" + $site_name + " logo
Login

 
 
The Rinaldi Murder Case

by Charly Mann

Addendum 2-4-2010: Frank Rinaldi apparently died in poverty. His estate included the old house he lived in on Byrneside Avenue (mortgaged in 2007) and personal property with an estimated value of $20,000 At one point, he was reputedly worth $5 million. He probably only had a very small Social Security check, because he had not worked most of his life, and the rent from his tenants. The exact cause of Rinaldi's death has not been given.

NOTE: This article was written on November 12th, 2009, and posted at noon the next day. By strange coincidence Frank Rinaldi was discovered dead at his home in Waterbury, Connecticut at about the same time the article was published.

11-24-2009: The following is additional evidence about Frank Rinaldi and the murder that was not included in my original article.

As my article brings up Frank Rinaldi bought a double indemnity policy on his wife that was worth $40,000 and one on himself for $10,000.

The new facts are these. Frank stopped paying on his policy four months before the murder, and then cancelled the policy on himself and was refunded all the money he had already paid on it.

At the same time, Frank, who had little money of his own, borrowed $720 from the Bank of Chapel Hill to pay the premium on Lucille’s policy through the end of December. (She was murdered on December 24th).

Even before Frank cancelled his own policy one might wonder why he would only want Lucille and his child to have $10,000 if he was to have died accidently, and he was going to get $40,000 if his pregnant wife, who was two years younger than him, was to die this way.

Since this article was published I have received much more information on this crime. Almost all of it further incriminates Rinaldi. Because others think it important, I have now included the fact that Rinaldi went shopping in Durham before he did his shopping on Franklin Street.  He was however on Franklin Street  and very near his home within the time his wife was murdered there.
 

On Christmas eve 1963, Chapel Hill was almost like a ghost town. UNC students had left for their holiday break more than a week earlier, and many of the town's residents were away visiting relatives. At about 10 AM that morning the most brutal murder in Chapel Hill history occurred. In a small apartment at 105 North Street, about a block from the police station, a woman who was five months pregnant had a sock forcibly stuffed into her mouth and was hit violently across her skull twice with a large flashlight. The killer then took a small seat pillow and forced it hard against her face until she showed no signs of life. The woman was not sexually assaulted and the apartment was not robbed. The murder probably took less than five minutes.

The woman's name was Lucille Regina Rinaldi. She had been married less than five months to a part-time English instructor named Frank Joseph Rinaldi who was working on a PhD in English at UNC. Later that day he would be charged with first degree murder and put in jail. Over the course of the next two years there would be two murder trials in the case. In the first Frank Rinaldi was convicted of murder and sent to Central Prison in Raleigh. In the second Rinaldi was found innocent.


Lucille Begg in 1959. On July 31,1963 she married Frank Rinaldi.

I am convinced that Frank Rinaldi killed his wife and will explain why I believe he is guilty and why he was acquitted of the murder in the second trial.

The following facts convince me Frank Rinaldi was responsible for the murder of his wife:

1. Lucille Begg and Frank Rinaldi were married on July 31, 1963 in Waterbury Connecticut. Soon after the marriage there was some kind of problem, and Frank returned to Chapel Hill where he was working on his PhD.

2. Throughout August of 1963 there are letters and phone calls between Frank and Lucille. He learns she is pregnant, and she decides to attempt to reconcile with Frank by moving to Chapel Hill. Lucille arrives in Chapel Hill on September 2 and is interviewed and hired as a teacher at the newly opened Guy B. Phillips junior high school on Estes Drive. She shows up for the first day of school on September 8th, and leaves Chapel Hill suddenly the next day without notifying the school. The Chapel Hill School superintendent finally tracks her down to her family's home in Waterbury, Connecticut. She said she has left because of domestic difficulties.

3. It needs to be stated that Frank Rinaldi was gay. This in no way this is meant to cloud his character or imply that a gay man is more capable of murdering his wife than a straight man. The relevance here is twofold. First, most would agree that a marriage between a heterosexual woman and a homosexual man is full of challenges, and in this case Lucille seemed to be unaware or in denial about Frank's sexual orientation. More significantly though marriages generally depend on fidelity between the partners, and Frank was involved with at least one man during the time of their brief marriage.

4. Frank bought a $40,000 double indemnity life insurance policy on Lucille from his close companion John Sipp shortly before she was murdered. Such a policy pays this amount if Lucille were to die accidently, which includes being murdered. In today's terms this is equivalent to about $300,000.

This is suspicious for several reasons. While he did buy a policy for himself, it was for only $10,000 even though he was two years older and a male. He had virtually no income at this time, as he was only a part time instructor, and had to pay rent, tuition, as well as food and clothing costs from his small salary. It would be more logical that if he had extra money he would have wanted to be saving it for the cost of raising his soon to be born child. Rarely do couples take out life insurance policies on one another within five months of getting married, especially if they are having serious marital problems and are not living together, and have no stated plans to do so in the future.

Murder Suspect Frank Rinaldi
Frank Joseph Rinaldi, convicted, acquitted, and still the only suspect in the killing of his wife in Chapel Hill on December 24, 1963 

5. According to sworn testimony by local handyman Alfred Foushee, Rinaldi offered him $500 to kill his wife when she came to visit over Christmas. When Foushee refused, he asked if he could find someone else to kill her for $500. Rinaldi also told him it did not matter how his wife was killed. He said raping, strangling, choking, or anything else was all right with him.

On the morning of the murder Foushee testified he ran into Frank Rinaldi at the Eastgate Hardware store and Rinaldi said to him, "It's all over Al, I did it."

6. Police found blood matching Rinaldi's wife's type on the shirt and pants Frank Rinaldi wore on the day of the murder. They also found in the Rinaldi house a large flashlight that had been bent at the handle and a pillow with blood stains on it.

7. Lucille Rinaldi began receiving friendly letters and phone calls from Frank shortly after he had taken out the double indemnity policy on her. In them he encouraged her come for a visit over Christmas to try to fix their problems. Frank was also quite cordial to Lucille during the last three days she was alive, but this is likely because he a planed to kill her on the 24th and did not want her to leave before then.

8. On Christmas Eve morning Frank and his long-time companion John Sipp, who he had bought the double indemnity insurance policy from, went out Christmas Shopping. Frank seemed to want to establish an alibi for himself as he visited 17 stores in Durham and Chapel Hill between about 9:30 AM and 1:00 PM. The best estimate by the coroner for the time of death was between 10:00 and noon.

The problem with this alibi is that during this time Sipp and other eyewitness place them downtown on Franklin Street during the time of the murder. Depending on where they parked, they were within 200 to 400 feet of the Rinaldi residence on North Street between 11:00 and noon.  In less than ten minutes Rinaldi could have slipped into his apartment grabbed his flashlight and a sock. The murder itself took just a few minutes - two blows to Lucille's head with the flashlight while a sock was stuffed in her mouth. Then a pillow was placed tightly to her face for a couple of minutes to make sure she was dead. Frank could have easily gone to the house, killed Lucille, and been back on Franklin Street within ten minutes or less. In those days one often got to North Street by walking through a yard or driveway on Rosemary Street directly into an adjoining North Street property.

Rinaldi Murder Map
In 1963 one would often park on Rosemary Street when shopping downtown. You could also easily walk through any lot on Rosemary to get to a house on North Steet. I recently walked from the location of Rinaldi's apartment to the Chapel Hill Post Office in 74 seconds. In 1963 there was less traffic on Rosemary and fewer other obstacles which would probably make it quicker.

It should be remembered there was no robbery or sign of forced entry into the house. The person who did the crime knew what they wanted to do and that was kill Lucille and leave the scene as quickly as possible.

It is possible that John Sipp, who was Rinaldi's closest friend and the person who sold Frank the life insurance policy, could have known about Frank's intention. Frank certainly had no problem discussing the murder twice with Alfred Foushee who was only a casual friend. Even if Sipp was not aware of Frank's plan, he is Frank's main alibi witness for the time the murder was committed. While they were downtown there is no evidence that John and Frank were always together. For example, John spent time in Roses 5 & 10 Cent Store talking to an employee who did not recall Frank being around the store the entire time. Roses was located almost directly in line with Rinaldi house. It also had a back door entrance (like several other stores in those days), where one could have gone out and committed the crime and come back in. It is also possible they could have split up for ten or fifteen minutes while shopping and running errands along Franklin Street.

9. Lucille Rinaldi's family believed that Frank was the killer. They were more aware than anyone else of the serious problems that prevented Frank and Lucille from living together almost their entire brief marriage.

10. After Frank Rinaldi was acquitted of the murder in the second trial he expended no time or resources looking for the "real" killer. I recently asked 11 couples ranging in age from their 20s to late 40s how they believed they would react if they were falsely accused of murdering their spouse and later acquitted. All 22 people said essentially the same thing: they would make it their life's work to help find the killer.

11. Why was Frank Rinaldi spending Christmas Eve morning and early afternoon with his close companion John Sipp shopping instead of with his wife who he had not seen in months, and with whom he was supposed to be working on improving the problems in their relationship? Frank Rinaldi lived less than a half a block from Franklin Street which contained the widest array of stores in North Carolina if he needed to go Christmas shopping. There were no malls then in the state. Franklin Street then had several great jewelry stores, at least three gift shops, a toy store, the two best record stores in the state, more than half a dozen women's clothing stores and twice that number of men's clothing stores. There was no better place to Christmas shop south of New York City or west of Dallas than downtown Chapel Hill. Frank certainly did not need transportation or a friend to Christmas shop with.

12. If Frank Rinaldi is innocent then for the only time I can discover in Chapel Hill history someone randomly walked into a small student apartment with the intent of killing in broad daylight someone they did not know. They had no other motive, and strangely there was never a similar crime in Chapel Hill history.

Statistics from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence show that nine out of ten women who are murdered knew their killer, and that it is practically unheard of for a woman to be murdered alone in her home in broad daylight by a stranger.

Why then was Frank Rinaldi acquitted in his second trial of murder?

There are a combination of facts that played to Frank Rinaldi's advantage in being acquitted of murder that I will now detail.

1. The Rinaldi murder was probably the first cold blooded killing in Chapel Hill's history. The Rachel Crook killing which took place twelve years earlier actually occurred close to Hillsborough and the Chapel Hill Police Department played only a small role in its investigation. Chapel Hill had a very small police department and was a fairly crime-free community in 1963. Many people left their house unlocked, as well as their cars even when they parked downstairs. I cannot even find a case of a significant robbery or armed robbery before this.

The Chapel Hill Police Department had no expertise in handling a murder investigation, and made several mistakes that contributed to Rinaldi's acquittal. The primary mistake was taking crucial evidence without a proper warrant. This included the blood stained shirt and pants Frank was wearing at the time of the murder, the dented flashlight in the house that was probably the murder weapon, as well as the blood stained pillow. All of this crucial evidence had to be returned to Rinaldi and was ruled inadmissible for evidence in the second trial.

Rinaldi Murder
Frank Rinaldi is 80 years old today. His wife, Lucille, has been dead for 46 years. 

2. Neither Chapel Hill nor Orange County had a District Attorney for prosecuting serious crimes. They were assigned District Solicitor Thomas D Cooper from Burlington to handle the case. Cooper was well over his head as the prosecutor of a murder case like this. His primary strategy in the trial came from his ultra conservative religious views that saw homosexuality as evil. Cooper's main theory in the case was that Rinaldi had to be the murderer because he was a homosexual. Time after time in the trial he said the motive for the killing was "the kind of man he was." Cooper seemed more like he was on a religious crusade to expose the shame of homosexuality, and delighted in calling witnesses that could corroborate Rinaldi was gay. He did very little to show Rinaldi's motive, evidence, and opportunity to commit the murder.

I believe the fact that Rinaldi was gay was relevant only to the extent that it might indicate a fundamental problem in the marriage. On the other hand I know that it is possible for a homosexual and an heterosexual to have a reasonably functional relationship. The problem here is not Rinaldi's sexual orientation, but that there was evidence of several relationships with men during the time he was supposed to be faithful to his wife.

In the first trial Rinaldi's chief attorney Barry Winston tried to prevent Cooper from harping on the homosexuality of his client, but the presiding Judge seemed as conservative at Cooper and let it all in. In his closing arguments to the jury, Rinaldi's sexual orientation and lifestyle were almost exclusively what he talked about, and not the array of incriminating facts in the case. In that speech, he kept mentioning how Rinaldi called other men "baby", repeating the phrase more than a dozen times. He asked the jury several times to consider, "What kind of man calls another man, 'baby'?"

After Rinaldi was convicted in the first trial his attorney appealed on the grounds that Cooper had made the theme of his case the belief that homosexuality made a person prone to murder. The State Supreme Court agreed and overturned the conviction. They also ruled that much of the incriminating evidence seized by police was taken improperly and could not be introduced in the second trial.

By the time of the second trial, Cooper had lost his ability to attack Rinaldi's homosexuality and seemed dispirited. He also could not use the best evidence the police had obtained, and did not have the talent to demonstrate the mountain of circumstantial evidence against Rinaldi.

3. Frank Rinaldi had the best local attorneys money could buy representing him. Barry Winston and Gordon Battle were two of the most outstanding and brightest criminal defense attorneys in the state. While Thomas Cooper was prosecuting the Rinaldi cases he was at the same time in charge of prosecuting hundreds of people being arrested on an almost daily basis in sit-ins that were designed to end segregation in many hotels and restaurants in Chapel Hill. These civil rights arrests totally overloaded the Chapel Hill and Orange County judicial system. The jails in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough were overflowing, and special sessions of the Superior Court were held on a regular basis for more than a year to take care of the backlog of cases. Chapel Hill's civil rights demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience were then a focal point in the state and national print and television media. Chapel Hill's already small police force was stretched to the limit and was confronting two extreme and unusual types of criminal activity - murder in the first degree and civil rights arrests. Under these circumstances it is no wonder that the investigation and prosecution of Rinaldi was handled sloppily. Never before or since have the Chapel Hill police and local judicial system been so overwhelmed.

Writer's Note: I had just turned 14 at the time of the Rinaldi murder. I was an avid Hardy Boys fan and had just started doing a small weekly Chapel Hill newspaper with a circulation of between two and five copies. I was also a Chapel Hill Weekly newspaper boy. The Rinaldi case was of particular interest to me from the start and I kept every article that was related to it. This may have been partly due to the fact that the murder occurred in the apartment my parents lived in when I was born and I spent the first nine months of my life in.

Initially I hoped I would uncover a great scoop for my little paper that would exonerate Frank Rinaldi who had been charged with the murder from the start. I tried methodically to piece together the evidence as it was reported. I also had other sources for information. I would go down to the Chapel Hill Newspaper's offices once or twice a month to pick up my papers for delivery, and ask whoever was there what the latest was on the case. I also was fortunate to have several adult friends who were part of the then heavily closeted homosexual community in Chapel Hill. These men were all friends of my mother, and one became my Godfather. I spent a lot of time with him the year after the murder, and was always surprised how much he knew about all the men who were friends with Rinaldi. While what he told me is all hearsay, it did begin raising my suspicions about Rinaldi. I was also actively involved as a civil rights demonstrator in Chapel Hill in 1963 and 1964, and got on well with a couple of police officers who were always around to protect us from angry segregationists or arrest us if we were involved in an act of civil disobedience. On at least two occasions one of these officers was forthcoming with me on his information on the Rinaldi case. Over the years I have continued to talk to people about the case, including several former Chapel Hill police officers , local attorneys,  judges, who have all offered me more information. I have tried in this piece to use only facts that were reported by the official media, or that I deduced from that evidence. Some of this information is from notes I took from WCHL broadcasts in 1963 and 1964.

Comment
 
 

Comments:

Social Justice      1:00 AM Wed 12/24/2014

Another anniversary has come for this "unsolved mystery". There is no mystery to those who knew this case that the killer Frank Rinaldi committed this double homicide. Frank is rotting in hell right now, and hopefully those supporters who perpetuated the lies will burn along side him.
 

anne Russell PhD      12:28 AM Sat 9/27/2014

Someone asked whether defense attorneys, who win acquittals for murderers whom they know are murderers, feel remorse for getting these defendants off. As the former wife of Rinaldi defense attorney Barry Winston, I can tell you the answer is no, they feel no remorse. Instead they feel proud that they were clever enough to outfox the prosecution. They have no shame, no conscience, sadly.
 

Anne Russell PhD      12:18 AM Sat 9/27/2014

I was married to Rinaldi defense attorney Barry Winston in 1969, and when I was 7 months pregnant he abandoned me and our family of 6 young children so he could carry on an adulterous affair with his new childless secretary Elisabeth Wood Washburn (who became his wife #3; he is since on wife #4). Within a few months of Betsy Washburn being hired as Barry's secretary, her young husband Dick was killed in a motorcycle wreck near Chapel Hill, and it was my understanding that she received a large double indemnity life insurance payoff, on a policy written by John Sipp, Barry Winston's friend and the agent who sold Rinaldi life insurance on his wife. While married to Barry we discussed the Rinaldi murder a number of times, and while Barry never admitted Rinaldi's guilt, it was obvious to me that Frank Rinaldi did indeed murder his wife at Christmas because he was gay and wanted to cash in on her life insurance, and also that despite the strong evidence Rinaldi was not convicted because his homosexuality was cleverly used as a defense tactic. I am glad to know Rinaldi is dead. And I am glad I, and my daughter by Winston, are long out of that sick environment.
 

Social Justice      6:07 PM Tue 12/24/2013

50 years ago today Lucille Begg and her unborn child were brutally murdered by Frank Rinaldi, all in an effort to be with his gay friends rather than with his wife and child. May Frank and all his ignorant supporters burn in hell.
 

M.A. Carrano, Ex. O      3:40 AM Sun 8/4/2013

Dr. Rinaldi, as I called him, was my English professor at The Paier College of Art in Hamden, CT, and he was a damn fine professor at that. His English lectures were hysterical, electrifying and motivating. Surprisingly, the student body at Paier College of Art was shocked to learn of the murders considering how beloved he was on campus. The man wasn't just beloved, but he was a profoundly effective educator at that.

I, for one, am grateful Dr. Rinaldi was acquitted simply because the way he lived in the aftermath of the murders was dedicated to enlightening and empowering young people. I owe a debt of gratitude to the man for inspiring me to become the man I am today.

At present I'm a professionally published author who is living and working as an experimental philosopher and systems consultant - a career path that wouldn't have unfolded for me if Dr. Rinaldi hadn't stoked my passion for philosophy by telling me that reading the basic writings of Nietzsche and learning to write philosophy for myself would cultivate and refine my character further than all the other students I attended college with.

So while Dr. Rinaldi might have hurt people, I think the story ought to be told fairly as well, and that fair telling would also have us discussing the hundreds of lives this man's wit, charm, eccentricity and brilliance had changed.
 

Inheritor      10:21 PM Fri 11/12/2010

Today is exactly a year since Frank Rinaldi died. A year later has been just as eventful for me, Charly Mann, Diane Hawkins, the Begg Family and someone who did not come forward in 1963.

To quote a play - The Year of The Locust by Constance O'Hara
" God of all mercy - have countenence on our Souls."

Frank Rinaldi, and the memory of his wife and child is far from over.

Gail Cohen
 

Holton Wiederkehr      9:53 AM Mon 8/2/2010

I attended Mizzou from 1956 to 1961 and was a fraternity member. Frank Rinaldi was an instructor in the English Department. Somehow he became acquainted with some of our members and we ultimately selected him as our faculty advisor.

Frank was a hoot. His main claim to fame was that he could sing (and dance to) the lyrics of every Broadway musical ever written. He was a funny guy. Most of us knew he was homosexual, but, so far as we knew, he never made a move on any of the members. We were wrong, but that's another story.

One day the Columbia, MO police stopped by to tell us that Frank had picked up a black guy and made some rather startling proposals, but the guy called the cops instead. Remember that this was rural Missouri in the late 1950s. The police released him to us and he left town the next day.

Several years later I got a call from a member telling me that Frank was being tried for murdering his wife and asking if I wanted to contribute to the Frank Rinaldi Defense Fund. I was amazed that Frank had a wife. He was a real flamer.
 

Don McGoldrick      7:17 PM Tue 5/18/2010

Your article is very interesting. A lot of it is true, but much of it is fraught with inaccuracies.

Before you publish, be sure. That's the first step to be taken before a good journalist publishes. You did, of course, preface with "I have made assumptions". And you certainly have. I don't know if he was guilty or not. But, I shall and will not publish something based on what I do not really know. I believe it is called: "Guilty through assumption, or I said it because it looked that way." It's a little like watching Oprah. You may be right ... but, then again you may be very, very wrong.
 

Charly Mann      3:48 PM Thu 2/4/2010

Frank Rinaldi apparently died in poverty. His estate included the old house he lived in on Byrneside Avenue (mortgaged in 2007) and personal property with an estimated value of $20,000 At one point, he was reputedly worth $5 million. He probably only had a very small Social Security check, because he had not worked most of his life, and the rent from his tenants. The exact cause of Rinaldi's death has not been given.
 

Dave      7:40 PM Mon 1/18/2010

Todd,whatever Frank would think about my grammer is not important to me at all. That's right I forgot how far his grammer took him in life! Blue collar proud and support my family,quite sure he didn't! He never was weaned from his mother, a sad joke to say the least.
 

Matt      2:49 PM Sat 1/9/2010

WOW! Compelling reading material! I just helped my wife piece together a murder in her family that went untried and was a mystery for the last 160 years!

The husband (of course) did it.
 

Todd A. Majo      10:36 PM Wed 1/6/2010

<< Your a piece of work Todd!!!! You must look into the same mirror As Frank! I hope your a better human being than him! >>

Dave, Frank would cringe at your grammar. It's "you're", not "your"!!!Gheeesh.


 

Dave      9:56 AM Tue 1/5/2010

Your a piece of work Todd!!!! You must look into the same mirror As Frank! I hope your a better human being than him!
 

