LuvMyShows

OMG. I just can't. SMH. Wow. Just watched the latest Murder in the Heartland, "Mother's Intuition". A young mother named Brandi disappears. One of the suspects is her ex-boyfriend Kelly, who is a real sh*t, as are apparently her current boyfriend, ex-husband, etc, all of whom are suspects. Kelly tells the police a few months into the investigation that he got a call from Brandi a month after she disappeared, and he thinks she's in Myrtle Beach, SC, where he says she can make the most money (she's a stripper). Whoop whoop whoop warning bells going off whoop whoop whoop. So let me get this straight, Kelly. You're the only one who has heard from her...not her mom (who she was very close to), not her friends, not whoever would be taking care of her adored son, not her employer. Just you, an ex-boyfriend she didn't care for and who had been hounding her before she disappeared. And she's not dead...she's still alive! OK, sounds good, see ya. And that was that. The show literally didn't say another word about the supposed phone call (which would seem to have been a great lead if it were true, and something the detectives should follow), or mention ANY follow-up with Kelly about how suspicious it was that he was the only one who received a call from her, or checking his phone records for the existence of the call (and call location information, if it were there)...a call that just happens to suggest taking attention away from her disappearance as a murder and getting the police off his back. And I don't think it's because the show chose not to mention it...I think the detectives didn't see that supposed phone call as a red flag, or should I say, a RED FLAG!!!!!!!! Several years later when someone came forward with a confession that Kelly had made about the murder, they decided to check his alibi, which had something to do with a hotel. Turns out he hadn't been at the hotel at all, and thus his alibi was blown and they moved into the mode of him as the primary suspect....which they could have known about YEARS EARLIER If they had just used their brains about the supposed phone call. 😠😞

I don't recall him saying this...when was it said? And if it's true, then for him to be ruling out his own people says something waaaayyyyy worse than what Lauren said!

Sure, but the really distressing part is that Janelle was going to do it!!! I know that Janelle has a different story from Christine about what the 'ask' really was. I can't help but think that there was likely some combination of the two versions, with Kody having discussed multiple things he wanted her to do, and Janelle focusing on the one that makes her look less bad. I just don't find it plausible that Christine's version has no basis in reality. So even though we see lots of examples of horribleness on the part of Kody and Robyn, for some reason certain ones stand out as proving what we've known all along. For me, in terms of his narcissism, this one is it. For the awfulness of him as a parent, it was that log-splitting conversation with Gabe and Garrison. And for Robyn's true colors showing through, it was the conversation where she convinced Meri that it wouldn't be safe to have everyone over for Christmas.

So even if it were true that he was going to leave it to all 18 children, which it isn't, when you start dividing his share by 18, that doesn't leave anything usable for each child, and it would leave a nightmare of 18 competing priorities in terms of what to do with the land. Additionally, there is overlap between the wives and him in terms of the number of kids! So it's not like he has 18 to leave it to, which is such a huge number, compared to zero for the wives.

I could understand asking him why he moved, just to be certain there wasn't some 'deeper' reason, but she kept pressing him even after he explained. WTAF? Emily is the one with the cast. But what is confusing, is that it appears from what we've seen in the honeymoon, that she hurt her right hand in the shower fall. The cast she is wearing on the AfterParty is on her left. So I'm wondering if the 'current' injury is maybe unrelated to the honeymoon injury. LOL! And holy heck, how does she not know the difference in which one is performed on the girl? And with Orion not correcting her, either he was being polite, or he doesn't know either!

It seems that she genuinely thought that Jamie was going to ask her, but not Hunter or Glenn, to be in the wedding (what an egotistical idiot!). So she was all set to go into her fake-caring-but-really-gloating mode, and then Jamie chopped that sh*t down!

Did anyone watch the Accused: Innocent or Guilty episode "Killed My Mother or Innocent Driver"? That woman is sooo lucky that her husband succumbed to dementia when he did and prolonged her case 6 months, during which time they had that police department dust-up, and she was offered an insanely good plea bargain. The defense lawyer said he thought they offered the plea because all the new evidence had been trending in their favor. But if so, then there is some evidence that they didn't show us, because all the new evidence I saw, kept looking worse and worse for her (the brother's interview, the speeding, the recent DUI). I feel so terrible for her with what's going on in her personal life, but I think she can benefit from that 60-day rehab she has to go to. And Dr. Google says to wait 8 hours after taking Ambien before driving...good for them for finding an expert to say it's a shorter timeframe, but I don't think they'd score points on that if the prosecution did their job.

