All Episodes Discussion

[Ohmo]

Double murder of Nicole Payne and her 16 year-old son, Taylor.  Jason Payne (husband of Nicole, stepfather of Taylor) was recently convicted of the crime a second time after having been granted a second trial.  Jason's defense in both trials was that Taylor murdered his mother after they had an argument where he was upset about not having a cell phone.  Taylor then committed suicide.

I didn't buy the defense's story.  They kept trying to say that Taylor was a loner who liked to be by himself and play video games.  While that can be a cause for concern in this day and age, that's still a long way from having actual evidence that Taylor was unstable enough to gun his mother down after an argument about a cell phone.  I think both juries got it right.

I am curious about a point of procedure, though.  If a convicted felon like Jason is granted a second trial and is convicted again, is his/her only remaining option parole?  Meaning that since Jason's not eligible for parole, he's out of options?

[Jpxfactor]

I don't think there was enough evidence to convict.  

[imjagain]

There was so many questions.

 If I'm to believe the dad's story the 16 year old was arguing with him or the mother?  He never really said in the police interview (at least it wasn't shown) The mother was still in bed  sleeping,?  she was shot in bed. The husband was taking the kids to school,  so I'd guess the 16 year old was arguing with him.

  Her family claimed she was scared of her husband and that they were having problems.  And,  yet the 17 yr old son said they were happy and had no problems. 

The defense lost some points with me when  they tried to show how the son could have shot himself ,   they used a different type.  but the other gun guy used the exact type of gun and it wouldn't have worked. Idk. I know nothing about guns.

When they showed the  picture of the rag with blood on it, it looked very red.  Old blood would have looked brown. Right?  

[thejuicer]

This case bothered me. I kept listening for hard evidence but didn't hear anything that would have convinced me.

One detective kept saying the woman's body was warm while the 16 year old's body was cold. I'm no detective but surely there are variations in body temperature and the way people die. Unless a coroner or pathologist can testify the exact duration of death of each body, that was just useless information I thought.

The rag with blood - suspicious for sure, but again I didn't think was enough. My DNA, hair, etc. is all over my partner's car too. Let's say I had a nosebleed in his car on the day I was murdered by someone else in my home - I wouldn't want him to be convicted just for that. Just spotty evidence in my opinion. Maybe there was more to what we saw on television but it just didn't seem right to me. 

All the hearsay evidence of "She was always afraid of him" is exactly that - hearsay. Although the gun expert shed some light on the physical improbability of the 16 year old shooting himself I just didn't see enough evidence in this case. YMMV.

[LGGirl]

YMMV, but I think he was wrongly convicted.   The direction of the gun wound in the son appeared more self inflicted.  Pretty hard for another person to shoot someone in that way.  

I know it's hard for family to believe that this was a murder suicide. It's always easier to be angry at the survivors than the ones that are dead. 

[grumpypanda]

Based on the evidence that was presented on the show I wouldn't have been able to convict Jason.

No one wants to believe that a seemingly normal teenager would kill his mother over a silly argument but sometimes teens do irrational things when they're angry. If Taylor did shoot his mother out of anger it makes sense that he committed suicide because he's not a psycho serial killer and the guilt would be too much for him to handle. 

Anyway, I didn't find the rag all that suspicious but the color of the blood on the rag was somewhat strange. I'm not a blood expert but I've always thought that old blood turned a darker color. 

I can't say with absolute certainty that Jason is innocent but I'm definitely leaning towards a murder-suicide scenario. 

[butterflyeludesme]

I feel like there has to be more details to this case that weren't presented in the episode. I would never have been able to convict him with the evidence presented to us as viewers. Three huge things stood out for me. 

1. The temperature of the bodies would 100% be different given the locations of the bodies, the wife was in the fully insulated and heated main house while the son was in a garage that would have been much colder given that one "wall" was a metal garage door. Plus it was December, remember the Christmas tree? Why did the medical examiner not take body temps when he/she arrived on the scene? Is that not SOP?

2. To me there is no way the angle of the gunshot on the son would have been what it was had he been shot by someone else and I don't believer the son would have stayed sitting on his bed with a rifle pointed at his face. Nor would the mom have still been in bed after hearing her son be shot. Rifles are loud and you'd be up and awake and out of bed the moment that gun went off. Also, I wasn't convinced by the distance the gun was supposedly fired from his face. Where are the gunshot experts? Was there gun shot residue on the husband? On the son? This seems like really shoddy investigative work. 

Edit: Found these statements regarding the above. "There was no gun residue (GSR) found on Jason Payne’s hands or anywhere else on his body.  There was GSR found on Taylor Wages’ on the back of his right hand." and "The bodies of victims Nichole Payne and Taylor Wages were removed from the crime scene without the medical examiner being called to the house to examine the bodies."