Todd A. Majo      8:08 PM Thu 12/24/2009

Rest in peace Lucille and son.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      12:24 PM Thu 12/24/2009

Lucille Begg Rinaldi
10/9/29 - 12/24/63

Rest in peace
 

Kenny Afeh      11:52 AM Sat 12/19/2009

Music soothes a savge beast
But can't replace a Christmas feast

Soupy Sales c. 1963
 

Ghost of Christmas Past      6:51 PM Fri 12/18/2009

He's a real nowhere man sitting in his nowhere land making all his nowhere plans for nobody.
 

Ghost of Christmas Past      6:46 PM Fri 12/18/2009

How many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn't see?
 

Kenny Afeh      1:40 PM Fri 12/18/2009

Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

(I like that song too)

 

Thomas Rinaldi      5:25 AM Wed 12/16/2009

Now they don't talk so loud, now they don't seem so proud.
 

Dave      7:57 PM Wed 12/2/2009

I know he was a phony. Todd is in denial. I spent enough time around him to see some strange things.
 

Barbara Rinaldi Thompson      3:40 PM Wed 12/2/2009

Dave,

He was a phony, all right, his whole life was smoke and mirrors.
 

Charly Mann      10:57 AM Wed 12/2/2009

Hello Dave - I have heard from several reliable sources that recent events have caused a renewed interest by certain national and local news organizations into talking to people involved in this case. There is also interest in writing a book on it. Unfortunately many people involved in the case are now dead. At least one reporter has tried to contact Al Foushee and he seems to have been embittered by what happened. I had actually had sources that were involved that I was going to quote, but when I started my piece to confirm what they had told me I found they had both passed away earlier this year. There are people who were at the trials and spoke to Rinaldi at the time who have contacted me and recently relayed unflattering or negative information, but I think there is another side that may need to be contacted by other media to get their take also. As the comments on this blog indicate there is a diversity of opinion on some of the facts of the case.


 

Dave      10:31 AM Wed 12/2/2009

Charly
will any of the witnesses from th trials comment
today to see if their story is still the same?
Or do they avoid this subject now?
 

Thomas Rinaldi      4:29 PM Tue 12/1/2009

"Frank might find out", I think that pretty much sums it up.
 

Dave      4:27 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Cousin , I guess we know what part of the family had compassion, and
it was not Connecticut.
 

Barbara Rinaldi Thompson      3:55 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Cousin,

If there are relatives out there with compassion for us and believe in us, why don't they post their real names, including you. And I don't remember anybody calling Florida in the last 20 or so years to see how we've been! However, I do remember when my mother and I brought my father's ashes back to Waterbury to bury him and one cousin we asked to come to the gravesite was too afraid to come because "Frank might find out". How sad is that!
 

Dave      3:14 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Todd glad I can make you laugh. I know his
house was a dump and still is. But when he went
out he always tried to make a impression he was the opposite.
He acted as if me had money and even earned it. I did find it funny
seeing him with an old woman at Wendy's in
Waterbury and he was all dressed up. By then
he knew enogh to stay away from me so I did not smell
the bad hygiene. He was a phony!!! Murdrer
I can't say for sure! Would like to hear from the
witnesses still alive. Did you know about the
hair plugs Todd or did that make you laugh also?
 

Todd A. Majo      3:02 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Keema:

Thank you for your comment. You are correct, this is a support group, not a discussion group. No one here seems interested in anything someone like me with an open mind has to say. Also, please say hello to Josephine and the other members of the Conduch family for me, I know she has been ill. God bless.
 

Charly Mann      3:02 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Okay Everybody making Rinaldi comments. We are going to level the playing field here a little bit. From now on everybody who posts a comment must leave an e-mail and a real name. This is how every magazine, newspaper, and most major blogs do things.

If you do not like leaving your real name contact me by e-mail at chmemories@gmail.com. Give me your real name and telephone and the alias you intend to use and I will let you use that.

All other comments will be deactivated from now on. (They can be activated after you follow the above procedure). For everyone's information there are several people who have made me aware of their "Alias" and have supplied an e-mail and can keep on posting.

I will also closely monitor "rude" and "inflammatory" comments. That's right "rot in hell" is out from now on. I am doing this for several reasons. First when I started this I knew no one in the Rinaldi or Begg family. Now I know more than a half a dozen of them, and I have been made aware that many find the continuation of this discussion very painful. These are people who I have grown to love and respect, and though they are not family they feel like it to me.

Another reason is I have recently received some rather disturbing comments that I have already deleted, I think from a deranged individual, that make me more cautious for the protection of my own family.
 

Todd A. Majo      2:48 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Dave stated:

Todd I asked earlier if you knew Frank so well
do you think he would have put a shirt on
from the day before with blood on it? Do you?
He was very neat and groomed correct?

Dave, I seriously want to thank you for the biggest laugh I've had in years with your notion that Frank was very neat and groomed. His house was a pig sty and his hygiene was abysmal at best.

I don't know how much blood was on the shirt. If it was a speck or a drop, then yes, I suppose he could've worn it Christmas Eve from the day before.

There are some questions I'd like answers to. Did Frank and Sipp go shopping for extended periods other times? I'd like to know more about Sipp. Did he have family in the local area? Did Frank, Sipp and/or Foushee take lie detector tests? Results? How long would it have taken them to drive 12 miles back to CH from Durham, on 1963 roads?




 

Keema Akraday      2:35 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Why is everyone blasting Todd? I have known Todd for decades and he is far from either a supporter of Frank's or a supporter. It appears as if anyone who challenges the "facts" is against the lynch mob. I think the quasi dissenting opinions offer an insight into other possibilities in the case and provides a much needed balance to the discussion. Maybe that's it - it's not a discussion forum but more of a support group. That's cool. Many people were hurt by this quack.

I never knew about the hair plugs. He had bad fitting false teeth in the last years that distorted his speech. All comments about Frank were, no doubt, right on but we shouldn't castigate Todd for an opinion and his perspective. Hang in there Todd.

 

Dave      2:33 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Cousin I have not seen any compassion from
any relatives on this forum. I agree with you
Thomas where have they been.
 

Dave      2:27 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Keema the question was to his earlier lifeat the
time of the murder he was blamed for. And then
even into his 60s he dressed up to go out for
coffee eve at a fast food rest. Then if you are
saying that is what he wanted people to think
but he really was not that way I guess it would
show what others are saying.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      2:24 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Cousin,

Where have you been for the past 23 years with all your compassion and belief in me and my family? I haven't heard from you. I'm in the book.
 

Keema Akraday      2:13 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Frank neat and groomed??!!! That's a good one. He may have worn a shirt and tie everyday but, believe me, he had BO that could disperse a riotous crowd in seconds. No, he was the opposite of well groomed, at least in the last 10 years. He spent $0 on clothes and grooming products.
 

Keema Akraday      2:09 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Why isn't anyone complaining about the anonymity of the judgemental Social Conscience? He is a coward too, right Charly?
 

Cousin      1:55 PM Tue 12/1/2009


Thomas,


Why would you make such a statement "if they are a relative it makes sense “it is what they are good at , Denial”

Many of your relatives have shown compassion ,on and off this site, for your family. That is not denial .Your comments are not only unjust but insensitive to the relations that believe in you and your family.
 

Dave      1:50 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Todd I asked earlier if you knew Frank so well
do you think he would have put a shirt on
from the day before with blood on it? Do you?
He was very neat and groomed correct?
 

Luann      1:35 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Todd needs to read the recent comment by A FRIEND OF THE FAMILY, who challenged him to write an opposing piece on the Rinaldi murder.

I think this person is right. Todd just takes quick shots and runs for cover under his assumed name.

Charly Mann said he had offered this person the chance to write an article to coincide with his and she did not. I see no reason why he should give her a second chance. This person can make comments here like any of us to state their case. Does Todd want Mr. Mann to allow anyone who wants to write articles on the Rinaldi murder that he will then publish? I am sure Mr. Mann would love his blog to be just lots of articles on the Rinaldi murder. I live near Chapel Hill and read Chapel Hill Memories on a regular basis to read all his great pieces on the town. One article on this horrible footnote is enough.

The fact that Todd is allowed to keep making comments here shows how open Mr. Mann is. I wonder how much diversity of thought Todd would allow if he had a website like this?

Todd the Internet is a big place. Anyone can start a blog - including you and say whatever they want.
 

Todd A. Majo      1:16 PM Tue 12/1/2009

Dave wrote:

Charly why did it take so long to publish this story? The second trial ended so long ago. I think he took his own life knowing it was coming out again!

At first I thought the exact same thing. But then I realized that the story contained no new solid revelations. Also, as far as I know, there was no evidence of suicide.


 

Todd A. Majo      1:10 PM Tue 12/1/2009

<< Too bad he's not around now to give Todd advice on how to live a perfect life like he lived. >>

Thomas, I never suggested that Frank Rinaldi should be used by anyone as their idol or moral compass.

Charly wrote:

...She did however respond by e-mail to some of my random reasons....what you have is my article minus hers. I think she might have wanted to write a piece after my article was published, but I declined for several reasons - one being that the agreement had been we would write separate pieces on our own to be published on the same day.

Charly, it's too bad that your quest for the truth---and being able to offer your readers an opposing viewpoint---didn't take precedence. Were there points she made that detracted from your story? I hope you will reconsider and allow the opposing story to be published...many of us would like to hear her thoughts. Don't worry about losing the approval of all of the readers who have believed every word you wrote/didn't write. They will not change their minds no matter what revelations and facts are made.






 

Dave      11:11 AM Tue 12/1/2009

I understand Charly I am using a iPhone myself.
I think you did a wonderful job.
 

Charly Mann      10:34 AM Tue 12/1/2009

Hello Dave,

I'm at work now and using an iPhone to slowly type you a response.

I started Chapel Hill Memories in April of this year as a compendium of the people, places, and events, of my hometown, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Since I was very young (6) I have been interested in this subject. There are many stories I want to tell about Chapel Hill's past, - most are very positive. This was a very sad event. A number of people had urged me to write about it, but I was hesitant until I began communicating with another Chapel Hill resident about my age who thought Frank was innocent. I finally decided I would write a piece, but was not certain how convinced I was of his guilt, but I strongly leaned in that direction. This other person was going to write a counter piece about the case and why she thought Frank was innocent. We agreed the pieces would be published on November 13th. While we discussed the case the previous week, and I began telling her some of the reasons I thought Frank was guilty from my memory of the case, she never sent me her piece. She did however respond by e-mail to some of my random reasons before I had started doing my serious research. I found subsequent to that many other facts that I had forgotten or did not know, and my belief in Frank's guilt became even more certain. So what you have is my article minus hers. I think she might have wanted to write a piece after my article was published, but I declined for several reasons - one being that the agreement had been we would write separate pieces on our own to be published on the same day. I had even given her the option of having her article come first or second when they were published.

 

Dave      9:59 AM Tue 12/1/2009

Charly why did it take so long to publish this
story? The second trial ended so long ago.
I think he took his own life knowing it was
coming out again!
 

Thomas Rinaldi      9:51 AM Tue 12/1/2009

Don't worry about Todd. If he is a relative it only makes sense. It's what they are good at. Denial. God only knows what Frank told them over the years and what kind of excuses he made up for us not speaking to him and Dora. He always had quite an imagination. Too bad he's not around now to give Todd advice on how to live a perfect life like he lived. I didn't know the whole story about Frank until 1986 and that's when I said "he doesn't exist to me anymore." I do think that it is time to put this behind us for good. I wish this stuff would have come out while he was alive because he's the one that should have suffered from it. We'll have to let God sort this one out.
 

Friend of the Family      9:18 AM Tue 12/1/2009

I think it is time for Todd to put up or shut up. He is the main defender of Frank on this blog, yet he will not even say who he is. Mr. Mann has tried to get him to contact him numerous times but he would not do it. Diane Rinaldi Hawkins has twice posted her e-mail address in these comments, but I bet he has not contacted her.

Often when he makes a charge or accusation Mr. Mann or someone else responds and he usually ignores what they say or distorts what they have said.

If he is so interested in defending Frank, and he certainly seems to have the time, I challenge him to present all the facts, and much new and relevant information has been brought here. He can also talk to the relatives who were closest to Frank and find out why they are certain Frank killed Lucille. He might also want to talk to the Beggs

I think Todd is a coward and I serious doubts he was ever close enough to Frank to know much about him. I also do not think he the courage to make a full case in Frank's defense. He will continue to throw out an accusation here and there hoping someone will pay attention to him and answer it.

I urge everyone here to no longer respond to Todd until he at least makes a full case in Frank's defense showing what is damaging and what he thinks exonerates him enough so that we should not believe he killed Lucille.

For myself, I will not respond or talk about Todd again until he identifies himself.

 

Dave      8:28 AM Tue 12/1/2009

Thomas, you and your loved ones can have
some peace now, what a sad story! He was
way to vain to have anything on his clothes was he not?
Todd won't even show you his name as he defends
this god awful man! If he is a so called relative, he
would show you and Diane who he or she is!
 

Thomas Rinaldi      8:18 AM Tue 12/1/2009

I remember the hair plugs. The time frame of that is significant in the fact that when he had this done, he was living off Paul and Dora. He had no job and no income. So what does a man in his forties that doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of do? Get hairplugs.
 

Dave      7:48 AM Tue 12/1/2009

Todd, I had been around Frank since the mid
70s around 74. Since you knew him so well
you must have known he was always well dressed
hair just so ( even had hair plugs as his hair thinned) he
would have never had a shirt with blood on it
from the day before never never. He was way
to vain for that. So you can just disregard
any facts you see fit? So what pot is calling the
Kettle Black? Also to ask his brother to go get
the engagement ring at the coroners while he
was in jail? No forced entry, I never heard him
have any remorse over the loss of his wife
and to be quite honest anyone would not only
dedicate every minute to finding the true killer
to clear his name , but to find out who stole their
loved ones.( after all he also lost a child)
he did not want to be a father he did not want to
be in a relation with a female, and he di not want
child support payments. Todd you are in denial about Frank.
Charly thanks for your hard work and exposing
Frank Rinaldi in true light.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      7:38 AM Tue 12/1/2009

There are probably two main reasons why certain people didn't distance themselves from Frank after 1963. The one's that were afraid of how he would react (the Florida Rinaldi's and others in CT) I have the utmost sympathy for them as they were just more victims of this man and probably never really felt comfortable around him as he was a ticking time bomb and the one's that knew he committed murder, and thought that it was OK because his high paid lawyers found some loopholes in the investigation that prevented crucial evidence from being submitted in the second trial. To those people I say why don't you go play golf with O.J. Simpson? This whole thing has become about who said who belongs in Hell but everyone is forgetting about my Aunt Lucille and my unborn cousin. They were murdered and all indications are that it was at Frank's hands. How long does it take to drive 12 miles? The Durham thing holds no water. I wish that we had disconnected with him much sooner as it took us until 1986 but anyone that knew Frank, new he was a hard man to say no to. He was used to getting his way and that's all he understood. You can thank Dora for that. My dad would get punished as kids for the things that Frank did. He was perfect in Dora's eyes. Everyone thought he was going to be a Congressman or a Governer when he was in high school and look what happened. For the most part of his life, he was a bum living off of someone else. He was book smart but had no common sense. He could answer every question on Jeopardy but he didn't know where his air filter was on his car. He used to make me and my sisters put oil in his car because he didn't know how. He was too busy having coffee with the girls to earn a living.
 

Todd A. Majo      12:07 AM Tue 12/1/2009

The fact remains that Frank Rinaldi was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. The conviction was dismissed by the North Carolina Supreme Court. The seven justices comprising the Supreme Court found error in the first trial. Associate Justice William B. Redman, who wrote the court opinion, said that the Supreme Court had voted that the presiding judge at the trial, Judge Raymond Mallard, had erred in allowing testimony by the state's chief witness, Alfred Foushee, a Negro handyman, that the justices termed both prejudicial and incompetent.

<< People like majo are not interested in debate, but are intent on opening old wounds. >>

That is hardly the case. I'm sorry if I have interrupted the hatefest here by bringing up some glaring omissions and distortions of fact in both the article and in some of the comments.

<< By his comments and by writing in caps, majo reveals he is Franks biggest well wisher. >>

Untrue... I thought he was off-the-wall ...just about everyone did!

<< People like Diane Rinaldi Hawkins, who give their name and real life accounts should be commended, not bagdered by Franks buddies. >>

I didn't sense that anyone who commented on this forum was a "buddy" of Frank. I don't recall any badgering of Diane. On the contrary, I think everyone on this forum believes her stories and recollections and sympathizes with her and others who encountered Frank's verbal abuse and general weirdness.





 

Social Conscience      10:52 PM Mon 11/30/2009

The fact remains that Frank Rinaldi was convicted of murdering his pregnant wife. The conviction was overturned because none of the evidence collected could be admitted in the retrial, as a warrant wasn't obtained to collect the evidence. The fact also remains that those of us affected by the death of Lucille Begg and those of us tormented by Frank Rinaldi before and after the murder have remained silent for decades while Franks' friends have carried on their relationship with Frank, hoping time would fade the memory of his premeditated murder.

This thread started 11/12/09 is not a forum for an academic debate. This represents the first real internet account of what transpired 12/24/63, and the first chance for those with emotions related to the case to express them. The first person expressing emotion by this thread was probably Frank Rinaldi, who died within 24 hours of its posting. Reality set in after he read this, and hopefully he died as a result of himself being exposed. Certainly his Paier students and recent friends didn't know he carried on the premeditated murder of his pregnant wife on Christmas Eve in 1963.

People like majo are not interested in debate, but are intent on opening old wounds. By his comments and by writing in caps, majo reveals he is Franks biggest well wisher.

People like Diane Rinaldi Hawkins, who give their name and real life accounts should be commended, not bagdered by Franks buddies. It is sad Diane has withdrawn from this site because Franks people have agreed to carry the baton of spin forward, instead of Franks crew owning up to the fact they were breaking bread with a murderer for decades.
 

Todd A. Majo      10:16 PM Mon 11/30/2009

<< I now know that Lucille’s sister in law and another female relative of Lucille’s both swear that Frank told them they would one day die at his hands. Both lived in fear because of this, and obviously hated him very much. >>

Any explanation offered as to why he would have made such threats? I'll assume they also stated that no threats or ill words were ever directed towards Frank? At any rate, I'm certainly glad no actual physical harm ever occurred. I don't know of any reports or rumors of any kind of Frank physically striking anyone while living in Waterbury since his acquittal. He could be very nasty verbally though.


 

Charly Mann      9:38 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Todd your statement is horrible. I know for a fact the absolute hell and fear one of these women lived through. If you want verification I have at least three very credible people that will tell you the facts.

You are critical of me for allowing a statement like "rot in hell" which I do not condone to remain posted, yet you trivialize the misery Frank caused these women.

I also know several members of your own family who have reported being terrorized by Frank and are still feeling the pain from it today.

If your mother or sister were afraid of someone and that person told one of them that one day he would kill her - and they lived in fear because of that is that a joke to you?

Again have the nerve to contact me and you can get these facts from several sources who live not far from Waterbury.

One more thing: This forum is recently becoming primarily just me and a few anonymous posters. The Pete Rinaldi and Begg families who have suffered and relived the most pain through this have said for personal and emotional issues they will no longer continue.

I too have a lot of other things on my plate on both a personal and business level, so I will also probably stop responding to comments, but will do my best to respond to e-mails in a timely fashion.

If this is the last time we communicate, let me say Todd that I wish you and your family nothing but the best in this life and the next.
 

Todd A. Majo      9:17 PM Mon 11/30/2009

<< I now know that Lucille’s sister in law and another female relative of Lucille’s both swear that Frank told them they would one day die at his hands. Both lived in fear because of this, and obviously hated him very much. >>

And I now know that Frank lived to be 80 years old, lived in Waterbury for decades near members of Lucille's family and harmed no one. Enough sensationalism.
 

Charly Mann      8:53 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Hello Todd,

I notice you are still not using your real name or contacting me directly.

I made a note in my article that I was including the fact he went to Durham (I did this because you thought it important), but I did not consider it important. Why? Because all I wanted to show was that he was in Chapel Hill on Franklin Street within the time of the murder. Witnesses in Chapel Hill talk about seeing Sipp and I think some also Rinaldi at that time. I wanted to show in my article when he might have had the opportunity to commit the murder, not when he did not. The fact is James Page the manager of Roses 5-10-25 in Chapel Hill (which is very near the Rinaldi home) reported seeing Sipp with another man at about 10:30 AM that day. Sipp was also seen at the Post Office and a tailor about this time.

One more thing - I have shown in previous comments why Foushee is such a credible witness. He told the manager of the ZOOM-ZOOM in early November 1963 that Frank Rinaldi had tried twice to hire him to kill his wife.

By the way I do not condone hatred and never have. You would understand me much better if you would talk directly to me or at least look at the link about my background in my recent response to Keema. (I do hope you read that.)

Here it is again:

http://www.chapelhillmemories.com/index/read_article/83
 

Todd A. Majo      8:19 PM Mon 11/30/2009

<< This is unethical and distorts the diversity of the forum. >>

What is unethical is condoning hatred and pandering to those who wish dissenters to "rot in hell" because they are "accomplices to murder".


 

Todd A. Majo      8:12 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Why is the word Durham absent from the story? Why no mention that numerous witnesses placed Rinaldi and Sipp in Durham, 12 miles from the murder scene, at various points in the morning INCLUDING SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RANGE OF TIME THE PATHOLOGIST STATED THAT THE MURDER TOOK PLACE??? Why Charly? Why did you omit this? Why didn't you go back and add this information after I pointed it out? You saw fit to add information about the insurance policy (not all of which is accurate) but you seem averse to even mentioning Durham for some reason.

<< Depending on where they parked, they were within 200 to 400 feet of the Rinaldi residence on North Street between 11:00 and noon. >>

Absolutely false. Madge Spain, an employee of Thalhimer's Department Store in Durham--12 miles from the murder scene--testified that Rinaldi purchased a maternity dress there between 11:00 and 11:30 A.M.

