So I heard from a lawyer today; they sent me an email regarding one of my cases. I am going to refer to the missing woman and her husband by the pseudonyms “Allison” and “Chad” because I don’t particularly want to hear from anyone else connected to the case, and don’t want this blog entry to turn up on a keyword search. However, this case should be pretty easy for viewers to find on Charley.
So Allison disappeared towards the end of a messy divorce from Chad. Her body has never been found. Chad was charged with her murder, and wound up being tried FOUR TIMES, which may be a Charley Project record. The result was this:
- Trial #1: Conviction, overturned
- Trial #2: Conviction, overturned
- Trial #3: Hung jury
- Trial #4: Acquittal
It was just a big mess. Chad is probably guilty, but “probably” does not equal “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And a person ought to get a fair trial the FIRST time, not the fourth.
So now he’s suing for wrongful prosecution or something-or-other. I wonder if it’ll go anywhere. He was a wealthy businessman, but his wealth has probably been drained considerably by four trials’ worth of legal expenses, and it would have been difficult for him to run his businesses from behind bars.
So back to the lawyer. They are representing the defense in Chad’s lawsuit, and wanted to know if Chad had ever donated to the Charley Project, and why was Allison listed on the site in the first place, and how long had she been up there. I replied that Allison is just one out of 13,000+ cases and there’s nothing special about her being on there, and that to my knowledge I have never either heard from Chad or received a donation from him, or from anyone else connected to the case for that matter.
I know exactly which one this is. Heard a podcast episode about it last month. You’re right, 4 trials is a mess to deal with. Don’t understand why they’d bother you about it though. The case is pretty well-known; makes sense she’d be featured as a missing person
It’s not like you have accused Chad of killing her. She is considered a missing person, by a law enforcement agency and not some decision you made. So, I don’t understand why they are bothering you, since she is most likely entered into the FBI’s NCIC system as a missing person. Also, she is most likely entered in NamUs.
I know I’ll burn in hell for this, but I can’t resist.
Q. What would 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean be?
A. A good start.
(Rimshot and laughter, please.)
And if this starts an interminable flood of lawyer jokes, well…sue me.
They’re just looking to head off any question as to whether he ( “Chad”) may have acted on an interest to keep her portrayed as a missing person rather than a dead person.
I love the site, by the way.
That’s an interesting point. I guess they could spin it the other way and try to show that he continued to try and find her via any means. I also am pretty sure which case this is, and I give the prosecutors props for continuing to try (literally) to get him convicted, but obviously there’s enough reasonable doubt to create the results seen from every trial.
MM, agreed. Each would attempt to beat the other to the punch with something like that, for sure — even though it turned out to be nothing (but wishful thinking) for them.
I remember that case. 9/11/2001. Most of us huddled around the TV (especially in NYC) and she ends up missing.