All Episodes Discussion

[applecrisp]

1 hour ago, nora1992 said:

I didn't like the sisters co-opting the grief of the family.  It started when the nurse-sister mentioned that one of the Yoder daughters (maybe doctor-daughter), told nurse-sister that the toxicology screens that NURSE-SISTER suggested were going to be done.....wouldn't any of the attending physicians, or the doctor-daughter, have asked for a tox screen?  But nurse-sister was taking credit for it, because no one else involved would have thought of it?  At first I liked Mary's sisters, but they managed to turn the tragedy into something all about them.  Perhaps that is why the Yoder daughters came off as over dramatic, because they knew they'd be competing against the Greek chorus of the mourners-in-chief. 

And why I think Katie was the only one behind it?  The email address she made up and used in her attempt to frame her boyfriend: a title, first name, last name, year of birth?  That is just one step removed from IDIDIT-NOTKATIE@gmail.com.  ayoder, adamyo, a.yoder, yodera, or even something without a person's name, like yoderchirocliniconeida@gmail.com, and I would have wondered who really was the creator of that email address.  But I believe it was part of Katie's cockamamie plot to have it all come back to Adam, and away from her.  The email showed some evidence of planning; not well-reasoned thought, but planning.  I don't know why.  Not that I have to know why, either.  I think she is too smart to let herself be a victim, but not smart enough to make someone else the perpetrator.

Agree about the sisters. They were very close minded and so sure of themselves. Why couldn't the motive be that Katie was mad at Adam and wanted to get him in trouble? Maybe he wasn't going to pay her back the money she gave him. 

 

Has it been confirmed that she did have some charges against her for forgery etc.  If this is true, as others have pointed out, would be a motive.  

[sinycalone]

Here is an article that gives details about those other charges:

http://cnycentral.com/news/local/family-suspicion-leads-to-employee-being-charged-for-fatally-poisoning-boss

They are all related to her obtaining the Colchicine .  She might not be a genius....but she was certainly cunning and determined.

I agree about the sisters.  They had closed their minds about the identity of the murderer.  I can understand their being disgusted and angry about their b-i-l's alleged serial philandering...but that doesn't make him a murderer.

[Ohmo]

1 hour ago, applecrisp said:

Has it been confirmed that she did have some charges against her for forgery etc.  If this is true, as others have pointed out, would be a motive.

The way I read the article, I think the forgery pertains to the manner in which the drug was obtained, not separate incidents of forgery.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Ohmo

[UsernameFatigue]

Anyone on Facebook should check out Dateline's page. There has been postings from Mary's sister Sharon Miller providing more information. She also posted a statement from another of Mary's sisters, Janine Baker King. It was all posted (at the time I am writing this) in the last 24 hours. The drug used to poison Mary was something Bill had used as far back as the 80s to grow pot plants. In the request for the drug (which was signed by Mary and Adam) Mary outlined the reason for requesting the drug, (she was an avid gardener as stated in the show) which was quite technical with regards to how it would genetically modify plants. Things that Katie would not know, and showed no signs of googling. But something both Bill and Mary knew quite well. And as stated previously it was ordered 6 months before Mary's death. 

The drug was so toxic that you were to use googles, gloves and a mask when handling. All these things were found in Adam's jeep when it was searched. Adam admitted they were his, that he used them when working on his jeep. Others said he never did work on his own vehicle. (This info was also on the website started by Katie's family)

According to the aunt, the one daughter interviewed on Dateline (the one to the left) had been estranged from her entire family- parents, sister and brother -  for 6 years before Mary's death. She did not know Katie (who had worked for her parents for 4 years) at all.

Bill told the daughter of one of the sisters that he and Mary could not afford to retire on the $400,000 he inherited, but he could live quite comfortably on it himself. Also the sister he was having an affair with? He was seen many times as her house before Mary's death. She has some kind of neurological disorder, but is quite well off which is the reason the sisters think Bill took up with her. 

The one sister has posted that "evidence to exonerate Katie was hidden or ignored" by authorities, and they will begin to release it over time. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[sinycalone]

All of those FB posts may be true...but don't alter the fact that Katie forged documents, did the research, and ordered the Colchicine herself.  She typed and sent the letter.

I'm beginning to suspect the sisters and daughters have not gotten along for years...and poor Mary's death just drove a bigger wedge in their relationships.

[Ohmo]

13 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

nd as stated previously it was ordered 6 months before Mary's death. 

That time frame is significant to me because what was supposed to happen soon?  Mary was supposed to retire, which Bill might not have been so thrilled about given his choice of "activities."  As to Katie supposedly "providing" false information.  She might have typed false information provided by a more knowledgeable party (Bill).

More articles:

Dateline NBC correspondent discusses Conley/Yoder episode

Quote

"Even here at Dateline, people could not decide or not agree on who they feel was the real killer," said the correspondent.