Does Mr. Mann believe the only credible witness at this trial was Alfred Foushee?!!!
 

Charly Mann      7:58 PM Mon 11/30/2009

The readers of these comments should know that Keema Akraday and Josephine Conduch are the same person, who has also left other comments under different names. In the future I will be deleting all comments from this individual, regardless of what name is used, unless they identify themselves to me by e-mail with their real name and phone number.

This is unethical and distorts the diversity of the forum.
 

Dave      7:42 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Todd, thank you for answering my questons and
in a nice way.
 

Charly Mann      7:35 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Keema is another brave soul who does not leave his e-mail and seems to be using a fake name.

He says I "wish(ing) people an unhealthy life when they have their own opinions".

Where does a statement like that come from? There is nothing anywhere I have ever said in my life like that.

I suggest you read the following about me:

http://www.chapelhillmemories.com/index/read_article/83

Much of my adult life has been involved in similar activity.
 

Charly Mann      7:28 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Hello Todd,
It is great you have no issues – oh yeah – you won’t tell us who you really are, and you won’t take me up on my offer to contact me so we can talk about this directly. Yep I have the issues. I use my real name, and offer to try to discuss your issues with the piece and my decisions one on one.

I am amazed how you can throw out insults like labeling me pathetic and say I condone hatred without having the character to identify yourself.

I also firmly believe your statement is a great misrepresentation of what I said.

How do I expect you will respond to this? With another insult, mischaracterization of my statement, and without saying who you are.

I happen to believe that when mature people disagree about something they discuss it directly, and not hide behind a false name.

I hope you prove me wrong, and finally say who you are, and that we can talk about this on the phone sometime.

 

Todd A. Majo      7:25 PM Mon 11/30/2009

<< Todd, did you know Frank? >>

Yes, he was a relative. On average, I saw him perhaps twice a year since the 60's.

<< The murder aside do you feel the people that have spoke of hurtful events at Franks hand are not truthful? >>

As I stated earlier, each person commenting had different dealings and relationships with Frank, at different stages of his life. I believe everyone's stories about him..just because I didn't witness the behavior others did doesn't mean the stories aren't true...I believe they are true. I didn't have any problems with him.
 

Keema Akraday      7:16 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Looks like good 'ole Charly is administering southern style justice with wishing people an unhealthy life when they have their own opinions. How sad.
 

Dave      7:00 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Todd, did you know Frank? The murder aside
do you feel the people that have spoke of hurtful
events at Franks hand are not truthful? If you
did know him at what points in his life?
 

Todd A. Majo      6:45 PM Mon 11/30/2009

<< I am not an expert in semantics >>

That is apparent but one does not need to be an expert in semantics to realize the inappropriateness of a comment wishing people to "rot in hell" because they are "accomplices to murder" for not hating someone they hate. You ARE condoning hatred by letting this statement exist in this forum.

<< it seems to me what she is saying is that those who knew Frank Rinaldi was guilty and then gave him a pass and cried at his funeral – those people will rot in hell. >>

This is absolutely pathetic! Come on, Charly NO ONE knew then or knows now for sure if he was guilty!!!! THIS IS A LUDICROUS RATIONALIZATION TO CONDONE HATRED OF FRANK RINALDI!!! ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC!!!! I'm starting to think there are several people in this forum with bigger issues than Frank even had!!! How ironic is that?
 

Charly Mann      5:46 PM Mon 11/30/2009

I have now received twelve e-mails and several comments about Social Conscience's recent posting and the opinions are evenly split.

I have reread the statement and done some research on this matter.

The statement was “Those who knowingly gave Frank Rinaldi a pass doing his life, cried for him at his funeral, and continue to defend his honor are accomplices to murder. You will rot in hell. “

While I am not an expert in semantics, it seems to me what she is saying is that those who knew Frank Rinaldi was guilty and then gave him a pass and cried at his funeral – those people will rot in hell. I believe this is not directed at any relative who did not believe he was guilty or just did not know.

I now know that Lucille’s sister in law and another female relative of Lucille’s both swear that Frank told them they would one day die at his hands. Both lived in fear because of this, and obviously hated him very much.

I have seen no evidence that any member of the Rinaldi family that suspected Frank of killing Lucille ever gave him a pass or cried at his funeral. If one did then I hope we might agree we would not wish this person well.

 

Linda N      5:08 PM Mon 11/30/2009

. How true to Frank's character...causing hurt & hate once again & he's deceased. Amazing. Will this man ever stop hurting people? Alive or dead...the hurt/meaness continues. Hopefully someday thru the Grace of God there WILL BE HEALING...
 

Todd A. Majo      4:54 PM Mon 11/30/2009

I respect everyone's opinions and comments on here except the couple of people who got carried away with the "rot in hell" comments directed at anyone who didn't hate Frank. I do not appeciate being labelled an accomplice to murder, even if I was called that by an obvious idiot. Each person commenting had different dealings and relationships with Frank, at different stages of his life. I believe everyone's stories about him..just because I didn't witness the behavior others did doesn't mean the stories aren't true...I believe they are true. I didn't have any problems with him, but I was not in his company that much. I just saw him as an ultra eccentric, obnoxious, brilliant, interesting know-it-all. I guess compared to all of the Frank bashers on here, I am a supporter RELATIVELY SPEAKING, but I too believe he was very strange. But I am not nearly as willing and eager to translate his odd, volatile, peculiar personality traits to cold blooded murderer. I still believe that there was reasonable doubt in his case. I wish the investigation could have proven who committed this crime...it's terrible that it went unpunished. I'm glad that present-day forensics is able to solve crimes like this one.
 

Charly Mann      1:48 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Hello Todd,

It is always great to hear from you. The comments that were deleted yesterday were from someone using an array of names from the same IP address. I consider this deceptive and unethical. I also considered the comments unsubstantiated and offered to contact the person by phone or e-mail to clarify his statements but he refused.

As for this damnation comment it is offensive and I am leaning on removing it and any more like it. I want to carefully consider what I do. I have had ten e-mails on the subject and as you can see several comments.

I would like to know, Todd, a few names of people we might all recognize that you consider fair and balanced. I am hoping you can tell me some names of people who write or speak with a point of view that you also consider neutral.

Thanks

 

Bill B.      1:23 PM Mon 11/30/2009

In my humble opinion, if you have a selection criteria on what posts will be posted, I would vote to not post ones that wish for people's eternal damnation.

Fortunately, we are not the ones to judge that and it adds nothing substantial to the discussion.

If individuals are so disturbed by these events and this discussion that they feel the need to express this much hostility, it may be best that they avoid the site.

Again, this is just my opinion which was asked for. I do not run the post nor do I want veto power over what is posted.
 

Josephine Conduch      1:13 PM Mon 11/30/2009

Social Conscience, how did you get to know so much about the hell entrance requirements?
 

Todd A. Majo      12:12 PM Mon 11/30/2009

<< Dave 9:17 AM Mon 11/30/2009

Charlie although his comment was a bit tough
it shows how much anger and hurt this man caused.
Be fair and let supporters and haters vent. As
long as comments are not threatening further
violence publish them all. You are neutral are
you not? >>

Judging by the fact that Mr. Mann chooses not to remove "rot in hell" comments and deleted a comment yesterday from a someone who questioned the propriety of his Sipp comments, I think it's obvious that Mr. Mann is hardly neutral. Which is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and he can delete the critical comments and leave the "rot in hell" comments...it's his site after all.


 

Dave      9:17 AM Mon 11/30/2009

Charlie although his comment was a bit tough
it shows how much anger and hurt this man caused.
Be fair and let supporters and haters vent. As
long as comments are not threatening further
violence publish them all. You are neutral are
you not?
 

Charly Mann      8:47 AM Mon 11/30/2009

I do not condone the previous statement by Social Conscience. I have also had regular contact with the Begg family and Frank Rinaldi's brother's family.This comment does not seem to be from either of them. I think it does far more harm than good, and I have thought about removing this statement. I would appreciate e-mails and comments on both sides to advise me how I should deal with this comment and potentially others like it in the future. I know for certain that Diane Rinaldi Hawkins who suffered the most of anyone in the Rinaldi family at Frank's hands wants very much to reach out to all members of the family.

Social Conscience if you would like to e-mail me, I would like to find out more details of why you would say something like this.
 

Social Conscience      8:24 AM Mon 11/30/2009

Those who knowingly gave Frank Rinaldi a pass duing his life, cried for him at his funeral, and continue to defend his honor are accomplices to murder. You will rot in hell.
 

Dave      7:46 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Dear CT. relative, are you just against Diane or defending Frank. I would not waste my energy saying for him to rot in hell but Frank was not someone to be proud of as a relative or deserving of defending. I spent many days in his presence and have heard from many people I know and respect who had spent time with him as well.None of them had any respect for him and I am not speaking of what happened 46 years earlier. Diane (who i do not know) seems to have real pain and i was close enough to have knowledge of the family problems and how her Brother was also treated. So if you want to defend Frank state some of his good traits and enlighten me. Now please remember I have spent many years knowing this eccentric person and his controling Mother. I also reside in Connecticut, and find Diane and Thomas' story heartbreaking. I do not care that you remain anonymous i would not blame you and c are not of your identity. I am certain we know each other and would not agree about Franks character.
 

Dave      7:22 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Frank was a insecure human being to say the least from my experience. I pass no judgement on what happened over 40 years ago simply because it does not matter now. I have seen him spend time with females but always appeared to have reasons as to why! He seemed to be a male version of a gold digger even though he was feminine in nature. He in my opinion was not a likeable person and many in our circle felt the same way.I never did witness any temperment issues but several things that I would not consider normal.
 

Todd A. Majo      6:59 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Charly Mann commented:

<< In my opinion that statement about condemning others to hell crossed the line. >>

It certainly did cross the line. As did a quote in the Connecticut newspaper story of 11-22-09 by Henry A. Kogut, "His obit bothered me. I thought, that son-of-a-bitch murderer. I'm glad I outlived him. I might go pee on his grave." The tiny minority here who dared to point out factual omissions and debatable points in this story--who dared to challenge some of the defamatory assaults on this dead man--fear the venom of the haters. Those of us here who have some doubt of his guilt feel equally sad about this tragedy. I'm sure everyone wishes that the investigation could have led to a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, whoever the killer was. I have no doubt that the feelings of the FL relatives are justified and that their stories are true. To say that Frank Rinaldi lived his life not playing with a "full deck" would be quite an understatement.

Best wishes and thank you to every commenter, and most of all to Mr. Mann for trying to add to the understanding of The Rinaldi Murder Case, and to the complex man that was Frank Joseph Rinaldi.





 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      6:15 PM Sun 11/29/2009

To all of my Connecticut relatives:

I realized today that I am coming off in these posts as a very bitter and hateful person. And I think it's time for me to withdraw from this conversation because it is only causing me a great deal of pain to rehash and relive the past.

I have a job to go to in the morning and an elderly mother to care for, and I cannot spend anymore time or energy on this. Otherwise, I am going to end up in the hospital.

I hold nothing against anybody in Waterbury who remained friendly with Frank or who does not agree with my take on things. You were not in my circumstances, and I was not in yours. I sincerely apologize for offending anyone.

But please don't tell me to simply "move on". It trivializes my very painful experiences with this man. You have no idea. Now that he's gone, perhaps I can move on, but it will take time.

Good-bye and God bless.

dianehawkins56@aol.com







 

Charly Mann      5:44 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Hello Ct. Relative,

In my opinion that statement about condemning others to hell crossed the line. I appreciate your comments and very much respect why you feel the way you do.

The purpose of my article was, and is, to say why I think there is sufficient evidence to say Frank Rinaldi was responsible for the death of his wife Lucille on December 24th, 1963.

 

Ct. relative      5:28 PM Sun 11/29/2009

In response to Diane Rinaldi Hawkins, I never stated that Frank Rinaldi was generous to his female cousins. I never mentioned generous, I never mentioned female. I only made mention of his respect and kindness towards many family members - male & female alike.. And as far as being afraid to write in under a real name, I have found through experience in life that it won't make one iota of difference if you know real names - you will still be driven in discussion by your malice, contempt and hatred. Knowing one is a relative should be enough information.

I never stated that Frank was "wonderful" - he possessed many negative traits. It just isn't up to any one of us to condemn another human being to rot in hell. Plus the fact that this site is about the terrible incident which took place 46 years ago. You seem to have turned it into a personal vendetta. But this man is gone - you can't do anything to him anymore. Move on.


 

Charly Mann      4:45 PM Sun 11/29/2009

I will no longer reply to anonymous criticisms.

If you leave your e-mail and I can verify your indentity I will directly respond to you.

Most magazines, newspapers, and major blogs require anyone who leaves a comment give them their address and full name for verification as well as their e-mail address. Many even require a phone number. This usually entails setting up a "comment" account where you sign in each time you leave a comment.

I am deleting accusatory comments from anonymous sources, so be forewarned.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      3:50 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Frank Rinaldi suffered from a massive case of hubris. ("Al, I finally did it!") He thought he was too smart to get caught. I'm sure he thought he had it all figured out. He was a very meticulous man. (That's why he made my sister shoplift for him at the age of 9. "If you get caught, they won't arrest you. You're too young.") TRUE STORY!!! Doesn't that show a person who is fully aware of the consequences and has become very skilled at evading them? I cannot think of any other adult who would be capable of such behavior.

If he had gambling debts or suspected a gay lover, what great facts to bring to the attention of his lawyer. But, he didn't. He was on trial for his life, but he didn't.

He wasn't offering much ($500) for someone to commit a capital offense. Why would anybody take him up on his offer for such a small sum - even in 1963 dollars? Knowing him, he was too greedy to keep as much of that $40,000 as he could.

He couldn't divorce her. That would mean alimony and child support. That would mean having to GO TO WORK!!!! Another insurance payment was due in 7 days. He couldn't find anybody to do his dirty work. The clock was ticking.

Frank Rinaldi would do anything for money. He'd corrupt a child, cheat a brother, kill a wife.

 

Luann (Again) not a relation or friend      3:48 PM Sun 11/29/2009

I'm checking out today's comments in the Frank Rinaldi saga. Someone needs to keep the following in mine - a sociopath's symptoms include physical aggression and the inability to hold down a steady job. More than half a dozen people who have left comments saying this was a characteristic of Frank

A sociopath also finds it hard to sustain relationships and shows a lack of regret for his actions. Ring a bell Frank fans?

Sociopaths also usually have an abundance of charm and wit. They may appear friendly and considerate, but these attributes are usually superficial. They are used as a way of blinding the other person to the personal agenda behind the sociopath’s behaviour.

.
 

Todd A. Majo      3:14 PM Sun 11/29/2009

<< You and I are both humans. >>

Yes, we both knew that the color of the sky is blue.

<< I would also love to hear who you think killed Lucille Rinaldi. >>

I really don't think Frank personally murdered his wife. Maybe someone had a vendetta against Frank, a gambling debt perhaps. Maybe Frank had a jealous gay lover. In other words, MAYBE THE POLICE HAD TUNNEL VISION and did not consider all possibilities. I find it interesting that the Frank haters acknowledge that he was off-the-charts intelligent on the one hand, then in the next breath opine that he murdered his pregnant wife for money. You don't think he would've realized that he'd be the prime suspect and that all or most of the money would go to defense lawyers? Come on, people, use your heads.



 

Charly Mann      3:06 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Keema,

I think if the shoe was on the other foot you would think anonymous comments with no way of verifying them by e-mail or phone would be a relevant issue to bring up. I am a history buff going back to ancient Greece, and such criticism was thought of then as cowardly and a form of harassment. I was raised in the South where the Ku Klux Klan used the ultimate form of anonymity, their sheets and hoods to hide themselves, as they lynched blacks.

 

Keema Akraday      2:49 PM Sun 11/29/2009

I was told by a close relative on Friday that the lion share of the $40,000 went to the attorneys. Also, in 1964, a defense fund was established in Waterbury to defray the exorbitant legal costs.

It's always best being anonymous when you counter opinions by a group who seem very volatile and wishes you to rot in hell (see earlier posts). Also, the posts from, as you refer to as "supporters", are from several people in different locations. I'm not so sure we are supporters - I thought Frank was a sociopath and used his presumed wealth to keep people close to him. This angered me to no end. We just want to present facts, as we know them, to all who read this site.

Charly, I wouldn't waste too much time trying to figure out who we are that are using mostly fictious names, it's not relevant to the subject.
 

Todd A. Majo      2:44 PM Sun 11/29/2009

D. R. Hawkins stated:

The jury found Frank Rinaldi "not guilty" - not "innocent". There is a world of difference.

Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."


 

Charly Mann      2:31 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Hello Todd,

You and I are both humans. We have different opinions obviously in this matter. I have written down why I believe what I do, and I have welcomed comments for or against my views. It perplexes me that you have such strong opinions, yet you wish to critize me and others anymously. You may have a good reason for this Todd, I just can't imagine it.

How much more critical of me would you be if I had posted this article anonymously and deleted every negative comment (I have deleted nothing)? Like almost everyone I have flaws, and I am certain my article could have been better, but I think I have done a good job of explaining why I think Frank Rinaldi killed his wife. If you do not want to talk to other relatives that is fine with me. I will not divulge your name, e-mail, or phone to anyone else. I have only asked you contact me.

Concerning your quote, " The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in the United States of America, including the state of North Carolina. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, in this case a jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is lawfully obtained and legally admissible, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", Todd this is a free country and I also have the right of freedom of speech to state why I think poor prosecution and lack of key evidence helped Frank Rinaldi win his acquittal.

I welcome you to write a piece as detailed as mine recounting the case and stating why, with all the evidence we know now and has come to light, you think he is innocent. I would also love to hear who you think killed Lucille Rinaldi.

 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      2:18 PM Sun 11/29/2009

If there ever were a person who was sneaky enough, demented enough, and smart enough to get away with murder, it was Frank Rinaldi. I can just imagine how he salivated over that $40,000 insurance payout. Lucille was in the way of $40,000, just like my father was in the way of my grandmother's entire estate. He didn't have to kill my father, though. He just used his influence on that horrible shrew of a mother of his to get everything into his name.

And you are right, Mr. Majo. The Frank Rinaldi haters are, indeed, an army in size!
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      2:10 PM Sun 11/29/2009

The jury found Frank Rinaldi "not guilty" - not "innocent". There is a world of difference.

He may have been "not guilty" according to the law, but he was far from "innocent". All the second verdict meant was that the State of North Carolina could not prove its case.
 

Todd A. Majo      2:02 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Mr. Mann inquired:

Can you tell me how long you have been interested in the Rinaldi murder case, and if you have any connections to any of the people involved? I would love to talk to you by phone or e-mail.

The author of this article and the vast majority of commenters are convinced not only of Frank Rinaldi's guilt, but on his portrayal as an evil, women-hating, Negro-hating lunatic. That's fine, everyone is entitled to their opinions. I am not here to portray him as a saint--not at all. Yes, he was probably the strangest individual anyone who knew him ever knew. I am related to him, knew him for a very long time, and I know the murder case well. I am not interested in divulging my real name, exact relationship, my phone number, or my e-mail address. I am definitely not interested in hearing from an army of Frank Rinaldi haters. Since he is deceased, those like me who are attempting to point out some omissions and half-truths in this article--as well as untrue or exaggerated defamatory conclusions about his character and personality--will be prime targets of the Frank Rinaldi haters. I am not of the opinion that he could not have been involved. He may have been involved in the murder, but in my opinion there certainly was more than reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard of proof, and as such, falls along a continuum of certainty. An example of such a continuum would be as follows:

air of reality - only having the traces of truth
preponderance of the evidence - it is more likely than not
clear and convincing evidence - it is substantially more likely than not
beyond a reasonable doubt - no reasonable doubt could be raised
beyond the shadow of a doubt - no doubt whatsoever could be raised

I would like every Frank Rinaldi hater, basher and wannabe jurist (including the author of this article) to read the following paragraph until they understand it:

The presumption of innocence – being considered innocent until proven guilty – is a legal right that the accused in criminal trials has in the United States of America, including the state of North Carolina. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, in this case a jury, who are restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is lawfully obtained and legally admissible, that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In case of remaining doubts, the accused is to be acquitted. This presumption stems from the Latin legal principle that ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies).





 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      1:56 PM Sun 11/29/2009

If Frank Rinaldi was so kind and generous to his female relatives, why haven't we heard from them? Why won't they write in to defend their wonderful cousin from this assault on his character? Why are so many of you Frank Rinaldi supporters writing in under pseudonyms? What are you afraid of?

By the way, my mother, sister, and I were also female relatives of Frank Rinaldi, and we only endured his abuse, insults, and theft of my father's half of my grandmother's estate.
 

Charly Mann      12:51 PM Sun 11/29/2009

I enjoy hearing all sides of this issue. Those people who knew Frank Rinaldi as students, relatives, and tenants and have strong negative views on him have all left e-mail addresses, and most I have even talked to and verified their relationship with him. Almost all of his supporters have not left any contact information. I would like to verify that they actually knew Frank and get more details from them. There has been some suspicious activity on this site recently with multiple positive comments about Frank or attacks on this article, using a variety of "names" yet originating from the same IP address (which means they are coming from the same house or building - though not necessarily the same computer).
 

Fizzy Takkagudluk      12:27 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Ct. relative wrote:

I cannot recall, however, what has been described many times on this site as "evil" traits. I have seen first-hand for many, many years kindness and respect to parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles - sometimes kindness beyond measure. How easy - and cowardly - to degrade someone to the lowest level when he cannot defend himself.

Amen. And this notion that he hated women is laughable. I know he telephoned women relatives constantly, frequently visited them, had breakfast with them very often. He would treat all his female cousins to lunch annually. Let's not get carried away that Frank was a raving, women-hating lunatic. He was eccentric to the nth degree, controlling, odd, pompous and obnoxious. He was definitely not a women-hater.


