UsernameFatigue

Not only that, but Moira starting the "prayer" by saying "To whom it may concern". A perfect Moira line. The other one that made me laugh was when Jocelyn said that Roland in the suit looked just as good as he did years ago in one (to paraphrase). Moira replied that she was sure he looked as handsome as he ever has. As in, not at all. Priceless.

The camper van has indeed been around forever. In fact in the 90s my parents bought one to use when they would travel from B.C. back to Ontario for visits in the summer. The one they bought was used and from the 70s. The difference is the other camper vans I have seen have a raised roof (even the one my parents had from the 70s) so you can actually stand up in them. I can't imagine living for any amount of time - even a couple of days - in the one the pitchers make as you would be bent over the whole time you are moving around in it. I was amazed that none of the sharks pointed that out, especially Marc who is 6'2". Even Laurie who is my height (5'4") was bent over. In addition they are converting used vans, so how much of a warranty does it have for those buying - no one asked that either. In any case I would rather pay for a new one with a raised roof and actually be comfortable.

I am not sure if the one I saw could do both at once, but by converting I mean you just use one or the other, so not a big deal. The size he showed only takes a 12 inch pizza, and at least with ours it only takes 60 seconds to cook a pizza. So not sure what the advantage would be of using both.

I bought a pizza oven for my hubby for Christmas, and it looked exactly like the pitcher's oven. In face I went to look at it to see if it was the same make, but it wasn't. When I bought the one I did there were a couple of options, but they all basically looked identical. Some were propane, some wood pellets and some could convert from one to the other. I bought it for our cabin to use outside as a change from the BBQ, and when we don't want to put the oven on in the cabin. But I was surprised that the sharks didn't seem to know the product already existed. (I am posting this a week late, so maybe they did and I forgot).

There were several friends that testified during the trial that the couple's marriage was rocky before Judy was murdered. After the motorcycle Christmas party, in which Jamie and Terri openly flirted, with Jamie blowing kisses to Terri and her laughing, Judi phoned a friend several times in the middle of the night hysterical over Jamie's affair, and behaviour. Jamie wouldn't be the first husband to have no history of violence (or at least not that anyone knew about) and kill his wife in a fit of anger, because either he wanted out of the marriage or she did. Several friends also testified that Judy would never go on a ladder. The funny thing is, it is obvious in the pictures from the crime scene that the tree is already fully decorated. And a neighbour testified that she had already seen the tree fully decorated before the evening that Judy supposedly fell off the ladder because she was decorating the tree. I am still incredulous that Terri would lie under oath and say that she and Jamie were not having an affair. It was known in their motorcycle club, and Jamie bragged about it to at least one other member, who testified. Interesting also, that Jamie was president of the club, Terri was treasurer, and several club members left both over their behavior, and missing money from the clubs funds.

Even if he didn't want to take her to the closest hospital, why take a longer, back road scenic route to get the hospital that he said he was going to? As was pointed out in his trial, he is a former dispatcher and police officer/first responder, so one would think his instinct would be to take the fastest route to the preferred hospital. And the instinct of any loving husband. Unless of course you are staging an accident and don't want to be seen. I wonder why the mysterious car that caused him to swerve off the road and down the embankment didn't stop to help? Hmmmm. Jamie also gave conflicting reports as to whether or not he lost consciousness after the accident. He told the doctor at the hospital that he did not lose consciousness, and told the police interviewing him that he did. As in, that he was knocked out and when he came to, he didn't know where Judy was. Regarding a question upthread as to why he staged the car accident and didn't just stick with her falling off the ladder and hitting her head, it was thought the the injuries she sustained from his attack could not be explained by a simple fall. So adding in the car accident and Judy supposedly being thrown (from a car that was barely moving and did not roll over) out of the jeep would explain her extensive injuries.

While I did enjoy this episode ("Gave up the drink. Strictly a wine and scotch man now" may be one of my fav lines, ever) I didn't find David's behavior to be all that believable. While yes, David is self centered most of the time, he knows (or should know) that his dad doesn't have the money to spend on an expensive reception. This was more like Season One David than the David who has evolved somewhat since then.

