All Episodes Discussion

[biakbiak]

29 minutes ago, rwgrab said:

Thanks for explaining your take on it.  For me, I would think that any family member would be more familiar with the house than a detective who had just arrived.  So even if she didn't live there, she's still a better judge of how the place usually looked.  I'm not defending the police's investigation as sound, but I am saying that seemed like a very good choice to me to ask a relative about the state of the house.

But you wondered why they didn't find the backpack with the xbox earlier. The first family member who did the walk through found it, when else would it have been found. And if the detectives had properly looked at the scene why didn't they take photos of the garage the one access point to the house or notice it?

Edited January 21, 2018 by biakbiak

[rwgrab]

3 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

But you wondered why they didn't find the backpack with the xbox earlier. The first family member who did the walk through found it, when else would it have been found. And if the detectives had properly looked at the scene why didn't they take photos of the garage the one access point to the house or notice it?

They found the XBOX in a backpack in the garage a bit later.  I was suggesting that it was strange that nobody had noticed a hole in the entertainment center where it would have been for the thief to find it.  Nobody mentioned that it was odd that the xbox wasn't there (police OR family members)

[biakbiak]

2 minutes ago, rwgrab said:

They found the XBOX in a backpack in the garage a bit later.  I was suggesting that it was strange that nobody had noticed a hole in the entertainment center where it would have been for the thief to find it.  Nobody mentioned that it was odd that the xbox wasn't there (police OR family members)

They found the Xbox when the daughter the first person to do the walk through did the walk through, it wasnt later. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by biakbiak

[Ohmo]

2 hours ago, biakbiak said:

She was literally living in Europe with her new husbamd and had to fly in. She wasn't familiar with the house.

I thought there was a mention of the house being Lizz's childhood home.  She might not have been born in that house, but I thought she had spent some period of time living in that house with her parents.  I think she'd be somewhat familiar with the way her parents usually kept the house, even if Lizz no longer lived there.

[biakbiak]

13 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

I thought there was a mention of the house being Lizz's childhood home.  She might not have been born in that house, but I thought she had spent some period of time living in that house with her parents.  I think she'd be somewhat familiar with the way her parents usually kept the house, even if Lizz no longer lived there.

Specifics? I think that's weird when there were closer family members and friends, or why not the wife and have her wear gloves.

My grandmptjer was robbed when she was on vacation, my Uncle lived across the street and was their daily he couldn't easily do a walk through and know specific items. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by biakbiak

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, biakbiak said:

You don't call not testing a bloody fingerprint on a safe a foot from the dead body where they insisted the wife was meticulous in cleaning ever aspect of the crime scene not shitty? What possible explanation for not testimg a bloody fingerprint that existed when they took during initial crime scene photos.

But there are few, if any, "perfect" investigations as far as crimes go.  You're right, the cops missed the smudge, but that doesn't mean that the defense can't be proactive.  The smudge is part of the intruder scenario.  While the defense can't test the smudge, it knows who the ex is.  Did they interview him and could they provide some sort of evidence that he was still in contact with Jamie and Sandra or had recently been seen in the neighborhood?  The defense could have found the guy who had broken in to those other houses and interviewed him.

The cops made a mistake, but that mistake does not mean an intruder was certainly in that house.  If the defense believes that happened but doesn't actively show the jury that could be so, I could see why that would mitigate reasonable doubt...because if you were able to show other evidence of the intruder besides the smudge, I'd think that would be front and center.

I think of that other case where that female cop made mistakes.  If making a mistake is an automatic disqualifier for jailing anyone, prisons would be empty.  Action is not solely the responsibility of the prosecution.  If the defense couldn't show evidence of the intruder, such as "There was a smudge on the safe, and we talked to the ex. We found out he drove by Sandra's house three times in the last six months," or whatever, that bolsters the position that there wasn't an intruder to find.

[cooksdelight]

1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

If the defense believes that happened but doesn't actively show the jury that could be s

They did. The brought in the third party DNA that was found, male DNA of someone who didn’t live there.

