Disappearance of Michele Anne Harris

Michele Anne Harris
File:Michele Ann Harris.png Harris in 2000
Born	Template:Birth date
Disappeared	Template:Disappeared date and age Smithboro, New York, U.S.
Status	Template:Missing for
Other names	Michele Anne Taylor
Alma mater	SUNY Morrisville
Known for	Disappearance coinciding with September 11 terrorist attacks. Husband faced four murder trials before eventual acquittal.

On the evening of September 11, 2001, Michele Anne Harris (born September 29, 1965), a resident of Spencer, New York, concluded her shift as a waitress in nearby Waverly. After work, she socialized over drinks with two colleagues—one being a former boyfriend—in the parking area. Subsequently, she went to visit another boyfriend in Smithboro and departed shortly after 11 p.m. This marks the last verified sighting of her. The following morning, her vehicle was discovered close to the residence she shared with her children and estranged spouse, Cal. Cal Harris underwent four separate murder trials—initially convicted twice but ultimately found not guilty.

The inquiry encountered significant difficulties as numerous state troopers were reassigned to New York City in response to the September 11 attacks. Attention centered on Cal Harris amid a contentious divorce involving potential financial repercussions. His demeanor appeared indifferent following Michele’s disappearance; he began dating other individuals and sold some of her possessions within weeks. The case against him included circumstantial elements such as blood traces inside the home and allegations of threats.

Charged with second-degree murder despite the absence of a recovered body, Cal was convicted. After testimony surfaced from a witness claiming to have seen Michele near their home on September 12, he was retried and again found guilty. However, this conviction was overturned upon appeal. A subsequent jury was unable to reach a verdict, which led to a bench trial resulting in his acquittal.

Maintaining his innocence throughout, Harris filed a lawsuit against the state police and Tioga County District Attorney’s office alleging malicious prosecution. In 2017, he faced arrest on charges of stalking an investigator involved in his defense. The lead investigator for the defense published a book suggesting that Cal was wrongfully accused and highlighted another man Michele had dated as a more plausible suspect based on evidence discovered at that individual’s former residence. Meanwhile, Michele’s relatives remain divided regarding Cal’s culpability and persist in pursuing additional proof despite double jeopardy protections; this ongoing dispute has caused tension within her family.

Background

Cal Harris, an alumnus of Vestal High School and a prominent attackman for the Hobart College teams that secured the NCAA Division III championships in the early 1980s, met Michele Anne Taylor, who held an associate degree from the State University of New York at Morrisville. Their paths crossed while Michele was employed at one of the family-operated car dealerships in Tioga County, New York, situated within the Southern Tier region of upstate New York. The couple married in 1990 and established their home on a large property near the village of Spencer, Michele’s hometown. They had four children, with their first child born in 1994.

Marital troubles surfaced in 1999 when Michele, expecting their youngest child, uncovered Cal’s infidelity involving a clerk from one of the car dealerships. Although Cal pledged to terminate the affair, he resumed it during a trip to Barbados. After their son was born in October 2000, Michele stopped sharing a bed with Cal. The next month, she met Brian Earley, a surveyor from Philadelphia, and began covert meetings in the nearby Pocono Mountains. To keep these encounters hidden from Cal and their children, they utilized phone cards to conceal their phone conversations.

Divorce

Michele initiated divorce proceedings in early 2001. Throughout the first half of that year, Cal opposed the divorce and even involved Michele’s family members in attempts to dissuade her, suspecting outside negative influences. Michele reported receiving threats from Cal, including one in March where he allegedly claimed he could kill her without leaving any evidence, and another threat overheard by her hairdresser in July.

By June, a court mandated Cal to pay Michele $400 monthly along with household expenses until the divorce was finalized. During this time, he was required to relinquish his firearms to relatives. The court assessed his net worth at $5.4 million. Cal proposed full custody of their children along with a $740,000 settlement spread over ten years; Michele rejected this offer.

