All Episodes Discussion

[Lizzing]

To summarize, Amyjane, a 19 year old lady/former missionary, was brutally stabbed to death in her motel cleaning job.  Almost a year later, to the same August date, in the same town, another woman, Karen, goes for a walk and nearly gets bludgeoned to death.  Cops find a picture of Amyjane and Karen together on the same August date of Amyjane's murder, but 2 years prior to the murder, at a church function.  Cops & church folks find this a weird coincidence.

 

Video surveillance shows a guy fitting the general description of the dude lurking around the hotel following Karen into the park.  Turns out he's the son of missionaries, a drummed out Marine, and general drifter.  Lukah Chang.  He professes no connection to the church, the mission, or anything.  Basically, he's the guy who "shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."  He's doing 35 to life and confessed.  Frankly, I was surprised his defense team didn't call for a psych eval and a insanity plea.

 

The thing that struck me the most was Karen's poor husband.  (I wish him well in his cancer recovery.)  He admitted he was a calm guy in the face of bad things.  I get that because I'm that way too.  I will freak the F out but there's no reason to do that if a simple explanation can be had.  He was calm when his wife was missing for 5 hours.  Sure, some bad crap could have happened, but it could also have been something as simple as a broken leg, twisted ankle.  But he was already getting crap from the popo.  Datelilne has taught me that if any of my family goes missing, I'm going to clam up and demand Lester Holt describe my feelings with a voice over by Keith Morrison.

 

And as bad as this perp was, I'm so happy to see one ep where the husband didn't do it.

[JudyObscure]

Datelilne has taught me that if any of my family goes missing, I'm going to clam up and demand Lester Holt describe my feelings with a voice over by Keith Morrison.

Me too, Lizzing. I'm usually calm during a crisis and break down sometime later when I'm alone.  I always get worried when I hear police say someone is under suspicion because they didn't become hysterical enough at the scene. Another thing I've learned from Dateline is that sometimes the murderer puts on a really big act for the cops.  They always remind me of Jerry Lundergard in "Fargo," practicing his, "Oh God! My wife!  My wife Jean!" before picking up the phone.

[callmebetty]

Hell if they are suspecting everybody who is calm then they should have looked at the person who placed the 911 call finding AmyJane's body in the bathroom. That was one calm call.

So glad the wife survived. But that poor girl. That is just f upped.

[applecrisp]

To summarize, Amyjane, a 19 year old lady/former missionary, was brutally stabbed to death in her motel cleaning job.  Almost a year later, to the same August date, in the same town, another woman, Karen, goes for a walk and nearly gets bludgeoned to death.  Cops find a picture of Amyjane and Karen together on the same August date of Amyjane's murder, but 2 years prior to the murder, at a church function.  Cops & church folks find this a weird coincidence.

 

Video surveillance shows a guy fitting the general description of the dude lurking around the hotel following Karen into the park.  Turns out he's the son of missionaries, a drummed out Marine, and general drifter.  Lukah Chang.  He professes no connection to the church, the mission, or anything.  Basically, he's the guy who "shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."  He's doing 35 to life and confessed.  Frankly, I was surprised his defense team didn't call for a psych eval and a insanity plea.

 

The thing that struck me the most was Karen's poor husband.  (I wish him well in his cancer recovery.)  He admitted he was a calm guy in the face of bad things.  I get that because I'm that way too.  I will freak the F out but there's no reason to do that if a simple explanation can be had.  He was calm when his wife was missing for 5 hours.  Sure, some bad crap could have happened, but it could also have been something as simple as a broken leg, twisted ankle.  But he was already getting crap from the popo.  Datelilne has taught me that if any of my family goes missing, I'm going to clam up and demand Lester Holt describe my feelings with a voice over by Keith Morrison.

 

And as bad as this perp was, I'm so happy to see one ep where the husband didn't do it.

Good summation. So sad.  Lukah was so calm and blunt, yet polite.

 

What a scary person!

[Teddybear]

So the picture of the two women together was just a red herring?  Lukah didn't know they were in the same church, did he?  And wow, he was cold, cold, cold.  No remorse, no emotion, nothing.  I hate that people exist in this world like that.

