All Episodes Discussion

[SunnyBeBe]

I think it's gotten harder for people to abuse the system than it used to be years ago.  I'm sure it still happens, but, the internet now creates an almost irresistible way for criminals to give themselves away.  Many people reveal all kinds of personal information about themselves on the internet.  I suppose those who are hiding in a cult might be limited in their abilities. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by SunnyBeBe

[AZChristian]

1 minute ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I think it's gotten harder for people to abuse the system than it used to be years ago.  I'm sure it still happens, but, the internet now creates an almost irresistible way for criminals to give themselves away.  Many people reveal all kinds of personal information about themselves on the internet.  I suppose those who are hiding in a cult might be limited in their abilities. 

I watch Judge Judy and The People's Court almost every day.  Trust me - there are still LOTS of people who have learned how to abuse the system.  There are probably instructions on how to do that on the internet.  

[pigs-in-space]

Well I think the government knows there is abuse happening from these groups, but they are limited in what they can do about it.  Knowing versus having legal proof is different.

[Annber03]

That, and I imagine there's a lot of pesky "separation of church and state" stuff to wade through as well. A lot of these groups would know how to get around that particular issue and try and turn any attempts by the government to stop them into some "Government's trying to control us religious people!" sort of thing. 

[SunnyBeBe]

Well,  I'm not from Utah, but, based on what I've read and seen over the last 30 years, the Utah government is quite savy and can do pretty much what they please. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by SunnyBeBe

[JudyObscure]

I think  a lot of states just don't have the man power to look into every suspicion of welfare fraud and in these cases the women are actually within the law.

Since only the first wife is legally married, the rest actually are "single mothers," and as such they are eligible for help with housing payments, food stamps, utilities, and education costs,   all increasing with the number of children up to a limit.  The main money source would be TANF (welfare) and although the T stands of temporary it can last five years.  Plus all the single mothers can go out and earn  a decent wage and still be eligible. A man with 30 single mother "wives" can be bringing in a lot of money without breaking the law.  It happens to a lesser degree in the larger society with women collecting TANF while having the children's father very much "in her life," but not legally married.

[bubbls]

7 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I think  a lot of states just don't have the man power to look into every suspicion of welfare fraud and in these cases the women are actually within the law.

Since only the first wife is legally married, the rest actually are "single mothers," and as such they are eligible for help with housing payments, food stamps, utilities, and education costs,   all increasing with the number of children up to a limit.  The main money source would be TANF (welfare) and although the T stands of temporary it can last five years.  Plus all the single mothers can go out and earn  a decent wage and still be eligible. A man with 30 single mother "wives" can be bringing in a lot of money without breaking the law.  It happens to a lesser degree in the larger society with women collecting TANF while having the children's father very much "in her life," but not legally married.

Very interesting and still maddening. 

[MonicaM]

On 11/15/2017 at 11:49 AM, JudyObscure said:

Since only the first wife is legally married, the rest actually are "single mothers," and as such they are eligible for help with housing payments, food stamps, utilities, and education costs,   all increasing with the number of children up to a limit.  The main money source would be TANF (welfare) and although the T stands of temporary it can last five years.  Plus all the single mothers can go out and earn  a decent wage and still be eligible. A man with 30 single mother "wives" can be bringing in a lot of money without breaking the law.  It happens to a lesser degree in the larger society with women collecting TANF while having the children's father very much "in her life," but not legally married.

With their lack of education, prairie dresses, and ridiculous hairstyles, I can't picture many places that would hire the "wives".  Outside jobs would also require a certain level of autonomy and I doubt that would be allowed by the menfolk.  It REALLY makes me angry that government agencies enable cults like this to survive while the rest of us go to work every day.  

[bubbls]

I finally watched the Silver Lakes episode where Sabrina, member of the Wolfpack, and John killed her husband. My agreements:

 

* Sabrina was fugly, Dateline. Even all vamped out.

* I was utterly annoyed by the couple they were interviewing. What a couple of tools who were desperately loving their 15 minutes. 

* Wolfpack? Really? That group needs to leap into that lake en masse and drown themselves. I pity their children. 

* It was obvious they were both in on it when they were praying for Sabrina to have the right words with the cops. God answered that prayer but not in the way they expected, ha!

* Brina??  I'm betting she insisted people call her that, family and all. 

