OH - Christie Mullins, 14, Columbus, 23 Aug 1975 *killer died*

[Nycsleuth]

I used to do corporate investigations so I think I'm relatively proficient at both, I'm just not a cold case expert and hoping to find my way there. I also was once a newspaper reporter in Columbus so I have knowledge of the era and environs back then.

 

[December]

I used to do corporate investigations so I think I'm relatively proficient at both, I'm just not a cold case expert and hoping to find my way there. I also was once a newspaper reporter in Columbus so I have knowledge of the era and environs back then.

If you can interview Carol... well, I think she's the key to it all, somehow. (moo, speculation)

 

[nerosleuth]

I also was once a newspaper reporter in Columbus so I have knowledge of the era and environs back then.

Are you also familiar with the Asenath Louise Dukat and the Kelly Ann Prosser murder cases from the early 80's as well?

How about the Lewingdon Brothers who were involved in the .22 caliber murders back in the mid 70's?

 

[Nycsleuth]

I've read about them. First two were much younger girls (8 i think). One of the loe's involved with mullins also was involved with lewingdon bros.

 

[Nycsleuth]

And here's a question for all the forensic experts out there: wouldn't the police have collected blood, saliva, semen, hair, fiber etc. specimens from the body that could then be compared with any suspects? Would this normally be done at the scene and/or in the autopsy? If they didn't do this, it seems negligent; and if they did, then wouldn't they have compared the specimens to body evidence they could take from Carmen (or Newell) to see if there was a match? From what I understand there was no such physical evidence presented at trial, which suggests they failed or were somehow unable to collect any good samples. If they were able to match them to Carmen the prosecutors surely would have introduced that evidence at trial.

Another question: if the body were to be exhumed today, would anything other than maybe DNA be retrievable?

 

[December]

And here's a question for all the forensic experts out there: wouldn't the police have collected blood, saliva, semen, hair, fiber etc. specimens from the body that could then be compared with any suspects? Would this normally be done at the scene and/or in the autopsy? If they didn't do this, it seems negligent; and if they did, then wouldn't they have compared the specimens to body evidence they could take from Carmen (or Newell) to see if there was a match? From what I understand there was no such physical evidence presented at trial, which suggests they failed or were somehow unable to collect any good samples. If they were able to match them to Carmen the prosecutors surely would have introduced that evidence at trial.

Another question: if the body were to be exhumed today, would anything other than maybe DNA be retrievable?

I didn't think she was raped? I thought her shirt was pulled up and that was all? So, no semen to collect.

Blood... back then telling the attacker's blood from the victim's would be difficult... and maybe he didn't bleed?

Hair... if he didn't shed on her the fact it was in the woods makes that a problem...

If this happened now, there may be a few things they could find. But, back then... not as much.

 

[Nycsleuth]

There was conflicting evidence at trial on rape. A police chemist testified semen was found on her bathing suit. The coroner testified there was no evidence of rape (she was still a virgin) and the autopsy said no evidence of sexual assault. The prosecution tried to reconcile all this by saying it was an aborted attempted rape. So the prosecution believed there was semen, or at least claimed so.

 

[bessie]

And here's a question for all the forensic experts out there: wouldn't the police have collected blood, saliva, semen, hair, fiber etc. specimens from the body that could then be compared with any suspects? Would this normally be done at the scene and/or in the autopsy? If they didn't do this, it seems negligent; and if they did, then wouldn't they have compared the specimens to body evidence they could take from Carmen (or Newell) to see if there was a match? From what I understand there was no such physical evidence presented at trial, which suggests they failed or were somehow unable to collect any good samples. If they were able to match them to Carmen the prosecutors surely would have introduced that evidence at trial.

Another question: if the body were to be exhumed today, would anything other than maybe DNA be retrievable?

Yes, if any of those things were present, they should have been collected. When and by whom depends on where the evidence was found. Evdience on/inside the body would be collected by a medical examiner. Evidence on clothing or objects at the scene would have been collected by investigators. Collection procedures today have improved over the past when contamination was often a problem, particularly from collecting evidence at the scene. It's always safer to do so in a lab environment whenever possible. (That's why we sometimes see sections of walls and carpet cut out and gathered by investigators.)

