All Episodes Discussion

[JudyObscure]

Quote

29 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

She could easily have gotten the house, the cars, and lots of money every month.

 

Yes, and then Bonnie and Bill's thrilling forbidden romance  would have fizzled within a year. 

[biakbiak]

Yeah Bonnie he was with you for three years and didn't file for divorce so shut it.

[Del Boca Vista]

Was anyone else weirded out by Bonnie's sideburns or was it just me?

[CelticBlackCat]

I didn't see what was so great about Bonnie.  Frances was attractive in the photos of all her life with Bill.  Remember, they met when she was just 16!  Bonnie is a scumbag.  If she's having an affair with a married man, she should keep a low profile and not have any contact at all with the wife.  Why would she want to torment the poor lady like that?  Did she think that would spur her to file for divorce so she could have Lover Boy all to herself?  I thought it was particularly disgusting when she sent the text of the hysterectomy calling Frances a hollow woman.  Why would you make fun of another woman because of that?  Isn't it there but for the grace of God go I?  Bonnie might have to have a hysterectomy one day, or even worse.

 

I felt bad for Frances' plight, but it would have been so much better if she had taken the high road, ended the marriage (children are all grown now) and filed for divorce, taking Bill to the cleaners.  Bill would've probably started an affair with someone else cheating on Bonnie anyway.

[biakbiak]

2 hours ago, CelticBlackCat said:

thought it was particularly disgusting when she sent the text of the hysterectomy calling Frances a hollow woman.  Why would you make fun of another woman because of that?

Yeah that was disgusting and made me hate Bill because I assume he had to be the one to tell her that. Also, given Frances age it was even more random, she had two children it's not like she was planning for more children at the time so it was just WTF on top of being horrifically nasty.

[GreatKazu]

Dateline left out a lot of information. 20/20 just did this story two weeks ago and they had more information. 

First, Bill was a whore. He had other affairs besides Bonnie. There is even allegations that he may have fathered a child with one of his lovers. I believe the mother of that child is trying to get a piece of the Hill money. 

From watching the 20/20 piece, this Dateline piece, and from what I read online (there are a lot of articles) Bill was playing both women. Still, his heart was with Frances. She was the kind of woman who would not leave her spouse, and he knew it. There was no mistress that he ever planned to hook up with permanently. Bonnie is a lying ho-bag. 

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 11:22 AM, LGGirl said:

I've seen the car chase episode before on 48 Hours or Dateline.   JMPO they all were crazy.  I felt for the wife being tormented be both her husband and mistress but in reality, she could have walked away and taken the husband for everything.  Yeah, I know it was a cultural thing that she stayed because I know other Hispanic women who have stayed with cheating, scumbag husbands for the sake of the family.  

It is not a cultural thing. Plenty of women from different classes and different groups stay with cheating spouses (Hillary Clinton, for one). Just as there are plenty of males who stay with cheating wives. There are a myriad of factors for why one stays with a cheating spouse. For some, it is a religious thing. For others it is a financial issue. There are some who stay because they want their relationship to work out knowing that the cheating was just a fleeting moment that can be forgiven. Others are afraid of being alone. There are those who believe in their vows. Co-dependency may be part of the reason. 

It was clear to me Bonnie was twisting this story and taking advantage of the cameras to paint this wonderful picture of her so-called romance with Bill. I do believe Bill was treating her like the whore that she was acting like, nothing more. Her lie about Bill making that lovey-dovey comment to her at the intersection right before the accident reeked of one big middle finger to Frances. Who would say such romantic things to someone at a red light? Not Bill. Bonnie would say he said that to inflame and provoke Frances even more. It is her pattern. She did it with phone calls, texts, and now she was doing it for Dateline's cameras. And now, she is suing Frances for emotional distress? GTFOH. You created that drama and all of that when you hooked up with a married guy. He is at fault as well, but see where his choices got him. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by GreatKazu

[CaughtOnTape]

The first time I saw this story was stupid and now that I've seen it a second time it's even more stupid.

Yes, women fighting over a man.  How idiotic.  And Bonnie with her self-righteous bullshit.  Frances wailing "I LOVED that man."  Why?  He didn't love you.  He was an asshole and you should've acted like a grown up and left him.

I have no sympathy for anyone in this story.  All of them are idiots.

[bubbls]

I think the worst part is dragging her kids into it. She was an adult, their mother. Not a middle school girl. But that's the nature of certain dysfunctions. 