3. The story was that there was an argument and the dad took the two youngest to school, or maybe just the son because he had the little girl with him when he found the bodies. So he either shot them while both children were there or when just the little girl was there? Why did no one ask the children? They both looked old enough to state whether or not the story happened the way he said it did or if they heard a gun shot.

Edited May 16, 2016 by butterflyeludesme

[psychoticstate]

I was doing other things while I had this on but this case just appears to be a mess from start to finish.  No excuse why the bodies were touched, much less removed, before the ME got there.  Body temps should have been taken immediately -  had that been done, they could have used the inside temp of the house, the temp inside the garage room and the temp outside to determine TOD.

The murder/suicide seems weird.  Would this kid really shoot his mom in the head because he didn't have a cell phone?  Did Taylor have other issues that were mentioned during the show and I missed them?  Why would he shoot his mom?  I'm having a hard time with that one.  

I don't know that I could have convicted either.  Seems like there were arguments for both Jason's guilt and innocence but nothing extraordinarily strong in either direction. 

[Ohmo]

4 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

 

The murder/suicide seems weird.  Would this kid really shoot his mom in the head because he didn't have a cell phone?  Did Taylor have other issues that were mentioned during the show and I missed them?  Why would he shoot his mom?  I'm having a hard time with that one.  

The murder-suicide idea just seems too convenient for me.  You have another dead person in the house who happens to be a teenager.  Taylor's not alive to defend himself and a teenager who's a loner seems a very handy way to distract from the MOST likely of suspects, which is often the romantic partner of a victim.  Taylor may have been a loner, but to shoot your mother over a cell phone?  There's no indication that Taylor had that type of emotional issues, and I think that the defense would be stressing that hard if there was evidence to back that up.

Something that I think got lost in the shuffle is that Taylor was Nicole's child, not Jason's.  If there were problems in the marriage, I can buy a spouse being aggressive against a wife and HER son.

Also, we don't have to be blood experts to know that fresh blood is red and older blood is much browner.  That blood looked red and the LEOs on scene said it was red.  If Jason had said, "Yeah, I got a bloody nose this morning, that would be a plausible lie.  Instead, he points to an incident that happened weeks earlier?  That blood would look brown after 24-48 hours, never mind weeks.

The GSR doesn't sway me.  Jason made the 911 call.  He had plenty of time to wash his hands or even his entire body, and he could have rubbed the gun on the back of Taylor's hand.  I think it is much more plausible that Jason did it then to attribute it to a teenager based on a standard teenage argument that probably 90% of kids have with their parents.  That kind of anger is not just a one-off thing that comes out of the blue.  To make that case about Taylor and have me buy it, the defense would have to bring me a guidance counselor, a report card, interviews from Taylor's friends, or anything else that would demonstrate that such behavior would be plausible for Taylor.  Then they would have my attention.  Nicole did not shoot herself, and I don't believe that it's Taylor, at least not with this evidence.  That leaves Jason, and two juries agreed, even with the hearsay taken out of the second trial.

[glowlights]

Just saw this ep last night and was left with SO many questions. Foremost, I wonder why they came back from Canada after the shooting? They would risk going to prison for murder just for the chance to run his company? Wtf?

To me, the 911 call sounded like someone who was scared and trying to keep it together. The responding officer did notice red marks on her neck. I was more chilled by the husband's voice when he got on the phone and described her as "silly".

[applecrisp]

Did anyone watch?  I think the wrongfully accused cases are catching up to the murdering spouses as favorite Dateline topics. This had some troubling info, for me it was that one brother got off and one was convicted.  He was not even at the crime scene.

I am just frustrated with our justice system.

[tobeannounced]

It is very frustrating, applecrisp.  I also think working the late/early shift at a gas station is probably one of the most dangerous jobs a woman can have.  There's been so many of those covered lately,

[Enigma X]

I was bothered that law enforcement felt as if dropping evidence that stated the victim was some type of informant was not relevant. I don't think many small-time drug dealers are smart enough or care to discern the different levels of drug informant there could be. If they knew she informed on any level and at any time, it is possible that it placed her life in danger.

[tobeannounced]

Exactly, Enigma X.  A snitch is a snitch is a snitch.  And why oh why do people always believe the jailhouse snitches?  I've seen enough of these shows that if I was on a jury, it would have to be pretty darn convincing for me to give it any weight.

[stillhere1900]

5 hours ago, applecrisp said:

Did anyone watch?  I think the wrongfully accused cases are catching up to the murdering spouses as favorite Dateline topics. This had some troubling info, for me it was that one brother got off and one was convicted.  He was not even at the crime scene.

I am just frustrated with our justice system.