 

Poor Amyjane.  If only there were more people like her in the world!  

[imjagain]

So glad the husband was not involved or the pastor of the church. TBH that was my first guess, because they were only talking to the youth pastor and his wife and not the "regular" pastor (sorry I don't go to church).

Karen's recovery was amazing. So happy for her.

Poor Amy Jane, what a wonderful spirt she had.

The picture and the two knowing each other was just a coincidence Huh. How strange.

Edited November 9, 2014 by imjagain

[zxy556575]

Hell if they are suspecting everybody who is calm then they should have looked at the person who placed the 911 call finding AmyJane's body in the bathroom. That was one calm call.

 

I thought the same thing! I've heard cops on recordings who were more unnerved than she was at finding a dead person.

 

I understand losing track of time to some extent, but for the husband not to notice that his wife was several hours late was odd

 

Maybe I'm biased because I watch too many crime shows, but thank goodness for all the public surveillance cameras these days. The two in this story were solid -- fairly clear images and not too jumpy.

Edited November 9, 2014 by lordonia

[jenkait]

I don't really have anything new to add, but I'll post anyway.  What a complete, horrible, and pointless waste.  Amyjane seemed so sweet and full of life and just plain NICE. It was so ironic how her pastor/frind noted that had she been alive, Lukah was someone she'd have tried to include/befriend.  I don't even have words for how bizarre his matter-of-fact discussion with the cops was.  There was something very wrong there, aside from being a murderer he was clearly missing something cognitively; why didn't he lie or try to lawyer up?  Don't sociopaths also lie?

 

Agreed with those who said the person reporting the dead body sounded like she was reporting someone drove through a stop sign or something.  I'm a nurse and I can be calm in a lot of situations, but finding a dead body in a bathtub?  I would be FREAKING OUT.

[tobeannounced]

Agree about whoever called the report in.  If I remember correctly, she said she was either dead or passed out when the 911 operator asked her to clarify.  But she had been stabbed in the heart several times!  

[walnutqueen]

At the risk of sounding totally biased, I was surprised it wasn't the husband or a "churchy type".  Because I think these type of shows either highlight the numerous murderous Mormons/Evangelicals/deacons and/or pillars of the community, or there are a disproportionate amount of those types who prefer murder to divorce.   There - I can't believe I just said that, but Dateline drove me to it.  ;~)(

[tobeannounced]

walnutqueen, my husband's family is Mormon, and I have always wondered why they only give the religious affiliations of certain denominations in these stories.  You know, they never mention that the murderous husband was a Methodist if it doesn't have anything to do with the crime.  But if he was a Mormon, they'd sure say so. So to answer your question, I have no idea, but it's my totally unscientific observation that if it's a Jehovah's Witness or Mormon, etc., that's gotten into trouble, they highlight that fact. 

[Fable]

This was a creepy episode and different!  Usually it is the spouse, ex-spouse, lover or ex-lover, but this was just a random act of violence with no real motivation by a person who clearly had no conscience.  It kind of makes me want to lock the doors and just stay in the house.  They should have aired this one on Halloween....monsters indeed!! 

Edited November 10, 2014 by Fable

[Sleuthjen]

Oh my God. I registered on this site for the express purpose of commenting on that nutjob daughter! What the Hell?! I too wanted to punch the screen! The dad must of been throwing cash at her or promised her some sort of inheritance. What an evil cold hearted psycho! Wild eyed loud and arm flailing. I felt so bad for Nancy! Such delusion despite so much evidence!!

[photo fox]

The community of Jonesboro, Arkansas, is stunned when a local father and real estate investor is found dead in his own kitchen, leaving the authorities on the case wonder who could have possibly been behind the young man's murder.

[jenkait]

Nothing like an episode of Dateline to reassure me that my family is actually not that dysfunctional and in fact, we're more like the Cleavers compared to some of these families.  Lawsuits, affairs, allegations of sexual abuse, accusations of murder, actualy murder?  YIKES.

 

Another thing I've learned from Dateline is that if you're going to commit murder, do it yourself!  Using a hitman seems like a terrible idea.  When does that ever work out for people?  You're just involving another person and of course the hitman is going to give you up!

