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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Veidt, post 134 is good.

only thing i would add to support your theory... remember the hair comb? he found one Christie had in her hair and threw it far into the woods according to his son. why would anyone do such a thing if they just happened upon the scene?
 
The boy (whose testimony otherwise seriously implicated male eyewitness) also testified that "they" went to the shopping center after discovering the body.

Veidt, post 134 is good.

only thing i would add to support your theory... remember the hair comb? he found one Christie had in her hair and threw it far into the woods according to his son. why would anyone do such a thing if they just happened upon the scene?

Thank you, both of you. I'll try to dig up the piece of info that made me think he had gone alone. Also, does anyone have any transcripts of the trial? I'm curious to know if the boy said something like 'we went to the store' meaning him and his stepfather but not his mother.

Even if the three set off, the hair comb story definitely sounds off. Especially since I think the boy said Male Witness said it wasn't so nobody would find it IIRC. Why would he think that was wise? Even if he feared the creeper would return, he could just have hidden it somewhere where it would be retrievable by the cops once they got to the scene. I wonder whether the comb could have been found though a thorough search of the area, perhaps it had some kind of evidence.

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

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

These are really good posts and I agree. I think the creeper may have known a teenage girl who knew the others and been having regular conversations with her. I'm more inclined to believe, however, something like mailbox hypothesis or him being from the area and therefore knowing some of the local couples and their daughters. If he was friendly then he could be invited for lunch or dinner or just chit-chat, then he could make 'small talk' with the girls about them and their friends. Or perhaps if he knew a high school teacher, he could have heard anecdotes about the students and used that as ammo.

Something I've just thought of about the cheerleading competition. Was Carol into cheerleading? What about Christie? It seems like the kind of thing that would require some practice to win, so if he didn't know anything about them he'd be running the risk of having the invitation to the contest turned down if that was something they didn't like. It's not the same as saying they were invited to meet with a scout for a model agency, in which case there would be a bigger chance they'd bother with it IMO.

---

There are two other things I've thought about this case but have forgotten to include in my posts until now (MW means Male Witness):

  • One of the news articles posted in this thread (by nerosleuth, I believe) mentions something about a gun which was lent out to Christie's father by the male witness. Did they know each other before the crime? Were they friends? Or did they meet because of the case and then MW went, 'you must be so scared with all that happened, I have a spare gun I can lend you, etc.'?
  • It's also been mentioned that it transpired during one of the trials that MW was a snitch for the Secret Services. How exactly would this transpire? I would have thought they would have wanted to cover their bases and this sounds like the kind of info that would make people more suspicious of a cover up. I also think it's weird that they he would be revealed to be a snitch just like that, when this could put him at serious risk, I assume, from whoever he was snitching on. Why didn't anyone think this was odd? A guy is a snitch and not just for the local police department, but then this is revealed just like that and he somehow doesn't have to worry that he could become a target for the people who was giving info about to LE?

As usual, all my :twocents:, :moo:, etc.
 
I have tried, without success so far, to obtain a trial transcript. Incredibly, the court does not seem to have kept one, despite the acquittal and important testimony to be preserved.
My read of the accounts of the comb throwing are not that MW said he was throwing it where nobody can find it, but that the boy said MW threw it somewhere that (in the boy's words) nobody would find it. But the record is not crystal clear on this.
 
Here's yet another contradiction: the Sept. 10 1975 Columbus Dispatch posted by nero says that, according to police, MW found the comb in the woods and turned it in to police who gave it to the crime lab.

MW could not have both thrown the comb to where nobody would find it, and also turned it into police.

Did MW possibly give police a different comb?
 
Here's yet another contradiction: the Sept. 10 1975 Columbus Dispatch posted by nero says that, according to police, MW found the comb in the woods and turned it in to police who gave it to the crime lab.

MW could not have both thrown the comb to where nobody would find it, and also turned it into police.

Did MW possibly give police a different comb?