Cal’s financial contributions supplemented Michele’s earnings from a part-time waitressing position she began in April at Lefty's restaurant in nearby Waverly. That June, Earley relocated locally with expectations of marriage following the divorce; however, Michele expressed no intention of marrying him despite pursuing a committed relationship. Occasionally after late shifts, she stayed at his residence.

During this period, Michele also engaged in other relationships, including a brief liaison with Lefty’s manager Michael Kasper and undisclosed connections involving individuals associated with the Harris family dealerships.

By August, relations had somewhat improved as Cal raised his offer to $80,000 annually combining alimony and child support along with child custody rights. Michele requested a court-ordered valuation of Cal’s business at his expense. A trial date was set for October 22.

Following Labor Day weekend, Michele appeared more optimistic and confided plans to accept Cal’s proposal but had not yet communicated this to him. She intended to travel to New York City to sell or pawn jewelry—including her engagement ring—to generate funds for a down payment on a home she and Earley planned to purchase in Owego near their children’s school. Reports indicated she had accumulated considerable credit card debt and had bounced checks during this timeframe.

Disappearance

On September 11, when Thayer arrived at the Harris residence to babysit, Michele was experiencing a headache. Due to stringent travel restrictions following the September 11 terrorist attacks, her intended weekend trip to New York for jewelry sales was likely canceled. Her work attire was still damp, causing her to be late for her shift.

Michele remained at Lefty's until 9 p.m., after which she stayed in the parking area conversing over drinks with Kasper, a coworker and former romantic partner, along with his companion. Approximately an hour later, she went to Earley's apartment in Smithboro, where they spent another hour discussing how the recent attacks had put her personal struggles into perspective. Earley reported that she left between 11 and 11:30 p.m., and no one has seen her since.

At 7 a.m. the following morning, Cal contacted Thayer to inform her that Michele had not returned home after work and requested assistance with preparing the children for school. While en route near the Harris driveway, Thayer noticed Michele’s gold Ford Windstar minivan parked roadside.

The vehicle was unlocked with keys left in the ignition. Thayer proceeded down the quarter-mile driveway through fields and woods toward the house but found no indication of Michele’s presence. Cal was already dressed for work and unaware of the minivan's location.

Thayer proposed that Michele might still be nearby, possibly injured or confused; Cal believed she had traveled to New York City as originally planned and speculated she may have hitchhiked since her vehicle remained behind.

Cal pointed out numerous personal belongings inside the van—including clothing, mail, toys, and food wrappers—and noted it required cleaning. Before departing for work, Thayer moved the car into the garage. She then contacted one of Michele’s friends, who reached out to Michele's divorce attorney. After confirming Michele had left Lefty's as scheduled and her phone went unanswered, he reported her missing to the state police.

Investigation

On that morning, Tioga County state police faced limited manpower as most officers and forensic specialists were assigned to New York City in response to the attacks. Two investigators who remained visited Cal at his dealership around 9:40 a.m. Cal asserted that Michele never failed to return home after evening shifts at Lefty's and provided written consent for a property search. He authorized them to seize the minivan temporarily but requested its return for an oil change. He also suggested Michele might have been involved with cocaine use alongside acquaintances in Waverly and urged authorities to thoroughly question them.

The police conducted an extensive search of the Harris property employing helicopters, canine units, divers, and sonar equipment to scan a nearby pond and the adjacent 29-acre Empire Lake. In Waverly, they interviewed Lefty's employees and interrogated Kasper and his friend—who had shared drinks with Michele. Background investigations revealed Kasper’s prior cocaine use and assault conviction; meanwhile, his companion had served ten years in an Arizona prison for rape. Despite these findings, no evidence connected either man to Michele’s disappearance. After undergoing polygraph examinations, Kasper, Earley (who permitted searches of both his apartment and family cabin), and others were eliminated as suspects.

Cal Harris emerged as the primary suspect due to an ongoing divorce proceeding coupled with a potential substantial financial settlement motive. Three days after Michele’s disappearance, forensic investigator Joseph Andersen discovered red blood spatters in the garage and doorway area, prompting a search warrant. Comparable stains appeared in the foyer and kitchen; presumptive testing confirmed human blood presence, which was preserved for DNA testing. Andersen suspected additional blood had been cleaned from the premises and declared the residence a crime scene.

