Did Paul Freshour admit to being the Circleville Writer?

[justins5256]

Whilst doing more Googling, I came across this article. I looked on a couple of the Circleville threads here and I don't believe the article has been posted thus far. Although I did see some mention of the fact that Freshour entered an affirmative defense. Perhaps this was the reason...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...,3630243&hl=en

[Bleedingheart]

That article goes all the way back 1983

EDIT
Dohhhhhhhhhhh i meant to add more to it but i forgot now

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Bleedingheart

That article goes all the way back 1983

and?

If he ever admitted to it at any point it contradicts what he said and what was portrayed on UM. This wasn't even addressed in the segment at all. He just said he didn't do it.

[biscuitgirl]

Perhaps the article was incorrect? I don't recall that he ever confessed.

[crystaldawn]

Well that would be quite a bombshell if he did confess to the letters! I'm not sure whether if was one of those where he was browbeat into confessing or if they twisted his words into making it sound like a confession though. I never really thought he was guilty but if there's any truth to the article, I would rethink my opinion obviously.

[kadrmas15]

Hmm, yes, an affirmative defense in criminal law is usually a justification defense or self defense or something like this. I still believe Freshour's story but I would have to know more about why his lawyer would put on an affirmative defense? I mean you are basically conceding the guilt of your client by doing that.

Freshour never did admit being the circleville letter writer. Remember, he was not even charged with writing the letters. But at his trial he was charged with attempted murder as he was accused of putting up that booby trap. I would assume UM would have known his attorney put up an affirmative defense. So there must be more to it if they would still cover his story?

What I am curious of is did Freshour confess to the police? I would think they would mention if he did in the UM segment. But I am still perplexed as to why his lawyer would say Freshour did it? It could be that Freshour's lawyer tried pushing for a not guilty by reason of insanity situation. Freshour did not testify in his own defense which I think was a mistake. I also question the attempted murder charge as the gun did not fire. I just am not really sure that situation was even actually technically illegal.

[Thiussat]

Very interesting find. I have always thought that either Paul wrote the letters or someone close to him did. However, this article opens up more questions than it answers. For instance, if Paul did write "40 to 50" letters, then who wrote the rest and why? I am also a bit confused as to why UM did not report on this supposed confession.

Also, did anyone see the headline right below the Circleville one? ("Link Eyed in Child Slayings"). Talk about a coincidence, it is discussing the Rachel Runyan case, which was going on at the same time.

[Mastermind]

justins5256...who is the original author of the article. What newspaper did this story come from originally..not Ocala I presume..Looking at the article it looks like it's part of a "National Crime" section of a local Florida newspaper.

I wouldn't trust this info till we find the source newspaper or news service. I wouldn't trust these local small time newspaper writers as far as I could throw them.

A corresponding article should at least be in the local Circleville newspaper. Such a confession would be FRONT PAGE headline on the Circleville newspaper!!!! FRESHOUR CONFESSES TO LETTERS!!!

Remember that the crime he's being convicted of is attempted murder, not murder. It is quite possible that his lawyer wanted him to confess to the letters in hope of getting some leniency on the attempted murder of Mary Gillespie.

What this article does do is that it very clearly details the case against Paul Freshour that the prosecution had.

Also, did anyone see the headline right below the Circleville one? ("Link Eyed in Child Slayings"). Talk about a coincidence, it is discussing the Rachel Runyan case, which was going on at the same time.

Are we sure this is a coincidence, and the paper is not a hoax or some type of unsolved mysteries paper or something?

For instance, if Paul did write "40 to 50" letters, then who wrote the rest and why? I am also a bit confused as to why UM did not report on this supposed confession.

1. 50 letter is way to excessive for what amounts to a crime of passion. That's almost psychotic. And the letters WERE written, not photocopied, I presume. That's a lot of work. he could easily have written only 5 letters and accomplished

2. How many people or copycats would know of the Columbus postmark on the letters? Circleville, i believe does not use the Columbus postoffice. I think it has it's own. (I could be wrong on that..) The fact that the letters were postmarked at a Columbus postoffice, has always struck me as an overlooked clue. Almost like the the writer commutes constantly from Circleville to Columbus. Anyone from the area, familiar with the geography and local mailing system?

3. Why would Paul Freshour go through that much trouble to off Mary Gillespie in a way that had nearly zero chance of working? That booby trap was crude and would take extreme luck to even fire, much less kill Mary.
Even more importantly why use your own gun and then halfway through stop filing the serial number. Makes no sense. It;s almost like someone wanted Paul's gun to be found by Mary.

4. Why would Paul Freshour call his own sister and brother-in-law on the phone, when both could easily recognize his voice? Seems way to risky.

5. don;t hold me to his, but I believe the letter that Paul Freshour received matched handwriting with the majority of the letters including the first ones. I believe that's a prime reason why they let Paul out of jail.

