re-examining the Jule Caylor case

[wiseguy182]

it used to be that the overall forum consensus was that Jule was pretty guilty, but the tide seems to be turning pretty heavily toward the idea that Jule could potentially be innocent. And on that note, I thought it was important to re-examine this case to come up with things, some of which haven't been discussed here before, that may indicate that Jule might be innocent.

1. One issue that has always nagged was the apparent lack of motive. Jule had a new job in a new state and a new woman, so there doesn't seem to be any obvious motive. The best that I could come up with was that Jule wanted Dottie to not be able to get along without him, and didn't like that Dottie was going to be financially well off and meeting new people, new friends. That's the best I could come up with and I'm not really comfortable with it.

2. Jule says "it was hell having her disappear the way she did." This can be taken a couple different ways. It could mean that Jule didn't like having her disappear and being forced to answer alot of police questions and being put under a microscope, but it could also mean that Jule did have a little concern left for her well-being.

3. Granted, Jule says it was hell living with her and things have been pretty good without her. But it should be noted that he never wishes harm on her. He really seems to be indifferent to the whole situation.

4. the segment is pretty vague. I would like to know if:
a. it can be confirmed that Dottie bought a bus ticket
b. anyone remembers seeing her on the train, whether it be boarding, exiting, or being a passenger on the train.
c. was it ever confirmed that Dottie did have plans to visit the friend?

If any one of those can be confirmed, then i think that swings heavily away from Jule being responsible. However, Dottie was very shy and probably wouldn't have conversed with anyone on the train, so if she was in fact on there, it is very possible nobody can recall seeing her on there.

5. segment says she took an overnight bag, and I can't recall, but perhaps a piece of luggage. I'm curious to know if that was missing from the house, and if any items that could have been put in those bags were. If they were, it could indicate that Dottie did in fact plan on visiting a friend, and again, would seem to indicate Jule's innocence.

that's what I have, any additional thoughts?

[burbqueen]

OMG Jule was hilarious. I watched this the other day and everyone in the room thought he was guilty. I think Jule wanted toa move and without his wife and didnt want to be bothered. The odds that she is alive are slim to none. Especially when her car showed up parked next to his at his job!!!

[kadrmas15]

The car was not parked next to his job. It was parked next to his car at the BART station.

[egswanso]

The segment certainly presents evidence of why Dottie would want to leave Jule and facts that suggest she could have done so, although this theory is weakened, somewhat, by her lack of communication with family or friends.

Jule's candor re: the relationship is unusual for UM. He didn't portray himself as the grieving spouse at all. It's hard to know if this is a sign of his innocence or just arrogance. If he did do it, I suspect he accidentally killed her in an argument, so there wouldn't be motive in the classic sense.

I agree with you, wiseguy, that a key point is any corroboration that Dottie boarded the BART train. If she did, I am inclined to believe Jule is innocent; however, there does not appear any corroboration. An overnight bag is, IMO, immaterial. Jule could have just as easily packed one himself and disposed of it with Dottie's body.

The whole problem with this case is the lack of any third-party evidence. We don't know when Dottie was last seen alive, we don't know Jule's confirmed locations, we have no witnesses that Jule dropped Dottie off or how Dottie's car got to the BART station.

[kadrmas15]

Well, looking at it, I will say there is insufficient legally to convict or even charge Jule Caylor with murder. Yes there is enough to generate suspicion towards Jule Caylor but that is about all. It is hard to charge him with a murder when there is physical evidence that a murder even occurred. I also think that if Jule did kill Dottie that it was not pre-meditated.

I mean, to me, he seemed kind of indifferent to her one way or the other, while he did not seem sorry that she was gone, I cannot imagine him getting wrapped around her enough to want to off her. In fact, he seemed like he was rather pleased with the idea of a divorce and while it was very obvious he did not miss her, it was also obvious that he really did not hate her, just that he was not in love with her and did not want to be with her anymore.

There are some disturbing questions here though. First off, while Jule 'found' her car next to his at the BART station, I believe he never notified the Concord Police that he suspected his wife was missing. In fact, it was not until at least 5 days after Dottie was last seen before her disappearance was reported to the Concord Police. It was also not reported to the Concord Police by Jule but by the BART Police. Now, I believe Jule was the one that reported that his wife had disappeared but he reported it to the BART Police about her car being next to his car. Now this was over the course of I believe three days that the stuff with the note and the cars happened. Then Jule reported this to the BART Police and I am guessing told them or they told him to file a missing person report with the Concord Police Department. However I imagine they expected to hear back from Concord and when they did not, finally notified them, 5 days after Jule had made the report to them. So it sounds like it was 7 or 8 days after Dottie disappeared before it was finally reported to the Concord Police.

