All Episodes Discussion

[partofme]

 but the similarity between what Avery once did to an animal and what happened to Ms. Halbach went unremarked?  Maybe there needs to be a doc on the making of the doc.

 

 

This has crossed my mind before too.  He burned a cat, Teresa was burned.  Points to the same person imo. 

 

I also didn't think Dateline was so much pro-prosecution as it was slightly more balanced than the netflix documentary.

Edited February 2, 2016 by partofme

[CaughtOnTape]

The significance of the cat, though, is not about the death of one small furry creature.  Animal abusers typically escalate.  I don't think it's an overgeneralization to say that people who get a rush from inflicting pain rarely stop with one satisfying incident and then move on to healthier pursuits.

 

So there are hours and hours to spend on the holes in the justice system and the impact on Mr. Avery, but the similarity between what Avery once did to an animal and what happened to Ms. Halbach went unremarked?  Maybe there needs to be a doc on the making of the doc.

 

I do.

 

Because...once again...the documentary was not aimed at proving or disproving his innocence.  Many people claim they saw it as pro-Avery, I didn't but then again I wasn't watching it to make a decision about whether or not he was guilty.  I don't know if he is or not.  I don't really care to be quite honest.

 

What the focus should be on was how ridiculously bad this investigation was handled.  How huge holes in the story were ignored, such as if her throat was slit and she was killed on his property then where was all the blood?  Because not a single iota of her blood was found anywhere on his property.  How investigators and crime lab techs contaminated evidence.  Huge questions were not answered.  The prosecution did not do their job and instead just succeeded in scaring the hell out of people rather than proving their case.  There is reasonable doubt, especially in the case of Brendan Dassey, which is the core value of our judicial system.

[Ohmo]

I think what a lot of people are misunderstanding about the documentary is regardless of whether or not it was pro or con for Avery...it highlights some disturbing holes in our judicial system.  Things that should scare the living hell out of every one of us.

 

Personally, I don't need the Netflix documentary to tell me that.  That's not a new revelation.  Cases like Barry Beach, Russell Fauria, along with other cases that both Dateline and 48 Hours have done have pointed that out for years.  Netflix and Serial haven't done anything new.  They just have packaged what Dateline and 48 Hours have been doing in a different way.  There are shady prosecutions that happen in the U.S.  There are shady cops that operate in the U.S.  Both of those things will be true no matter what happens to Steven Avery.

 

Also, I think that something that is equally scary is that O.J. made it possible to say "the cops planted evidence" and we invariably end up with wild conspiracy theories that involve multiple people, multiple pieces of evidence at times, and multiple steps.  Conspiracy theories have to be proven just like anything else, and in my opinion, Steven Avery didn't prove his.

 

ETA: Our judicial system is an imperfect system just like everything else because even the rule of law is interpreted by human beings who are fallible.  Maybe it's because I've watched so much Dateline, but I'm not all that outraged.  In some cases, reality dictates that injustice will happen.  It just will, and that's why I think people need to look out for themselves (or have people around to help like Brendan needed).  In Steven's case, I think that the injustice was against Brendan, not Steven,  I firmly believe that there's a difference between what "should be" and "what is, and the reality is that "should be" doesn't always happen.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ohmo

[Calamity Jane]

I guess my feeling is that, since they incorrectly convicted Steven once, and then clearly convicted Brendan on the flimsiest of (fabricated) evidence, they don't get the benefit of the doubt on Steven's murder case, it needs to be airtight.  There are so many questions in the prosecution, and when you put that together with prior history and how Brendan was manipulated BY HIS OWN DEFENSE TEAM, I'm just not willing to accord much good faith to those local authorities, in either county.

[CaughtOnTape]

Personally, I don't need the Netflix documentary to tell me that.  That's not a new revelation.  Cases like Barry Beach, Russell Fauria, along with other cases that both Dateline and 48 Hours have done have pointed that out for years.  Netflix and Serial haven't done anything new.  They just have packaged what Dateline and 48 Hours have been doing in a different way.  There are shady prosecutions that happen in the U.S.  There are shady cops that operate in the U.S.  Both of those things will be true no matter what happens to Steven Avery.

 

Well this is some fuzzy logic.  Let's not make a documentary about another possible case of someone being wrongfully imprisoned because there's already enough out there?  Hm.  Ok.

