...Richland County Prosecutor James J. Mayer Jr. had opposed Oswalt's release. "He took the life of his former girlfriend by strangling her to death," Mayer wrote. "He intentionally complicated the investigation by disposing of his victim's body in a deserted area in the middle of winter. He was a law-enforcement official when he committed these serious crimes (and) he has never admitted his crimes nor shown any remorse whatsoever"..State OKs release of former police officer convicted in girlfriend's slaying
The Mansfield News-Journal
By JOEL MORONEY
December 21, 2007
Editor's Note: This is the fourth in a five-part series on the most prominent murder cases in the News Journal's 75-year history. The cases are listed in chronological order. This story was originally published on Jan. 14, 2004.
MANSFIELD -- The Ohio Parole Board on Tuesday unanimously voted to end Charles Oswalt's time in prison for the death of Margie Coffey, saying he has served a significant amount of his sentence and should be released about March 15. Oswalt served almost 16 years of a 10- to 25-year sentence after being convicted of voluntary manslaughter and abuse of a corpse and sent to prison July 1, 1988. He maintains his innocence in the killing. Trial testimony pinned the motive on a paternity suit over a son, Brandon, whom Coffey claimed was fathered by Oswalt... Two tiny carpet fibers found on Margie Coffey's body were the crucial pieces of evidence for the prosecution. "The biggest part of the case was the analysis of the fiber," said Mansfield Crime Lab Director Anthony J. Tambasco. "A heads-up goes to Capt. Joe Daugherty (of the Richland County Sheriff's Department) for preserving and maintaining it or we never would have had the evidence for trial." Richland County Assistant Prosecutor Bambi Couch-Page said conditions of Oswalt's parole will be that he complete re-entry court and does not contact Coffey's family or a Columbus woman who testified at his trial that he confessed to her that he killed Coffey... Coffey's family and Richland County prosecutors were disappointed with the decision. Her brother, Tim Remy, and daughter, Angela Remy, pleaded with the board to keep Oswalt in prison, citing their fear of him and the fact that he has not admitted to the crime. "How can you be rehabilitated if you have not admitted to your wrongs?" Angela Remy asked the board. "There is no doubt in our mind that when he gets out, he's going to be a menace to society. He is going to put fear into countless people." Richland County Prosecutor James J. Mayer Jr. had opposed Oswalt's release. "He took the life of his former girlfriend by strangling her to death," Mayer wrote. "He intentionally complicated the investigation by disposing of his victim's body in a deserted area in the middle of winter. He was a law-enforcement official when he committed these serious crimes (and) he has never admitted his crimes nor shown any remorse whatsoever." While sympathizing with the victim's family, Mansfield police Chief Phil Messer said the justice system has done its job. "Lt. Oswalt has certainly paid for what he has done and at some point, regardless of what status you've held, its time to parole Charles Oswalt," Messer said. "I knew Oswalt. He was my sergeant and then he was my lieutenant"...
[Full article here]
[police officer involved domestic violence law enforcement fatality fatalities murder ohio state prison Margie Coffey]
Find A Grave Memorial
ReplyDeleteMargie Remy Coffey
Birth: 1956
Death: Jan., 1988
From Butler (OH), the body of Margie Coffey, a 32 year-old mother of two small children, was found entombed in a frozen Ohio waterway. Autopsy results revealed, she had been strangled by her own scarf. Although most of the evidence had been washed away by the rushing current, forensic examination of Margie's clothing, would not only enable authorities to ascertain where she had been right before she was murdered, it would also lead investigators to a prime suspect. Subsequently arrested and later convicted for the crimes of voluntary manslaughter and abuse of a corpse, was Mansfield Police Departments' own, Lt. Charles Oswalt. A married, fifteen year veteran of the force at the time of his incarceration, Oswalt adamantly denies the charges, to this day. 'Ironically', at the time of her death, Margie had a paternity suit pending against Oswalt. The suit claimed he had fathered her son, during an ongoing affair. Oswalt was released from prison at age 52, after serving a little more than fifteen years of a ten to twenty-five year sentence.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSmid=46593074&GRid=12133679&
FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER
ReplyDeleteTERMINATION NO 10
3/31/03
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO. 00CVH11-10283
JUDGE JOHN A. CONNOR
Charles Oswalt, Plaintiff
-vs-
Adult Parole Authority, Defendant
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Rendered this 31st day of March, 2003.