[Clockworkhigh]

Just saw the segment again and the whole thing frustrates me. I am leaning on the side of Jule being innocent. But for the life of me I cannot explain why. He might just flat out always have that demeanour of being cool, calm and collected. That could just be another day at the office for him.

The thing is why would Jule kill Dottie if he is moving to a new city, new job anyways? She apparently didn't want to follow him and if you wanted to get rid of someone that's the way to do it, move away from them. All the pieces were in place for a divorce. Why complicate things?

Also that separate bank account that Dottie had is suspicious. I wonder if the money was ever taken out of that account. There are a lot of signs that point to her starting a new life. Maybe she wasn't close to her family, all we saw was her sister. If she had a bad marriage that eliminates caring about seeing her husband again. She had no kids, and other than that support group no friends seemingly.

Why would Jule kill her? I have never heard a good reason

[egswanso]

Just saw the segment again and the whole thing frustrates me. I am leaning on the side of Jule being innocent. But for the life of me I cannot explain why. He might just flat out always have that demeanour of being cool, calm and collected. That could just be another day at the office for him.

The thing is why would Jule kill Dottie if he is moving to a new city, new job anyways? She apparently didn't want to follow him and if you wanted to get rid of someone that's the way to do it, move away from them. All the pieces were in place for a divorce. Why complicate things?

Also that separate bank account that Dottie had is suspicious. I wonder if the money was ever taken out of that account. There are a lot of signs that point to her starting a new life. Maybe she wasn't close to her family, all we saw was her sister. If she had a bad marriage that eliminates caring about seeing her husband again. She had no kids, and other than that support group no friends seemingly.

Why would Jule kill her? I have never heard a good reason

If Jule killed her, I would theorize that Jule and Dottie got into an argument (as they were wont to do), it escalated into physical violence, and she was killed by accident. He describes the prior incident where she was threating him with scissors or something and he hit her with the typing stand, so it's not inconceivable that he hit her again; she could have fallen and hit her head, etc., etc. I doubt he ever planned to kill her, but anytime you have two people fighting, things can get out of hand.

If he did kill her, I'd have to think he's a total sociopath, as he seemed to lack any guilt or emotion about her disappearance.

And kadrmas, I have to agree and take it further, there's not even a scintilla of evidence to charge Jule, let alone convict. If he did kill her, he basically committed the perfect crime.

[peachysquirt21]

I think what happened is they got into an argument & things went too far & she died.

His story just does not make sense IMO. If she decided to just up & leave or go somewhere overnight, few days, I am pretty sure she would have taken her purse. According to the group of people she associated with, she felt safe as along as she had her purse. Even if she did go off somewhere & met with fowl play, what are the odds that her purse would be found in her car of all places??? When according to Jule he drove her to the station & dropped her off. If that is the case, you have to ask yourself how did her car end up at that station? I believe she also had amount of money that she left behind. If she was gonna go off & just disappear, I am sure she would have taken that money with her. Given her condition, I do not think she was ready to just go off & start a new life or even go for a few days to visit someone. She was just starting to feel comfortable going to certain places. It appeared to me she was quite close to this group she was associating with & I am sure that if she was gonna go visit someone or start a new life for herself, she would have told at least 1 person from that group.

Sad thing is, I don't think we will ever find out where Dottie is.

[wiseguy182]

also:

6. when you think about it, the theory of Dottie starting a new life isn't all that far-fetched. By accounts, she was meeting new friends and new men. It is entirely possible that she met a man who was considerably wealthy and went off to be with him. That would explain why all of her belongings and the money were left behind. Perhaps those were trivial to her now. Plus, someone could recognize her if she wore the same clothes.

7. Dottie's weight tended to fluctuate, but she is depicted in the segment as being of a considerable weight. Which raises the possibility of would Jule need assistance in moving the body? If Jule is guilty, does anyone else know about this?