 

As far as I'm concerned every story of someone being wrongfully imprisoned needs to be told.  Every case where the prosecutors haven't proven their case in this heinous of a circumstance needs to be told.  Every one.  They need to be shouted from the rooftops at every hour of the day until it changes.  These are lives we're talking about.  And you don't get to lock up Steven Avery and throw away the key because he's an undesirable member of society due to the fact that he doesn't conduct himself the way you think he should (I mean "you" generally, btw).

 

People are convicting Steven based on the fact that he abused an animal.  Ok, I get that.  It's terrible and disgusting.

But it was proven that the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department wrongfully imprisoned him once.  Why is their guilt not being questioned?  If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior then I don't trust those assholes with squat.  They had it out for him once, who's to say they didn't again?

Edited February 2, 2016 by CaughtOnTape

[Ohmo]

Well this is some fuzzy logic.  Let's not make a documentary about another possible case of someone being wrongfully imprisoned because there's already enough out there?  Hm.  Ok.

 

As far as I'm concerned every story of someone being wrongfully imprisoned needs to be told.  Every case where the prosecutors haven't proven their case in this heinous of a circumstance needs to be told.  Every one.  They need to be shouted from the rooftops at every hour of the day until it changes.  These are lives we're talking about.  And you don't get to lock up Steven Avery and throw away the key because he's an undesirable member of society due to the fact that he doesn't conduct himself the way you think he should (I mean "you" generally, btw).

 

People are convicting Steven based on the fact that he abused an animal.  Ok, I get that.  It's terrible and disgusting.

But it was proven that the Manitowoc Sheriff's Department wrongfully imprisoned him once.  Why is their guilt not being questioned?  If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior then I don't trust those assholes with squat.  They had it out for him once, who's to say they didn't again?

 

To your first point (because I don't know how to break up a post to respond to individual parts of it), no, go ahead and make the documentary, but it's getting all this talk as though Netflix invented the wheel.  It's a Dateline/48 Hours episode on cable that's been hyped to the hills.  It's not that unique.

 

I disagree with your assertion that the guilt of the police department has not been challenged in this thread.  Several (including myself) have questioned the department's treatment of Brendan.  I think the difference between the two of us lies in the fact that you think that the police are out to get Steven.  I don't think there is enough evidence to prove that claim.  I just don't.  Unlike Brendan's case, where the investigator on the tape has a name.  He is a person.  To go back to the O.J. example, Mark Furman was a person, too.  Steven's claim is that a bunch of evidence was moved, planted, and tampered with.  That implies a full-scale conspiracy, and I feel, if that's the horse that you're going to ride, that you better be able to prove that beyond 'a lab tech could have transferred the blood' or "that cop shouldn't have been there."

 

I understand in the context of Dateline that names can't always be named but there's a difference in saying.  "A cop was there who shouldn't have been" and "we believe there was an officer at the scene who was complicit in planting evidence."  The audience doesn't need to know that person's name unless he or she is charged, but the defense didn't seem to have specific people in mind even when speaking in generalities for Dateline.  The statement about the key not being in the trailer the first several times is still not the same in meaning as "We believe a police officer, lab tech, or whoever planted the key in the trailer."  There was one instance where the defense did mention a lab tech's glove.  That suggests an actual person, but that was the only time I remember hearing anything other than "the police department" in the broadest sense.  On the flip side of that, Dateline mentioned that a nurse was going to testify that she made the hole in the tube.  Dateline didn't name the nurse, but we know that she is/was a nurse.

 

On Dateline, the defense gave too broad an impression of the police department with very little indication that there were actual specific people behind it, which leads me to wonder if there actually are.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Ohmo

[CaughtOnTape]

I think you've made a lot of assumptions in your post about what I think concerning the case.  I could care less if the police were out to get Steven.  There's about as much evidence there as there was to convict Steven of murder, so I say why the hell not?  As many unanswered questions as there might be about the police conspiracy, there are also as many for whether or not Avery did it.  And that's the point the documentary is making.  It's not innocent until proven guilty.  It's guilty until you prove your innocence.  And once the cops decide you're guilty?  You're screwed.  If you'd like to debate that point, watch every single instance of those who have been let out of prison and tell me one time where that didn't happen.  And I'll concede.

 

I also think that the suggestion that people are saying Netflix invented the wheel is a little melodramatic.  This just happens to be current one in a long list of outrageous instances that have been committed to video tape for the masses to see.  The same outrage was expressed when Paradise Lost came out.  The same outrage when Ryan Ferguson's case came to light.  