[patty1h]

Dateline had the story of Michelle Mockbee on last night - it was listed as new but I've seen this story on at least 2 other shows.  Michelle Mockbee was murdered at her job (a huge warehouse-type place) that had only 4-5 other workers in it when she was killed.  She'd come in really early, before the regular business hours, and was found beaten to death by two coworkers.  I found this one kind of creepy, in the fact that supposedly only 4-5 staff was on the premises and was able to kill a woman so easily and that the killer was prepared to just stay onsite and play innocent in such a small group. One other thing is that it seemed random - no real reason could be determined.  There was a theory that the killer did it because Michelle was in charge of the time cards for the business and the killer was trying to hide some finagling with their hours.  

I didn't watch the whole broadcast since I knew the story, but now I wonder if NBC added any new info to this case.  I know they eventually pinched the janitor, but I forgot specifically what lead to his arrest.  Did I miss anything new?

[biakbiak]

6 minutes ago, patty1h said:

didn't watch the whole broadcast since I knew the story, but now I wonder if NBC added any new info to this case.  I know they eventually pinched the janitor, but I forgot specifically what lead to his arrest.  Did I miss anything new?

Yes his conviction was tossed and he was granted a new trial because the prosecutors didn't turn over video of an unknown man in the parking lot the day before her murder. Also, the lead detective and prosecutor were having an affair.

Still think he is guilty.

[cooksdelight]

Thanks for the update, @biakbiak, we had a major thunderstorm that came through, knocking out satellite for about 20 minutes. I only saw a few minutes at the end where the guy's conviction was overturned, and someone (the blonde, former prosecutor??) was being raked over the coals.

What was his motive?

[partofme]

I've always thought he was innocent.   His DNA didn't match, there was no motive.   

[One Tough Cookie]

I just watched Dateline: Secrets Revealed about Justin Ross who  killed his son by leaving him to bake to death in his car.  What apiece of shit he is.  I Totally would have voted guilty without a second thought. I'm glad his  wife divorced him.  But I just have to "go there":  Andrea Canning needs to seriously lay off on the fillers and botox. That skin is stretched so tight I'm afraid it will snap when she opens her.

Edited July 29, 2017 by One Tough Cookie

[sinycalone]

5 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Yes his conviction was tossed and he was granted a new trial because the prosecutors didn't turn over video of an unknown man in the parking lot the day before her murder. Also, the lead detective and prosecutor were having an affair.

Still think he is guilty.

I lean towards his being guilty.  I think they speculated that he was clocking in himself and his wife for hours of cleaning, plus he was drawing a regular salary.  The wife was not actually cleaning.

I have to say the video and affair between the detective and the prosecutor didn't impress me all that much.  Her 18-page letter to the detective just sounded like a vengeful woman who had been dumped and was ranting at her former love.  

[UsernameFatigue]

I think David Dooley did it as well. As usual when I watch a Dateline show these days I tried to find out more information as so much is left out of their shows. David and his wife had a contract for cleaning the offices for $1200 a month and were also paid hourly to clean the warehouse. The motive was supposedly double dipping - clocking in and then cleaning the offices which they were already paid a monthly salary to do. And I did wonder - if they were both supposed to be cleaning, why was his wife at home? 

I don't remember this being mentioned but Michelle's husband was second in command at the business, and had had a couple of previous run ins with Dooley as well over cleaning and what he was wearing to work. In one case Dooley told Michelle's husband to F-off. Not that that is of course a reason for murder but there was a history with hubby.

Dooley had too many inconsistencies in his stories. One time he told the police that when his supervisor said there was someone lying there (in an area that was dark except for an emergency light) he just took their word for it but didn't see anything himself. (Obviously the supervisor went and looked. So Dooley just stood around twiddling his thumbs? Because if it is dark, how do you know the person isn't still alive and you could help? Unless you killed the person and know she is dead). There was another time he said to the police that he saw the feet of the person and did not want to see any more. He did say he was cleaning near there earlier but because it was dark did not see the body. From what I remember they said there was quite a bit of blood, so one would think he might smell something - blood has a pretty strong and distinct smell. (Unless he is lying of course, which I think he was). 

Also the wife changing her story? First when she is interviewed she said he didn't come home. Then she said he did. Kind of a huge fact not to know one way or the other. Also Michelle's body not only had blunt force trauma to the head which she died of, but her hands were tied, and there was a plastic bag over her head. Seems like kind of a personal thing to do to someone you are murdering. Now if random dude was the killer, and just happened to still be in the building hours after being spotted on video the night before outside the building, why would he bother to tie Michelle's hands and put a bag over her head? Wouldn't he just get the heck out of dodge? Of course there is no video of him the next morning leaving the property either. Because he wasn't the killer. 