Before DNA, ABO blood typing was used to differentiate suspect's blood from the victim's, and to narrow down the suspect pool. Semen was separated into two categories of "secretor" and "non-secretor". As rudimentary as these methods seem now, they worked to solve many cases back in the day. So if no physical evidence was presented, then either there was none present; evidence was present, but LE failed to collect it; the collected evidence was tainted; or it was lost.

What could be found now?

This pertains to Mary Sullivan, victim of the Boston Strangler, when her body was exhumed in 2000 after almost 40 years.

*The forensic team found a hair, missed at the time of the killing, in the young woman's teeth. The scientists say it may be from her killer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/20/s...es-in-boston-strangler-case.html?pagewanted=1

I read of another case recently, but the name escapes me right now. I'll try to find it. Anyway, I was amazed at the pathologist's findings after 30-40 years.

 

[nerosleuth]

A special thanks here to Nycsleuth for sending me this detailed crime scene map and giving me permission to post the crime scene map on this thread.

The crime scene map was published on October 31, 1975 in the Lantern, a student newspaper at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio.

On the right hand side of the map, you will see the point of abduction and arrows showing where Christie was taken along the path in the wooded area.

You will also see that the path intersects with other paths. Christie was taken to the left of the path intersection to the point where the murder occurred. You will also see where the male eyewitness and his family were from the murder point.

You will also see that if Christie had taken the path to the right of the path intersection, it would take her towards her home. The right hand part of the map it cut off a bit, but it does say path to Christie's house.

 

[Veidt]

I'm still reading through this thread after being sent the link by nerosleuth. I need to go now but I didn't want to leave without posting my impressions so far. For reference, I'm on pg. 4 or so.

Used to be most people's names were in the phone book.

Snipped by me. I apologize if this is a naive question, I wasn't alive in the 70's and I'm not from the US. Would phone books list every member of the household? The ones I'm used to tend to list only the person that contract is under and perhaps other adults who live there if they want to, but never any children or teenagers. If it was the same then, I think this would evidence that the 'DJ' was someone who knew the girls, if not in person, then at least by sight. Unless he was calling random people and hanging up if an adult answered, that is. From what I understand the phone calls were all happening in the area where Christie and Carol lived so IMO this would mean the perp was from that area as well. The fact that he wanted to speak to Carol and not her younger sister makes me think he knew which girls lived in which houses and their names - or at least he knew that about Carol.

Now how is it that the male eyewitness was able to make a perfect one hundred percent description of the mentally handicapped individual to the police?

Maybe he gave a random description and the mentally handicapped guy just happened to fit and be conveniently willing to confess. :twocents:

The male eyewitness M.O. in earlier arsons was to return home, await the arrival of firemen, and then report seeing a mysterious individual running from the scene before the fire broke out.

This, IMO, is extremely suspicious.

---

I assume Carol's report that she got a phone call about a cheerleading competition - and I think it may be true since other girls experienced the same - and that some boy really was calling her and was reportedly paid to keep her quiet.

I think that would bring together a lot of the pieces that don't fit. Maybe the male witness was behind it all. He may have done or said something that scared Carol and he was afraid she would have told Christie. Then he picked a time when he knew the girls would be together to lure them away and try to silence them both which would explain his remark about her keeping quiet. He could have hired someone to make that phone call. If he was also harassing other girls via phone, that could be related to this case also but more of a matter that he was after girls and keeping Carol and Christie quiet while also kidnapping, raping, and/or murdering them may have seemed to the MW as an 'opportunity' to do it while saving himself further trouble.

Was the little boy telling the truth? I think so. Even if his grandmother had done some rather weird things just to file lawsuits and win that's still different from lying about the details of a murder. Feeding answers to a child would have been to reckless -- the kid could break down under pressure or get wrong certain details LE could be hiding for verification purposes.

I just wonder why he was never properly investigated. I've read in this thread he was a former snitch for the Secret Services, it seems odd that they'd still be protecting him after he'd stopped working for them... if still was then IMO they would have tried to keep him from the spotlight at all.

I hope any of this makes sense but I'm tired.