Attorney lays out Kaitlyn Conley’s possible appeal

[nora1992]

But even when the husband didn't want patients to know he was in the office, at least one staff member did.  Did the police ever check on where the husband was that day?  Look at the Russ Faria case - it seems like it takes a lot (and more than 5 alibi witnesses) to get police out of the "husband did it mode."  If there was even a slight crack in the husband's alibi, my opinion is the police would have kept digging.  Whatever first sickened her came at some point during the day.  The show never said where the husband was, but it did say the son was 300 miles away.  How did the poison get from son's Jeep to mother's system?  Why was the poison kept after it was administered?  Katie had once before involved authorities in a fight with the son - would he be so naïve as to confess to her that he killed his mother?  How, from so great a distance?  Would he enlist her help?  Why?  The relationship was volatile.  I think Katie wrote the letter thinking she was that much smarter than everyone; turns out, she was not as smart as she thought she was.  Husband and son were not presented as the Pam Hupps of this case, immunity or not.  The family is always under suspicion, and a lot of evidence is needed to divert suspicion away. 

[Madding crowd]

I'm still stuck on the interview they showed with Katie. Along with talking about poison being a woman's weapon, she said something along the lines of "I'm going to prison for the rest of my life now" not "I didn't do it. " Everyone is making good points here though. I would like to know more about her personality and whether she was ever possessive or vindictive before.

[iMonrey]

Quote

A true crime group I belong to commented on the Yoder case, as one woman lives there and knew the family.

The problem with people who say they are related to the family or are connected in some way is that they are biased. They have reasons to want one person or another blamed or exonerated. So I'm not terribly swayed by people who are that close to it. They aren't objective. I tend to find that people who had no knowledge of this case and just looked at the facts came away with much the same impression I did. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

The problem with people who say they are related to the family or are connected in some way is that they are biased. They have reasons to want one person or another blamed or exonerated. So I'm not terribly swayed by people who are that close to it. They aren't objective. I tend to find that people who had no knowledge of this case and just looked at the facts came away with much the same impression I did. 

Excellent point.  Actually, the discussion in the past few pages have been fascinating.

One thing I'd like to add, families who are fractured after the death of a loved one usually had the beginning cracks prior to the death.  The grief coupled with whatever issue was on the table (or beneath it) makes for powerful feelings and as I say, encourages family members to "dig in their heels".

As I look back on the Conley/Yoder family notice how they have formed in camps.  Bill did it.  Adam did it.  Katie did it.  Unless there's a video that shows exactly what happened it's safer for the family members to wrap themselves in the comfort of their individual camp.

It all boils down to occupying their minds with something other than the deceased because if they didn't -  they'd have to experience the raw feelings of grief. 

And nothing hurts more than that.

Edited December 4, 2017 by PsychoKlown
language

[sinycalone]

Quote

One thing I'd like to add, families who are fractured after the death of a loved one usually had the beginning cracks prior to the death.  The grief coupled with whatever issue was on the table (or beneath it) makes for powerful feelings and as I say, encourages family members to "dig in their heels".

I had the feeling that the family of Mary Yoder had those cracks, too.  Her sisters were obviously anti-Bill before Mary's death (and I'm not saying he didn't deserve their distrust - just pointing out their bias), the daughters loved their father and did not believe he was capable of killing their mother (a blind spot? perhaps).

[Annber03]

Just now, sinycalone said:

the daughters loved their father and did not believe he was capable of killing their mother (a blind spot? perhaps).

Yeah, I can sympathize with children who want to believe their parent is innocent in these cases. Sure, we've seen stories where a child has no doubt their parent is guilty of a crime, and, depending on the case, will even be the one making the accusation before anyone else does.

But for the most part, anytime I see a child defending their parent on a show like this, even if I personally feel said parent might be guilty, I still tend to feel sympathetic towards the child/children and think, "Well, of course they're going to defend them, I get that." I can only begin to imagine how tough it would be to accept the possibility that the person who raised you and claims to love you could be capable of something so awful. Especially if that awful thing is your dad killing your mom (or vice versa). 

[UsernameFatigue]

I would say that law enforcement is just as guilty of "digging in their heels" regarding one person, as family members. Those of us addicted to true crime shows have seen it time and time again, even when there is overwhelming evidence (including DNA) clearing a suspect/convicted person. 

Interesting that during the interview of Mary'a daughters at one point they said they thought that their father may have set up their brother. Doesn't sound to me like they were totally convinced of his innocence. But then they glommed on to Katie. But it certainly was a fractured family. One daughter not talking to her entire family for over 6 years. The son doesn't get along with either of his parents, and is in debt to Katie to boot for between $15,000 and $22,000. (Though is mother was always giving him money too). And Mary's husband is a serial cheater. Poor Mary appeared to have a crappy life. 