[Madding crowd]

Also, the defense team are not cops they are lawyers. They are usually focused on creating a defense and only on tv fiction are they chasing after alternate suspects. The Ex son in law would not be obligated to talk to a defense team. They also can't take fingerprints off anything. I think the police need to take all relative evidence at a bare minimum in every case. Things can get overlooked, a bloody smear shouldn't be one of them. 

[rwgrab]

3 hours ago, biakbiak said:

They found the Xbox when the daughter the first person to do the walk through did the walk through, it wasnt later. 

Ah, gotcha, I stand corrected.  I thought the family mentioned that they didn't find it in the garage until some time later.

Still, pretty lucky for those murderers that Lizz's middle school years backpack was out in the open for them to grab.  And how lucky for the widow that in addition to not being murdered the robbers were kind enough to leave behind all of the stuff they killed somebody to steal :)  They were also pretty considerate not to get any blood in the rest of the house while ransacking and taking their exit.  I'm just saying I think the backpack of loot in the garage is such a bizarre thing if robbery was the motive.  And if murdering Jaime was the motive, why stuff the XBOX in a backpack and leave it in the garage? 

Totally respect that we watched the same program and came to different conclusions; appreciate the discussion.

[cooksdelight]

Imagine what would have happened to Susie in last night’s episode if she were in that same Texas town, and not NY. Because she bought cleaning supplies for her mother’s maid, took the knife out of her mother in an attempt to alleviate her pain..... those cops would have had her tried, convicted and sitting in a prison somewhere while the daughter-in-law raked in all the money.

I’d love to know what her husband has to say.

[cooksdelight]

Another thing I just thought of....did the Texas cops do any extensive research on cell phone or home phone calls? 

[Tdoc72]

I want to know about the pillow sham. The prosecutors theory of the wife locking herself in the closet by pulling the chair under the door handle by using a pillow sham underneath the chair (Holy run-on sentence, Batman!) was interesting but they never mentioned if they found one or not. 

Also I want to know if there was pee in the closet. 

[Ohmo]

Houston woman found guilty of stabbing husband 31 times on eve of anniversary  

Woman Found Guilty Of Beating Husband To Death Day After Anniversary, Staging Home Invasion To Cover It Up

There are a lot of details that are varied from or were not reported in the Dateline piece.  The first article says Jamie was stabbed 31 times.  The second article mentions something about the prosecution suspecting the presence of bleach in the bathroom (suggesting an attempted clean-up) because Sandra had a cloudy fingernail.  According to the prosecution, that was an indication that she could have used bleach.

31 is way more than Dateline's reported 12 wounds.  I also find the number 31 to be notable, given that they were celebrating their 32nd anniversary.  Either that number is inaccurate, a total coincidental fluke, or a potentially symbolic message.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Ohmo

[biakbiak]

I dont remember the show saying 12, I remember them saying it was more than 20, I thought 28.

[AZChristian]

How often do we hear that a large number of wounds is more likely when the murder is committed by someone close?  "Overkill" . . . if there were that many knife wounds, I'm more likely to believe that the wife did it.

[partofme]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

How often do we hear that a large number of wounds is more likely when the murder is committed by someone close?  "Overkill" . . . if there were that many knife wounds, I'm more likely to believe that the wife did it.

Sure they say this but I've seen plenty of cases of overkill where it turned out to be a stranger.  I'm not saying the wife is innocent, but I saw nothing that would allow me to convict.

[ButterQueen]

5 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Houston woman found guilty of stabbing husband 31 times on eve of anniversary  

Woman Found Guilty Of Beating Husband To Death Day After Anniversary, Staging Home Invasion To Cover It Up

There are a lot of details that are varied from or were not reported in the Dateline piece.  The first article says Jamie was stabbed 31 times.  The second article mentions something about the prosecution suspecting the presence of bleach in the bathroom (suggesting an attempted clean-up) because Sandra had a cloudy fingernail.  According to the prosecution, that was an indication that she could have used bleach.

31 is way more than Dateline's reported 12 wounds.  I also find the number 31 to be notable, given that they were celebrating their 32nd anniversary.  Either that number is inaccurate, a total coincidental fluke, or a potentially symbolic message.

