pdlinda

A few years ago, Molly was given a host job on one of FN Seasonal Baking Championships series. The series was seriously panned with her as a host. Of course, her "Girl Meets Farm" show was in full swing and continued. I don't think a spot appearance on another FN show would negate the status of her show. I never knew how strong the show's ratings were, or if her audience was growing or decreasing.

I watched the new episode on cable. Same. No "intro" with Nick and the kids. At the end I waited to see when the show was filmed. It was 2024. I watched a few "new" episodes last year and each seemed "dated" insofar as Molly's "look" and wardrobe style. I also waited until the end to see when those episodes were filmed. It was 2022. I'm guessing the show was not renewed and FN has these extra episodes "in the can" to show. I say that because I see Molly on Instagram. She has a new, very modern, short haircut and she looks very thin and "fresh". Her posts are mostly about different lunches she prepares for her girls, but there are other posts about different other food-related subjects. She has the restaurant and a new book and different other projects so I'm guessing she was ready to let the show go (whether or not the channel offered her renewal or not, we'll never know).

I remark about the same thing with every single episode. Every victim is described with the same glowing, remarkable terms. "Lights up a room", "a sparkling personality", "once you meet her/him you'll never forget him/her", " a smile that was unforgettable." The thought occurred to me that only the very best of humanity are crime victims according to the reality crime shows like Dateline. I worked in criminal defense for many years so I KNOW the truth. In many instances, the criminal behavior involves two individuals who were arguing or otherwise engaged in conflict. If a clock was used to monitor the ultimate event (the death of one) at one moment, one of the parties was the "victim"...10 minutes before, the OTHER PARTY was the victim of criminal behavior (but not killed), and so it goes...it's like a "dance of dysfunction" made up of many component pieces of a relationship puzzle. However, I admit that the surviving family members/friends must feel better remembering their deceased loved one in the terms mentioned, regardless of the truth...so there's that....

I completely agree with you! The mother looked very frail and it would be EXTREMELY RISKY (in my opinion) for mom to spend even ONE MINUTE in that house alone because "one false move" and she would be on the floor after a fall. That would be TERRIBLE. Yes, she would be fine living there with appropriate care, but, NO, not alone!

Well, she was convicted in the 2nd trial so, apparently, unless there's a 3rd trial, those facts would have no bearing on the outcome.

After reading subsequent posts on this board about that Hulu documentary that portrayed Katie as engaging in theft from the practice, I have changed my opinion about her. If those allegations are true (how will we ever know??), I think that Katie had the evil intent to kill Mary. I think if the State wants to develop these theories as to why Katie was motivated to kill Mary, they will retry her. If the State Atty chooses, instead, to consider the case "resolved" and not put the $$$ and resources into prosecuting her for the 3rd time, she will never be retried. Katie spent 7 yrs in prison...so there's that...chances are, she may re-offend in the future AND she's still a CONVICTED FELON for LIFE, so there's also that. There are MANY COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES to being a convicted felon.

How do you know that? Did I miss something??

I'm still mulling this one over. 20/20 had a similar scenario of false "suicide" cause of wife's death and family pursuing justice for their loved one no matter how long it took! In both cases, it turned out to be that the wife was murdered. Bob got that $400K inheritance from his parents and was a philanderer, but not a murderer, so I'm left with Adam as my most likely suspect. He had the computer skills and was smart. He also seemed like a skillful liar on the stand. Who knows about motive. The State doesn't have to present motive although juries like to hear one. Katie did not come across as the killer no matter how hard they tried to present her as having a "dark side."

I hope so because I loved the original show! I hope she has the same producers because I always thought the "back story" of the patients, including the follow ups, were very well done! Dr. Lee is a great doctor and I always enjoyed seeing how she did each procedure and her explanations for each one!

I would agree with the "unnatural" speculation. I worked in criminal defense for many years, and I can say, WITH THE UTMOST DEGREE OF CERTAINTY that once Lori lands in prison, her crimes against her children will result in her life being in extreme jeopardy by other inmates. Prisoners have a "code of conduct" where criminal behavior is concerned. Killing CHILDREN is absolutely condemned and looked upon as INEXCUSABLE (especially with a "special needs" child). That's in every prison in every state. When she arrives in Idaho,after extradition from AZ, she'll probably be placed in PC(protective custody) confinement that keeps her isolated from GP (general population) because she has a HIGH PROFILE CASE. However, it's more expensive to keep an inmate at this level of custody SO EVENTUALLY, (if she behaves) she'll be placed in GP. PC custody usually involves 23 hrs a day solitary confinement with 1 hr out to walk around a fenced cage alone. One shower a week. If, and when, she hits GP, no matter when that may be, her problems will definitely surface and she'll have to be aware of her physical safety each and every day. My belief is that she was brought back to AZ because the VICTIMS of the crimes she being tried for here wanted legal consequences for their loved ones. Apparently, our County Atty, Rachel Mitchell, chose to go through the expense of devoting resources and attorney time in part, to be sensitive to the family's wishes. Insofar as Lori "representing herself" I'm not sure if the parties agreed to a bench trial (where there's no jury and the Judge decides her fate) but I hope so because, IMO, it will speed things up and the public won't be inconvenienced to the extent of seeing and hearing her expected "histrionics". I was on two juries (very surprised I was picked, but I was) and I can say it is a daily grind to sit and listen to testimony and then render a verdict. It's a very demanding responsibility that, especially in a murder case) takes a heavy toll physically and emotionally.

Do you have any details about the show??? For some peculiar reason (that I could never understand) I had a deep affinity for her show!! I think it's because no matter who the patient was and regardless of how disfiguring his/her presenting skin condition, I always found Dr. Lee to be GENUINELY CONCERNED and (many times) thinking "outside the box" to try and help the person have a better quality of life. I found her to be an excellent physician and a very compassionate person. I will be watching her new show! 100% guaranteed!

I think that Dateline, in general, is chipping away at its budget for this legendary show...the viewer questions in the margins each week seem to have been drafted up by a college intern???

Just a collateral observation, having done criminal defense work for many years (now retired), the dental condition of MANY of the participants led me to believe that serious DRUG USE MAY HAVE contributed to their overall functioning.

Seemed like there was MUCH MORE to her story than was aired. I was curious about the relationship she severed and how much $$$ she was able to walk away with after the split. Also, the daughter. They seemed relatively close in age. The daughter seemed very "passive" and "dependent" on mom (which was perfectly fine with mom).

I did criminal defense representation for many years. Our system is based on the premise that a defendant IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The job of the DEFENSE is to poke holes in the State's case to the point of convincing even ONE JUROR that a "reasonable doubt" exists. That's the CORNERSTONE OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE and it makes our Country live up to its moral and ethical foundation of judicial integrity. The issue is NOT whether the defendant committed the crime. It's whether the State can convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she did what he/she is being charged with by the State. On that note, it is IMPERATIVE to request an attorney when being interviewed by the police about possible criminal behavior. Putting up a fierce defense is NECESSARY because if that's not the case, and the defendant is found GUILTY, he/she will appeal, and probably WIN on the basis of "ineffective assistance of counsel." In this case, I think the defense appellate atty will request a new trial based upon the judge's ruling to OMIT the defense claim that an alternative "cult" ritual killing was responsible for the girls' ultimate death. Just my opinion!