OH OH - Kelly Prosser, 8, Columbus, 20 Sept 1982

Some of you raise questions about the attorney who found the raincoat. His actions apparently raise suspicions with you.

I wish to offer a plausible possible scenario which will support my view that there is nothing necessarily suspicious about the attorney's behavior.

He's driving to pick up his housekeeper early on a Tuesday morning. He drives past the raincoat, maybe even drives over it. He notes it, but he's a man on a mission, so he keeps going.

He picks up his housekeeper. She is undoubtedly a woman, and my expectation is she's an older woman. I can picture there being a certain friendly familiarity in their relationship; he is, after all, willing to drive out to her rural home at 8:25 on a Tuesday morning to bring her back to his house in London, Ohio, before he goes to work. What, she doesn't have her own car?

Maybe they make small talk as they go. Together they see the raincoat-- for all I know, the bright blue side of it, caught by the morning sun.

"Some kid's lost a raincoat," says Mrs. Housekeeper.

"Yes, I saw that before, on the way to get you," says Mr. Attorney.

"Looks almost brand-new. Oh, do please stop. I remember my Timmy lost his coat one time. Cost us a good $40."

He sighs. She shoots him a look. "It'll only take a minute. And weren't you telling me just the other day how your little girl was all the time losing things?"

He can't help but laugh. "She's not so little anymore. She's 21 now. But, yes, I remember very well." He puts on the brakes and hits the emergency blinkers. She hops out, trots back to the coat, picks it up and brings it back.

"No identification. Ha! Just this little bolt in one of the pockets. The things kids think to pick up."

"Maybe it belongs to a little boy, then."

"Oh, no. Look at the cut of it, and the size. This is a little girl's raincoat. Why it even smells like a little girl."

He chuckles. Mrs. Housekeeper is quite a character, and very much to his liking. "Well, no I.D. No name tag. Look, just put it in the floorboard there. We'll sort out what to do with it later on."

"Maybe it belongs to one of the neighbors. If we're lucky, maybe we'll hear about a missing raincoat. Then won't we feel like we've done our good deed if we get it back to them!"

"I don't like our chances." He looks over at her. She scolds him silently with her eyes. He chuckles and looks back at the road. "But maybe you're right."

Obviously, all this is conjecture, woven into a little narrative in hopes of making it clear and understable. But my proposed flow of events is plausible, and it fits the known facts. Very respectfully, I think it is not helpful to raise suspicions about a man who only belatedly realized the significance of helpful evidence he had found. It's something that happens quite a lot in murder cases.
 
Maybe the bolt symbolizes were he did his last killing like "Detroit". The Oakland County Child Murders have a similar M/O the children being sexually assaulted with an object. The story about Allen and Frank and a Ohio connection is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_County_Child_Killer Kelly was found fully clothed like the Oakland victims.

I looked at both cases over a few days , I did an analysis on the Oakland County case, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that I DO NOT believe the Kelly Ann Prosser case, and the Oakland County Child serial killings to be related.
 
Some of you raise questions about the attorney who found the raincoat. His actions apparently raise suspicions with you.

I wish to offer a plausible possible scenario which will support my view that there is nothing necessarily suspicious about the attorney's behavior.

He's driving to pick up his housekeeper early on a Tuesday morning. He drives past the raincoat, maybe even drives over it. He notes it, but he's a man on a mission, so he keeps going.

He picks up his housekeeper. She is undoubtedly a woman, and my expectation is she's an older woman. I can picture there being a certain friendly familiarity in their relationship; he is, after all, willing to drive out to her rural home at 8:25 on a Tuesday morning to bring her back to his house in London, Ohio, before he goes to work. What, she doesn't have her own car?

Maybe they make small talk as they go. Together they see the raincoat-- for all I know, the bright blue side of it, caught by the morning sun.

"Some kid's lost a raincoat," says Mrs. Housekeeper.

"Yes, I saw that before, on the way to get you," says Mr. Attorney.

"Looks almost brand-new. Oh, do please stop. I remember my Timmy lost his coat one time. Cost us a good $40."

He sighs. She shoots him a look. "It'll only take a minute. And weren't you telling me just the other day how your little girl was all the time losing things?"

He can't help but laugh. "She's not so little anymore. She's 21 now. But, yes, I remember very well." He puts on the brakes and hits the emergency blinkers. She hops out, trots back to the coat, picks it up and brings it back.