 

[December]

Veidt, it would have probably said

Mullins, (Christie's dad's name... and MAYBE also her mom)
However, it would have the address.

So,

Mullins, (person who paid phone bill)
123 street they live on

Thus, it could be narrowed down pretty easily.

eta
sorry, i had to do something else rightthissecond for someone... anyway...

It isn't very difficult to figure out people from the phone book.

some people just have their first initial, but if you kind of know where they live you would only have to call a few places to find the person you wanted unless the last name is extremely common.

phone books are still the same now, but not everyone chooses to be listed. in the 70s, i think it was a much higher percentage who would chose to be in the phone book.

then there were people who were not listed, but you could call information and still get the number. you could say Last Name on Street and that would get you the number.

then there was not published and this meant the operator would not give out the number either.

it's still pretty much the same. well, that is more eighties info on not published/not listed, but it was the same 20 years later at least. the 70s, it is probably accurate as well... but i can't say 100%

 

[Veidt]

^ Thank you, so it works the same as it did over here. However, I still don't think a random creeper would have happened to guess that those families had teenage daughters unless he was dialling random numbers off the book and the hanging up if an adult or someone else picked up. I think that would have stood out and probably been more expensive for him.

I think he therefore knew something about those families. Put it this way, even a girl who has a very uncommon last name wouldn't show up in the phone book. So for him to know that Mr. and Mrs. Rarelastname from the phone book had a teenage daughter he'd have to know something about them. For all he knew Mr. Rarelastname listed on the phone book could be an elderly man whose children were adults and had moved out, or a young couple with toddlers, etc. If he didn't know the last names of the girls he'd have to know where they lived to narrow it down. :twocents:

I hope what I'm trying to say is clearer now, I was really tired when I typed up my other post.

 

[Nycsleuth]

I would ask the group to assume the following:
Assume there was never a phone call from a dj about a cheerleading contest. By that I mean, not just that someone falsely claiming to be a dj called about a nonexistent contest, but there was no telephone call about cheerleading at all. There may have been a call, but having nothing to do with cheerleading.
Further assume the caller knew the person he called, and vice versa.
How would that affect peoples' analysis?

 

[Veidt]

So, if the witness did it, why did he go to the woods twice? Did he kill her first, and then go back to change or clean up the crime scene?

IMO, if he did it this is what I think happened:

- He went to the woods, killed her.
- Went back home, maybe also changed while there. Told his wife some of what had happened at least and that they had to go back.
- They take the kid, never expecting him to say anything other than whatever story they've fed him about training for the scouts. Maybe they didn't even have to noticeably feed him a story, maybe they just told him they were taking him for a walk to train and expected he wouldn't think anything was weird or notice the time frame.
- They go back there, he takes his shoes, etc. and then calls the cops.

This could be so he could have an alibi. It would have made him seem like a nice, normal man just taking a normal walk with his family and even teaching his son about nature so he could join the Boy Scouts, whose pleasant walk was interrupted by something disturbing. He could have been afraid that someone would link him to the murder. Extra speculation on my part: maybe he had a reason to be afraid he'd be linked to it. Maybe someone saw him or something happening and this way he'd be able to explain his presence in the woods and make it seem more like a random person he too had "seen" had done it. Or, he was afraid he'd left some traces at the scene and this way they could be explained. Maybe he was afraid someone knew something and would suspect him... what about Carol? If something threatening transpired between them he could have feared that since he'd been unable to silence her, that she'd speak about him. :twocents:

Something that I just remembered: when I was reading through the first few pages I was going to mention this in my post but I forgot. From what I understand, according to his story, he left his wife with Christie after he ran to the store to ask for help. Am I the only one who thinks this is weird?

My reasoning for this is simple. Imagine you're walking in the woods with people and come across a murderer killing someone and the murderer flees. I would NOT leave behind a person and go off by myself. If anything I'd leave behind a group of adults. I definitely wouldn't leave behind a woman unless she was a black belt in something or armed, not out of sexism on my part but because a murderer who was killing a teenage girl, I wouldn't put it past him to not have a problem killing an adult woman also, while some creepers like that are intimidated by adult men. I'd think that someone who lived at the time especially, wouldn't have been so unconcerned about his wife's safety since he would have been raised to be protective of her and the 'head of the family'. :twocents: Even though in his account the perp fled I would have been concerned that he could still be lurking around in the woods, watching.

