Murderous hitchhiker from Delaware - something I always wondered about this case

[McBevis]

This was the case from Harrington, Delaware where Charles Holden's mother, Dorothy Donovan was murdered, supposedly by a hitchhiker that Charles was unable to accommodate. Charles was considered a suspect initially but was quickly cleared by way of blood testing. I was online a couple of years ago looking for information about this case, and something I read (I forget where), was that Charles's sisters Brenda and Diana, who were interviewed in the segment, developed some very sour relations towards their brother in the ensuing years and eventually became estranged from each other. I was wondering if this animosity was triggered by suspicion on their parts that Charles might have been involved, and if so, has anything happened since then that has cast any doubts on the original findings in this case?

[Kane]

This was the case from Harrington, Delaware where Charles Holden's mother, Dorothy Donovan was murdered, supposedly by a hitchhiker that Charles was unable to accommodate.

Not "supposedly". Dorothy Donovan was murdered by a hitchhiker. As implausible as it may sound, Charles Holden was telling the truth all along. The case was solved in 2005, when a man named Gilbert Cannon was linked to the murder via DNA. Cannon pled guilty to the murder and is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

The TV show Forensic Files profiled the murder case in an episode titled "Stranger In The Night." In that episode, it was mentioned that Gilbert Cannon explained how he coincidentally arrived at Dorothy's house: After Charles got rid of him, Gilbert was looking for a house to enter and stay at. But every house he came upon had lights on. That is, until he saw Dorothy's house, where there were no lights on. He broke into the house, not realizing that Dorothy was there.

[McBevis]

Originally Posted by Kane

Not "supposedly". Dorothy Donovan was murdered by a hitchhiker. As implausible as it may sound, Charles Holden was telling the truth all along. The case was solved in 2005, when a man named Gilbert Cannon was linked to the murder via DNA. Cannon pled guilty to the murder and is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

The TV show Forensic Files profiled the murder case in an episode titled "Stranger In The Night." In that episode, it was mentioned that Gilbert Cannon explained how he coincidentally arrived at Dorothy's house: After Charles got rid of him, Gilbert was looking for a house to enter and stay at. But every house he came upon had lights on. That is, until he saw Dorothy's house, where there were no lights on. He broke into the house, not realizing that Dorothy was there.

Glad to hear that this case was solved. It seemed to me from watching it that Charles just didn't seem like the type to be involved, but it did always trouble me that the hitchhiker just happened to find his mom's house.

[Drakken]

Originally Posted by McBevis

This was the case from Harrington, Delaware where Charles Holden's mother, Dorothy Donovan was murdered, supposedly by a hitchhiker that Charles was unable to accommodate. Charles was considered a suspect initially but was quickly cleared by way of blood testing. I was online a couple of years ago looking for information about this case, and something I read (I forget where), was that Charles's sisters Brenda and Diana, who were interviewed in the segment, developed some very sour relations towards their brother in the ensuing years and eventually became estranged from each other. I was wondering if this animosity was triggered by suspicion on their parts that Charles might have been involved, and if so, has anything happened since then that has cast any doubts on the original findings in this case?

The animosity was most probably because they blamed Charles Holden for bringing Gilbert Cannon so close to their mother's house so to expose her to danger, even when in fact he attempted to do the exact opposite. But he failed, and I cannot blame the sisters for holding him responsible despite his innocence, even though I sympathize with Charles Holden and I know he meant absolutely no harm. He did his best in the situation, but hell is built of good intentions, and in his sisters' mind he probably didn't do enough.

Dorothy Donovan's murder was a freak accident of circumstances, in as much as the odds that he would happen to enter in Donovan's house were extremely remote. But that in itself is not reassuring to many people. Their mother is still dead, Charles Holden's actions led indirectly to this death, they still need to blame someone for the events to better cope with the situation, and Charles Holden fills the hat.

Yet if he hadn't done anything after picking Cannon up, chances are that Charles Holden would have been the victim. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's almost as if the sisters had wished Charles had died, not Dorothy Donovan. Either way, in his situation, Charles Holden did the best he could to save his skin and his car.

It's possible also that there were already smoldering tensions or strains of contention between Charles and his sisters before, and their mother's brutal death was the last straw for them.