Still waiting for a motive for Katie. Bill and Adam had motives galore. I like the appeal of the manslaughter conviction. As posted above, why was it even an option (and wasn't in the first trial)? The poison used to kill Mary was so lethal one was to use gloves, a mask and goggles to handle it. Nothing manslaughter-ish about that. In addition, Mary's sister posted that the levels of the drug in Mary's system got higher the longer she was in the hospital, indicating that she was quite possibly given a second dose. That also pointed towards loving husband Bill. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[Janc]

The sister Janine was on talk radio this morning discussing the Dateline episode.  Just listening now...

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

I'm still stuck on the interview they showed with Katie. Along with talking about poison being a woman's weapon, she said something along the lines of "I'm going to prison for the rest of my life now" not "I didn't do it. " Everyone is making good points here though. I would like to know more about her personality and whether she was ever possessive or vindictive before.

But didn't somewhere in that same interview, the cop ask her, Why are you scared, Katie?  Then she said that poison was seen as a ladies weapon.  I bet that all of us here either know that or have heard of that because we watch a lot of crime tv.  Knowledge of such a belief does not make us all murders, does it?  Acknowledging that idea is not simply an admission of guilt.  It could also be an "oh shit" moment that Katie verbalized.  "Oh shit, I've never talked to an attorney."  And I believe once or twice, Katie did say something like like No, I didn't, or no I wouldn't.

About the bolded comment, it's key because patterns work both ways.  There is no pattern of similar type behavior anywhere in Katie's life that we know of (and if there is, why wouldn't the prosecution have mentioned it), yet Bill has a pattern of being unfaithful to his wife is somehow not relevant.  I know that not all men who cheat on their spouses kill them, but Katie's presence in the office is working against her.  It's also Bill's office, and Adam and Bill are related to Mary.

The whole immunity thing really floors me---to give it to BOTH Adam AND Bill.  One maybe, but there's still way too many questions to be that certain that Katie and only Katie did this.  It makes me think that the prosecutor might have gotten played, and that's where this supposed motive of Katie's comes from.  Katie's the only possible person to levy a charge against.

[nora1992]

But this is what keeps me from believing Katie is totally innocent: the son is the real murderer, and he had sense enough to access the email only from his girlfriend's phone, but not sense enough to have a more anonymous/generic email?  Why go to all the trouble of commandeering her phone and forget to create a mymotherisawesome@gmail.com address to help him avoid detection?  Especially when everything else points to someone else?

[Ohmo]

23 minutes ago, nora1992 said:

But this is what keeps me from believing Katie is totally innocent: the son is the real murderer, and he had sense enough to access the email only from his girlfriend's phone, but not sense enough to have a more anonymous/generic email?  Why go to all the trouble of commandeering her phone and forget to create a mymotherisawesome@gmail.com address to help him avoid detection?  Especially when everything else points to someone else?

Maybe I should rephrase.  I can buy that Katie is involved.  What I don't know is her level of complicity.  Like I buy that Adam could have told her to write the letter, and I buy that it has an incredible level of detail because she's trying to be as helpful as possible.  People talk about writing the letter, but if she's the criminal trying to frame Adam, why admit to writing it?  This whole thing took off as soon as she did that.  Katie could have created the e-mail address, but like you said, it seems almost childish, basic.  What if Adam told her to create the address because he wanted to buy some of that stuff for his dad to use in his garden?

We've got a lot of Katie signed this, did this, bought this, wrote this...which is true.  She worked in the office and has admitted to doing many of those things.  However, she was also an employee of Bill and the former girlfriend of Adam.  What we don't have is a gauge of intent within those actions.  Katie actually doing those things doesn't preclude those actions from being influenced or directed by others

[sinycalone]

But if Katie was manipulated/coerced into ordering the drug, writing the letter, forging the documents...why not just use that as part of her defense?

[applecrisp]

I always thought that the prosecution does not need to show motive.  It would be great, but not all crimes make sense. Katie is a young 23, sheltered in her life. How many extremely stupid criminals that are in their teens or early twenties leave a trail of evidence everywhere and are caught very soon after the crime.

She was a stupid criminal. She did not think everything through and tried to rectify it after the crime by writing the letter implicating Adam.

[biakbiak]

3 hours ago, sinycalone said:

But if Katie was manipulated/coerced into ordering the drug, writing the letter, forging the documents...why not just use that as part of her defense?

Exactly.

Also, since I am not on the jury I can hold the fact that two different defense teams deemed that she should not testify for herself against her.

[Sweet-tea]

I still don't understand Katie's motive or if she even had one. Kill her boyfriend's mother to get him back? It doesn't seem credible to me. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by Sweet-tea

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, Sweet-tea said:

I still don't understand Katie's motive or if she even had one. Killer her boyfriend's mother to get him back? It doesn't seem credible to me. 

Though they did apparently at leasr briefly at least end up back together.

