Ohmo

No new info, but I think this was the first time Dateline covered the case. I've also seen it one other time, but that was 48 Hours.

I think that was the jury's point. The gun was not beside her. It was in her hand. I think they took that discrepancy as a lie from Jason, not that he was simply wrong. I think he did it. If Jason is to be given the benefit of the doubt, why is Tiffany painted as the emotional woman who must have died by suicide? They're relying on as much of a trope about Tiffany. Even with the possibility of suicide in play, the circumstances of what he said point to him, not her, in my opinion. It's her car, and it's her gun. He's told her to leave. Why there at that exact moment? She could have driven away in that car with that gun and died by suicide at any time and place of her choosing. He's expecting people to believe that she shot herself twice with her non-dominant hand at that moment in their driveway? Dying by suicide is convenient to begin with and dying by suicide there at that moment is even more convenient. He needs to establish a chain of events THERE, and I think that's because he did it. He's also the aggrieved party. She cheated on him. It's more likely to me that he would strike out in anger at her in that moment more than it's likely that she'd strike out at herself in front of him. Cleaning the van that fast is another red flag. Within 24 hours? That's haste that I don't think had anything to do with the kids.

Spoilers about tonight.

I think it's because Antonia's been a host. She's seen the other side of competition, and I think she wants to be helpful and mentor-ish. I completely think she wanted to help Shota even though they were competing against each other. @Salacious Kitty, don't forget your spoiler tags!

Episode 5 spoilers

Episode 4 spoilers

Episode 3 spoilers

It's going to be the Murdaugh trial all weekend. 48 Hours is doing it, too. I bet both networks had something ready for when the verdict came back. We'll likely get a mix of footage from previous episodes, plus some new material.

Agreed. I was solidly Team Harold during S1 of Top Chef. IMO, Tiffani wasn't just competitive, she was a nasty person. I didn't return to Top Chef after that. Harold won, which made me happy, but I didn't like the vibe of S1. Somewhere (maybe a previous season of TOC---can't remember), Tiffani talked about her wife leaving her. Then, I watched Boardwalk Brawl and was impressed with the mentorship of her team. It seems she's changed, and I'm glad about that.

Can someone give me a brief version of what the beef is with Ilan? I didn't watch his season of Top Chef. Is it behavior like Christa now and Tiffani in S1 of Top Chef?

I do not like Christa. Full stop. I'm thrilled when anyone beats her, and she was even more unlikable with these comments. I was happy about Britt, but I will say that I think Tiffani has mellowed in a good way, so I was sad to see her go. I used to really, really, not like Tiffani, but she was a great team leader on Boardwalk Brawl, and I believe she was genuinely being kind to Britt.

@DEL901 Since there's no Superchef thread and it's related to TOC, I'm sticking this here. Thanks again. I just binge-watched 4 episodes of Superchef to see Justin vs. Simon. I also like that Darnell has a hosting gig. Patiently waiting to see what others will have to say about Episode 2of TOC.

I like Jet, too. Maybe this was the next show they had up, and they decided to test him as host, like Antonia's had a few hosting opportunities.

Thanks! That's on my lists of shows to watch! I agree. That's the vibe I get from Guy too---that he wants to use his fame to help people advance in the culinary world. ETA: This is where Discovery+ is a beautiful thing. No commercials makes it move in a more seamless manner, IMO.

I think the police looking at Jonelle's dad is a case of recency bias. It was 1984. I grew up in the 1980s. Abducted children were in the news a lot then. Adam Walsh, etc. Plus, we here in this forum watch a ton of Dateline. Policing has somewhat evolved over time, but back then, demeanor was looked at differently than it is now. It doesn't surprise me that they went after Jonelle's dad hard. About Norris, I have an overall issue with the idea of accusing someone who's dead because that person cannot offer any sort of defense. I feel if defense attorneys go that route, they should be made to prove that the person who's dead actually did it. Saying that Norris stared at Jonelle's house is like saying that Pankey has mental illness. Neither proves anything. I still go back to the fact that a 75 page timeline could be made of everything that Steve said.

I'll say this: Steve Pankey definitely lives with mental illness. I have experience with people who have mental illness in my family. They do attention seek. They also talk about memories over and over and over again. Those memories typically involve them in some way. Steve didn't keep talking about the fact that he was slighted by those at church. He kept taking about Jonelle Matthews's death. Not once, not twice, but over and over again for years. I think he kept doing that because he was there, and he did it. That much volume of repetition means something, in my opinion.