 

That outrage is excellent and well founded and should definitely be applauded.  Because as has been discussed by so many of those who were let out after it was proven they had nothing to do with what they were convicted for, these are not the only stories.  These are just the only ones people are hearing about.

 

That, to me, is terrifying.

Edited February 2, 2016 by CaughtOnTape

[CaughtOnTape]

It's not that unique.

 

Exactly.

[Stampiron]

Sigh...this is why I dislike Dateline's "non-schedule." A new one, and I missed it. Will now have to wait until it appears online.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=XE6ufRz4Z4I

[Ohmo]

Thank you, Stampiron.  I felt so badly for Jason's buddies.  Those guys really seemed to know him and to look out for him.  When the black-and white photo of Julie first appeared, followed by the guys' assertion that Julie seemed to pursue Jason, my stomach ached.  While I don't think she obviously had designs on murder at that time, Julie certainly seemed to be a user of people.  They were engaged within three months, and she was his first serious relationship.  She also seemed to have no problems using the baby that she conceived via IVF.  Her jailhouse interview with Keith was completely self-serving and insincere, in my opinion.  I'm glad the second jury saw through all of her bull.

 

I'm sorry that Jason's buddies were unsuccessful in getting him to slow things down.  With time, he might have seen Julie for what she was and not married her to begin with.

 

ETA:

 

On the one hand, her taking out the money ahead of time is something you do when you are getting ready to divorce a spouse and you don't want to be left high and dry.

 

As I was watching, before the audience knew that she had shot him, I thought she was going to use that money to pay a hitman.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Ohmo

[CaughtOnTape]

What jury could sit there and watch her non-crying while re-enacting how it happened and say this was an abused woman?

 

Women like her piss me off.

[Fable]

I would rather be objective, but to me nothing this woman said rang true.  The angle she claimed to have shot at was the first thing that bothered me, but her "sex" journal was beyond ridiculous.  Let's not even talk about her fake tears.  If I were a defense attorney, the first thing I would do would be to advise my client just to tell their story and not to fake tears if there were none to fake.  Nothing says guilty more than crying with no real tears. Blech!   I think I will go check out the Deadwood Quote thread  and see what fun I can come up with!  

[psychoticstate]

I too noticed she was crying with no tears.

 

Her journal meant zilch to me.  Who's to say she wrote those things on the actual days, not to mention to question the honesty.   There was no evidence of abuse, other than her testimony and the shaky testimony of her sister (saying that Jason grabbed her wrist.)  There were no 911 calls, no confessions to friends, nothing.

 

I'm surprised we weren't shown anything about her taking the kids to a bouncy house place and coffee after shooting her husband.  Either she was mentally ill or incredibly callous and possibly trying to set up a mental illness defense.

 

I think she went the IVF route thinking that a jury would find it very hard to convict a pregnant woman (she either didn't realize it would take right away or expected the trial to commence without postponement.)  It was very selfish but clearly she's a selfish person.

 

Telling that not one member of her family agreed to an interview to speak on her behalf.

[Lura]

I felt that this episode was boring.  I don't normally feel that way, but this case seemed so cut and dried to me.   I like a show that has a real mystery element to it, and from the very beginning when Keith introduced her, I felt that she would be the trouble-maker.  She did throw me a curve, though, when she was so calm and convincing in court that I thought for a couple of minutes that maybe she wasn't guilty after all.  That woman was out for one thing only: herself. I don't think that her children mattered nearly as much to her as her own neck did,

Edited February 5, 2016 by Lura

[cooksdelight]

The investigation into the death of a Florida firefighter reveals a tale of secrets, lies and infidelity. New.

[ari333]

That Ashley Madison website.... no words.

 

I cant believe the mistress let  "some plumber" into her home. Yikes.

 

Also, when someone is standing staring and weird, that is suspicious behavior and the cops can be called. I understand that folks don't want to get involved, but sometimes it can help or give LE some clues.

 

The dude walked up and told LE he is the shooter. What?  "I never intended to pull that trigger" Really? He was shot 4 times.  One shot may be an accident... 4.... not so much.

Edited February 6, 2016 by ari333

[Morbs]

The killer wasn't exactly a genius.  When your girlfriend asks you to break into someone's apartment, that's a red flag.  I hate when people carry a loaded gun and then claim they didn't want to use it.  At least this episode wasn't stretched to two hours.