LOVE IT!!!!!

100%. He looked kind of like a deer in the headlights when asked that question and trying to come up with an answer. I damn well would have followed-up with "OK, how long is 'a long time'?" I like Gerry, but I think he was panicked that his cover would be blown as the long-grieving widower they are portraying. Rappelling would have been nothing wig-wise compared to the wind-in-a-convertible that she had already done!

IRL, I need some input from my fellow true crime peeps. I recently watched an episode (can't remember the franchise) where the bad guy was a cop, who actually was the one who had delivered the stay-safe presentation to the community. So last month I went to our community's stay-safe presentation delivered by the cops, and they offer a home security assessment, where they will come out and assess your home from the viewpoint of a burglar. I would really like to do that...but there is a nagging worry in the back of my mind, that it will be a bad cop who will exploit whatever weaknesses he finds in a later burglary of my home. Thoughts?

Is anyone watching the new ID show FEDS? I am so confused by something in the first episode, "Kidnapped". As we saw it, a couple is kidnapped from their house. The woman is let out at the bank to go in and get a cashier's check for $350K. No one is with her and there is no microphone/camera placed on her by the kidnapper. So why did multiple people in their voice-overs, make such a big deal about how she had the presence of mind to pull out her church bulletin from her purse and write a note for the teller that she had been kidnapped???? She could speak! I understand why she returned to the car, cause she was worried that if she didn't, her husband would be killed. But that explains nothing about why, when she was in the bank, she didn't just tell them every single detail that she could possibly remember, to help the cops catch the kidnapper?

Come on, no one else is going to comment on that? They were thinking of sending the phone off to that place that might take 7 YEARS to unlock it with a special software, yet not one single person in all the previous years, had ever thought to try the guy's birth date?!?!? SMH

She said that she had revealed things to him that she hadn't told anyone, and if that Gabby-related fear was one of them, then what Tanner said was about the lowest thing he could do (it was still low even if she wasn't the one who revealed that fear to him). I don't care if the producers prodded him to...that's an easy thing to say 'no' to. Yeah, this is what I've been wondering. There's no way they didn't have a conversation afterward, so why wouldn't they show it? Maybe it didn't have enough drama? That's part of why I don't feel so bad for her, because from his perspective, he put himself out there for her twice, and got big-time rejected.

She's been mentioning the 100 lbs, but it's a little misleading. She is in fact down 100 pounds, but that's from her previous absolute high of, I think, 380, which was from some time ago. If you recall, back when she scolded Buddy for not noticing that she had lost 40 pounds, she explained that she had been at 350, which is what we'd been seeing her at for quite some time. That would put her at 310. We know she got under 300, cause that's what enabled her to participate in the flying. I don't know what she's at now, but it's not like she lost 100 pounds from the 350 that she had held steady at, so she's reaching waaay back to come up with 100. It's kind of classic Whitney, in that there's some of truth in it, but it's a revisionist way of presenting what she did. (Yes, it's still a good accomplishment, though.) And given that she has said nothing about an increased workout regimen, or a great eating plan -- which she definitely would have if that were the case -- it seems like it has to be Ozempic. I just wish she would come clean about it! And that's what frustrates me about all her real-life sycophantic HAES defenders...they stubbornly insist that those of us who find her unappealing absolutely must be fat-shamers, and that's the only explanation possible, with no recognition or consideration that her personality is so grating, off-putting, and toxic.

I continue to wish I could travel back in time, because as a "right reasons" viewer from the very first season, I boycotted Jesse's season (the only season I didn't see). At the time, he was already famous, having been an NFL quarterback, and the franchise wasn't yet in its recycling of Bach leads from the jilted finalists on the B'ette (and vice-versa). I didn't like the idea of having someone who was already famous be the lead, so I didn't watch, and now I just want to kick myself...or kick some sense into the overly idealistic me from back then!

I thought him saying that was absolutely atrocious, and if I were his kids, I'd have a tough time forgiving him. I guess I'd have to really chalk it up to the emotion of the situation just overcoming him and temporarily rendering him unable to think clearly. Gotta disagree, especially the last part. Some kids are sensitive and may conclude that it's their fault that their Grandma isn't with this great guy that they liked and that Grandma liked. Yeah, it's funny on Bachelor in Paradise, when almost every season that a Bach/ette lead has been on, there is some former contestant from that season and they say something like, "I've spent more time with [whoever] this afternoon on the beach, than I did the entire time of our season." It was sooo refreshing to watch these ladies on the WTA. I can only hope that some of it rubs off on the "ladies" of the younger generation!

