Betty Marie Roberts -- Last Known to be With a Man Named Charles

Author: Shane Lambert
Original Time of Writing: December 31st, 2020
All articles are subject to editing after the original posting.

Missing person: Betty Marie Roberts

Last-seen date: November 6th, 1959

Last-known communication: November 9th, 1959

Last-seen location: Baltimore, Maryland or Charlotte, North Carolina

NamUs # and Link: #MP7259

Ethnicity/Race: White

Sex: Female
Age at time of disappearance: 29 years old

Hair: Brown
Eye color: Hazel
Height and weight at the time of disappearance: 5'6" to 5'7" and 135 pounds
Other: Dentures, scar on stomach, and tattoo saying "Jeff" on left forearm

The case of Betty Marie Roberts is a memorable one for the last interaction that she had at her last-seen time. Her sister, who was probably angry with being left in charge of Betty's two children, reportedly said “If you walk out, you’re not my sister. Don’t ever come back.”

In the years that followed, the two children ended up in an orphanage and a foster home. At some point, Louise Doane, the sister, searched for a reference to Betty Marie via her Social Security Number and driver's license. Nothing matched up after the year 1959.

This is a case with some contradiction when one consults missing person's databases. At the time of writing, I noted the following:

• NamUs said she went missing on November 6th, 1959; CharleyProject said it was November 3rd of that year
• NamUs said she disappeared from Baltimore, Maryland; the same source said this: "She left with a man from Charlotte, NC and went to Baltimore, Maryland." That would suggest she's missing from Charlotte, not Baltimore.

The contradiction can be reconciled if we take a letter to be her last-seen date. However, technically she was last seen on November 3rd, 1959 in what looks to be Charlotte, North Carolina and her last communication was from Baltimore three days later according to a postmarked letter.

Potential for Finding Her

In this case, I submit that the potential for finding her is grounded in two things, one firm and physical and the other much more tenuous. Firstly, there are the dentures to consider.

This is a physical characteristic of Betty's that is unlike the scar on her abdomen and her tattoo on her forearm. If a Jane Doe is found that is skeletonized the dentures will remain a clue for identity. Importantly, "dentures" is a searchable term in some unidentified remains databases, like the one with NamUs.

Websleuths or amateurs that come across a Jane Doe where dentures are mentioned in the report should cross-reference other details of the Jane Doe with Betty Marie Roberts. On that note, remember to note the contradictions above and to keep an open mind to both cities, Baltimore and Charlotte.

The tenuous lead on Betty Marie Roberts has to do with the man that saw her last. She was running off with a man that Louise, Betty's sister, said was named Charles Wegman. CharleyProject offers this: "Roberts's sister sent photos of Roberts and Wegman to the FBI, and an agent told her Wegman was actually named Charles Dennison but didn't disclose any further information about him."

Who was Charles Dennison?

The identification of Charles Dennison is a subject that some work has been done on. I've consulted AndTheyWere.com's contribution to this case. The description there of Dennison is as follows: “tall and thick, and pleasant-looking, in his late 30s.” Charles also said he was from Houston which, if taken at face value, might be a lead. It's with assumptions like this that efforts start to get tenuous.

The AndTheyWere.com blogger wrote this:

"I was unable to find information about Charles Wegman, but there were two entries in Texas inmate records for Charles C. Dennison. While some of the demographics differ slightly, Charles was a native-born Texan serving time in the late 1940s and early 1950s for burglary and theft. He had served in the Army and/or merchant marines and at one time lived in New York. This individual likely died in 1983 according to Social Security death records."

Unifying the identity of Charles Dennison with Charles Wegman is a challenge in this case.  Wegman said he was from Houston and Dennison was from there as well. However, that hardly makes them a lock for being one and the same people. 

The differing demographics between the Dennison files alluded to in the quote above, have to do with two different birthdates across the two files for Charles C. Dennison in the Texas Convict and Conduct records. However, despite those two different birthdates, it is clear that the two files are for the same person. When I consulted the documents, they were linked by a remark in the latter one that referenced the file number of the former. 

According to the Texas Convict and Conduct Records, there is a Charles Clifford Dennison with a record date of August 3rd, 1949. This individual has a convict number of 114392 and a birth year of 1922. There is also a Charles C Dennison with the birth year of 1920 and a convict number of 120126. Of course, those could be different people except that someone that worked with the document wrote some chicken scratch in the final column which appears to be directing whoever reads it (ie. me) to convict number 120126.

Also, there is some writing near the convict's name which encourages the reader of the document (ie. me) to look at convict 120126 in conjunction with 114392. The two Dennison's with different birth dates are actually the same person and the birth years are just wrong.

I think Charles C. Dennison was all of the following according to the documentary records:

• Born: either 22 Sep 1923 Houston, Texas or 22 Sep 1922 in Houston, Texas
• Died: either 10 Aug 1983 Harris County, Texas or 15 Aug 1983
• Death certificate: 076838
• Possible stepfather: Arthur L Nurse
• Possible biological father: might be James Radley Malin
• Last name: probably connected to Geo K Dennison, a romantic interest of his mother's
• Possible mother: Majorie Pearl Lewis or Mable Lewis
• He was a convicted burglar and thief
• Known to be in custody as of July 25th, 1949; was said to be of New York before this time; appeared to be in prison all the way to Jan 12th, 1953
• His four-year sentence would have ended July 25th, 1953 but a comment suggests that he might have been out as of May 15th, 1951; that date is listed with "Revoked" written beside it on his Texas conviction record
• However, the next record for him suggests that he was not out of prison until January 12th, 1953; I think the first record for Convict #114392 is for a first sentence that lasted from July 25th, 1949 until it was revoked on May 15th, 1951; the Convict #120126 pertains to his second sentence starting without any time out of prison; it ends Jan 12 1953

That he might have been in New York is supported by a passenger list that I found. The passenger list for the Queen Mary vessel is listed as arriving in New York on January 3rd, 1946 as per the records I looked at with Ancestry. They show an "Inf" (infantry?) named Charles C. Dennison on that vessel. There is an Army Serial Number there if anyone wants to have a look and expand further.