* I guess John has finally found a group who will swing him, hehe. 

[birdmom]

Hi, I've apparently been out of the loop on an old case that Dateline re-featured in late September called The Bathtub Mystery, about the sportswriter whose wife drowned in the bathtub. I looked on here around the date of the re-airing and no one was talking about it, so does anyone have an idea of when this story first aired? It probably has multiple times with all the appeals. Anyway, I'm anxious to read your opinions on it, but don't know what date to search under. Thanks! 

P.S. I read the Krakauer book on mormon fundamentalists years ago and it was sooo good, but so disturbing, and now I'm all pissed reading your comments about how they're living off welfare and hating them even more. 

[Christina]

The Menedez Brothers episode has been advertised as containing new information. Not only did I sit through two hours and not hear anything new, they barely mentioned Leslie Abramson and her trashy and unethical behavior, which would have been good viewing. They showed other attorneys saying they didn't like her and mention she retired, but nothing about her falsifying evidence.

I'm really behind on my PTV reading, suffering from insomnia, and probably shouldn't be allowed access to the internet because I always fall into black holes when I'm this tired. I also probably shouldn't be allowed access to message boards, because I type a book to say something that could be summarized in a sentence with spelling and grammar mistakes that I don't catch. But here I am. Some old comments:

On 11/12/2017 at 0:10 AM, bubbls said:

Didn't the cop say the murder happened while they were still investigating the theft? I'm not sure if I heard him correctly. 

That was my understanding, too. 

 

On 11/12/2017 at 7:52 AM, cooksdelight said:

I’m guessing Jeffs got a big ol’ fashioned welcome when he got to prison. Getting a taste of his own medicine, I hope, since pedophiles are the lowest rung on the ladder in prison. 

After reading about something on Warren several years ago, I fell into a rabbit hole like I always do when I research things, so here goes a small book of information and links. Someone has already said he is in solitary, but there was also a report by a jailer that he is a still a sex addict. That is the least explicit link I found.

The quoted comment about him being a pedophile disappeared, but Warren has been accused of molesting boys and girls since he was a preteen, around 11 I think. He was made a teacher at the Short Creek School (FDLS only), then the principal, and abused a considerable amount of kids. His dad was the prophet then, and the kids were taught that he was the supreme being, and therefore, Warren was allowed to do whatever the hell he wanted. I'm sure everyone understand why I didn't go grab a link for that comment. Burn in Hell assholes!

 

On 11/13/2017 at 2:32 PM, MonicaM said:

I never did understand how the Jeffs cult supported all of those wives and children.  I know that without electronics, toys and other "worldly" possessions, the cost per person was probably much lower than average, but still, prairie dresses, hair spray, and food aren't free.  

 

On 11/14/2017 at 8:56 AM, SunnyBeBe said:

Ref. the government funds for the wives and children.  In my state, if you apply for public assistance, you have to name the father and then the county sues the father on the child's behalf for child support. So, either the father is paying mom child support or reimbursing the county for the money they have advanced to mom for the child.  I wonder why that isn't done with these people.  And you can't just say you don't know.  They question family members, require DNA testing, etc.  They don't let you just lie about it. 

He didn't support the community, just himself and other high in his regard. Many men, women and children routinely starved. As Utah clamped down on the parentage to receive aid, they created false identities for the men to use and sign on the birth certificates. Then, the men would "take off and abandon the woman and child" and without valid SSNs, the State couldn't prove otherwise. Warren's group and The Kingston Clan were the only group that allegedly did that, because there really wasn't any reason for a man to not claim all the kids. Kody Brown of Sister Wives, for example, showed he paid for the housing of his wives, which was support enough that a separate child support wasn't required. The one wife who also worked to support the family, lived on her own for awhile and probably lied to the State about his financial assistance because Kody claimed her kids on his bankruptcy filings, so they were not unclaimed by him. The other two families that were on for short periods (one had a season and the other included the twins - don't remember names and don't care enough to search) also had the dads claim all the kids because someone found the records on them. The one married to twins didn't receive public aide but the other group did.

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FDLS), Jeffs' group, has several businesses that use child labor, primarily construction and other physical labor jobs. They also own a specialized machinist company, which was apparently so specialized that it was one of the few businesses that could do some of the work and therefore, gained many contracts. It didn't appear that people who used that company knew it was owned by the group until Texas and Utah went searching for assets. 