[LadyHam]

I just wonder why the prosecution decided to also let the jury consider manslaughter in the 2nd trial?  Were they worried about another possible hung jury?  Did they feel their case was not very strong?  Did they feel the defense had a really strong case, and they were worried about an acquittal?  Also, when would the prosecution have had to make the request that the jury also consider manslaughter?  Did they have to make that request before the trial or did they have the option to wait until both sides presented their case to decide?

 

I'm not sure how I would have voted had I been on the jury. We didn't hear everything that the jury did, but based on what was presented on the show, I don't know what to think. If the prosecution was able to ask that the jury consider manslaughter after both sides presented their case, I do have a problem with that. The defense presented their case based on a murder 2 charge, not manslaughter. I also don't know if the jury knew what types of penalties Kaitlyn faced for each charge. If a juror felt that she was not necessarily innocent but not necessarily guilty either, did they feel pressured to agree to a verdict and decided to split the difference and vote manslaughter thinking it wasn't as bad a penalty as a murder 2 conviction, but she would still be accountable for something?  I thought they said Kaitlyn could get up to 25 years for manslaughter, so it's still a very severe penalty. I'm not saying that Kaitlyn was guilty or not guilty, but I do have a problem when juries are pressured so much to come up with a verdict. If there's a hung jury, then there's one for a reason. Either the prosecution didn't fully prove their case and/or the defense presented a very strong case. If the prosecution was able to request that the jury also consider manslaughter before trial, then everything I just wrote is a moot point. This case still baffles me,  and I need to research it a little bit more. I do have a little bit of a problem when juries are almost forced (for lack of a better word) into coming to a verdict when the answer for any particular jury might just be that it's just a hung jury. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by LadyHam

[sinycalone]

15 hours ago, applecrisp said:

I always thought that the prosecution does not need to show motive.  It would be great, but not all crimes make sense. Katie is a young 23, sheltered in her life. How many extremely stupid criminals that are in their teens or early twenties leave a trail of evidence everywhere and are caught very soon after the crime.

She was a stupid criminal. She did not think everything through and tried to rectify it after the crime by writing the letter implicating Adam.

They do not have to establish a motive.

[cooksdelight]

On 12/4/2017 at 1:07 PM, iMonrey said:

The problem with people who say they are related to the family or are connected in some way is that they are biased. They have reasons to want one person or another blamed or exonerated. So I'm not terribly swayed by people who are that close to it. They aren't objective. I tend to find that people who had no knowledge of this case and just looked at the facts came away with much the same impression I did. 

The person I was referring to didn’t know the family personally, hang out with them socially, etc., they knew of them in the sense that they lived in the same town. Word on the street was Bill was a constant cheater, his wife knew and wasn’t happy about it, and that money he was getting ready to inherit... it wouldn’t be much for two of them. And he took up with the sister long, long before the murder.

 

17 hours ago, sinycalone said:

But if Katie was manipulated/coerced into ordering the drug, writing the letter, forging the documents...why not just use that as part of her defense?

I wondered about that also. It may have been something as simple as an offhand remark about the drug, it might have went right over her head that she was being manipulated as I don’t think she’s the brightest bulb on the tree.

[iMonrey]

Quote

The person I was referring to didn’t know the family personally, hang out with them socially, etc., they knew of them in the sense that they lived in the same town. Word on the street was Bill was a constant cheater, his wife knew and wasn’t happy about it, and that money he was getting ready to inherit... it wouldn’t be much for two of them. And he took up with the sister long, long before the murder.

There's still an implication of authority, even if someone says "Oh, I know more than your average TV watcher, because I live in the same town, and I hear "word on the street" and talk to people who know blah blah blah." I don't assign any extra credibility to anyone who says they have the inside scoop or greater knowledge of the case because they are somehow closer to it or connected in some way. The facts speak for themselves. Anything else is just bias.

[cooksdelight]

13 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

The facts speak for themselves

As presented to us by Dateline, a TV show that leaves a LOT of facts out of the story every week. JMO

[Ohmo]

54 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

I wondered about that also. It may have been something as simple as an offhand remark about the drug, it might have went right over her head that she was being manipulated as I don’t think she’s the brightest bulb on the tree.

Yes, that's the vibe that I get as well..  Katie even said during one of her interrogations "You're not going to believe me."  That's a very concrete statement, not much analysis or analytical thinking.  Along with her trying to tell the cop, "But I want to be a mom.  I have a family.  I didn't do it.  I wouldn't do it. "  There no complexity in those statements...and I don't think it's an act.  Otherwise, why would she be so quick to admit that she wrote the letter?

That's why I'd be interested in hearing evidence of cunning behavior from Katie...actual behavior, not searches on devices.  Has she every ranted about wanting Adam back or verbally seemed to plot or plan against anyone?  Has she ever acted or threatened to act against a classmate or a teacher?  If the suggestion is that she's putting on a "dog and pony" show for the court, then find me an example of this other type of behavior.

I also think that motive is important because of the relationship between Katie and Mary.  We're not talking about spouse against spouse or girlfriend against boyfriend.  We're talking girlfriend against ex-boyfriend's mother.