[saber5055]

Take pictures, people, when you see someone suspicious. And ask for credentials (and call the super) if someone wants in your apartment. Otherwise, never let anyone inside your home.

 

If the boyfriend could break into that apartment and film stuff, why did he need to pretend to be a plumber to get inside?

 

The boyfriend has to be mentally not all there if he's in prison for 30 years and still won't talk bad about the wife, who now has a million-some dollars and a new firefighting boyfriend. Unless some of that cash has been stashed for him, when he gets out on parole in a couple of years. Interesting that the sister got "an undisclosed amount" of that money.

[callmebetty]

Wait the wife wasn't convicted? How did I miss that? I swear I saw a scene where she was in a prison jumpsuit.

She was definitely a piece of work and deserves nothing. But even though she sought out her affair and was in it longer, I still fault him for his affair as well. Even if it just happened.

Why oh why can't people just get a divorce, but it sounded like that woman was unstable as well as greedy.

[BindsTheTuna]

She was convicted of the apartment burglary.

[saber5055]

Why oh why can't people just get a divorce,

 

Because one doesn't get a bazillion-dollar life-insurance settlement after a divorce. Some people don't even have a house or car afterward.

[mythoughtis]

In her case, there was more than life insurance.  There was possibly a fire department pension and health insurance. 

 

I realize he had a 3 month long  affair, but the wife told the police and the sister that they were getting a divorce.  So, at least the husband had the decency to fairly quickly turn his affair situation into a separation of some sort with his wife (even if they were in the same home, they could be separated).    The wife deliberately started on a road to an affair with a complete stranger on a cheating website, that went on for 4 years, and she apparently never planned on getting divorced.  SInce no one else (including the other woman) knew of the wife's affair before the murder, I guess the husband (victim) didn't either?  Or  maybe he did, was to ashamed to tell anyone, but felt he could reciprocate without guilt?

[Fable]

I'm not sure I believe her boyfriend was protecting her.  Is it possible she may have had him so wrapped around her finger that she led him to believe that doing this was the best thing, while still letting him believe it was his idea?  She seemed kind of devious like that to me. I realize every show has to have its own slant, but based on what was shown, I wasn't convinced he was lying, but at the same time, I think she was being untruthful!

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fable

[biakbiak]

Tonight was a repeat of the Michael George case about the murder of his wife in the back of a comic book store. He was found guilty twice and I am completely certain he was guilty but I don't think I could have voted guilty if I were on the jury based on the evidence as it was presented on the show.

[RedheadZombie]

It was strange that the show referred to his wife as "the love of his life". Clearly it wasn't true.

Since the girlfriend was also married when they met, and she and Sam had only been together a few months, wasn't it likely that she was still married when he died? What a mess. Haven't any of these people heard of divorce?

[applecrisp]

The wife was a piece of work.  i can have an affair but you can't.  That is a very jealous person there. Do you think everyone who shoots their spouse is a sociopath??

[ari333]

Tonight was a repeat of the Michael George case about the murder of his wife in the back of a comic book store. He was found guilty twice and I am completely certain he was guilty but I don't think I could have voted guilty if I were on the jury based on the evidence as it was presented on the show.

I thought he was guilty and I was a little fishy on the new wife, Renae.

[ari333]

It was stunning that LE didn't test his hands for gun shot residue or dust the back door for prints. I think he answered the phone bc he thought it was Rene, who may have been a lookout or accomplice. I think lady in the beard was Rene . I didn't hear what her alibi was .

[Ohmo]

I'm not sure I believe her boyfriend was protecting her.  Is it possible she may have had him so wrapped around her finger that she led him to believe that doing this was the best thing, while still letting him believe it was his idea?  She seemed kind of devious like that to me. I realize every show has to have its own slant, but based on what was shown, I wasn't convinced he was lying, but at the same time, I think she was being untruthful!

 

I believe that all three things are true: Daniele played Michael like a violin, Michael has some mental heath issues, and I think he believes, in his own mind, that he is doing his part to protect Danielle.  He was in this affair for four years.  There was no indication that he or Danielle had ever talked about marriage or moving in together during that time, yet he was smitten.  This wasn't some casual "friends with benefits" kind of thing.  Many men wouldn't just wait around for four years.  I don't think Danielle planned Sam's murder for four years, but Dateline did describe Danielle as ambitious.  I do think that she did spend four years finding, wooing, and grooming some poor sap in order to do her bidding (in whatever way that bidding would turn out to be.)  That sap was Michael, and while we can't say for sure that she outright told Michael to shoot Sam, I can buy that she turned Michael inside and out over the course of four years so that he believed that was one way to solve Danielle's problem.