And of course David refusing to take a polygraph. Why if you are innocent? The others took it. Dooley said that he did offer much later and they said it was too late. Don't believe that either. 

Dooley was sentenced to an additional 5 years for tampering with evidence, but I can't find what that relates to - seems like it has to be something tying him to the murder for him to get an additional 5 years for it. In any case I thought he was guilty as soon as he said to Josh that when they arrested him "I didn't know what to say or what to do. I was never going home". He starts crying and continues "I knew I was never going home".  If you are innocent and are arrested. you would think this is a mistake, they have no evidence and I will be cleared. If you are guilty, you assume they have the evidence to convict you, and that you are never going home. Guilty. 

Edited July 29, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, sinycalone said:

have to say the video and affair between the detective and the prosecutor didn't impress me all that much.

Particularly the video. It was a dude walking through a parking lot. He wasn't doing anything suspicious or even appear to look toward the building as if were casing the place.

[teebax]

While I think he did it, I would NEVER take a lie detector test. They're unreliable and inadmissible in court. But, more importantly,  I wouldn't take one because I don't trust cops. They're allowed to lie to suspects,  and as a person of color, I wouldn't trust one, or a prosecutor, as far as I could throw them.

She found out something was hinky with her case and was content to just let him rot in jail. If nothing else, she should've notified the defense when she found out about the other dude.

It was fun seeing a prosecutor get raked over the coals for once, too.

[walnutqueen]

1 hour ago, teebax said:

While I think he did it, I would NEVER take a lie detector test. They're unreliable and inadmissible in court. But, more importantly,  I wouldn't take one because I don't trust cops. They're allowed to lie to suspects,  and as a person of color, I wouldn't trust one, or a prosecutor, as far as I could throw them.

I totally agree.  If a cop asked me for the time of day, I'd ask for a lawyer.  

[tobeannounced]

17 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Particularly the video. It was a dude walking through a parking lot. He wasn't doing anything suspicious or even appear to look toward the building as if were casing the place.

To me, that's not her call to make. If it was a question in her mind (which according to the letter, it was) I would certainly hope a prosecutor would err on the side of caution and report it.

[cooksdelight]

3 hours ago, tobeannounced said:

To me, that's not her call to make. If it was a question in her mind (which according to the letter, it was) I would certainly hope a prosecutor would err on the side of caution and report it.

Right!! And that way, they'd have had time to find the guy, interview him, and if he was there innocently the trial would never have come under scrutiny.

[mousegirl]

Did anyone watch last night's Dateline about Tracy Richter/Pittman/Roberts killing Dustin Wehde?  (Hope I got all the names right).  "Twisted" was a very appropriate title for this story!  I watched the whole thing and came away not knowing who to believe about what.  Was it really self-defense?  Was it a set-up by Tracy to look like a hit arranged by her second husband?  Her first husband?  Why did Dustin park his car right out in the open by Tracy's house if he was sneaking in to kill her?  Why was the beat-up, almost useless computer from the house in Dustin's car?  Is Tracy's son Bert covering for his mom or did he really see Dustin as a threatening figure that night?  Did Bert lie about the abuse he suffered at his stepdad's hands?  The abuse he suffered from his biological dad, which was apparently confirmed by a doctor who examined him?

Was there really a second man in the house that night? 

And the strange pink notebook - what the hell was that all about?  Are we really to believe that Dustin wrote all that stuff about her husband?  But then, he was a friend of the family's, and spend a lot of time at the house, maybe he did hear some family stories and wrote them down...

Then there's Tracy's so-called friend who testified for the prosecution, who couldn't seem to keep her stories straight, and who knew about the notebook although it was a "top secret" piece of evidence. 

Then there's the EMT guy looking at a picture in court of Tracy's injuries on her neck and saying they weren't consistent with someone strangling her, and then the ER doctor who treated her who said they were...

The only thing that really stayed with me was that Tracy's second husband is creepy and I don't really believe he was telling the truth about his relationship with Bert and his actions towards Tracy.  But Tracy also came off as more than a little "twisted" herself, and appeared to have a very shady past - not that that means she's a cold-blooded murderer.

I'm 100% sure Dateline left a bunch of info out of the story, as they always do.  I'm too lazy to hunt it down right now - would much rather read other posters' comments here about the whole story.  What do y'all think?

Edited July 30, 2017 by mousegirl

[biakbiak]

7 hours ago, tobeannounced said:

To me, that's not her call to make. If it was a question in her mind (which according to the letter, it was) I would certainly hope a prosecutor would err on the side of caution and report it.