[Ohmo]

I found this in a Reddit thread.  The poster there got it from Facebook.  The author of the original Facebook post says that she is one of the sisters who supports Katie.  It is a long piece of text.

Reddit

“Mary Yoder was my sister and I firmly believe that Kaitlyn Conley has been wrongfully convicted of her murder. It is my opinion that a flawed and incomplete investigation was conducted by the Oneida County Sheriff’s Office. Kaitlyn was indicted despite urgent pleas (from my sisters Sallie and Sharon and myself), to the investigators and the prosecuting ADA to consider the possibility that she was being framed. Our brother-in-law Bill Yoder, had both financial and romantic motive to kill our sister. We had information to show that he had probable knowledge and use of Colchicine in the early 1980s to grow a crop of super marijuana. The investigators were not interested in what we had to say. They made up their minds that Kaitlyn was the killer after meeting with Bill Yoder and Adam Yoder (Mary’s son/my nephew). To our horror, Bill and Adam were given full immunity (i.e., Transactional Immunity), for their testimony against Kaitlyn in a grand jury hearing. From that point forward, the prosecution team along with the DA and the Judge, appeared to be hell bent on convicting Kaitlyn any way they could.

Mary died of Colchicine poisoning and that’s all that was ever proven. She was a master gardener. Bill was no slouch in that regard either. The Colchicine was ordered and sent to the Chiropractic office that Bill and Mary operated. The drug company required a letter explaining the intended use for the Colchicine. The letter was signed by Mary and Adam and included sophisticated verbiage regarding a process of genetically modifying plants that results in all female plants. (This is not something that Kaitlyn would have knowledge of and nothing was found on her devices to indicate that she had ever researched it.)

Despite the verbiage on the letter of intent and our efforts to explain the connection between Colchicine and Bill’s pot crop, the investigators refused to consider the possibility that it had been ordered by anyone other than Kaitlyn or for any purpose other than to kill Mary. Kaitlyn was the Office Administrator at the time the Colchicine was ordered and delivered. (Note: there was a six month span between the delivery of the Colchicine and Mary’s death.) The prosecution asserts that Kaitlyn ordered it and that she forged Mary and Adam’s signatures on the letter of intent. The signatures appear to be legitimate however and the defense attorney clearly made that point by comparing them to other documents. Given how much the prosecution spent on less critical witnesses, one can assume that they would have called in a handwriting expert if they truly believed the signatures were forged.

I believe that the Colchicine was ordered by the Yoders (whether by Bill and/or Adam and/or Mary). I also believe that when Mary’s cause of death was determined to be Colchicine toxicity, that Bill and/or Adam knew it would eventually be traced back to the office. To protect one or both of them, they worked together to implicate/frame Kaitlyn. Adam was living with my son David King (who was a witness for the defense in both trials), at the time. Bill and Adam never got along but right after Mary’s cause of death was determined, they started spending an unusual amount of time together. Two to three days per week for many hours at a time. I believe they used this time to work on their plan to frame Kaitlyn.

Bill Yoder has been underestimated throughout all of this. He is a brilliant scholar with two PhD’s and was the Valedictorian in at least one of them. He is an avid reader of murder mysteries and the quintessential detail-ist. If anyone could pull off a murder and frame someone, he could. He has far more computer knowledge than he admits and had access to the devices that incriminated Kaitlyn Conley, as did Adam. I can’t know exactly who did what, but I believe both Bill and Adam had a hand in my sister’s death. Adam is an extremely troubled young man with alcohol and drug dependency issues. He is 27 and until recently had not worked for several years. (At the retrial he testified that he is currently working part time selling vacation time shares). He admits to blackouts and fits of rage and violence. He is impulsive and vengeful, later regretting his actions. Mary enabled Adam by giving him money as much and as often as she could. Shortly before her death however, she began to take a firmer stand with him and they had a falling out. Maybe Adam meant only to get Mary sick, so as to get back in her good graces by taking care of her, as has been said. This is consistent with Adam’s behavior. But consider the fact that the level of Colchicine in my sister’s system was far greater at her death than when she first entered the hospital, and was high enough to kill her, many times over. She had had severe diarrhea and vomiting for two days which should have cleared her system. The fact that the Colchicine levels were so high at her death, suggest that she was dosed at least one more time. The only family member with access to her then was Bill. There was a CT drink brought to her hospital room and left there for her to drink. Bill testified that he brought Mary's Advair Discus to the hospital and also cough drops. Why would he do that? The hospital team could/should have provided anything Mary needed. (Note: The medicine that goes in an Advair Discus is a fine powder, as is Colchicine. Unfortunately, the medical examiner didn’t test Mary’s lungs for the presence of Colchicine.)