 

Gotta say, Dateline tried to paint Sam's mistress as this poor, unfortunate soul, but I didn't like her that much.  Also, I have to wonder why Sam didn't just leave Danielle instead of starting his own affair?  They had no kids, so did he really not know about Danielle and Michael?

Take pictures, people, when you see someone suspicious. And ask for credentials (and call the super) if someone wants in your apartment. Otherwise, never let anyone inside your home.

 

If the boyfriend could break into that apartment and film stuff, why did he need to pretend to be a plumber to get inside?

 

The boyfriend has to be mentally not all there if he's in prison for 30 years and still won't talk bad about the wife, who now has a million-some dollars and a new firefighting boyfriend. Unless some of that cash has been stashed for him, when he gets out on parole in a couple of years. Interesting that the sister got "an undisclosed amount" of that money.

 

Can I ask why you chose the word interesting tp describe the sister fighting for the insurance money?  Do you mean that as a positive or as a negative?  It might have been nice for Sam's niece to receive some of the money, but since Sam didn't have children, I'm glad his family got something.  Better than Danielle getting everything.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Ohmo

[saber5055]

Interesting that the sister got "an undisclosed amount" of that money.

 

Can I ask why you chose the word interesting tp describe the sister fighting for the insurance money?  Do you mean that as a positive or as a negative?

 

I chose "interesting" because I thought the sister fighting for and getting money WAS interesting. It's neither positive nor negative, just ... interesting. Also interesting is the amount was undisclosed. I know some cases have to be kept secret, or there is a non-disclose. 

 

Maybe in this case I'm wishing no one would benefit from a guy being murdered, regardless of who they are or their relationship to the victim. I wish the money could go to a worthy cause, people or organizations that really need money, not the greedy.

 

And yeah, good luck with THAT. Money is the root.

[stillhere1900]

It was never explained how Michael George got out of the shop through the back door, because from the 'crime scene photos. there was a lot of boxes and stuff stacked up again the back door.

[Ohmo]

I chose "interesting" because I thought the sister fighting for and getting money WAS interesting. It's neither positive nor negative, just ... interesting. Also interesting is the amount was undisclosed. I know some cases have to be kept secret, or there is a non-disclose. 

 

Maybe in this case I'm wishing no one would benefit from a guy being murdered, regardless of who they are or their relationship to the victim. I wish the money could go to a worthy cause, people or organizations that really need money, not the greedy.

 

And yeah, good luck with THAT. Money is the root.

 

Thanks.  People often use interesting to be diplomatic, and it can be used to be diplomatically positive or negative.  I thought you were trying to make a point, and I was attempting to figure out the way you were headed.

 

I'm OK with the money because presumably Sam and possibly Danielle paid the premiums for that policy.  We didn't hear that Danielle specifically took it out to off Sam, but even if she did, Sam was the one to have died to have caused the payout.  Either way, whether he paid for it or it was used against him, I think it should go to someone who he is likely to have cared about.  He paid the ultimate price for it, and I don't see the sister moving against Danielle as an indication of the sister's greed.  If I were the sister, I'd fight just to keep it away from Danielle on principle if I thought she had anything to do with my brother's death.  It's blood money, and I'd fight to get every dime I could so that would be one less dime that Danielle would gain from Sam's death.  I think it's terrible that Danielle has any of the money at all.

[saber5055]

I was disappointed there was no thread for the Montana vet's murder, then I came here today and it's all here. I had lots of comments back after it aired, but can't remember the details now. I DO remember being angry about the bloodhound evidence being tossed out. Certification for SAR (Search and Rescue) dogs are done at singular clinics around the country, it's not like one can go into the closest town this weekend and get SAR certified. There might be one test held in the northwest in a certain year, if one is lucky.

 

Plus, dogs don't lie, whether they are SAR tested and certified or not. Just like I can drive a car just fine whether I have a driver's license or not. Having paperwork doesn't make a dog "all of a sudden" be able to track a scent. It just means the dog's handler drove a considerable distance and paid a nice fee to get some title on their dog. So irritating.

there was a lot of boxes and stuff stacked up again the back door.