I didn't say it was her call to make or even that I think it was wrong for his conviction to be thrown out. I think it's right that he is getting a new trial, I just don't find the video at all compelling and doesn't make me think he is innocent.

[UsernameFatigue]

Regarding the Tracey Richter case - the woman is nuts. And obviously dangerous. Just based on the episode alone I didn't believe her story. Supposedly Dustin comes into her home, steals a computer which he then carries to his car parked out front of the house, then returns to kill Tracey. Oh, and brings another guy with him. But they don't bring any weapons. None. Supposedly death is to be by pantyhose, which just happen to be hanging on the stairs banister, drying. Hmmm, what would have been the murder weapon if the pantyhose happened to be drying in say, a bathroom or laundry room where most people would hang them? 

The strangle marks to me did look self inflicted. They only go across the front of the neck. Also Tracey had very long thick hair which one would think would impede being able to wrap the pantyhose tightly around the neck. One would think to get good contact the would be murderer would have to ask Tracey to lift her hair. Again, what self respecting murder-for-hire killer arrives with no weapon and then chooses pantyhose? 

Tracey said that she had no idea it was Dustin that she killed because it was too dark for her to recognize him. However she was able to, in the dark, reach the gun safe in the bedroom.  punch in the correct code for the gun safe, open and locate a gun and shoot it multiple times. In the dark. And hit Dustin nine out of 11 times. 

I did end up doing a bit of searching, and Tracey's motive for trying to set up first hubby was that he was trying to take custody of their son, and also stop paying $1,000 a month in child support. In the 'diary' found, Dustin writes that first hubby hired him to make Tracey kill her (their) son, then commit suicide. Yeah, that seems plausible. Just what a father trying to get custody of his kid would want - for the kid to be murdered. Apparently first hubby did not provide a weapon to use to make Tracey do these things. So pantyhose it is. 

Google "Dentist - Tracey Richter tried to extort him". She is one twisted person. I also don't believe that first hubby sexually abused his son. Disgustingly, second hubby has to take their two kids together to visit Tracey in jail (he wanted to move back to Australia) because a moronic judge thinks she was a good mother, and deserves to see her kids. Ugh. 

[teebax]

I haven't seen this Tracey Richter case, but my episodes tend to pile up on the DVR. If I have it, I'll watch it tonight so I can join in on the discussion. It sounds interesting.

[sinycalone]

21 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I didn't say it was her call to make or even that I think it was wrong for his conviction to be thrown out. I think it's right that he is getting a new trial, I just don't find the video at all compelling and doesn't make me think he is innocent.

My reaction, too....on all counts.

[saber5055]

I watched the Tracy Richter episode and googled her while the ep was still on. I didn't find much online, other than she was still in prison. I would never dry my pantyhose on a stair railing, which SHOULD be made of wood and this would make the varnish come off, plus drip water onto my (wooden) stairs. So that was bogus. And yeah, if the house is so pitch black, how can she punch in a safe code. And if Dustin weren't completely dead and was trying to get up, what's with not yelling at him to STAY DOWN OR I'LL SHOOT AGAIN! while the son dials 911. On the flip side, just because Dustin was "such a good boy and would never hurt anyone even if he is troubled" doesn't mean he can't freak out and murder someone. Ted Bundy used to be "such a nice guy" too, so helpful with those co-eds at school, carrying their books for them. Before he freaking KILLED them. So this episode left me pretty wishy-washy. But where they moved ... Early, Iowa is in the middle of freaking nowhere, and I mean nowhere Iowa. Why would anyone move there? That set off red flags for me, right from the start. All in all, a confusing episode and left me with not much of an opinion, which is in itself a major Dateline achievement!

[Mama No Life]

We lost power from storms last night so I missed the Manson update.  Anything new or exciting?  

[walnutqueen]

1 hour ago, Mama No Life said:

We lost power from storms last night so I missed the Manson update.  Anything new or exciting?  

Nope.

Same ole, same ole.  Maybe an interview with a neighbor who lived with Gary Hinman, but he had nothing to add to the saga.

[saber5055]

Whether anything was new in the Manson episode depends on what you know about it. I lived it, and heard/read about the Tate/LaBianca murders in real time. I didn't want to see anything about Manson but watched (with one eye) and found it very interesting. A guy was on who wrote a book about Manson; the cover is a photo of Charlie from way back when, sans hair/beard. I learned a lot of interesting facts and timeline, so even though I "knew" this story, I still learned more about it and found the episode very interesting, and, thankfully, not a big showcase for a psycho. I recommend it. I'd watch it again, no problem.