CONNOR, JUDGE.
This matter has come before the Court upon the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, which was filed February 26, 2002. The Defendant Ohio Parole Authority filed a response on April 4, 2002 and the Plaintiff filed a reply on April 22, 2002 and the supplement to his motion on January 6, 2003.
In his motion, the Plaintiff, Charles J. Oswalt asks for a declaratory judgment pursuant to R.C. 2721.02 and in accordance with Civ. R. 57 of the Ohio Rules of Procedure, to redress a deprivation of rights secured by Article I, & 5, Ohio Constitution. The Plaintiff alleges that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) when they utilized the Parole Board Guidelines to extend the Plaintiff's lawful sentence of conviction, increased his minimum parole eligibility, and unlawfully increased the minimum quantum of punishment as rendered by existing state statute.
The plaintiff states that on February 25, 1988, he was a night shift commander for the Mansfield Police Department, was indicted for aggravated murder and gross abuse of a corpse. At the conclusion of the State's case, the trial court determined that the State had failed to meet the burden to fulfill the necessary criteria of aggravated murder. The case was dismissed.
An amended indictment was issued charging Plaintiff Oswalt with murder, along with the original charge of gross abuse of a corpse. A new trial commenced. On July 1, 1988 after a twelve day trial, the Plaintiff, Oswalt, was acquitted of the charge of murder. However, the jury issued a finding of guilt on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.
The Court of Common Pleas sentenced the defendant to ten to twenty-five (10-25) years on the count of voluntary manslaughter, and one year (1) consecutive for the count of gross abuse of a corpse, for which he was also found guilty.
On August 18, 1988, Oswalt appeared before the OAPA for initial parole consideration. The Parole Board informed him that new Parole Board Guidelines have been implemented. He was further informed that the guidelines increased the minimum time he must now serve and that no consideration for release would be given until he reached the increased minimum term.
Oswalt established that conducive to his conviction, the determination of his "seriousness of offense" was a category 9 with a "risk of recividism" score of 0. Allowing for the highest interpretation for Oswalt's gridline in relation to his offense, his guideline indicated that he should serve a period of 84-120 months. At the time of his hearing, Oswalt had served a period of 122 months, 2 months over the maximum amount of time permitted for his guideline range.
In this instance, however, the OAPA indicated that Oswalt's crime was more onerous than the crime of his conviction, and therefore, designated an upward departure in his guideline 3 categories to guideline 12.
Guideline 12 is the offense seriousness category consistent with the charge of murder - the charge Oswalt's jury, with the advantage of hearing testimony and weighing evidence, elected not to assess guilt for.
Category 12 carries the guideline range of 240-300 months. Placement of Oswalt in this category, according to Plaintiff, extended his minimum sentence, which set a new minimum term to be served before meaningful consideration would be given for his parole release.
In response to OAPA's breach of Oswalt's judgment of conviction, he filed this complaint for declaratory judgment on November 20, 2000. On January 10, 2001, OAPA filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6). Plaintiff responded with a contra motion to dismiss on January 23, 2001. The OAPA replied on February 4, 2001. The trial entered its decision and entry sustaining the OAPA's motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiff, Oswalt, appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals on March 26, 2001. The Court of Appeals rendered its decision reversing the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.
The State of Ohio in its response states that after being denied a parole release, when he became eligible for parole in 1995, Plaintiff appeared again before the OAPA on August 18, 1998 for parole consideration. Once an inmate reaches his statutory parole eligibility date, which is calculated by the institutional record office, he continues to remain eligible for parole consideration until he is paroled by the Board or reaches his maximum expiration of sentence. A continuance or projected release date by the Board does not change the inmate's parole eligibility status. An inmate is given meaningful consideration for relief at each relief consideration hearing, regardless of the calculated guideline range and/or total time served.
Applying the revised 1998 guidelines, Defendant OAPA, determined Plaintiff's offense behavior category to be a 9 (voluntary manslaughter) based on the jury verdict of guilty to voluntary manslaughter and gross abuse of a corpse. Plaintiff was determined to have a risk score of 0. The intersection of offense category 9, risk score of 0 shows a range of 84 -120 months. At the time Plaintiff was heard for parole on August 1998, he had served 122 months of his 312 months. Plaintiff's maximum 26 years equals 312 months.
