Charlie takes his son up to the bedroom from the car because his wife has a bad back. She stays with the other son in the car momentarily. She hears two "pops" and goes into the house to investigate. She finds Charlie dead at the top of the stairs. Then she runs downstairs goes to the car and picks up her other son and runs.

A couple things that have always made me ponder about the wife:

- there were no other fingerprints in the house other than the family members
- she never saw an intruder
- if there was an intruder how come they didn't find anything (as far as I know) that proved there was forced entry?
- why did her son not wake up when the gunshots were fired?
- if it was a burglary why was nothing valuable stolen?
- the wife is the only witness to anything

Just a thought. I mean, did they look at her closely?

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

Okay, I am opening up a very, very old thread but for some reason there isn't a lot on this case.

Alright, I find a couple things perplexing. For starters everything starts out fine. Charlie takes his son up to the bedroom from the car because his wife has a bad back. She stays with the other son in the car momentarily. She hears two "pops" and goes into the house to investigate. She finds Charlie dead at the top of the stairs. Then she runs downstairs goes to the car and picks up her other son and runs.

A couple things that have always made me ponder about the wife:

- there were no other fingerprints in the house other than the family members
- she never saw an intruder
- if there was an intruder how come they didn't find anything (as far as I know) that proved there was forced entry?
- why did her son not wake up when the gunshots were fired?
- if it was a burglary why was nothing valuable stolen?
- the wife is the only witness to anything

Just a thought. I mean, did they look at her closely?

It's been some time since I watched it so I can't elaborate. However, my guess would be that Anderson's wife was probably one of the first people cleared. In any murder investigation, the immediate family is investigated first. Since the police were exploring other avenues as discussed on the segment, I think we can assume the wife was cleared.

I read that the woman who confessed to being involved in the death of Carol Montecalvo was a suspect in Anderson's murder at one time, perhaps she still is. Similar MOs in both crimes and I believe Anderon's murder occurred in the same neighborhood a year or less before the Montecalvo murder, but don't quote me on that. Obviously, Carol's husband, Dan Montecalvo, was convicted and sent to prison, for life, for the murder. He has always maintained innocence and was himself the subject of a Final Appeal segment. Unfortunately, the Montecalvo segment didn't touch on the Anderson murder.

Regarding Anderson, I think the police explanation was probably correct. He walked in on someone - wasn't there ransacking? I think the killer (or killers) retaliated by shooting Anderson. They probably escaped from the rear or side of the house so not to be seen fleeing the residence after the sound of the gunshots. This would probably explain why Anderson's wife saw nothing.

[Steve_uk]

Hi everyone,I've just joined this site. The Charlie Anderson murder has just aired on British television and I've been looking on sites like this for any extra information,which is scant.

Mindful of the libel laws let me add something to what Clockworkhigh has written.I don't understand why upon hearing the two shots or car backfires the woman would go into the house..I mean if it were me I'd take my kid and get the hell out of the situation.Statistically a burglar does not like to be confronted so that is also suspicious as there appeared to be no signs of a break-in,so the burglar was either waiting by the side of the house for the family to return which seems unlikely or had hidden inside the house whilst the family were away for the evening. I also don't hear mentioned that the murder weapon was found so I assume it wasn't left by the body. This to me suggests that someone may have paid for Anderson to be killed,and would also explain the telephone call to the Police the day afterwards if the killer had confessed to a relative what he had done in exchange for money perhaps. Remember Anderson was a wealthy man. Apologies if this is an old case for you;there's a huge amount of stuff on this site and I'm just navigating my way around.

[Thiussat]

I always suspected it was someone that knew him. IIRC, the Police said the robbery looked staged. And I always found it *highly* suspicious that the wife suddenly felt tired and just decided to stay in the car when they arrived home, thus forcing the husband to enter the house alone.

I see two possible scenarios:

1) The wife hired a hitman

2) Some ex con had it out for this guy and tried to cover up his crime by staging a robbery.

[Thiussat]

Originally Posted by Steve_uk

Hi everyone,I've just joined this site. The Charlie Anderson murder has just aired on British television and I've been looking on sites like this for any extra information,which is scant.

Apologies if this is an old case for you;there's a huge amount of stuff on this site and I'm just navigating my way around.

Are you new to UM or have you been watching for a while? If you're new I can recommend you some of the best cases.

[Steve_uk]

Please go ahead.There seems to be a plethora of threads on this site,just not much information on this particular case. I'm more interested in the crime stories than all that Beverly Hills 90210 stuff..

[welshman]

Steve can you tell me which channel you saw it on?

[Steve_uk]

We have Rupert Murdoch's Sky tv here(satellite)..I think it's the CBS reality channel.

[Steve_uk]

Sorry didn't see you were from Wales. Here's the link: any new thoughts?

[welshman]

[QUOTE=Steve_uk]Sorry didn't see you were from Wales. Here's the link: any new thoughts?
Thanks, but I don't think you're allowed to post links to that channel, people can get a bit touchy about it I have seen it before it's not one of my favourites I think his wife is responsible somehow, if you want more great segments I would try this thread http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=298060

[Steve_uk]

Oh ok thanks welshman,it will take me some time to study those cases.Yes the link to the Charles Anderson case has been removed.

[crystaldawn]

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=300096