 

Todd A. Majo      12:01 PM Sun 11/29/2009

Friend of the Family wondered:

Does Todd also stand by the decision of the O.J.Simpson jury? Was there not enough evidence for him there too? Or could it have been O.J. had better lawyers and a more sympathetic jury?

My opinion is that OJ is guilty of protecting his son, Jason. Read the book entitled, "O.J. Is Guilty But Not of Murder" by William C. Dear.

There are other theories as well: www.rense.com/general78/oj.htm






 

Ct. relative      11:52 AM Sun 11/29/2009

Much has been written about the character of Frank Rinaldi. Speaking for myself, I must say that I, also, have been witness to idiosyncrasies and oddities of personality and some temperamental behavior. I cannot recall, however, what has been described many times on this site as "evil" traits. I have seen first-hand for many, many years kindness and respect to parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles - sometimes kindness beyond measure. How easy - and cowardly - to degrade someone to the lowest level when he cannot defend himself.

Did he commit this terrible crime? NO ONE will ever know for sure. Therefore, he cannot be condemned by any one of us.
 

Charly Mann      11:41 AM Sun 11/29/2009

Hello Todd A. Majo,

Can you tell me how long you have been interested in the Rinaldi murder case, and if you have any connections to any of the people involved? I would love to talk to you by phone or e-mail if you have any further criticisms, questions or information.

You can contact me at chmemories@gmail.com
 

Jim B.      11:37 AM Sun 11/29/2009

I have read Mr. Mann’s article very carefully as well as many of the comments here. I will also tell you that I am a homosexual, and I am not offended by anything he has said.

The facts seem to be that Mr. Rinaldi was a homosexual and as one might suspect so were many of his friends. This was brought up in the first trail. Mr. Mann never attacked homosexuality. What he did say was that his wife did not like John Sipp. That John Sipp had sold Rinaldi the $40,000 double indemnity policy on his wife, and that Frank Rinaldi choose to spend all Christmas Eve morning and early afternoon with this man instead of his wife who had just come for a short visit. The fact that Sipp and Rinaldi had been friends for seven years also speaks of the closeness of their friendship. If Sipp was gay or bisexual (and I do not know if he was) it seems likely that his credibility would have to be questioned if he was involved with Frank.

I do not know how Sipp and Rinaldi became such good friends. Rinaldi was a student working on his PhD in Chapel Hill. Sipp was an insurance agent I gather in Durham. I think if Mr. Rinaldi had been straight, and he was known to have a female friend his wife did not like, and she was the same person who sold him a double indemnity life insurance policy on his wife who was murdered it would raise suspicions. I think it would raise a red-flag if he had also spent six hours with this same woman on the morning his wife was murdered.

I recently e-mailed Charly Mann and asked him directly if he thought Mr. Sipp was involved in the murder, and his reply was, “I have no information that Mr. Sipp was involved in, or had knowledge of who killed Lucille Rinaldi.”
 

Nina Nonn      10:36 AM Sun 11/29/2009

I believe both Foushee and Sipp are both alive and in the Durham/Chapel Hill area. Sipp must be off the wall livid with all the inuendo surrounding his sexual preferences promulgated by Mr. Mann, not to speak of his involement as a possible accomplice. He may be gauging how all this gargling with his character may affect his insurance business. Therefore, he may remain silent.

Why did Rinaldi feel so confident to even discuss the murder plot with Foushee? How close were they?
 

Todd A. Majo      9:01 AM Sun 11/29/2009

<< When police Chief Blake asked the manager who Foushee said this man was, the manager said it was Frank Joseph Rinaldi. The police gave the manager a hard time for not coming in with this information earlier, but the manager said he did not think anyone would believe him. A short time after this, Alfred Foushee, then 24, was brought into police headquarters and he repeated this story >>

If all of this happened exactly this way, one would assume the police would've questioned Rinaldi. I have no knowledge that he was.

Did Rinaldi, Sipp and/or Foushee have lie detector tests? Results? Admissable?

This certainly seems like a case that can be solved. I've seen more difficult, bizarre cases on TV get solved many, many years after the crime.




 

glenn      8:19 AM Sun 11/29/2009

Frank would have been convicted if the hard evidence (flashlight, bloody shirt) that was introduced in the first trial was allowed in the second. Without that evidence it was just circumstancial. That is the shame he was allowed to go on with his life while his wifes family had to suffer knowing he was free. A few of us up here in Ct. are wondering if he took his own life knowing the story was coming out opening up his ugly past? Did he take some pills and go to sleep? Being 80 years old and no sighns of a crime a autopsy I'm sure was not performed?
 

Kooka Lone      7:35 AM Sun 11/29/2009

Alfred Foushee had nothing to gain by making those statements. I do not believe he was lying. I thought it was $500, not $3000, that he was offered? Was he gay? Is he still alive? Wouldn't it be interesting to talk to him? Did you think of contacting him, Charly?

Having served on a criminal trial, I can tell you that jurors want to actually see the crime happening. The jury I served on made comments like: "He doesn't look like a criminal"--"He has a wife and two kids. Why would he do such a thing?"-- and "I have a gut feeling that witness was paid by the prosecution." People are stupid when it comes to connecting the dots. And, if they had a gay relative, hated blacks, thought that educated white people are not murderers, etc.--these prejudices may have overruled their logic. Our jury system stinks. As someone said, nowadays... DNA, dated cash register receipts, and store cameras may have helped solve the crime.

I'm hanging my hat on the insurance policy, his antisocial lifestyle, and his violent temper. The killer had a key to the apartment. The killer was either Frank and/or Sipp, or it was a hired killer.

My opinion: GUILTY.
 

Charly Mann      6:51 AM Sun 11/29/2009

Here are the facts about Alfred Foushee for Todd and Bastain.

The police and SBI had been questioning all of Frank’s neighbors about people who visited Frank’s apartment in the months before the murder. A neighbor said there was a handyman who worked for Frank quite often but did not know his name. They said they knew however he was a waiter in a downtown Chapel Hill restaurant.

The police first talked to the manager of the restaurant (I believe it was the Zoom-Zoom). He was questioned in Chapel Hill police Chief William Blake’s office with several detetectives and at least one SBI agent in attendance. He told the police how Alfred Foushee had told him before Thanksgiving how a man had offered him $3000 to kill his wife, and that he had refused. Foushee also told the manager that the offer was made to him a second time. According to the manager, Foushee was told he would have to go up North to commit the murder and make it look like it was a rape and then a murder. The manager at first said he did not believe Foushee’s story, but Foushee swore to him it was true. When police Chief Blake asked the manager who Foushee said this man was, the manager said it was Frank Joseph Rinaldi.

The police gave the manager a hard time for not coming in with this information earlier, but the manager said he did not think anyone would believe him. A short time after this, Alfred Foushee, then 24, was brought into police headquarters and he repeated this story to the offices. Foushee further stated how he had seen Rinaldi near the Eastgate Hardware store on the morning of the murder, and Frank had said, “It’s over, I did it.”

 

Todd A. Majo      1:18 AM Sun 11/29/2009

<< Mr. Gaine said:

If Foushee claims that Mr. Rinaldi approached him on several occasions tyring to enlist him in the murder plot, why didn't he share that piece of information with anyone - the police, his pastor, his girlfriend? Did anyone ever substantiate this claim of his? I know, the argument will be "who would believe a black man in 1963". Weak . >>

Supposedly Alfred did tell a person or two at Zoom Zoom about the supposed plot. And..you guessed it...supposedly they in turn said nothing to the police, or anyone else. The whole Foushee testimony seems like a lot of baloney---incredible---as in...NOT CREDIBLE.

By the way, in the first trial, a jury of nine men and three women went from a preliminary vote of 10 to 2 for acquittal to unanimous for conviction in eight hours. A rigid retired Army colonel was elected foreman of the jury and he clearly took charge hammering in on "the kind of man he was."
Source: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A19985


 

Bastian Gaine      12:42 AM Sun 11/29/2009

Good point, Koska.

If Foushee claims that Mr. Rinaldi approached him on several occasions tyring to enlist him in the murder plot, why didn't he share that piece of information with anyone - the police, his pastor, his girlfriend? Did anyone ever substantiate this claim of his? I know, the argument will be "who would believe a black man in 1963". Weak .
 

Koska Gosch      12:30 AM Sun 11/29/2009

On the one hand there are statements on here regarding his disdain for black people, then we're told to believe that he made sexual advances to Alfred Foushee, a negro waiter and handyman, who Rinaldi also hired to do some work at his home. And we're further supposed to believe that he would trust a black man to carry out a twisted murder plot? If a person is bigotted, hates black people, tries to scare them by heading his car at them on sidewalks, etc....how does that attitude square with having sex with a negro, hiring a negro, and entrusting a murder plot with a negro? Makes no sense at all to me.
 

Joey      12:11 AM Sun 11/29/2009

>>Do we really know for sure that it was entirely Frank's idea to purchase this policy? It was reported, "Testifying on the insurance policy was Robert J. Courville of Raleigh, the firm's district manager. Under cross-examination, Courville said the policy was made out on application by Mrs. Rinaldi." It was also disclosed that this life insurance policy was made by Mrs. Rinaldi while she was a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut and was signed by her.>>

And, as Charly Mann stated that Mr. Rinaldi was dependent on Lucille for his financial well being, Mrs. Rinaldi would have paid for the premiums. It makes sense then that it could have been her idea to purchase the contract. If the policy was taken out while she was in CT and he was in NC, then Mr. Rinaldi may have not had any say in the amount/type of the insurance policy. Hmmm...actual facts are now being disclosed - and not by a 14 year old.
 

Todd A. Majo      12:00 AM Sun 11/29/2009

<< Frank bought a $40,000 double indemnity life insurance policy on Lucille from his close companion John Sipp shortly before she was murdered. >>

Do we really know for sure that it was entirely Frank's idea to purchase this policy? It was reported, "Testifying on the insurance policy was Robert J. Courville of Raleigh, the firm's district manager. Under cross-examination, Courville said the policy was made out on application by Mrs. Rinaldi." It was also disclosed that this life insurance policy was made by Mrs. Rinaldi while she was a resident of Waterbury, Connecticut and was signed by her.

 

Pitt Sales      11:49 PM Sat 11/28/2009

I wonder what Sipp thinks about all this? He has to read that he was more than a friend to Rinaldi as Charly Mann insinuates ("possibly his lover" - "conventional wisdom is that he and Frank were involved"). Even so, how does that impact the veracity of his testimony? Is there a particular characteristic of gay people (if, indeed, he is) that makes them lie on a witness stand? Charly, did you formulate that opinion as a 14 year old during the trial?
 

Mark Codd      10:30 PM Sat 11/28/2009

I may be dented but I think Todd comments balance the "evidence" as suggested by Mr. Mann. The jury of Rinaldi's peers acquitted him because it could not be proven conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt, that he murdered his wife and unborn child. Wacked out behavioral characteristics should not be sufficient to convict a man and send him to prison for life. Was he the "likely" suspect. Yes. However, formulating an opinion on what has been presented in 170+ comments on a web site is foolhardy. You had to be there to hear all the testimony - weeding out the homophobic inferences and other garbage - in order to form a non prejudicial conclusion. We do simply don't know - for sure.
 

Todd A. Majo      10:28 PM Sat 11/28/2009

<< I can say I attended several trails in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough from 1961 to 1965 and never recall a black juror, but I will grant you I do not know the ethnic makeup of the two juries... >>

Nor do I know the official ethnic makeup of either jury but I have a newspaper report that states there were black jurors involved in the retrial: "Mrs. Mollie McClain, a Negro housemaid from Chapel Hill" was seated, and an alternate was "Israel Walker, a Negro landscaper, of Chapel Hill."

<< ... what is important is that he was shopping in Chapel Hill - almost next to his house - within the time Lucille is said to have been murdered. >>

OK...I had not read a single newspaper report of them shopping in Chapel Hill between the 10 A.M. to noon murder timeframe. I'd like to know the places and TIMES they were placed in CH that morning between 10-noon. We do know that Madge Spain, an employee of Thalhimer's Department Store in Durham, 12 miles from CH, testified that Rinaldi purchased a maternity dress there between 11:00 and 11:30 A.M. Both Rinaldi and Sipp testified that they were in Durham at the estimated time of death, and didn't return from Durham until 1 P.M.

<< I think my piece and the myriad of comments from relatives and people who knew Frank Rinaldi paint a picture of a man who likely killed his wife. You have meticulously avoided giving any weight to any of this information... >>

Sure, the defamatory comments about Mr. Rinaldi's eccentric behavior are probably quite accurate and justified. However, none of it adds up to evidence that he committed this crime. There are lots of people capable of committing lots of crimes. It certainly seems that this investigation would have been infinitely more productive with modern DNA investigation, time-stamped store receipts, cell phone records, etc.

Anyone know the conclusion of the fingerprint examination of the flashlight?





 

Friend of the Family      9:47 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Has this person Todd forgotten that all of the physical evidence was withheld from the jury, or has he considered that prejudice against the black witness could have been a factor? Mr. Mann's article seems no more or no less than one citizen recalling a murder case, and stating (rather convincingly I think) why he thought the man that was eventually found not guilty should have been found guilty.

Does Todd also stand by the decision of the O.J.Simpson jury? Was there not enough evidence for him there too? Or could it have been O.J. had better lawyers and a more sympathetic jury?
 

Bopshee      9:43 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Todd, good piece of journalism to produce some facts of the case that were, at least, somewhat distorted in Mr. Mann's article. While your points are noteworthy, the conclusion as to whom the murderer was, still point to Mr. Rinaldi - maybe because there are no other suspects?

Koska: Yes, I understand that Mr. Rinaldi needed a pick and a shovel.

 

Charly Mann      8:44 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Hello Todd,

You certainly seem to be disappointed in me, yet you have not indicated how you know so much about the case nor have you taken me up on my previous invitation of e-mailing me so I can contact or call you to better understand your perspective. I think my piece and the myriad of comments from relatives and people who knew Frank Rinaldi paint a picture of a man who likely killed his wife. You have meticulously avoided giving any weight to any of this information, but seem to think I have distorted things by leaving out the fact that Rinaldi went shopping for much of the morning in Durham. As I stated once before in my response to you, what is important is that he was shopping in Chapel Hill - almost next to his house - within the time Lucille is said to have been murdered.

Second, I was 14 and 15 at the time of this murder and trial. Most of my article came from my notes from interviews and newspapers I saved from those days. I can say I attended several trails in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough from 1961 to 1965 and never recall a black juror, but I will grant you I do not know the ethnic makeup of the two juries - one of which I should remind you found him guilty of murder.
 

Koska Gosch      8:11 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Rinaldi said the blood stains on his shirt were from his wife's nose bleed the night before He said he was not aware the blood stains were on the shirt at the time he put it on. What I would like to know is...why would he venture out on a 5 hour shopping spree wearing the same shirt he slept in the night before? Apparently he wasn't a hygiene freak.
 

Todd A. Majo      7:35 PM Sat 11/28/2009

<< According to sworn testimony by local handyman Alfred Foushee, Rinaldi offered him $500 to kill his wife when she came to visit over Christmas. >>

Foushee was a waiter at the Zoom Zoom Club. Why do so many people assume Foushee was not believed by the jury simply because he was black? Maybe he WAS lying. By the way, I think the retrial jury included black jurors, but I am not sure. If Mr. Mann knows that the jury included blacks and chose to omit that fact, I am disappointed. Just as I was disappointed that he omitted the fact that most of the shopping trip taken by Rinaldi & Sipp was in Durham, 12 miles away from the murder scene. This is a very biased, slanted take on this case. The 12 jurors who heard and saw the testimony first-hand had doubt of Rinaldi's guilt. Blame it on buffoon/overworked police and prosecutors if you want, but the evidence was lacking. It's terrible that the killer, whether Rinaldi or someone else, did not pay dearly for this horrible murder.

 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      5:12 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Frank Rinaldi was a terrible presence in the lives of so many over the past four and a half decades. Only now am I learning about others, some of whom were not even relatives, who were his victims. It turns out that the ones he hurt the most were the ones who never had to deal with him after 1965 - the Begg Family. They had to live with the fact that the murderer of their beloved daughter, niece, sister, sister-in-law, and aunt, as well as her unborn child, was walking around a free man. He cut a destructive swath through their family, and the suffering of others pales in comparison.

I truly see a Divine Hand in the timing of this story with Frank's death. The truth had to come out for the sake of those who survived Frank's reign of terror. They had to know they were not alone in their suspicions and hurts. This will help to heal many hearts and minds.

I want to let the Begg Family know how grateful I am to them for contacting us and for being so kind and gracious. They are a remarkably strong family, and they have my everlasting admiration and best wishes.


 

Glenn      3:29 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Thomas and Diane , sorry if it looked like I was being mean for my question, I just was curious as to why. But I understand family problems that sometimes you have to stay neutral so not to hurt others. I do understand who the bad person in the family was trust me on that. My experiences with him were short compared to others and I am sorry for your pain.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      2:57 PM Sat 11/28/2009

My brother was just a kid when this abuse took place.

I can tell you this, though. If Frank had tried any of that on my brother's wife or daughter, Frank would have ended up in Intensive Care!
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      2:30 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Dear Glenn:

My e-mail is dianehawkins56@aol.com, and I am Frank's niece. I would love to correspond with you. Did he try to get into YOUR grandmother's will? Did I read that correctly.

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins
 

Glenn      2:30 PM Sat 11/28/2009

Thomas Rinaldi, my question for you is how come You or someone else that was not treated well and inhumane why didnt you put him in his place? Were you that afraid to defend yourself or your loved ones?
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      2:26 PM Sat 11/28/2009

My father tolerated Frank because of my grandparents. My mother tolerated Frank because of my father. And my brother, sister, and I tolerated Frank because of our parents.

Everyone else tolerated Frank to keep peace in the family. And I really do believe that they were not privy to many of the details of the murder trial as my father was. So they probably honestly believed him innocent.

I myself was not aware of certain details until many, many years after the murder and also thought him, at one time, innocent although completely nuts. My father tried to insulate his wife and children from much of the truth. My beef with Frank Rinaldi was his bullying and verbal and emotional abuse of his own brother's children with whom he should have had an affectionate and understanding relationship. But there was no measuring up to the self-serving and ever-shifting standards of Frank and Dora. I don't ever recall my father having a fight with anybody in the family (except Frank). Yet, Frank and Dora were always "not speaking" to somebody. They were always correcting, upbraiding, scolding, taking offense. Finally, in 1986 my father finally just told them both to SHUT UP!!


 

Glenn      1:56 PM Sat 11/28/2009


I had the displeasure of Frank Rinaldis company at Holidays and family functions since the mid 70's till the 80's then only when my uncle came by to see his mother (not very often) when my Grandmother lived at my parents Even by the age of 12 there was something about that man that I disliked, I didn't know about the house. murder back then. He was a tagalong friend of my Uncle I think the only friend Frank had in the world. Was a wierd friendship to say the least and I think the only reason my uncle allowed him around was Frank had to pay for everything just to stay so called friends. Ok to my point, I never did see the tempermental side of this freek but the wierdness and insecurity was ever present. What I do not understand is, I was never afraid of this man even as a teen(he was not someone to fear without a weopon) I was hoping he would give me a good reason to rip him apart aside from his intruding in family business to get my Grandmother to change her will. Now keep in mind he was friends with my Mothers Brother he was not family. They had a lot in common neither liked to work but wanted everyone elses money, and both loved to gamble. This man was nothing for a decent size male to fear at all, maybe he was a bully to women but someone should have put him in his place!!!! I almost did and had he come near my family one more time I would have. If anyone would like to chat about my experiences with this man off a public forum leave a name and e mail and I would be more than happy to share in private. Other than that Frank Rinaldi is not worth wasting anymore time on he was a loser, and that opinion was formed before even knowing about his criminal past.
 

Gloria Fratt      10:49 AM Sat 11/28/2009

Don't be silly, they were not tolerant of murder - they were tolerant of Frank's odd behavior (post 1965) - as a relative. They could not - would not - disown a relative for a crime they were grateful for that he was acquitted of. In their eyes, he was legally innocent. Reality is something different, we suspect.

 

cousin      10:47 AM Sat 11/28/2009

Frank had contact with his FEMALE cousins because he was lonely and thrived on their attention of his nonsensical stories, jokes and boasting of his wealth, why would he abuse his audience! and why would anyone
 

Thomas Rinaldi      10:21 AM Sat 11/28/2009

Tolerant of murder, in the first degree, against your wife for the insurance money on Christmas Eve? That's asking a lot.
 

Gloria Fratt      7:49 AM Sat 11/28/2009

In the years since his release from prison in 1965, Frank maintained relationships with his FEMALE first cousins. He saw most of them very frequently and never abused them. Yes, they witnessed bizarre behaviour from time to time, but not to the point where they disassociated themselves from him. To make a statement that he disliked all women is not factual.

That said, in my opinion, the man was certainly capable of committing this crime. Frank was an odd character, prone to rage, insecure, insulting, contemptful, and spoke less than the truth on occasion. But to the few relatives he had here, he was the son of an aunt, a cousin who grew up in a close knit Italian family where everyone lived within a few blocks. His mother was one of 8 children and Frank had many relatives - just on his mothers side. Family can be tolerant of their kin - but, I don't believe, at least secretly, that they thought he was innocent. By the way, Pete was the exact opposite of his brother - kind, cheerful, generous, solid, solid, solid. Just my take on this.
 

Linda N      5:18 AM Sat 11/28/2009

He did not change in the last few years with regards to the black race. You would never see a black family living in his rental. he would never even really consider that & if his buddy brought over a black man to do sme painting he would be paid a minimal amout of money for the job. His dislike for the black race was almost as bad as his dislike for women.
 

