UsernameFatigue

I haven't made it though an entire episode since the show returned a week ago Monday. But yesterday I got the biggest chuckle out of the huge price label on the bottom of Elaine's right shoe. With her legs crossed at the first of the show, even without the cameraman zooming in for close ups, it was quite noticeable. Not sure if someone then told her, as she seemed to keep her feet on the ground, though I didn't watch the whole episode. Do the ladies not have dressers that check that kind of thing? I expect that from Real Housewives like Sonja who wears clothes and returns them, but not from a former editor of a teen magazine that includes fashion. Do they wear clothes/shoes on this show and return as well? Pretty funny in any case.

I think also that it would also be hard to pin a murder on Pete if Kathleen's husband was still alive. He would know that Pete was not harassing Kathleen, and would also know I would think about Kathleen stealing from and treatment of Pete's dad, etc. Now he might not say anything, but the chances of something slipping are far greater if the husband is alive than if he is dead, since dead men don't talk. Anyone evil enough to pin a murder on an innocent man seems evil enough to kill an innocent man as well.

I am not sure if Roger harassed her, or if it was Mark saying that he harassed her in order to bolster his claim that Roger murdered Donnah. Even without the polaroid pictures found years later, I don't understand how the police could not have figured out that Mark's story of shooting Roger as he was hitting Donnah with the hammer could not be true. There were large blood stains both where Donnah and Roger had lain, which did not jibe with Mark's story. Not to mention of course the coffee cup and cigarettes of Rogers. And the fact that the hammer used to kill Donnah was Mark's. So Roger showed up just hoping to find something to use to kill Donnah? And of course the note in the car indicating that Roger was meeting Mark at 4:30 at the house -he was not an unexpected intruder. Roger's roommate said that Mark had contacted Roger and set up a meeting, in Roger's words to smooth things over since Roger had been fired by his company. I was also suspicious of the 911 call right away. When the operator asked Mark if the intruder was dead, Mark replied that he didn't know, that he was making noises. Dead people don't make noises. He also said on the phone that he shot him once, but Roger was shot twice. I agree that Mark got off the phone with 911 in order to shoot Mark again and make sure he was dead. The other reason I am sure that Mark killed them both is that innocent men do not then try too arrange to have other people killed while in jail. He tried to hire someone to kill his ex mistress, his childhood friend who would not post his bail, and his former father in law. And it isn't like it was just the snitch's word against Marks - they had him wired so had Mark on tape trying to get more people killed. I was so glad to see that Rebecca did not stand by her man, nor did the kids stand by their father. What a strong woman she turned out to be.

Tonight's episode may have been the most upsetting case I have ever seen on Dateline. Right away when they said that Kathleen called her mother rather than 911, I said to my husband that Kathleen was lying. And the family member that did call 911 said that Kathleen said that Pete had a gun and was going to kill her husband and then her. But he didn't have a gun. Why would you go to someone's house to kill them, and hope that you found a gun there to use? And if you aren't going to call 911, at least run out of the house rather than stay to be killed. I didn't believe the phone call for a minute. So much missed by the police, and hidden by the prosecutor. He really should be in jail, disbarring (and who knows if that will happen) isn't enough. I do give credit to Kathleen's daughter for realizing that Pete did not kill her mother. I am sure she likely feels some guilt as well as she would have inherited money that should have gone to Pete. Unfortunately I think his defense lawyer in his first two trials was no that strong. She could have shown pics of the bedroom window that 300lb Pete could not have climbed out of. She could nave pointed out that the 911 caller said that Kathleen said Pete had a gun, when he didn't. There were several things that she could have said to discredit the prosecution. And most of all she should have put Pete on the stand. As he said himself, what would be his motive in killing Kathleen when he could not win a court case if she was dead? I was just gutted in the end to hear that Pete had died so soon after being released. I really hope his family wins a big settlement for wrongful conviction. Sadly though it won't bring their husband/father/grandfather back. I am sure all the stress he suffered in the last 13 plus years contributed to his death.

The funny thing is, there is a huge range of sexual preferences between vanilla, and BDSM. I think likely the majority of the population falls somewhere in between. I never read the 50 Shades books, or saw the movie. (Was there more than one?). I did find your comment that spouses who are not into BDSM often allowed their significant other to participate, because otherwise the marriage is a tragic mismatch, interesting. To me, that would make the marriage a tragic mismatch. And is a spouse who wants to participate in BDSM any different from a spouse who wants to have multiple affairs, or one night stands? The BDSM aspect certainly does not preclude someone from getting seriously involved with another participant. After all, that is apparently the reason Jane is dead. It does seem like most Masters look like Bob - lol. I assume BDSM must involve blindfolds and/or masks, as I can't imagine getting turned on by someone that ugly and doughy.