 

I was a bit confused at the end...so Michelle's (co-murderer's) mom is raising the kids?  Why didn't the victim's grandparents get the kids?  Maybe we're missing some info, but Michelle's mom would be on Michelle's side and giving the kids a skewed perspective.  I hope the paternal grandparents get visitation at least.

[heebiejeebie]

Boy that wife was a piece of work. She really is a sociopath.  I love how when she threw old daddy under the train she phrased her outrage as essentially how could he do that to me.  By this time she had admitted on cheating on the man and was trying to get out from underneath by trying to mitigate the matter with "I was leaving him anyway so I couldn't have killed him".   Yeah he did it to you.  Not the man who he had shot. 

 

I think the daughter waved money under daddy's nose and he was the patsy if things went wrong.  I also think her mother might not have been as clean and innocent.  She might not have been in on it but I think she knew exactly who was responsible and why.  Not until her ex-husband is taken into custody does she come forward to tell about his abuse.  Sure.  I suspect if they had gone after the murder victim's father she would have been just fine if he took the fall since it would have meant complete financial control would have been with her daughter.  And her parents even if they were split.  Plus the kid she had prior to the marriage would be taken care of equally in such event.  Any so called divorce would have left one of her grandchildren out in the cold.

 

I wonder if that was a factor in the maternal grandmother getting the kids?  A judge might have given her custody to keep all the kids together.  I've seen that happen when kids are young but have a strong sibling bound to ease the abrupt loss of both parents.

 

What peeves me about that woman getting the kids is that unless the court assigned a financial conservator, I presume the insurance money would be paid into a trust or guardian held account since the mother was found guilty in the manner she was.  Which means the murderess' side of the family still profited from the crime.  And if she gets out as early as she could, she could see financial benefit as well.

 

That is one thing I really dislike about Dateline.  They spend all this time slowly dripping out the details to raise the drama but they never really tie things up, like what happened with the insurance money.  Or why the grandmother got custody.

 

I'm wondering if the child abuse accusations were solely to split the son from his father or whether they were hoping to trigger some real violence between the two men to make the subsequent murder even more firmer laid at the father's feet.

 

Keith is such a shit though.  His insincerity to the father after he broke down when it was exactly what Keith was aiming for.  Especially since the way the show's narration went it seemed rather clear the son and father were estranged and no such "knowledge" that the son considered his father to be his hero existed no matter how warm and fuzzy an ending it made. 

 

I know it is impossible to tell an sociopath he or she isn't smarter and knows it all.  But when are these people going to learn they need to train themselves to produce tears when needed if they are going to kill a spouse they are claiming to love.  When she was interviewed by Keith she seemed to actually reach a point where she seemed to forget she was in the midst of sorrow fest.  almost started to smile and then caught herself and did some dry heaving sobs with not only no tears but not even a real hitch to her voice. 

[JudyObscure]

Using a hitman seems like a terrible idea.  When does that ever work out for people?  You're just involving another person and of course the hitman is going to give you up!

 

They're all just incredibly stupid, too. This silly dude was bragging all over town before the first weekend had passed.  He confessed within hours to killing a stranger for a small amount of money, and then proceeded to talk about how shocked he was (shocked, I tell you!) over the sort of inferior people who would put a hit out on their loved ones. 

 

I don't know what's more frightening, sociopaths who can kill the father of their children without blinking an eye, or people like the hit man who are almost childlike in their lack of understanding about the difference between wrong and right.

[UsernameFatigue]

I was wondering as well why the maternal grandmother got custody of the kids. The only thing I could think of was the kids would have been pretty much grown by this time. If the (step) granddaughter was 13 when she accused the grandfather and the father and son were then estranged for 5 years (I think it was?) she would be 18 and an adult. The brother closest in age to her is likely 16 or so since Michelle was 18 when she gave birth to him and already had the daughter. So my guess is the two boys are old enough to decide who they wanted to live with, and since their paternal grandparents were strangers for the last 5 years (and likely not that close for some years even before) they chose their maternal grandmother. Just a guess.

[walnutqueen]

I have to stop watching the intro to this show.  Once again, the clip of the grieving wife showed a flash of micro-smirk/smile, and my jaded mind said she did it.  Heavy sigh.