That same day in Cooperstown, Michele’s sisters confronted Cal regarding a March threat he allegedly made—to kill Michele and dispose of her body—as well as a 1996 incident involving a shotgun threat. Cal initially denied these allegations but later admitted making the threat while claiming it was not serious; his discomfort was noted by the sisters.

Back in Spencer, Cal was initially unable to explain the blood stains but later claimed Michele had previously cut herself in the garage. Authorities searched his truck and ATV thoroughly and conducted an exhaustive examination of Michele’s minivan, recovering her cell phone containing missed calls and voicemail messages from a concerned friend along with her jewelry pouch. Forensic analysis identified fingerprints belonging to Cal, Earley, and an unidentified third individual besides Michele but detected no blood traces.

With insufficient evidence available, law enforcement resorted to covert surveillance measures: troopers monitored Cal’s property overnight using night vision devices and camouflage gear. Beginning in October, they installed a GPS tracker on his truck for six months aiming to identify potential disposal locations. Neither method yielded significant leads.

Arrest

Following the initial inquiry, the investigation remained inactive for several years, with media attention limited to annual remembrances that reported no fresh progress. Authorities suspected Cal of murdering Michele and concealing her remains, but lacked adequate proof to secure a conviction. In 2005, detectives re-questioned Jerome Wilczynski, a hairdresser who had overheard Cal making violent threats—including threats to kill Michele—over a phone call less than two months prior to her disappearance. Wilczynski had not revealed these threats at first but disclosed them four years later, offering law enforcement evidence closer to the time of the alleged crime. This testimony bolstered the possibility of obtaining a conviction absent the body.

Mark Lester, the state police captain in charge of the case, declared in 2010 that although no major new evidence had emerged, the matter needed to move forward to trial. On September 30, a Tioga County grand jury formally charged Cal with one count of second-degree murder. State troopers apprehended him at his Ford dealership near Owego, securing him with handcuffs and leg restraints in front of staff members.

Trials

Over an eleven-year period, Cal underwent four trials spanning two counties, overseen by five judges from four jurisdictions and reviewed by three appellate courts. The initial trial was postponed due to scheduling conflicts but ultimately resulted in a conviction that was later overturned when a new witness came forward with exculpatory information. The second trial incorporated this witness’s testimony and again concluded with a conviction.

That conviction was affirmed on appeal, although one justice dissented. Cal then petitioned the New York Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court’s ruling on procedural grounds; a dissenting judge recommended dismissing the indictment entirely. For the third trial, proceedings were relocated to another upstate county because of extensive publicity; this trial ended in a hung jury and was declared a mistrial. The fourth and final trial was conducted as a bench trial without jurors, culminating in Cal’s acquittal in 2016.

Dismissal of indictment

In early 2006, defense counsel Joseph Cawley contested the indictment by filing motions seeking access to transcripts and arguing that the charges lacked both legal and factual basis for proceeding. In June, Tioga County Court Judge Vincent Sgueglia refused to dismiss the case and scheduled trial for September 11, which was subsequently postponed to January 2007 after prosecutors disclosed 12,000 pages of discovery materials.

By August, the defense renewed their dismissal motion; Sgueglia granted this request in September. On December 15, following an unrelated hearing, Sgueglia informed attorneys of his intent to dismiss the indictment—a decision that was not formally documented—prompting disputes regarding what was communicated during that conversation.

On December 18, defense lawyer Keene filed for Judge Sgueglia’s recusal, citing allegations of impropriety linked to prior favoritism and controversial management of pistol permit applications that led to state censure in 2012. Although Sgueglia denied any bias, the matter was reassigned to Broome County Judge Bernard E. Smith due to sworn statements.

In January, Judge Smith deemed the defense’s motion timely and dismissed prosecution arguments against it. He declined to endorse Sgueglia’s dismissal order without conducting his own hearing and criticized the prosecution’s recusal request as a tactic intended to delay proceedings. Smith ruled that Sgueglia’s dismissal should be considered effective as of December 15.

