Somebody slap me.........I am starting to wonder about Paul Pollis' apparent guilt

[Clockworkhigh]

I watched the segment. Then I re-watched it. Okay look, the guy is one of the more comical characters on UM but I watched it again with the utmost objectivity. I actually went into the segment blindly and ignoring the accusations and actually found that there is little reason to believe Paul murdered Charlotte.

For starters:
- there was never any proof a crime was committed
- there was none of Charlotte's blood found
- there was no motive
- there were no eyewitnesses other than a neighbour who saw what she appeared to be garbage bags in Paul's backseat which would be absolutely insane to unload her body in the day
- Charlotte's mother seemed unstable. Calling your daughter 10-14 times a day is not normal. What on earth would you talk about? "Hey mom, no I'm just having a bowl of cereal. No it's a different one from 5 minutes ago."
- the accusations about the "shed" are one-sided from Charlotte's family which is an opinion I would almost consider worthless
- if you believe Paul, you will believe that people handle stress differently. A missing wife could cause you to pace, or..........CLEAN. Yes that is not a crazy notion.
- he'd need more than one accomplice to move Charlotte and no one saw this but just speculated about it
- footprints near a shed are not unusual and a member of Charlotte's family claims it was Paul's footprint. I personally would not recognize my own footprint if you photographed it
- had there been blood in the house the cops would have found it no matter how much Mr. Clean had been used
- nobody mentions whether or not Charlotte was actually a good housewife. Perhaps she kept the house extremely clean. No one denies this. So it could be true when Paul's mother says "all I did was clean up after some spaghetti"


Lastly, if you are truly innocent and are bombarded with onlookers that are gawking at you I'd want to take off too. Add into the accusations Charlotte's crazy family made and it would be any wonder why you'd want to stay there. This explains skipping the polygraph test because you are in no condition to take it. Tim McClure and David Dowaliby both failed their tests miserably. There are legions of people on here who will proclaim their innocence. Larry Gibson passed one and a ton of people think he is innocent. Not saying I don't trust a polygraph but maybe he was advised not to take one.

Lastly Paul never throws stones back at people in the interview. He surprisingly doesn't get involved in the "he said, she said" crap. It is very possible that Charlotte is sick (something BOTH families agreed on) and while Paul is gone during the day he probably keeps the door unlocked. For whatever reason Charlotte interrupts a home invasion and the rest is history. Paul comes home and she's gone and he doesn't find it weird until later in the day. Remember he has two kids to look after, he has enough to worry about.

Anyway, when you look at it without the UM slant on it, there certainly is a case that Pollis is innocent. My opinion? It isn't important but he most likely is involved, but I won't write it in stone like I did before

[crystaldawn]

Okay....SLAP!! Certainly entitled to your opinion but I do still think he's guilty. If you're concerned about a UM slant here is the Charley Project page which has mainly the same details.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/...charlotte.html

I, like everyone else, found the frequency of phone calls between Charlotte and her mom bizarre but there are a lot of things that point to his guilt. There was blood found in his trunk, just not enough to analyze. The fact he agreed to take a lie detector and then conveniently left town so he couldn't. The people around town and the neighbors I tend to believe. Everyone that saw Paul that day didn't see his children with him and the neighbor saw him loading his car with bags and boxes. I definitely think she met with foul play and the fact that she didn't have her purse with her makes me think she met with it at her own home. The fact that Paul has been in trouble with the law ever since, which certainly doesn't make him guilty of her murder, sure doesn't help us that question his character make him look innocent.

[cocytus]

Charlotte Pollis was 5' 7" and weighed 300lbs. It would have been exceedingly difficult to move her and its difficult to imagine how she would have been loaded into the trunk of a car unaided. Her size also makes it difficult to comprehend that how, w/o dismembering her body, Pollis could have removed all traces of her.

While it's obvious that Pollis is a criminal, there's no real evidence that he's a murderer.

[mozartpc27]

Well, let's see... the last anyone heard from Charlotte was at 1:45 AM the day she disappeared. Around 7:00PM, Paul starts to call people, indicating she is missing.

By Paul's own account, there is nothing to suggest Charlotte could have been taken from the home.

His answer to the shed story in the segment is entirely unsatisfactory: first, he says "It's a shed," as if to say, "it had no signifance, so why was her family asking about it?" Then he says he remembers that it had some kind of a key lock, and the key was on Charlotte's keyring, and he would have given them the key if they had asked for it. So, either the shed is irrelevant, or it was relevant, but they never asked about it. Fun.

