James Clay Waller, the estranged husband of missing mother of triplets, Jacque Sue Waller, claims that he has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's disappearance. The former police officer claims that he is being "followed and harassed," while the cops should be more focused on finding his wife. Do you think James Clay Waller is telling the truth, or is he an elaborate liar as the family of his missing wife believe?
James "Clay" Waller was the last person to see Jacque Sue Waller before she vanished without a trace, appearing to abandon her vehicle not far from his home. Before she disappeared, she called her family to tell them she was on her way to his home to pick up their son, Maddox. Not only has it been revealed that Maddox wasn't even at his father's home, Jacque Sue Waller never returned and appears to have gone completely missing.
James Waller is a person of interest in this case, and the police strongly suspect that he is tied to his wife's disappearance. They absolutely suspect foul play, as well. In addition to this public acknowledgement of suspicion, the family of the missing Missouri mother of triplets have publicly appeared on media programs crying out that this man is guilty of whatever happened to their daughter.
James spoke earlier regarding these allegations, and he claims that he is completely innocent of any wrongdoing:
"It's crazy. I got a helicopter following me every day, police are following me. I'll tell you what is not happening is that the cops are not searching for my wife."
James "Clay" believes his wife was abducted off Interstate-55, but the police claim that they "never believed [she] was abducted" and they still don't. They believe that the abandoned vehicle and the recent discovery of her business cards are indicative that this is a coverup to make something else look like an abduction.
Chelsea Hoffman is the author "Chloe and Louis," and two other novels. She resides in Las Vegas where she works as a freelance writer covering true crime stories and a myriad of other assorted works. You can follow her on Twitter or follow her blog Beauty Made Fresh!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 12
The person of interest may, indeed, be guilty--but without identifying, specifically, a motive; or whether there's a credible alibi; or what incriminating evidence there is, then the reader is left with unfair suspicion.
What's more, the reader is left with the temptation to designate the person of interest, as a defendant, wherein the reader is ALREADY trying him in the court of public opinion.
I'm sure you could likely say, 'well the reader can draw his/her own conclusion'--and that may be true--but without clarification from the Poster there is a decided inference that you, yourself, believe that the person of interest is guilty.
And the person of interest may, indeed, NOT be guilty.
The last thing we need is to present more and more venues where there is the presumption of guilt, rather than the presumption of innocence.
Presumption of innocence is a fundamental right, etched, indelibly, in the Constitution.
I could not have made it clearer.
What's more, for you to criticize the commenter, with the word, 'rambling'-- rather then to defend your own comments--points to your own bias and your inability to competently defend your point of view.
Either defend your comments or else continue to stoop to the level of primitive insult, with more words like 'rambling'.....which, clearly, and very basically, point to your own bias against recognizing people as innocent, until proven guilty....
You like to type a lot, but your words come across as a lot of rambling and not much "direction".
in other words -- address who you're speaking to, make your point otherwise TLDR over here. :)
'Tis true! But America loves a raunchy tabloid! And with the recently well gossiped Casey Anthony trial, many are on the verge of vigilantism because they are not willing to hear the evidence and wait on a verdict.
I don't think so....
More rambling dude. Do you spend a lot of time talking to yourself, rambling?
Personally, I don't care what you think or don't think. You give me the impression of you being one of those types that is overly brave on the internet, going around making your obnoxious comments to annoy people. Those are the same as personality traits found to be common among spousal abusers.
I can't buy into that statement. I hear it about the military frequently, too, and I know it isn't true.
Don't you think that is an over-generalization?