 |
| "Newark Advocate," March 7, 1975, via Newspapers.com |
Some missing-person cases are baffling because they feature a number of strange and contradictory clues. On the other hand, some disappearances are unique puzzles due to their utter lack of any clues at all. One outstanding example is the now little-known vanishing of Charles Albert Ulrich.
Ulrich led a stable, unremarkable life. The 62-year-old Uhrichsville, Ohio resident had worked for many years as a small claims examiner at the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services. He was a good employee who had no noticeable problems with his job. He was an intelligent, devoutly religious man who didn’t smoke or drink, served as an elder at his local Moravian Church, and was happily married for over forty years. By all appearances, his health and spirits were both excellent, and while he was not rich, he had no financial problems.
On the night of January 27, 1975, Ulrich’s wife Dorothy woke up thinking that she heard their front door close. Ulrich got his shotgun and went to investigate, but he found nothing to suggest someone had been there. It is unknown if this was simply a case of Mrs. Ulrich mishearing something, or a hint of worse things to come.
The following evening, Ulrich got a phone call. After the conversation was over, he commented to his wife, “You know, if it was a year later, I would retire.” Unfortunately, Mrs. Ulrich does not appear to have asked him to clarify this remark. It’s also unknown who he talked to. Like the suspected prowler, no one can say if this was an innocuous, meaningless incident, or…something else.
On the night of the 28th, there was a severe thunderstorm. It was still raining heavily when Mrs. Ulrich woke up at 7 a.m. the following morning. It was Charles’ invariable habit to wake his wife at 6:55 a.m. every morning so they could have coffee and watch a 5-minute religious program on television together before he went to work, but she found him nowhere in the house. Mrs. Ulrich saw his pajamas were left tossed across the bed, which was very uncharacteristic of him--after he dressed for the day, he would always put the pajamas neatly away. The front door was ajar. Charles had left his keys and wallet behind. Their car was still in the garage.
The perplexed Mrs. Ulrich called neighbors, asking if anyone had seen him. No one had. When her search of the area around their house proved futile, she phoned the police. Law enforcement and volunteer search parties explored the vicinity for some days, without finding any answers why Ulrich had vanished, or where he might have gone. The Tuscarawas River, which paralleled the street leading to Ulrich’s home, was dragged. There was nothing to indicate Ulrich had accidentally drowned there. A neighbor reported that at 6:30 on the morning of the 29th, he had seen car lights in the Ulrich driveway, and another witness saw on that same morning an unidentified man standing alongside Route 36, as if he was waiting for someone. What, if anything, did these two reports indicate? No one could say. “It’s a mystery how he disappeared in thin air,” Ulrich’s brother-in-law, Walter Whitis, commented to a reporter. “The more you talk about it, the more it seems you run up against a blank wall.”
 |
| "Daily Reporter," February 11, 1975 |
The police, while admitting that they could not rule out foul play, settled on the theory that Ulrich had experienced an amnesia attack. Five years before his disappearance, Ulrich had suffered a fall which severed some nerves leading to his brain. A doctor claimed that thunderstorms have been known to trigger "hysterical amnesia" in people who had similar injuries. However, even if this rather exotic explanation for Ulrich’s disappearance is accurate, it doesn’t explain the inability to find him.
Ulrich’s younger brother George had a far darker theory. Eight months after Charles vanished, George Ulrich told a reporter, “I believe he walked out of the house and found something he shouldn’t have. I see nothing but foul play.” But what could Ulrich have possibly “found” just outside his home that would compel someone to (presumably) kidnap and murder him?
To date, the mystery of Ulrich’s disappearance remains unsolved.
Ulrich's comment about retirement after the mysterious phone call suggests that he had some problem related to his work. But if he was known as "a good employee" then the problem may have been with one of the Bureau's clients rather than his colleagues. He was a "small claims examiner" so perhaps he was being harassed by somebody whose claim had been denied. That person then attacked him at his home on the morning of the 29th.
ReplyDeleteWhy not tell his wife or call the police? Perhaps he didn't want his wife to worry, and tried to extend Christian charity and understanding to someone who was far more dangerous than he realised.
Ulrich's comment about retirement after the mysterious phone call suggests that he had some problem related to his work. But if he was known as "a good employee" then the problem may have been with one of the Bureau's clients rather than his colleagues. He was a "small claims examiner" so perhaps he was being harassed by somebody whose claim had been denied. That person then attacked him at his home on the morning of the 29th.
ReplyDeleteWhy not tell his wife or call the police? Perhaps he didn't want his wife to worry, and tried to extend Christian charity and understanding to someone who was far more dangerous than he realised.
That theory was considered--irritated clients is something normal for his line of work--but they couldn't find any claimants he had recent dealings with who might have been angry enough to murder him. It's always possible, I suppose, that he was unlucky enough to deal with some kook who had an imaginary grudge against him.
DeleteIt's fine for Ulrish's brother to suggest that he 'walked out of the house', etc., but why did he walk out of the house in such an unaccustomed manner? Why the messy pyjamas? If he walked somewhere, he should have been seen, even early in the morning, and certainly found. If he drove away with someone, why with no wallet, and why leave the front door ajar? Too much mystery here. (And, as an aside, was the town named after an ancestor of Ulrich's?)
ReplyDeleteAbout why he would have left the house: my best guess is that he heard some sort of unusual noise outside, and after the incident with the (suspected) prowler, he thought it best to check. That might also explain why he didn't take the time to put away his pajamas. I wondered about the town's name, too, but nobody said if there was any connection, or if it was just coincidence.
DeleteI had the same response as you: walking out and stumbling on something doesn't explain the pajamas. But Undine does make a good point: he could have been responding quickly to something he heard. I wonder if they ever determined exactly what he was wearing if not his pajamas - was it the closest thing to hand? Anyway, a weird story.
DeleteU(L)RICH is a German last name that means "powerful" (man) or "King" (man). U(H)RICHsville different word, however, good observation, because in old German the words are derivatives of each other and have the same definition/meaning. Uhrich is a later evolution of Ulrich in etymology. According to a David Paulides interview on the case, an incident at a local quarry where screams were heard, was an interesting sidebar, but in that same interview, Dave stated he left the house not wearing shoes. NamUs and Attorney General info however contradicts this stating that he was wearing black shoes. Another possible weird connection Paulides adds is how sometimes later, Chuck's wife Dorothy went and adopted a German Shepard for protection. One day she came home and found the dog dead, having electrical cords around him and a broken neck. May be some interesting things to verify there.
DeleteFor whatever reason he went into the river, and for whatever reason he is still there, almost 47 years later.
ReplyDeleteUlrich was Moravian, and Ulrichsville is 11 minutes from Gnadenhutten, Ohio, where 96 pacifist Moravian Indians were massacred by American militiamen during the Revolutionary war. (The details of the Gnadenhutten massacre are appalling.) The disappearance and massacre are not connected, of course, except I just happened to be researching the massacre this morning ... coincidence.
ReplyDeleteUHRICHSVILLE not ULRICHSVILLE.
Delete