 

As the witness testified, one couldn't tell if "boxes and stuff" were stacked against the back door or not, based on the perspective of the photo. I couldn't. Plus, the back door being blocked would have been against fire code. I know if that were MY shop, I'd want to be able to go out the back door. Gotta get out somehow to put the trash in that dumpster out there.

Edited February 7, 2016 by saber5055

[saber5055]

I think it's terrible that Danielle has any of the money at all.

 

I agree with that. Maybe I think it's "interesting' the sister fought to get some of the money because, typically, the (murderer) spouse gets the cash, end of story. So for the sister to fight Danielle for the money was, indeed, "interesting" in this case. More should do it.

[Fable]

Michael has some mental heath issues, and I think he believes, in his own mind, that he is doing his part to protect Danielle.

I fully agree that Michael felt he was protecting Danielle in that sense of being her "knight in shining armor" by rescuing her from a troubled marriage.  I should have clarified.  I didn't feel Michael was trying to protect her from law enforcement by covering for her but instead I believe she somehow manipulated him into believing that she needed to escape her marriage, and he took it upon himself to kill Sam.  

Edited February 7, 2016 by Fable

[ridethemaverick]

I knew Michael was off when be joined in the "fun" of spying on the mistress. I think a "normal" reaction to someone's married lover being upset and jealous that her husband is cheating would be "so what? Now we can be together" not " I hate her too."

[ari333]

It was never explained how Michael George got out of the shop through the back door, because from the 'crime scene photos. there was a lot of boxes and stuff stacked up again the back door.

 

I thought they said that the EMTs moved things around while tending to the victim. I may have misheard though.. Also, no witness saw anyone leaving carrying two large white boxes? That seems odd in a strip mall setting. And how would anyone know which unmarked large white boxes to take from a back room full of unmarked boxes?

 

I found phone guy believable. Something about the mom (the defendant's mom) did not ring true for me.

[saber5055]

I found phone guy believable. Something about the mom (the defendant's mom) did not ring true for me.

 

Same here. It cracked me up (well, made me mad) that the second defender tried to paint that guy as a stoner loser who couldn't remember what day it was much less what time he made the call.

 

As for the mom, it made me wonder how many parents would lie to save their child, even if the child is forty-something. Then I wondered how many parents would feel comfortable with that same offspring in their house, after they lied for him/her, knowing deep down their kid is a murderer. I mean, easy come, easy go, parents. Keep an eye on YOUR life-insurance policy.

[UsernameFatigue]

It was stunning that LE didn't test his hands for gun shot residue or dust the back door for prints. I think he answered the phone bc he thought it was Rene, who may have been a lookout or accomplice. I think lady in the beard was Rene . I didn't hear what her alibi was .

Both hubby and I thought that Rene was involved, and was possibly the lady in the beard. Seems like she was never considered a suspect but I don't know why. Did she have an alibi? The whole 'the murderer stole two boxes of comic books' story was just ridiculous. Yes, and left $750 in the register, $300 on the wife plus her jewelry. But yes, it was shoddy police work. He never seemed to be a suspect from the time he arrived at the shop after the murder until years later when the cold case team found the note regarding the caller to the store. Thank goodness he didn't get away with it. Other than of course the 18 years that he did.

[Ina123]

I found it interesting also that the sister fought for some of the money. I'd never heard of that before. Life insurance goes to the beneficiary is what I always thought.  I'm wondering if there was a threat of a civil suit (much like Fred Goldman had against OJ) and the wife settled to prevent it. Actually, I think she's settle to save her own skin. Perhaps the sister was going to accuse her of being a participant in civil court. You need a lot less proof in a civil court.

[Ina123]

The word "sex" in her journal looked like it was added later. It was even in different ink.

 

Wow! That bedroom. I'm the first person to call myself messy, but that room hadn't been cleaned in months. No wonder they had separate bedrooms.

 

I thought it would come out in the trial that she would say re the places she took the kids was because she wanted them to have a good memory knowing what they were about to face. I thought she would use that for sympathy. Good mommy trying to give the kids a happy time before all hell breaks loose.

