Today, the murder casebook looks at the case of Bob Dorotik and the conviction of his wife, Jane, for his murder. There is also the accusation in court by defence attorneys that the real murderer was his daughter, Claire. There are twists and turns in the case, and the actions of some family, raise questions. Bob was supposed to have gone jogging, and his body was found around the areas that he jogged. Tyre tracks were found and three tracks were different. An early suspect arose, a farmhand, but the tracks on his pick-up truck did not match the tracks at the crime scene. His alibi for the time was thoroughly investigated and confirmed, and he was eliminated. Two pieces of forensics puzzled the Police, and that was a piece of skull fragment was found inside his jogging top, not under or by his body. This suggested that he could have been killed and then dressed, moved and dumped. He had lost a great deal of blood, yet there was little blood around the body.
Police now looked closer to home and with the permission of Jane, searched the bedroom, where blood spots were found. A more intensive search found blood all over the bedroom, and blood had seeped through floorboards down below. The blood was Bob`s. The tyre tracks matched Jane`s pick-up truck. She was arrested and charged. The motive was said by prosecutors to be money. He had a substantial life insurance policy on him, and their ranch, Charisma Farm, where they had a good number of horses, did eat money. She earned much more than her husband, and they did earlier go through a possible divorce but reconciled. Friends said they were closer than ever. She may have been made to pay alimony to her husband if they divorced, as she earned much more than he. The defence strategy was that Claire had actually committed the murder. Astonishingly, Claire chose to take the Fifth Amendment, which protects you against self-incrimination, as did an aunt. It is quite logical that if somebody accuses you of a heinous crime, you will defend yourself, you will shout from the rooftops of your innocence, not sat there saying nothing.
In an interview with Paula Zahn, Claire gave very controlled answers to her questions, but my belief is that there was so much more to it. She did not emphasise her innocence. It was too deliberate and controlled for my liking. Jane was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life. As for the motive, I agree with the defence; the suggestion was only speculation, but will we ever know the full story?