Paul leaves a note that says, in part, "I would never do anything to harm my wife intentionally." Sounds like a back-handed admission of guilt to me.

He then drops out of sight for three months, though in the segment he tells us he isn't the kind of parent to abandon his children or leave them unattended. This is relevant, because his explanation as to where he was while his wife was disappearing involves his children, whom he says were with him. Named and unnamed eywitnesses who saw him at various points that day contest this.

Not enough for a conviction here, obviously, but it also doesn't look good for Mr. Pollis. A question I have that the segment doesn't answer: did the Pollises have a second car? If they didn't, and Paul says he was out in the family car, then where would she have gone - on foot - the day after a late-night trip to the emergency room?

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by mozartpc27

Well, let's see... the last anyone heard from Charlotte was at 1:45 AM the day she disappeared. Around 7:00PM, Paul starts to call people, indicating she is missing.

By Paul's own account, there is nothing to suggest Charlotte could have been taken from the home.

His answer to the shed story in the segment is entirely unsatisfactory: first, he says "It's a shed," as if to say, "it had no signifance, so why was her family asking about it?" Then he says he remembers that it had some kind of a key lock, and the key was on Charlotte's keyring, and he would have given them the key if they had asked for it. So, either the shed is irrelevant, or it was relevant, but they never asked about it. Fun.

Paul leaves a note that says, in part, "I would never do anything to harm my wife intentionally." Sounds like a back-handed admission of guilt to me.

He then drops out of sight for three months, though in the segment he tells us he isn't the kind of parent to abandon his children or leave them unattended. This is relevant, because his explanation as to where he was while his wife was disappearing involves his children, whom he says were with him. Named and unnamed eywitnesses who saw him at various points that day contest this.

Not enough for a conviction here, obviously, but it also doesn't look good for Mr. Pollis. A question I have that the segment doesn't answer: did the Pollises have a second car? If they didn't, and Paul says he was out in the family car, then where would she have gone - on foot - the day after a late-night trip to the emergency room?

Yes that note he left where he used the word "intentionally" makes me suspect he took part in her disappearance. That and the fact that an innocent man would not flee from the area if he did nothing wrong and also there are no eyewitnesses that can place him and his kids running errands around the city tell me Pollis is hiding something. I think there were at least two people involved in her disappearance, and that makes the "unknown assailant" theory that much more unlikely.

[WishfulDreamer]

I agree that he is probably guilty, but I think Clockworkhigh, that all of those elements bring more to the case than meets the eye. I mentioned this in another thread, but it just doesn't seem like a cut-and-dry case. I want to know about any prior family rifts before the wife vanished. With an intrusive mother-in-law, I'm curious to hear of the conflicts going on before the case.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

I agree that he is probably guilty, but I think Clockworkhigh, that all of those elements bring more to the case than meets the eye. I mentioned this in another thread, but it just doesn't seem like a cut-and-dry case. I want to know about any prior family rifts before the wife vanished. With an intrusive mother-in-law, I'm curious to hear of the conflicts going on before the case.

Right, it does seem to open your mind up as well to other possibilities.

CrystalDawn, I too believe that the circumstantial evidence smacks Paul in the face. His actions don't help him either of course. That being said when you take the slanted version from Charlotte's wacky mother away it at least gives you a more unbias viewpoint to start.

[wiseguy182]

okay, i just watched the segment again yesterday, and while I'm sure I"ll have more to post later, this REALLY struck out at me.

Charlotte and her mom talk on the phone at 1:25 a.m. in the morning. Definintely not normal. Yes, she was at the hospital, but we're talking about a minor ear infection hear. Not life threatening surgery. So you would figure Charlotte would want to get the usual 8 hours of sleep plus extra since she is ill. 1:25 + 8 hours + 9:25 would be the earliest one could expect her to be up. Her mom calls the house at 8:50!!!!, and freaks out that Charlotte is not up yet, "Oh my God, is she o.k. well you have her call me when she gets up will you?" She then calls the house at 10:00 and EVERY TEN MINUTES THEREAFTER!!!

Off the hook. That woman is psychotic and ready for the padded room. She has zero credibility IMO. And being that the vast majority of eyewitnesses turn out to be dead wrong, I don't put much stock into the neighbor's statements. What we're basically left with is a purse. Now Paul himself admits that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. This would be a bold statemnt to make if Paul is guilty, why would he throw suspicion on himself by admitting that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. Because if she didn't take her purse, one would have to assume that she didn't go out voluntarily, which means something happened to her in the house.