Spector for Two Days at Second Trial      11:24 PM Fri 11/27/2009

I disagree with Keema that Sipp’s testimony was crucial. The jury did not come out and say they thought Rinaldi was innocent; he was let off because they were not certain by a shadow of a doubt. And why the doubt? Well much of the key evidence was ruled inadmissible. Then the prosecutor spends little effort poking holes at Sipp’s alibi for Frank and there are several. Even in the second trial where homosexuality was ruled not evidence of likelihood to commit murder, prosecutor Cooper seemed to be more focused on attacking Sipp’s character. As I recall he made a big deal of him purchasing hard core pornography. What Cooper should have done was show that the friendship between the two men cast serious doubt on Sipp being a credible alibi witness. Cooper also could have done more to show Rinaldi’s violent past, the problems in the marriage, and Frank’s financial dependence on Lucille. In the end poor prosecution and brilliant and highly paid lawyers for Frank Rinaldi got him acquitted after two trials. Sadly someone convicted of a crime can appeal forever, but once you are found not guilty once there are no second chances to bring in new evidence or get better lawyers to go after someone so absolutely evil.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      8:30 PM Fri 11/27/2009

He would laugh and joke about it, but it was obvious that Frank disdained blacks. I can very easily imagine Frank, without any compunctions, trying to make a patsy out of Al Foushee. He may have changed in recent years, but I'm drawing on my experiences with him and my knowledge of his attitude in the 1960's and early 1970's.

He once made a big deal, jokingly, that I had introduced a black friend of mine from high school to him one day when I ran into him in a coffee shop in downtown Waterbury. He said I had dared to bring a "n****r" over to his table.

Also, I recall a sick and risky "game" that Frank used to play when we were children. He'd be driving down a street with us in the car. If there were a black person on the sidewalk, he would veer towards that person and then veer away at the last second and say, "Oh, I just missed him!" He would then do the demonic laugh. There were a couple of times when he got so close to hitting the person that I screamed in terror. He would even do this on snowy streets, and I was afraid that he wouldn't be able to control the car.

At the very least, it was not a proper example to set for children; at the worst, I think it demonstrates just how much he would have cared if Mr. Foushee had taken the rap.

Not all the bigots were in the South.
 

Keema Akraday      8:27 PM Fri 11/27/2009

So if Foushee were white, Rinaldi would have been convicted? Maybe, maybe not. Sipp was the key witness and the jury bought the story that he was with Rinaldi at the time the coroner said that Mrs Rinaldi was murdered. The case came down to that one element of testimony.
 

Charly Mann      7:42 PM Fri 11/27/2009

Hello Bill,

Chapel Hill Schools did not officially integrate until 1966. A handful of blacks were admitted before this, but they made up less than 1% of the Chapel Hill student body at this time. I have all the school yearbooks from 1962 to 1968. And from 62 to 64 there were no black teachers, coaches, and administrators, and almost every class was 100% white. A few classes had one black student.

When Chapel Hill Schools did integrate many white parents sent their kids to boarding schools or the local private school Durham Academy.




 

Bill B.      7:14 PM Fri 11/27/2009

One Correction Lou Ann,

Blacks were allowed to attend Chapel Hill Schools. I attended them and had black classmates.

Just want that record clarified. Chapel Hill was definitely a more liberal community than the rest of the south at this time. There were schools in CH system that were exclusively black, however blacks were allowed to attend the primarily white schools and many did.

I am not in disagreement with the gist of your post.
 

Luann K.      4:12 PM Fri 11/27/2009

I have been checking in on this discussion every 4 or 5 days, and I'm always surprised to learn more damaging things about Frank Rinaldi and his character. I just read the last comment by Bastian, and would offer the following. Why would anyone kill another human being? Why would anyone offer to pay someone else to kill another human being? Why would Rinaldi take a $40,000 life insurance policy out on his wife which was only good through December of 1963, and months earlier, cancel the policy that he took out on himself? From everything I read about this man, he seems to be evil and at times irrational. So I'm not sure we can ever rationally say why he told Mr. Foushee that he killed his wife.

The other question would be, why would Foushee lie about something like this? Here is a black man in a community dominated by whites during the height of segregation, when blacks were not even allowed to attend Chapel Hill schools, be admitted to movies, or dine at most restaurants in Chapel Hill. I think Mr. Foushee was a very brave man to do what he did by testifying, and from what I gather, has been bitter over the years because the white jury seemed to discount his testimony.

Another thought to consider is, if Rinaldi felt comfortable enough with Foushee to ask him to kill his wife, why wouldn't he also feel comfortable enough to tell him that he had done it himself?
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      3:59 PM Fri 11/27/2009

What was Mr. Foushee going to do with the information? Run to the police and tell them? Again, who would believe a young black man in North Carolina in the early 1960's? He would have sounded ridiculous telling them that Frank admitted the murder to him. He also had to fear that Frank might somehow put the blame on him or that the police would suspect he was involved.

I think that's why Frank chose him in the first place. Get a young black man to do it, someone who had been in the apartment (fingerprints?), and leave the rest to Southern justice. You have to remember the time and place. This was pre-Civil Rights Act. This was even pre-Miranda! Black people had no rights!

Even today, even in the North, people are all too willing to believe that black men are killers (remember the Stuart killing in Boston?). How much moreso in the Jim Crow South?

Also, Frank thought he could never make a mistake. He once said to me that he was wrong only once in his life and that was when he thought he was wrong, but was actually right. He thought he was invincible.
 

Bastian Gaine      3:32 PM Fri 11/27/2009

I just read all the original newspaper articles on the murder as it was reported by Lew Waterman of the Waterbury Republican-American in 1963-65. Waterman attended the trials and his slant of the testimony seemed neutral - just reporting on the facts as presented in the courtroom. However, in reading some of the articles, the focus was on the Foushee testimony and it seems, even today, extremely peculiar that Rinaldi would admit to Foushee that he killed her. Why?

Look, gun to my head, I think at the very least, Rinaldi was involved in the crime. Note to Mr. Mann - those who offer questions surrounding the evidence of Rinaldi are not his supporters.
 

Linda N      2:54 PM Fri 11/27/2009

In my opinion if there is anyone who ever had any dealings with Frank for any length of time & didn't think he was guilty or capable of murder I'd be shocked. Frank was a very loud angry violent man who wanted things his way. He read MANY true life murder books. Why? If anyone could find just one person from his numerous tenants who didn't have some sort of conflict with him or didn't think he was hateful of women I'd be again surprised. There always had to be at least 1 male in his rent for the purpose of yard work because in his opinion women were not capable & the majority of their woman spouses never wanted to deal with Frank because of their fear of him & his loud confrontational outbursts. I know of at least 2 tenants who moved their families out of the rent just because theirs wives were deathly afraid of Frank. When I think about it, I often wonder how Frank even ended up being married to any woman. He really did not like women. I don't know, maybe he was different 40+ yrs ago & he wasn't dealing with the fact of his homosexuality well at that time but it was quite obvious for the 25 years I knew him that he despised women & thought them to be weak & incapable of doing much of anything. It seems he dealt with women only when it somehow benefited him or whenever they could accomplised whatever purpose he had in mind at the time. I must however say that I am not surprised he got away with what he did. ...he was intelligent & had a thirst for knowledge.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      12:35 PM Fri 11/27/2009

My father often wondered why the prosecution did not follow up on the nosebleed. Was Lucille prone to nosebleeds? What caused it? Could it be that it was caused by a hard smack to the face?
 

Charly Mann      12:11 PM Fri 11/27/2009

It is interesting that supporters of Rinaldi usually use anonymous names like this and all do not leave their e-mail addresses.

Ditty Zah is incorrect about the shopping trip. While they did go to Durham and there are many witnesses to this fact, they returned to Chapel Hill and did considerable shopping on Franklin Street within a minute or two walking distance to the Rinaldi house. Mr. Sipp went to the Post Office, a tailor, and Roses where I have already stated that the person who talked to him there remembered seeing Sipp but not Rinaldi. And where did they park? It makes sense that they may have even parked in front of the Rinaldi house. It seems likely there was plenty of time after 11:15 AM, about the time they returned to Chapel Hill, for the murder to have been committed. Dr Rodman said the murder probably occurred between 10:00 AM and noon. Frank could have done this when Sipp went to the Post Office or into another store. Sipp could have even been an accomplice to the murder.

There was Lucille's blood on Frank's shirt and pants. Yes she probably had a nose bleed the night before as Frank testified, but how often does one get blood on their pants and shirt when their wife has a nose bleed. Frank testified he slept with Lucille the night before in the same pants and shirt he went shopping in the next day. His explanation for the blood is he got it when he was sleeping next to his wife. I think both of these explanations are rather weak. I'm almost 60 years old, and have been married nearly 2/3 of this time, and at times had a partner with a nosebleed. I can tell you I never once had blood stains on the pajamas or t-shirts I slept in.

What do you think Ditty Zah about why Frank had the $40,000 life insurance policy on his wife, the fact that Al Foushee testified Frank wanted him to kill Lucille and later admitted doing it to him, or the fact that he never showed any sadness to anyone in his family or Lucille's about her death? Does it bother you Ditty Zah that Frank hit his wife on their honeymoon because she said he was spending too much of her money? Does it bother you that Lucille only lived with Frank about a week of their marriage, and left extremely suddenly because of domestic difficulties at the end of this period? Does it bother you and make you suspicious when you hear that Frank had a terrifyingly violent temper all of his life? That he collected books on murderers? That his brother, nieces, and nephews think he killed Lucille, as well as several cousins and the mother and son who were his tenants in Waterbury? Or that even many of his former students think he was capable of murder?
 

Prip & Al      11:00 AM Fri 11/27/2009

Point of Interest: Frank hired a private investigator--maybe on the advice of his lawyer?
 

Ditty Zah      10:52 AM Fri 11/27/2009

This story conveniently leaves out critical information concerning the whereabouts of Frank Rinaldi on the morning of the murder. Mr. Mann fails to even mention that Sipp's testimony was that he and Rinaldi spent most of the hours between 8:45 A.M. and 1:45 P.M. shopping in Durham, 12 miles from the murder scene. Madge Spain, an employee of Thalhimer's Department Store in Durham, testified that Rinaldi purchased a maternity dress there between 11:00 and 11:30 A.M. A pathologist, Dr. N. F. Rodman, placed the time of death at about 11:00. George M. Warren, an insurance agent, David D. Hardy, who managed an insurance office in Durham, and Julian E. Upchurch, a Durham druggist, all testified that they saw Rinaldi at the Northgate Shopping Center in Durham on the morning Mrs. Rinaldi was killed.

Mr. Mann mentions Rinaldi's bloodstained shirt but fails to mention key testimony from Dr.Rodman, who said the autopsy he performed on the victim indicated she had a nosebleed during the 24 hours prior to her death, thereby supporting Rinaldi's own explanation for the blood on his shirt.
 

Friend of the Family      10:08 AM Fri 11/27/2009

Mr. Umbello there are many aspects and details of the Rinaldi case that are not in Charly's article. The trials and investigation went on for several years and there were other lawyers involved as well as people in the Chapel Hill police department and SBI. There is certainly enough material for a long book just on the details of the trials. He gives the basic facts of the murder, the trials, and the evidence against Frank Rinaldi. I am not sure how the introduction of another name added to Rinaldi's superior and expensive defense team adds anything of substance to the article. The article clearly states that Rinaldi had great legal counsel and the prosecutor was not astute and was distracted with many other cases .
 

Bob Umbello      8:46 AM Fri 11/27/2009

This article is remiss in pointing out that the Rinaldi's hired Victor Bryant to lead the trail strategies for the second trial. Byrant was considered the top lawyer in the Durham/Chapel Hill area at the time. Winston and Battle played a lesser role in the second trial, deferring all strategy to Byrant.
 

Kenny Afeh      3:03 PM Thu 11/26/2009

No doubt about the bigotry down south in the 1960's. Rinaldi was an catholic (eye)talian who they don't embrace also in the South but compared to a black man, yes, that worked in Rinaldi's favor. So with the homophobic first trial jury and prosecutor that produced the mistrial and the testimony of a black man versus a white businessman (Sipp), Rinaldi lucked out. If that trial was in the north, he would have died behind bars.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      9:55 PM Wed 11/25/2009

11-25-09

Who was going to believe a black man in North Carolina in the early 1960's? Obviously the second jury didn't.

The first time I was ever in North Carolina, in 1971, I vividly recall a large billboard proclaiming "You are now in Ku Klux Klan Country".

Enough said.


 

Charly Mann      9:04 PM Wed 11/25/2009

In the comments here and the article as well as many e-mails and phone conversations I have had with people who knew Frank Rinaldi, it seems that very often he would say rash and stupid things.

You also have to remember that Foushee was someone Frank had tried on several occasions to hire to kill his wife, and even gave him several ideas of how to do it.

The information I have is that Frank enticed Lucille to come visit over Christmas, and she seemed to think when she got to Chapel Hill that things could work out.

Frank could be very witty and charming.

Lucille was the only woman he had ever had even a close relationship with besides his mother. Frank had no photos of Lucille in his house after the murder, and would become extremely angry if anyone mentioned her or her relatives who he hated. He never spoke fondly of her to anyone.

He also made no effort to try to find his wife's killer.
 

The Rizzler      9:02 PM Wed 11/25/2009

It would be interesting to hear if Rinaldi's attorneys, Winston & Battle, have anything to say on this matter. Rinaldi's parents must have forked over a small fortune for his defense. The fact that he never pursued the real killer speaks volumes.
 

Kenny Afeh      8:23 PM Wed 11/25/2009

I just can't believe Rinaldi would admit to anyone that he just committed a murder. Why would he do that? He seemed too calculated to be so stupid.
That's quite a statement by Charly Mann insinuating that Mr. Sipp was a lover of Rinaldi. What a heartache for Lucille to have realized that she married such a deranged person who had a proclivity for other men. Was it Lucille's idea to join Rinaldi or did he lure her back to Chapel Hill?
 

Bill Shaqua      2:34 PM Wed 11/25/2009

I saw the article in the Sunday paper and saddened by this horrendous crime that had no real closure. Does anyone know if in the 46 years since the murder if Frank Rinaldi had any criminal record? I've read where his violent temper had been witnessed by many but were there any convictions or arrests for an reason since 1965, his release date?
 

Charly Mann      11:53 AM Wed 11/25/2009

I have not tried to interview Mr. Sipp for several reasons. First there are two key witnesses - Sipp and Foushee. Foushee has steadfastly maintained that Rinaldi offered to pay him to kill his wife. Foushee actually told the manager of the restaurant he was working for the story before he told the police. Foushee also says that on the morning of the murder Rinaldi told him he had killed his wife.

Sipp on the other hand is the alibi witness, but was also Rinaldi's best friend, possibly his lover, and the man who sold him the insurance policy. I have heard many theories of how he might have even been an accomplice in the murder. One theory says that Lucille was bound and gagged and wrapped in a blanket and placed in the trunk of his car. They then drove around with her for a few hours before finally Frank finished the job during the five hours they were out. This theory holds that when they returned home they brought her back in the house and placed her on the floor before calling the police. This also explains why she was in pajamas even though the murder had occurred between 10:00 and 11:30 AM. Remember Frank said he left with Sipp at 8:45 AM.

Between the two witnesses I believe Foushee, however as I have already stated he was black, and Sipp was white, and I think the racial prejudice of the time made the second jury believe Sipp.

 

Buck Cavamoldi      11:43 AM Wed 11/25/2009

I completely agree with Joe Spinz....Mr. Sipp is certainly the one person who knows precisely what transpired. I'd really like to read his testimony.
 

Joe Spinz      11:18 AM Wed 11/25/2009

In all his investigative work on this case, has Charly interviewed John Sipp?
Mr. Sipp was the defense's key witness during both trials. What does he think of all this recent interest in the case?
 

Cousin      10:52 AM Wed 11/25/2009

Thomas, I think we already know the truth about him, more like a Criminal Minds epsisode where Reed could diagnose him.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      10:03 AM Wed 11/25/2009

Has anyone ever watched the series Cold Case? With all the evidence against him, you would think someone like Lilly Rush could find out the truth about this guy.
 

Linda N      7:54 PM Tue 11/24/2009

I am the mother of Eric N & my thought was that he probably did kill his wife. We did think he killed his mother at one point & he also tried to storm in our apt because something wasn't to his liking & he wanted to speak about it right then. He did get the door slamed in his face. In my experiences with him over the last 25 years he exhibited a very bad temper & total lack of self control. Ever since my first dealings with him I always thought he was a woman hater. He frequently screamed at his mother & myself many times at the top of his lungs while we were his tenants. You could've block heard him from a block away. I've had conversations with many of his later tenants who also thought this way of him. He was very easy to fly off the handle. I found it odd that he read many true life murder books such as books about the Gacy murders & Son of Sam murders etc. He never ever mentioned anything ever about a wife although I did hear stories. I had business dealings with him up until probably 2 years ago & have been in his home. There were no pictures or anything that indicated he was ever married to answer someone's question in a previous post. He appeared a little calmer when it related to business & u were not his tenant but was still quick tempered. He rarely compromised on what he wanted to do unless it was absolutely necessary & after quite a bit of convincing of the necessity. My business dealings had to do with the renting of the the opposite side of his duplex. Only God knows what really happened that day for sure but there appears to be overwhelming evidence that he was responsible & his mannerisms definately support it. God Bless All the Families that were hurt by Frank & I pray for their ultimate healing. God Bless...
 

Michael Begg      2:54 PM Tue 11/24/2009

Charly,

I want to thank you for your work and the publishing of this information. We appreciate everyone's postings and information!!

Lucille Begg was the Aunt that my brothers Bill & Tom really never knew. She was my Dad's only sister and her life as well as her baby's were tragically taken. The impact of her death was felt throughout our family as you can imagine as well as the entire community in Waterbury, CT.

I can hope that people now see him for what he really was...a monster!!

Best,

Michael Begg
Trumbull, CT
 

Jennifer B.      12:11 PM Tue 11/24/2009

I came across this article after another former Paier student posted a link on Facebook. I had Rinaldi for an Effective Speaking and an English Composition course between 2000 and 2002. He was a great teacher, and I did have fun in his classes, desk throwing and yelling included. I just had no clue about any of this; don't think any of us did. It's scary. Another article was printed in The Waterbury Republican recently as well that might be of interest: http://rep-am.com/news/local/450974.txt
 

Alice Clark      10:26 AM Tue 11/24/2009

I have tried to find a duality of personality in Frank Rinaldi from the articles and comments, but all I see are shades of an evil and a terrifying person.

The last comment from one of his students still make him look more like Mr Hyde than Dr Jekyll. Does anyone recall him expressing any remorse over his wife's death? Did he have a photograph of her in his house?
 

Stephanie D.      8:57 AM Tue 11/24/2009

I was a student of Dr. Rinaldi's from 2002-2005 (the year he retired, I believe) at Paier. I can recall on my first day of English class, this man used outrageous examples, an incredibly loud tone, and literally put his whole body into his words. Every single person seemed to be terrified and shocked with this unusual presentation, but I laughed out loud. He smiled at me, pointed at me, then said "Thank you." He always did that to any student who seemed to see through his antics and laugh, knowing his bizarre teaching methods were used to captivate the attention of the stereo-typical art students who could care less about their basic English and speaking courses.

Although his teachings were unlike any I've ever encountered, I always gave him credit in saying that everything he taught me, truly stuck. I know MANY of my classmates could say the same. He had a knack for calling on the students who were daydreaming, and forcing them to wake up and get the answer right. It sounds ironic, but the way he taught was brilliant. He hated the idea of his students leaving his course without learning something.

I can understand friends and family's claims regarding his evil side, and that his temper could get completely out of control. That is something that I can image being very possible, and this man having the capacity for murder doesn't surprise me, since his teaching tactics were nothing short of shocking. But from my three years of experience as his student, I don't feel that he treated his students this way. He could be tough, but from what I observed, he genuinely loved what he did, and he was damn good at it.


 

Social Conscience      10:47 PM Mon 11/23/2009

The comments by "eric n" (8:58 PM Sat 11/21/2009), "Thomas Rinaldi" (9:02 AM Sat 11/21/2009), and "William V Begg III" (8:42 PM Mon 11/23/2009) are most revealing. It appears that Frank was kind to his homosexual lovers and gay friends, but a terror to his female family members, such as his nieces, his mother, his wife, his sister in law, and his mother in law. Is there one female family member out there who was not a victim of his tirades and deviant behavior?

<<Frank r. was my neighbor and landlord for almost 8 yrs here in wtby I've been witness to many strange things in regards to him and mother dora....i used to hear the rumors even as a child living on byrneside ave. yet never knew the true story until I read this article... In my opinion he is 100percent guilty I used to over hear him scream at his mother at the top of his lungs on a daily basis even when she was in her 80s and frail he was always threatening and violent towards her it seemed... me and my direct family can re-call 1 specific time where he fought banged and screamed w. dora for over n hr we didn't hear his mothers voice for a few days after this and as he went on a tripp to las vegas we actually checked on her and made sure she was still alive>> eric n

<<I will never forget, on one Christmas after all the Chapel Hill stuff that he came to our house and my older sister had gotten a Chatty Cathy doll as a present and he pulled down the doll's pants and smeared mustard from our refrigerator on her rear end and proceeded to beat this doll so violently that her eyes rolled back in her head and it was ruined and he proceeded to laugh and never payed to buy a new one or felt any remorse for what he had done>>Thomas Rinaldi

<<frank threatened to kill my mother also. At the conclusion of the 1960's trials, frank whispered to my mom he would come after her and get her as long as it took him. Most of the last 40+ years, mom has lived less one mile walking distance from this person (1.12 miles driving). Another family member said he made similar threats to my grandma, Lucy Begg>> William Begg
 

Waterbury resident      9:36 PM Mon 11/23/2009

I am curious. With all the information you have concerning this case, all the people you have interviewed, the evidence you have access to, all the court documents, comments of friends and relatives, etc. - do you plan on writing a book about this unsolved murder.
 