[RobinW]

Charles Holden is one of those victims you feel extra-bad for because in addition to having his mother brutally murdered, he has to provide a story to the police that sounds so unbelievable that it'll instantly make Charles the top suspect even though he's telling the truth. If the police there just happened to have a really bad case of tunnel vision, things might have turned out very bad for him.

Even if I was totally telling the truth, I would really REALLY hate to be in the position where I had to report a crime to the police where the circumstances seemed too unbelievable to be true.

[McBevis]

Originally Posted by Drakken

The animosity was most probably because they blamed Charles Holden for bringing Gilbert Cannon so close to their mother's house so to expose her to danger, even when in fact he attempted to do the exact opposite. But he failed, and I cannot blame the sisters for holding him responsible despite his innocence, even though I sympathize with Charles Holden and I know he meant absolutely no harm. He did his best in the situation, but hell is built of good intentions, and in his sisters' mind he probably didn't do enough.

Dorothy Donovan's murder was a freak accident of circumstances, in as much as the odds that he would happen to enter in Donovan's house were extremely remote. But that in itself is not reassuring to many people. Their mother is still dead, Charles Holden's actions led indirectly to this death, they still need to blame someone for the events to better cope with the situation, and Charles Holden fills the hat.

Well, that would make sense, I guess. This was always a really sad case, and I pretty much thought all along that Charles probably WAS innocent, but everytime I thought about the freak circumstances of the case, I began to wonder just a bit.

Yet if he hadn't done anything after picking Cannon up, chances are that Charles Holden would have been the victim. So damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's almost as if the sisters had wished Charles had died, not Dorothy Donovan. Either way, in his situation, Charles Holden did the best he could to save his skin and his car.

It's possible also that there were already smoldering tensions or strains of contention between Charles and his sisters before, and their mother's brutal death was the last straw for them.

Well, I guess that would make sense. I always thought this was a pretty sad case, and I pretty much thought all along that Charles Holden probably WAS innocent, but everytime I thought about the freak circumstances of the case, I would start to wonder just a bit.

[sdb4884]

Thank God this case was solved. This case could have turned extremely bad as without the physical evidence at the house he probably would have been charged with the murder of his mother. Did the high on drugs theory prove correct?

[TheCars1986]

I guess his sisters may hold a grudge against him since he saw this loser heading towards his mothers house and he drove away. I'm glad they updated this case, this guy should be fried for what he did. The sheer brutality of it all doesn't make any sense. He threatened Charles Holden but never actually attempted to attack/stab him, so why be so brutal with Holden's mother? What a sick pathetic excuse for a human.

[sharonite]

Originally Posted by sdb4884

Thank God this case was solved. This case could have turned extremely bad as without the physical evidence at the house he probably would have been charged with the murder of his mother. Did the high on drugs theory prove correct?

Yes. According to the Forensic Files episode covering the case (available on the site which must not be named), he was "high on cocaine and looking for more."

[sdb4884]

Thanks!

[SageSlowdive]

Terrifying case!

[cocytus]

To me it always sounded as if Holden had picked up the man for a sexual encounter and then things went wrong. The odds of picking up somebody at random and then that person killing your mother, who lives next door, and not you are so remote that they would almost impossible.

I just have hard time believing portions of his story, although now DNA and the other man's confession essentially close the door on this case.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by cocytus

To me it always sounded as if Holden had picked up the man for a sexual encounter and then things went wrong. The odds of picking up somebody at random and then that person killing your mother, who lives next door, and not you are so remote that they would almost impossible.

I just have hard time believing portions of his story, although now DNA and the other man's confession essentially close the door on this case.

I doubt that Holden picked this guy up for anything sexual. He was leaving a populated restaurant, not some seedy rest stop bathroom. Just seems like an odd place to proposition someone for sex. I think Holden dropped this guy off within a few yards of his mother's driveway/residence (Holden told the guy he could only take him half of the way, and him ending the trip at his residence is logical) which is why the guy targeted his mother. Additionally there were other witnesses at the restaurant that corraborated Holden's story of the man trying to get a ride because his sister just had a kid.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I doubt that Holden picked this guy up for anything sexual. He was leaving a populated restaurant, not some seedy rest stop bathroom. Just seems like an odd place to proposition someone for sex. I think Holden dropped this guy off within a few yards of his mother's driveway/residence (Holden told the guy he could only take him half of the way, and him ending the trip at his residence is logical) which is why the guy targeted his mother. Additionally there were other witnesses at the restaurant that corraborated Holden's story of the man trying to get a ride because his sister just had a kid.