As far Paul leaving, he stated that people were driving by and looking into the house non-stop, he was basically being stalked and his privacy was being invaded. I can't blame anyone in that circumstance for wanting to get out of there. He didn't abandon his kids, the segment stated they were at Charlotte's mom's house

more later.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

okay, i just watched the segment again yesterday, and while I'm sure I"ll have more to post later, this REALLY struck out at me.

Charlotte and her mom talk on the phone at 1:25 a.m. in the morning. Definintely not normal. Yes, she was at the hospital, but we're talking about a minor ear infection hear. Not life threatening surgery. So you would figure Charlotte would want to get the usual 8 hours of sleep plus extra since she is ill. 1:25 + 8 hours + 9:25 would be the earliest one could expect her to be up. Her mom calls the house at 8:50!!!!, and freaks out that Charlotte is not up yet, "Oh my God, is she o.k. well you have her call me when she gets up will you?" She then calls the house at 10:00 and EVERY TEN MINUTES THEREAFTER!!!

Off the hook. That woman is psychotic and ready for the padded room. She has zero credibility IMO. And being that the vast majority of eyewitnesses turn out to be dead wrong, I don't put much stock into the neighbor's statements. What we're basically left with is a purse. Now Paul himself admits that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. This would be a bold statemnt to make if Paul is guilty, why would he throw suspicion on himself by admitting that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. Because if she didn't take her purse, one would have to assume that she didn't go out voluntarily, which means something happened to her in the house.

As far Paul leaving, he stated that people were driving by and looking into the house non-stop, he was basically being stalked and his privacy was being invaded. I can't blame anyone in that circumstance for wanting to get out of there. He didn't abandon his kids, the segment stated they were at Charlotte's mom's house

more later.

I believe the theory has been brought up before that maybe Charlotte happened upon a burglary or a home invasion and that was the reason why she went missing. I have to ask though, why was nothing taken from the house? And if Charlotte didn't go anywhere without her purse, I think we can say that she didn't voluntarily leave. After all these years and still the only suspect in the case is Paul Pollis...don't you think if other people were involved somebody would have talked by now?

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I believe the theory has been brought up before that maybe Charlotte happened upon a burglary or a home invasion and that was the reason why she went missing. I have to ask though, why was nothing taken from the house? And if Charlotte didn't go anywhere without her purse, I think we can say that she didn't voluntarily leave. After all these years and still the only suspect in the case is Paul Pollis...don't you think if other people were involved somebody would have talked by now?

Also (and I hate to keep bringing this up) Charlotte Pollis was a large woman. Unless Mrs. Pollis went at gunpoint, I can't even see how anybody would have been able to abduct her as she would have been able resist the majority of attempts to subdue her based on her size alone.

Paul Pollis may be guilty, but after all of these years if he were, why hasn't evidence confirming his guilt come to light?

[mozartpc27]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

What we're basically left with is a purse. Now Paul himself admits that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. This would be a bold statemnt to make if Paul is guilty, why would he throw suspicion on himself by admitting that Charlotte would not go anywhere without her purse. Because if she didn't take her purse, one would have to assume that she didn't go out voluntarily, which means something happened to her in the house.

Well, that's not quite all we're left with, which I will get to in a moment. But as for the purse, you raise a compelling point here, but one that I think can be answered. Suppose Paul hit his wife, and she fell down the stairs and broke her neck and dies. He gets a buddy or someone to help him get rid of her body. After he is finished, and he's left enough time go by that he can plausibly claim she went out and didn't come back, he starts calling around to friends to ask if they've seen her, to establish his concern for her whereabouts.

And only NOW does he realize - oh ****, I forgot about her purse! He's only got a few options at this point:

* He can, after having made one or two calls, leave the house and try to get rid of the purse.

* He can admit the purse is there himself, and use it as part of his story for why he became suspicious.

Dumping the purse after having made a call or two could be very risky. I have no idea how nearby Charlotte's mom lived, but if it was relatively close, he'd have the simple problem of not being able to get very far in his effort to dump the purse, because if she gets to his house before he does, he'll have some explaining to dfo as to where he was when she arrives. But even if she lived far away, any witnesses at this point have the potential to be very damaging.

So, I think the purse thing is, in this case, at best inconclusive.

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

As far Paul leaving, he stated that people were driving by and looking into the house non-stop, he was basically being stalked and his privacy was being invaded. I can't blame anyone in that circumstance for wanting to get out of there. He didn't abandon his kids, the segment stated they were at Charlotte's mom's house.