After examining grand jury transcripts, Smith concurred with Sgueglia that despite factual sufficiency under law, prosecutorial misconduct rendered the indictment flawed. The testimony included inadmissible opinions about Cal and Michele Harris’s private lives, Cal’s business character, and irrelevant hearsay; one witness even expressed personal beliefs regarding Cal’s guilt.

Smith underscored a pivotal error when prosecutor Keene assured the grand jury that a witness had passed a polygraph test but could not verify whether Cal had undergone one. Keene’s insinuation of an undisclosed "story" constituted a significant prosecutorial misstep justifying dismissal on its own merit. Additional mistakes during grand jury instructions reinforced this conclusion, aligning with precedent mandating dismissal under comparable conditions.

Initial Trial

Approximately one month later, a separate grand jury indicted Cal once more. The trial commenced in late May. Lacking both a body and a weapon, the prosecution relied on circumstantial arguments, asserting that Michele met a violent end within the home sometime after 11:30 p.m. on September 11, 2001. They further claimed Cal exploited the diminished law enforcement activity to dispose of her remains during the subsequent eight-hour period.

Prosecution

Testimonies recounted Michele’s last confirmed sighting and her continued disappearance. Thayer discovered Michele’s vehicle on September 12 and observed that Cal had not checked for keys before requesting its return; he then left for work without inquiring about Michele’s location. Thayer remained employed by Cal for another year and recalled him planning a garage sale intended to sell Michele’s possessions, proposing to split any profits. On Michele’s 35th birthday, Cal openly dated another woman, informing her she could stay at his residence since Michele was not expected back.

Michele’s sisters provided testimony regarding threats she had reported and Cal’s responses when confronted. Wilczynski, a former high school classmate, described overhearing a phone call between Cal and Michele. Francine testified that Cal’s father called claiming Michele’s body was discovered at Cal’s vacation home; Cal vehemently denied this.

The blood evidence, narrowed through DNA analysis to either Michele or close relatives, played a pivotal role. Andersen detailed discovering hundreds of reddish stains on September 14, indicative of recent deposition and possible attempts at cleaning. A dealership employee testified that on September 12, Cal requested an intensive wash of his truck.

Forensic specialist Henry Lee, noted for expertise in blood spatter analysis and involvement in prominent cases such as the O.J. Simpson trial, corroborated Andersen’s findings. Lee explained that if the blood had been present since the previous month, it would have turned brown; however, he admitted determining the exact age was impossible. He identified the stains as medium-velocity impact spatter consistent with assault injuries. These stains originated no higher than above floor level. A frequently laundered throw rug also contained transfer stains matching the same DNA profile, suggesting contact with bloody material.

Defense

The defense strategy focused on establishing reasonable doubt to demonstrate Cal’s actual innocence. They emphasized the absence of both a body and murder weapon despite thorough searches, Cal’s complete cooperation with law enforcement, and the lack of blood or evidence of cleaning inside the house. Investigator Lee conceded under cross-examination that only ten stains were present, some genuinely old—including one on a throw rug with an unidentified source.

The defense also disputed incriminating witness accounts. The purported garage sale referenced by Thayer was actually Cal organizing Michele’s belongings following police searches rather than selling them. Furthermore, Cal’s statement to his girlfriend occurred at 4 a.m., shortly after her arrival when she chose to stay at his home.

After deliberations exceeding one day, the court instructed the jury that reasonable doubt meant "a doubt for which some reason can be given." In June 2007, the jury found Cal guilty; sentencing was scheduled for August.

Unexpected witnesses

The day following Cal’s conviction, Kevin Tubbs, a farmworker living nearby, identified Michele from media reports and came forward. He stated that on September 12, 2001, around 5:45 a.m., he observed her near the Harrises' driveway engaged in a heated exchange with a man beside a pickup truck—contradicting the prosecution’s assertion that Cal had killed Michele overnight at their home.