I am loving all of these casting suggestions. I am trying to think of someone to play Jane, but can only come up with Allison Janney. But I think she would be too tall to play Jane. Master Bob's attorney said that he had a "tortured existence" in his last few years of life before his death in 2020. I wonder if she used those words on purpose? Pretty ironic, not to mention funny. Seems like that would be Master Bob's idea of heaven? But I guess not if he was on the receiving end. Karma, baby.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about my comment regarding Bob's kids cutting him out of their lives. Bob did not participate in BDSM as a loving partner with his wife. He cheated on his wife, and participated with strangers, and with his long time mistress. So ya, if he was my dad treating my mother than way, I would have no respect for him and no reason to let him be a part of my life. As an adult of course, as if I were still a minor I wouldn't have much choice, but would treat him with disdain and a cold shoulder. And that is even without the lack of respect he appeared to have for the other women he participated in BDSM with. And yes, I have heard that BSDM done correctly involves respect, etc. Just don't see it myself. There are plenty of ways to have an exciting non "vanilla" sex life without BDSM. To each his own, I guess. To the suggestions in the above posts regarding casting picks, I love it! Eric Stonestreet would be a great Master Bob. As would Bob from Schitt's Creek - lol. Also I was trying to think of Gary Busy's name - could picture his face but could not remember his name for the life of me.

They did say that the kids had no contact with Bob, but I can't remember if it was after his first conviction for trying to have Joe murdered, or his second for having Jane murdered. Normally I am shaking my head at a spouse who murders their partner, and leaves their kids without either parent, But if I were Bob's kids I would have ditched him as a parent just based on his sexual preferences. I am not a prude. but I do not understand the draw of BSDM. Especially when someone has a daughter, I wonder how he would feel if someone treated his daughter that way? Interesting that the woman who Bob wanted to move into the house he was buying with his mistress dropped him after the first time they had sex. She wasn't even in the dungeon, just a hotel room and dropped him because he liked rough sex. I was also wondering what Rachel's kids must have thought about the man their mother brought to her daughter's wedding? And what they thought about their mother after all of this came out?

Honestly, the judge creeped me out almost more than Master Bob did. And that is a high bar to clear. She sounded like she was flirting with Bob when she complimented him on how he looked in the courtroom. And she didn't think that someone who looked like Bob could be involved with BSDM? Clearly she does not watch Dateline, Bob looks like pretty much any hubby they have had on who is involved with BSDM. The comment that Jane was free had me shaking my head. She isn't free you moron, she is dead. There have been a few episodes on these true crime shows over the years that have had me think they could be a Coen Brothers movie. This one took the cake. As I was watching, I was actually trying to cast the roles. I only got as far as Wanda Sykes for the judge, Sherri Shepherd as the defense attorney, and Nick Nolte as Joe. I am stuck on Master Bob, as I can't think of any actor with enough of a doughy, non descript looking face to play him. I guess they would have to use that theatrical makeup that Dateline said was used on the woman they interviewed towards the beginning of the episode. How ironic that Master Bob was actually so submissive IRL that he had his wife killed to meet his mistress's deadline. I do agree with the judge though - it isn't like he didn't know how to divorce. So I assume it came down to money and not wanting to split the assets. I rolled my eyes at Bob's assertion that he wouldn't kill Jane because she made $125,000 a year. What a peach he was. His poor kids. Their father was a loser even before he became a killer.

I was unclear myself and looked back at that point of the episode. The reporter in a voice over said that Pankey left the church before the Matthews family joined. Which is also in the indictment. Jonelle's father said that Pankey was lying when he said he was a young pastor, as he was a janitor. Where Pankey says he was a youth pastor was in a 4 hour podcast he did in 2019. I missed/forgot that part of the episode. It wasn't clear when/how Mr Matthews knew that. Maybe when he began to insert himself into the case someone in the church told Jonelle's father than he had been a janitor there? Pankey put himself in the case over a span of 36 years, which even for an odd duck like Pankey is a bit much if he had nothing to do with the murder. Why not move on to another obsession over that span of years? When his own son was murdered in 2008, his ex heard him say that he hoped that his son's murder wasn't God's doing because of what happened to Jonelle. Why in the world would Jonelle even be a thought at his own son's funeral unless he had a hand in Jonelle's murder? I know the case is circumstantial, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck....its a duck.