What you sort of gloss over here is the note Paul left. Granted, it's only circumstantial, and hardly proves anything, but... innocent people don't leave notes like the one Paul left, ordinarily. Reminds me of the O.J. note.

There are two other items that I don't think help Paul at all. First is his own account of what he did that day. In the "main" thread on this case, wiseguy suggested that the kids in the segment seemed to mild-mannered, to which I replied (in post 107) that Pollis' account of what he did that day upon leaving his house and going out with his two small children borders on the heroic: from 11 to 4, they went to the pharmacy, the laundromat, the scrapyard, then a stop for fastfood, and then "a couple of hours" of looking at houses for sale. First of all, I find it hard to believe he could keep two small children under any kind of control for that long doing that many errands - eventually they would go bananas. Looking at houses for two hours with two small children in tow, after what had alread ybeen a long day's worth of errands? Seems unlikely.

But, more to the point, depending on what is meant by the idea that they looked at houses (was Paul just driving around looking at them, or was he meeting with a realtor who was showing him houses), one would think this would be an easily verifiable list. Yet police say no one saw the children with him, and the clear implication of that statement to me is that we are talking about more witnesses than just Charlotte's mom and the neighbor (the only two interviewed for the segment). Even the segment says "several" people dispute Paul's claim. Well, where I come from, 2 does not equal several, so I am guessing there are others around town who were not interviewed for the segment but who dispute Paul's claims.

The second thing I don't think helps Paul is the testimony of the cop who did the Luminol test of Paul and Charlotte's house. Whatever you think of Charlotte's family's contention that Paul and his family were vigorously cleaning the house in the hours after he reported Charlotte missing (strange indeed, if true), the proof in the pudding to me is that the cop who was in charge of that test said the house was unusually spotless. With two small children, and only one parent left to do the cleaning, the house is unusually spotless? Sounds fishy to me.

While I know that, in terms of proving guilt in court, you must work from the supposition of innocence down to proof of guilt, for the purposes of investigating, and eliminating unlikely scenarios, it's fair to ask questions like: if Paul didn't do it, who did?

Consider:

* Paul is the last person known to have been with her, at 1:25AM the day she disappeared.

* By Paul's own testimony, there was no sign of any struggle in their home.

* There is apparently nothing to indicate that Charlotte left of her own volition - no note, no clothes missing, etc.

* Since the segment doesn't mention a second automobile, it's likely that either the Pollises didn't have one, or it was still there when Paul says he returned from shopping. Otherwise, locating her missing car would obviously be a focal point of the investigation.

So, if Paul didn't do this, and she didn't walk off on her own, what are we to believe? That someone gined entry into the Pollis home, forced Charlotte out at gunpoint, etc., then took her to some undisclosed location and murdered her?

Possible, but not very probable.

Frankly, in this aspect, it's quite a lot like the Aeileen Conway case. A husband returns home, finds nothing obviously amiss in his home: no immediately apparent signs of a struggle or a burglary, and no indication that anyone was leaving for an extended period of time on her own. Place just looks like an ordinary day was happening. Wife's purse is still in the house. Only thing is that she is nowhere to be found.

Of course, in the Conway case, we have a body and a wrecked automobile, and so we have a very basic idea of what happened (all disputes about the exact circumstances of the crash aside). Here, no body, no missing automobile apparently, and only the husband's contradicted word about exactly where he was that day, and what he did.

Ordinarily, in a case like this, if you cannot make the case against one suspect, you look at others. Only, in this case... what others?

[cocytus]

^^^^

If he has the wherewithal to come up w/ a plan to get rid of his wife using an as of yet unidentified "friend", why wouldn't he have simply claimed that Mrs. Pollis fell down the stairs and broken her neck? While that might sound suspicious, given Mrs. Pollis' dimensions, a fall could easily have been explained by her difficulties in getting around.

And where would they dump Mrs. Pollis? Or bury her? It was cold outside so the ground was hard making a burial a difficult for a small person. If she was dismembered, where would they have done it at and when would they have done it?And what would they do w/ the remains?

Mrs. Pollis' size would have made carrying her and disposing of her a difficult undertaking in fair weather much less the snowy and cold conditions during which it was supposed to have happened. The fact that Mr. Pollis would have had to have help (beyond that of his elderly parents) also begs the question of who would have helped him dispose of Mrs. Pollis?
And why hasn't that person been identified?

[mozartpc27]

Interestingly, the Doe Network contradicts Paul Pollis's story (and the UM segment version of the story), saying Paul Pollis made no attempt to contact anyone regarding the disappearance of his wife on the day she disappeared. And yet UM played that tape, which certainly does sound like it was recorded that day. According to the Doe Network, a missing person report was filed by Paul that day, at 11:00PM, "at the behest of her family." Maybe the telephone call played in the UM segment was made after the report was filed? I wonder what the story is there.