In denying Plaintiff's parole, the Parole Board decided to depart from the guidelines by giving the Plaintiff and upward departure to offense category 12, risk score 0. The intersection on the chart shows a range of 240 - 300 months. The Parole Board decided to depart three vertical guideline ranges on Exhibit B, which has a range of 240 - 300 months at the intersection of offense category 12 and risk score 0, based on the following aggravating factors: 1) Plaintiff committed the offense while on duty as a police officer, and this violated a position of trust; 2) Plaintiff strangled to death the victim because she was suing him for paternity of her six year old child; 3) the victim's son remains traumatized by the offense; 4) Plaintiff continues to deny the offense despite his jury conviction and the evidence; and 5) Plaintiff disposed of the body in a creek, and the victim was found ten days later. The Board voted to continue Plaintiff to August 2008, which is a 120 month continuance. Plaintiff had served a total of 122 months at the time of the hearing (meaning Plaintiff has already surpassed the 84 - 120 months range at the intersection of offense category 9, risk score 0, so 120 months would take Plaintiff to242 months served at the end of the continuance. The State of Ohio argues that the Parole Board is not mandated to grant an inmate release if he has served time within the calculated guideline range. In the case at bar, Plaintiff was not released on parole after serving more months than the guideline range for the offense category 9, risk score 0 (being 2 months beyond as of August 18, 1998)because it was the judgment of the Parole Board that parole was not appropriate for Plaintiff given those aggravating factors considered in this evaluation.
The State argues that the Plaintiff in essence is arguing that an upward departure to a range of 240 - 300 months in the guidelines, based on consideration of aggravating factors relevant to the crime and status and relationship of the offender/victim, constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights under Article 1, & 5, to the Ohio Constitution. To date, Plaintiff has served in excess of 166 months and, according to the State, he cannot be returned to a category 9, risk score 0, because this ranges ends at 120months. Given the range of months at the intersection of category 12, risk score 0, being240 - 300 months, this range is still below 312 months, which is equivalent to Plaintiff's maximum sentence of 26 years for voluntary manslaughter and abuse of a corpse. That State of Ohio argues that it is clear by these facts that the Defendant OAPA has not exceeded Plaintiff's maximum sentence.
This Court is persuaded by the case of Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority,97 Ohio St. 3d 456.
The syllabus of the Ohio Supreme Court states as follows:
In any parole determination involving indeterminate sentencing, the Adult Parole Authority must assign an inmate the offense category score that responds to the offense or offenses of convictions.
In the decision of the majority, written by Justice Douglas, the Supreme Court of Ohio, opined as follows:
The Adult Parole Authority (APA) adopted new parole guidelines on March 1, 1998. According the APA the revised guidelines were intended to 'promote more consistent exercise of discretion and enable fair and more equitable decision making' without removing the opportunity for consideration for parole eligibility on an individual case basis.
The APA' new guideline set forth a 'parole guidelines chart' to determine the range of time that a prisoner should serve before being released. When considering inmates for parole the APA relies on two factors: the seriousness of an offenders' criminal offense and the offenders' risk of recidivism. To use the guidelines chart, each inmate is assigned two numbers that correspond to the above factors, an offense category score and a criminal history/risk score. The assigned numbers are then located on the guideline chart, which is a grid with the offense category along a vertical axis, and the criminal history/risk scores along the horizontal axis. At each intersection of the two scores, there is an 'applicable guideline range' indicating the number of months an inmate must serve before being released. During an inmate's first hearing under the new guidelines, the Parole Board generally has given the inmate a 'projected release date', which presumably falls within the applicable guideline range. The projected release date is the date the inmate is eligible for release, either on parole or on an expiration of sentence.
Offense categories, at least in the form under consideration in these actions, were not in existence before the revised guidelines were introduced. The APA guidelines assign each of the criminal offenses under Ohio Law to an offense category. The guidelines contain thirteen offense categories. The least serious criminal offenses are placed in category 1. The more serious violations are placed in progressively higher numbered categories with the most serious in category 13. In determining an inmate's offense category, the APA begins 'by considering the conduct and circumstances established by the offense by which the Defendant was convicted' (offense of conviction). However, the APA's guidelines permit the Parole Board to look beyond the offense of conviction to the circumstances surrounding the offense and assign an offense category higher or lower than applicable to the offense of conviction.