I thought that they said that Pankey left his job as janitor at the church two years before Jonelle and her family moved to town? Her father said that they did not know him, though they did know that when he said that he was a youth pastor that he was lying. I assume they were told that was never the case, that he was the janitor. They were never clear though whether he continued to be a member of the church, and may have been one when Jonelle was taken? It didn't seem like it, as they emphasized that he knew Jonelle's neighbourhood quite well, and watched kids at her school. In the evidence shown on the page that I freeze framed. it said that he was at church (didn't say it was the same church) where Jonelle's disappearance was a part of the service, and the pastor said that he thought she was safe. (Paraphrasing here - can't remember the exact words used). Pankey said words to the effect of the pastor being a false prophet, and got so upset that he had to be escorted from church. He definitely has some screws loose, but that is also a great cover for murder. Oh, he's just a weird guy. But we all know that weird guys are very capable of murder.

I agree that the episode should not have aired until the trail is over. It always seems to me a way for a defense to appeal a conviction, saying that their client could not get a fair trial with all the pre trial publicity. OTOH, the defense lawyer freely consented to being on TV, so I would assume that argument would not fly? The prosecution had 8 pages of points used to get the indictment. so I assume there is a lot more than what we were told. His ex also said that when they returned on the 26th from visiting his parents, not only was he digging in the back yard, but also burned a car that was back there and took it to the savage yard. I would assume that she also must have blown holes in his alibi that he was home with her and his son when Jonelle was taken? I freeze framed where they show the first page of evidence. His ex not only said that the trip away, the day after Jonelle disappeared was unplanned. but that Pankey dumped the family dogs before they left, and they were never seen again, For that reason alone I hope he is convicted and dies a slow, painful death in prison.

I was disappointed that the documentary spent so much time on Ike. He was in way over half of it, Even after she left him, they showed the footage of Tina continually being asked about Ike. They only spent the last few minutes on her finally finding happiness with her current husband. I wish they had spent more time on Tina's happy and independent years.

I usually find that the first several questions are ones that pretty much anyone would likely know, but I did not know the chess answer (though would have guessed queen)and did not know the Seinfeld answer as I have never been a fan of the show. I thought the first contestant was smart when she read the clue to her phone-a-friend, as she left off the unimportant parts of the question to save time. But then she kept talking and didn't give the friend long to answer. I was surprised that she didn't go with her friends answer because the friend never indicated that she was not sure of her answer. She also cut the friend off with 3 seconds still remaining so could have asked the friend how certain she was. The second guy drove me nuts during his final question. He rambled on and on, before he finally asked his girlfriend her thoughts. All she said was that she hadn't seen 12 Monkeys, and then he jumped back in and continued to ramble. At one point he asked her to jump back in with her thoughts, but then didn't let her speak. She may not have seen 12 Monkeys, but may have had reasons to eliminate the other 3 answers. So unless they edit parts of the decision making - which I don't think they do - I didn't understand why he made his decision without letting his girlfriend speak again.

Why? I am no fan of either Mariah or Audrey, but I have no reason to think that their affection and love for each other is manufactured. What would be the point? I do think that they moved to Flagstaff though rather than to Utah because they are likely getting some TLC money for appearing on camera. But Mariah is Kody's daughter, so that doesn't surprise me in the least. But as far as being affectionate for the camera only? Any possible reason for that escapes me.

I had to laugh at how horrified Kody was at the possibility of having the responsibility of a dog. This, the man who has 18 children, 15 that he fathered. Kody would no more be responsible for looking after a dog than he is for looking after his children. The real reason Kody doesn't want a dog in any house he inhabits is that he would view it as being competition. Kody must always be top dog. Regarding Mariah and Audrey being affectionate, I can't say that I even noticed. Hubby and I have always been affectionate, and we have been together since our early 40s. Now 24 years later, we aren't as affectionate as we once were but still often hold hands. and he will at times give me a hug or kiss in public out of the blue. Being affectionate does have an age limit, or an expiry date.

I have just gotten around to watching this episode, because this show - which never was "must see tv" - is now "watch only when I am bored" tv. Regarding where Kody showered when they all lived in the same house - if Kody never showered at Christine's, the reason seems rather clear to me. Kody would shower at Janelle's or Meri's because their houses were empty. They were both off at work, and Christine was looking after the kids including Janelle's. Kody did however have breakfast at Christine's because who else was going to make him breakfast? Simple - you just have to think - WWKD?

Like others, I thought the amount the contestants were playing for in the first episode was way too high. Even $100,000 would have been too high, but $250,000 was ridiculous. Now it was unlikely they were going to win, but it still is a slap in the face to contestants who actually DO win money to take into the final, and may not even be playing for that much. I also do not like that when the Chaser misses a question and the clock is stopped, that the players remaining are able to converse with each other to try to come up with the right answer. I think if one of them thinks they know the answer, they should have to ring in and take that chance for the team. Elliott was adorable.