William V Begg III      8:42 PM Mon 11/23/2009

I feel for the neices and mother of frank Rinaldi, who also had experienced his terror after he was convicted of murdering my aunt and my cousin on 11/18/1964 at 12:32p. frank threatened to kill my mother also. At the conclusion of the 1960's trials, frank whispered to my mom he would come after her and get her as long as it took him. Most of the last 40+ years, mom has lived less one mile walking distance from this person (1.12 miles driving). Another family member said he made similar threats to my grandma, Lucy Begg. She lived only 0.26 miles away (2 blocks). I didn't feel these stories would be believed until I saw the accounts of his behavior to his other female relatives.

 

Charly Mann      8:00 PM Mon 11/23/2009

Hey Todd,

You are correct the numbers of the houses (more like what we think of a duplex apartments) have changed. I use to live in that house. When I was in Chapel Hill last September I walked from the Rinaldi apartment to the Post Office at a very normal pace, and I timed it on my watch at less than two minutes. In those days you could actually do it quicker. You are correct that I do not the exact number of feet. I do not know if you knew Chapel Hill in those days you would recall many stores had back entrances (often more used than the front) - and depending on the store you could get to the Rinaldi place in two to three minutes. One store that was fairly large and I was extremely familiar with is Roses. Sipp had a long conversation with a clerk there who does not recall seeing Rinaldi. Roses had a large back door.

Also how much do you trust Sipp - Frank's alibi? He was Rinaldi's best friend for seven years. Lucille had met him in September and did not like him, and the feeling seemed to be mutual. The conventional wisdom is Sipp and Frank were involved. He also sold Frank the double indemnity policy on Lucille.

Do you buy that Frank offered to pay Al Foushee to kill his wife? He swore to this in both trials. What more he said Frank wanted him to go to Connecticut and rape and the kill Lucille. Foushee was always firm on this.


 

Bill B.      7:12 PM Mon 11/23/2009

I was aware that Foushee was black because it was a name that black people had, I remember.

For that reason it may have been a good strategy to blame it on him is what I wondered.
 

Todd A. Majo      7:02 PM Mon 11/23/2009

<< On the morning of the murder Foushee testified he ran into Frank Rinaldi at the Eastgate Hardware store and Rinaldi said to him, "It's all over Al, I did it." >>

If this was Foushee's testimony, I wouldn't blame the jurors for not buying it. Think about it..why on Earth would he say that to him.

<< Depending on where they parked, they were within 200 to 400 feet of the Rinaldi residence on North Street between 10:00 and 11:30 AM. In less than ten minutes Rinaldi could have slipped into his apartment grabbed his flashlight and a sock. The murder itself took just a few minutes - two blows to Lucille's head with the flashlight while a sock was stuffed in her mouth. Then a pillow was placed tightly to her face for a couple of minutes to make sure she was dead. Frank could have easily gone to the house, killed Lucille, and been back on Franklin Street within ten minutes or less. >>

This seems far-fetched at best. Let's see... Frank was picking out a maternity dress, or looking at some other piece of merchandise, paused...said to Mr. Sipp..."Excuse me John, I'll be back in less than 10 minutes." Then he goes home, kills his wife, then resumes his 17-store shopping expedition? I'm not buying that scenario at all...and I certainly can see how the 12 jurors didn't buy it at the retrial. Furthermore, the distance between Franklin and North sure looks to be much more than 200-400 FEET on sites like Mapquest, Google Earth, etc. Can we get clarification of the number of North St. of the house? Perry Deane Young's 2003 article mentions 21 North St. but I was unable to bring up that address on any web site...I can bring up 121 but not 21. Maybe the numbers of the housing on the North Street has changed substancially after 46 years?



 

Charly Mann      7:00 PM Mon 11/23/2009

Hey Bill - I do not know why one prosecutor does one thing and another has a different strategy. This guy was not from Chapel Hill, and as far as I can tell had never had a murder case. He did really believe homosexuality was evil, and I suspect where he was from (Burlington) that would have been enough. He also had two fabulous attorneys against him - Gordon Battle and Barry Winston. To me this is like having the football coach of a small college coach a team he was not famalier with against the combined forces of Mac Brown of Texas and Jim Harbaugh of Stanford with teams they had worked for four years.

I have also looked into the witness - Al Foushee - who said Rinaldi wanted him to kill his wife. To me he is very credible for many reasons.( I may detail these later.) What I did not say in the article was that he was black - and being black in 1963 meant not being believable to most white people in Chapel Hill at that time. At that time many businesses were segregated as were the schools - and even the bus station which was the major hub of transportation in town had separate sides and bathrooms for black and white people.

 

Bill B.      6:38 PM Mon 11/23/2009

Charly,

I would have convicted him on the blood evidence (I guess was inadmissable) and lack of any other expanation for the death. I would have considered the fianacial evidence but would want anwers to the question I asked concerning the loan. I was simply raising questions I know any defense attorney would raise, if not in the trial at least before he would check before. No good lawyer asks a question in court he doesn't know the answer to.

I would convict him because there is no evidence offered of any other way that this young woman died. I have been on a juries. I understand that you rarely have absolute proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt I understand to be a doubt for which there is a reason. She obviously was murdered. No other person is suspected. Did they raise the possibility the Foushee was guilty of committing the crime on his own? As I said I agree he is guilty. True with others such as OJ.

You basically answered my question, I just wasn't sure why you was just released now as new information if it was in the original trial or newspaper reports and in the transcript of the first trial (I specifically mean the details in your last post, stopping payments, borrowing money etc.). Also why wasn't it released in the second trial, if it was in the first. I haven't read where it was determined to be inadmissable.

Again, I'm not skeptical of his guilt, just questioning to ask to fully understand what happened and how information was handled. I'm not questioning your reporting, simply want clarification. Obviously his sexuality was ruled irrelevent (correctly), the blood evidence was tainted, but why wasn't the financial info released at the second trial. I know of no other evidence they had.


 

Charly Mann      5:57 PM Mon 11/23/2009

Hey Bill B. - You are a skeptical guy. All the information on the insurance came from evidence in the first trial. I have also verified this with Chapel Hill police records, and news reports of the time. This is also what I call an additional piece of the mountain of evidence.

Each person has some evidence they value as more important than others. I for example think the fact he had the blood of Lucille on his pants and shirt is key. This was substantiated, and he even tried to make an excuse about it by saying it came from a nose bleed she had the night before. Because of not getting a proper search warrant this evidence was not admitted in the trial.

My question for you Bill B. - somewhat in jest - is why you are not giving your full name? You can even give me your e-mail and I will give you my phone number to talk about other issues you may have.

My question on a more substantive point is what amount of evidence would have made you convict Rinaldi? Would a video tape of him committing the crime be enough for you? I actually posed that to someone else, and they said no, because how could I prove it was not doctored in some way.

 

Bill B.      5:24 PM Mon 11/23/2009

Charly,

All of this latest information may be true and I think the other information produced makes me beleive that Frank was guilty of the murder.

For these financial transactions, I am curious how you are aware of the informtion. Is it from actual bank or insurance records? Is it from newspaper reports? Is it from talking to relatives or acquaintances of the time? Is it from court records of evidence in the case not submitted? I assume that Mr. R collected on the insurance policy, but I never heard it directly stated. If I was a defender of the reputation of Mr. R, I would not accept this information at face value.

I am skeptical of information from anonymous sources who are not willing to be questioned on the details.

It seems a little hard for me to believe the bank would loan him money without collateral particularly since he had such little income. This was before widespread use of credit cards and easy credit. Maybe he used his wife's good name and collateral. Maybe he signed over his car, but it is not stated.

In my opinion, this does not further establish his guilt to me. I can accept that he had a financial motive without this much detail. It raises more questions to me than it answers. Maybe it would betray cofidence to reveal any more collaborative information, but it would help clarify things to me.

Be sure I'm not saying you are wrong and I appreciate your research, but I have questions about this. I'm sure it would have been stronger evidence at his court hearing closer to the time of the transactions, when the records were clearer and people would be able to answer questions regarding them.
 

Charly Mann      1:36 PM Mon 11/23/2009

The following is additional evidence about Frank Rinaldi and the murder that was not included in my original article.
As my article brings up Frank Rinaldi bought a double indemnity policy on his wife that was worth $40,000 and one on himself for $10,000.

The new facts are these. Frank stopped paying on his policy four months before the murder, and then cancelled the policy on himself and was refunded all the money he had already paid on it.
At the same time, Frank, who had little money of his own, borrowed $720 from the Bank of Chapel Hill to pay the premium on Lucille’s policy through the end of December. (She was murdered on December 24th).

Even before Frank cancelled his own policy one might wonder why he would only want Lucille and his child to have $10,000 if he was to have died accidently, and he was going to get $40,000 if his pregnant wife, who was two years younger than him, was to die this way.

 

Eric G      11:43 AM Mon 11/23/2009

I was a student of Frank Rinaldi's about 5-6 years ago. I have to say that he was definitely different from any other teacher or professor that I have ever had in my life.

He displayed so much passion for his teachings and at times would throw a desk across the room if a student wasn't paying attention or was not following the lecture. Immediately after this occurrence, he would smile and stare at the class with eyes of an insane person. No one had ever made a big deal about this because he was known as "that crazy teacher" and it would be overlooked.

I also remember him having a lot of sexual references in his stories and lessons. When you got an answer right, he would come over to you and pretend to be love-struck. For the most part, this was mildly entertaining and humorous considering the fact that he wasn't yelling at the top of his lungs and throwing stuff around. Some cases it looked like he would take is love-struck facade over the line.

Overall, I did learn a great deal from this man about the subject at hand but there were so many things about him and his personality that none of us wanted to know more about or see him outside of class. This article is extremely creepy given the fact that I could have been taught by a sick murderer and that all of these facts match up to what I experienced in the class room.

(Oh, and that comment about peeing on his grave made me chuckle but for some reason, I think he would find pleasure from that while in hell.)
 

Fl/Ct. family      8:58 AM Mon 11/23/2009

Spinning these accounts of Frank into conflict among friends and families, no matter where they reside,would undoubtedly be a triumph for Frank in his afterlife.
 

Ginnie Crosby      8:51 AM Mon 11/23/2009

I only heard about this sad story yesterday after reading the Waterbury newspaper. After digesting this piece it appears that everyone who knew Frank Rinaldi well is convinced he killed his wife - his brother, his nieces and nephews, his cousins and aunts, his father, and the tenant who rented from him for years. In addition the old and new evidence seem overwhelming.

I hope the community can get together to honor Lucille Begg like naming an elementary school in her honor.

 

Friend of FL Rinaldi's      9:48 PM Sun 11/22/2009

Alice K Bitterness is only directed to the deceased (Frank & Dora). I am happy however, that relatives of Rinaldi and Begg families have been able to communicate.

This is not CT vs FL: Frank is from CT and it just so happens that some of the Rinaldi family is from FL.

I do not know where all the Begg family is from but I would imagine that they too are from CT and other States.

So please don't try to make it a state contest .
 

Friend of the Family      7:43 PM Sun 11/22/2009

Alice K., I know members of the Rinaldi family both in Florida and Connecticut. I don't know who this person is who seems to be in Florida who is directing their anger toward the Connecticut side of the family, but this is not something I am hearing from the members that I know. I don't believe this is a widespread view among these family members. All I am hearing from them is anger directed at Frank and sometimes his mother. I have actually heard a number of very positive statements from Rinaldi family members in Florida about Rinaldi family members in Connecticut, and I know several have been communicating with one another recently.
 

Alice K      7:29 PM Sun 11/22/2009

The relatives of Frank did not "support him" and all knew of his penchant to be cruel and obnoxious. And they are not hanging their heads in shame today. Sorry to disappoint you Friend of FL.
Direct your bitterness to the deceased. For the last time, all evidence points to Frank being at least an accomplice in the murder. I don't know of anyone in the family who rallied around Frank on this issue. All spoke very highly of Lucille. To my knowledge, Frank never even spoke of this tragedy. Stop the Florida versus CT nonsense.
 

Friend of the FL Rinaldi's      5:05 PM Sun 11/22/2009

Well said Mr. Mann, I hope that the FL Rinaldi's and the Beggs will be able to connect a bridge that had been broken so many years ago.
The family and friends that supported the behavior of Frank Rinaldi for all these years should hang their heads in shame and embarrassment now. Frank Rinaldi has now gotten his final judgement and I feel sure that he is not singing with a choir of angels!
 

A Friend of the Family      4:57 PM Sun 11/22/2009

So how should a person respond to this? A very close family member is killed by someone. The murder case is handled poorly and the most damaging evidence cannot be presented to the jury, and the suspect is acquitted. Subsequently even more damaging evidence comes out supporting this person killed your family member. After the acquittal several of your family members become broken and dispirited at the breakdown of the legal system and remain so for the rest of their lives. At the same time the person you are certain killed your close family member lives a few miles from your home and you see them numerous times as you run errands. Do you really just say “Oh well, the legal system is not perfect, and I’ll just forget this”, or do you become somewhat bitter and perhaps mount a campaign to make the community know this person should have been found guilty even after they died.
 

G. Stevenson      4:35 PM Sun 11/22/2009

No matter how much is known or not known about Frank Rinaldi, the fact remains the same: only he and God know for sure if he is guilty. Unfortunately, a large percentage of people delight in the misery of others. I wonder how many of them would be happy if this were about someone in their family. And make no mistake, we can never be certain that something negative will not touch us or our loves ones.. We are no better than the next person - just a lot luckier by the grace of God. If he did indeed commit this crime, or orchestrated it, it goes without saying that he should have been found guilty. But since he was acquitted by the only system we have in this country we have to accept that. Final judgment is not for us to dole out - it is done by one who judges ALL of us.
 

Charly Mann      3:27 PM Sun 11/22/2009

Hello Todd,

I think you are correct about the second jury. With the evidence they heard a not-guilty verdict was their only choice. As you may know almost all the physical evidence was kept out including the shirt Frank was wearing at the time of the murder that had Lucille’s blood on it.

I think a better prosecutor could have gotten a conviction if he had shown how the shopping alibi had major flaws in it, that Frank had a history of hitting Lucille, that he also was largely dependent on Lucille’s money and if she divorced him he would be almost destitute. There was also evidence in Waterbury about Frank’ violent and angry nature before 1963 that was not investigated or introduced. The question Todd is with all we now know should we consider Frank guilty. Countless times we learn of a convicted felon being set free when new evidence is discovered. In most instances, this evidence is something that by negligence was kept out of the original trial. I do not know of any other case when there was such an inept and over-worked prosecutor who was not even from the community and had to work without the main physical evidence, and also failed to present or overlooked so much other evidence.

 

Todd A. Majo      2:44 PM Sun 11/22/2009

<< There is a poll in the Waterbury paper about whether you believe Frank killed Lucille....They are asking people with little background knowledge to vote on his guilt.... the majority do say he was guilty. >>

The fact remains that the 12 member jury who heard all of the
witnesses' testimony firsthand and evaluated all of the legally admissable evidence presented by both sides believed that he was not guilty. I think it's quite possible that his defense lawyers presented additional evidence at the retrial. Someone should interview Frank's lead defense lawyer Barry Winston, or at least try to get a statement from him...that would be interesting.




 

cousin      2:41 PM Sun 11/22/2009

For all the family and friends of Frank, was Frank aware of how many disliked him? As quoted in Waterbury paper, Lucille once said he had a "monumental inferiority complex."

 

Katie R.      1:17 PM Sun 11/22/2009

There is a poll in the Waterbury paper about whether you believe Frank killed Lucille. This is unfortunate because the article that is in the paper goes into little detail about the evidence in the case, or the brutal stories being conveyed in the comments here. They are asking people with little background knowledge to vote on his guilt. Because few details of the case were presented, many in the poll are saying they are “unsure”, even though the majority do say he was guilty.
 

Charly Mann      12:54 PM Sun 11/22/2009

Hello friend of the Florida Rinaldi’s,

From the phone calls and e-mails I have been receiving from the Florida Rinaldi family, as well as the Begg family and other of Frank’s relations in Connecticut, it seems that talking and reliving some of the suppressed details of this man’s life has been a positive and connecting experience. I guess the question is when enough is enough. As more details come out it also seems that there is a certainty about things that have only been suspected, and a bonding of many of these victims that is for the good.

I believe that what this is all really about is honoring Lucille, Pete Rinaldi, and Bill Begg for their suffering at Frank’s hand, and most importantly a profile of the type of person that we all want to be able to quickly identify and avoid in our own lives.

 

A former student of Frank Rinaldi      12:28 PM Sun 11/22/2009

There was a long article on Frank Rinaldi and the murder in the Waterbury Republican American today. The reporter did not seem to be able to find anyone who liked Frank or thought he was not Lucille’s murderer. The highlight of the piece for me was a quote from 81 year old Henry A. Kogut who had known Lucille. His reaction to Frank Ribaldi’s death was, “I’m glad I outlived him. I might go and pee on his grave.”


 

A Friend of the FL Rinaldi's      11:59 AM Sun 11/22/2009

Frank Rinaldi is not worth the ink that it costs to print all the comments that have been made and the memories of the horror of that time that have been re surfaced.
Let the Florida Rinaldi's and the Begg Family finally put this to rest.
Frank Rinaldi and his parents have now been exposed for the people that they truly were: A murderer and a mother who lied for him to everyone she knew, including her other son and his family.
What a shame that all these people need to relive those awful memories.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      10:46 AM Sun 11/22/2009

I think Eric N's account of Frank speaks volumes about the kind of person he was and his violent temper. For those who still don't believe he did it, wake up and smell the coffee. This man was out of control his entire life.
 

Adrian Snow      9:41 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Frank Rinaldi makes Norman Bates seem normal. How can one read these stories from people who knew him well and not think he killed his wife?
 

eric n      8:58 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Frank r. was my neighbor and landlord for almost 8 yrs here in wtby I've been witness to many strange things in regards to him and mother dora....i used to hear the rumors even as a child living on byrneside ave. yet never knew the true story until I read this article... In my opinion he is 100percent guilty I used to over hear him scream at his mother at the top of his lungs on a daily basis even when she was in her 80s and frail he was always threatening and violent towards her it seemed... me and my direct family can re-call 1 specific time where he fought banged and screamed w. dora for over n hr we didn't hear his mothers voice for a few days after this and as he went on a tripp to las vegas we actually checked on her and made sure she was still alive......i have many odd stories that have unfolded threw my time living 10feet from him and his mother....i would also like to add that if there are any direct family members reading this , you should realllly sort threw all the information Frank kept hidden in his basement "literally" as he never wanted me or my family going down there and reading threw his life as he kept soo much information down there from newspaper clippings too journals too everything in between I moved out of that apt a few yrs back but highly doubt it has changed much.....
 

Charly Mann      7:06 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Few similarities to the Sam Shepherd Murder Case

Sam Shepherd was never known to have said he wanted someone to kill his wife. All of Sam Shepherd’s family believed in his innocence and fought even after his death to clear his name. Though Sam Shepherd was unfaithful to his wife he never wanted to a divorce, and neither did his wife. Unlike Rinaldi, Shepherd made a very good income as a doctor. The case and evidence against Shepherd was never very strong. The jury said the most important evidence was that Shepherd was being unfaithful to his wife. It was clear in the Rinaldi case that he was having sexual relationships with other men during his marriage, yet this did not help convict Frank.

Finally there was always a good suspect of who killed Sam Shepherd’s wife, Richard Eberling who had done work at the Shepherd home. He was a convicted house thief, and was found with a ring of Sam Shepherd’s wife. The Shepherd murder scene always looked like a bungled robbery attempt. There was no sign of break in or robbery at the Rinaldi murder crime scene. Lucille still had on her diamond engagement ring.

 

Buck Cavamoldi      6:36 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Uncanny parallels with the Sam Sheppard case. This was an infamous and controversial murder case - he was convicted of the murder of his pregnant wife. Sheppard served almost a decade in the Ohio Penitentiary before his 1954 conviction was overturned and declared a miscarriage of justice. In 1966, he was acquitted in a new trial. A BADLY DENTED FLASHLIGHT WAS DISCOVERED IN LAKE ERIE NEAR THE SHEPPARD HOME, AND MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE MURDER WEAPON.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      6:07 PM Sat 11/21/2009

11-21-09

My e-mail address is dianehawkins56@aol.com.

If anyone would like to contact me directly with any comments, please do so. I will not publish your remarks on this website or any other website. You have my word. Please identify yourselves, though.

It is important to the Florida Rinaldis to hear honest observations by others, relatives or not, which they might be reluctant to post in a public forum.

Thank you.
 

Baldwin Fuller      5:50 PM Sat 11/21/2009

What a sad and tragic story. I read a comment here that Mr. Rinaldi beat his bride on their honeymoon. Then he apparently killed her--or orchestrated her murder. I can't help but wonder what kind of relationship and courtship they had. Their marriage---and pregnancy--both seem to have been incredibly ill-conceived. If ever a marriage needed to be annulled, it was this one.
 

Charly Mann      5:41 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Giving Mr Sipp every benefit of the doubt, Frank and him were in downtown Chapel Hill - within several hundred feet of Frank's house during the time the murder is suppose to have occurred. They each went into separate stores. As I recall Sipp spent some time in the Post Office. At Roses - which is a large store - Sipp had a conversation with an employee who does not recall seeing Frank. Frank would need less than ten minutes (perhaps five) to go to the house and kill Louise and reappear on Franklin Street.

The question still needs to be asked why did Frank need to go Christmas shopping with Sipp a block away from his house? Do two people really stick together for every minute when shopping on a main street with more than sixty stores?

Another fact that I did not bring up the article is that Frank had little money of own, and was being largely supported by Lucille. She had had a fight with him for spending so much of her money - on himself - and he became so angry at her that he hit her. This is a fact I wish had been brought out in the trial.
 

Larry S.      4:58 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Thanks for the information, Mr. Majo. I think you're right, he had to be contacted by someone recently about this case. I wonder if like all Frank's relatives, if he, too, now sees the case differently. I wonder?
 