Bill had everything to gain from Mary’s death. He wanted to retire but he and Mary had ongoing financial problems and there was no retirement savings. Just a lot of debt. Mary had told me that the little bit of retirement savings that they had set aside had been used for advertising to promote Bill’s latest book. The advertising efforts did not pan out. Bill admitted to his daughter, my niece, that the inheritance he received was not enough for two people to live on, but now that Mary was gone he had enough to retire. This was contained in a statement my niece gave to the Oneida County Sheriffs. Given the amount of debt Mary told me they had, (which was confirmed by a private investigator), the amount of the inheritance that Bill claimed he received was NOT enough to cover the debt and still live comfortably. He is currently involved with my eldest sister Kathy. Kathy’s neighbor testified in the first trial that she saw Bill at Kathy’s house often before Mary died and that she and her daughter had witnessed a passionate embrace and kiss between them on Kathy’s front porch, just days before Mary’s death. (My sister Kathy has a neurological disease and therefore I do not believe is fully accountable for her actions/choices). Bill testified in both trials that his relationship with Mary was wonderful and “getting better every day”, yet there was a call to a marriage counselor, presumably made by Mary, from their land line, just days before her death.

My sister Kathy is financially well off by most people’s standards. I believe that is Bill’s primary attraction to her and I have told her that and also that I worry for her safety.

The information I have provided here is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Losing my beautiful sister is painful enough. Add to that a young woman falsely accused and wrongfully convicted of her murder, while the probable killer(s) have total immunity, along with fear that another sister is in harm’s way, is almost too much to bear. My sister Mary loved Kaitlyn and Kaitlyn loved my sister. The justice system has failed both of them in a horrifying way. My sister Mary is gone but we can help Kaitlyn. Please consider writing a letter of support for her. Your letter could mean the difference between a lenient sentence and a harsh one and could also be helpful to ultimately overturn this unjust verdict.”

[Ohmo]

Equal time for the prosecution.

YouTube video of a radio interview of one of the prosecutors.

[iMonrey]

Quote

As presented to us by Dateline, a TV show that leaves a LOT of facts out of the story every week. JMO

Well that's certainly true. And I don't think anyone is arguing that the husband and son aren't sketchy as hell. As a general rule, whenever the husband is a cheater and the wife dies, you automatically point the finger at the husband. We've just seen too many of these shows not to. That's why I could never say he wasn't involved, or that the son wasn't involved. 

At the same time, though, there was just way too much evidence against Katie. I think I can understand where the jury was coming from in their verdict because it's just way too much to say she had no involvement whatsoever. And as I posted upthread, I'd be more inclined to think she might have been framed if she hadn't written that letter. If she were completely innocent and not involved in any way, she should have just stayed out of it. If the son confessed to her, she should have gone to the police. None of this anonymous letter crap. That's what's so damning. On some level she knew there would be a reason for her to be accused. And the fact that she claimed the son was abusive towards her and raped her but then got back together with him after Mary died is sketchy as hell too.

Quote

I found this in a Reddit thread.  The poster there got it from Facebook.  The author of the original Facebook post says that she is one of the sisters who supports Katie. 

And that's an interesting read, and yeah, it's alarming/damning that both Bill and Adam were given immunity. But again . . . it's biased. The victim's siblings have a stake in this and a reason to have strong animosity towards their former brother in law.

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

I also think that motive is important because of the relationship between Katie and Mary.  We're not talking about spouse against spouse or girlfriend against boyfriend.  We're talking girlfriend against ex-boyfriend's mother.

Exactly. Much of the time, when somebody kills their significant other's parent, it's generally because the parent was trying to keep the couple apart, and didn't approve of the person their child was dating. As a result, the couple winds up in cahoots to take the parent down so they can go be free together. That sort of scenario doesn't look to be the case here, though, so that would rule out that obvious motive. 

However, given all the talk about Adam's issues and stuff like this...

Quote

He admits to blackouts and fits of rage and violence. He is impulsive and vengeful, later regretting his actions. Mary enabled Adam by giving him money as much and as often as she could. Shortly before her death however, she began to take a firmer stand with him and they had a falling out. 

...if Adam is somehow involved, I can totally see him spinning whatever restrictions she was trying to put on him as her being so mean and trying to ruin his life, and somehow roping Katie into helping him "deal with her". 

Yeah. This is just such a strange case no matter how one spins it. Everyone here's been making good and interesting arguments for all sides. 

[iMonrey]

Watch the YouTube video posted above. It pretty much disproves these conspiracy theories Katie was framed. All this nonsense about her phone being hacked is pretty much a fairy tale. And most important is that nobody ever implicated her but herself. If someone went to all this trouble to frame her, they never pointed a finger at her and it rested on her eventually implicating herself at some unknown point in the future. She apparently lied about a bunch of stuff and changed her story a bunch of times too.

Quote

I also think that motive is important because of the relationship between Katie and Mary.  We're not talking about spouse against spouse or girlfriend against boyfriend.  We're talking girlfriend against ex-boyfriend's mother.