[JudyObscure]

I hear you, Walnutqueen. I'm starting to think all the 911 calls sound fake. Good thing I'm not one of their operators, I'd be like, "Sure, sure, I'm not buying your phony sobs. Tell me another one."

[walnutqueen]

I hear you, Walnutqueen. I'm starting to think all the 911 calls sound fake. Good thing I'm not one of their operators, I'd be like, "Sure, sure, I'm not buying your phony sobs. Tell me another one."

 

Oh, totally.  I'd be all "Calm the fuck down, blubbercakes - no amount of hysterical hyperventilating's going to make you sound like you didn't just off your spouse". 

[daughtersofanarchy]

I don't know if I can articulate my thoughts because this whole story was such a jumbled up mess.

 

Okay - the dead guy had a father, a mother, and an adult sister.  In her interview, the dead guy's mother said that when granddaughter accused grandpa of attempted sexual abuse, grandma at first didn't believe it, but then did come to believe it, was outraged with grandpa, and left him.  She said she went to live with her son and daughter-in-law.  Why would she do this?  She claimed that daughter-in-law had always been trying to separate her son from their family, always trying to drive a wedge between them, yet she leaves grandpa and goes to live with daughter-in-law and son.  Why didn't she go to live with her daughter, who we saw multiple times on the show?  There was no mention of how long the police investigated grandpa, and while grandma said when no charges were made against grandpa, she went back to him and begged his forgiveness, or some such blather, we don't know for how long she lived with son and daughter-in-law.  Why would she live in the house with daughter-in-law?  Why would daughter-in-law have her there if d-I-l hated their family so much?

 

Then there's the whole matter of the multiple lawsuits the two families had going against one another.  Somehow, I just don't believe the dead guy would have gotten into such a messed up feud with his own parents just because he wife goaded him into it, as his parents would have us believe.  I think he probably had more of a mind of his own, and had his own good reasons for being angry with his parents.

 

Frankly, I think just about every family member we saw from both families was a bullshitter of one kind or another.  I wouldn't trust anything any of them said.

Edited November 16, 2014 by daughtersofanarchy

[ChristmasJones]

The tip off to me that the wife was guilty was the extreme close ups of her- which is usually an attempt to not show the prison garb or the prison setting in the background.

[glowlights]

The tip off to me that the wife was guilty was the extreme close ups of her- which is usually an attempt to not show the prison garb or the prison setting in the background.

 

I know! It's a giveaway each time, along with the bit of clothing we can see around the neck and shoulders (prison garb) and the generic or blurred background when they cut to the interviewer. Maybe they should make each participant dress alike so we have more guessing to do. :)

 

With all these crime shows on t.v. you would think that by now people (criminals) would have figured out that the world knows fake crying when it sees it. No tears, no red or runny nose, no cracking voice... have we learned nothing from the days of Susan Smith? It amused me no end that a neighbor saw her standing calmly on the lawn when she was talking to the 911 operator. Maybe she thought she was wearing a cloak of invisibility.

[ChristmasJones]

Whenever I watch a true crime show and the detectives say there were no tears (during interrogation), I find myself wishing there was a close up camera on the person's face so I could see that. There is never a way to see it in the videos from the interrogation rooms.

[glowlights]

A little late to the party with this episode, but I was both horrified and fascinated by the killer's statement that he got tired of having feelings so he decided to stop having them. I wish they had delved a bit into that, maybe an interview with a forensic psychologist, because that was a real "wow" moment.

 

Regarding the way certain religions get more of a mention, my impression/assumption is that certain religions - such a Mormonism or JW - are considered to be the cornerstone of an adherent's every day life, and the church community tends to dominate their social life, even sometimes to the point of insularity. Whereas someone, say a Methodist or Episcopalian, can go to church on Sunday and that's it for the week. And I mean no disrespect to Methodists or Episcopalians! If someone of a certain denomination were to be heavily involved with their church or very very strict with their faith it would get a mention, imo. Just like a bunch of these people might golf, but the show won't mention it unless golf is a big part of their daily life. Anyway, that's my theory. :)

[topanga]

Whenever I watch a true crime show and the detectives say there were no tears (during interrogation), I find myself wishing there was a close up camera on the person's face so I could see that. There is never a way to see it in the videos from the interrogation rooms.