[Ina123]

Hell, I say give the bleeding hearts what they want. Try him again. He'll just be convicted again. You could disallow 50% of the evidence against him and still convict. I've talked to a lot of people who saw the documentary and still weren't convinced of his innocence. Though The Innocence Project has been investigating this second conviction, but they are keeping a low profile during this public outcry over the Netflix show. I suspect they aren't ready to jump on any bandwagon. I do think there may be just cause for Dassey due to his low IQ.

I think Avery just thought he was untouchable because of the first mistake.

And Pam Hupp is still breathing free air. I say we start a petition to try her.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Ina123

[Ina123]

I think he answered the phone bc he thought it was Rene, who may have been a lookout or accomplice. I think lady in the beard was Rene .

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

All that crying when he was found guilty = so fake. Funny, he didn't cry over his wife.

[ari333]

Both hubby and I thought that Rene was involved, and was possibly the lady in the beard. Seems like she was never considered a suspect but I don't know why. Did she have an alibi? The whole 'the murderer stole two boxes of comic books' story was just ridiculous. Yes, and left $750 in the register, $300 on the wife plus her jewelry. But yes, it was shoddy police work. He never seemed to be a suspect from the time he arrived at the shop after the murder until years later when the cold case team found the note regarding the caller to the store. Thank goodness he didn't get away with it. Other than of course the 18 years that he did.

750$ untouched in the register and 300 -400?$ on her person untouched. Jewelry untouched.. Cash is the best thing, more so than books that need to be sold for profit which increases risk.. BAH I wasn't buying any of it . I hope they at least asked Rene where she was. That seems like an obvious question, but several things were bungled imo..

 

Don't they always dust the husband/SO/ bf for gunshot residue in a shooting death? Sheesh. The fact that I think he lied about the white boxes made me feel very fishy about him even if I hadn't already felt fishy. That just screams inside job. From what I heard there were two owners and an "assistant" - aka the mistress who worked there. Did I hear that right ?  

 





Edited February 8, 2016 by ari333

[ari333]

He should have taken the cash, the jewelry, and most of the spendy comic books in the glass.

[ari333]

I always feel for victims, but this eppy didnt' grab me either for some reason.  MAybe I was distracted or IDK what.

[ari333]

So the sister thought the woman had a hand in the murder of her brother but let the woman off the hook bc she got paid? I'd go for the justice for my brother in lieu of hush money. Wow. I may be confusing episodes. I watch too many of these things.  

Edited February 8, 2016 by ari333

[saber5055]

So the sister thought the woman had a hand in the murder of her brother but let the woman off the hook bc she got paid?

 

The sister (or any civilian) doesn't have any say in whether someone is arrested or goes to trial for murder. I view it as Ina123 does, that the payment was in lieu of a civil case like the Goldman/OJ one, where Goldman won (and, as far as I know, has never seen a dime from). At least the sister did get (an undisclosed) amount of money settlement. So there's that. A small justice.

[saber5055]

All that crying when he was found guilty = so fake.

 

Heck, that was the only time he wasn't fake, he was bawling because he'd have to go to prison, feeling sorry for himself for the first time. It was a little gross how his lawyer was holding him in his arms. Just ... ewwww. That's okay with a four-year-old boy, not a 40-year-old man.

He should have taken the cash, the jewelry, and most of the spendy comic books in the glass.

 

YES! If he had done that, then the burglar (lie) would have held up and Dateline would have had to do some other story this week. You'd think he would have thought it through a little better. Or Renee would have.

 

It would have been interesting to see a list of the "stolen" comics, enough to fill two (imaginary) boxes. And the most valuable comics are in a box in the back room and not behind that locked glass cabinet door? Yeah ... just no.

[patty1h]

ID Channel ran an episode yesterday called "Deadly Intent" that I found very interesting.  It followed a couple with the last name Hoagland; the wife's car blew up from a very sophisticated pipe bomb attached underneath. After finding Google searches for bomb making on his PC and then finding the phone numbers to burner phones (used to detonate the bomb) in his wallet, the husband had the balls to blame it all on some homeless dude who had access to his wifi and who gave him those phone numbers so they could keep in contact.  His explanation is the homeless guy was apparently a sociopath who tried to kill the wife for funsies. Luckily the wife survived the bomb blast.

 

Josh Mankewitz was hilariously condescending to the husband, who he interviewed from jail.  He mocked the guys flimsy story and side-eyed his claims of innocence. Of course, it turns out that the devout church going husband was having an affair with his high school sweetheart who lived across the country.  Busted!  But he played the "I'm Innocent" role like he was going for an Oscar.