As usual with Dateline, they left out a lot of the evidence presented regarding Jamie Baldwin's trail. But just from the episode, I thought he was guilty. For me it was the stocking holder. I use these on my mantle at Christmas, and there is no way if something hit one that it would not fall to the ground. So if Judy fell off the ladder and hit it, it would fall - it is not permanently attached to the fireplace. So the only way it could make marks on Judy's skull - marks on her skull matched the holder - would be if she was hit with it - by someone. Judy also had three injuries to her head, including injuries on each side which is inconsistent with an accident. She had a skull fracture that was 24 cms long - 9.4 inches. That is a pretty long and significant fracture. In addition to the fact that the vehicle showed no signs of being in an accident (from the black box), there was a perfect tire print recovered at the scene. According to the cop giving testimony, that would never happen if the vehicle was leaving the road at 50 miles an hour due to swerving to miss another vehicle. It would only happen if the jeep was being driven slowly over soft ground. Jamie moved in with his girlfriend less than a month after the murder. One of her sons moved in the house, and found blood in odd areas (blood splatter) that did not match Jamie's story. He contacted the police but they did not come out to the house, and nothing was done until 8 months later when SLED got involved. He also said that his mother would never have climbed a ladder because she was afraid of them, as she thought they were unstable. I am the same way. Interesting as well - blood was found under the ladder. And it was destroyed by Jamie after the murder- he said that it was in a fire, so he took it to the dump. Anyway lots of info if you google the trial. Of course there are differing opinions depending on who was testifying for what side, but if I were a juror I would have had no problem convicting him. I also think his ex girlfriend should have been charged with perjury - I think she lied during her testimony. Certainly about the fact that they had never slept together. Sure, lady, sure.

This was an interesting case. I could not have convicted Sandra based on what was shown. I loved the defense attorney, and thought the female prosecutor was very weak. In fact hubby and I both laughed at some of the things she said. Did they even come up with a supposed motive? In any case I am glad that Sandra was acquitted.

I was surprised as well that it took so long for some of these women to figure out this guy had stolen from them. The original woman, Cindi, had $250,000 siphoned out of her accounts. She said she was quite successful, so did she have accountants looking after everything and not bother to check her accounts? And if so why would that person(s) not notice a huge increase in spending, not to mention a second name on her credit card? OTOH, it is disgusting that when she did report it she was told that it would take a couple of years to get to her case. WTH? It seemed like the guy getting free baseball tickets by impersonating an officer was more morally reprehensible to some law enforcement officials that the fact that he stole from numerous women, including over a quarter of a million each from two of them. I know that is an over simplification, but it bugged both hubby and me. Regarding Derek's upbringing, sociopathy often has a strong genetic component, so chances are Derek was born this way and was conning his adoptive parents his whole life as well.

You have a different take on the phrase "the wrong place at the wrong time" than I do. For me wrong place and wrong time are the place and time that the killer just randomly happens to come across his victim. A couple of blocks earlier or later, and/or 5 minutes earlier or later, and someone else becomes the victim. Or no one, if he doesn't happen to come across someone. In Katie's case, she left the party and walked home. The killer came upon her and offered her a ride which she refused. A few minutes later he saw her outside her house and attacked her. In this case there was the added fact that she could not scream and possibly alert her roommate's mother who was sleeping inside. But it any case it has nothing to do with the victim, and everything to do with the randomness of when the killer comes across the victim. No matter where it happens, including a Target parking lot.

The best part of this episode was seeing that Missy's ears are now pierced. Yay Connie!

Lol. I have never had to use the closed captioning feature on my TV, but was seriously considering it last night. When Robyn made the comment about the "heel you want to die on", I pictured her in falling over in stiletto heels and hitting her head. I kid you not, Not that I want anything to happen to Robyn, but for me that was the most entertaining part of the 40 something minute episode. I wonder what the ratings are for this clusterf**k of a show these days? A whole episode spent on who wants what lot on a piece of land that they are no where close to even starting to develop. I guess in future episodes we will once again be treated to watching the Brown fambily move two of the wives from yet one rental to another. Must see TV, for sure. I'll wear heels, just for Robyn.

Did anyone watch the episode last night about Nick McGuffin who had his manslaughter conviction for killing his girlfriend overturned? To say these cops/prosecutors had tunnel vision would be too generous - their vision was not nearly that wide. How in the world the jury convicted him is beyond me, but also interesting that at the time Oregon was one of only two states that could convict someone of manslaughter without all jurors voting to convict. He was acquitted of first degree murder and the jury was 10-2 for guilty on the manslaughter charge. Since then (2011) it sounds like the law has changed in Oregon so that there has to be a unanimous verdict for manslaughter too. So, so many holes in this case. But the one thing that floored me, besides the fact that the crime lab knew when she was killed in 2000 that there was unidentified male DNA on Leah's shoes but didn't report it, was the paint chip on her top that the cops didn't bother to disclose to the defense. The cop said that he didn't know what a paint chip on her top had to do with the case. WTF? Like teenage girls walk around all the time with random paint chips on their clothing. I could type paragraphs on this case - it was truly mind boggling!

I am really disliking this tread of true crime shows giving air time to convicted sociopaths to sit and lie to the viewing audience, like we are a bunch of idiots who are too stupid not to see through their BS. But I really came to this thread to see if anyone watched last night's 20/20 episode. It was right up there with overturned convictions where you wonder WTH the jury was thinking? No one has bother posting about the episode on that threat as yet, but hope some others here saw it, because it was a head shaker!