The Supreme Court proceeds to outline facts of several cases in its decision as follows:
Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority; Huston v. Wilkinson and Lee v. Ohio Adult Parole
Authority. All cases with similar facts of this case.
The Supreme Court goes on to state in its opinion:
In each of the cases before us, the APA assigned the inmate an offense category score, not on the basis of the offenses of convictions but, rather, on alleged criminal activity. Specifically, at Layne's parole hearing, the APA assigned Layne an offense category score for kidnapping, while charged in the original indictment, was subsequently dropped by the prosecutor in exchange for Layne's plea. In Huston's case, the APA placed him in a higher offense category based in part on its conclusion that Huston had committed an attempted rape. Finally, Lee was given the highest offense category by the APA, 13, for allegedly committing an aggravated murder, even though he was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The result in each case was that substantially more time was required to be served before the inmate could be considered for release on parole and would have been required had each inmate been assigned according to the offense of conviction. Moreover, in the cases of Layne and Lee, the APA offense category score resulted in projected release dates that extended beyond the expiration of their maximum sentences.
Justice Douglas went on to opine:
We agree with the statement of the Montgomery County Court of Appeals in Lee that the words 'eligible for parole' and former R.C. 2967.13(A) ought to mean something. Inherent in this statutory language is the expectation that a criminal offender will receive meaningful consideration for parole. In our view, meaningful consideration for parole consists of more than a parole hearing in which an inmate's offense of conviction is disregarded and the parole eligibility is judged largely, if not entirely, on an offense category that does not correspond to the offense or offenses of conviction set forth in the plea agreement. Under the practice sanctioned here by APA's revised guidelines, the language of the former R.C.2967.13 that an inmate ' becomes eligible for parole at the expiration of his minimum term' is rendered meaningless.
We recognize that the APA has wide-ranging discretion in parole matters. State ex rel. Lipschultz v. Shoemaker (1990), 40 Ohio ST. 3d 88, 90, 551 N.E. 2d 160. R.C. 2967.13 rests discretion within the APA to 'grant parole to any prisoner for whom parole is authorized, if in its judgment there is no reasonable ground to believe that *** paroling the prisoner would further the interest of justice and be consistent with the welfare and security of society'. However, that discretion must yield when it runs afoul of statutorily based parole eligibility standards and judicially sanctioned plea agreements. Therefore, we hold that in any parole determination involving the indeterminate sentencing, the APA must assign an inmate an offense category that corresponds to the offense or offenses of conviction. We further emphasize, that the Court of Appeals in Randolph, that the APA when considering an inmate for parole, still retains its discretion to consider any circumstances relating to the offense or offenses of conviction, including crimes that did not result in conviction, as well as any other factors the APA deems relevant. Hemphill v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1991), 61 Ohio St. 3d 385, 386, 575 N.E. 2d 148.
Therefore, for the reasons hereinbefore stated an specifically in accordance with the opinion of the Ohio Supreme Court in Layne, Appellant v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Appellee; Huston, Appellant v. Wilkinson, Appellee; Lee, Appellee v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, Appellant, cited as Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority. 97 Ohio St. 3d 456, the motion for summary judgment of the Plaintiff, Charles J. Oswalt is thereby SUSTAINED.
The Ohio Adult Parole Authority, is therefore, ORDERED by this Court, to assign to the Plaintiff, Charles J. Oswalt, an offense category for involuntary manslaughter for parole consideration.
Specifically, the OAPA is ORDERED to give Plaintiff, Charles J. Oswalt, an offense behavior category of 9 (voluntary manslaughter) and a risk score of 0. The intersection of 9 and risk score 0 shows a range of 84 - 120 months, and therefore, since the Defendant has already served in excess of 166 months he shall be considered for parole by the OAPA in accordance with its guidelines which were in effect August 1998, and in accordance with the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, 97 Ohio St. 3d 456.
THIS IS A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER, THERE IS NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY.
JOHN A. CONNOR, JUDGE
COPIES TO:
Charles Oswalt
Plaintiff Pro Se
John H. Jones, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General
David H. Bodiker, ESQ.
