Patti Adkins Missing Person Case
It seems highly unusual in the case of the disappearance of Patti Adkins in July 2001 where a prosecutor would be unable to take this case to a Grand Jury, show probable cause to indict the Primary Suspect and proceed to bring charges against the Primary Suspect and move to trial.
Defendants are convicted where the evidence is circumstantial every day. But to continue to allow this Primary Suspect to walk free until the DA’s office has direct evidence is unjustifiable, when perhaps the only way to break this case is to indict rather than wait another nineteen years.
Of course having “Direct Evidence” would be best to proceed with any trial, but after nineteen years in spite of no body, or admission of guilt, it now rests in the hands of the DA to press the matter by making an indictment and perhaps in doing so, press the Primary Suspect to face a jury of his peers and allow them to decide upon the preponderance or circumstantial evidence if the Primary Suspect is guilty or not guilty.
There is enough evidence in the testimony, the supporting facts based on the testimony, and inference putting the testimony and the supporting facts together to not only indict the Primary Suspect, but to posssibly prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Primary Suspect can be proven guilty in a court of law as being responsible for the death of Patti Adkins.
Testimony would show that Patti Adkins and the Primary Suspect were in a relationship prior to her disappearance in July. The defense will argue against this evidence, but would find it near impossible to explain away how witnesses would have any knowledge including Ms. Adkins about the Primary Suspects purchase of the Tonneau Cover purchased by the Primary Suspect prior to June 29, 2001 and picked up the cover he ordered and installed the day Ms. Adkins disappeared if Ms. Adkins and the Primary Suspect were not in a “relationship”.
The defense would find it difficult to refute the witness testimony that those closest to Ms. Adkins were aware that on the night of June 29th 2001 Ms. Adkins and the Primary Suspect were expected to leave for the week and that to keep their relationship secret Ms. Adkins was encouraged by the Primary Suspect to leave her work station early, exit the plant they both worked, proceed to his truck and hide in the bed, under the cover the Primary Suspect installed the day of the night she disappeared.
The only defense that could be proffered is that Patti Adkins was stalking the Primary Suspect. However, this evidence would be refuted by the testimony of the “banker” that Ms. Adkins had withdrawn several thousands of dollars to give to the Primary Suspect.
The jury would be able to infer based on the witness testimony in regards to the relationship, the Tonneau Cover being on the vehicle, and the banker that the Primary Suspect was not being stalked by the victim, but the victim was being preyed upon by the Primary Suspect.
The defense team would most likely attempt to infer that Ms. Adkins, a scorned woman, stalked the Primary Suspect and when the Primary Suspect rejected her she set forth to stage her own disappearance in an attempt to frame the Primary Suspect.
Nevertheless, the DA has to trust the jury to surmise that Ms. Adkins could have taken the Primary Suspect to court and sue him for loans she had given him as opposed to staging her disappearance.
If in fact the DA of Union County of the Great State of Ohio were to bring forth charges by first indicting the Primary Suspect with a Grand Jury, this would allow the DA to attempt to make a plea with the Primary Suspect on lesser charges of A) pleading guilty to a lesser offense B) enable the DA to stipulate that a plea bargain be accepted only if the Primary Suspect lead investigators to the body of Ms. Adkins.
However, until the DA presses the matter by first indicting the Primary Suspect, it is reasonable to speculate that the Primary Suspect, unless pressed will ever admit to guilt, and only by pursuing the case in a court of law will the Primary Suspect ever be held accountable, or allow prosecutor’s after attaining an indictment to press the Primary Suspect to negotiate a plea and bring closure to this case.
Allow the citizens of the great state of Ohio to examine the evidence against the Primary Suspect and allow them the opportunity to hold the Primary Suspect accountable or find the Primary Suspect Not Guilty.
By not allowing the citizens to do so is a miscarriage of justice. By waiting on “Direct Evidence” when there is enough evidence, albeit circumstantial, to indict is justice, even if the Jury finds the Primary Suspect Not Guilty.
Doing nothing however, is wrong most especially since the District Attorney of Union County is the only governing body that can utilize its authority to bring an indictment against the defendant.
How many more days, years, have to pass before the Primary Suspect is given a fair trial and allow a jury of the Primary Suspects peers to render a verdict and allow the jury to look at the evidence and hold the Primary Suspect accountable, or find the Primary Suspect not guilty?
Patti Adkins is unable to speak for herself and the only governing body with the legal tools that can speak for her choose to stay silent and wait, and nineteen years of waiting for “Direct Evidence” when there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict is no longer justifiable when perhaps the only closure to this case is by indicting and pressing the Primary Suspect to face a jury and allow them, the jury, the opportunity to render a verdict.
- Marysville Police Department 937-642-3900
- Union County Sheriff’s Department 937-644-5010
- Union County District Attorney:
- Phone: (937) 645-4190