I also read the Charley Project website, which perhaps provides an answer: it says Paul called "friends" asking about Charlotte's whereabouts, but not family. What if this is indeed what Paul did - contacted friends, but not the obvious first choice - her mother, to ask where she was. Doesn't that alone cast a whole lot of suspiscion on him? OTOH, the Charley Project version appears to be very nearly a transcription of the UM segment, so maybe this isn't all that useful.

Anyway, unlike most, I don't feel it was necessary that Paul had an accomplice. The clear implication of the eyewitness testimony given by the neighbor is that Paul dismembered his wife's corpse and brought it out of his house piecemeal. That is unusually grizzly, and would presumably have left a whole LOT of blood evidence, but if you used enough plastic trash bags to put underneath her body, and then very carefully and thoroughly cleaned everything afterwards... Pollis would have been lucky, and incredibly cold-blooded, but neither of those seem outside the realm of possibility to me.

And again, if Paul DIDN'T do this, who did? A random stranger entered the home and took her out, without any witnesses, without any sign of even a cursory struggle? Doesn't seem very likely to me.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by mozartpc27

Interestingly, the Doe Network contradicts Paul Pollis's story (and the UM segment version of the story), saying Paul Pollis made no attempt to contact anyone regarding the disappearance of his wife on the day she disappeared. And yet UM played that tape, which certainly does sound like it was recorded that day. According to the Doe Network, a missing person report was filed by Paul that day, at 11:00PM, "at the behest of her family." Maybe the telephone call played in the UM segment was made after the report was filed? I wonder what the story is there.

I also read the Charley Project website, which perhaps provides an answer: it says Paul called "friends" asking about Charlotte's whereabouts, but not family. What if this is indeed what Paul did - contacted friends, but not the obvious first choice - her mother, to ask where she was. Doesn't that alone cast a whole lot of suspiscion on him? OTOH, the Charley Project version appears to be very nearly a transcription of the UM segment, so maybe this isn't all that useful.

Anyway, unlike most, I don't feel it was necessary that Paul had an accomplice. The clear implication of the eyewitness testimony given by the neighbor is that Paul dismembered his wife's corpse and brought it out of his house piecemeal. That is unusually grizzly, and would presumably have left a whole LOT of blood evidence, but if you used enough plastic trash bags to put underneath her body, and then very carefully and thoroughly cleaned everything afterwards... Pollis would have been lucky, and incredibly cold-blooded, but neither of those seem outside the realm of possibility to me.

And again, if Paul DIDN'T do this, who did? A random stranger entered the home and took her out, without any witnesses, without any sign of even a cursory struggle? Doesn't seem very likely to me.

Dismembering Mrs. Pollis was have been a serious undertaking and would have been exceptionally messy and bloody. Assuming that the police searched the house thoroughly and didn't find an area (or areas) where body could have been cut up, where did he do it?And w/o experience as either a butcher or being some type of killer, how was able to successfully do it w/o cutting himself or damaging the home? And where the instrument that he used to do this?

Here's another thing: Pollis' second wife. Since she was facing an extended period in prison and he decided to testify against her, why didn't she offer some details of his crime in an effort to lessen her sentence? She knew nothing that could useful after being married to him for all of that time? He didn't happen to mention anything about the case of his wife's disappearance in all of those years together?

Finally, there's never been any evidence that Mrs. Pollis is deceased, other than her absence. It is possible that she isn't and simply left the area, however unlikely that may seem. Stranger things have occurred.

[Hambone2421]

Originally Posted by cocytus

Also (and I hate to keep bringing this up) Charlotte Pollis was a large woman. Unless Mrs. Pollis went at gunpoint, I can't even see how anybody would have been able to abduct her as she would have been able resist the majority of attempts to subdue her based on her size alone.

Paul Pollis may be guilty, but after all of these years if he were, why hasn't evidence confirming his guilt come to light?

The whole weight thing would be unimportant if she was abducted at gunpoint and killed elsewhere, but if that were the case, then why did Paul clean his house from top to bottom. The cleaning of the house makes it look like she may have been killed there but if that was the case, how the hell does Paul get her body into his car by himself unless he dismembers it (enter the trash bags).

I personally believe Paul had something to do with it, mainly because of his note that he left saying he "would never hurt his wife intentionally", which sounds like an admission of accidental murder.