Not to mention, the killer leaving the knife to soak in the tub, along with a towel.  

[glowbug]

The case about the woman murdered in New York shows that sometimes a person's story can sound fishy, and it can look like it was them, and it turns out to be another person. If the police in that case hadn't investigated the DIL and had gotten tunnel vision on the daughter, what do you want to bet the daughter would have been prosecuted in that case. I thought the daughter was a little odd and her story was really fishy, not to mention her mother was very wealthy, and she turned out to be innocent. I actually thought the daughter in the New York case seemed far more suspicious than the wife in the Texas case. It's very important that the police investigate all leads to be sure they aren't missing something as that New York case proved. We have a high rate of false convictions, in part, because of this very reason. 

[The Closer]

It may be that Sandra is guilty or she may be innocent, but it just seems that a lot of the assessment is based on how plausible a backstory either side can come up with to explain the circumstances which does trouble me considering the gravity of the charges. Granted, we weren't on the jury so we don't get the full picture of what was presented as evidence so all we can do is try to explain what we think the circumstances mean. If I have a bias, it's one that favors the prosecution as I tend to be incredibly skeptical of convicted people's stories. However, I'm completely on the fence about this one.

If the ex knew about the safe, maybe he and his buddies came up with a plan to try and get inside for what they saw as a big score. They make a mess but they're not actively ransacking the house because they aren't interested in clearing out the home of valuables. They want something in particular. They restrain the couple, they start off threatening the husband with a knife to try and get what they want, such as entry into the safe. One of them takes it too far, the husband is killed in the process, the wife has a seizure and the combination of those things freaks them out and they decide to cut losses and run. Maybe one of them thinks about trying to grab things on the way out to keep it from being a completely wasted effort, but then realizes they don't want to get caught with anything on them now that it's a murder scene and they leave behind what they've gathered in the garage as they're leaving.  They had a plan that went haywire and that may be the only thing that saved Sandra's life that night.  The only thing that saved the suspects is a bit of luck in regards to no blood trail and a haphazard investigation by the police. That doesn't seem any crazier to me than coming up with a scenario to show how Sandra would have been able to lock herself in the closet and no crazier a motive than a vague, seemingly unsubstantiated idea that Sandra had become unhappy in her marriage. 

It also may be that Sandra did it, but this was the first time I've watched this show and felt that I didn't have enough to sustain a verdict of guilt which is new territory for me, at least.

[biakbiak]

9 hours ago, partofme said:

Sure they say this but I've seen plenty of cases of overkill where it turned out to be a stranger.  I'm not saying the wife is innocent, but I saw nothing that would allow me to convict.

That is where I am, the investigation was so poor that I couldn't convict. Does it mean that a guilty person gets away with murder, perhaps but I would much rather have that than an innocent person convicted. 

[cooksdelight]

I watched a show last night where a woman and her boyfriend plotted to kill her other boyfriend (she had several, but was living with this one). The guy’s son saw him cleaning the murder weapon with the woman watching him. She discussed it in emails with the guy!!! They were both convicted, but then both convictions were overturned due to prosecution using a letter the dead man mailed to his family. It said “If anything bad happens to me, it’s these two.” Imagine knowing you might be killed and reaching out to family to tell them???

Both should have stayed in jail (the man was beaten to death in prison the day before his conviction was overturned). I kept thinking about this case, a woman put in jail without reasonable doubt coming into the equation, it seems.

[Ohmo]

I think the Sandra Melgar case is one of those instances where Dateline left out a lot and probably could have done two hours on this case.  I've thought she was guilty from the beginning, and the minimal searches I've done only make my "guilty" inclination stronger, not weaker.  I'm assuming that the jury heard information that we did not.  I'm also frankly surprised that Dateline left some of the information out that it did...most notably about the life insurance money.  Whether it's $500,000 or $250,000 (I've seen conflicting amounts in various articles), there was a six-figure sum of money involved that Sandra stood to gain if Jamie were dead.  The way Dateline presented things, Sandra had no motive at all.  When, in actuality, she did.  One of the oldest motives there is.  Dateline just didn't tell us that.