Ohio Public Defender
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY
CIVIL DIVISION
Charles Oswalt,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 00CVH11 - 10283
Judge John A. Connor
Ohio Adult Parole Authority
Defendant
Rendered March 31, 2003
**** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****
The Ohio Parole Authority is, therefore, ORDERED by this court to assign the Plaintiff, Charles J. Oswalt, an offense category score for involuntary manslaughter for parole consideration.
Specifically, the OAPA is ORDERED to give Plaintiff, Charles J. Oswalt, and offense behavior category 9 (voluntary manslaughter) a risk score 0. The intersection of 9 and a risk score of 0 shows a range of 84 - 120 months, and therefore, since the Defendant has already served in excess of 166 months he shall be considered for parole by the OAPA in accordance with its own guidelines which were in effect August 1998, and in accordance with the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in Layne vs. Ohio Adult Parole Authority 97 Ohio 3d 456.
THIS IS A FINAL APPEALABLE DECISION, THERE IS NO REASON FOR DELAY.
EX-OFFICER SENTENCED IN MANSLAUGHTER CASE
ReplyDeleteAkron Beacon Journal
July 1, 1988
A former Mansfield police lieutenant faces as many as 26 years in prison for the strangulation of a Richland County woman. Charles Oswalt was sentenced WednesDAY, to 10 to 25 years on a charge of manslaughter and one year on a charge of abusing a corpse in the slaying of Margie Coffey of Butler. The sentences are to be served consecutively.
The sentences imposed by Richland County Common Pleas Judge Max Chilcote were the maximum permitted by law, said county Prosecutor John Allen. The charge was reduced from murder because the prosecutor didn't prove intent, officials said. A Richland County jury on MonDAY, found Oswalt guilty, ending a three-week trial.
Prosecutors said Oswalt strangled Mrs. Coffey because she had threatened to file a paternity suit against him concerning a child born in 1981. Mrs. Coffey disappeared Jan. 20. Boy Scouts found her body 10 days later in Possum Run Creek in southern Richland County. Oswalt, who resigned from the police force WednesDAY, after being suspended earlier, said he will appeal.
Mansfield, Ohio Police Chief Phil Messer (AKA Federal Phil) testifies on a known dirty cop's behalf... the more things change, the more they stay the same, eh, 098?
ReplyDeleteYes he did it. I lived with Margie Coffey when I was 18 yrs old. I know that she was afraid of this Cop. I remember things about this . and it was early 70s when he started bothing her. Her real boyfriend was Joe and ya I know his last name. but Im trying not to say to much. I know how Sweet Margie was to me. Took alot of young girls in to her home on 4 street..Apt. I was one of them who had no where to stay. She was a wondreful person who was like a big sister to me. I want so much to tell what I know. its bothered me for years. He may of killed her in the 80s but he was picking her up as far back as 75. I remember... Maybe they dont tell all of what was going on . I tell you this. there is More.. about her life than they are telling. And this So called Cop did what he wanted with her. He thinks he runs Mansfield thats the way it was back then......God rest your soul Margie. I will never forget how loveing you were to me. You were my Roll Model. I love you. Girl.....
ReplyDeleteI so wish I could tell you who I am, sfoxy2u. But if you do ever decide to share what you know, be CERTAIN those to whom you entrust the information can protect you for the rest of your life. In my case, I learned I could not trust even the Mansfield office of the F.B.I. Things may have changed since then, but I doubt it.
Delete...and yes, I know which "Joe" you mean.
DeleteDear SfoxytoU. I'm with a Production Company which is currently looking into developing the Margie Coffey case. Can you please contact me at 416-371-0050? I'm looking for a POSITIVE voice for Margie. Thanks.
DeleteCoffey, Margie Remy
ReplyDeleteRichland County, Ohio USGenWeb Site
Bunker Hill Cemetery
Township: Worthington Twp.
Latitude: 40.5935
Longitude: -82.3729
Location Description: State Rte. 97 and Co. Rd. 108 (Bunker Hill Rd.) next to Bunker Hill Baptist Church.
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ohrichla/RCBdb/Cemetery-BunkerHill.htm
RIP Margie...you did a good job in this life...all about your kids...all about kindness
ReplyDeletesfoxy2u... looking for you. Please email me.
