NoSpam

I saw on another show that the girlfriend whom he supposedly loved madly was expecting him to propose on some holiday right after his divorce was final. Instead of a ring, he got her a Tea of the Month subscription! Nothing says love like a cheap gift. That's when she broke up with him. I've always suspected that he didn't kill the new man to win her back, but to make her suffer. There have been other killings like that... where the murderer killed the close friend of the ex, so the ex would suffer. The doctor's friend who did the killing was an odd duck. I got the impression he might be a little intellectually impaired. I'm sure the doc paid for all those lunches and strip club visits, so the hit man thought he owed him.

Oh yes, this is done often. One judge overturns, prosecution asks a higher court to reinstate the original verdict. It works often, because courts don't like to overturn jury verdicts unless there is gross misconduct or significant new evidence.

I can't believe TLC is afraid of lawsuits. I've heard their contract covers every contingency. Maybe they think it's bad PR to show an ep where the poundticipant died not long after?

I know! Maybe because there's no clear motive, unlike most Dateline episodes, and the victim count is too low to get the serial killer crowd interested? I remember the Snapped episode vividly, but I haven't seen the story covered elsewhere.

Snapped on Oxygen did an episode. I believe it might be under the name Michelle Knotek. That bish was hella cray-cray.

GSK is one of the genetic genealogy cases I don't have a problem with. They had a ton of evidence and he gave a confession that doesn't appear to be coerced. I think I'm going to stop posting now as my comments are getting misunderstood and I don't know why.

Yes, but there could be an innocent explanation even for semen. If a DNA match is found 20 years later, it's tough to prove the innocent connection. I saw an episode of The First 48 in Ohio where detectives found semen on a rape victim, it didn't match the boyfriend, and they were convinced it was the killer's. Turns out she was having a casual fling with a coworker, and he proved it with text messages. He could also prove he was at work at the time of the killing. If that match had been found 20 years later, all the evidence proving he was at work and that she was seeing him on the side would've been lost to time, and an innocent man would've been convicted. I'm not saying we should never use genetic genealogy to close cold cases, only that I have reservations about it. I hope they have more evidence in every case.

We don't know if they were acquainted or not. It's been far too long for anyone to attest to any innocent contact that might have had that would have left his DNA on the victim. Another example is the Jon Benet Ramsey case. A tiny speck of DNA (likely skin cells) on her underwear doesn't prove that person killed her. Could have been the DNA of the person who sewed the tag on. I never said I didn't believe they had DNA, or that the DNA doesn't match. I'm saying we can't presume to know that having DNA on one victim = killer in an old case. Particularly when the DNA is on one victim, not many victims. For GSK Aka EAR, there is the same person's DNA on many victims, so it's unlikely he came into innocent contact with all of those victims.

I think you've misunderstood my post. I acknowledged they had multiple samples from multiple victims of GSK / EAR. Meaning he'd left DNA on multiple victims. I was saying that in the case previously discussed, they had *one* victim from whom they obtained DNA of the suspect. And after 24 years, it's hard to prove any reasonable alibi for how that DNA got there. E. G , when I was in my 20s I had a few random hook ups. Say I was killed after one of them, and 25 years later they found a match to the DNA. That suspect would have a hard time proving he'd met me at a college party and we'd hooked up, even though it was true. After all those years, no one would remember that he was working at the time of my murder. I don't think a conviction based solely on that DNA would be justice.

Glad to see some action here. As a former genealogist, I'm fascinated by the use of genetic genealogy to solve old cases, but I have reservations. After decades have passed, any exculpatory evidence like phone records or employee time cards will be destroyed. And there have been cases where a suspect was having a consensual relationship with the victim, so his semen was on her, but he had an air tight alibi. I saw one on First 48 recently...taht case is still unsolved, and sadly there were 4 similar murders in a six month period. I'm comfortable with DNA genealogy when there's a mountain of it across multiple victims, like with the California Golden State Killer AKA East Area Rapist. But in cases where it's a small amount that could be explained if it was closer to the date of the crime, I have reservations.

Louvinia's "fiance" is one of those feckless men who buys one box of diapers and says, defensively, "I take care of mah kids!" as though that's something noble. Dude, that's the bare minimum a father should do. You ain't getting a medal for that.

Dorothy was there, but Dr Chabeaux (sp) was the one who made him talk about his sex toys with his pearl-clutching sisters. That whole episode was disgusting and played for drama.

There is a really good workbook from Dr. Tolin and Dr. Frost, "Buried in Treasures." I really recommend it. You might also look into the online resources of the San Francisco Mental Health Association. They have been pioneering a multi-faceted approach. Most of the services are specific to SF (support groups and cleanup help) but the general information is useful. Here is a link to get your started: https://www.mentalhealthsf.org/collecting-behaviors-hoarding-disorder/ I used to have a problem with "excessive acquisition" and cluttering, though I was never a full blown hoarder. I just had "too much stuff" and couldn't figure out how to get rid of it. I did a massive amount of self help to get out of it. (Part of my decluttering was divorcing a borderline-hoarder husband). I really recommend the Dr. Tolin book. If you do take bags out of your cousin's house, whatever you do, DON'T LET HER KNOW! You don't want her to blow up at you and turn into Cindy "they stole my stuff". She also said the bank that foreclosed on her "stole my stuff" and "sold it out from under me." Really delusional. One of his books really helped me with my own cluttering. I think it was "It's All Too Much".

Cindy was the worst. I think she might have had multiple disorders going on in tandem with hoarding behavior. Her trust issues were bordering on paranoia. But can we talk about how wonderful her family was? Her sister, Dee Dee, seemed really smart and had great insight. Cody and his wife were lovely, kind-hearted people. I hope they're able to recover from the loss of the property, and to protect themselves from Cindy's encroachment. It seems such a shame that Cody won't have that property now that it's appreciating in value due to the proximity of Memphis. Back to a recent thread: I'm still Team Dorothy. She's been doing this a long time, and the roach episode would have made Mother Teresa lose her temper.

I also think there is a lack of sensitivity in Annie. I suspect she has had an extremely difficult life and that it makes her a little hardened. We all know that women have to do terrible things sometimes just to survive, and I would never hold that against them. But it can make you lack empathy for others. I am probably reading into this too much, because a friend of mine was trafficked as a child in Cambodia. While she's a perfectly nice person, there's a coldness in her. E. G. She couldn't really express sympathy for a mutual friend when her mother died.