6. Why would Paul Fre

[Thiussat]

Originally Posted by Mastermind

2. How many people or copycats would know of the Columbus postmark on the letters? Circleville, i believe does not use the Columbus postoffice. I think it has it's own. (I could be wrong on that..) The fact that the letters were postmarked at a Columbus postoffice, has always struck me as an overlooked clue. Almost like the the writer commutes constantly from Circleville to Columbus. Anyone from the area, familiar with the geography and local mailing system?

Paul worked at a beer company in Columbus.

3. Why would Paul Freshour go through that much trouble to off Mary Gillespie in a way that had nearly zero chance of working? That booby trap was crude and would take extreme luck to even fire, much less kill Mary.
Even more importantly why use your own gun and then halfway through stop filing the serial number. Makes no sense. It;s almost like someone wanted Paul's gun to be found by Mary.

I agree that it's stupid to use a gun registered to oneself, but the fact remains it is his gun. Who else besides him and close family would have access to it?

4. Why would Paul Freshour call his own sister and brother-in-law on the phone, when both could easily recognize his voice? Seems way to risky.

See, that's the thing. The segment makes it sound as if there was more than one person involved: more than one caller and more than one writer. The person on the phone might not have been Paul. And just because it might not have been Paul on the phone doesn't mean he wasn't writing letters. I think a strong possibility is that both Paul and his wife were involved in this campaign. Perhaps even others as well. Remember, Ron Gillespie was Paul's wife's brother, so there is a motive there.

The frustrating thing about this case is that UM left out a lot of info on purpose (probably because they didn't want to name names). As I said on this board a long time ago, it would be great if someone could obtain the court transcripts to Paul's attempted murder trial. I think those records would shed a lot of light on this whole thing.

[Bleedingheart]

1. During the UM Segment there was a researcher who claimed there was another person involved in the case that owned a yellow El Camino similar to one seen along the bus route

2. The Chief of police had Paul write several letters but did not charge him with letter writing! He charged with attempted murder. The chief seems a little shady

3.Ron Gilseppi was murdered but his death was ruled a suicide a blatant cover up

I have more but i will go into that later

[Mastermind]

During the UM Segment there was a researcher who claimed there was another person involved in the case that owned a yellow El Camino similar to one seen along the bus route

If you watch the segmenet again, there are 4 ferences to another suspect.
a. There's the person that the Freshour/Gillepsie family wrote the letter to.(this guy obviously wasn't Paul)
b. The original person the police suspected in killing Ron Gillespie.
c. The camino truck suspect
d. The women who wrote the letters. (obviously not Paul.)

Are these all the same guy.

2. The Chief of police had Paul write several letters but did not charge him with letter writing! He charged with attempted murder. The chief seems a little shady

I agree. The police activity on this case is strange.

3.Ron Gilseppi was murdered but his death was ruled a suicide a blatant cover up

Excelllent point. The death was at first ruled homicide then changed to accidental. What was it about the death that made them think homicide? What caused the change?

[justins5256]

Here is a very similar article from the Spokesman Review. It looks like they credit Associated Press...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=3138,2014169

Some interesting/tricky wording here...

"Radcliff said Freshour denied knowledge of the booby-trapped sign but said he had written 40 to 50 letters to businessmen, school officials, government employees and school district residents over the past seven years."

So Freshour denied making the sign, but who said Freshour had written the letters? Did Freshour make this statement or did Sheriff Radcliff?

Originally Posted by Mastermind

Excelllent point. The death was at first ruled homicide then changed to accidental. What was it about the death that made them think homicide? What caused the change?

This is just a shot in the dark at a possible non-sinister explanation. In the Tony Lombardi case, one of the detectives interviewed mentioned that it was department policy to initially examine every death as homicide unless there is obvious evidence pointing to the contrary. Could the same thing be taking place here?

As an aside, do you guys have any opinion on Martin Yant? He was the journalist interviewed along with Freshour who supported his claims of innocence.

[mozartpc27]

I pointed out some time ago that Paul Freshour entered an affirmative defense. It's in the Circleville Letters thread. So yes, he did admit to writing some of the letters. You can't enter an affirmative defense without conceding you DID the thing for which you are on trial.

[Mastermind]

As a Suspect?

Interesting.....

A journalist would fit the profile of the writer.

[crystaldawn]

This may seem off the wall but has anyone ever considered a female could have been involved in the letter writing. It seems that people are overlooking the superintendent's wife (if he had one, not positive on that). She would have had a motive of letting the public know of the affair, possibly to get back at her husband and his mistress. Did any of these online articles ever mention who this person is that the original 4 people who knew about the letters in the beginning suspected? He would also be the one with the brother that had an el camino.

Btw does ANYONE out there believe that Mary Gillespie and the Superintendent's affair started AFTER the letter writing campaign....no I didn't think so.