Tubbs’ account introduced alternative possibilities regarding suspects and was incorporated into the defense’s motion to overturn the verdict based on newly discovered evidence. This motion was granted by the court in November 2007.

Soon thereafter, John Steele reached out to the court, confirming that he witnessed a man and woman arguing near two vehicles at approximately the same time. Steele subsequently submitted an affidavit stating he overheard the man say, "Just get in the damn car!" His identity was initially kept confidential due to concerns about retaliation linked to an extramarital affair. The prosecution sought to reveal Steele’s identity during an appeal; however, Steele passed away in October 2008 before cross-examination could occur, leading to his testimony being dismissed as inadmissible hearsay.

In November 2008, the appellate court unanimously upheld the decision to set aside the verdict, scheduling a retrial for 2009.

Retrial

The second trial took place in August 2009 under Judge James Hayden of Chemung County Court. The prosecution largely reiterated its circumstantial case from the initial trial. The defense called both Cal and Tubbs to testify—Cal to present a more personal perspective and Tubbs to dispute the prosecution’s timeline.

To bolster Tubbs’ credibility, his parents testified confirming his presence along the route that morning. Due to Steele’s recent death after submitting letters relevant to the case, he was unavailable for testimony; the defense attempted to introduce these letters but Judge Hayden excluded them as hearsay. The prosecution responded by calling Steele’s son, who testified that his father was not consistently truthful and believed Cal was guilty while claiming Michele deserved her fate because of her affairs.

During cross-examination, prosecutors challenged Tubbs’ ability to identify Michele from a newspaper photo taken years later, citing poor lighting conditions at the time of his observation. A neighbor testified that only a car door slam was heard in the vicinity. Prosecutors also referred to a 2006 incident where Tubbs was arrested for leaving without paying at a gas station and later sued the state for wrongful arrest and excessive force; this lawsuit was dismissed in 2010. They implied Tubbs might have fabricated his testimony out of animosity toward law enforcement. Tubbs’ hostile demeanor during cross-examination reportedly damaged his reliability.

Following more than a day of jury deliberations—and after jurors requested clarification about reasonable doubt, which was interpreted as unfavorable for the prosecution—the jury returned a guilty verdict. In October, Cal received a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment.

Appeals

While Cal began serving his sentence, his attorneys appealed to the Third Department of the New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division. In 2011, a divided panel affirmed the conviction as factually supported, legally sufficient, and procedurally proper. Harris then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals; this court agreed that the jury's verdict was reasonable but reversed the Third Department on procedural grounds and overturned the conviction.

Cal’s appeal challenged both substantive legal and factual aspects of his conviction along with several procedural matters. He disputed the denial of a cause challenge against a juror who admitted holding a slight opinion on the case but was removed using Cal’s final peremptory strike. He further contended that testimony from Michele’s sisters regarding the Cooperstown confrontation constituted inadmissible hearsay or that Steele’s letters should have been admitted if such testimony was allowed. Additionally, he argued that jury instructions about the Cooperstown conversation failed to clarify that this evidence was admitted solely to demonstrate his reaction when confronted rather than as proof of truth.

Third Department

The panel consisted of five justices, with presiding judge Anthony Cardona absent due to a terminal illness. In the 2011 ruling, three justices affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Majority

Justice Joseph Mercure, authoring the majority opinion, determined that both legally and factually, the evidence supported the guilty verdict. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, he found the jury’s conclusion to be reasonable despite a lack of direct proof. He emphasized circumstantial indicators such as motive, intent, opportunity, consciousness of guilt, and concerning blood evidence discovered in the family residence. The defense did not effectively weaken the prosecution’s case; credibility assessments favored the prosecution’s position.

Mercure allowed the admission of Cooperstown-related exchanges because witnesses testified that Cal had confessed to making threats. Conversely, Steele’s letter and affidavit were excluded due to inconsistencies and the inability to cross-examine him. The challenge to a juror was appropriately denied since she had not expressed a fixed opinion and had twice affirmed her impartiality in questionnaires.