Remembering Heidi: I watched this episode just shaking my head because 'how in the hell did the one brother WHO WASN'T EVEN AT THE CRIME SCENE' get convicted ?  And the women who said that she saw Heidi in the back of the van but didn't say a word or the woman who got the case reopened but didn't come forward for yrs even though she thought an innocent man was in prison. WTF?!!!!

Where are the "Innocent Project" people

[sinycalone]

I read about this case in various newspaper accounts.  In defense of the prosecutor's office, several people did not come forward to place the convicted brother elsewhere until long after the trial.  Why did any of them wait so long before providing their information...not just the woman who saw Heidi in the back of that van?  I can understand an initial reluctance to get involved...but when you see some about to go to jail for something he probably did not do...WTH?

[stillhere1900]

Just watch this one and I can't believe that MF'er watched his friend (her ex-husband) kill her and didn't try to help her at all because... "he knows where I live, he could do harm to my family".

Her ex-husband was strangling her right there in front of him but he did nothing to help her. Really ?

Edited May 22, 2016 by stillhere1900

[UsernameFatigue]

Another case that had me shaking my head. Not only did the apparent actual killer of Heidi confess, he was annoyed that the woman he confessed to (whose name I can't remember now) didn't believe him and told her to ask another woman who was an eye witness to Heidi being at her home that morning! It isn't like she was just another person the killer told, her took Heidi to her friggin' house!! THAT isn't believeable, but jail house snitches are? Even if the prosecutor didn't want to admit that his office prosecuted the wrong man, I can't believe the judge did not order a new trial.

And as far as the brother who was at the store calling the cops that he had been there, why in the hell would he do that if he was the one who abducted and killed Heidi? They had no video placing him there. They only said the cash register showed that his purchase was the last one. But if he paid cash (I don't think they said one way or the other) there would be no way to trace him.

Sinycalone, I thought the convicted brother was at home sleeping? Were there other people at his house who could verify that besides his girlfriend? And the third guy who was involved was just creepy. (Not that the guy who confessed and then murdered his girlfriend later wasn't). Seems to me there is way more pointing to the three who are free and living their lives with no one looking at them that the brother in jail and the other brother who has had his life ruined.

Edited May 26, 2016 by UsernameFatigue

[sinycalone]

UsernameFatigue - here is one of the articles that includes information that should have been in the trial...but didn't surface until after the trial in most cases.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/wheres_heidi_allen_the_biggest_mystery_in_oswego_county_turns_20_years_old.html

And here's an article about her status as an informant:

http://www.syracuse.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/10/heidi_allen_worked_as_drug_informant_feared_investigators_request_to_target_coca.html

I don't care if she never supplied any valuable information....the fact that the card was dropped that indicated she was a police informant was important.  Do you think any possible drug dealers would bother to check with the sheriff or any police official about her status...they would just assume she was passing information on to the police.

[pigs-in-space]

Has anyone watched the episode "True Lies"?  It's been repeating a lot on Dateline on ID, and I've watched it a few times.  This is the episode where a woman is killed, and both her husband and son (the husband's step-son) call 911 within minutes of the crime and claim the other person did it.  The father had previously been widowed when his wife fell in their pool and drowned, although that was at least officially ruled an accident.

I keep wavering on which one I think did it, but I'm leaning towards the son (who was prosecuted for the crime).  It sounds horrible to say, but I felt like he was the one stupid enough to commit the crime with someone else in the house and had the most motive.  He also just creeped me out a bit when he was talking.

I think one of the other most memorable episodes for me is "Deadly Desire" which I know has been discussed here before, but what I like so much about this one is that Keith Morrison's narration is freaking hilarious.  Some highlights:

Intro: "Careful when you stir the hot pot of desire."

On discovering her husband was having an affair: "But of course it was devastating, crippling.  Every day she went to work and every day she went to work and every day her friend Sophia saw her friend turn herself inside out, and just seemed to wither." and (my personal favorite) "Boring old Kandi Hall.  Rejected, apparently unlovable.  And nearly forty."

On Kandi finding out she was losing her job: "Such problems."  (This one is all about Keith's inflection!)

"Sitting here, now, is Kandi still thinking only of Kandi?  Perhaps as you hear the rest of the story, you can be the judge of that.  Anyway..."

On Kandi's affair: "But, for the many reasons that plainly escape those who aren't seated smack in the hot stove of desire themselves, Emmett and Kandi thought otherwise.  Oh, they tried to keep their hands off each other for a little while, said their coworkers, but if they believed they were hiding their obvious infatuation, their suddenly messy hair, their hastily rearranged clothes, they were only fooling themselves."

"Such timing. Now that Rob seemed to want to fix their marriage, Kandi became a study in pretense.  Honesty took a holiday."

He so obviously dislikes Kandi (and who can blame him) and it's hilarious.