[wiseguy182]

8. Dottie disappeared on one of Jule's last days in San Fran. Now, when people are getting ready to move, they are generally very busy. They have to pack, close accounts in the area, do any unfinished business in the area, etc. Would Jule really have the time necessary it would take to dispose of Dottie's body (to the point that, 25 years later, it still hasn't been found), clean up any potential blood, mess, and hide any potential murder weapon, and do all of these things in his final hours in San Fran? Would he really have the time do this? If not, again the possibility of him having an accomplice surfaces because if he did it, he might need somebody to assist him so that he leaves San Fran according to schedule.

[wiseguy182]

9. it should be noted that Dottie was doing alot of things secretly around the time of her disapperance: opening secret accounts, living a secret existence. I think it's very possible she could have staged a secret disappearance.

[burbqueen]

People talk about motive, but my god I've read about cases of people killing their spouse over all kinds of things. I think Jule just was tired or dottie or maybe they got in a fight. her purse was in her car right? odd. The reason for killing anyone is just a human mind attempting to understan

I just for the life of me cant see dottie just moving and not contacting her friends all these years. It does happen, but not as often as someone killing their wife.

[starmushrooms]

Just saw the segment again and the whole thing frustrates me. I am leaning on the side of Jule being innocent. But for the life of me I cannot explain why. He might just flat out always have that demeanour of being cool, calm and collected. That could just be another day at the office for him.


I just watched the segment tonight and while Jule didn't come off as sympathetic or grief stricken he might be a straight forward guy who doesn't show emotion.

I'm on the fence with Jule. The UM segment didn't paint him in a good light. I had my doubts originally, but now I think, who knows.

One thing that bugs me, and always bugs me when I watch TV, is listening to people who talk scripted, like a robot. The friend filmed in the park had a scripted tone to her voice.

[wiseguy182]

10. Jule stated in the segment that he wasn't surprised when he was considered a suspect, because naturally when someone disappears, people around them are considered. Now the question I have is why would Jule, who is about to leave for another state and be rid of Dottie, kill her in his final days in California? He is so close to being rid of her. If he put up with her for 12 years, couldn't he have withstood a few more days?

Admittedly, my own opinion is shifting towards uncertain on this case.

[peachysquirt21]

10. Jule stated in the segment that he wasn't surprised when he was considered a suspect, because naturally when someone disappears, people around them are considered. Now the question I have is why would Jule, who is about to leave for another state and be rid of Dottie, kill her in his final days in California? He is so close to being rid of her. If he put up with her for 12 years, couldn't he have withstood a few more days?

Admittedly, my own opinion is shifting towards uncertain on this case.

That is a good point. I still think that they got into some kind of argument & things went too far.

[wiseguy182]

That is a good point. I still think that they got into some kind of argument & things went too far.

thanks. to expand on my point, Jule obviously knew that he would be considered as a suspect, so how is that Jule couldn't put up with Dottie for a few more days, and instead invited suspicion for the rest of his lifetime. He is still suspected even to this day, it recently dissuaded him for running for Utah Congress.

[mattc]

Why has the tide started to turn? Did I miss a new development or something?

I always assumed he was guilty and that the posts confirmed this. I do agree that Jules did not say the right things if he was trying to pretend to be innocent and a grieving husband. Then again, I think that his arrogance was just showing through, as if to say: "You'll never find her and you'll never figure out what happened."

I also remember reading that Jules assaulted another girlfriend of his after this case faded away and he started a new life. Am I totally wrong? I'll try to dig up the info, but I could have sworn that he did something else that made him look even more guilty.

BTW, when people say, "why would he bother killing her if he was leaving anyway, and she didn't want to stay with him," I think it comes down to alimony/financial loss he might have by getting divorced, and also control.

[idyla]

When I was young (as in, when this first aired), I was sure he did it. Of course, my father's personality was (and probably still is!) pretty close to Jule's.

Now, I'm not so sure either. I would be surprised if she turned up alive, but instead of Jule killing her...why couldn't someone else do it and make an effort to frame him?

With the way he talked, I wonder what kept him from just divorcing her and moving on? Then again, people get so used to a certain way of life, they don't realize things could be different until something major happens - like a spouse disappearing.

The man might be guilty, but the way he comes across in the segment to me as someone who is doing what one feels they should for another human being - making appearances and somewhat of an effort to find out what happened. Its just definitely not what you expect a loving husband to do/say.

[burbqueen]

Also, how do we really know Dottie was leaving and it isnt something Jule just fabricated? Maybe she was unhappy sure, but how many cases do we see that some husband has made up a fake letter or packed a suitecase for their so called fleeing spouse?

