tobeannounced

Oh, my gosh, I loved snarky British guy. When he and Howard were forced to stand outside the store and solicit customers, Howard said something about not liking it, and he said, "Nor do I." It doesn't read well, but I literally laughed out loud at his phrasing. It was priceless.

Well, I guess SpongeBob and Miss Snooty Pants got lucky. Felt bad for pregnant lady. The cake pop challenge was so WTF. I guess they didn't really want awesome cake pops but time crunch drama. Why do producers of these types of shows always think that's what the viewers want? I would rather see some awesome cake pops!

Okay, RedheadZombie and Ohmo, you've actually changed my mind about this case. I was shocked when she was found guilty, but if the prosecutor laid it out like y'all did, I would probably have voted guilty too. But I really hope that Bonnie gets a good dose of karma. What a rotten, evil witch. And, well, I guess Bill paid the ultimate price for his cruelty.

That prosperity church sounds like the Christian version of The Secret. Sorry, God is not Santa Clause. Plenty of greed all around.

I was just coming here to post that quote, Mannahatta. Literally made me lol.

Two words for Jeff - roid rage

Now I'm confused because I just read a post to never mind about the business of networks stuff. So is it back to business as usual in this thread? I hope so.

There was a conviction eventually, after the guy was tried twice.

Yeah, it really seemed like that crime could have been solved a lot earlier with a little effort. I think the really interesting story would be why it wasn't. I think they should have leaned a little harder on the original detective in the interviews.

Kind of off topic, but does Jack Black always have such a flat affect? I don't follow pop culture so much anymore, but I remember him being a zany, high energy kind of guy.

Lol, Maizie131. I didn't notice the boobage, but I'm usually playing games on my phone while I listen to my murder and mayhem shows.

Yeah, I don't think I could convict on this one either, but I'm not sure he's not guilty. But who's to say the kid just didn't walk in on a burglary or something though.

Yeah, I remembered this case and being baffled why they wouldn't test the hair in the mom's hand. Couldn't the defense insist it be tested? Why does the prosecution just get to say, "Well, 20/20 hindsight," blah blah blah. I was kind of back and forth on Noura's guilt or innocence though. I'm not positive she didn't do it, but I don't think I could convict.

I'm pretty sure she said he has a job so they can survive, since her company is obviously just a vanity project/money pit.

This episode was pretty horrifying and is one reason my son, who's almost 18, got his first smart phone a few months ago, and why my daughter, 15, only has a dumb phone. It's really scary how trusting some of these teens are and sad that they have to be on the defensive so much.

biakbiak, you must still be relatively young if not knowing about a popular app is the first time you've felt old - lol

I vaguely remembered this case from another true crime show, but my memory is sufficiently bad that I really enjoyed this. IDK if "enjoy" is a great word to use, but it was a good mystery. Well, that even seems crass considering someone lost their life, but I hope y'all know what I mean. He was a real piece of work, totally delusional. I loved that Keith went off on him when he was talking about his ex-wife and said he had a lot he could say about her but wouldn't because he's a Christian. I'll give him credit for sticking to his story no matter what though (eye roll).

On the off chance the powers that be read this stuff, please get rid of Margaret and Nene, and and I cosign all of the above suggestions about covering more fashion and going back to the old format. I'd much rather see them cover couples and men's fashion than the stupid games they play. Who is running this show, and why are they screwing it up so badly?

I'm pretty sure feces has DNA in it.

Did the investigators use a 20-year-old stun gun or a new one? There might have been vast differences in them from then to now. Not that I really care, but it just seems like they played fast and loose with a lot of this stuff and the investigation really was not very scientific at all. Going down another rabbit hole, do any other parents here think it's odd that you would have young children's rooms be in such a position that you couldn't hear anything? I'm not really one who thinks the family did it, but I find that very odd. I remember when we moved to our new house and my bedroom was on the first floor and my kids' rooms were on the second. I was really nervous with them being that far away from me and that I wouldn't be able to hear them if they called for me in the middle of the night, and our house is a lot smaller than the Ramseys'. My kids were about the same ages as the Ramsey kids, and they definitely still needed mom and dad sometimes. The poor Ramsey kids, if they were sick or had a nightmare or whatever, would have to go up to their parents' room to get help.

Re the feces ball (gross!), didn't the maid say she had found that in the past, not after the murder? The grand jury indictment, what exactly did they indict the Ramseys for? They had a screen that said something about Count V or something? Seemed like maybe they were lesser charges but the "investigators" didn't want to say they weren't indicted for murder. I was dosing off and on too so could have missed the explanation.

Was the feces smeared on the candy box ever submitted to DNA testing? Whether there was an intruder or not, why did they have to come in through the window anyway? I thought I've read that the Ramseys weren't so great about locking their doors and one was found unlocked? To me, the BDI theory makes the most sense, except when I get to the garroting and paintbrush in the vagina. What parent would do that even to cover up for another child? And would a 9-year-old know how to make one or to wear gloves to keep DNA off of it?

With all due respect to people who know what they would do if their child was kidnapped, no one knows what they would do in that situation unless they've been in that situation. Maybe the Ramseys, being across the country from their family and in a hideous situation, wanted the comfort of close friends. Who knows? My point is, if you've got evidence, show the evidence. Don't do cheap stunts like interviewing the gardener and making a big dot deal about Patsy's comment that anyone in this country could get away with murder, dun, dun, dun! If you've got proof, why interview bitter friends who got iced out because they talked to the media, which I would not consider a friend truly a friend if they ran to the press and talked about my family during the worst time of my life. Why make up crap that you can't even make out on the 911 call?

I felt like the other two guys were just as bad. The vibe I got was shameless promoters who will use anything (mom dead from breast cancer/charities) to promote and sell their product. Plus maybe Travis could get a modeling gig or a record deal out of it. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when they were coming up with their pitch to get on the show. Did not like these guys. And Marcus with the constant harping about getting Travis to tell his story and unburden his soul and how critical it was to their success was just weird.

We'll, I'm really disappointed in this so far. At one point, Henry Lee says to let him play devil's advocate. This would have been a lot more compelling to me if they had some different points of views and challenged each other's assumptions. Total tunnel vision. Mom didn't say what you think she should have said on the 911 call, so let's form the facts to fit our narrative instead of following the evidence where it leads.