[FanOfTheFans]

Regarding "True Lies", I think the husband did it. His first wife died under suspicious circumstances. He totally got away with it too.  He creeped me out. The son had issues for sure, the type of kid that needs to be strongly guided to succeed in the real world. He was very immature for his age but I don't believe he killed his mother.  I think the step-dad set him up.  He struck me as very manipulative. 

[JudyObscure]

Montana men fight over access road rights.

I thought this was a good one.  Beautiful scenery, a river ran through it, and people went nuts. 

I just don't know how you can tell everyone in town you're going to kill someone, proceed to kill him, and walk away with losing your gun license.  Maybe in Montana that's a fate worse than death.

[hoosiermom]

He also lost his home and land that he killed the guy over but I feel he deserved time in prison.

[saber5055]

Montana is the only state in the union that I had to fight back tears when it was time to fly home, I did not want to leave. Hoosier, he did not "lose" his house or land, he was just prohibited from ever going there again. His wife still could, I'm guessing. This guy was so obviously a murderer. He sent his wife away not so she wouldn't be in "harm's way," but so she wouldn't witness him murdering Tim. That's my take on it. I wish Tim's gun had been checked for prints, to see if Joe put it there, by left-handed Tim's right hand. I hated Joe crying in court. Yeah, crying because he could go to prison, not because he murdered a man. I would have liked to see a map to show where the trails/public land/cabins and Joe's property were, to get a better idea of the problem. Why was Joe able to buy land w/o an easement going through it, those public trails?

[Fable]

I thought this one was a bit boring.  There was no mystery, someone shot at someone and someone is dead.  I feel strongly that the shooter was guilty.  It is obvious he was itching to shoot someone,  What I don't understand is why his (neighbor) victim decided to antagonize him.  If Joe Campbell bought the land fair and square, why should anyone feel like they have the right to dispute that?  

Edited June 12, 2016 by Fable

[biakbiak]

Because the issue of private landowners blocking access to public land is a huge debate in Montana. 

[stillhere1900]

How are the people suppose to access the public land if it runs through Joe's land ?  

[hoosiermom]

I stand corrected saber5055. I thought him not allowed on the land was when he was out on bond until the trial. Oops!

[Fable]

I am still not sure I understand.  I don't think he could disallow people public access to state land.  It seemed like he just didn't want people using his property as a shortcut to get there.  Dick move?  Perhaps, but well within his rights.  Or did I miss something?  

[Stampiron]

I watched "True Lies" last night (thanks pigs-in-space.) Very interesting case. The full episode is here:

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/full-episode--true-lies-433826371794

After their initial interview segments, I said "My money's on Kevin (the son.)" By the end of the episode I believed pretty strongly that Bill (the husband) was the killer.

- Bill's string of insurance claims is a big red flag, and it fits in with the deviousness of a murder/frame-job.

• His first wife dies in the middle of the night, supposedly after slipping by the pool, hitting her head and drowning. No witnesses. $250,000 insurance payout. VERY suspicious.
• He collects on two fire-related insurance claims, one for his business the other for an investment property. Also suspicious. (note: I'm saying it's suspicious. Dateline didn't indicate that anyone else found the particular fires to be so.)
• Diane had $750,000 in insurance. That's a lot. I would have liked to know when that insurance was purchased and why she had so much.

- The first responders tried to take Diane's pulse and found her body "somewhat cold" which made them think she'd been dead longer than Bill's story suggested. (I wish Dateline would have been a little clearer as to exactly how long they thought she'd probably been dead.)

- After chasing Kevin out of the house, Bill said that he didn't go back to the bedroom to see if his wife was okay. That makes no sense if he's innocent. He says he caught Kevin on top of Diane strangling her, pulled him off, then struggled with him as he fled the house. In that scenario, how would he know for sure that his wife was beyond help? 

And on the 911 call Bill says "Oooh Diane... I don't think she's breathing." He doesn't *think* she's breathing? If he's not sure, why isn't he rushing back to the bedroom to see if he can do anything for her? It just makes absolutely no sense. None.

- Bill's DNA profile was on Diane's neck; Kevin's was not. If as Bill says, just being around Diane was enough to get his DNA on her neck, why wasn't Kevin's there after he'd strangled her to death?

- Yes polygraphs are unreliable, but Kevin passed and Bill flunked. Just sayin'.

- When confronted with the DNA evidence and the failed polygraph, Bill changed his story, saying he did go back in the bedroom. I'm not clear on this, but I think he then changed it again to say he didn't go in. When the police asked why he lied to them, he said "I have no logical explanation."

But there are strikes against the son too:

- Kevin had a history of violence. The police had been called to the house before and Kevin had fought with the cops.