I do not believe Dottie moved on. No way, nope.

[crystaldawn]

I do still think Jule killed Dottie. Dottie was in a fragile mental state and I'm not sure she would have had the ability to leave and start a new life for herself. She didn't bring her purse and since Jule wanted out of the marriage as well she wouldn't have had any reason to change her name and assume a new identity. I always thought the fact that clearly Jule and Dottie had no marriage left yet he leaves her notes on her abandoned car "professing his love for her" was calculated on his part. It made him appear like he missed her when in reality if someone whom you seem to practically despise and whom you wanted to divorce left....would you leave a note asking them to come back and telling them you loved them? Doesn't seem likely. With Jule's occupation it would have been very easy for him to dispose of the body in the forest where no one would find it. That seems more likely to me because if Dottie wanted to leave Jule she could have easily done it without going through all this drama.

[marlins3]

I posted this in another thread. I do think Dottie was murdered but her remains will never be found and here's why...

Jule caylor was an entomologist (he studied insects, worms, and other small animals) for the National Park Service. He had access to areas of National parks that the general public would never see. All Jule had to do was kill Dottie, put her body in his vehicle (it would be easy to hide a body amidst work tools for a short period of time, especially if he had a work vehicle which would have been a 4WD SUV -type to allow navigation across rugged terrain and drive her to one of these locations). It would also be very easy for him to explain why he would be in a remote location of a park (for work). With his job, he would have little overhead or direct supervision which would again allow him plenty of time to dispose of a body. Jule would not even have to bury Dottie's body. A dead body left in the woods will last about 3 days tops before it is entirely consumed by animals. Jule is a smart man and disposing of Dottie's body in this manner would make it almost impossible to ever recover a body. Also to conduct a search of an entire National Park would be an impossible task. This has always been my theory on Dottie's disappearance.

[marlins3]

I do still think Jule killed Dottie. Dottie was in a fragile mental state and I'm not sure she would have had the ability to leave and start a new life for herself. She didn't bring her purse and since Jule wanted out of the marriage as well she wouldn't have had any reason to change her name and assume a new identity. I always thought the fact that clearly Jule and Dottie had no marriage left yet he leaves her notes on her abandoned car "professing his love for her" was calculated on his part. It made him appear like he missed her when in reality if someone whom you seem to practically despise and whom you wanted to divorce left....would you leave a note asking them to come back and telling them you loved them? Doesn't seem likely. With Jule's occupation it would have been very easy for him to dispose of the body in the forest where no one would find it. That seems more likely to me because if Dottie wanted to leave Jule she could have easily done it without going through all this drama.


Stealing my thunder, CD? The last three sentences of your post agree with my long-standing belief on this case. I'm just kidding! I'm not pompous enough to think that only I have that idea about Jule dumping the body in a National Park. I posted these sentiments a while back on another thread. Jule Caylor is not a dumb man and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. I don't doubt for a minute that he would be shrewd enough to concoct an elaborate (semi-elaborate) scheme to appear that he actually missed his wife. The one thing about this case that always seemed peculiar is the fact that Dottie feared large crowd and the unknown. Then where on earth did she ever get the courage to hop a BART train on her own? It doesn't make sense. In teh Dale Kerstetter segment, one detective said of Dale "...he's saying I'm taking your platinum and there isn't anything you can do about it." While I have my own theories on Kerstetter (posted in another thread), the smugness of Caylor's UM interview (or at least the parts they showed, because those interviews are cut for content) was directly saying "I killed my wife and there's not a darn thing you can do about it."

[wiseguy182]

11. I read that Dottie frequently liked to be dropped off at the BART station - not to ride it, but rather she liked to meet people there. This could make Jule seem less likely guilty because it doesn't have to be established that she was taking the train to go somewhere because she frequently liked to meet people there.

12. I wanted to also add that Jule was in the dark about Dottie's activities during the last year of their being together. If she kept everything else secret from him, why not her disappearance.

[Clockworkhigh]

11. I read that Dottie frequently liked to be dropped off at the BART station - not to ride it, but rather she liked to meet people there. This could make Jule seem less likely guilty because it doesn't have to be established that she was taking the train to go somewhere because she frequently liked to meet people there.

12. I wanted to also add that Jule was in the dark about Dottie's activities during the last year of their being together. If she kept everything else secret from him, why not her disappearance.