Dissent

Justice Bernard T. Malone Jr., dissenting and author of the 2008 opinion upholding the County Court’s decision to set aside the original verdict, criticized the majority for predominantly reiterating prosecutorial arguments while overlooking defense evidence that contested them. He stressed that although courts must view evidence in favor of the prosecution, they should not ignore uncontested facts that contradict the prosecution’s narrative.

Malone contended that the majority upheld a verdict grounded more on conjecture than on firm evidence. He pointed out weaknesses in the prosecution’s theory, including the improbability that Cal could have killed Michele at night without alerting their children or dog. He considered threats against Michele too temporally distant to establish intent and noted testimony indicating an improved relationship prior to her disappearance. Cal’s conduct after Michele vanished did not suggest guilt, and blood evidence was compromised by improper photographic handling.

In comparing this case with other bodyless murder convictions affirmed by state courts, Malone observed those cases presented stronger circumstantial proof. For instance, Robert Bierenbaum concealed his pilot status and undertook a suspicious flight on his wife’s disappearance day; Sante Kimes was convicted based on her son’s testimony, cell phone data, and possession of victim belongings. None of these parallels applied to Cal.

On procedural matters, Malone sided with Cal, finding no definitive proof of juror bias and faulting the court for permitting prosecutorial overreach by introducing threat testimony beyond pretrial restrictions. He criticized jury instructions for failing to clarify that threat testimony constituted hearsay and could not be used to evaluate truthfulness, thereby prejudicing the defense.

Malone further argued Steele’s letter and affidavit should have been admitted as declarations against interest despite hearsay issues, noting minor inconsistencies and Steele’s fear of repercussions if testifying. He underscored the injustice in excluding Steele’s statements while admitting threat testimony without clear evidentiary exceptions.

Lastly, Malone condemned prosecutor Keene’s closing remarks for distorting evidence, exaggerating Michele’s potential divorce settlement, presenting threats as uncontested facts, and improperly shifting the burden of proof onto the defense. Although he ideally preferred dismissal of the indictment for legal insufficiency, he recommended granting a new trial given these concerns.

Court of Appeals

Cal took his case to the state's highest judicial body, which conducted hearings on September 11, 2012—the same date marking the 11th anniversary of Michele's disappearance—and delivered its ruling a month afterward. Except for one judge, the panel upheld the Third Department's determination that the verdict met both factual and legal standards. Nevertheless, all seven judges unanimously concurred with Malone's view that the refusal to dismiss a juror for cause and the instructions given to the jury regarding Michele's sisters constituted reversible error, necessitating a retrial.

The majority opinion was authored by Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr., who stressed that the trial court should have pursued further questioning of the potential juror who disclosed a minor preconceived opinion. Concerning the guidance provided about threat statements, Pigott asserted this was not a harmless mistake: given the absence of a body or weapon and reliance on circumstantial evidence, there was a risk that the jury accepted Michele's statements as factual. This risk was heightened by the prosecutor’s closing argument, which treated those statements as direct proof.

Pigott additionally pointed out that defense requests for a change of venue had been denied on three occasions despite extensive media attention—including coverage by Dateline NBC and 48 Hours—and he strongly urged that such a change be granted for the upcoming third trial.

In dissent, Judge Susan Phillips Read aligned with Malone’s assessment that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and argued that the indictment should have been dismissed, referencing Malone’s opinion in full.

Third trial

Following the Court of Appeals' decision, Cal was released on bail set at $500,000 while awaiting his third trial. His legal team successfully petitioned for a change of venue; consequently, in January 2014, proceedings were moved to Schoharie County, located approximately from Tioga.

Jury selection commenced in January 2015 under Judge George Bartlett, marking him as the fourth judge assigned to this matter. After Judge Keene stepped down to assume the role of Tioga County judge, former assistant district attorney Kirk Martin took over prosecutorial duties.