- The blood drops, one on Diane's leg. Where did those come from? They showed Kevin's full-torso, shirtless mugshot but they didn't say if he had any cuts that might have left those blood drops. It seems like it's pretty standard for the police to check the suspect for cuts and marks in a situation like this, so what did they find on Kevin (if anything?) I don't think Dateline told us.

- The son denied that the shoes in the bedroom were his, which is an odd thing to do if they were in fact his. The presence of his shoes doesn't prove guilt, so why deny they belonged to him? A possible explanation is that he knew that Bill had planted them in the room and his first (dumb) reaction was full denial. I don't know, but I would have liked to have heard Kevin explain that. (or did he?)

----

There's the old joke about a drunk searching for his keys under a streetlamp. A guy stops to help him and after searching for a few minutes asks "Are you sure you dropped them here?" The drunk says "No, I dropped them over there, but the light's better here."

Dateline shows the detectives saying how interesting Bill's previous insurance claims were and how suspicious the other things mentioned above were, but they still ultimately charged Kevin. Why? I think for the same reasons Bill saw Kevin as an easy person to frame, the detectives thought Kevin would be easier to convict. They went where the light was better.

[glowlights]

I went with the assumption that the public trails go through his property, and if they are established trails with a history of public use then by law you have to let the public use them. That's pretty common with equestrian trails in some areas. The public isn't allowed to go off the trail in any way, but they have the right to use the trail. The simple solution is not to buy property with public access trails if you don't want to deal with people riding on your property. On the other hand, the fact that he was allowed by the court to name specific people who are allowed to used the trails tells me Montana may be different, or the trails weren't grandfathered in as public access. I wish the show had been more clear on this. Or maybe I wasn't listening.

I know a certain washed-up singer who bought property with equestrian trails who makes a habit of being rude and hostile to riders who are well within their rights to ride on "her" trails. She can suck it.

[saber5055]

Property can be sold with easements. For instance, if someone lives behind me and their driveway goes through my land, that easement would be written into both land contracts. It was never revealed if Joe's property contained easements, but I'm guessing it did not. The trails were not grandfathered in, either. It sounds like it was open/for sale land that he bought up. Putting up the gates was a dick move, yeah. Not a way to make friends. I don't understand where he and Tani were when he said Tim was "chasing" them on his ATV. That's why I posted above, I wish we had been shown a map of where everything was, and if there was absolutely no other way to access the public land. But based on this and the Florida case where that private "security" guy murdered the black youth, here are two states where it is easy to rig up a murder and make it look like self defense. The dead guy isn't talking.

Edited June 13, 2016 by saber5055

[editorgrrl]

On October 18, 2013, Joseph Glenn Campbell, 67, shot Timothy Newman, 53, in the Falls Creek subdivision 20 miles southwest of Augusta, Montana.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2016/06/08/dateline-focuses-joseph-campbell-trial/85614208/

Quote

In May, Campbell pleaded no contest to negligent homicide and was given a 20-year prison sentence with time suspended. He cannot possess a firearm, must keep 10 miles away from the subdivision and transfer ownership of his property there.

http://www.krtv.com/story/32193910/newman-murder-and-campbell-trial-will-be-featured-on-dateline

Quote

MTN has also learned details of the wrongful death lawsuit filed against Campbell by Newman’s widow that was settled out of court earlier this year.

According to Jackie Newman’s lawyers, Campbell’s insurance company has agreed to pay $1 million dollars to Tim Newman’s estate.

According to the charging documents, Campbell had dozens of run-ins with Lewis and Clark County sheriffs: http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2014/06/24/campbell-disputes-neighbors-years/11330523/ He was denying neighbors access to their own private land—not just easements to reach public land.

I couldn't find a map, but there's a description on page 3 of this court document: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Campbell_Court_Doc_3_343346168.pdf

When the Diamond Bar X subdivision was built in the 1970's, access to public land via the "Pony Trail" was a major selling point. Campbell and his wife Tani owned about 300 acres sandwiched between the subdivision and the public land.

Edited June 13, 2016 by editorgrrl
Mrs. Campbell is Tani Converse, not Tami.

[pigs-in-space]

I also got the impression from one of the neighbor couples that before he bought the land, he was more than happy to use those trails, but then when he bought the land, he didn't want anyone else using them.  If that's the case, it seems pretty hypocritical of him.

I mean, I think he murdered the guy in cold blood, so hypocritical is probably the least of his problems, but still...

[Stampiron]

Here's the ranch on Google Maps. 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Diamond+Bar+X/@47.2776961,-112.4845519,1066m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x5342d1dfb8c02e51:0xd06ef97402204f8c!2s4519+Dearborn+Canyon+Rd,+Augusta,+MT+59410!3b1!8m2!3d47.278787!4d-112.480346!3m4!1s0x0000000000000000:0x21e201a2625fda2f!8m2!3d47.2771673!4d-112.4816644

I think the subdivision is directly below the main ranch. I can't make out where the trail in question is.