If someone can read the following then please remark on it. It appears to be something to do with a physical characteristic in the region under his left eye, I think. As far as I can see it says "ct sc under lf eye. app sc st storm."

Also, what does this say exactly? I see "2 at wheel upper rt arm. Scr lo. lft arm." which I interpret to mean he has a scar on his lower left arm and 2 on his upper right?

I was not able to find anything that substantially unified the identities of Charles C. Dennison and Charles Wegman together. The premise is all based on the description of the FBI's response to the picture of Charles Wegman. One connection I could make, besides both being of Houston, is tenuous: Charles C Dennison had aliases and his real name is hard to find.

Firstly, the C initial for his middle name might stand for Clifford or Clinton. Secondly, according to the 1940 census he might have been Charles Nurse at the age of 17 and of 7427 Avenue O, Houston, Texas in relation to someone who I think was his stepfather (see below). He also might have been known as Charles Malin at birth in relation to his biological father. Charles Dennison comes later in relation to a George K. Dennison. A user on Ancestry wrote this: 

"Charles was the biological child of James R. Malin and Marjorie P. Lewis. Marjorie's second husband was George K. Dennison. (Mable Emogene Lewis was Marjorie's sister and the aunt of Charles C. Malin Dennison.)" (postkrispykritters on 1/17/2017).

The Classified Advertisement That Betty May Have Replied To

It was my hope that the classified advertisement that Betty replied to would yield some clue. However, finding the advertisement wasn't easy. My best guess is that it was the following:

Sat, Sep 19, 1959 – 23 · The Charlotte News (Charlotte, North Carolina) · Newspapers.com

The date of the advertisement is about right. Furthermore, Betty's age fits the age range in the ad. Also, it says that she has to be free to travel and she did up and leave. Furthermore, it mentions photography and that's true to the description of Betty's missing person webpages. 

In an expanded look at this ad, it appeared in the Charlotte area newspapers between February 22nd, 1957, and November 3rd, 1961 according to what I found. The wording in the advertisement changed here and there. The alphanumeric code at the end would be a mailbox number or even a phone number, I think, as there is no other form of communication in the ad (ie. 334-2176). There are similar ads placed to a phone number or mailbox number "ED 3-8581."

The Tom Jones that is mentioned was, I think, the owner of a legitimate and successful studio called "Jones & Presnell Studio's." I think their address was 433 Lawton Road, Charlotte, North Carolina 28216. I'm wondering if Charles Wegmen or Charles Dennison was employed with that company but it's a tenuous connection because I don't even know that this was the ad Betty Marie replied to: it just seems to match-up. This is something Websleuths or amateurs good investigate if they have a brainwave on how to do it. I do know his Social Security Number.

The advertisement does strike me as the phony kind. I think this advertisement targets someone who is gullible. $360 pay is about $3200 by modern standards per month. That's pretty good pay for someone with "No experience necessary." Also, "Paid vacations" sounds a little too good to be true but maybe they just meant you get paid time off every year.

This ad targeted women as it was placed in a column designated "FEMALE HELP." I'm not sure why women were needed to be photographers over men. However, this position seemingly was working with children and the 1950s was a time when women were seen as better suited for such work. Perhaps some still feel that way. Other ads with strikingly similar wording that appeared in the area said that they needed a Child Photographer as a large-print headline instead of "Want A Change."

Conclusion

My read on this overall situation is not a great one when it comes to finding evidence that Betty Marie Roberts survived much longer after she left with the man named Charles. Firstly, I defer to Louise's efforts to find evidence of her based on her identification which suggests that 1959 was a terminal year in Betty Marie's life.

The animosity that Louise communicated toward her sister is a small clue. It doesn't point to Louise but rather, I think, it references Betty Marie's discretion in leaving her children behind to go off with a strange man. Betty Marie was dropping everything and leaving and that speaks to a breakdown of sorts.

The situation seems particularly dangerous because she was running off with a man who an FBI agent seemingly recognized only from a photograph. If that's the case, then that's interesting in and of itself: what kind of man is the kind that an FBI agent recognizes from a photograph alone? That kind of person is likely to be one with a rap sheet -- and not just for jaywalking or going five over in a 50 zone.

So what do we have? A woman that's breaking down is running off with a man that's on the FBI's radar. That doesn't sound like a situation that's going to lead to harmony.

Her credentials have not entered the documentary record since. In my opinion, the balance of the conjecture, in this case, would support the notion that Betty Marie is long dead.

The work on this case has to with connecting Charles Wegman to Charles Dennison in a convincing way and then tracing his location between 1959 and 1983. Also, remember that if you come across a Jane Doe with dentures, especially one with a date-of-death assumed to be in the ballpark of 1959 near Charlotte or Baltimore or even points in between, that's she's a candidate for a rule out. It wouldn't hurt to search for "dentures" in NamUs from time to time and list your Jane Does that match in the comments.