The defense introduced fresh evidence indicating that state police had concentrated solely on Cal and neglected other possible suspects. They called Stacy Stewart, a Texan who had worked locally at a Nucor steel facility and was last observed with Michele. Testimony from Stewart’s ex-girlfriend, who served as a Texas parole officer, claimed Stewart confessed to murder, had affiliations with the KKK, was last seen with Michele, and possessed knowledge about concealing a body. Stewart himself did not testify.

Witness Tubbs reiterated support for this theory by identifying Stewart from photographs and describing a Chevrolet truck parked nearby matching Stewart’s vehicle. The prosecution challenged Tubbs’s capacity to identify Stewart under dim pre-dawn conditions years after the fact; however, Tubbs maintained his identification.

In May, the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision, resulting in a mistrial. A fourth trial was subsequently scheduled for the following year.

Fourth trial

Justice Richard Mott of the state Supreme Court oversaw Cal’s fourth trial and offered him the option of a bench trial to accelerate proceedings. Cal opted for this route, and the trial commenced in March 2016.

The prosecution presented new testimony from Gregory Farr, a convicted murderer who had shared incarceration with Cal. Farr claimed Cal had threatened another inmate but abruptly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights during questioning and refused to answer further inquiries. Farr later alleged that a private investigator working for Cal’s defense team had contacted his family in an attempt to deter his testimony; the defense countered this claim as standard interview preparation. Ultimately, Farr’s statements were removed from consideration in court.

Arguments Presented Against Stewart

Judge Mott permitted a broader scope for the defense to propose third-party responsibility compared to earlier proceedings. Stewart was not apprehended and was presumed to be in Arkansas, whereas his associate David Thomason was incarcerated in Texas and declared he would invoke the Fifth Amendment if forced to testify.

Testimony from Thomason's spouse indicated that Thomason, Michele, and Stewart had been together at a bar on the evening Michele disappeared; Thomason suspected Stewart of killing Michele and hiding her remains. Another acquaintance mentioned that Thomason believed Stewart was responsible due to a sexual involvement with Michele and felt they were safe from suspicion after Harris’s conviction.

Defense counsel for Cal emphasized that Stewart and Thomason abruptly departed New York for Texas soon after Michele went missing. Stewart abandoned an unpaid mortgage on a recently acquired property in Lockwood, which the defense initially searched without success. Subsequently, they discovered Stewart’s vehicle in Texas; after it was auctioned and sold, the new owner allowed a search that uncovered blood traces and earrings similar to those Cal claimed to have purchased for Michele.

These discoveries, along with accounts of Stewart burning bloodied garments following Michele’s disappearance, led to additional digging near the Lockwood residence. The defense found a "burn pit" containing bra strap fragments, fabric pieces, an ornate button, and other items purportedly matching Michele’s clothing and belongings at the time she vanished.

Tubbs' Testimony

Tubbs reaffirmed his previous testimony while Cal’s defense team again attempted to admit Steele’s affidavit, which Judge Mott rejected. Four neighbors provided testimonies offering both corroboration and contradiction of Tubbs’ statements. One neighbor returning from New York reported no cars parked at the Harrises’ driveway around 12:30 a.m. Another, awakened by her dog barking before dawn, noted vehicles seldom parked near the driveway. A third witness recalled seeing a light-colored vehicle there between 4:30 and 5:30 a.m., which was considered typical. Finally, a woman observed a minivan with its lights on but no occupants at 5 a.m., an unusual occurrence.

Additional Defense Points

During cross-examination, defense lawyers questioned prosecution witnesses regarding Michele’s alleged drug use. Thayer admitted inconsistencies in her timeline and had previously described Michele as somewhat of a socializer. The defense asserted that Cal placed the 7:14 a.m. call from the house to Michele’s cell phone, contradicting earlier statements. Thayer denied originating the garage sale suggestion.

Having earlier contested the authenticity of bloodstain photographs as unreliable evidence, the defense now argued these images had been manipulated by altering lighting on negatives. The prosecution countered this claim by presenting an expert who disputed such tampering.