When Warren went to jail, his brother Lyle took over the FDLS, with Warren sneaking info and orders out of jail to him. Lyle and several others were eventually arrested for welfare fraud, but all were released on bond pending trial except Lyle, who eventually managed to be released on house arrest. Lyle managed to slip out of his ankle bracelet and disappear to South Dakota, where they have a compound near one of my best friends from childhood (I grew up in S.D.), so I was following that case pretty thoroughly. Cults love S.D. I remember being completely intrigued and appalled by The Moonies, and my parents always had to tell me to stop staring, but I just couldn't.

After a $50,000 reward was offered, someone told the make and model of vehicle Lyle was driving and a police officer found him sleeping in a park area on the other side of the state. All but Lyle took pleas that didn't require jail time, because the judge ruled that the prosecution couldn't introduce certain information, basically walking away without any punishment. It's not like they are going to get a job in the real world that is effected by a felony conviction. They seem to be treating it as proof of God affirming their actions. In my opinion, only a few of them are true believers, the rest are just abusers. 

CNN has a pretty thorough article on the fraud claims and how it worked, but also has a stupid autoplay video and statements from the brother, Willie Jeffs, who is every bit a scumbag as his brothers and shouldn't be given the time of day. The Salt Lake City Tribune and Deseret News have the most thorough coverage, but if you don't want every little detail, the CNN article will suffice unlike me, who is wordy as hell.

 

On 11/14/2017 at 0:05 PM, bubbls said:

You know, I'm apparently far too lazy to be a criminal. I'd not want to deal with the red tape if I had another income. 

I wouldn't be smart enough. Years ago, I worked at Walmart. We were always having meetings where they would tell us we could no longer do something, such as take broken down boxes out, put boxes into the compacter without a supervisor there, or take our layaways out with a supervisor matching the receipt to the items. People were tucking things into the broken down boxes and wheeling them out the front door, after saying they needed the boxes to move. Some people were throwing TVs, DVDs, other electronics and expensive items into the trash compactor like they were empty boxes and someone would be down there to unload them. Others figured out where their layaways were and added things to the boxes. If they hadn't told us it was happening, most of us wouldn't have ever thought of it. We were always amazed at how simple the thefts were, and they only ever got caught because someone bragged or a cop pulled someone over with a bunch of items that would cost a significant amount, like when the DVD players first came out.

When that Dance Moms psycho was caught for bankruptcy fraud, a group of us discussed how much work she put in to avoid paying taxes and ended up not only paying significantly more, but spending some time in prison. She was the caretaker for her elderly mother and will likely be in jail for her mom's final days. She was ultimately caught when the judge saw a commercial for a new season after she claimed the show was a one-off and she didn't know if there would be anymore shows. She had already filmed them, the idiot, and that is the type of stupid criminal I would probably be. 

56 minutes ago, birdmom said:

Hi, I've apparently been out of the loop on an old case that Dateline re-featured in late September called The Bathtub Mystery, about the sportswriter whose wife drowned in the bathtub. I looked on here around the date of the re-airing and no one was talking about it, so does anyone have an idea of when this story first aired? It probably has multiple times with all the appeals. Anyway, I'm anxious to read your opinions on it, but don't know what date to search under. Thanks! 

P.S. I read the Krakauer book on mormon fundamentalists years ago and it was sooo good, but so disturbing, and now I'm all pissed reading your comments about how they're living off welfare and hating them even more. 

It looks like it aired originally on May 19, 2017, but it doesn't look familiar to me at all.

[SunnyBeBe]

I couldn't take another docu on the Menedez case.  What I would like to know is if the father did sexually abuse the sons when they were kids.  I've heard a lot about it, but, I would like to know if this is accepted as true or not.  If I recall there were some family members who confirmed it, but, were they credible?  

[AZChristian]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I couldn't take another docu on the Menedez case.  What I would like to know is if the father did sexually abuse the sons when they were kids.  I've heard a lot about it, but, I would like to know if this is accepted as true or not.  If I recall there were some family members who confirmed it, but, were they credible?  