"No identification. Ha! Just this little bolt in one of the pockets. The things kids think to pick up."

"Maybe it belongs to a little boy, then."

"Oh, no. Look at the cut of it, and the size. This is a little girl's raincoat. Why it even smells like a little girl."

He chuckles. Mrs. Housekeeper is quite a character, and very much to his liking. "Well, no I.D. No name tag. Look, just put it in the floorboard there. We'll sort out what to do with it later on."

"Maybe it belongs to one of the neighbors. If we're lucky, maybe we'll hear about a missing raincoat. Then won't we feel like we've done our good deed if we get it back to them!"

"I don't like our chances." He looks over at her. She scolds him silently with her eyes. He chuckles and looks back at the road. "But maybe you're right."

Obviously, all this is conjecture, woven into a little narrative in hopes of making it clear and understable. But my proposed flow of events is plausible, and it fits the known facts. Very respectfully, I think it is not helpful to raise suspicions about a man who only belatedly realized the significance of helpful evidence he had found. It's something that happens quite a lot in murder cases.

Hence the problem with conjecture...

In ANY murder investigation ALL evidence, and those especially when directly or even indirectly related to it or its discovery are thoroughly investigated (or are supposed to be), you cant have someone walk up to you say "hey I found this " and just say "thanks have a nice day".

For example if I told someone "I think they should go look somewhere for a missing child " , because I "found something in the area" and it turns up a body, ......here in Philly you better believe you are gong to be sitting down to have a nice LONG chat with detectives, so we can ascertain exactly HOW you came upon such evidence

With homicide cases, its important to remember (especially true in serial cases) you'll see that very often the offender directly thrusts themselves into the investigation either to keep tabs on the investigation, or to "clear" themselves. And its often done in just such ways .

A derivative of this is something we see pretty often in child sex abuse cases, where the offender admits the action, but denies the intention.... (ex Jerry Sandusky, "Yeah we were naked in the shower but I was just hugging him")

There's a saying in law enforcement "investigate the ones with alibi's first"

A guy finding a raincoat in the middle of the road, picking it up and taking it home, only to call police later to report it , where it leads to the discovery of a missing child's body should raise eyebrows in ANY department .
 
The attorney picked up the raincoat BEFORE he showed it to the housekeeper. So, "Mrs. Housekeeper" didn't convince him to pick it up. He picked it up for whatever reason and, later, he showed it to her then after that he takes it to the police. He may have a completely innocent explanation for all of this. But, it is a kind of unusual story and it is a piece of evidence in a murder investigation.

In my cousin's case, they talked to hundreds of people. For example, everyone who participated in the search was interviewed. It is a murder investigation, they want to get all the facts. If someone had waltzed into South Precinct with one of her belongings, I don't care who it was, they would have been talking to two senior detectives.
 
Hence the problem with conjecture...

In ANY murder investigation ALL evidence, and those especially when directly or even indirectly related to it or its discovery are thoroughly investigated (or are supposed to be), you cant have someone walk up to you say "hey I found this " and just say "thanks have a nice day".

That's a pretty straw man you've built. I did not say, nor have I supposed, that the London attorney was not closely questioned by law enforcement. But I do note there was no report of an accusation against the attorney in 1982, no public statements expressing suspicion or implying blame, and certainly no indictments. Your thorough investigators themselves apparently found little reason to suspect the London attorney at that time, and I find no reason to suspect him now. But several other posters seem convinced he is a sinister figure, in some way personally guilty.
 
The attorney picked up the raincoat BEFORE he showed it to the housekeeper. So, "Mrs. Housekeeper" didn't convince him to pick it up. He picked it up for whatever reason and, later, he showed it to her then after that he takes it to the police. He may have a completely innocent explanation for all of this. But, it is a kind of unusual story and it is a piece of evidence in a murder investigation.

"So Mrs. Housekeeper didn't convince him to pick it up." You cannot say that based on the information provided in the September 23, 1982, article in The Columbus Dispatch, which I finally got round to reading: It makes no mention of who persuaded whom to stop. And, as I say, the point of my previous post was not to provide a God's-eye view of What Really Went Down; I was simply trying to demonstrate that the events were not necessarily sinister in their implications.
 
I just thought of something that wasn't this guy's exact m.o., but a smalltime serial killer did reside less than 2 miles from where Prosser's body was recovered. He killed himself in 1986 when police arrived at his residence to serve a warrant. I don't have my Columbus Dispatch archive handy, but I believe the guy's name was Rod Baker. I think most of his victims were truck stop prostitutes, but he did dump their bodies.