Thank you for your posts! I think that's an interesting contradiction. I wish we could find out if he did indeed turn in a comb to the police and also threw it away. IMO that would be extremely suspicious to me - nobody tosses out a comb so that nobody will find it and then gives it to LE, if he was so set on collaborating with the investigation he would have left the comb by the body (or taken it with him if he was afraid the perp would steal it - between throwing the comb or taking it with him, he'd be touching the evidence anyway, so taking it would have been far preferable - and then handed it over once LE arrived at the crime scene).

:twocents:
 
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.

Yes I've been in contact with the boy (now a man). Workin' it hard, with some success, not there yet.
Have located and reached out to Carol, less optimistic on that front.
 
I can't tell you how many messages I've received in the past couple weeks, just like this one, since I started this project:

"Bottom line: Christie has never had a voice. I have found myself grieving and crying more in the last week about her death than ever before. I think that is a good thing. She deserves justice. She deserves to be remembered."

Another:

"I have found myself crying as well. Nothing angers me more than innocence being robbed from children. She deserved to live. How dare that be taken from her and her family. I also have found myself wondering how her family went on knowing what had been done to their beautiful daughter, sister etc. Breaks my heart. Thank goodness people like you come along and right a very bad wrong. It gives me faith and hope in humanity."

Having spoken to or received emails from over 50 friends/neighbors/classmates so far, I could go on and on. Progress had been made, but still a ways to go . . .
 
One of the news articles posted in this thread (by nerosleuth, I believe) mentions something about a gun which was lent out to Christie's father by the male witness.

Yes, the male witness lent a gun to Christie's father.

There is a contradiction in the court testimony about the gun.

One person testified in court that it was a pistol while the Delaware County Sheriff testified that it was a .22 caliber rifle.

And another thing to consider. The MW was a felon who had a felony conviction in Ohio and had served time in prison. By law, MW wasn't even allowed to handle, possess or own any types of firearms in Ohio.

It would be interesting to know who really owned that firearm and how MW got it.
 
Nycsleuth, thank you for your effort in reaching out to people who knew Christie and/or her family. Maybe something will come to light thanks to it. People's perspective on situations can change over time and maybe details that seemed insignificant or which they were afraid to talk about may end up being revealed now.

It also seems really nice to show them that someone still cares about Christie, by that I mean someone from the 'outside world' who didn't know her.

Yes, the male witness lent a gun to Christie's father.

There is a contradiction in the court testimony about the gun.

One person testified in court that it was a pistol while the Delaware County Sheriff testified that it was a .22 caliber rifle.

And another thing to consider. The MW was a felon who had a felony conviction in Ohio and had served time in prison. By law, MW wasn't even allowed to handle, possess or own any types of firearms in Ohio.

It would be interesting to know who really owned that firearm and how MW got it.

Interesting, that's a good about felons and firearms. I also wonder, is lending out firearms legal? Wouldn't people be required to complete some kind of document to state the gun is now in someone else's possession?

(I don't know much about laws about guns in the US, since where I live laws are much more strict about who gets to have firearms, what kind, and for what purpose.)
 
I located a series of articles done on the case by the Cleveland Plain Dealer from December 21-24, 1975. The full articles can be retrieved, for a small fee, at http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=HA-CPDB&p_theme=histpaper&p_action=keyword.

The following are some highlights:

Dec. 22 Plain Dealer:

Quotes a psychiatrist’s report that the mentally handicapped man (MHM) has "a tendency toward childlike magical thinking."

Reported that it had uncovered evidence that indicated the MHM's aversion to shorts was not total and that on rare occasions he did wear short pants.

Quotes the Male Witness who found the body (MW) as saying the community's distrust of the police was perhaps because the MHM was a homosexual and was being funded by people with a lot of money.

A woman who, at Graceland, originally identified the MHM as running from the scene said she was not given adequate opportunity to see his face and eyes from the front and merely said he was close to the man in size and weight. She asked why she was not called for the lineup and was told it was because they didn't have enough time. When she saw the MHM's picture the next day on television, she repeatedly called police to tell them he wasn't the man she saw, but she was ignored.