Here's my feeling:  One could tell by the original phone call to the police that Lyle is not a very good actor.  Looking at him on the stand during the first trial - and viewing it from my experience as a child who WAS molested throughout childhood - I believe the molestation claims.  That doesn't mean they weren't spoiled brats and/or that they didn't kill their parents.  Two wrongs never make a right.  I don't believe they thought Jose and Kitty were going to kill them.  If Eric was still being molested, I think the brothers wanted that to stop - but they didn't want to choose an option that meant they had to give up their lifestyle.  Maybe they didn't want to leave home and try to live on what they could make on their own.  Maybe they thought they had earned everything that Jose had.  But murder is still wrong.

[atlantaloves]

That was a good episode, and yes I think they were molested, too many family members and friends knew about it. They should have been put in jail for man slaughter, and that is something I never say about murderers. I generally want them to rot forever. But yeah, you are right, really horrible actors those "boys"! The drama series with Eddie Falco was fantastic, try to catch it on demand if you have time. I loved it.  She nailed Miss Leslie. 

[UsernameFatigue]

31 minutes ago, atlantaloves said:

That was a good episode, and yes I think they were molested, too many family members and friends knew about it. They should have been put in jail for man slaughter, and that is something I never say about murderers. I generally want them to rot forever. But yeah, you are right, really horrible actors those "boys"! The drama series with Eddie Falco was fantastic, try to catch it on demand if you have time. I loved it.  She nailed Miss Leslie. 

I agree that the most they should have got is manslaughter, and I also think that they should have been out long ago. At the end of the series with Eddie Falco, their aunt told Leslie that she believed the nephew who said he was also molested by his mother (I can't remember now which son it was) because her sister was molested by their mother. So yes, I believe both parents were molesters, are well as pretty despicable parents even without the molesting aspect. 

[SunnyBeBe]

I appreciate the info on the molestation allegations. So, the father was into molesting little boys, since it started when they were preschool, continued through their teens and even into adulthood AND he was also into adult women, as he had several extramarital affairs, right?  I'm just trying to wrap my brain around that.  It just seems odd that a man who has affairs with multiple women, also enjoyed the sexual abuse of young boys of all ages.  But, if that is true, then, I don't have any real qualms with him being taken out and the mother for not protecting them.  It might be illegal, wrong, whatever, but, I have no issue with it.  Good thing that I was not on the jury.  I do find their greedy, stupid spending of the estate deplorable though.  I suppose, I chalk that up to their minds being screwed up when they were kids. 

[biakbiak]

5 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

just trying to wrap my brain around that.  It just seems odd that a man who has affairs with multiple women, also enjoyed the sexual abuse of young boys of all ages

It' actually not that unusual a pattern among sexual predators.

[bubbls]

I've always been interested in the truth of the Menendez molestation so thanks everyone for your comments. I tended to believe them, although I never really believed the reason for the murders was they were in fear for their lives. I didn't realize the mother was accused too. 

[cooksdelight]

I think they were more in fear of being cut off from Daddy’s money if they didn’t get their acts together and start their own careers after college.

[SunnyBeBe]

11 hours ago, bubbls said:

I've always been interested in the truth of the Menendez molestation so thanks everyone for your comments. I tended to believe them, although I never really believed the reason for the murders was they were in fear for their lives. I didn't realize the mother was accused too. 

Apparently, the mother not only allowed the dad to sexually abuse the sons, but, she did as well when they were younger.   I just found this article that says that not all child sex offenders are paedophiles.  Meaning that they may sexually abuse children, even though they don't have any attraction to them.  They do it for other reasons like control or opportunity.  Very interesting.  So, I suppose that the parents were attracted to adults, but, used the boys when they didn't have access to the other adults or they were just being controlling and cruel.  They sure did put up a good front.  It's terrible people like them ever have kids. 

http://articles.latimes.com/1993-09-14/local/me-35149_1_lyle-menendez

https://theconversation.com/psychology-of-a-paedophile-why-are-some-people-attracted-to-children-59991

[Ohmo]

About the Menendez brothers, this Dateline shifted my thinking a bit.  I do think they both should be in jail, but I also think there's more to their sexual abuse allegations than I previously thought.

In this day and age, I think the boys' defense would have been received much differently than it was 30 years ago.  Yes, they gunned down their parents (and reloaded).  That deserves prison for awhile longer.  However, I also buy that Jose and Kitty abused both boys and did so over a long period of time.  That has to have warped them in some way.  I could see requiring each son to serve another 10-15 years, but now I don't believe that each should necessarily receive life.  I think a third trial could be enlightening, if it ever happens.  I don't think this was solely a crime about money.