The Browns certainly have some strange ideas about non poly families - not that that is a surprise. Meri informed us that in poly families the older kids move out and the younger ones stay home. What does she think happens in non poly families? The older kids move out and the younger ones stay home. The older kids in the Brown family left ASAP as I assume they were tired of raising their younger sibs. But non poly kids actually do move out too, Meri. Robyn thinks that in non poly relationships, the women compete? With whom? For what? No one is competing with me for my hubby's attention. And none of my female friends or family are competing with me.....for anything. Still shaking my head at that one. So Robyn says that she doesn't see Kody for days, and Christine says the same thing. We know he isn't with Meri, so is he hiding out at Janelle's because she expects nothing from him? I think he is searching for wife number 5, since he wants more kids. Hopefully any prospective wife watches this show, and sees what an abject failure Kody is, both as a husband, and a human being. Regarding the property, I think Kody has lost interest because of his ADD - he can't focus on anything for long before it becomes boring and he moves on. However the extra two lots on the property may have been, in his mind, for future wives. He just didn't tell the others that.

I am sure it likely varies from state to state, but I don't understand why an autopsy isn't required by law when someone dies at home and isn't under a doctor's care for a serious life threatening illness. I am not sure about the rest of Canada, but I know that the province where I live, B.C., it is required. I wasn't going to watch this episode, but it did have a few more details that I don't remember from before. Did they show Lori being on Wheel of Fortune before? I could have done without a rehash of the interview of the friend with the vocal fry. I did enjoy the poetic justice of J.J.'s grandparents possibly being able to afford the $20,000 reward for info leading to the whereabouts of J.J. because Charles changed his life insurance beneficiary to them. It appears as reported in the show that things did heat up in the case and it brought national attention after they went to the media. Oh, and murderer Alex dying of natural causes? Karma at its best.

I thought this episode was the best of the season so far - it reminded me of why I fell in love with the show last season. And no Shannon and lots of Noah to boot. Win win. Natalie remembering things about her mom due to a mural that the adults thought was awful but the kids totally understood was great. A very touching episode.

I hope they continue on with Dan and Ben working together at the hardware store. It is nice to see something positive (assuming it will be for the most part) develop in the Connor world - it doesn't happen very often. Also nice to see that Darlene is holding on to her job, panic attacks aside. I also loved her slapping Billy the Bass to get it to stop singing/moving, and Harris telling her it is motion activated. Lol. Oh, and Jackie dying her hair - she looks so much younger. All in all a positive episode (again, panic attacks aside) for the Conners.

Like others, I found this episode totally unbelievable. Benny would never have asked his client a question without already knowing the answer. It also made no sense to me that the woman would go after the stepfather like she did. Besides the unknown DNA under the little girl's fingernails, it is likely that there would have been video from various neighbours and business security cameras that would have shown the stepfather leaving and coming back from his bike ride. So in the real world he likely would have been cleared as a suspect pretty quickly.

The most entertaining part of that episode was trying to figure out what was up with Janelle's upper lip in her TH. At first it looked like she had had stitches and a scar, then it looked like she had lip liner on just half of her upper lip that bled. I found it amusing that the Browns and the family that they visited talked about how they are not going away. Joe did not say if any of his grown kids are following polygamy, but we know that none of Kody's are. I have to give kudos to Robyn - possibly a first - for actually saying the reason the laws against polygamy exist in the first place, and that there really are women and children who need to be protected.

I didn't read the spoilers posted above, because I already knew that Tom would be convicted, but then get a new trial because his previous murder trail was allowed in Sharon's trial. As soon as the judge ruled that the previous trail could be entered as evidence, I knew that would be the result. The sad thing is that I think they had enough to convict him without the previous trail, though of course you never know with juries. The first hour of this two part finale had way too much of Tom preening, but I did enjoy even his defense attorneys admitting what a PITA and narcissist he is. But hell, even Tom admitted proudly to being a narcissist. His statement that his children were his gift to the world? He is off his rocker. I was shocked to see his kids show up and talk about what a wonderful father he has been. Maybe he spent some of the money he acquired by killing wives and suing hospitals and police departments, on them. Because I know a couple of narcissists, and they are not capable of being good parents. They are too busy putting themselves first. Always. More revelations about how sick he was, but having his step daughter testify that her father was a pedophile so her mother and Tom could retain custody of her. OMG. It did make me give Frances the side eye - even if she is dead - that she allowed that to happen. I really liked Sharon's daughter Colleen, and feel the worst for her, that she will have to go through yet another trial. I hope the next trial finally puts a nail in Tom's coffin, but I won't hold my breath.