ReplyDeleteIf you find her, and she does talk about what she knows you need to protect her at all costs. Oswalt and his chums remain every bit as dangerous today as they were when Oswalt still wore a badge. I speak from personal experience.
DeleteCan someone tell me when Margie's 1st child was born? I read somewhere that the father was in the Marines. Thank you
ReplyDeleteShe would have been born around 75
DeleteI just need to know. Margie & I when out together when I was home on leave. We exchanged letters, & when I was transferred overseas, letters stopped. When I got home on leave. she had moved & had no idea where she went.
ReplyDeleteHello there- I'm with a production company which is currently looking into the Coffey case. Can you please contact me at 416-371-0050. Thanks!
Deletecan anyone help me with some info.
ReplyDeleteI don't know... Maybe.
ReplyDeleteWas her son born around the end of Feb 1975?
DeleteYou can reach me at eocmcdocwooster@aol.com
I don't have the answer but now the question is out there and someone (some day) may.
DeleteHe was born around 83 and his daughter would have been born around 75.
DeleteThank you for that info. Margie dated/saw each other over the course of about 4 months. She disappeared from my life. It saddens me to lose someone that way that meant much to me.
DeleteI wonder if he contacted his son after he was released. What a sad story.
DeleteMargie son was born in 1981 HE WAS 6 ALMOST 7 YRS OLD MARGIE DIED IN JULY 88 I THINK THE FORENSIC I JUST WATCH SAID HE DAUGHTER WAS BORN AROUND 75 ANGELA REMY
DeleteEx-cop could be free soon
ReplyDeleteNews Journal (Mansfield, OH)
November 11, 2003
Joel Moroney
MANSFIELD -- A former police watch commander convicted of killing a woman and dumping her body out of his cruiser could be free by the end of the week.
Charles Oswalt, 59, was scheduled for release around Monday, thanks to an Ohio Supreme Court ruling requiring parole eligibility be determined based on convictions rather than indicted charges, according to JoEllen Culp, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Oswalt, a former Mansfield police lieutenant in charge of the third shift, was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and abuse of a corpse for strangling Margie Coffey and dumping her body in a creek, where it was found by Boy Scouts near Butler. He was sentenced to 10 to 25 years in prison in 1988.
Culp said the board will meet Thursday to decide whether to have a hearing to allow the victim's family to testify against Oswalt's release. If it declines the hearing, Oswalt will be released, she said.
Testimony in the Oswalt case pinned motive on a paternity suit over a son, Brandon, whom Coffey claimed was fathered by Oswalt. He was married at the time.
The killing was featured on the show "Forensic Files" because of several carpet fibers found on Coffey's body. The fibers were traced to Oswalt's cruiser, which had been a former detective car and was the only patrol vehicle outfitted with carpet instead of rubber mats.
Oswalt was given another 10 years in prison after a 1998 parole hearing but was approved for release after a July hearing held in response to the supreme court decision, Culp said.
A subsequent appeal by the Office of Victims Services has halted the release, Culp said.
The court's decision affects those sentenced under guidelines before 1996 and given indefinite sentences for convictions of crimes less than the original indictment. Oswalt was sentenced to 10 to 25 years for voluntary manslaughter after an initial charge of aggravated murder.
An Oct. 14 letter written by Richland County Prosecutor James J. Mayer Jr. cited several reasons for opposing Oswalt's release, despite his 15 years behind bars.
"He intentionally complicated the investigation by disposing of his victim's body in a deserted area in the middle of winter," Mayer wrote. "He was a law-enforcement official when he committed these serious crimes that sent him to prison (and) he has never admitted his crimes nor has shown any remorse whatsoever.
"For the record, this office opposes any consideration for early release for the defendant," Mayer wrote. "Furthermore, community feelings are strong that he should remain imprisoned for the entire duration of his sentence."
jmoroney@nncogannett.com
(419) 521-7219
Don't forget the victim
ReplyDeleteNews Journal (Mansfield, OH)
November 21, 2003
NEAL
Concerning the front page lead story, Nov. 11 about the ex-police officer, Charles Oswalt. I kept up with your news through all of this case.
This woman is dead and cannot come back in 10-15 years. Her son will always be without her. What in the world is the parole board thinking? You can tell it isn't one of their family.