I think maybe people are getting too hung up on the motive not making sense to them.  We can't imagine someone abusing a child, or hurting animal, for instance, because we would never do such a thing and it sounds crazy. That doesn't mean those things don't happen. 

[biakbiak]

That reads like some crazy nonsense. They can't even connect Bill to growing pot in this century. Seriously, that is some deranged nonsensical shit when they spout that neither one of the two  defense teams released to acknowledge their "proof" I am suggesting their evidence doesn't exisit.

Also depending on how the drug was administered it makes sense that the levels would rise as her body is processing it.

Edited December 5, 2017 by biakbiak

[Ohmo]

22 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Watch the YouTube video posted above. It pretty much disproves these conspiracy theories Katie was framed.

On the right side of the YouTube page that has the prosecution video are a list of videos related to this case, including one with the sister in which she says (but doesn't explain) that Adam and Bill could have indeed had access to the devices.  There's a lot of material there.  I only got through two of the videos, but anyone who's interested enough...there's definitely stuff to get through.  I just wasn't going to post every single individual video.

[UsernameFatigue]

I have listened to over half of the interview with the prosecutor and nothing he has said has changed my mind that Katie is innocent. In fact I think he is full of s**t. His theory is that Katie wanted to kill Mary to hurt Adam. Adam did not get along with his mother and never thought she did enough for him. I also laughed when the prosecutor said that Bill was a fine man who was upset that now people would think he cheated on is wife. Either the prosecutor was extremely gullible or thinks the general public is. It was well known that Bill cheated on Mary for years, and was cheating on her with his own sister in law. Not to mention that Bill financed chiropractic school by growing weed and selling it, in the early 80s. I am pretty sure that is called drug dealing and against the law. Yep, fine man that Bill Yoder. The prosecutor makes my skin crawl. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[bubbls]

On 12/2/2017 at 3:17 PM, mythoughtis said:

According to the detective Bill was not contacting the sister by phone, etc, until after Mary died. The only person to say otherwise was a neighbor of the sister  who thought she had seen Bill there before Mary died. Now, quick, go back several months - can you say what exact day/week/month you saw your neighbor with a visitor outside of their home? And can you say for a fact what the expression on their faces were? Because this  neighbor supposedly could.   

We shouldn’t convict or accuse someone without real evidence, there wasn’t any for Bill or Adam. There was for Katie.  She wrote the letter, she knew where the pills were, she touched the wrapper. The email account was accessed only on her phone or laptop. She bought the prepaid debit cards used to buy the stuff.  If I am going to vote guilty for any of the 3, it has to be her. 

As for the immunity- that’s a good lawyer talking. Costs the state nothing to give immunity to a person they don’t  believe is guilty.  who knows what you will get asked on the stand that could incriminate you in other matters- drugs, tax evasion, etc. 

 

 

This is is how I feel. I disregarded the neighbor's kissing testimony for this very reason. As for the phone records, it's possible they were using burner phones if there was an affair, but who knows. They also said towards the end Katie's phone had searches on it for arsenic and thallium, didn't they? I know the program kept pushing the poisoned supplement idea, but as others have said it could've been a shake. I've never had one that didn't taste odd. I probably would never notice a different odd flavor.

 

I also found Katie's behavior in the police interviews to be suspicious, although I can't put my finger on why. A thousand years ago I was exactly that pretty, sweet looking, innocent looking/acting young woman who kept the crazy under wraps unless you hurt me. So, her hurting/killing the mother to gain the attention of Adam was easily believable to me. 

[biakbiak]

19 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Adam. Adam did not get along with his mother and never thought she did enough for him

Who stated that? I don' think his aunts did and his sisters said the opposite.

[cooksdelight]

The local people I spoke of earlier said that Adam was extremely “off”, which might be attributed to drug use or some type of mental disorder. I’m not a doctor, so I’m guessing.

Bill wanted to have an open marriage, remember, and when Mary didn’t agree it is said he cheated repeatedly while they were married.

[bubbls]

Really interesting discussion and opinions here, by the way!

[UsernameFatigue]

27 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Who stated that? I don' think his aunts did and his sisters said the opposite.

I have read so many sites now, but I don't remember his sisters saying Adam and his mother were close. (Not that I would believe them anyway since they failed to mention that the sister on the left in the interviews was estranged from her entire family for over 6 years before Mary died. And the other sister lived in Florida from what I remember). The aunts said that Adam had drug, alcohol and mental problems, and had not held down a job in several years. Mary often gave him money (and he owned Katie somewhere between $15,000 and $22,000 dollars). Mary had finally had enough of Adam's irresponsibility and cut him off financially shortly before she died. 

Katie's letter also referred to Adam's relationship with his mother, and the fact that they did not get along. As far as I know no one disputed it. 

Edited December 5, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[biakbiak]

9 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I have read so many sites now, but I don't remember his sisters saying Adam and his mother were close.