Todd A. Majo      4:52 PM Sat 11/21/2009

<< After reading the article again, the alibi of being with Mr. Sipp must have been Rinaldi's only defense. Is Mr. Sipp still alive? If he is I wonder what his take on all this? >>

Sipp is still alive I believe. Here is a video of him: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4xnwAeuADk

Here is his web site: http://www.jfsipp.com/aboutus

I would think Mr. Mann has been in contact with him.


 

Carolina Girl      4:47 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Brett,

The John Sipp Insurance Agency is still operating in Durham (that's where I live now), though I am not certain whether he is still alive. The story as I read it seems to imply that he was the "other man" in this situation, and may have also been aware of Frank's plans for Lucille. So I am not sure if he would be a particularly good person to provide objective commentary on this discussion.
 

Mandy P.      4:43 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Alice K. - I'm not sure how long you have been following this discussion. I came in about 5 days ago. I have read all of the comments, and what is most amazing is when this started most people seemed to think Frank was not guilty or that we should at least honor the decision of the jury in acquitting him, and just get over it. In the last few days as more people who knew Frank entered the discussion, especially today, everyone seems to agree that he was guilty of murdering his wife, and the argument has shifted to whether one anonymous person has gone a overboard in condemning relatives who went to his funeral.

I'm not saying that you are not making a valid point Alice. I'm just reflecting on how much the consensus has changed as more information has come out about Frank Rinaldi.
 

Brett R.      4:39 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Bill, yes I have seen the Fugitive movie and if it was anything like the TV show in the sixties, it could have had an influence on the jury. But could they be so shallow?

After reading the article again, the alibi of being with Mr. Sipp must have been Rinaldi's only defense. Is Mr. Sipp still alive? If he is I wonder what his take on all this?
 

Alice K.      4:11 PM Sat 11/21/2009

I don't see where anyone here disagrees on the basic fact that this guy is guilty of the crime - everyone seems to accept this. You desrve to rot in hell for going to a service? I just read the obit - he left 2 aunts, an uncle, and cousins too. Blame the NC justice system for his acquittal, not his family. It seems they thought little of him too.
 

Bill B.      4:08 PM Sat 11/21/2009

I'm going to change the subject a little.

I remember that the television show "The Fugitive" was popular some during this time period. The premise of that show was that a man was falsely convicted of murdering his wife. Supposedly that was somewhat based on a Doctor Sam Shephherd who was convicted of it and later some doubted his guilt.

I wonder if that television show may have falsely led people to exonerate Frank R in their mind.

Not a definite but I wonder if anybody may have thoughts on this. Maybe it is out of line and time to get past it, but it was a thought of mine.
 

Joey      3:41 PM Sat 11/21/2009

The obit indicated that he had cousins, and, of course, the family of the cousins. Do they count? Look, I can't believe that anyone admired this guy or that anyone shed any tears for him. But, the venom here is misdirected.


 

Friend of the Family      3:29 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Hey Joey, I'm not really trying to take anyone's side in this, but when you say out of respect for the surviving members of the family, who are you talking about? Frank's parents are dead. His brother, who hated him and thought he killed his wife, is dead. His two nieces and nephew despise Frank, and also seem to believe he was guilty of murder. So I can't quite understand what relatives you are paying respects to.
 

Joey      3:16 PM Sat 11/21/2009

I still haven't seen where anyone gave Frank a "pass". Social Conscience should realize that attending one's funeral services is as much out of the respect of the survivng family members as it is for the deceased. I pray for you Social Conscience that no one damns you to hell for being decent toward another human being. That is sick.
 

Carolina Girl      2:57 PM Sat 11/21/2009

First off, I've always thought Only the Good Die Young is Billy Joel's best song.

I just received an e-mail from someone who knew about Frank's history after the murder trial, and he told me that for the first twenty or twenty-five years, he just lived at home off of his parents. He did teach one year during that period at the University of Massechusetts as a part-time instructor once a week. Much later in life, when he was past the age of 60 I believe, he got a job teaching at a small arts college close to his home.

You need to remember that in the second trial where Frank was found not guilty (that is, beyond a reasonable doubt), the jury was not presented the physical evidence, including the bloody shirt and pants that Frank had on, the blood-stained pillow in the house, and the dented flashlight. The jury also was not made aware that there were many holes in his alibi, nor that he had previously beaten his wife on their honeymoon.

It seems to me that hearing the evidence presented against Mr. Rinaldi one can see how the jury found him not guilty.
 

Todd A. Majo      2:26 PM Sat 11/21/2009

I am surprised Dr. Rinaldi was hired as a college professor by more than one college. Perhaps he forgot to mention on his application that he was convicted of murder, albeit subsequently exonerated. Someone mentioned that his mother was "The Wicked Witch of the East" and someone else mentioned that she passed away at the age of 103. If both of these statements are true, then Billy Joel was right: only the good die young. Did retrial jury members ever make any statements about their not guilty verdict? There must have been some reason(s).
 

Social Conscience      2:17 PM Sat 11/21/2009

One need not make any wishes towards Joey, as it appears you are fanning the flames at the gates of hell. Society understands parents having undying love for their children. Parents can not think objectively when their children stray. Why Joey would drag in deceased parents is not right. The Rinaldi family were cursed with this mutant named Frank. Most Rinaldi family members made the right moral choice. Those family members who have spoken out against this evil person had a tougher position to take than the Begg family. For those who knew Frank committed murder, yet gave him a pass, you should rot in hell. It is unbelievable that anyone who knew Frank committed murder would actually show up at a funeral for "last respects", including you, mangini.
 

Bill B.      2:02 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Thank you Charly for your clarification, your extensive research on this tragic event I remember from my childhood and for the magnificent web-site you produce on Chapel Hill memories.

From the sheer volume of comments, it is evident that you have certainly brought up a subject that is of great interest to so many people, particularly to the Begg and Rinaldi families. It is wonderful and commendable that you have played a role in bringing some peace to these two families.
 

Charly Mann      1:51 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Hello Joey and Bill,

I admire both of you very much for your well thought out positions. I can tell you that I have spoken many times recently with the surviving members of the Begg family, and while there is some anger among them, I know for a fact that they are not writing these comments today. I think the comments come from members of Frank's family. One of my favorite lines from Jesus is "he who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone." I can tell you that in my many years on earth I have met very few really admirable people and no one who is perfect. Every one of the Beggs and Rinaldis who I have gotten to know are among the most remarkable, strongest, and even-tempered people I have ever been acquainted with. I know that there are members of the Rinaldi family who have been reliving a lot of their own personal abuse from Frank for the last week, and have eaten little and hardly slept at all. I think it is probably under such conditions of stress and torment that some of these statements are made.
 

Joey      1:31 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Charly,

I don't see where there are any people on Frank's side. I think that there are people who are not as vehement in their outrage of Frank's character only because maybe they were never a recipient of his bizarre and twisted behavior. All evidence points to his being the murderer or at least an accomplice. It's agreed that Frank was a sorry individual and in need of help. My point is that the relatives and acquaintences of Frank should not be lambasted because they were in his company. When they go to church tomorrow, I hope that those who are condemning people to rot in hell, pray for the repose of the souls of Lucille, her unborn child, and all others victimized by this crime and pray also that their vengeful and cruel intentions be forgiven.
 

Bill B.      1:30 PM Sat 11/21/2009

I am not without sympathy for the victims nor do I beleive that that Frank R. is innocent of the crime. I'm also grateful for the research done by Mr. Mann.

I however know of no scriputural basis that promotes a person to wish for the condemnation of anybody to hell particularly simply because another person shares a different view then their own. I do not believe that Joey said he thought Frank R. is innocent or anything in his post implied such.

If this catharsis is needed, I pray that all find peace.

I have not heard that there is any requirement that we leave an E-mail or that those who do so are superior. It does state that an E-mail address is optional.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      1:23 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Joey,
Just to set the record straight. His father knew he was guilty as sin. Unfortunately, he was under the thumb of Frank and the wicked witch of the East, Dora and wasn't allowed to voice his opinion. Anyway, ding dong, the witch is dead and so is Frank. I have to wonder how close you could have been to either of them to expect the survivors to forgive the unspeakable misery that they caused everyone around them. I believe that Dora thought he was innocent but that's only because she was in denial about all the things he did. Everyone else was afraid of the wrath of Frank. He was a big baby that couldn't stand not to get his way. Wah Wah!
 

Stevie Taylor      1:14 PM Sat 11/21/2009

I think some of you talking about Christians not showing anger is nonsense. Holy anger is as Christian as one can get. It is anger over evil, injustice, falsehood, abuse, neglect, warmongering, fear-mongering, and racism. From what I read here many considered Frank evil and abusive. Many others see injustice in the outcome of the murder trial. In this case a good Christian should be angry, and I am.
 

Charly Mann      12:42 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Hello Joey,

I cannot say I’m totally impartial in this discussion, but there have been a number of people on both sides of the issue. Interestingly almost everyone who strongly supports Frank neither leaves a full name or e-mail address (Those who say the most negative things about him have always left one or both.)

Finally it seems from careful reading of the comments only one or two people have condemned those who did not take a stand about Frank. I think these are also people who endured the most misery as a result of Frank and his mother, and I believe such anger at the time might be cathartic.

If you have positive things to say about Frank I welcome your comments. If you think he did not kill his wife Lucille, I would especially like to know why. Every day I receive more negative information about Frank by e-mail. Yesterday someone even reported that shortly after the murder Frank told them they would eventually die at his hands.

Finally I think there is some evidence that Frank’s father thought he was guilty.

 

Bill B.      12:22 PM Sat 11/21/2009

Excellant Point Joey,

I was trying to think how to (or if I should) respond to the post by people who were obviously hurting and I think your Christian witness is the good.
 

Joey      11:55 AM Sat 11/21/2009

I'm sure Frank Rinaldi's parents thought he was innocent too. Do you wish your grandparents eternity in hell also? That's pretty cold. You should never condemn anyone who is kind to another human being. As a Christian, I am all for forgiveness, as Jesus was. I hope, for your sake, that in time the anger and hatred you are all feeling will wane. My only feeling is profound sorrow for the victims of this crime and their families. Condemning people to hell "to rot" is beyond the scope of evil. Too much hate on the site for me.
 

Diane Rinaldi Hawkins      11:23 AM Sat 11/21/2009

11-21-09

Two nights ago, Dr. Bill Begg called me, and we had a wonderful conversation for about half an hour. He and his brothers have no memory of their Aunt Lucille and were anxious to know anything I could relate about her as I was 7 when she died and had spent time with her. He told me about what his family had gone through as a result of Lucille's death and Frank Rinaldi's acquittal. The Beggs were and are good people. I will not divulge anything here; but, the suffering of the Begg Family was unspeakable.

The Rinaldi and Begg families have been brought together again, this time in sympathy and friendship. We will keep in touch by e-mail. Also, if Bill
Begg and his family come to Florida, we are going to have dinner with them. Aunt Lucille, Bill Begg, Jr., and Paul (Pete) Rinaldi, Jr., I believe, are resting easier as a result.

My deepest thanks to Charly Mann for keeping this story alive and for making it possible for these two families to come together once again.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      10:02 AM Sat 11/21/2009

Frank had a B.A. an M.A. and a PhD but he couldn"t hold down a J.O.B.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      9:24 AM Sat 11/21/2009

I also would like to add that I agree with Social Conscience and I pray that all the gutless people that were too afraid to call a murderer a murderer and distance themselves from this sick person will spend eternity stuck right next to him. He's surely on that southbound train now, next stop Hell and if there's any justice at all the gutless ones will soon get their boarding passes as well.
 

marie      9:10 AM Sat 11/21/2009

Wow. I have known frank rinaldi for many years. I have always heard the rumor about a murder and his wife but no-one could confirm. Once reading this article my sympathy goes out to lucille, her unborn child and her family. I have seen this man practicaly everyday and to think of the awful crime he commited and got away with. Incredible story would love to hear more.
 

Thomas Rinaldi      9:02 AM Sat 11/21/2009

I am Frank's nephew and I can tell you that he terrorized every family member that he ever encountered. He had a violent temper and I saw it portrayed on many occasions. He lived with his parents because he was uncapable of suppoting himself due to his extreme laziness. He made my grandfather's life miserable by degrading him over such trivial things as making a bad bid in Pinochle to the point where you had to feel sorry for anybody that had to have contact with this warped human being. He was completely devoid of conscience as he demonstrated over and over by browbeating people into seeing things his way. I will never forget, on one Christmas after all the Chapel Hill stuff that he came to our house and my older sister had gotten a Chatty Cathy doll as a present and he pulled down the doll's pants and smeared mustard from our refrigerator on her rear end and proceeded to beat this doll so violently that her eyes rolled back in her head and it was ruined and he proceeded to laugh and never payed to buy a new one or felt any remorse for what he had done. To this day I have never seen anyone act as distubing as this again. I suspect he treated his wife the same way and had an equal amount of lack of remorse in her killing. He was a sick man with a terrible temper but everyone was afraid of him so the entire family pretended that he was OK when they all knew deep down inside that he was a murderer. He was a terrible role model for any children that came in contact with him, encouraging shoplifting, smoking, dishonesty, and intimdation to all the children that had the misfortune of knowing him. I am trying to think of one redeeming quality of this misfit of society but I am drawing a total blank. I can tell you this, the world is a better place without this sick depraved sociopath.
 

marie      8:43 AM Sat 11/21/2009

I knew mr. rinaldi for many years. Being from waterbury myself i have heard the rumors that he had killed his wife.When questioning others they all responded it was only a rumor. I have seen this man everyday practically for many years and never thought of him as a killer.Odd at times yes. I was shocked to hear about his passing but more shocked by this story. My sympathy to lucille, her unborn child and family. wow what a amazing article. thanks so much.
 

Social Conscience      7:35 AM Sat 11/21/2009

Mr. Mangini's comments are quite disturbing. Someone like his student who had no idea of his deviant past get a social 'pass'. Those friends and family who knew he killed his pregnant wife had a choice to make regardless of the legal system breakdown. Many friends and Rinaldi relatives did disassociate themselves from this 1960's version of OJ Simpson. For those friends and family who continued to keep this person in their lives, I pray you all rot in hell with Lucifer and frank rinaldi, who are really one in the same.
 

Bill B.      8:22 PM Fri 11/20/2009

Mandy P.

I never met Mr. R. I only heard about his trial because I was a child living in Chapel Hill at the time of the murder. I remember people talking about it but did not really understand the issues involved such particularly homosexuality. I have some memory about an insurance policy and offer of the payment to another man to commit the crime.

My only information regarding him is from this thorough article
by Charlie and the comments and follow up. My mother had very limited contact with Mr. R, but again I was a child and never met him. And as I said, my mom thought he was innocent (I think from the evidence she was wrong and knowledge of other cases like the OJ case helps me see in in perspective). I am not in a position now to ask why mother thought that as she suffers some from dementia.

I am fascinated by this because of the questions raised in the comments and it is interesting to me that Dr. R could do this, but nobody put their finger on any specific other crime he commited. I have opinions only on the basis of what is written here and follow-up such as the obit. It is strictly curiosity and my interest in human nature, crime, punishment and justice. I trust everybody has written based on their knowledge and experience and has expressed honest opinions and can see the truth differenly.
 

Mandy P.      6:49 PM Fri 11/20/2009

I must admit as I continue reading these comments that I very much enjoy the ones from Bill B. I am interested to know whether he knew Frank Rinaldi and if so, how he would describe him. I have known two people in my life who knew the man. One thought he was a terrible person and probably a killer. The other thought he was a benign and rather normal person.
 

Bill B.      6:40 PM Fri 11/20/2009

Maybe a lesson is that people have various parts within them. Those capable of extreme evil can also have good qualities in other aspects of their life.

I have worked (volunteer and auditing) in prisons (maximum security). I generally don't even know exactly what the prisoners have done to be there but I suspect it generally is not from taking money out of the church collection plate.

Many of these men are honorable when under the security and discipline and religious guidance that they can receive in confinement. Others become worse under these conditions.
 

Rick B      5:18 PM Fri 11/20/2009

Im totally shocked. Totally.
I was a student of Dr Rinaldi's from 2001-2005, and had NO idea anything of this sort had existed.
I just found out today through a friend that Dr Rinaldi died, and found this article while searching for his obituary.
It's amazing.
That's all I can say.
Ive always been fond of Dr Rinaldi and have always said that he was the best english teacher Id ever had. He introduced many wonderful things to us that have, and will forever enrich my life. For that, I am grateful to him.
His teaching methods were., to say the very least, unconventional. But they worked.
He was a great teacher.
It was entirely apparent that he was also a disturbed man. I just thought it was a quirk.
Like many, if not most, of the things that you find on the internet, I cant take this at face value. I have no idea if any of this is true. If it isnt, Im sorry for you. To put something like this out there about a man that many respected would be a terrible thing.
If it is...well. Like I said, its just amazing.



 

Peter Mangini      3:45 PM Fri 11/20/2009

At Frank's service this morning relatives and friends alike bemoaned the life of a brilliant but complicated man who frustrated those even close to him. His life was tragic by his own choosing. I believe that his relatives and friends, in the final analysis, proved to be tolerant of a man who seemed incapable of reciprocating their affection.
 

Carol P      1:44 PM Fri 11/20/2009

This discussion is fascinating. I would like to ask if Rinaldi had been found guilty, and had just died after spending the last 46 years in prison, are there those looking at the evidence that was presented in this article who would feel Rinaldi was wrongly imprisoned? Who among you would be saying, "it is unfortunate Rinaldi was found guilty because I think he was not guilty, but the jury has spoken and we must accept their decision."?
 

Ramon Sanchez      12:00 PM Fri 11/20/2009

Juries are indeed human - and what they see as evidence and how well a case is presented makes a huge difference. How would you feel if someone you really cared for was murdered, and the likely culprit got off because of a sloppy case and highly incriminating evidence not being allowed to be presented to the jury? This lack of justice is something that many people have to live with, and from what I have seen destroys many people internally. I have seen this many times as a former police officer in San Antonio, Texas.

I think the evidence more than speaks for itself in this case.

 

Bill B.      11:44 AM Fri 11/20/2009

I think we can think about this a different way. Juries are human.

We are right to worry seriously about convicting an innocent person. If we take every precaution to avoid convicting an innocent person, inevitably we will let guilty ones free, since human beings do not have perfect knowledge.

This is the hard part of the American Justice system or any system run by human beings.

Our system (rightly I think) puts the heavier burden on the prosecution. This is one example where I think the jury got it wrong.

I appologize to Mr Begg, that we have similar names and hope people don't get us confused, and I sympathize with you for your loss.
 

Shannon Wright      8:00 AM Fri 11/20/2009

Well said, Carl!

For some reason, it seems that many people have difficulty acknowledging that truly evil people exist in this world. As Bill B. astutely said, "most people can't think of a person they know as a murderer" and I think, more broadly, that many people cannot think of anyone as evil.

Therefore it may be easier for some people to either search for excuses for bad behavior or to attack those who analyze the facts and come to the conclusion someone is guilty of doing wrong, than to recognize that some people may have committed a violent crime with purely selfish motives that they themselves cannot imagine having.

I have known many evil people in my life and it is very important to be able to see them for what they are, recognize the threat that they pose, and extricate oneself from relations with them. We should all learn this lesson from a story such as this.
 

Carl Peterson      7:01 AM Fri 11/20/2009

I have been following this discussion for a few day and would now like to join it. Pure and simple this is a case about justice. We often hear about people convicted of serious crimes being set free because of new evidence or malfeasance by a judge or jury. In this case a man was acquitted it seems because he was able to have evidence prevented from being introduced, and was lucky to have a great defense attorney and a weak prosecutor. Since then more information seems to have come to light about this man that make his guilt more likely, and the evidence has been presented in a cohesive way that make me think a jury today would convict him.

So we are outraged and fight when someone is convicted of a crime they may not have commited because they had poor legal representation, corrupt police, or new evidence, why can't we be equally outraged in a case like this even though the killer is now dead. I think there are many lessons we can learn from the miscarriage of justice.

 

Yale Street      2:15 AM Fri 11/20/2009

Today Frank's remains will be buried but this story will linger for some time. While we all have our opinions about what really happened and who was responsible for this horrific murder, the fact is nothing can be done now. We can attack Frank's character but, if he were, indeed, a sociopath (as Charly contends he was and I cannot deny) and he were alive today, he wouldn't care in the least about all this commotion. Sociopaths are void of conscience. They are emotionally and sentimentally bankrupt.

Going forward, I just hope that all the innuendo posted on this site be tempered with the disclaimer that the only fact that matters, in this case, was that a jury panel in Trial II found Frank not guilty. For those who are convinced that Frank was guilty and sidestepped justice here on earth, and if you believe in an afterlife where a deity will ultimately mete out justice, take solace now then that he has been punished for this crime. That's the best you can hope for.
 

Victor Hearn      4:12 PM Thu 11/19/2009

I am surprised to see comments from relatives of both Frank Rinaldi's and Lucille's family saying essentially the same thing; that Frank was a cruel and evil man. I wonder if they are also convinced that he killed Lucille?
 

William V Begg III      10:54 AM Thu 11/19/2009

As the oldest living relative of Lucille Begg, I would like to thank Charly Mann for all that he has done to keep the memory of my aunt alive. This double murder of my aunt and my cousin still burns in our memories. Charly is a stand up person with no family ties to the Begg clan, who has been a beacon shining a light on all the injustices that transpired relating to my aunt's and my unborn cousin's cold-blooded murder in 1963. Bill Begg (b.1963) [I am not Bill B from previous posts]
 

Mary Forbert      9:16 AM Thu 11/19/2009

I have been on a murder jury and it is a very weighty responsibility. I tried to look at the victim as I would if it had been my sister, daughter, or girlfriend. I did this not because I wanted to put just anyone away as vengeance for a murder, but because it kept me away from the far out things detectives discover in movies or crime books. In real life murder is extremely rare, and the victim almost always knows their killer. Random senseless acts of murder are very rare, but do happen in certain places. The fact that this community was devoid of violent crime, and this was perhaps the first murder in its history, make it statically improbable that this was a random act. The circumstantial evidence is enough to convince me that Frank Rinaldi with or without the help of a friend, or someone he paid, killed his wife. The withheld evidence makes the case even stronger.
 