Prosser's murder was less than 4 years prior to Baker being caught doing his killings. One of you picked a route you believe the killer took from the north campus area to the field on A.W. Wilson Rd, which is I-70 west, to Plain City-Georgesville Rd ( SR142,) to Lucas Rd, to US 42, to AW Wilson Rd. Well, Baker's house sat (still sits) on the SW corner of Lucas Rd & Plain City Georgesville Rd.

I think Baker was a truck driver but no where close to certain on that. Maybe worked around trucks which explains the bolt?
 
I just thought of something that wasn't this guy's exact m.o., but a smalltime serial killer did reside less than 2 miles from where Prosser's body was recovered. He killed himself in 1986 when police arrived at his residence to serve a warrant. I don't have my Columbus Dispatch archive handy, but I believe the guy's name was Rod Baker. I think most of his victims were truck stop prostitutes, but he did dump their bodies.

Prosser's murder was less than 4 years prior to Baker being caught doing his killings. One of you picked a route you believe the killer took from the north campus area to the field on A.W. Wilson Rd, which is I-70 west, to Plain City-Georgesville Rd ( SR142,) to Lucas Rd, to US 42, to AW Wilson Rd. Well, Baker's house sat (still sits) on the SW corner of Lucas Rd & Plain City Georgesville Rd.

I think Baker was a truck driver but no where close to certain on that. Maybe worked around trucks which explains the bolt?


According to the Columbus Dispatch archives, Rod Baker killed himself on May 6, 1987 when police arrived at his home in rural Madison County, Ohio.

At the time of his death, police had wanted to question Baker regarding an early 1987 murder of a 17 year old girl in Franklin County, Ohio.

The murdered 17 year old girl was to have testified in court later that summer in a local child *advertiser censored* case.

Here is a link to a 1987 newspaper article concerning Rod Baker and the murdered 17 year old girl.


Sources:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-05-29/news/8702090742_1_child-abuse-streets-exploited
 
I recently discovered an interesting magazine article from the August 1987 issue of the Columbus Monthly magazine at the public library.

This magazine article reported that Columbus Police had looked into another suspect in the Prosser murder case. This suspect was once considered to have been the most dangerous criminal in Franklin County back then.

The suspect’s name was Paul David Shreve.

What caught my attention is that two weeks prior to Rod Baker’s suicide, Paul David Shreve accidentally killed himself at his North High Street apartment on April 19, 1987.

According to an April 21, 1987 newspaper article in the Columbus Dispatch, Shreve was at his kitchen table loading gunpowder into Army surplus hand grenades when one of the grenades accidentally exploded and instantly killing Shreve.

The Columbus Dispatch and Columbus Monthly both reported in 1987 that after Shreve’s death, a police search of Shreve’s apartment found a large assortment of odd weapons and a huge stash of pornographic photos and videos involving underage children.

The Columbus Dispatch newspaper article on April 22, 1987 reported that among the weapons found in Shreve’s apartment were swords, knives, and martial arts weapons. A blowgun and darts were also found in his apartment.

It was revealed in the August 1987 Columbus Monthly magazine article that Shreve’s apartment on North High Street was less than 1,000 feet from where Kelly Ann Prosser lived.

The Columbus Monthly magazine article also revealed that detectives removed strands of fibers and hair samples from Shreve’s apartment after his death in an attempt to link him to the 1982 murder of Kelly Ann Prosser.

The fibers and hair samples were sent to the FBI crime lab in Washington, D.C. for analysis and testing, but the test results came back as inconclusive.
 
Great investigating! I wonder if child *advertiser censored* rings especially back in the 80s pre-intenet days, that the men who used it knew each other. Might have been a link between Baker and Shreve?
 
Has anything developed on this case? It seems that there has been a lot of interest in cold cases recently I wonder if law enforcement has started to look back at this case and others similar.
 
Was thinking of the blood marks on her coat. Possibly the killers... Also the bolt in Kelly’s pocket could’ve been from inside of the perps home or vehicle, it could also have some DNA on it. MOO

ETA: The lawyer picking up the raincoat is suspicious if not odd IMO
 
Last edited:
Has the police done anything recently with this case? There's new things and the blood on the coat could of been hers...I.find this "lawyer" picking up a coat while driving down a road very bizarre....why won't police reopen this cold case??
 