And that's the thing. I know Jule is unpopular around here, but outside of circumstantial evidence and the lax emotions about him what exactly proves that he is guilty? Because he has a job hat gives him access to the National Parks? Hey look even if her body was disposed in the forest her bones would still be there. You'd think somebody by accident would stumble upon them hiking or something. I mean a skull would not be hard to spot.

Plus there are no witnesses to anything. Paul Pollis has a neighbour witnessing something amiss. Not Jule. You think someone would see something? And you'd think the cops would have kept an extra eye on Jule and would notice if he was acting suspicious. In the segment no one says a bad thing about the guy. No one comes up with a theory. No one has any proof. Nothing.

And lastly, why in the world would you tell people that your missing wife's car was parked next to yours? Why set yourself up like that if you killed her? You'd think it would be easy to have someone dispose of the car two or three hours away. This always irked me. I have just always thought that Dottie DID go out on her own, was in a bad state of mind and someone took advantage of her. End of story. It's happened before.

[rhzunam]

What I find funny is that although people are really quick to pounce on Jule and his behavior and how he's totally unlikeable and that is a reason for him to dissapear but they do not acknowledge certain type of behavior from Dottie. She didn't seem to be a prize either and stuff like hanging out in the BART stations, having physical fights with Jule and giving as much as she took and having different mailboxes and stuff like that, it all seems that she was also very strange. While it's not out of it that a person like Jule would do something like what people think they did to Dottie, it's not like it a crazy idea that she would dissapear or that she would meet with foul play. I would think both theories have as much probability of happening.

[wiseguy182]

Plus there are no witnesses to anything. Paul Pollis has a neighbour witnessing something amiss. Not Jule. You think someone would see something? And you'd think the cops would have kept an extra eye on Jule and would notice if he was acting suspicious. In the segment no one says a bad thing about the guy. No one comes up with a theory. No one has any proof. Nothing.

that's a good point. I read that while Jule and Dottie were known for having loud arguments, none of the neighbors reported any around the time Dottie went missing. It's logical to assume that if Jule murdered Dottie, there would have been a fight and the neighbors would have heard it.

[kadrmas15]

Yes I agree rhuznam. I think basically looking at this and the more I have thought about it, this case, even if Jule was convicted, I think would get overturned by a higher court and a judgement of acquittal entered. I think looking at it, the evidence or lack thereof is insufficient to even prove a homicide occurred at all or to even prove that Dottie is dead, let alone that Jule was the one responsible for the death.

Basically, I think that people have a tendency to believe in his guilt, mostly because they do not like him personally. I mean I will admit, Jule comes off as a guy that is hard to like. However I think people have a tendency to believe in someone's guilt simply because they do not happen to like them personally or because they do not come off good. I mean that is more common in American society and at trials than I like to admit. In fact, it is pretty disturbing to me, but it is very obvious that people have been convicted not off of the facts but because the jurors did not happen to like the defendant.

In terms of Dottie, yes, she did all of the things alleged, she had her own secret bank account, secret mailboxes, etc. I mean clearly she was planning to do something or at least thought she was going to do something. However again, the reason why this is not brought up more is because of the way American society is. You cannot attack or bring anything negative up against a 'victim' or a person that is perceived to be a victim. If you try it, it backfires on you every time. I mean there are cases where victims are not even really victims, but if you try to hold them accountable, the prosecution and the public smears you as being anti victim.

[Mastermind]

Websleuths registration is giving me problems and nothing new on zodiackiller.com.

Might as well head back here.;)

Wow, a huge groundswell of support in favor of Jule Caylor's innocence???:eek:

My thoughts..

1.The thing that always struck me on this case was that Dottie had a debilitating mental illness in agoraphobia. You;d think she would have a few more practice runs before deciding to live on her own. A relapse would set her back months. I assume she was still taking therapy and medication from her psychologist. Did she just up and find another psychologist. Is the psychologist privy to Dotties disappearance.

2. It's important to keep in mind that Dottie is a runaway not a fugitive. She is ultimately trying to get away from her husband and make sure he never reaches her. She is not necessarily trying to buck the law or escape authorities. Considering Jule Caylor didn;t seem all that interested in pursuing her, it's puzzling that Dottie wouldn't try to contact family,friends and others and let them know she is okay?

3. I'm not sure that Dottie could pull off creating a whole new life for herself without some assistance? Did her family or friends help her? Is there a boyfriend she met that took her in? Why has this person not been identified.