The MW's criminal record included an arrest for discharging a weapon on April 10, 1974. When he was a juvenile he served 5 1/2 months in the Alabama Boys Industrial School, escaped, was captured and sent to a reformatory in Arkansas. Again he escaped but surrendered. In addition to a conviction for arson he was convicted of intimidating a witness, burning property to defraud, and curfew violations. He spent time in the Ohio Reformatory at Mansfield and Lebanon Correctional Institution and was paroled in 1971.

When his story was challenged the MW agreed to take a polygraph test, but vomited after questioning began, ending the questioning. He claimed it was because he hadn't slept or eaten in the three days since the murder.
A man who would prove to be a key trial witness, the criminal justice coordinator for southeast Ohio for the Federal Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, said that the MW and his wife were taken by police to view the MHM prior to the lineup. The MW vehemently denied this. There is another unusual twist to the criminal justice coordinator’s role in the investigation. When the man’s family, who were African American, first moved to the neighborhood in 1969, Christie Mullins' father was one of the protesting neighbors who posted picket signs demanding an all-white area. The two men did not talk until the day after the murder, but after that time they became close friends and allies in search of the girl's killer.

According to the criminal justice coordinator, the MW particularly shocked Mr. Mullins within a week after the killing by repeatedly asking the girl's father about Christie's bra size.

Dec. 23 Plain Dealer:

Mr. Mullins said that twice since the murder, he was shot at while digging around the site, and was threatened anonymously.

Mr. Mullins was particularly upset because of statements made by Christie's friend (the one who went with her to Woolco) the day after the murder. According to Mr. Mullins, the friend came over the next day half crying and half laughing and said “we didn't mean for it to go this far, it wasn't intended for her."

After the murder, Christie's friend was mocked by other girls who called her Betty Clawson, a name used by a detective magazine which featured the Mullins case in a then-recent article. Most of the names were changed in the article.

Dec. 24 Plain Dealer:

Mr. Mullins was quoted as saying the head of the Columbus Police homicide squad "treats me like a dog. They all refuse to admit they could be wrong." He asked the newspaper to post his address so persons wishing to help investigate could contact him.
 
I contacted columbus police cold case unit. They have no interest in the case (official explanation is they are are understaffed). However, a couple weeks ago someone else contacted them and was told they could not discuss the case because it was officially still open.
A few years ago someone else contacted columbus pd about the case and was told the case was closed and she was wasting her (and their) time. She then contacted a cold case tv show and they got back to her to say they only do shows where the police cooperate and columbus pd would not.
 
Hey folks, this is my first post here. I saw this case on Facebook and started reading up on it, it jumped out at me because I lived on Broadmeadows from 1975-1984. Having lived there I know the area very well. So I would like to start off be describing the area Miss Mullins was found at. If you are looking down on it it looks like an "S", you enter the wooded "shortcut at the top of the S walk through the S until you reach a fairly steep upgrade, at the top of this upgrade is the white guard rail. It is made of dirt and rock, and is steep enough that anyone coming up behind her would have been heard. Also from entrance to exit its only about 50-75 yards. So there is no way it is 3/4 a mile from Woolco. As far as an out of the way place or an area where cameras would have been, well there were loading docks just to the back of the building from there, so today it would have been in a covered area, also from there you can see everything to high st. So my guess is she knew her killer and went willingly. Also while the trail was clear and about 10 feet wide, once off that trail its full of trees and very hard to navigate. If anyone has any questions about the area please dont hesitate to ask, i lived at Graceland in the summer and knew the whole area very well.
 
Tiberius, I have a question for you.

If one didn't want to go up thru the steep upgrade where the white guard rail was, were there any other way to reach Woolco from the shortcut in the woods back then?

Was there any other path directly behind the Woolco store back then that would have connected in any way with the shortcut?
 
Tiberius, I have a question for you.

If one didn't want to go up thru the steep upgrade where the white guard rail was, were there any other way to reach Woolco from the shortcut in the woods back then?

Was there any other path directly behind the Woolco store back then that would have connected in any way with the shortcut?