[LGGirl]

I think Sandra Melgar didn’t do it because I don’t think she was physically capable.  She had health issues.   Even if she surprised her husband, he could have easily fight her off.  It takes strength to stab someone. I just don’t think she was strong enough to do it.  

[cooksdelight]

47 minutes ago, LGGirl said:

I think Sandra Melgar didn’t do it because I don’t think she was physically capable.  She had health issues.   Even if she surprised her husband, he could have easily fight her off.  It takes strength to stab someone. I just don’t think she was strong enough to do it.  

Me either. Her weakness and constant health issues put her in a classification of someone unable to stab someone that many times.

And that pesky unknown male DNA that showed up in all the right places.

[12catcrazy]

20 hours ago, The Closer said:

It may be that Sandra is guilty or she may be innocent, but it just seems that a lot of the assessment is based on how plausible a backstory either side can come up with to explain the circumstances which does trouble me considering the gravity of the charges. Granted, we weren't on the jury so we don't get the full picture of what was presented as evidence so all we can do is try to explain what we think the circumstances mean. If I have a bias, it's one that favors the prosecution as I tend to be incredibly skeptical of convicted people's stories. However, I'm completely on the fence about this one.

If the ex knew about the safe, maybe he and his buddies came up with a plan to try and get inside for what they saw as a big score. They make a mess but they're not actively ransacking the house because they aren't interested in clearing out the home of valuables. They want something in particular. They restrain the couple, they start off threatening the husband with a knife to try and get what they want, such as entry into the safe. One of them takes it too far, the husband is killed in the process, the wife has a seizure and the combination of those things freaks them out and they decide to cut losses and run. Maybe one of them thinks about trying to grab things on the way out to keep it from being a completely wasted effort, but then realizes they don't want to get caught with anything on them now that it's a murder scene and they leave behind what they've gathered in the garage as they're leaving.  They had a plan that went haywire and that may be the only thing that saved Sandra's life that night.  The only thing that saved the suspects is a bit of luck in regards to no blood trail and a haphazard investigation by the police. That doesn't seem any crazier to me than coming up with a scenario to show how Sandra would have been able to lock herself in the closet and no crazier a motive than a vague, seemingly unsubstantiated idea that Sandra had become unhappy in her marriage. 

It also may be that Sandra did it, but this was the first time I've watched this show and felt that I didn't have enough to sustain a verdict of guilt which is new territory for me, at least.

I totally agree with this as it was exactly what I was thinking also.  Maybe the ex knew there was money or valuable jewelry in the safe and that was the only thing there worth the effort.   When I lived in Denver in the 80s, my house was robbed soon after I changed the door locks so my estranged husband couldn't keep coming and going when he wanted to.  A bunch of weird stuff was stolen (like a vacuum cleaner and the good perfume, among other things) but it was as if the people doing the robbery KNEW there was no cash or jewelry in the house.  The drawers were only half pulled open instead of dumped like in most robberies.  Even the cop who took the report told me that he thought that my ex was probably behind the robbery (he was at work when it happened, so he probably paid somebody to do it) because of the types of stuff stolen and the half-opened drawers.  

So, even thought I'm usually the first to yell "The Spouse Did It" - I think this woman was totally railroaded into jail due to lazy police work.   Just interesting how it happened to a middle class white person instead of the usual person of color.

[atlantaloves]

Oh man, me too, I finally found this and watched it, thanks to you guys....she did not do it. Something has got to be done to get this poor woman out of jail.  I always think everybody is guilty, and having been a paralegal for over 30 years, they generally ARE. But not this gal.  This just makes me sick.  Damn it. 

[rwgrab]

I'm kind of surprised that some folks that think Lizz's ex-husband would have been responsible based only on the fact that Lizz said he used to be an addict.   That's pretty much all we know about him (well, that and that Dateline could only find one photo of him to use :) ).  We don't know how long ago they split up or what the circumstances were, whether he's still an addict now, lives nearby, etc.  The ex-spouse is probably not the most objective source of information about him either.  We have no clue if he would have had lingering hatred for her parents or any other kind of motive to kill them.  