Wilczynski’s report of Cal’s threatening remark was also challenged; the defense highlighted that Wilczynski’s 2001 calendar showed no meetings with Michele after May and questioned why he had not reported overhearing the threat to authorities in 2001. Wilczynski responded that he did not trust law enforcement at that time. Additionally, the investigator who became aware of the threat in 2005 had repeatedly avoided subpoenas to testify.

Final Judgment

Following a month of hearings and judicial decisions, Judge Mott took a period of ten days to consider the case before issuing a verdict of not guilty in May. Subsequently, Cal shared with ABC News 20/20 that he experienced a sense of relief and was in good spirits, particularly as one of his sons had recently gained college admission.

Consequences

Shortly after his acquittal, Cal encountered additional legal troubles. Approximately three weeks later, he was detained near the Oneonta residence of Terry Schultz, a state police investigator involved in his case, on allegations of stalking. Cal was accused of recording Schultz’s property on video and threatening Schultz’s son. The charges included fourth-degree stalking initially, with prosecutors later adding counts of second-degree menacing and harassment. Cal refuted these accusations, asserting they were retaliatory actions by law enforcement following his acquittal and the revelation of their mistakes. He maintained that his presence in the area was to purchase a drone from an online vendor.

In September, an Owego Village Court judge imposed a $100 fine on Cal and ordered him to attend anger management sessions for one year after convicting him of harassment connected to bullying a student enrolled in his daughter’s class at SUNY Broome Community College. Cal disparaged the judgment as “backwoods justice.”

A year afterward, Cal initiated a federal lawsuit for malicious prosecution against the state police, Tioga County, its district attorney’s office, and other parties, accusing them of negligence and evidence manipulation aimed at implicating him. He sought both compensatory and punitive damages. Tioga County sought to dismiss the complaint as exaggerated; however, in August 2019, Judge David N. Hurd determined the claims were sufficiently detailed to warrant responses. The county denied all allegations and commenced comprehensive discovery procedures including trial transcripts and evidence review. Cal expressed optimism about a positive resolution but acknowledged that any awarded damages would likely come from public funds. To raise awareness about his claims, he launched a website titled Tioga County Woodchucks and drew parallels to a 1990s scandal involving state police evidence fabrication. He also utilized Twitter for promotion.

Toward the end of 2017, Cal was arrested once again after a motorist on Interstate 81 reported a hit-and-run incident involving a white pickup truck driven by him. He faced charges for driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident. Following his arraignment in January 2018, Cal admitted to consuming alcohol hours earlier but denied causing the collision, alleging that the reporting driver had been operating erratically. He reiterated claims of police retaliation.

After the verdict, Cal informed ABC that he was attempting to sell the Spencer estate where he and Michele had raised their children. Although he had sought nearly $2 million for the property throughout the 2010s, he withdrew it from sale in 2017. Michele’s family remains convinced of Cal’s culpability in her death; nonetheless, their four children continue to support him and maintain limited contact with her relatives.

In 2020, David Beers—a private investigator initially hired by Cal to locate Michele who later assisted in his defense—published Reign of Injustice, advocating for Cal’s innocence by highlighting flawed investigative procedures. During a public presentation in Athens, Pennsylvania, Beers disclosed details underemphasized during court proceedings:

• Lead investigator Susan Mulvey allegedly informed Cal’s dealership attorney within two days after Michele’s disappearance that she intended to prove Cal’s guilt—prior to any bloodstain discoveries—indicating potential bias as Cal had previously terminated her father’s employment.
• The state police reportedly provided polygraph results for several witnesses who passed but withheld Stewart’s test outcomes.

These points are cited in Cal’s lawsuit; however, prosecutors largely dismissed them and they were not introduced during trial.

See also

• Crime in New York (state)
• Disappearance of Sneha Anne Philip, involving a woman residing near the World Trade Center who vanished the evening before the attacks; a split appeals court concluded she perished during them despite lack of direct proof.
• Killing of Henryk Siwiak, an unresolved murder case in Brooklyn on September 11; the inquiry may have been impeded due to reduced police presence.
• List of murder convictions without a body
• List of solved missing person cases