[Ohmo]

On 6/11/2016 at 7:14 AM, JudyObscure said:

Montana men fight over access road rights.

I thought this was a good one.  Beautiful scenery, a river ran through it, and people went nuts. 

I just don't know how you can tell everyone in town you're going to kill someone, proceed to kill him, and walk away with losing your gun license.  Maybe in Montana that's a fate worse than death.

I kept thinking "This is the same state that jailed Barry Beach for 30 years."

I think Joe Campbell is an ass, and I don't believe his claim of self-defense.  Tim was shot in the back, and I didn't understand what difference it made that it was the first or second shot.  If someone is shot in the back, he or she is not advancing toward you unless he or she is backing up.  All of that about falling backward was hinky to me, and I thought that Joe should be in prison.  As to the land rights issue, the couple that was interviewed said that there had been an unwritten agreement for years that people cut across the land to get to the trails.  I thought the woman even said that Joe himself had done the same thing in the past, but everything changed when he bought the land.  That is hugely hypocritical to me.  This also wasn't solely about Tim.  Joe was horrible to that guy in the video and to that Iraqi war veteran.

ETA:

Quote

I am still not sure I understand.  I don't think he could disallow people public access to state land.  It seemed like he just didn't want people using his property as a shortcut to get there.  Dick move?  Perhaps, but well within his rights.  Or did I miss something?  

The way I understood it was that there was no other land option to get to the public land other than to use the trails that went through Joe's land.  If the land that you choose to buy is next to public land with no other access available, then I'd think Joe has to expect that people are going to use his land to get to the public land.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Ohmo
Trails are not the same as trials.

[glowlights]

On 6/13/2016 at 5:57 PM, Ohmo said:

I think Joe Campbell is an ass, and I don't believe his claim of self-defense.  Tim was shot in the back, and I didn't understand what difference it made that it was the first or second shot.  If someone is shot in the back, he or she is not advancing toward you unless he or she is backing up.  All of that about falling backward was hinky to me, and I thought that Joe should be in prison.  As to the land rights issue, the couple that was interviewed said that there had been an unwritten agreement for years that people cut across the land to get to the trials.  I thought the woman even said that Joe himself had done the same thing in the past, but everything changed when he bought the land.  That is hugely hypocritical to me.  This also wasn't solely about Tim.  Joe was horrible to that guy in the video and to that Iraqi war veteran.

ETA:

The way I understood it was that there was no other land option to get to the public land other than to use the trails that went through Joe's land.  If the land that you choose to buy is next to public land with no other access available, then I'd think Joe has to expect that people are going to use his land to get to the public land.

So it makes sense that the neighbors won their class action suit. And given that he had been doing the exact same thing before he bought the land, well... It would have been better if the judge had ruled that there was an easement in place (meaning access for all, such as the trails I'm familiar with) based on the history of usage but I don't know if the judge had the leeway to do such a thing. I can see where Joe could have had a case to obstruct people if they had a pattern of going off the trails, littering, camping, etc. But that doesn't sound like what happened. And it sure doesn't excuse a murder. And anyway, he knew those trails were used before he bought the place. Frankly, he just sounds like a basic asshole.

[Ina123]

27 minutes ago, glowlights said:

And anyway, he knew those trails were used before he bought the place. Frankly, he just sounds like a basic asshole.

Couldn't agree more. In my state we still have "a squatter's right law". If someone is using a piece of land for 10 years you can't do anything about it. Basically, it's grandfathered in. If someone builds a fence 2' in on your boundary line and you don't challenge it, don't go crying to the government. After 10 years, its his 2'. It's legally called "adverse possession" and the squatter can submit a claim that it is his or wait til someone notices.

West Virginia cases have recognized claims for adverse possession when all of the following elements have taken place:

(l)the land has been held "adversely" or "hostilely" - usually meaning that the owner of the land has not given permission

(2) the possession of the land has been actual - usually meaning that the person claiming adverse possession has physically been on the land.

(3) Possession has been open and notorious - generally meaning that it has been evident, not hidden in some way.

(4) Possession has been exclusive - generally meaning that the person/or persons who claim ownership through adverse possession is the only one who can make that claim. In the case of easement (which is what the Dateline trail was about) it is more than one.

(5) Possession has been continuous for at least 10 years - generally meaning that the claimant had to have been using the property for a minimum of 10 years.

(6) Possession is made under claim of title or color of title - generally meaning that the person acts as if the land is his/hers.

Normally, all of these elements must have been met and the person claiming the land must then apply for the courts to settle the title on him/her.

Of course they can always sue but here, it's usually a lost cause.