[ari333]

On ‎7‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 6:02 PM, mousegirl said:

Did anyone watch last night's Dateline about Tracy Richter/Pittman/Roberts killing Dustin Wehde?  (Hope I got all the names right).  "Twisted" was a very appropriate title for this story!  I watched the whole thing and came away not knowing who to believe about what.  Was it really self-defense?  Was it a set-up by Tracy to look like a hit arranged by her second husband?  Her first husband?  Why did Dustin park his car right out in the open by Tracy's house if he was sneaking in to kill her?  Why was the beat-up, almost useless computer from the house in Dustin's car?  Is Tracy's son Bert covering for his mom or did he really see Dustin as a threatening figure that night?  Did Bert lie about the abuse he suffered at his stepdad's hands?  The abuse he suffered from his biological dad, which was apparently confirmed by a doctor who examined him?

Was there really a second man in the house that night? 

And the strange pink notebook - what the hell was that all about?  Are we really to believe that Dustin wrote all that stuff about her husband?  But then, he was a friend of the family's, and spend a lot of time at the house, maybe he did hear some family stories and wrote them down...

Then there's Tracy's so-called friend who testified for the prosecution, who couldn't seem to keep her stories straight, and who knew about the notebook although it was a "top secret" piece of evidence. 

Then there's the EMT guy looking at a picture in court of Tracy's injuries on her neck and saying they weren't consistent with someone strangling her, and then the ER doctor who treated her who said they were...

The only thing that really stayed with me was that Tracy's second husband is creepy and I don't really believe he was telling the truth about his relationship with Bert and his actions towards Tracy.  But Tracy also came off as more than a little "twisted" herself, and appeared to have a very shady past - not that that means she's a cold-blooded murderer.

I'm 100% sure Dateline left a bunch of info out of the story, as they always do.  I'm too lazy to hunt it down right now - would much rather read other posters' comments here about the whole story.  What do y'all think?

I am only 23 minutes into the Twisted eppy, but something about Tracy seems off to me. 

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 2:17 AM, UsernameFatigue said:

Regarding the Tracey Richter case - the woman is nuts. And obviously dangerous. Just based on the episode alone I didn't believe her story. Supposedly Dustin comes into her home, steals a computer which he then carries to his car parked out front of the house, then returns to kill Tracey. Oh, and brings another guy with him. But they don't bring any weapons. None. Supposedly death is to be by pantyhose, which just happen to be hanging on the stairs banister, drying. Hmmm, what would have been the murder weapon if the pantyhose happened to be drying in say, a bathroom or laundry room where most people would hang them? 

The strangle marks to me did look self inflicted. They only go across the front of the neck. Also Tracey had very long thick hair which one would think would impede being able to wrap the pantyhose tightly around the neck. One would think to get good contact the would be murderer would have to ask Tracey to lift her hair. Again, what self respecting murder-for-hire killer arrives with no weapon and then chooses pantyhose? 

Tracey said that she had no idea it was Dustin that she killed because it was too dark for her to recognize him. However she was able to, in the dark, reach the gun safe in the bedroom.  punch in the correct code for the gun safe, open and locate a gun and shoot it multiple times. In the dark. And hit Dustin nine out of 11 times. 

I did end up doing a bit of searching, and Tracey's motive for trying to set up first hubby was that he was trying to take custody of their son, and also stop paying $1,000 a month in child support. In the 'diary' found, Dustin writes that first hubby hired him to make Tracey kill her (their) son, then commit suicide. Yeah, that seems plausible. Just what a father trying to get custody of his kid would want - for the kid to be murdered. Apparently first hubby did not provide a weapon to use to make Tracey do these things. So pantyhose it is. 

Google "Dentist - Tracey Richter tried to extort him". She is one twisted person. I also don't believe that first hubby sexually abused his son. Disgustingly, second hubby has to take their two kids together to visit Tracey in jail (he wanted to move back to Australia) because a moronic judge thinks she was a good mother, and deserves to see her kids. Ugh. 

The Twisted eppy, Tracy - I just don't believe her and I haven't even finished the show yet.

[walnutqueen]

2 hours ago, saber5055 said:

Whether anything was new in the Manson episode depends on what you know about it. I lived it, and heard/read about the Tate/LaBianca murders in real time. I didn't want to see anything about Manson but watched (with one eye) and found it very interesting. A guy was on who wrote a book about Manson; the cover is a photo of Charlie from way back when, sans hair/beard. I learned a lot of interesting facts and timeline, so even though I "knew" this story, I still learned more about it and found the episode very interesting, and, thankfully, not a big showcase for a psycho. I recommend it. I'd watch it again, no problem.