4. I also find it hard to imagine that Dottie's social security number hasn;t come on the grid at some point. There are certainly ways to do so, but would Dottie necessarily know how to do such things and be disciplined not to? She is not a smuggler or career criminal, she is a a houswife.





that's a good point. I read that while Jule and Dottie were known for having loud arguments, none of the neighbors reported any around the time Dottie went missing. It's logical to assume that if Jule murdered Dottie, there would have been a fight and the neighbors would have heard it.

Maybe, maybe not....

1. Dottie may have been killed before she they had a chance to raise there voices and cause commotion. It could have been a slow simmering argument that led to Jule striking her first and quickly.

2. Do they have a basement? (they are rare in the Bay Area) The attack may have occurred elsewhere away from the home.

3. It;s possible there came a point where the arguments were so common place that nobody bothered to notice or care.

And lastly, why in the world would you tell people that your missing wife's car was parked next to yours? Why set yourself up like that if you killed her? You'd think it would be easy to have someone dispose of the car two or three hours away.

1. Why not? It's not like anyone was going to find her body. Jules was probably banking on her body never being found. With that anything else like the car is negligible.

2. Jules does have other things to do than dispose of the car...like disposing of Dottie.:eek: Jules may have not had the opportunity to do anything else.

3. One way to get cops to focus off of you is to be honest and bring forth details without being prompted. Sadly this does work, cops do become less suspicious of criminals that bring forth details.

4. Jules may have been so cheap that he wanted to sell the car rather than lose money in disposing of it. :rolleyes:

11. I read that Dottie frequently liked to be dropped off at the BART station - not to ride it, but rather she liked to meet people there. This could make Jule seem less likely guilty because it doesn't have to be established that she was taking the train to go somewhere because she frequently liked to meet people there.

I was always under the impression that this was part of her therapy for agoraphobia. Don;t they do the same thing with people who are afraid to fly? They take them to the airport and have them hang around the lobby, talk to other passangers, flight attendants. Isn;t this all part of a way of alleaving their fear and making the experience of taking a flight seem a normal and natural event.

I imagine this was the same thing been done to get Dottie to get used to taking a train and going out in the world.

My gut instinct tells me that we are looking for a corpse...that Dottie met with foul play.

The questions is ...who did it...
1. Jule Caylor?
2. an aquaintance of Dottie. (boyfriend, girlfriend, support sponsor...)
3. A stranger (psycopath, rapist, satanic cultist...etc..)

Jules Caylor is innocent until proven guilty..but he has by no means been cleared of murder. He rightfully deserves to be the number one suspect in this case.

I don;t think it's that crazy that Dottie ran into the wrong person on the train station. If she was trying to be more friendly to people and more outgoing...someone could have used that to his advantage.

[Mastermind]

The problem with Jules Caylor's interview on UM is that he seems to have the most unemotional demeanor I've ever seen!!!:eek:

It almost borders on sociopathic!

I would have been really interested if that was the same demeanor he had days before Dottie disappeared.

This ultimately is not evidence against Jules..for all we know that might just be his demeanor in general. Some people are naturally stoic.

I think what was more important is his words. Jules words give the impression that he does not seem to care about Dotie's fate and that he could care less whether she is found chopped up or if she appeared on his doorstep.

The interview happened some time after the original event so Jule may have simply have already dealt with the emotions of the moment and come to whatever grief he may have incurred.

[mattc]

Stick with us Mastermind! Welcome back :)

I'm still somewhat confused why the tide is turning in terms of Jules' guilt. I assume that nothing new has happened right?

And what about the issue I posted earlier? Am I totally off in remembering something about Jules shooting another girlfriend, or harming another girlfriend? This would have happened more recently?

Just wondering. That would show a patter of violent behavior.

[kadrmas15]

I never heard of Jule harming another girlfriend. A woman he was involved with dumped him after she found out about his wife's disappearance. I think you are thinking of Stephen Marfeo whose wife 'disappeared'. 9 years after her disappearance, Marfeo went nuts and killed his ex-girlfriend who had dumped him for another guy. He shot and killed her and also shot the boyfriend although the boyfriend survived. Marfeo then went on the run, drove into Connecticut and shot himself.