[saber5055]

Thanks for all the information and back stories everyone. I was SO unhappy watching this when Joe wasn't sent to prison. I could just imagine some "good old boys" on the jury, refusing to budge on Joe's right to shoot someone. I guess I wouldn't budge on my conviction that he was guilty as hell and needed to go to prison w/o parole, so there's that. At least he lost his property. I just wish he had lost more.

[ButterQueen]

This was boring and very sad.  Suspended sentence was a joke.

[ButterQueen]

On June 1, 2016 at 8:25 PM, pigs-in-space said:

Has anyone watched the episode "True Lies"?  It's been repeating a lot on Dateline on ID, and I've watched it a few times.  This is the episode where a woman is killed, and both her husband and son (the husband's step-son) call 911 within minutes of the crime and claim the other person did it.  The father had previously been widowed when his wife fell in their pool and drowned, although that was at least officially ruled an accident.

I keep wavering on which one I think did it, but I'm leaning towards the son (who was prosecuted for the crime).  It sounds horrible to say, but I felt like he was the one stupid enough to commit the crime with someone else in the house and had the most motive.  He also just creeped me out a bit when he was talking.

I think one of the other most memorable episodes for me is "Deadly Desire" which I know has been discussed here before, but what I like so much about this one is that Keith Morrison's narration is freaking hilarious.  Some highlights:

Intro: "Careful when you stir the hot pot of desire."

On discovering her husband was having an affair: "But of course it was devastating, crippling.  Every day she went to work and every day she went to work and every day her friend Sophia saw her friend turn herself inside out, and just seemed to wither." and (my personal favorite) "Boring old Kandi Hall.  Rejected, apparently unlovable.  And nearly forty."

On Kandi finding out she was losing her job: "Such problems."  (This one is all about Keith's inflection!)

"Sitting here, now, is Kandi still thinking only of Kandi?  Perhaps as you hear the rest of the story, you can be the judge of that.  Anyway..."

On Kandi's affair: "But, for the many reasons that plainly escape those who aren't seated smack in the hot stove of desire themselves, Emmett and Kandi thought otherwise.  Oh, they tried to keep their hands off each other for a little while, said their coworkers, but if they believed they were hiding their obvious infatuation, their suddenly messy hair, their hastily rearranged clothes, they were only fooling themselves."

"Such timing. Now that Rob seemed to want to fix their marriage, Kandi became a study in pretense.  Honesty took a holiday."

He so obviously dislikes Kandi (and who can blame him) and it's hilarious.

Oh I loved Keith's obvious disdain for Kandi.  

[Ohmo]

Did anyone watch this one?  It was interesting to me because all of this happened before I was born.  I've heard the general story, of course, and I certainly know who Manson is, but I never knew that a Folgers heiress was killed, for example, or that "Helter Skelter" was a Beatles song. 

And we had Keith as the narrator, which I thought was the appropriate choice.

Would Sharon Tate be more like Christie Brinkley (when she was much younger), Kim Kardashian, or neither?  Who would be a comparable figure from today or more recent history?

[psychoticstate]

I saw it - - I will watch anything and everything on these crimes.  I thought it was well done, especially given that it was only an hour format.  Amazing how some of the stories they bloat up to 2 hours and this one they could have easily given 2 hours to.  Anyhow . . . 

I'm with Debra Tate in that I hope the governor denies Leslie Van Houten parole.  Life in prison should mean life in prison.  All of them are crazy lucky the death penalty was abolished for a time in California and their lives were spared.  They certainly received more mercy than they showed their victims.

I'm not sure what comparable figure Sharon Tate would be today.  She was somewhat of a trailblazer, at least fashion-wise back in the 1960s so she could have been a trailblazer today.  I don't see her being as vapid as Kim Kardashian; by all accounts, she was not a stupid, inane person.  She was considered very sweet by those that knew her; all these years later, people still say kind things about her (which says a lot in a bitchy town like Hollywood.)  I definitely think she would have eventually left Roman and divorced him.  Maybe she would have become like Candice Bergen, continuing to appear in some films while finding her niche on television.  It's tragic that she was never given that opportunity.

[Court]

Why did he get a suspended sentence? I didn't understand that part.

[editorgrrl]

26 minutes ago, Court said:

Why did he get a suspended sentence? I didn't understand that part.

Joseph Campbell made a plea deal with prosecutors. And he plead "no contest" rather than "guilty": http://www.ktvh.com/2016/05/joseph-campbell-pleads-no-contest-in-the-shooting-death-of-tim-newman/

Quote

Assistant Attorney General Cochenour told the court that the amended charge and plea agreement brings resolution to the case.

“The agreement focuses solely on community safety,” said Cochenour.

Campbell, who made no statement during the hearing, is now prohibited from traveling within ten miles of Newman’s cabin on the Diamond Bar X subdivision and he must transfer his ownership of his property there to another party within a year.