People have different reactions in stressful situations but I find it strange to believe that a 'tough' like this guy would have panicked so much he thought it was a good idea to leave behind his wife and maybe also a young boy alone in the woods with a murderer on the loose.

IMO this could be a strong sign that he did it, which is why he would have nothing to fear about their safety.

:twocents:, :moo:, etc.

 

[Veidt]

I used to do corporate investigations so I think I'm relatively proficient at both, I'm just not a cold case expert and hoping to find my way there. I also was once a newspaper reporter in Columbus so I have knowledge of the era and environs back then.

Someone suggested you talk to Carol, I second that but I also wonder, is the 10/12 year old boy still alive? I'm talking about the young boy who was the stepson of the Male Witness and who came out with all that extra info in court.

If he's still alive I think it would be important to talk to him.

Childhood memories can be a tricky thing after so much time but he could remember something of use. He could remember whether his grandmother had put him up to that or if (as I suspect) it took him until the trial to speak up because he really was afraid for his safety. He could also be more at ease in talking about it as he's an adult now.

 

[nerosleuth]

Nycsleuth sent me a better map of the crime scene from the Lantern newspaper.

This better map doesn't have anything cut off and shows more details of the area.

 

[Nycsleuth]

Veidt makes a great point about male witness leaving the wife and kids behind. However i find the testimony a bit contradictory on whether he went alone. The initial newspaper reports imply that he left by himself to go to woolco. But according to the columbus monthly story posted by nero, wife testified at trial that "they" (presumably referring to the family) ran to woolco. Maybe someone else here can reconcile the various accounts?

 

[Nycsleuth]

The boy (whose testimony otherwise seriously implicated male eyewitness) also testified that "they" went to the shopping center after discovering the body.

 

[December]

^ Thank you, so it works the same as it did over here. However, I still don't think a random creeper would have happened to guess that those families had teenage daughters unless he was dialling random numbers off the book and the hanging up if an adult or someone else picked up. I think that would have stood out and probably been more expensive for him.

I think he therefore knew something about those families. Put it this way, even a girl who has a very uncommon last name wouldn't show up in the phone book. So for him to know that Mr. and Mrs. Rarelastname from the phone book had a teenage daughter he'd have to know something about them. For all he knew Mr. Rarelastname listed on the phone book could be an elderly man whose children were adults and had moved out, or a young couple with toddlers, etc. If he didn't know the last names of the girls he'd have to know where they lived to narrow it down. :twocents:

I hope what I'm trying to say is clearer now, I was really tired when I typed up my other post.

I see...

some people used to put their names on their mailboxes. some people put their initial (last name initial) somewhere on the house.

so creepy guy drives around the neighborhood looking to see girls maybe outside.

before things became weird, it was normal for teenaged girls to be outside their homes even with not the biggest yard. maybe sitting in the sun reading or listening to the radio.

creepy guy sees the same girl at the same house and then he maybe sees the last name on the mailbox. he could even sneak I thind get a piece of mail out and look at it.

i think he could also troll for girls' names various ways. put up a box collecting names for a raffle, but open only to high school students. get the name and address. i

I have heard of a llot of the stalker techniques... so...

but, iI think the guy who called knew some of the girls. then he got info about other girls from them.. just talking. maybe the girl is going out for cheer, so he asks who is her main competition. a clever creep can get a lot of info.

the book The Gift of Fear and the sequel Fear Less (I think) by Gavin DeBecker spell some of the ploys these guys use out step by step.

 

[December]

I would ask the group to assume the following:
Assume there was never a phone call from a dj about a cheerleading contest. By that I mean, not just that someone falsely claiming to be a dj called about a nonexistent contest, but there was no telephone call about cheerleading at all. There may have been a call, but having nothing to do with cheerleading.
Further assume the caller knew the person he called, and vice versa.
How would that affect peoples' analysis?

I have very much considered this.

apparently some other girls got calls.

but if the caller knew the girl, and was having regular conversations with her, she could get the phone numbers of various girls she knew. then he could help create the cover story.

moo and speculation