While I'm in now way an "expert" on gay cottaging and cruising, I do know from reading arrest reports here in my city and in other areas, that men proposition other men for sex in a wide range of places. Around here Home Depot seems to get a lot of..."business". Which is part of the reason that I shop at Lowe's.

And maybe the "my sister's having a kid" ruse was used by the guy to get rides and then he would either rob the drivers or have sex w/ them. It wasn't made clear in the update whether the story he was telling was even true.

One of the oddest details of this story is the amount of time that elapsed between when the killer was picked up from the restaurant (according to Holden) and when the police officer arrived. We are led to believe that in a little less than an hour that:

1) He picked up the killer.
2) Was threatened by him, escaped and drove away.
3) Returned to find the same killer walking up to his mother's home.
4) Went to a neighbor's home and called the police.
5) The killer broke into his mother's home, killed her and fled the scene.
6) The police arrived shortly and found his mother's body.

All of this occurred in less than an hour? W/O anybody seeing the killer flee the area? An area, with which the killer was unfamiliar (I say that because nobody seemed to have recognized the composite nor the description given of the killer) meaning that it was unlikely that he was from there.

The timeline is all wrong. The killer would have still been in the area after the attack and barely had enough time to kill anybody, much less leave the DNA evidence used to convict if we are to believe Holden's time line.

That and the fact that Holden was a single man living alone w/ no apparent female companion makes me believe that there was more to this story than he was telling. And obviously the killer has little incentive to announce the fact that he's gay (or bisexual) before he goes to prison. I can't imagine that knowledge would be...helpful to him...when he got there.

DNA says the killer committed the crime. His confession seals it. I'm just curious about the "whys" at this point than anything else.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by cocytus

While I'm in now way an "expert" on gay cottaging and cruising, I do know from reading arrest reports here in my city and in other areas, that men proposition other men for sex in a wide range of places. Around here Home Depot seems to get a lot of..."business". Which is part of the reason that I shop at Lowe's.

And maybe the "my sister's having a kid" ruse was used by the guy to get rides and then he would either rob the drivers or have sex w/ them. It wasn't made clear in the update whether the story he was telling was even true.

One of the oddest details of this story is the amount of time that elapsed between when the killer was picked up from the restaurant (according to Holden) and when the police officer arrived. We are led to believe that in a little less than an hour that:

1) He picked up the killer.
2) Was threatened by him, escaped and drove away.
3) Returned to find the same killer walking up to his mother's home.
4) Went to a neighbor's home and called the police.
5) The killer broke into his mother's home, killed her and fled the scene.
6) The police arrived shortly and found his mother's body.

All of this occurred in less than an hour? W/O anybody seeing the killer flee the area? An area, with which the killer was unfamiliar (I say that because nobody seemed to have recognized the composite nor the description given of the killer) meaning that it was unlikely that he was from there.

The timeline is all wrong. The killer would have still been in the area after the attack and barely had enough time to kill anybody, much less leave the DNA evidence used to convict if we are to believe Holden's time line.

That and the fact that Holden was a single man living alone w/ no apparent female companion makes me believe that there was more to this story than he was telling. And obviously the killer has little incentive to announce the fact that he's gay (or bisexual) before he goes to prison. I can't imagine that knowledge would be...helpful to him...when he got there.

DNA says the killer committed the crime. His confession seals it. I'm just curious about the "whys" at this point than anything else.

I think if the restaurant was a few miles away from Holden's residence, all of this could have happened within the timeline given. Let's assume that the drive from the restaurant was 5-10 minutes away from Holden's house, he then tries to get the guy to exit his vehicle but the guy refuses and then threatens him (take off another 10-15 minutes) and Holden escapes. This would give the guy a total of approx. 45 minutes maximum to commit this crime and flee. And if Holden did in fact drop this guy off practically in front of his mother's residence this could be possible. In his confession the killer stated he was looking for a house without lights and that's why he picked Holden's mothers house. The brutality of the crime tells me that he was startled to find someone actually home, and immediately after murdering her he fled the scene. I actually think the only thing Holden may be "hiding" is the distance he drove away from his house after dropping the guy off, he probably just drove away until he couldn't see the guy anymore and then turned around and went back to his residence. I know Holden was scared of this man, but if you saw him walking up to your elderly mothers residence wouldn't you make some sort of effort to stop him?