Charly Mann      10:01 AM Wed 11/18/2009

Several people have asked me through comments and e-mail about what Frank Rinaldi did before and after the murder.

He graduated from Georgetown University in 1951. Then he was in the army for about two years. After that he did some work at the CIA for about a year. In 1956 he enrolled in UNC for a year. He then got a job as an instructor at The University of Missouri. That job lasted a year, and he left to work in advertising in New York City. That job also lasted for about a year, and then in 1960 he came back to UNC to work on a PhD in English. I do not believe he received his PhD in English at UNC. Interestingly his obituary does not mention his attendance at UNC. It does say he attended the University of Massachusetts, so I assume that is where he eventually got his PhD.

After his wife's murder and acquittal he lived the rest of his life with his parents. Several of his relatives say that he took financial advantage of them, but I will let them comment on this.

In his obituary it states he became Dean of Paier School of Art in Hamden. There is no mention of when he started or ended his career there. Paier is a very small school that teaches fine art, so I am not sure what his responsibilities were there with a PhD in English. The school has about 300 students. It also has two individuals with the title of Dean, two with the title of chairman, and one who is called Director.

 

Bill B.      9:23 AM Wed 11/18/2009

Well said Sharon K.

I hope your life is better.
 

Sharon K.      8:51 AM Wed 11/18/2009

After reading this piece and the comments it is obvious to me that this man is responsible for the death of his wife. I was the victim of domestic violence from a man who was not only smart, funny, and handsome, but was also a physician. Few of my friends would want to admit that this man could do this to me. It was not until years later that he was arrested for breaking the arm and nose of his second wife did these people believe me.

Lucille Rinaldi moved to Chapel Hill with all her possessions to start a year of teaching school. Then she leaves the day after her job starts because of domestic problems. I can tell you from experience, the only thing that makes someone leave a situation like this so suddenly is fear. In 1963 few people knew or talked about domestic violence. Unfortunately his charm induced her to visit him again, and she paid the price. How much other evidence do we need? The double indemnity insurance policy, offering $500 to another man to kill Lucille, the propensity for angry outbursts that his relatives talk about, his callowness in jail with his brother when he wanted the ring back, and someone else who knew him calling him "pure evil".
This is not a man or case we should forget. It is a lesson to other women about how charm and intelligence can easily induce us into dangerous relations. We all need to more vigilant about a man's character.

 

Diane Hawkins      7:29 AM Wed 11/18/2009

Dear J. Struffet:

Thank you very much for your kind words about my father.
 

Barbara Thompson      4:44 AM Wed 11/18/2009

His CIA work was before the murder and trial.
 

John Vittles      12:49 AM Wed 11/18/2009

I hope that after Frank's funeral on Friday that this whole affair is put to rest.

Mr. Mann: given your investment in this case, do you plan attend the services?
 

Manny Cotta      12:20 AM Wed 11/18/2009

Is Barry Winston aware of Frank's death? Wy hasn't the star witness, Mr. Sipp, wieghed in on this subject?
 

Bill B      11:15 PM Tue 11/17/2009

His obituary is here.

http://www.albinifuneralhome.com/econdolence/?name=Alfred%20J.
They are not accepting E-condolences.

Hmmm, I wonder why not.
 

Bill B.      11:13 PM Tue 11/17/2009

I finally read his obituary, it appears that Frank R. worked for the CIA and retired as a dean of a College. I wonder if his CIA work was before or after the murder and trial etc.

 

Todd A. Majo      8:15 PM Tue 11/17/2009

Very good article. Apparently Barry Winston was (and is) one heck of a defense lawyer.
 

Diane Hawkins      7:08 PM Tue 11/17/2009

Who will write in next?

We've heard from Peter Mangini, Bambi Christiano, and J. Struffet.

Where are Paul Baliggio, Sam Craig, Maria Pishaporta, Joe Sapone?


 

Bill B.      4:00 PM Tue 11/17/2009

In reading all these comments, a lot is unsaid.

It is an interesting tragic story. I have some memory of it from when I lived in CH as a child (the second trial I think). I don't think I was sophisticated enough to even understand the aspects of homosexuality at the time and I don't remember that part of it. I remember that my Mom thought he was innocent. She had met him and I think in retrospect, most people can't think of a person they know as a murderer. We usually think they would have horns or something. I think just on the basic facts, he is guilty probably since there is no other logical explanation anybody has offered for this death.

I am interested however in how Mr. R lived the rest of his life (almost a half century). Did he commit any more crimes? What did he do, how did he support himself? Basic facts would be interesting, not betrayals of confidences, etc.
 

Charly Mann      3:28 PM Tue 11/17/2009

Hello J. Struffet,

I would love to get further information from you, but you did not leave your e-mail. My understanding is that all the relatives I have had communication with had regular contact with Frank from before the time of the murder until at least 20 years ago. They all finally stopped having contact with him because of his bad character and "anger". Others gave up on him because. as I was told, they could not forgive him for "1963", which is how some in the family referred to the murder of Lucille.

Just so you know it was twenty years ago that a member of Frank's family went to Chapel Hill and discovered some things that they had not known before, and it made them see the murder and Frank in an even more negative light. (If I get permission from them to release this information I will.)
 

J. Struffet      2:45 PM Tue 11/17/2009

I cannot dispute the ring story because Frank's brother was a real stand up man and universally loved and admired. But I don't know how current your information is regarding how close the existing relatives were to Frank. Some relatives of his had little or no contact with him in many years. Frank may have had some peculiar idiocyncrasies (don't we all) but murder? I don't know.
 

Amanda Huff      12:29 PM Tue 11/17/2009

Wonderful and thorough piece. It is hard to imagine that this was the first real murder in Chapel Hill history. Today much of downtown near where this murder happened seems so unsafe, and of course Eve Carson was recently killed not far from that murder scene.

I was surprised that one of the recent comments came from someone who thought Rinaldi was innocent. I hope he read your response that included information about how his own family saw him.
 

Charly Mann      10:20 AM Tue 11/17/2009

Hello Baldwin:

You claim to know something of Frank Rinaldi but do not indicate your source of that information or leave your email address so I can contact you. On the other hand I been contacted in the last few days by several of Frank's closest relatives. All of them indicate he was an unsavory, manipulative, and mean spirited individual. They also saw firsthand his terrifying anger on many occasions. One of these relatives even goes so far as to describe him as pure evil.

Following is a story I just received from one of Frank's closest relatives that gives a great insight into his character:

"Frank's brother visited Frank in jail right after the murder. Frank had asked him to go to Billy Begg, Lucille's brother, and ask to have him remove her engagement ring and return it to him. Frank's brother was appalled at his request. His wife is lying in the morgue, he is sitting in a jail cell and all he is concerned about is a diamond ring! Frank and his brother got into such a heated argument about it, the police officer asked Frank's brother to leave the jail. Frank's brother used to joke he was the only man ever thrown out of jail."

 

Barbara Thompsom      5:43 AM Tue 11/17/2009

Don't be naive, Baldwin. His meal ticket had just turned into his biggest liability. A wife with a kid on the way! He needed to turn it back into an asset. Desperate times.....

A monetery motive flimsly at best??? You counldn't have known him very well, his whole existence was about money!!! Except perhaps going out and making it for himself!!

 

Baldwin Fuller      11:12 PM Mon 11/16/2009

Frank Rinaldi was simply too brilliant to have committed this murder in the overt, transparent, and utterly sloppy fashion outlined in this story. The author doesn't allude to a scintilla of any violent or criminal behavior by Rinaldi prior to or following this murder. Nor does he explain what he may have wanted the insurance money for. He hardly had a luxurious lifestyle before or after this murder. A monetary motive is flimsy at best. He didn't do it.
 

Gloria Fratt      9:57 PM Mon 11/16/2009

It's amazing how much interest there is case after all these years. I wonder if Mr. Sipp had any contact with Mr. Rinaldi in the past 46 years? I suspect that they did maintain some contact.
 

Barbara Thompson      6:43 PM Mon 11/16/2009

AMEN! Bambi

Are you a relative? Because your name is very close to his grandmother's.

 

bambi christiano      6:17 PM Mon 11/16/2009

If you really want to get some in sight into Dr. Rinaldi, read his mother's obit, the whole thing is about him.
 

Patsy Merritt      3:23 PM Mon 11/16/2009

Rinaldi does not seem like a person who had any feelings for anyone but himself. I imagine even though he never experienced guilt or remorse over killing his wife his life was pure hell on earth until he died.

I would love to see a photograph of Lucille if you have one.
 

Joel McDaniel      10:08 AM Mon 11/16/2009

If I was going to make a movie or a book of this story I would call it "Justice takes a Holiday." I only knew a little about the Rinaldi muder case before reading this article, but must same it is a travesty of our legal system that a man could so obviously be responsible for another person's death and not be convicted. Where is the reasonable doubt in the case? As the article points out there are many holes in his shopping trip story.
 

Barbara Thompson      7:43 PM Sun 11/15/2009

I am also a relative, no big surprises here!

Mr. Mann fascinating article, if you are thinking of writing a book, don't hesitate to contact me.
 

Luann K.      4:04 PM Sun 11/15/2009

Wow. I just stumbled upon this site as I was looking for information about Frank Rinaldi's recent death. What an amazing piece of investigative reporting... and the timing of your publication of this is so incredibly eerie!

It is sad to hear that he was acquitted when it seems that even a 3rd rate prosecutor should have been able to nail him, even if he presented the circumstantial evidence just half as well as you did.

Reading the comments, I was not surprised to learn that you started writing a newspaper when you were 14. You must have been doing this kind of research and writing for many years to have honed this to such an art. This is better written than most newspaper articles. Are you a journalist by trade?
 

Si Miguel      3:02 PM Sun 11/15/2009

My bad, Charly.
 

Charly Mann      11:19 AM Sun 11/15/2009

Miguel - This indeed is the one and only article I have ever written on the Frank Rinaldi case anywhere. There was once in Chapel Hill Memories a scanned copy of a Chapel Hill Weekly newspaper article that was published soon after the murder.
 

Si Miguel      10:59 AM Sun 11/15/2009

Judy - fyi, this was not the first article Charly has written on this topic. That aside, obviously, the crime was heinous and whoever perpretrated this double murder should be brought to justice. To think that the original conviction was thrown out because of a homophobic prosecutor and jury panel, speaks volumes of 1964 North Carolina citizenry.
 

Judy Easter      10:42 AM Sun 11/15/2009

Your article is very well researched and balanced. I was surprised that one of Frank's relations left a comment that writing about the case was creepy.
What is creepy is the murder and that it has never been officially solved. He also did not seem to read the note that states your article was written and published before you knew Frank had died
 

Charly Mann      8:11 AM Sun 11/15/2009

Hello Peter. Chapel Hill Memories is a website that covers all aspects of Chapel Hill's history for more than 200 years. If you look at the array of articles that I have written on the people, places, and events in this community in the last 6 months since the website was started, you will clearly see that I am not at all fixated on the Frank Rinaldi murder case. This is one small part of this community's history. I do believe that justice was not served in this case, for many reasons that I bring up in the article. I hope that if you were to come across a similar situation in your community, where you felt someone had gotten away with murder, you would also be outraged.
 

Peter Mangini      10:58 PM Sat 11/14/2009

Yes, I am that Peter you refer to. I am the younger brother of Maria Maneesh who is famous for not knowing the days of the week too well.
 

Diane Hawkins      10:21 PM Sat 11/14/2009

I'm a relative of the deceased, too. I never knew Frank Rinaldi had any relative by the name of Peter Mangini.

Although I do recall him often using the phrase "when you put yourself with Peter Mangini".

Just what is your relation to Mr. Rinaldi?

 

Bill B      10:16 PM Sat 11/14/2009

Now maybe we can figure out who may have killed Nicole Simpson.
 

Peter Mangini      10:04 PM Sat 11/14/2009

Mr. Mann: as a relative of the deceased, I find it rather creepy that you continue to be so fixated on this case. I didn't realize that you were the arbiter of justice in North Carolina. The man is now dead, move on to your next quest.
 

Emily Watson      9:10 PM Sat 11/14/2009

If there is any correlation between your article and Frank Rinald's death then I say good riddance.
 

Mary Qualyari      8:38 PM Sat 11/14/2009

Mr. Mann: It sounds like you have a lot of information from your research. Have you considered writing a book about this case?
 

Charly Mann      8:13 PM Sat 11/14/2009

Hello Mary. The article was posted about noon on Friday. There is an individual who knew Rinaldi who I communicated with several times earlier last week who knew some of the things I was going to bring up in the piece who may have contacted him.

I have a lot of additional background information on Frank Rinaldi about his life before he came to Chapel Hill and after he left (soon after his acquittal). I believe there is evidence that he was a sociopath.
 

Mary Qualyari      7:34 PM Sat 11/14/2009

Mr.Mann: On what date and time was this story posted on the Internet?
 

Diane Hawkins      7:25 PM Sat 11/14/2009

The obituary should be printed in the next day or two. Try the following link:

www.rep-am.com/obituaries/

A very interesting article, Mr. Mann.

 

Charly Mann      6:40 PM Sat 11/14/2009

I had no idea Rinaldi had died. This is obviously a case of cosmic justice. It is extremely serendipitous.
 

Diane Hawkins      6:19 PM Sat 11/14/2009

I should add that he obviously lived alone. His mother died in August at the age of 103.
 

Diane Hawkins      6:15 PM Sat 11/14/2009

He wasn't discovered until today. He had been dead since probably late Thursday night or early Friday morning. Nobody knew until today.
 

Robert H      4:37 PM Sat 11/14/2009

Now that's weird! Did you know that Charlie and is that why you put out the story when you did?
 

Diane Hawkins      4:19 PM Sat 11/14/2009

11-14-09

Frank J. Rinaldi died yesterday in Waterbury, Connecticut, at the age of 80. He died in his sleep.
 

Brad Campbell      1:29 PM Sat 11/14/2009

So this man is free essentially because the Chapel Hill police made the mistake of collecting most of their evidence without a warrant, and Lucille Rinaldi is dead because she made the mistake of trusting her husband. This does not seem right.
 

Dan (Art) Gifford      11:03 AM Sat 11/14/2009

Great story, Robert!

That's classic Chief Blake speak and I can just picture him in my mind drawlin' out that line.

-Art
 

Robert H      8:17 AM Sat 11/14/2009

I am amazed that you keep all this stuff, your office or storage unit must be packed! I don't remember any of the details as you outlined but remember the murder and acquittal and the shock and disbelief of the community over it. I believe that many of those involved are deceased now so it's probably one of those cases that will never be solved officially but the facts as you outlined speak for themselves just as they did in the original trial.

On the humorous side of things, we were in CHHS at the time and I do remember Chief Blake's WCHL interview about the case that we turned into something quite different. At the time of the murder, there was a fried chicken place in Durham named Rinaldi's Fried Chicken; no know relation to Frank. Folks might remember that Chief was a very large man and his voice was scratchy/gruff and southern and when asked what the CHPD had done after the murder, he growled "Well, ......(long pause) we went down and picked up the baaadie." So for years, for what ever reason, our crowd would stick out our bellies and drawl "Well, we went down and picked up the baaadie, gimme another chicken!" And we'd all fall out laughing!

Thanks, as always, for your website and your articles, it is one of my favorites! Keep it up and good luck with your storage problems!!!
 

Brenda Dewey      5:56 PM Fri 11/13/2009

I wonder if this could be classified as a hate crime. I know killing a homosexual is often classified as one. This seems to be a case of a homosexual hating a heterosexual. This way there would be no double jeopardy for the murder charges, and I think there is no statute of limitations for hate crimes.
 

Hanna Voss      3:31 PM Fri 11/13/2009

This is what is wrong with our legal system. For lawyers it is just a game. They defend or prosecute depending on whose side they are assigned. I saw Barry Winston in action in a criminal case in the 1970s, and he was incredible. If Winston and Battle had been the prosecutors and Cooper was choosen to defend Rinaldi I have no doubt what the outcome would have been.

I wonder if lawyers ever feel remorse when they get a client off in a case like this that they know is probably guilty. I cannot recall a lawyer ever admitting, even years later, that they suspected someone they got off was not innocent.

 

Dan Gifford      2:15 PM Fri 11/13/2009

First class deductions and work, Charly. I was about to compliment you on your piece about the walk that changed your life. I had no idea your family had broken apart and that you basically raised yourself from 14 on. It's very good reading to reflect on.

As for this murder, the first thing that popped into my mind on reading about the double indemnity life insurance policy, the agent and the short time before the death was the Edward G. Robinson character's comment in "Double Indemnity" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036775/. You'll recall insurance agent Fred MacMurray had sold a DI policy to Barbara Stanwyck -- whom Fred's character was schtuping -- on her husband. The husband has a fatal accident (murdered by Fred) and investigator Robinson says something like "A man buys a policy that pays double if he's killed in an accident. A few days later, he is killed in an accident. Do you know what the odds against that happening are?" Having more than a passing familiarity with morbidity tables myself, the odds are incredibly against that happening.

That fact alone together with the agent and the gay relationship and the insurable interest question should have been enough to get a circumstantial first degree conviction even if the police screwed up the due process niceties which have a way in cases like this of letting murderers go free and endangering the lives of others. It doesn't surprise me that the prosecutor railed against "that kind of man" and that the defense ate his lunch. I knew Chief Blake, his son "Big Billy" being my age, and can say that Blake's attitude would have been the same as the prosecutor's. He was too much of a professional to have let that cloud his work, though, except in one situation involving a pedophile I may write about.

The details of this case are not fresh in my mind since I was living in Baltimore doing such things as delivering pay-offs to Nancy Pelosi's father. http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2009/05/26/like-father-like-daughter/
But I did continue to visit and stay with my aunt or grandmother through my hs years and recall them and others telling me about it. Most impressed you took notes on WCHL broadcasts and that you still have them.

Your description about the civil disobedience people filling up the jails was excellent background.


 

K Younce      2:08 PM Fri 11/13/2009

This makes me weep. This man was obviously guilty. Obviously there was no justice in this case.
 

David Hogan      12:35 PM Fri 11/13/2009

What a fascinating piece of journalism. I think you have done a marvelous job presenting the facts of the case. After reading your artilce I believe the facts and circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly prove Frank Rinaldi or someone he hired killed his wife.
 

To comment using your account, simply login or sign up above

Bite Sized Facts Link



Chapel Hill is located on a hill whose only distinguishing feature in the 18th century was a small chapel on top called New Hope Chapel. This church was built in 1752 and is currently the location of The Carolina Inn. The town was founded in 1819, and chartered in 1851.

 

 

What is it that binds us to this place as to no other? It is not the well or the bell or the stone walls. or the crisp October nights. No, our love for this place is based upon the fact that it is as it was meant to be, The University of the People.

-- Charles Kuralt

 

 

Dark Side of the Hill -- Pink Floyd, the creators of the most popular album in history, Dark Side of the Moon, took the second half of their name from Floyd Council, a Chapel Hill native, and great blues singer and guitarist. He once belonged to a group called "The Chapel Hillbillies".

 

 

Check out Charly Mann's other website:
Oklahoma Birds and Butterflies

http://oklahomabirdsandbutterflies.com

 



We need your help. Send your submissions, ideas, photos, and questions to CHMemories@gmail.com.

 

 

 

 

There would probably be no Chapel Hill if the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees in 1793 had not chosen land across from New Hope Chapel for the location of the university. By 1800 there were about 100 people living in thirty houses surrounding the campus.

 

 

The University North Carolina's first student was Hinton James, who enrolled in February, 1795. There is now a dormitory on the campus named in his honor.

 

 

 

 

The University of North Carolina was closed from 1870 to 1875 because of lack of state funding.

 

 

 

 

William Ackland left his art collection and $1.25 million to Duke University in 1940 on the condition that he would be buried in the art museum that the University was to build with his bequest. Duke rejected this condition even though members of the Duke Family are buried in Duke Chapel. What followed was a long and acrimonious legal battle between Ackland relatives who now wanted the inheritance, Rollins College, and the University of North Carolina, each attempting to receive the funds. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and in 1949 UNC was awarded the money for the museum. Ackland is buried near the museum's entrance. When the museum first opened, in the early sixties, there were rumors that his remains were leaking out of the mausoleum.

 

 

The official name of the Arboretum on the University of North Carolina campus is the Coker Arboretum. It is named after Dr. William Cocker, the University's first botany professor. It occupies a little more than five acres. It was founded in 1903.

 

 

Chapel Hill's main street has always been called Franklin Street. It was named after Benjamin Franklin in the early 1790s.

 

 



We need your help. Send your submissions, ideas, photos, and questions to CHMemories@gmail.com.

 

 

Chapel Hill High School and Chapel Hill Junior High were on Franklin Street in the same location as University Square until the mid 1960s.

 

 

The Colonial Drug Store at 450 West Franklin Street was owned and operated by John Carswell. It was famous for a fresh-squeezed carbonated orange beverage called a "Big O". In the early 1970s, I managed the Record and Tape Center next door, and must have had over 100 of those drinks. The Colonial Drug Store closed in 1996.

 

 

Sutton's Drugstore, which opened in 1923, has one of the last soda fountains in the South. It is one of the few businesses remaining on Franklin Street that was in operation when I was growing up in the 1950s.

 

 

Future President Gerald Ford lived in Chapel Hill twice. First when he was 24, in 1938, he took a law couse in summer school at UNC. He lived in the Carr Building, which was a law school dormitory. At the same time, Richard Nixon, the man he served under as Vice President, was attending law school at Duke. In 1942, Ford returned to Chapel Hill to attend the U.S. Navy's Pre-Flight School training program. He lived in a rental house on Hidden Hills Drive.

 

 

All rights reserved on Chapel Hill Memories photography and content

Contact us