Well, thats a tough one to answer, first the shortcut that is being reported as the spot where Christie was abducted does not go anywhere near the place she was found, its an S shaped shortcut that leads from the railing to the back end of a condo that was built in 1970, which the paper claims wasnt there. IF she was in fact at that spot on the railing she would have to have gone back through the shortcut and down through the condo development and catch a new trail there or gone to the other side of Graceland and gotten into the pathways at the end of the street that runs next to Graceland. Of course she COULD have left the trail and just gone through the trees, but that would have taken longer and been a pretty tough trek, once off the trails it was pretty dense. My guess is she was lead there by someone she knew and trusted. ok so I didnt directly answer your question, sorry. That railing went clear around the back and both sides of Woolco, If there was another entrance to the trails directly BEHIND Woolco then I didnt know about it.

go to this link
https://maps.google.com/

type in 349 Olentangy Forest drive 43214, you'll have to click on directions and put that address in twice, then zoom out until you see Graceland shopping center. the shortcut came up almost in a direct line on the north side of the first building you see, the second trail would be the one easiest one to use to get to where her body was found, and that one starts at the bottom of Olentangy Forest drive, and does NOT lead to Graceland.
 
Hey folks, this is my first post here. I saw this case on Facebook and started reading up on it, it jumped out at me because I lived on Broadmeadows from 1975-1984. Having lived there I know the area very well. So I would like to start off be describing the area Miss Mullins was found at. If you are looking down on it it looks like an "S", you enter the wooded "shortcut at the top of the S walk through the S until you reach a fairly steep upgrade, at the top of this upgrade is the white guard rail. It is made of dirt and rock, and is steep enough that anyone coming up behind her would have been heard. Also from entrance to exit its only about 50-75 yards. So there is no way it is 3/4 a mile from Woolco. As far as an out of the way place or an area where cameras would have been, well there were loading docks just to the back of the building from there, so today it would have been in a covered area, also from there you can see everything to high st. So my guess is she knew her killer and went willingly. Also while the trail was clear and about 10 feet wide, once off that trail its full of trees and very hard to navigate. If anyone has any questions about the area please dont hesitate to ask, i lived at Graceland in the summer and knew the whole area very well.

Welcome Tiberius3108 :)
:welcome:
 
I've been reading most of this forum on this case and I must say I find it quite interesting. Some things seem quite odd, like why no case was ever made about Henry Newell following Jack Carmen trial. How come Carol Reeve wasn't questioned more about her comments to Christie mother right after her death. A lot of questions like that that are not easily answered. My personal opinion, after all this reading, is that Carol Reeves and Henry Newell were having an affair. Christie came to know about it. Henry freaked out it may come out. He asked Carol to get Christie with him so he can reason with her. And the rest is history. Pretty basic thinking. But sometimes it's the easiest solution that ends up being the right one


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
I noticed that two people were barefoot. MW was barefoot upon finding the body. CR was barefoot when she last saw Christie. I don't think Christie ever made it out of the woods to the railing. The theory that CR and MW were meeting in the woods to hook up sounds good to me. Christie said she was gonna tell. Which is why MW said something about teaching her to keep her mouth shut. Or maybe he wanted Christie to join him and CR and she wouldn't. It's weird that both MW and CR left those same woods barefoot. On the same day. Possibly at the same time?
 
I noticed that two people were barefoot. MW was barefoot upon finding the body. CR was barefoot when she last saw Christie. I don't think Christie ever made it out of the woods to the railing. The theory that CR and MW were meeting in the woods to hook up sounds good to me. Christie said she was gonna tell. Which is why MW said something about teaching her to keep her mouth shut. Or maybe he wanted Christie to join him and CR and she wouldn't. It's weird that both MW and CR left those same woods barefoot. On the same day. Possibly at the same time?

Interesting observation. And I too think that Christie never made it to the railing.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
nerosleuth, I'm extremely thankful you brought this case up in WS.
Such a wrongful rush to judgement by LE, solely for a "closed" case status. So many red flags from the get-go.

I will be chiming in with some insights & opinions, but still in the process of examining all info that you (and others) have provided.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
1,245
Total visitors
1,421

Forum statistics

Threads
602,129
Messages
18,135,261
Members
231,245
Latest member
mysterykitty
Back
Top