Isn't the law ever going to get it? That woman are people as well as men. Killing a woman seems to be something a man and police officers can get out of with a few years in jail no matter how bad the case is, and this case was just awful.
How can a person do all the things that was done to this young lady and then parole board even think of freeing them? What about her family?
We have good police officers and how do they feel about one of their own doing this horror? Must hurt.
Please don't forget the young lady in this case or her son.
Geraldine Neal
Sadder still is the fact that Oswalt certainly was not the only cop involved. His pal escaped justice here, but he cannot escape God's final judgment... and he won't.
ReplyDeleteMcDoc, I can't post your comment but if you reach me we can work on finding out if you'd like my help. Or do you already know how to contact that person?
ReplyDeleteI have no contacts at all. Feel free to contact me thru the aol address that you have access to.
ReplyDeleteSomeone would like to get a message to Margie's daughter. My email address is below.
ReplyDeleteMargie's daughter - still waiting. It's not whatever you might think.
ReplyDeleteSomeone going by the name razzputin sent a comment but in order to print it - for it to abide by the rules - I need to redact small part of it so I will do that here so that they can still make their point and be heard:
ReplyDelete4:23 PM (1 hour ago)
razzputin has left a new comment on your post "[OH] Officer who killed Margie Coffey released fro...":
Isn't it curious how members of [REDACTED] law enforcement cry out for the DEATH SENTENCE for cop killers but never killer cops. This KILLER murdered the victim in his squad car and should have received the ultimate punishment. Craig Peyer, Josh Griffin, Tim Harris, Drew Peterson are a few other "public servants" who managed to elude appropriate punishment.
He should be in prison and die their !!!
ReplyDeleteI agree The Ohio justice system should be ashamed for what has happened in this case. This case stinks.
ReplyDeleteI am a University of Cincinnati College of Law student and I am researching this case. If you have any information please contact me at amp4813@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteSeems you could share your University of Cincinnati College email address. Anyone can say anything and folks should have some indication your intent is good. amp4813@gmail.com has no verifiable history and appears newly made up. Thanks.
DeleteJust saw this story on Forensic Files, what a terrible man doing this to the Mother of his Child, and 16 years is nearly not long enough behind bars, it should be a lifetime, a life for a life, and Margie will never come back, her children were left without a Mom. I might have believed he was innocent if he didn't type up a phony report to cover his tracks, that was what convinced me of his guilt. Rest in Peace Margie. Hope your children are in good hands.
ReplyDeleteI just saw this on Forensic Files too, and I looked it up after hearing about his lenient prison sentence. I can't believe how lightly he's been treated. And after he was paroled, Mansfield Police Chief Phil Messer stated, "Oswalt has certainly paid for what he has done." Unbelievable. He should've served a life sentence.
DeleteI will have to agree with razzputin. If you kill a cop then everyone wants a death sentence for you but when a cop kills someone they are out on parole in no time. What the hell is wrong with our justice system that this becomes the norm?
ReplyDeleteIf he cannot even admit his guilt then how in the world can they even think that he is rehabilitated? He is exactly the same as when he went in and I have no doubt that he will break the law again. I just wonder that when he does will they change his risk factor # to 1?
There's more than one rotton Apple in the Mansfield PD.
ReplyDeleteAs others have said, if anyone else kills someone they get death, or at least a life sentence. This is shameful. I know to never stop in central ohio.
ReplyDeleteHi. Does anybody know how to contact Mr. Oswalt? I'd like to write a story about him and need some detailed information first hand. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteWhy would want to give this POS any attention? He murdered the mother of two children and hiscronies helped cover it up.
DeleteBecause it isn't a one-time occurrence. This happens all of the time and often they get away with it. It can't be confronted without showing that it happens.
DeleteMost anyone else who commits such a heinous crime gets life or the needle!! Must've been a puny kfangaroo court...this insect got off with a mere slap..hope the dog will get his due day
ReplyDeleteMost recently, this POS filed for a protection order from a neighbor who brandished toward him after a verbal altercation. Such a tough guy: murdering a young woman, but cannot hold his own in his own yard... We can only hope he is emasculated like this daily, as that really hits him where it hurts. Meanwhile, has the family filed a civil suit to drain his finances?
ReplyDelete