[kadrmas15]

Actually, I do not think Jule is a sociopath. That is a word that is so overused. Sociopaths tend to be very good actors. Thus if Jule was a sociopath he would be more likely to ball his eyes out and acted all concerned and make you believe it even though he was lying. That is what a sociopath would do. I mean yes there is enough to generate suspicion towards Jule but the key word there is suspicion. There certainly is no where near the amount of evidence for a conviction. Like I said, even if Jule were convicted, it would probably be overturned on appeal as legally insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. I mean there is not enough evidence to prove a homicide occurred or even that Dottie is dead, let alone that Jule is the one responsible.

[mattc]

Kadrma: I think you're right. I am confusing this case with the Marfeo case; thanks for clearing that up.

I agree that there is insufficient evidence to bring a charge against Jules, let alone a conviction. I don't think a grand jury would agree to charges (perhaps the evidence was presented in front of a grand jury and they declined to move forward with a charge). We wouldn't have known about that, because, as you know, those things are classified.

I do think that if Dottie's body were to ever turn up, Jules would be charged with her murder, or at the very least, a more aggressive investigation would ensue.

For some reason, the women in Dottie's support group always struck me as key to solving this case. At the very least, I think they know more than they are telling (I got the impression that Dottie might have even had a relationship with one of them), or perhaps one of the women wanted a relationship with Dottie, but she declined.

I don't think they were involved in foul play, but maybe they are pretending to know nothing when in fact they know more.

Did Jules ever take a lie detector test?

[wiseguy182]

given Dottie's condition, she could have been pegged as an easy target by a predator at the BART station.

[sdb4884]

I don't think that Jule is guilty, I think Dotty was a bit mad too.

[Mastermind]

given Dottie's condition, she could have been pegged as an easy target by a predator at the BART station.

I dunno, if you wear a sexual predator would you really want to go after a women who is screaming cowering in fear and shaking uncontrollably? Not the most discrete target.

[JRA2000TL]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but you might be interested to know that Jule Caylor has a Facebook page. Of course, he has a new woman now. Kinda creepy to see that pic of him though.

[Mastermind]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but you might be interested to know that Jule Caylor has a Facebook page. Of course, he has a new woman now. Kinda creepy to see that pic of him though.

I think that there will be a quite a few Facebook pages coming out feauturing UM characters. :rolleyes:

I suspect that the Circleville Write will soon have his own facebook page. :lol:

[wiseguy182]

a huge component of this case that I don't think has been talked about: did they ever find the friend that Dorothy was said to have planned visiting? Jule stated that she was supposed to have been gone 2 weeks, so I'm sure this wasn't an unplanned visit if in fact there was a plan of a visit. If this friend can verify there was a plan, then I think that throws some suspicion off Jule.

at the beginning of the segment, they play up the "agoraphobic woman going for a bus ride" angle, but then later on they state that Dottie had been attending meetings, opening accounts, etc, so she was getting out more. So her going on a bus ride doesn't seem implausible.

[cocytus]

Here's my two cents:

1) I think that Jule Caylor has Asperger's Syndrome. A person w/ that syndrome would be unaware of they are perceived as they would lack the skills to interpret social cues. That would explain his rather odd and off-putting behavior;perhaps he just can't help it.

2) It appears that Dottie also had a number of mental/emotional issues. Since the segment largely glazed over them, we'll never know how that might have affected her thinking and what she was capable of doing.

3) I don't think that Jule Caylor killed his wife. No motive was ever presented as why he would have done it, certainly no method was described and while he had ample opportunity, w/o first two items, the third isn't that important.

4) My opinion: Dottie is possibly still alive. The area that she disappeared in (SF Bay Area) is a well-known destination for people attempting to lose themselves. In fact, until 9/11, if you want to disappear completely, the Bay Area was one of best areas to do as such.

If she is dead, then I would lean more toward suicide or accidental death more than homicide. Why? She had a number of psychological issues, she was about to experience a major life change and she apparently didn't have many friends or close relatives.

There are many high bridges in the Bay Area as well as many remote wilderness areas fairly close that could hide the body of a suicide victim. If/when they locate her body, I believe that suicide or "undetermined" will be a cause of death noted.

[RobinW]

Here's my two cents:

1) I think that Jule Caylor has Asperger's Syndrome. A person w/ that syndrome would be unaware of they are perceived as they would lack the skills to interpret social cues. That would explain his rather odd and off-putting behavior;perhaps he just can't help it.