I was referring to the "anything new?" question.  It was decent rehash, and, of course, I watched it, too.  I also lived it, perhaps a little closer than most, considering my brush with Mansonites (a story I've only told about eleventy billion times).  It was OK for those not overly familiar with the details; but for those of us who are slightly obsessed?  Light fare.

[partofme]

I've never had any interest in Manson and was annoyed that this is what they chose to show again.   I don't remember the last broadcast mentioning that Manson had been in jail when he was younger and that he wanted to be a singer but I may have just forgotten cause I'm not interested in the topic, even Keith narrating doesn't make it interesting.

[saber5055]

I, too, was annoyed time was given to Manson, just as annoyed as I am when any time is given to OJ. I hate them getting more publicity, since that's what they love. Like "they" say, there is no bad publicity. But some details were new to me, like Manson being a lifetime jailbird. I did know about the Beach Boy connection, however. It was interesting hearing from a former member of his "girls," and I wondered if she was ever implicated in any murders since she was there at the time. The photos of Manson as a younger guy, sans beard and long hair, were also new to me.

[CelticBlackCat]

11 hours ago, saber5055 said:

Whether anything was new in the Manson episode depends on what you know about it. I lived it, and heard/read about the Tate/LaBianca murders in real time. I didn't want to see anything about Manson but watched (with one eye) and found it very interesting. A guy was on who wrote a book about Manson; the cover is a photo of Charlie from way back when, sans hair/beard. I learned a lot of interesting facts and timeline, so even though I "knew" this story, I still learned more about it and found the episode very interesting, and, thankfully, not a big showcase for a psycho. I recommend it. I'd watch it again, no problem.

Same here on all points, but I watched with both eyes open.  Vincent Bugliosi (RIP) is one of my heroes.  I'm glad Susan Atkins died in prison without getting the compassionate parole to get out while she was dying that she wanted.  I hope everyone else follows suit, the sooner the better.  You have to give Debra Tate all the props she deserves for being part of the parole denying process and to keep the spirit of her sister, Sharon Tate, and the memory and stories of everyone else slaughtered, alive.

Edited August 6, 2017 by CelticBlackCat
Better sentence structure.

[callmebetty]

If anyone can clarify cause I think I was getting 2 of the guys confused. There was a parole officer of Manson's and then the guy who lived with Gary Hinman. Did Manson have the girls sleep with both of them meaning parole officer and Hinman/neighbor guy? I thought both those guys talked about how they "partied"with the girls.

Also I missed who was killed that they said Manson was actually involved with the murder.

Thought the interview with the woman who was part of it was interesting. Would like to hear more of her story and how she was bent and not broken and how she reconciles the fact of what this cult was.

[saber5055]

I was trying not to watch the Manson episode, so would need to see it again to answer your questions, callmebetty. But I'm curious about the ex-Manson girl too, and wonder the same things about her.

The episode last night about the murdered art student was a rerun. But my take away from it was how ASTOUNDED! everyone was that the boy and girl were “dating” but hadn’t kissed or -- SHOCK! -- had sex, so of course, there was something wrong with them, their relationship had to be twisted somehow. WTH show, does everyone have to screw everyone you are dating or if you call yourself boy/girlfriend? I dated one guy for ages, spent time in his apartment, did things together, yet we never kissed either. And neither of us went on to be murderers. Well, that I’m aware of that is. Or yet, I guess.

[JudyObscure]

I hear you Saber.  You don't want to be virgins these days because it is just too, too weird for some people.  Another thing Dateline has taught me is that being  tidy is a sure sign you're about to go stabby.  Fear me.

That roommate who did it,  now that was a weird guy.  I cracked  up when the roomie was talking about the couple going on dates and not inviting him to go along. Keith says, "How rude!"  and the creep just lit up thinking he had sincere sympathy from the Crypt Keeper himself.  I wasted a lot of thought trying to figure out which sit-com gave him the idea that the whole group went on dates together and the closest I could come was, "Big Bang."  They all went to comic-con  a few times.

[biakbiak]

18 hours ago, saber5055 said:

And neither of us went on to be murderers

Neither did either of them. I do think it's strange that they called each other boyfriend and girlfriend but never kissed and she told her mother that she didn't really like him like that so I question why they felt the need to label it.

I was screaming at all of them, even the guilty one, to get a freaking lawyer.

I know nearly all Dateline shows highlight red herrings but I really hate it when they are young like the bf and the roommate and had to live under weeks of suspension and then have it all brought up again on national TV. 

[psychoticstate]

Given that the August 9 anniversary is this week, I'm not surprised that Dateline did an update type episode on Manson and the case. 