Two recommendations on Hulu: Wild Crime is one of those where the whole season is dedicated to one crime, and there are four episodes per season. I prefer one-episode whodunnits, so I stopped after season 1, episode 1. But season 1 seemed very good so far. It's the case of Harold Henthorn, one of those pushed-his-wife-over-a-cliff murderers that has been covered on multiple franchises. And with four episodes, they were able to go into a lot of detail that I had never heard before about all the reasons the death looked suspicious. Season 2 is about a Jane Doe in Yosemite, who is eventually identified, but I think the murder may still be unsolved...although one of the suspects is Cary Stayner, who was an employee at the Cedar Lodge motel and killed a mother, daughter, and daughter's friend that were staying there, which is a case that's appeared on several franchises. (OMG, I just looked this up in Wikipedia and it says that Stayner was questioned originally in the murder of the three women, but he was not considered a suspect at that point because he had no criminal history and remained calm during the police interview. Great detective work, guys. SMH.) Mother Undercover is another four-episode series, but there is only one season. It is very good, and is about mothers who went undercover unofficially to solve a crime or bring about justice.

I like them, but dang, they speak so precisely and carefully, as though every.single.word has been thought out and analyzed before saying it. I wonder if they can be spontaneous, light, and playful in conversation. Here's what I found weird from the aftershow...Clare said that underneath that bathrobe that Cameron slept in (which was weird enough), he had on a shirt and shorts! Her repeated communication mistakes, especially for being with someone that she is just getting to know, are detrimental to their relationship and certainly not an endorsement of her therapist abilities! I actually found this to be her biggest mistake, because of the incredible amount of disastrous assumptions that it introduced and that kept building on each other. First, Clare assumed that Cameron was not feeling her in a romantic way. So rather than actually ask him about it so she could gather useful and accurate information, she phrased it as a statement that was essentially speaking for him and presenting it as a fact. Then he assumed that she was speaking about herself, that she wasn't feeling anything romantic, so rather than verify if that was right or speak up if he actually was feeling romantic, he went along with the statement and her assumption. Then when he went along with it, she assumed that it meant he was in agreement. This left neither of them accurately represented, and thinking incorrect things about the other person, which all could have been avoided by simply asking questions (like Becca and Austin did). The thing I was so taken aback by, was I believe the next morning, and Cameron said something about how much he likes to cuddle, and Clare completely said nothing, after he hadn't even come close to cuddling. She should have used that as a launching point for a non-nagging, exploratory question to help both of them discuss that. It seems like each of them say these blanket statements, and then there is no probing or follow-up to really understand or express confusion about what they are saying, especially when it diverges from what they have actually seen. The part I remember where she was talking about him being ahead, was when the whole group was in the walkway to the airplane (I forget what you call those things), and he was chatting away with the group and she was farther behind. It just didn't look like what I would expect a supposedly considerate and caring brand-new husband to do. But it's sooo much more than just the mechanics of his walking faster than her. If you walk faster than someone, then they aren't going to be beside you. And that simply doesn't appear to be a concern for him, which is not a good way to build (or maintain) a foundation. He told her family something like "she will certainly feel loved". I really wonder what of his past behavior has made the woman he was with feel loved. We haven't seen him do anything so far that would convey even mild affection with Clare (and her ITMs seem to confirm that). Even if he thought she was not feeling him physically, he could still have connected with her when they went to bed in a non-physical way, but he didn't. He apparently wasn't being chivalrous, or apparently even considerate, with her bag...even if she had described herself as independent, that doesn't mean that as a fellow human, he can't ask if she needs help with her apparently much heavier bag than his, especially as part of getting to know someone else's preferences. And with all the walking ahead, he wasn't making her feel like he even wanted to be with her.

He's actually calling college football games this year...I saw him a few weeks ago.

OMG, this is the greatest imagery ever!!!! That's my first time seeing DABSA...love it!