That's a very valid point. Asperger's Syndrome was not well-known at all during the 1980s, so of course, everyone assumed that his behaviour in his UM interview was just him simply being a jerk. That theory wouldn't surprise me as even the most guilty man should know that acting that way on national TV when you're the prime suspect in your wife's disappearance is NOT a good idea. During one of the commentaries on one of the UM DVD sets, the producers told a story about how Jule's lawyer was in the room during that interview and was none-too-pleased with what his client was saying, but the fact that it made to air seems to indicate Jule had no qualms about it. His decision not to report Dottie missing for five days certainly looks suspicious, but I have to wonder if a person with Asperger's simply wouldn't see anything wrong with that. The infamous Wendy's salad story certain displays the symptoms of a man with a major social disorder.

3) I don't think that Jule Caylor killed his wife. No motive was ever presented as why he would have done it, certainly no method was described and while he had ample opportunity, w/o first two items, the third isn't that important.

Yes, there doesn't seem to be any rational reason for him to have murdered his wife when they were so close to divorcing and going their separate ways and he seemed to pretty content to finally have Dottie out of his life. Most people here assume that if he did kill her, it was likely an accident or a crime of passion instead of premeditated murder.

There are many high bridges in the Bay Area as well as many remote wilderness areas fairly close that could hide the body of a suicide victim. If/when they locate her body, I believe that suicide or "undetermined" will be a cause of death noted.

Let's not forget that Jule's job was in the forestry service (just do a Google search on him and you'll find his name on a lot of forestry-related websites). If he killed Dottie, I'm sure he probably would have known a good place in the wilderness to dispose of the body where she would never be found.

[wiseguy182]

His decision not to report Dottie missing for five days certainly looks suspicious

well I think the things is, and I was talking about this above, she was supposed to have been gone for 2 weeks, so I don't think he realized she was missing during those 5 days, because she was supposed to be at the friends house. Now had the friend called Jule to inquire about Dottie, that's a whole 'nother can of worms, but that information is not known.

[Corky Kneivel]

There are many high bridges in the Bay Area as well as many remote wilderness areas fairly close that could hide the body of a suicide victim. If/when they locate her body, I believe that suicide or "undetermined" will be a cause of death noted.


There are 7 bridges in the Bay Area: Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Golden Gate, Bay Bridge, Richmond-San Rafael & San Mateo-Heyward. All of them have so many travellers that a suicide would have been reported day or night.

What "remote wilderness areas" close to the Bay Area are you referring to?

[RobinW]

well I think the things is, and I was talking about this above, she was supposed to have been gone for 2 weeks, so I don't think he realized she was missing during those 5 days, because she was supposed to be at the friends house. Now had the friend called Jule to inquire about Dottie, that's a whole 'nother can of worms, but that information is not known.

I'm a little fuzzy on exactly how long Dottie was supposed to be gone on this trip. The UM segment clearly states that Jule claimed she went off on an overnight trip, and the fact that she left with an overnight bag seems to indicate that was she wasn't going to be gone long. Did Jule later change his story and claim she was supposed to be gone for two weeks in order to account for not reporting her missing for five days?

It seems suspicious that Jule would let Dottie go on a trip without ever finding out where she was going, but since their marriage was about to end anyway, it does fit with his personality that he legitimately wouldn't give a crap about what she did.

[cocytus]

There are 7 bridges in the Bay Area: Benicia-Martinez, Carquinez, Dumbarton, Golden Gate, Bay Bridge, Richmond-San Rafael & San Mateo-Heyward. All of them have so many travellers that a suicide would have been reported day or night.

What "remote wilderness areas" close to the Bay Area are you referring to?

You left out:

1) Antioch Bridge
2) Leimert Bridge (It's in Oakland over Sausal Creek)

Both of which are high enough to cause serious injury or death if they were used by a suicidal person. Only the Leimert Bridge is over a relatively shallow body of water, but the creek does flow somewhat fast.

As far as wilderness areas there are:

1) Mount Diablo State Park
2) Monte Bello Open Space Preserve
3) Monument Peak
4) Mayacamas Mountains (Near Napa)
5) Santa Cruz Mountains

To name just a few. Most aren't "wilderness areas" in the sense of something in Nevada (where I grew up) or other places out West. They would,however, be more than sufficient to hide a deceased person that may have been injured there or died by their own hand.

And while in the daytime, a suicide from a bridge might attract attention, it would obviously attract far less attention in the evening or early in the morning before day.

This all assumes that this is a suicide or death by misadventure. If she was killed by Caylor or disappeared on her own, then obviously there wouldn't be any reason to look in those areas.