On October 5, 1982, a 17-year-old girl was walking home from her school bus stop on a foggy afternoon in Welcome, Maryland, when a car approached her. The driver, a man who the girl described as about 55 years old, offered her a ride. When she declined, the man pulled a knife and forced her into the car. He drove her to another country road in the rural community, where he raped her. He then released her at the original abduction spot, throwing her belongings out of his car as he drove away. The girl ran home, and her grandparents called the police. She told police the perpetrator had been driving a large blue car.
The following day, the principal investigator on the case, Sergeant George E. Watts, heard from another officer about a man, 60-year-old Joseph Pratt, who lived in Welcome and fit the description of the perpetrator. This officer also said Pratt had a car similar to the one described by the victim.
Deputies went to Pratt’s house to speak with him. Pratt said he was between jobs. He lived alone in a small farmhouse and allowed the officers to photograph him and to search his house and his car, a green Buick.
According to police, the victim identified Pratt in a photo lineup and identified his car as the one driven by the perpetrator. Pratt was charged with rape, kidnapping, and assault.
Available records have few details of Pratt’s trial. Pratt was represented by public defender T. Myron Loyd, and Charles County State’s Attorney Stephen J. Braun prosecuted the case. Loyd argued that there was a discrepancy between Pratt’s green Buick and the victim’s description of the perpetrator’s car. The jury found Pratt guilty of all three chargesin February 1983.
After Pratt’s conviction, court officials learned that investigating officers were divided over whether Pratt was the actual perpetrator and distressed about details of the investigation that had not been revealed at his trial.
The defense filed a motion for a new trial, and an evidentiary hearing was held in April 1983. Corporal J.T. Hindle with the Charles County Sheriff’s Office, testified at the hearing. Hindle was the officer who had towed Pratt’s car following the search of Pratt’s home. At that time, he had noticed dead grass beneath the parked car and dust on the car seat, indicating to him that the car had not been driven recently. He testified that investigators told him not to put his observations about the car in his written report, thus, the information was not presented at trial. Records do not specify whether it had been disclosed to the defense.
At the hearing, Lieutenant Gary Draheith, who had administered polygraph examinations to Pratt and the victim, testified. Draheith said that the victim had told him she only selected Pratt’s photo from the lineup after an officer told her to compare Pratt’s photo with another photo.
The court granted Pratt’s motion for a new trial. He had been in prison for 62 days before he was released on bond pending a new trial.
In preparing for the retrial, Loyd engaged the help of attorney E. Allen Shepherd. Shepherd learned that Pratt’s vision was 20/400 in one eye and 20/200 in the other–a significant vision impairment–and that Pratt required glasses to see well enough to drive. Shepherd learned that Pratt had been asked to remove his glasses when he was photographed for the photo lineup. The defense had doctors prepared to testify at the retrial that Pratt’s impaired vision combined with the foggy weather would have made him unable to drive without his glasses—yet the perpetrator had not worn glasses, according to the victim.
With this new information, Braun launched his own reinvestigation. He interviewed the victim and spoke with her about her identification of Pratt and his car. The victim said that when she was shown Pratt’s car, she told investigators that this car was similar in size to the perpetrator’s vehicle, but it was the wrong color. The victim also confirmed to Braun that the perpetrator had not worn glasses.
On October 19, 1983, the prosecution dismissed the charges against Pratt. Pratt told reporters, “Everywhere I go, people look on me badly. Maybe now, they’ll know different.”
Charles County Sheriff David Fuller said he and his deputies planned to continue investigating who was responsible for the abduction and rape, but available records do not specify whether the true perpetrator was ever identified.
- Meghan Barrett Cousino
Posting Date: 06-08-2026