OMG where to begin with this a**hole?! Now that I have seen this episode ("Road Rage Vigilante or Family Protector?"), I have to amend my earlier statement that I only had 2 episodes where I've wanted to see the person found guilty...now it's 3. I really wonder if A&E thought we would find the person sympathetic or not. Most cases, we do find the person sympathetic, but I didn't in this one. I think the judge was fooled by this guy. At sentencing, the judge said something about how there are two kinds of people: bad people who make bad decisions, and otherwise good people who get caught up and make bad decisions. And he said this dude was the latter, but I disagree. When the prosecutor asked him if he felt "authorized" in spite of not being a lawman, to shoot the guy's tires, and he said yes, that said it all. Even though the defense lawyer tried to counter in her closing by saying he meant that he felt "a duty", it was very obvious that he damn well felt he was authorized. He also showed his true colors when they played the jail house recording and he talked about how the justice system doesn't do a good job. That's absolutely part of why he felt 'authorized' to take the action he did, because he distrusts the justice system. I felt so bad for the defense lawyer, especially when she was prepping him for testifying. She was warning him about having to control his behavior on the stand, and she asked if he'd be able to keep his cool. And he said, "Not only to keep my cool, but counteract whatever bullsh*t the state throws at me." And when he added that last part, she looked so dejected, because she knew that his ideology would seep out and get him in trouble. And he showed his true colors again when the prosecution played the 9-1-1 call and he appeared to call the victim a racial epithet. I was confused, because it was presented as though that was the first time that the recording had been played in the trial. And I don't recall that we, as the audience, had heard that in the pre-trial prep by the defense. But they must have listened to it in pre-trial prep, and if they did, then the defense lawyer should have told him not to lie if he was asked about calling the guy a racial epithet before the 9-1-1 call was played. Instead, he said he didn't call the guy a racial epithet but then they played the 9-1-1 call, which showed he was lying. And here's the part no one explored, but I'm curious about. He said that the victim was tailgating the motorcyclist, so he flashed his high beams to get him to stop, and then the victim slammed on the brakes. So he said that he went around the victim's car when that happened, to avoid hitting the victim's car. This seems preposterous. If you are behind someone who slams on their brakes, the first thing you do is slam on your brakes. You don't have anywhere near the time or distance to steer all the way around the back of that person's car and come up beside them. I think the real reason he got up beside the victim's car was to gesture/glare menacingly at him or intimidate him or something escalate-ish.

Just watched it, and what I couldn't believe about the van guy is that his mother was still alive!

IIRC, both Theresa's older sister and Faith's older sister looked younger than they did. And Theresa's looked significantly younger, without any sign (that I could see) of surgery. IIRC it was Leslie, and it was not the first time that she has worn dresses that made her boobs look saggy

Ok...but...if simply being more beautiful were the most important thing, then Prince Charles would have stayed with Princess Di, and all we would need is beauty pageants to make marriage selections!

If you're not watching Accused: Guilty or Innocent, you should! If you don't get A&E, it's available on A&E replay on the app, and is the only show that follows along as a trial occurs and really goes in-depth into the preparation and strategy by the defense. This is the fifth season, and I haven't yet seen the latest episode that One Tough Cookie wrote about (therefore I actually didn't even finish reading the comment), but so far, I encountered only the second episode ever where I have actually wanted the person to be convicted of something. So usually, the cases are not a "did they do it?" situation, but rather a "did what they do rise to a level of a crime?", and unfortunately for society, often I wonder why on earth the person is being prosecuted for this (when other 'real' crimes seem to go unpunished). But in the case of the "Killer Biker or Self-Defense Shooter" episode, I disagreed with the jury and absolutely thought he should have been found guilty of something. He was the one who escalated by giving the victim the finger, he is the who escalated by walking towards the victim to engage him in proximity, he is the one who escalated by pulling out his gun. And I don't care that the re-enactment showed that he could have not noticed the victim putting his gun back...I care that he pulled out a lethal weapon, and he didn't stay aware enough to notice (if it's even true in the first place that he didn't see it...I could easily doubt this dude). It seems like the jury didn't consider all the escalations that he initiated, and only considered a very narrow view of what was going on at the exact time of the shooting...a situation that he absolutely 100% engineered and could have walked away from at a million different points. Now, what the jury didn't hear but I found very interesting, was when that defense-side investigator was practicing a witness-stand interrogation, and said something like, "...and then you shot him in the chest, with the intent to kill", and the guy said Yes! I definitely believe he was being a d*ck motorcycle driver on the road and doing the speeding/weaving that the victim was yelling at him about. But dang, to have a kid in the car and pull over to engage in conflict with a stranger, is messed-up, and now the person who has to pay that penalty is the kid, who has to live with having seen his step-father get killed right in front of his eyes while begging him to stop. By the way, I don't recall the specific episode, but the other one where I wanted a conviction, had something to do with a property-owner and maybe shooting someone hunting on his property? Or maybe it was the one where there was a serious nuisance guy in the neighborhood, and one of the neighbors seemed to take justice in his own hands? Does anyone recall anything like this?