I also did not like the former prosecutor, especially her joke about shooting people in the courtroom.

[CelticBlackCat]

6 hours ago, Ohmo said:

About the Menendez brothers, this Dateline shifted my thinking a bit.  I do think they both should be in jail, but I also think there's more to their sexual abuse allegations than I previously thought.

In this day and age, I think the boys' defense would have been received much differently than it was 30 years ago.  Yes, they gunned down their parents (and reloaded).  That deserves prison for awhile longer.  However, I also buy that Jose and Kitty abused both boys and did so over a long period of time.  That has to have warped them in some way.  I could see requiring each son to serve another 10-15 years, but now I don't believe that each should necessarily receive life.  I think a third trial could be enlightening, if it ever happens.  I don't think this was solely a crime about money.

I also did not like the former prosecutor, especially her joke about shooting people in the courtroom.

I didn't like Pamela Bozanich either.

[UsernameFatigue]

6 hours ago, CelticBlackCat said:

I didn't like Pamela Bozanich either.

I just got a chance to finish watching the Dateline show. Wow, Bozanich really is a piece of work. Her comments at the end about poor Kitty, being killed by the children she gave birth to? Ya, the ones that she herself abused, as well as turned her back on  when their father abused them. But Pam is glad she retired because she would never have become a mother to "Natalie". I hope Natalie drops her mother off at an old age home one day, never to return. Also, the smirk she gave when she said that she hoped the boys lived a long live in prison? From what I can see, they are both living productive lives and making a difference to others. What is Pam doing? 

At the end of the recent series, Erik told Leslie that life in prison without parole would be a better life than the one he was living with his parents. I would imagine they have had more freedom in prison that they did at home. I also think that if that case were to be tried today, the outcome would be very different. 

[AZChristian]

9 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I also think that if that case were to be tried today, the outcome would be very different. 

Jose would probably be on the Weinstein list of Hollywood big shots who take what they want, because who would believe their victims.

Wake up call!  

[bubbls]

It would make an interesting show, a mock trial today on the Menendez case. 

[bubbls]

I watched the Menendez Dateline yesterday. Anyone know what the former prosecutor meant when she said the brothers were evil but Abrams moreso? 

[partofme]

21 minutes ago, bubbls said:

I watched the Menendez Dateline yesterday. Anyone know what the former prosecutor meant when she said the brothers were evil but Abrams moreso? 

I thought she meant that Abramson is the kind of shady attorney who will lie, cheat and steal to win, she was caught getting the shrink to falsify his notes, I'm not sure if there's anything else sketchy that she was caught doing.

Edited November 22, 2017 by partofme

[bubbls]

1 hour ago, partofme said:

I thought she meant that Abramson is the kind of shady attorney who will lie, cheat and steal to win, she was caught getting the shrink to falsify his notes, I'm not sure if there's anything else sketchy that she was caught doing.

I knew about that, so I was wondering if it was something else. I suppose she may have meant Abrams was held to a higher standard since she was a lawyer. It just seemed an odd thing to say compared to what the brothers did. 

[CelticBlackCat]

Bozanich was in direct competition with Abramson, Erik's attorney, and Jill Lansing, Lyle's attorney.  Judging by her demeanor in the interviews, she is bitter that she "lost" the case by having the judge finally declare a hung jury.  Gil Garcetti then pushed her out as the second trial's prosecutor.  She had no love for Abramson to begin with so she would say bad things about her, like wanting to shoot her in the courtroom if she had to choose who to shoot, etc.

[One Tough Cookie]

Since when did the victims turn into the bad guys?  Those snot nose killers are exactly where they belong.

[bubbls]

I finally watched One Moment about Derek "Smurker" Smyer having Crystal Taylor killed. I'm going to have to look it up as I don't see how there was enough to convict him. And this was the episode of the gorgeous people! The detective, the sisters, the gangbanger guy, Derek and his oh-so-annoying sister, his baby mama....they were all actually as fine as Dateline wants every victim to be. 

Derek's baby mama acted like she was high in the first trial. Anyone else think so? 

Edited November 24, 2017 by bubbls

[biakbiak]

This was marked as new but given how I have seared into my mind the Sarah Goode's family, I ffwd to the end to see if there was any update and it seems that it was just a sentence that the killer died in prison a year after he started his sentence and the cause of death hasn' been released. 

