Kidnapper Sues Former Hostages, Says They Broke Promise

Can there be no trust between a kidnapper and his hostages?

A man who held a Kansas couple hostage in their home while fleeing from
authorities is suing them, claiming that they broke an oral contract
made when he promised them money in exchange for hiding him from police.
The couple has asked a judge to dismiss the suit.

Jesse Dimmick of suburban Denver is serving an 11- year sentence after
bursting into Jared and Lindsay Rowley's Topeka- area home in September
2009. He was wanted for questioning in the beating death of a Colorado
man and a chase had begun.

The Topeka Capital-Journal reported that Dimmick filed a breach of
contract suit in Shawnee County District Court, in response to a suit
the Rowleys filed in September seeking $75,000 from him for intruding in
their home and causing emotional stress.

Dimmick contends that he told the couple he was being chased by someone, most likely the police, who wanted to kill him.

"I, the defendant, asked the Rowleys to hide me because I feared for my
life. I offered the Rowleys an unspecified amount of money which they
agreed upon, therefore forging a legally binding oral contract," Dimmick
said in his hand-written court documents. He wants $235,000, in part to
pay for the hospital bills that resulted from him being shot by police
when they arrested him.

Neighbors have said that the couple fed Dimmick snacks and watched
movies with him until he fell asleep and they were able to escape their
home unharmed.

Dimmick was convicted in May 2010 of four felonies, including two counts
of kidnapping. He was sentenced to 10 years and 11 months on those
charges. He was later sent to a jail in Colorado where he is being held
on eight charges, including murder, in connection of with the killing of
Michael Curtis in September 2009. A preliminary hearing originally
scheduled for Dec. 6 has been rescheduled for April 12. No plea has been
entered in the case.

Robert E. Keeshan, an attorney for the Rowleys, filed a motion denying
that there was a contract, but said if there was it would not have been
binding anyway.

"In order for parties to form a binding contract, there must be a
meeting of the minds on all essential terms, including and most
specifically, an agreement on the price," he wrote.

Keeshan said the contract also would have been invalid because the
couple agreed to let Dimmick in the home only because they knew he had a
knife and suspected he might have a gun.

Source

This dude clearly isn't right in the head. Can't believe he is trying to sue his victims hahahha what a dickface.