I'm sure I'm just missing something about why he makes a good suspect, but I didn't wind up at the conclusion that there was enough information to make him more likely to have done it than the other person in the house at the time.

[Ohmo]

1 hour ago, rwgrab said:

We don't know how long ago they split up or what the circumstances were, whether he's still an addict now, lives nearby, etc.

Are we twins?  I don't consider the ex a suspect either unless there's something in the recent here and now that places him back in Sandra and Jamie's orbit.  Being married to Lizz back when she was 19 and being an addict then isn't enough.   According to the articles, I've read, Lizz is 32 now.  We're talking a difference of 13 years now and roughly 8 or so years when the crime took place.  Even if he still is an addict now, Lizz lived in Europe at the time of the crime, is now married again, and there was no indication given that she has continued to have recent contact with her ex, never mind her ex having any recent contact with her parents (casing the neighborhood, inquiring about Lizz, or anything like that.)  The fact that the ex would still have contact with Lizz and her family at this point is not a foregone conclusion, given the amount of time that has passed.  If he hasn't had any recent contact with Lizz or her parents, it'd be a stretch for me to believe that he'd one day just decide to go and rob Jamie and Sandra.  I think he'd be much more likely to strike within the orbit of current people that he interacts with.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Ohmo

[Blissfool]

2 hours ago, rwgrab said:

I'm kind of surprised that some folks that think Lizz's ex-husband would have been responsible based only on the fact that Lizz said he used to be an addict.   That's pretty much all we know about him (well, that and that Dateline could only find one photo of him to use :) ).  We don't know how long ago they split up or what the circumstances were, whether he's still an addict now, lives nearby, etc.  The ex-spouse is probably not the most objective source of information about him either.  We have no clue if he would have had lingering hatred for her parents or any other kind of motive to kill them.  

I'm sure I'm just missing something about why he makes a good suspect, but I didn't wind up at the conclusion that there was enough information to make him more likely to have done it than the other person in the house at the time.

 

1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

Are we twins?  I don't consider the ex a suspect either unless there's something in the recent here and now that places him back in Sandra and Jamie's orbit.  Being married to Lizz back when she was 19 and being an addict then isn't enough.   According to the articles, I've read, Lizz is 32 now.  We're talking a difference of 13 years now and roughly 8 or so years when the crime took place.  Even if he still is an addict now, Lizz lived in Europe at the time of the crime, is now married again, and there was no indication given that she has continued to have recent contact with her ex, never mind her ex having any recent contact with her parents (casing the neighborhood, inquiring about Lizz, or anything like that.)  The fact that the ex would still have contact with Lizz and her family at this point is not a foregone conclusion, given the amount of time that has passed.  If he hasn't had any recent contact with Lizz or her parents, it'd be a stretch for me to believe that he'd one day just decide to go and rob Jamie and Sandra.  I think he'd be much more likely to strike within the orbit of current people that he interacts with.

Me too! I think it's farfetched. I'm pretty sure the detectives investigated him after Lizz threw his name out. I wish Dateline would have let us know the findings.

[12catcrazy]

I may be wrong (please correct me if so), but I thought it was mentioned on Dateline that the police didn't interview either the ex or the neighbor from down the street who had just gotten out of jail.   And I'm not even saying the ex did it - he could be clean and on the straight and narrow, but could he have even had friends who he had told about his former in-laws?    It just seems to me from what was presented on Dateline that the woman convicted of her husband's murder really had no motive other than the insurance policy.  If the marriage had been unhappy, if there had been affairs, spousal abuse, stuff like that happening, I could see it, but from what I could gather from the show, there was none of that.  Had the woman even told friends or family she was sick of her husband?   Also, I wonder if religious prejudice entered into convicting her?   People have ideas about Jehovah's Witnesses that aren't exactly, um, positive, so could have that played into what happened?

[biakbiak]

12 hours ago, Blissfool said:

 

Me too! I think it's farfetched. I'm pretty sure the detectives investigated him after Lizz threw his name out. I wish Dateline would have let us know the findings.