It's on my DVR; I haven't watched it yet.  Busy weekend.  I will definitely give Debra Tate mad props.  She is the only member of Sharon's immediate family left and she is certainly doing her part not only to keep her sister's killers, and those connected with the murders, in prison but also to keep Sharon's memory alive.  I have her book on Sharon and it's lovely - - a book full of photos that celebrates Sharon's life rather than memorializing the horrible details of her death. 

I imagine the author making an appearance is Jeff Guinn.  I can't think of anyone else, other than Ed Sanders, who has written about the case and is still alive and I don't think Sanders does a lot of interviews. 

I've missed most of the last handful of Datelines - - I've been deleting them off my DVR without watching.  I was Dateline-d out.  I will watch the Manson episode though, since I watch and read anything and everything on the case. 

[walnutqueen]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

That roommate who did it,  now that was a weird guy.  I cracked  up when the roomie was talking about the couple going on dates and not inviting him to go along. Keith says, "How rude!"  and the creep just lit up thinking he had sincere sympathy from the Crypt Keeper himself.

I floved that moment, too!  Keith was like a spider beckoning to a fly.  heh

THIS is why I can't quit you, Keith.

[sinycalone]

I think another one of the strange things the roommate did before the actual murder....he would open the door to the room where the couple were playing video games, and stand there watching and expecting them to ask him to join them.  Why?  They called themselves boyfriend/girlfriend....so isn't that a clue (no matter how romantic the relationship actually was) that they might want to spend time alone together?  Apparently the roomie felt otherwise.

[mousegirl]

Dateline has a new format called Dateline: Secrets Uncovered.  They showed the Justin Ross Harris "hot car death" case the other night and as I had not closely followed the story when it was first in the news, I was fascinated. 

What I don't get is the eerie calm displayed by Harris's wife Leanna when she met up with her husband at the police station.  It was surreal.  Her adorable little boy has just been found dead, her husband is in custody because of it, and here she is cooing over him as if HE were the "hurt" child.  I know that people who've just absorbed a horrifying piece of news can go completely numb for awhile (it's happened to me) and thus react to circumstances around them in very strange ways, but this was just beyond comprehension.  I can see why there were many who thought she might have been complicit in her son's death.

I've never been a parent, but I've done hundreds of hours of babysitting and worked many years as a kindergarten teacher.  I absolutely cannot understand how you can FORGET you have a child in your care.  And yet, there are hot car deaths in the news regularly, and most appear to be considered as accidental (though not the Harris case, as everyone knows).

[saber5055]

Parents forgetting their kid is in the car is hard for me to comprehend too. I travel with dogs often, they are crated in back of my vehicle. I'm always taking turns more gently so I don't make them "fall over" if they are standing in their crates. When they aren't with me, I feel so odd, and think that's okay, no dogs, I can drive faster. But then again, every curve I'm taking it easy because ... dogs. I'd think parents would just be AWARE of kids in back. I've never once forgotten when I have dogs in back. Maybe that's an odd way to think, but it's all I've got to compare.

[Madding crowd]

12 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I hear you Saber.  You don't want to be virgins these days because it is just too, too weird for some people.  Another thing Dateline has taught me is that being  tidy is a sure sign you're about to go stabby.  Fear me.

That roommate who did it,  now that was a weird guy.  I cracked  up when the roomie was talking about the couple going on dates and not inviting him to go along. Keith says, "How rude!"  and the creep just lit up thinking he had sincere sympathy from the Crypt Keeper himself.  I wasted a lot of thought trying to figure out which sit-com gave him the idea that the whole group went on dates together and the closest I could come was, "Big Bang."  They all went to comic-con  a few times.

It drove me crazy that the cop kept insisting the person had to have a key to the apartment rather then the victim could have let the killer in. I know it turned out he did have a key but why was that the only option? I also thought it off the boyfriend and girlfriend hadn't even kissed and how the victims roommate didn't notice the blood or that her roommate never left her room.

[biakbiak]

20 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

drove me crazy that the cop kept insisting the person had to have a key to the apartment rather then the victim could have let the killer in. I know it turned out he did have a key but why was that the only option? I

Or that the roommate could have forgotten to lock the door. 

I actually don't think the blood thing or the not checking on her was odd. I know when I was in college and my roommates door was shut I would respect their privacy. The blood wasn't that much I most likely would have knocked on the door not gotten an answer and then wrote a passive aggressive post it too clean up their mess, though based on the pictures neither were fastidious housekeepers.

