Hawaii man charged in 2006 death of his wife in Maryland
BALTIMORE COUNTY POLICE
Michael Amick
BALTIMORE >> A man who reported his wife left their Maryland home in 2006 after an argument and never returned has been charged with killing her, Baltimore County police said today.
Michael Amick, 56, who moved to Hawaii after his wife’s death, was arrested Thursday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of Roxanne Stitz Amick, police said in a news release.
Amick told police his wife left home on Sept. 13, 2006, following an argument and failed to return. Roxanne Amick’s body was found two days later in some woods. Authorities said the remains were wrapped in blankets in an area with a lot of poison ivy.
An autopsy found the 40-year-old woman had died from multiple injuries and that her death was a homicide.
Police questioned Amick after the discovery of the body and said he had a rash on his arms from above his wrists to his upper arms. Authorities took Amick to a hospital, where doctors said the rash was a reaction to a plant such as poison ivy, they added.
Recent advances in DNA technology linked work gloves found in Roxanne Amick’s car to her husband, according to authorities.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
Joseph Murtha, Amick’s lawyer, said by phone that Amick’s bail had been set this afternoon at $250,000. “He will be in a position not to sit in jail,” because Amick had previously been held without bail, Murtha said.
Murtha has represented Amick since 2006 and said the nature of the case appears to be unchanged, and “sadly, he has been charged with the murder of his wife. This case will be vigorously defended.”
3 responses to “Hawaii man charged in 2006 death of his wife in Maryland”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
So, gloves in his wife’s car had his DNA in them? He’s a member of the household, for crying out loud! Why SHOULDN’T his DNA be found in those gloves? Sorry. If I was sitting on that jury, that “fact” is easily explained and dismissed. We’re not getting the whole story here.
“he had a rash on his arms from above his wrists to his upper arms. Authorities took Amick to a hospital, where doctors said the rash was a reaction to a plant such as poison ivy,”
Unless he can prove how he got the rash and where it’s safe to conclude he dumped her body in the poison ivy infested area. I bet they can take a sample of the poison ivy from the woods and DNA test it against the DNA of the poison ivy oil still lodged in his skin pores affecting his skin and match it 100% to the plants in the area.
We’re definitely not getting the whole story. You really think they would charge him for murder based only on his DNA being on the glove? The article also points out the body was found in an area with a lot of poison ivy and that the accused has a rash from above his wrist to his upper arms that was a reaction from a plant such as poison ivy. The glove and the rash are the only things shared in the article so I’m sure there’s a lot more evidence that has not been shared.