They never interviewed him.

[Ohmo]

The Melgar case is fascinating for us because we've illustrated that had we been the jury, we would be hung, likely leading to a second trial for Sandra.  I wonder if Dateline will ever choose to do an expanded version of the episode, or even if they've already shot an expanded version that we could one day see at a later date?

[cooksdelight]

15 hours ago, rwgrab said:

I'm sure I'm just missing something about why he makes a good suspect, but I didn't wind up at the conclusion that there was enough information to make him more likely to have done it than the other person in the house at the time.

He has a criminal record. Should have been red flag #1 for an interview. They never bothered.

 

1 hour ago, 12catcrazy said:

it was mentioned on Dateline that the police didn't interview either the ex or the neighbor from down the street who had just gotten out of jail.

Nope, didn’t interview anyone that had red flags waving over their heads.

[biakbiak]

I still can't get over that they never interviewed the family who found her to see if their theory matched what they saw, they were so tunnel visioned.

Edited January 24, 2018 by biakbiak

[12catcrazy]

It appeared to be a lazy ass, corrupt cop who led the investigation and it seems as if he had his mind made up from the get go.  I mean why waste time, money, and gasp! effort when it was SO obvious that the wife did it (rolling eyes here).  How many times on Dateline have we seen that if the spouse doesn't react in the way the cops think he/she should be reacting it immediately raises suspicion.   Hey!  Remember the case where the one poor guy's wife got murdered and he was out playing board games with a bunch of friends, and he was on camera gassing his car and getting snacks and all his friends were vouching for him, yet the cops still railroaded him to jail where he sat for how many years?   Once some of these cops make up their minds, you're going to be toast unless you prove you had an audience with the Pope at The Vatican while the murder was taking place. 

And some of these juries!  I hate to say it, but how many intelligent people (esp if they have jobs) try to get out of jury duty any way they can - so who does that leave to be on the jury?

[rwgrab]

48 minutes ago, 12catcrazy said:

And some of these juries!  I hate to say it, but how many intelligent people (esp if they have jobs) try to get out of jury duty any way they can - so who does that leave to be on the jury?

Did you watch the clip on Dateline's website of the jurors talking about their deliberations?  They came across as fairly reasonable and intelligent folks to me.  They also discussed the overwhelming amount of evidence that was presented in this case that brought them to a conclusion of guilty.  

[RedheadZombie]

8 hours ago, 12catcrazy said:

I may be wrong (please correct me if so), but I thought it was mentioned on Dateline that the police didn't interview either the ex or the neighbor from down the street who had just gotten out of jail.   And I'm not even saying the ex did it - he could be clean and on the straight and narrow, but could he have even had friends who he had told about his former in-laws?    It just seems to me from what was presented on Dateline that the woman convicted of her husband's murder really had no motive other than the insurance policy.  If the marriage had been unhappy, if there had been affairs, spousal abuse, stuff like that happening, I could see it, but from what I could gather from the show, there was none of that.  Had the woman even told friends or family she was sick of her husband?   Also, I wonder if religious prejudice entered into convicting her?   People have ideas about Jehovah's Witnesses that aren't exactly, um, positive, so could have that played into what happened?

That's a possibility.   I remember in the Australian "dingo ate my baby" case, the prosecution used their religion (Seventh Day Adventist) against them, and claimed it taught baby sacrifices.  

[cooksdelight]

14 hours ago, 12catcrazy said:

Remember the case where the one poor guy's wife got murdered and he was out playing board games with a bunch of friends, and he was on camera gassing his car and getting snacks and all his friends were vouching for him, yet the cops still railroaded him to jail where he sat for how many years?

Which case was this? If it’s the one I’m thinking of, the husband was guilty because he’d borrowed the phone at the house he was playing games in, and called a guy who once worked for him to go kill the wife.

[Janc]

1 hour ago, cooksdelight said:

Which case was this? If it’s the one I’m thinking of, the husband was guilty because he’d borrowed the phone at the house he was playing games in, and called a guy who once worked for him to go kill the wife.