But I still hate it when detectives argue that a person wasn't reacting the "right" way to a loved one's death. Either they weren't sad enough, they were too sad, or they seemed stoic. I know that police detectives have met hundreds, if not thousands of grieving friends and relatives, but people react to things differently. Someone might laugh nervously even if they're really sad or scared. It happens.

[glowlights]

You're right about the way some detectives have a fixed idea about the way a person reacts, especially people who have learned to shut down in times of crisis rather than show emotion. Or who get tongue-tied and nervous during interrogation, which could be an ingrained fear of authority. But fake crying? That's intentional deception. When these fools sit there with Keith (or whoever) and do such bad acting I have to wonder if they got kicked out of the drama club in high school. Some of those 911 calls are priceless, too.

[heebiejeebie]

I get more annoyed when a detective claims to have a greater level of intuition than anyone else. 

 

But as humans it is proven that first impressions do have strong chances of being correct because unconsciously we absorb cues others give off.  I do hate when they claim they knew...when the interviews all take place after  the fact for the most part.

[photo fox]

A wife and mother is found dead in the Kentucky warehouse at which she worked. Authorities center their investigation on the small number of employees who were present at the time of the murder. Josh Mankiewicz reports.

[JudyObscure]

Very unsatisfactory.  I don't feel sure he did it, because both he and his wife seemed a little below normal in intelligence and that might make both of their stories messed up and inconsistent.  On the other hand, I can picture him faking time cards, then worrying about getting caught so breaking into the payroll office and killing the poor woman in panic when he gets caught.  Still, not my favorite episode, though, at least for once,  it wasn't the husband.

[callmebetty]

I agree. I felt like it was rushed at the end: and this guy did it the end.

I can see the guy doing what the prosecution painted as the scenario. But the lack of any evidence really bothers me. Just convicted because he and the wife's stories didn't match.

But then they did say the warehouse was tailor made if you wanted to commit a murder and he was the janitor.

Tough case for a jury.

Once again I feel for the family another bright light snuffed out for just senseless reasons.

[walnutqueen]

The thought of being convicted on the "process of elimination" theory the prosecutor seems to have sold to the jury without any evidence is troubling ...  I feel like a good chunk of the story is missing.

[applecrisp]

The thought of being convicted on the "process of elimination" theory the prosecutor seems to have sold to the jury without any evidence is troubling ...  I feel like a good chunk of the story is missing.

The investigation bothered me. It seems he was the only one to leave so he did it.… Also, his lawyers were having a hard time putting a defense together.

 

Also in the closing arguments, they sprung the time card fraud on the jury, doesn't seem fair.

[LakeGal]

I am not sure he did it.  I like things tied up neatly and this time I didn't feel that way.  Too many questions left unanswered.  I wanted to know if he was just the janitor for the warehouse area and not the offices.  A janitor that cleans the offices would have a key and would not need to break into her office.  I found him almost too dumb to be able to carry off this murder without leaving any DNA to convict him.     

[daughtersofanarchy]

I was on a jury once, not a murder case, thank God, but a negligence case against two doctors.  We listened to four days of testimony.  When we went in to make a decision, boy, did we feel the weight of it.  Everyone there really felt the responsibility of it and acted accordingly.

 

I truly don't think the jury in this case did their job.  Based on what was presented on the show, I know I could never find someone guilty of murder.

 

That whole business about whether he had torn pants or not - to me it seemed like he thought he had to deny having torn pants because he was scared to death that if he had torn pants, then they would be sure he was guilty.

 

I'm not saying he couldn't have done it, I'm just saying there is no way they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it.

 

It was mean of Josh to say to him that appeals in cases like this almost never succeed.  If there ever were a case that should succeed on appeal, this is it.

[callmebetty]

And if this guy didn't do it, who did?

I think letting those other two off just because they passed the lie detector test is just as flimsy as the evidence they were presenting that said the convicted guy did do it.

I would like a follow up to this case if there is an appeal and decision.

And if this guy didn't do it, who did?

I think letting those other two off just because they passed the lie detector test is just as flimsy as the evidence they were presenting that said the convicted guy did do it.