“There was no conflict of any kind over property until Mr. Campbell moved into that neighborhood,” said Cochenour. “And then there is a binder of law enforcement reports from the day he moved up there.”

Edited June 17, 2016 by editorgrrl
Added relevant quote.

[WendyCR72]

6 hours ago, Ohmo said:

or that "Helter Skelter" was a Beatles song. 

Oh, yeah. And some say it was as close to "heavy metal" the Beatles would come. It is on their White Album and worth a listen, if just to marvel how far it was from the likes of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand". (And it speaks to Manson's crazy that the lyrics of this song were basically innocuous and - if one believes the rumor - based on a slide/amusement park ride.)

The actual song is down from YT (GRRR!!!), but someone did a masterful mashup of Led Zeppelin's "Whole Lotta Love" with "Helter Skelter" by The Beatles and damned if it didn't work!

[psychoticstate]

I think "Helter Skelter" is a good tune with some fantastic riffs.  It's too bad that it will be forever associated with Manson and his special brand of crazy. 

[tobeannounced]

19 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

I saw it - - I will watch anything and everything on these crimes.  I thought it was well done, especially given that it was only an hour format.  Amazing how some of the stories they bloat up to 2 hours and this one they could have easily given 2 hours to.  Anyhow . . . 

My thoughts exactly.  I was really enjoying this and hoping it would be two hours, but no...

[pigs-in-space]

On 6/17/2016 at 11:57 AM, Ohmo said:

Did anyone watch this one?  It was interesting to me because all of this happened before I was born.  I've heard the general story, of course, and I certainly know who Manson is, but I never knew that a Folgers heiress was killed, for example, or that "Helter Skelter" was a Beatles song.

I'm fascinated by this crime, but this one hour just barely scratched the surface of things.  I think they did the best they could in the time given, but there was a lot glossed over or omitted for time.  I will say, though, that mostly I've just read/listened to things regarding the murders, so seeing video/still photos (especially in color) gave me a better idea of the look and feel of things.

If you're interested in learning more, there is a wealth of places to go, but my favorites are:

-You Must Remember This (podcast: http://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/): Far and away my favorite (which is saying something!).  This was recommended by someone on the Aquarius board, and I've gotten totally hooked.  The podcast was created by a film historian, Karina Longworth, and she had a whole series last year devoted to "Charles Manson's Hollywood."  I like this one so much because it not only talks about the family and the details of the murders themselves, but also goes into the culture in LA at the time, the lives of the victims, and the different Hollywood personalities Charles Manson interacted with, and how their relationships to Manson ultimately affected their lives. 

-Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson by Jeff Guinn: A more recent biography of Manson, really well done.  The author of this was interviewed by Dateline.

-Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi: I only rate this one the lowest because if you're not into courtroom drama and the inner workings of the legal system, you'll find it hard to get through.  But it too is a fascinating look at how the investigation progressed and how the trial went down.

Edited June 20, 2016 by pigs-in-space

[psychoticstate]

1 hour ago, pigs-in-space said:

I'm fascinated by this crime, but this one hour just barely scratched the surface of things.  I think they did the best they could in the time given, but there was a lot glossed over or omitted for time.  I will say, though, that mostly I've just read/listened to things regarding the murders, so seeing video/still photos (especially in color) gave me a better idea of the look and feel of things.

If you're interested in learning more, there is a wealth of places to go, but my favorites are:

-You Must Remember This (podcast: http://www.youmustrememberthispodcast.com/): Far and away my favorite (which is saying something!).  This was recommended by someone on the Aquarius board, and I've gotten totally hooked.  The podcast was created by a film historian, Karina Longworth, and she had a whole series last year devoted to "Charles Manson's Hollywood."  I like this one so much because it not only talks about the family and the details of the murders themselves, but also goes into the culture in LA at the time, the lives of the victims, and the different Hollywood personalities Charles Manson interacted with, and how their relationships to Manson ultimately affected their lives. 

-Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson by Jeff Guinn: A more recent biography of Manson, really well done.  The author of this was interviewed by Dateline.

-Helter Skelter by Vincent Bugliosi: I only rate this one the lowest because if you're not into courtroom drama and the inner workings of the legal system, you'll find it hard to get through.  But it too is a fascinating look at how the investigation progressed and how the trial went down.

The You Must Remember This podcast is crazy good.  I think there's still quite a bit about the HS story that hasn't been told, or reported fully. 

I'd like to add "Restless Souls" to the references list.  While some things and dialogue may be questionable, it is a retelling of how the murders affected the Tate family. 

And Greg King's biography of Sharon Tate is very well done.  His recounting of how the murders went down is chilling and wholly upsetting (that her killers debated on whether to let her live while Sharon sat and waited before they turned on her.)