[UsernameFatigue]

On 8/2/2017 at 1:08 PM, saber5055 said:

I watched the Tracy Richter episode and googled her while the ep was still on. I didn't find much online, other than she was still in prison. I would never dry my pantyhose on a stair railing, which SHOULD be made of wood and this would make the varnish come off, plus drip water onto my (wooden) stairs. So that was bogus. And yeah, if the house is so pitch black, how can she punch in a safe code. And if Dustin weren't completely dead and was trying to get up, what's with not yelling at him to STAY DOWN OR I'LL SHOOT AGAIN! while the son dials 911. On the flip side, just because Dustin was "such a good boy and would never hurt anyone even if he is troubled" doesn't mean he can't freak out and murder someone. Ted Bundy used to be "such a nice guy" too, so helpful with those co-eds at school, carrying their books for them. Before he freaking KILLED them. So this episode left me pretty wishy-washy. But where they moved ... Early, Iowa is in the middle of freaking nowhere, and I mean nowhere Iowa. Why would anyone move there? That set off red flags for me, right from the start. All in all, a confusing episode and left me with not much of an opinion, which is in itself a major Dateline achievement!

Good point Saber about drying pantyhose on the wooden railing. Last week I spilled water on a wood table in the family room and it lifted the finish. So I call B.S. on that story. And while I agree with you that Dustin could have planned on killing Tracy, her defense was that her ex husband hired Dustin to kill her. What person hires a "hit man" (or hit boy in this case)  to murder a person but does not provide a weapon? Or at the very least make sure the hit person has a weapon? "Oh, just use whatever you come across in the house. Tracy always leaves pantyhose drying on the wooden railing. Drove me nuts as I was always refinishing the bannister. One of the reasons I divorced her". Lol. 

I forgot to add in my first post regarding this case that when googling I also found an article that stated that when first in prison, Tracy hired a person on the sexual offender registry to find her ex and kids. Provided him with info including things like his SSN to track down where they were. Sick. 

Edited August 8, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[ChristmasJones]

I refuse to watch shows featuring Manson just on the principle that he doesn't deserve attention.  But I did read the biography by Jeff Guinn that came out a few years ago and it was quite good. The author delved deeply into Manson's family and his early childhood, and from that its clear he was hard-wired to be a sociopath.  He was doomed by both nature (bad genes) and nurture (horrific parenting/family life).... add them together, and its really no surprise how he turned out.

This is the book: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/manson-jeff-guinn/1113741718?ean=9781451645170&st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP78860

[ButterQueen]

6 hours ago, ChristmasJones said:

I refuse to watch shows featuring Manson just on the principle that he doesn't deserve attention.  But I did read the biography by Jeff Guinn that came out a few years ago and it was quite good. The author delved deeply into Manson's family and his early childhood, and from that its clear he was hard-wired to be a sociopath.  He was doomed by both nature (bad genes) and nurture (horrific parenting/family life).... add them together, and its really no surprise how he turned out.

This is the book: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/manson-jeff-guinn/1113741718?ean=9781451645170&st=PLA&sid=BNB_DRS_Core+Shopping+Books_00000000&2sid=Google_&sourceId=PLGoP78860

I haven't read the book, but on Dateline they said Manson lied about his upbringing, and that he was raised by loving grandparents.

[CelticBlackCat]

12 hours ago, ChristmasJones said:

I refuse to watch shows featuring Manson just on the principle that he doesn't deserve attention.  But I did read the biography by Jeff Guinn that came out a few years ago and it was quite good.

Not trying to start an argument, but if watching an hour-long show about the Manson Family murders doesn't deserve attention, why did you read a whole book about Charles Manson?  Just confused.

[JudyObscure]

You can find all sort of  conflicting things about Manson's childhood.  His mother may or may not have been a prostitute but she was sixteen and unmarried, she did refuse to give him a name and his birth certificate does read "no name."  His grandparents raised him for only a few years while his mother did a stint in prison.  Since they have only bad stories about him, I doubt if they were all that loving. When he was a baby a waitress thought he was cute and his mother said, "Bring me a pitcher of beer and you can have him. "  She left the restaurant without him and his uncle came and got him when he heard about it.   By the time he was five, in kindergarten, he was already violent and a bully, but who knows how much abuse and neglect he had suffered by then from a mother who hated him?

You know that story the nuns love to tell about the unwed mother with syphilis who tried and failed to achieve an abortion and that child turned out to be ... Beethoven?  I always counter that with the story of Charlie's mother who had also tried to abort him.  Not taking any sides on The Issue, but an unwanted, neglected  baby is probably more likely to grow up to be a criminal than a Beethoven.