I would like a follow up to this case if there is an appeal and decision.

[Fable]

Something is wrong with this picture.  I actually had to google this case and read up on it because I felt the show must have left some things of significance out, but no not really.  In fact, one article I read said the medical examiner testified that Michelle may have lived up to 2 hours after the attack, which is absolute BS because she arrived at work at 5:53 and was found dead at roughly 7:00.  I may not be Einstein but I can do simple math.  The prosecutor's case seemed to come out of thin air.  I'm surprised the case even made it to trial let alone resulted in a guilty verdict.  I won't say this guy didn't do it, but I have more than enough reasonable doubt.  Personally, I think he was railroaded!

Edited November 23, 2014 by Fable

[applecrisp]

Yeah, for all this talk about it being a game of "Clue", they didn't establish the murder weapon, just supposed it was a tape dispenser.  No real motive, never established he was "double dipping" and wouldn't that be easy to check.  They just were adamant he had all the means to clean the murder sight.  He did have opportunity, but so did a few other people, there were 13 people working that night.

 

Another thing, the lie detector, if it is not admissible in court it should not be used as the sole reason someone is guilty or not.  I have always thought it was laziness on the part of law enforcement.  I would not take one either.  That was one of the questions they asked last night.

 

if he had planned this and had not been surprised, I just don't think he could clean up the crime scene with no physical evidence.  

[Irritable]

This one left me with a terrible feeling.  I don't know if he did it or not, but I do know that there wasn't proof beyond reasonable doubt. 

 

I also thought about the key issue - janitors have keys to the offices to vacuum, empty trash and dust, so there would be no reason for him to attempt to pry her office door open.  Even if he was in charge of cleaning the warehouse facilities and his wife cleaned the offices, if this was really about trying to hide timeclock fraud (which yeah...how was that shit not thrown out under objection if the defense wasn't allowed to refute that allegation, and if it was based only on the prosecutor's theory with no actual proof???), he could have easily just taken his wife's key that day to let himself in.  And let's say he really was trying to get in and steal the timecards, but he wasn't planning on murdering Michelle...why wouldn't he have done this in the middle of the night or over the previous weekend, instead of just before she would have normally been due in at work, not to mention that other people would be in the building as well?  

 

I don't have a guess as to who else from the pool of suspects could have done it, but that I also agree that throwing out the others simply because they passed a polygraph test is absolutely ridiculous.  It could have been any of the others just as much as it could have been the janitor, but because he left the premises and came back, that was it for him.  Sorry, if I had been a jury member in this case I guess I would have been the one pain in the ass who refused to believe 100% he was guilty based solely on what we were shown.  I really do think he deserves another trial.  And again, not saying he didn't do it, just saying that based on my understanding of how these things are supposed to work, this case was not handled correctly.   

[Lizzing]

So the prosecution's theory of the case was the janitor was trying to break into the victim's office to remove time cards to cover up his double/triple dipping.  The victim interrupted him, and he took her out...with a tape dispenser.  I know those tape dispensers can be a bit dangerous, but there is no way in hell that a tape dispenser was used to make the pry marks on the victim's office door.  One would use a crow bar or pry bar to break in....so if you're the perp, breaking into an office, startled by the office's occupant, why would you drop the crow bar and seek out a tape dispenser?  That would be incredibly stupid and inefficient.  And like was said up thread, it really bothered me that the prosecution merely introduced the time card fraud element in closing.  Something like that would have a paper trail and accountants could be called in to explain it.

 

Sure, the janitor could have done it, but the prosecution's theory of the case wasn't borne out by the evidence (that was shown on Dateline).

[JudyObscure]

Oh you guys are good. When I get falsely accused, I'm calling on the Previously TV  Defense team.  No bar exam required.

[ChristmasJones]

I would not have been able to convict this guy based on the evidence in this case.

[Irritable]

Excellent point - in all my slack-jawed sputtering over how weak the other so-called evidence was, I had forgotten how stupid the tape-dispenser-as-murder-weapon theory was.  It would be hard enough to kill someone with one of those heavy desktop scotch tape dispensers, but even harder with a packing tape dispenser because those are not even heavy so much as unwieldy, and would go flying apart the instant they made hard contact with anything.  Also, any kind of tape dispenser whatsoever is not something that one normally keeps on a janitor's cart (or MURDER CART!!! as the prosecution would have us believe).