[SunnyBeBe]

On 11/23/2017 at 1:12 PM, One Tough Cookie said:

Since when did the victims turn into the bad guys?  Those snot nose killers are exactly where they belong.

I used to think that too. I was very opposed to any sympathy for the boys and in fact, I did not believe the allegations.  But, apparently, it is true.  The parents both sexually abused the sons starting when they were quite young and it continued for years. Even when the mother stopped, she allowed the dad to keep doing it.   AND it's confirmed by family members and other people.  I didn't want to believe it, but, apparently, it's true.  When a parent does that over and over to a child for years......there are no words. I have no sympathy for the death of the parent.  I get it.  Maybe, it's still murder, but, I see it as a justifiable homicide.  I see it not unlike when a battered wife kills a husband.  I just have no sympathy for child abusers. 

Did anyone see last night's episode on Sarah Goode (Missing and murdered.) ? Man, that was pretty interesting.  The most amusing thing is that the defendant was found dead recently in his cell.  No word as of yet how he died.  In light of how angry the family was with the killer.........it sure is a puzzle......Hmmm.....I wonder if they are doing a very in depth investigation.  Here a clip on it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/dateline-friday-preview-finding-sarah-goode-1097552963506

[Ohmo]

2 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Did anyone see last night's episode on Sarah Goode (Missing and murdered.) ? Man, that was pretty interesting.  The most amusing thing is that the defendant was found dead recently in his cell.  No word as of yet how he died.

I bet that was the whole reason that Dateline aired the episode as "new" because it actually wasn't.  I had seen it before.  What was actually "new" were the 30 second or so where we were told that Dante is now dead.

 

On 11/23/2017 at 1:12 PM, One Tough Cookie said:

ince when did the victims turn into the bad guys?  Those snot nose killers are exactly where they belong.

When they abuse their children.  Just like Jose and Kitty were victims of Lyle and Eric, I also think that Lyle and Eric were victims of Jose and Kitty.  i'd actually agree that the boys were very spoiled and entitled.  They quite obviously came from money, but all of that does not negate the possibility that their parents abused them over a long period of time. I have no problem with the sons being incarcerated for several more years, but I no longer think they deserve life imprisonment.  Just because Jose and Kitty were murdered doesn't mean that they did not do bad things.

[iMonrey]

I found the Sarah Goode story rather annoying because they spent the first hour not even mentioning this other guy who was at the apartment with them the night she disappeared. They focused on the ex boyfriend and two of the guys and then after an hour it was like "Oh, and by the way there was another guy there." WTF? And - surprise! - he's the killer. Well, duh. Why didn't you tell us there was this other guy from the start? Clearly the two other guys at the apartment knew it.

Also, Sarah's brother in law was so hyper macho tough guy vigilante I started to think maybe he did it.

[SunnyBeBe]

Yeah, I was wondering about that too.  And they made it clear that the girl's family was VERY intent on getting the killer.  That BIL looked like a brick house.  Talk about intimating.  He scared me.  I can't help but, wonder what killed the defendant.  I did find an article that said he died in the prison medical unit, so, apparently, it was health related and not a hanging or shank injury.  Still......he was such a young man.  It makes you wonder. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by SunnyBeBe

[One Tough Cookie]

3 hours ago, Ohmo said:

When they abuse their children.  Just like Jose and Kitty were victims of Lyle and Eric, I also think that Lyle and Eric were victims of Jose and Kitty.  i'd actually agree that the boys were very spoiled and entitled.  They quite obviously came from money, but all of that does not negate the possibility that their parents abused them over a long period of time. I have no problem with the sons being incarcerated for several more years, but I no longer think they deserve life imprisonment.  Just because Jose and Kitty were murdered doesn't mean that they did not do bad things.

I must respectfully disagree. I think the only abuse happening was when parents were going to cut off their Amex.  I was a teacher worked  who has worked abused kids, so the subject is not foreign to me but those two had entitlement  stamped on their forehead

[UsernameFatigue]

On 11/23/2017 at 10:12 AM, One Tough Cookie said:

Since when did the victims turn into the bad guys?  Those snot nose killers are exactly where they belong.