Some of you raise questions about the attorney who found the raincoat. His actions apparently raise suspicions with you.

I wish to offer a plausible possible scenario which will support my view that there is nothing necessarily suspicious about the attorney's behavior.

He's driving to pick up his housekeeper early on a Tuesday morning. He drives past the raincoat, maybe even drives over it. He notes it, but he's a man on a mission, so he keeps going.

He picks up his housekeeper. She is undoubtedly a woman, and my expectation is she's an older woman. I can picture there being a certain friendly familiarity in their relationship; he is, after all, willing to drive out to her rural home at 8:25 on a Tuesday morning to bring her back to his house in London, Ohio, before he goes to work. What, she doesn't have her own car?

Maybe they make small talk as they go. Together they see the raincoat-- for all I know, the bright blue side of it, caught by the morning sun.

"Some kid's lost a raincoat," says Mrs. Housekeeper.

"Yes, I saw that before, on the way to get you," says Mr. Attorney.

"Looks almost brand-new. Oh, do please stop. I remember my Timmy lost his coat one time. Cost us a good $40."

He sighs. She shoots him a look. "It'll only take a minute. And weren't you telling me just the other day how your little girl was all the time losing things?"

He can't help but laugh. "She's not so little anymore. She's 21 now. But, yes, I remember very well." He puts on the brakes and hits the emergency blinkers. She hops out, trots back to the coat, picks it up and brings it back.

"No identification. Ha! Just this little bolt in one of the pockets. The things kids think to pick up."

"Maybe it belongs to a little boy, then."

"Oh, no. Look at the cut of it, and the size. This is a little girl's raincoat. Why it even smells like a little girl."

He chuckles. Mrs. Housekeeper is quite a character, and very much to his liking. "Well, no I.D. No name tag. Look, just put it in the floorboard there. We'll sort out what to do with it later on."

"Maybe it belongs to one of the neighbors. If we're lucky, maybe we'll hear about a missing raincoat. Then won't we feel like we've done our good deed if we get it back to them!"

"I don't like our chances." He looks over at her. She scolds him silently with her eyes. He chuckles and looks back at the road. "But maybe you're right."

Obviously, all this is conjecture, woven into a little narrative in hopes of making it clear and understable. But my proposed flow of events is plausible, and it fits the known facts. Very respectfully, I think it is not helpful to raise suspicions about a man who only belatedly realized the significance of helpful evidence he had found. It's something that happens quite a lot in murder cases.
 
No offense & I'm not trying to be nasty but do realize how ridiculous this sounds?? This is a murder case of a child who needs Justice... not an Agetha Christy book...Good Grief!!
 
I just want to add to this...as a plea and to give any missing information that we might remember.

I became a member today technically, was a member before but can't remember my info as my previous phone was damaged, but have reached out before about her case. The reason I became a member today, again? I need her case solved before I die.... not just for me and my family, but my sister. My sister was her best friend. It haunts her and traumatizes her to this day to even hear her name.

Im going to give out a deep wound here. My sister was supposed to walk home with her that day as she did every day... but she had to stay late at school and couldn't. So Kelly left ahead of her. When my sister got home, she immediately tried to reach her but couldn't. She was my sister, our sister. After many failed attempts, my mom packed us in the car and went to her house. Who notified the police?? My mom did.

And that's the day our life changed forever.

I don't believe I should focus my skills on her case because I'm biased on my beliefs of who did it and do not want to taint any of the trails. I only ask those that are deciding to investigate her case to do so with deligance, focus, love and anger. She did not deserve that. It may seem like she was forgotten, but she has never been. I have reached out to so many agencies just to have someone open her file one more time.... but I have since stopped getting responses.

Please give justice to Kelly Ann Prosser....a loved daughter, sister, friend.... she'll never be forgotten.
 
Sheer
Great investigating! I wonder if child *advertiser censored* rings especially back in the 80s pre-intenet days, that the men who used it knew each other. Might have been a link between Baker and Shreve?
She wasn't missing long enough for that. She was kidnapped, assaulted and abandoned. She was not a crime of opportunity. Whomever knew her route and that she was alone, because normally, she wasn't.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
150
Guests online
2,954
Total visitors
3,104

Forum statistics

Threads
593,537
Messages
17,988,479
Members
229,153
Latest member
Ammereignw
Back
Top