I want to see Justin and Simon cook on TOC---against each other. I understand Brooke wanting to take a year off, but I do miss her. I also miss the Voltaggios, but Mei Lin has cooked with Michael, so that's Voltaggio adjacent.

Episode 2 spoilers From Episode 1: I'm glad Mularkey lost. He's too much talk for me.

You probably have seen it before. I'm not that much older than Jonelle, and this received national coverage when it happened. Plus, I remember several shows through the years as she was missing (well before Steve Pankey). Probably 4-5 if we're counting both Dateline and 48 Hours. Go, Mrs. Matthews! If you don't want to forgive Steve Pankey, that's your right to feel and not do whatever you want! If people want to forgive, then fine, that's their thing, but I love it when people actually say "I don't." If they don't want to, that should be just as fine as those that want to forgive.

Death of an Officer's Wife I think Seth did it, and the biggest take i took from his police interview was that almost every sentence started with "I". Plus, his daughter's interview with the forensic psychologist was telling. I'm glad he was convicted.

If I recall, that was after James had supposedly come home and taken Sara out of the house. I don't dispute that, but of his available options, she would be the 'safest" in her home that she already knew. In 1982, there was no "take your child to work day." He couldn't show up at work with her, and he couldn't leave her with anyone. That wouldn't instantly arouse suspicion. Sara being in the house is odd for a parent to do that, but look at what Josh Powell and Lori Vallow did to their kids. James leaving Sara alone in the house doesn't seem so far-fetched. I think he got lucky. The lack of DNA from anyone outside the house, the fact that Cathy was killed with an ax that was theirs, the fact the crime scene appeared staged...all of that points to him for me, The ax was theirs. I think it's more likely that James used it than the other guy going to find it and using it. If the other guy had attempted to rape her, failed, and then he decided to kill her, I think it'd be more likely that he would have strangled her. For me, various elements of the crime point to familiarity with the scene, and that points to James, in my opinion. I'm wondering if that also points to James. Did he tell her to do that? "Go play with your dolls. It's OK."

Regarding the issue of reasonable doubt, I think defense lawyers have to remember that most jurors aren't also lawyers. Sometimes I think they forget this. Anything is possible, but that doesn't make it so. Saying that it could have been a sexual predator doesn't automatically make it so. These days, I think many jurors (who aren't lawyers) think "OK, this person died. Someone killed her. We have a husband and we have a potential intruder." Then, they begin to weigh the options on the basis of the evidence. I think jurors have gotten more savvy and don't simply see "reasonable doubt" as the introduction of a second suspect. "Reasonable doubt" is about the plausibility of the suspects. Even though the sexual offender is offered as a suspect, I still find the husband as a more plausible culprit based on the evidence presented. Reasonable doubt has been satisfied for me. Even though the other guy exists, I think James did it, and I would have convicted him.

No, you aren't. We're a party of two. I think he did it too. I think Mr. Ph.D was smug enough to think he'd get away with it. I also think he left Sara in the house because he knew she was young and wouldn't remember what happened. He couldn't take her with him or take her to a neighbor's without arousing suspicion. She'd be safe in the house insofar as she couldn't get out, and she'd provide a heck of an alibi for when he got home and "found Cathy," Even if the sexual predator tried to rape her and failed, there would still be DNA somewhere in that house or on her. Not semen, but DNA. Skin cells. Something. They found no DNA that didn't belong to James, Sara, or Cathy. I don't buy that the sexual predator could have cleaned up THAT well! Lots of criminals have confessed to crimes that the didn't do for the sake of notoriety. I also think the scene was staged. You're going to have a silver tray set just sitting pretty like that in the living room? Why is it there to begin with, and why is it so neat? I think Sara's grandfather is exactly right. James brainwashed her as her only parent and knew he'd be able to do so. James kept her close to his family, not Cathy's so he could control the narrative. Whether ski mask guy exists or not, that doesn't mean it was the sexual predator. Wearing a ski mask in Rochester, NY in February isn't indicative of criminal intent. It's cold there in the winter. I think James is guilty.

I completely agree. The photo of him on the gurney was all kinds of creepy. The way he stared into the camera...gave me the willies.