Victims can never be bad guys? News to me.  The abuse of the "snot nose killers" was confirmed by many people, including their own family members. The parental victims are exactly where they belong. The other victims (their children) are in jail. My opinion, of course. 

Edited November 25, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[mythoughtis]

I think the Sarah Goode family is very lucky their participation/ interference  didn’t cause evidence to be destroyed. They went way overboard in being all up in the police investigation, possibly causing police to not get the correct  stories from the guys Sarah had been with in a timely manner. 

I also found Sarah’s brother in law to be very all up in Sarah’s business. She had two brothers and parents, or at least her mom was around. Her Mom is now raising Sarah’s daughter. Surprised Her BIL didn’t want to do that. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Also, Sarah's brother in law was so hyper macho tough guy vigilante I started to think maybe he did it.

Something was off with him.  Something.  Maybe he had too many energy drinks.

I love my brother-in-law.  I've known him since I was 12.  I am now a woman of a "certain age" so suffice it to say he's a true brother to me.  But let me state this....never, ever has he painted, touched or even felt my toes.  I think that's a weird line that was crossed.  Sure, he finishes floors for a living (which according to him makes him an expert on "finishes" - that's why he painted the missing girls' toes) but Holy Hell, what made him draw that comparison?  Did he put the highlights in her hair because he knows colors?  Did he shave body parts because he knows sanding?  I just kept shaking my head on that one.

The other thing is that for a family that (excuse my vernacular) seemed to be up every other family members' butts I found it interesting that none of the six sisters took their "beloved, beautiful, amazing, funny, centerpiece of family, rock, gorgeous sisters' children to raise.  Left that job for grandmom (their mother) to do.  Wouldn't it have made more sense for one of the younger mothers to incorporate the children in their family? 

And the police must have been annoyed with said family running to every police call, siren and fire engine sound.  How could the police do their jobs with the "Darlings" trailing after them or worse, intimidating potential suspects before the police even contacted them?  (See comment on brother-in-law above).

And the mumbling.  Good Lord in heaven.  I put on the CC because I could not get a word of what the gaggle of sisters were saying.  They all mumbled.  I did get that the one sisters' feet was so swollen because she was pregnant but just had to get up and follow a police siren.  What rock do these people call home?  Don't they have jobs?  Don't they have children that they need to tend to? 

I could be wrong because I couldn't decipher all the mumbling but I gather that the six sisters, brothers, children, assorted cousins and in-laws flopped in the mothers' home and hung around until they heard a police siren or heard a rumor then went to the scene and either hassled the cops for information or beat the hell out of the "potential killer'.

I understand that the sister they loved was missing.  I get it.  I also know that their behavior was as far from cooperative as one could get.  They were a distraction - even the judge had to curtail what they wore in the courtroom.

My only question is now that their sister is buried, and the murderer was behind bars for a year and is now dead, what do those sisters do in their spare time?

[CriticalMass]

Add me to the list that found Sarah’s BIL creepy. Which mush mouthed sister is he married to? He was a pure attention whore, even at the funeral. He certainly stood out as a pall bearer in a loud shirt sans jacket, in front, of course. Wonder why the mother nor either brother appeared. Is the father still around? 

[Ohmo]

On 11/25/2017 at 3:44 PM, One Tough Cookie said:

I was a teacher worked  who has worked abused kids, so the subject is not foreign to me but those two had entitlement  stamped on their forehead

I'm not disagreeing that either were not entitled, but abused does not only go hand in hand with being impoverished.  They might have become entitled because they were given so much material wealth as a way to silence them about the abuse.  It's not an "either/or" argument to me.  Lyle and Eric could be entitled, spoiled, rude, and obnoxious, but they could also have faced abuse.  And frankly, the "cutting off their Amex" viewpoint comes off as a knee-jerk response.  Money does not fix everything, but it can be used to hide an awful lot *cough JohBenet Ramsey cough*.

The tennis coach is not a family member and does not seem to have a close relationship with either Lyle or Eric.  Maybe you're right, and they weren't abused, but there seems to be enough there to at least investigate the claim more than it has been.