No that's a different one.  This episode was "Game Night" which introduced us to the infamous Pam Hupp, the "friend" of the guy's wife.  The wife had cancer and Pam convinced her to change her life insurance policy so Pam would get the money to give to the daughters.  Long story short, it's strongly suspected that Pam killed the wife and her own mother, and most recently a guy she set up to rob her to put the dead woman's husband back in jail.  Just checked, Pam's trial for the last murder isn't happening until Sept 2018. 

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, Janc said:

No that's a different one.  This episode was "Game Night" which introduced us to the infamous Pam Hupp, the "friend" of the guy's wife.  

The first episode before he was retried was also great because it ended with Keith playing Settlers of Catan or some similar game at the end. It was a travesty when they cut  out during the two hour update, they should have had an extended cut!

Edited January 25, 2018 by biakbiak

[cooksdelight]

Oh wow, thanks for the info! I remember something about Pam Hupp, and I am indeed thinking of a different case.

[patty1h]

Did I miss some details of the episode "Out There in the Dark"?  Josh Daniels conspired with Sirius Underwood to kill his wife Brandy... but why?  They were separated and he had moved to Alaska.  I know they had one child, but I don't recall the story saying there was a custody battle, or that he had an insurance policy in Brandy's name.  Was it a situation where he wanted to eliminate her to save him having to pay alimony or she knew about his secret criminal life doing stick-up jobs and he thought she may rat him out? 

Did I somehow zone and miss a chunk or did Dateline just gloss over that piece of information?

[partofme]

Sirius offered to do it and told him "that's what dudes do for dudes".  That was the whole motive for the murder.

[Ohmo]

3 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Was it a situation where he wanted to eliminate her to save him having to pay alimony or she knew about his secret criminal life doing stick-up jobs and he thought she may rat him out? 

I don't think it was addressed specifically, but Josh did say during his statement that he was angry.  Remember, he was seriously screwed up on steroids, which can cause outbursts of anger if used long term.

I was shocked to settle into an episode of Dateline and see Zanesville. Zanesville sits in an area of Ohio that is fairly economically depressed right now.  Lots of issues with opiates in that part of state.  Murder for hire/a long-distance murder plot is unusual.

[LGGirl]

1 hour ago, partofme said:

Sirius offered to do it and told him "that's what dudes do for dudes".  That was the whole motive for the murder.

Those guys deserved life with no parole.  At least they are in jail for a long time and saved the victim’s family the stress of a trial.  Hope those two idiots become someone’s bitch in jail. 

[cooksdelight]

Sirius Underwood and Josh were both hopped up on steroids. Josh abused his wife, she called police and agreed not to press charges if he would leave. He didn’t want to leave, and he was later jealous of her relationship with the new guy (name escapes me) and was OK with Sirius killing him also.

Someone mentioned that they both lost all that muscle and bulk once they were in jail and off the steroids. And it sounds like they both regained a little bit of sense. Josh said he drank every day after leaving and that it turned him into an alcoholic... plus heroin, the steroids, etc. 

If only police had solved those burglaries and put both of them in jail before they had a chance to carry out the murder plot.

Edited January 28, 2018 by cooksdelight
I had to look up how to spell the killer’s weird name...

[emoxie]

This Dateline episode mentioned that the exhusband and his gym friend were suspected of a series of armed robberies in the area. I thought it was possible Brandy knew about that and was threatening to tell the cops. They kind of mentioned it and then let it pass. 

[Madding crowd]

Her hair dresser boyfriend had the worst hair I’ve ever seen. I was curious about the relationship of the older woman and Sirious.

[saber5055]

I swear I'd seen the husband-in-Alaska-kills-his-wife episode before. Was it familiar to anyone else? I don't watch any other crime show besides Dateline. Maybe all the wife murders are starting to be the same. I just remembered the husband being in Alaska and sub-contracting the murder.

[sinycalone]

Josh and Sirius deserved life without parole.  They were committing all of those robberies to help support their steroid usage (along with whatever other drugs they were abusing).  Even though the detectives kind of brushed aside the motive of wanting to be sure Brandy never went to the police....I think that was part of the conspiracy.