They said it during the Dateline piece about how close they were as how he went to her first for eveythinng.

 

9 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

The aunts said that Adam had drug, alcohol and mental problems, and had not held down a job in several years. Mary often gave him money (and he owned Katie somewhere between $15,000 and $22,000 dollars). Mary had finally had enough of Adam's irresponsibility and cut him off financially shortly before she died. 

I have not seen any articles that states any of these things.neither bringing raised for her defense makes me think these claims aren't verified.

[UsernameFatigue]

Just now, biakbiak said:

They said it during the Dateline piece about how close they were as ND how he went to her first for eveythinng.

What is ND? I remember them saying on Dateline that he went to Katie first for everything. 

It was hard though to follow Mary's daughters as I was so distracted by the fake crying. I watched part again to figure out which sister was the one estranged, and was fascinated by not only the fake tears but continually wiping away the non  existent tears with a kleenex. Don't quit your day job, lady. 

However even if Adam went to Mary for everything it doesn't mean they were close. My stepson goes to my hubby for everything as well. And treats him like absolute crap. 

[biakbiak]

1 minute ago, UsernameFatigue said:

What is ND? I remember them saying on Dateline that he went to Katie first for everything. 

It was a typo. His sisters stated that he went to their mother for everything not Katie.

[UsernameFatigue]

8 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

They said it during the Dateline piece about how close they were as how he went to her first for eveythinng.

 

I have not seen any articles that states any of these things.neither bringing raised for her defense makes me think these claims aren't verified.

There are alot of things that Dateline did not bring up. Mary's sisters have posted on Dateline's FB page about some of this, also the interview link posted on this site from one of Mary's sisters. In addition there is a website started by Kaitlyn's family which I think also had the info regarding the money Adam owed Katie. But I have read it in more than one place.

Edited December 5, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[biakbiak]

8 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

There are alot of things that Dateline did not bring up. The sisters have posted on Dateline's FB page about some of this, also the interview link posted on this site from one of Mary's sisters. In addition there is a website started by Kaitlyn's family which I think also had the info regarding the money Adam owed Katie. But I have read it in more than one place.

Mary's sisters have also said that the defense would not bring up the theories which leads to me believe they are crazy nonsense with no proof to be brought before a court.

Also, not sure where you are getting the numbers Adam owed her but a local news website was fairly detailed about the testimony fot both trials and it didn' seem to be mentioned.

[UsernameFatigue]

18 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Mary's sisters have also said that the defense would not bring up the theories which leads to me believe they are crazy nonsense with no proof to be brought before a court.

Also, not sure where you are getting the numbers Adam owed her but a local news website was fairly detailed about the testimony fot both trials and it didn' seem to be mentioned.

I was just reading (and it was easy to find) an article about the trial by the Observer-Dispatch titled "Victim's son details relationship with Conley". In it the $15,000 (as stated in the article) that Adam owed Katie is discussed. Katie asks for it to be paid back in texts and Adam in "expletive" laced texts tells Katie that he wants to wait to pay her back until he has a good paying job. (She suggested he get a job to pay her back).

The same article regarding the trial talks about the gloves, mask and goggles found in Adam's vehicle. (All things that one should use when handling the drug used to poison Mary). The police saw the articles but never ceased them, or even asked Adam about them, he testified. He said he had them to work on his car but others have said (as I read in other reports) that he never did work on his own car. And what he said he was doing on his car was not done. (This from Katie's family's website). 

Edited December 6, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[One Tough Cookie]

6 hours ago, sinycalone said:

They do not have to establish a motive.

And the jury is NOT allowed to consider sentencing while deliberating.

[cooksdelight]

54 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Mary had finally had enough of Adam's irresponsibility and cut him off financially shortly before she died

There’s your motive. 

Dad’s motive was to free himself from his wife so he could continue canoodling with her rich sister. And keep the $400K for himself.

I still can’t find one for Katie. Not one that would make any sense.

[biakbiak]

57 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I was just reading (and it was easy to find) an article about the trial by the Observer-Dispatch titled "Victim's son details relationship with Conley". In it the $15,000 (as stated in the article) that Adam owed Katie is discussed. Katie asks for it to be paid back in texts and Adam in "expletive" laced texts tells Katie that he wants to wait to pay her back until he has a good paying job. (She suggested he get a job to pay her back).

The same article regarding the trial talks about the gloves, mask and goggles found in Adam's vehicle. (All things that one should use when handling the drug used to poison Mary). The police saw the articles but never ceased them, or even asked Adam about them, he testified. He said he had them to work on his car but others have said (as I read in other reports) that he never did work on his own car. And what he said he was doing on his car was not done. (This from Katie's family's website). 

Here is the Article. which outlines that it is under direct testimony by the prosecution not the defense and the defense follow up seemed weak and doesn't appear to state that Mary was cuttng him off. 

It also includes the fact that Kaitlyn repeatedly violated her home arrest to go out eating.