[bubbls]

I just watched Crossing the Line where 16-year-old Justine Winters crashed her car and killed a pregnant wife and her son. Wow. That Winters family was something else. Texts to boyfriend threatening suicide, took her seatbelt off, accelerated to 86 mph, crossed the center line to hit head-on the other car yet they insist she's perfectly innocent. Then they bring a lawsuit against the victim's husband on some future insurance payout excuse. WTH?! And her faux apology taking faux responsibility in Keith's interview....yeah, I could see my feelings written all over Keith's face. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by bubbls

[SunnyBeBe]

I've heard there is a Public Safety message warning women (young girls) to NEVER go alone around an ex-boyfriend or husband AFTER you have broken up with him.  It's wise.  It seems that often the woman agrees to meet the guy, grab food, see the kids, pick up items, etc.  It's best to meet in public or at police station.  Apparently, this message hasn't made it to many women.  Wouldn't your think that instinct would kick in when you have a formerly violent person who is unhappy with the breakup, that tells you it's not a good idea?

Another message that doesn't seem to sink in is to not be tracing around the roadways, alone at 3:00 a.m.  It's dangerous. If you are at a safe place, stay there.  I suppose that drinking causes them to use poor judgment. Maybe, my mom was too paranoid.  She had me convinced that some criminal would jump out of the darkness and grab me anywhere.  I never hesitated to ask for escorts to my car, wait for others to show, etc.  to avoid walking alone at night.  Some people don't even think twice about it.  

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I've heard there is a Public Safety message warning women (young girls) to NEVER go alone around an ex-boyfriend or husband AFTER you have broken up with him.  It's wise.  It seems that often the woman agrees to meet the guy, grab food, see the kids, pick up items, etc.  It's best to meet in public or at police station.  Apparently, this message hasn't made it to many women.  Wouldn't your think that instinct would kick in when you have a formerly violent person who is unhappy with the breakup, that tells you it's not a good idea?

Yep, I've heard about that, too. They say the most dangerous time for a woman in a domestic abuse situation is when she's trying to leave the guy, for the very reasons you note. And whether she meets up with him again or not, once the guy realizes he's lost control over his girlfriend or wife and she's serious about leaving him, that's enough to fuel his violent streak as well. 

You're right that this should be obvious advice in general, but if a woman's the sort who's used to trying to smooth things over when people are upset, or if there's a custody dispute that's leading her to constantly encounter her ex, or things of that sort, sadly, sometimes just making a clean break is going to be easier said than done. I think some women really just feel they're damned if they do ignore the guy and damned if they don't, so they think trying to make peace is better than nothing at all. Especially if they're familiar with whatever good side might have existed of the guy when they first started dating him-they think they'll be able to tap into that side and make him see reason. 

And unfortunately, they wind up being wrong in the end. 

[cooksdelight]

I’m watching my recording of the Lars Itzo murder case, where he shot his wife in the chest claiming he thought it was an intruder.

All I’ll remember from this episode is his brother’s goofy high crewcut.

[bubbls]

Way back in the Jurassic era when I first got interested in true crime I was, at age 22, continually astounded by the fools murdered by their ex due to meeting him somewhere alone. Bring a friend, Ladies! Meet in public. During daylight. On the other hand, being as all these women lit up every room they entered their fate was sealed. 

[ari333]

9 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

I’m watching my recording of the Lars Itzo murder case, where he shot his wife in the chest claiming he thought it was an intruder.

All I’ll remember from this episode is his brother’s goofy high crewcut.

I found this completely ridiculous .It reminded me of that guy who shot his gf in the bathroom. Cant think of his name... Olympian?

[cooksdelight]

Oscar Pistorious, who just had his sentence doubled by a new judge. 

[SunnyBeBe]

1 hour ago, cooksdelight said:

Oscar Pistorious, who just had his sentence doubled by a new judge. 

I read that. Didn't he appeal the 6 year sentence and got it doubled?  I don't know if he had a choice, but, he really should have taken the 6 years and did the time.  I'm always amazed when people in the news turn down a probationary sentence or a short term in prison, standing on principle and end up getting life in prison.  It really makes me scratch my head.  I don't think that some defendants fully understand that no matter how pitiful the state's case may be, you STILL can be convicted.  AND the state doesn't really need any evidence to show that you did it, CONTRARY to popular opinion.  It happens all the time.  What they do have to prove is that you had the OPPORTUNITY and MEANS to do it. (A circumstantial case is just fine.)  Motive helps, but, is not required.  I think that some guilty people are just too arrogant to accept defeat.  But, it is unfortunate when truly innocent people refuse a deal on principle and get life. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by SunnyBeBe