[heebiejeebie]

I wonder if the prosecution had anything to point to the door being pried open after the murder?

 

I have gotten to the point I really do not trust dateline's narration since they seem to want to keep the viewers going for the full 42 minutes (or however long a show is these days).  I think with the digital age all those two-way tv boxes might be honing some of these shows (particularly a show on the Comcast-NBC network),  I joke.  Somewhat.  But this show in just a couple of years has really played fast and loose with certain elements -- placing reveals in unnaturally occurring segments of the narrative.  I keep thinking they did a study and found out when it was revealed who and how they did it, audiences were turning the channel and only coming back in the last five to find out the verdict.

 

But if I accept the janitor did do it, which I don't.  I would posit that he came upon her in the open office, picked up the tape dispenser wonked her good with it.  Locked the door, went and got some kind of pry bar to crack the door open so it would look like someone who didn't have a key did it.    So if they had some kind of real proof that janitor did the deed and locked the door behind him and then went back to cover his crime?  All in a little over and hour before she was found?  That seems a stretch. 

 

Was anything made of the fact that her hands were taped behind her back but her injuries were so severe?  If you had someone bound why would you go to such extremes with a tape gun?  If murder was not the original intent but a result of being startled, would you continue to bludgeon someone with a tape gun until that person had injuries consistent with a car accident?  And she was covered with a plastic bag!!  If you cover someone with a plastic bag, you have tape, wouldn't you just tape her mouth and nose closed?  It would take a few minutes to smother someone.  Without have to beat that person until her skull was crushed

 

I've watched too many of these shows, but covering someone's head and yet beating them so brutally is a personal crime.  Someone wanted her dead and yet couldn't "look at her".  It is kind of a classic profile isn't it?

 

I also had questions about the time cards.  They were found with her.  Since it was the Tuesday following Memorial day when was the last shift worked?  I was thinking they would have been from the pay period that ended the week before.  So did they determine that she hadn't taken the cards home with her and was coming in early to enter the times of the employees?  Because the janitors arrive at 5:30 right?  Again.  the cards were found with her.  That is odd for someone who was presumably caught committing fraud with them to take them with the victim to the place he stashed her.  He was smart enough to not leave a speck of physical evidence -- heck he caved her skull in with a tape dispense and yet did so in a way that did not leave a single piece of plastic or tape residue on her or the bag over her head.  But was stupid enough to take the timecards with him and leave with her purse and her body.  I think either someone who knew her killed her,  to kill her.  Knew she was going in early (how many people did she see over the weekend being a holiday that she might have mentioned this to?  Or co-workers when she left the last day before the holiday?), surprised her as she went in and killed her.   Or she surprised someone who had broken in and was familiar with the place. 

 

I have tape guns and I couldn't imagine for an instant I could inflict the injuries they described without either breaking the gun or even inflicting cuts or bruises on my own hand. 

 

My biggest problem was that the janitor has the easiest means to carry out his motive without running the risk he presumably did.  And he also had a much greater level of resources to hide his crime for more than the little over an hour.  it seemed odd they were so tied to the timecard issue and not the fact that she was killed at a time when she was expected to be where she was, right?  Why commit such brutal damage to someone you are only killing out of unintended consequences?  You move the body, you have a plastic bag and the body is bound.  Why bludgeon someone like that?  If the janitor supposedly took her there to "hide" her, he would have presumed she would smother to death if he truly wanted her dead but hadn't set out to murder her in the first place.  her wrists were cut and it seemed like that was also a means to try to kill her.  The broken arm I thought was odd since they never could prove where she was initially attacked that I could tell.  Saying it happened in the process of moving her seemed a bit self serving for the prosecution.  They don't know that. it could have been broken when she was struggling and the murderer was taping her wrists.  It could have been broken in the initial assault that overwhelmed her in the first place.  And maybe, forget the profile I mentioned above, the murderer put the bag over her head to keep her blood from leaving a trail. 

 

I think since the examiner had her time of death being a possible two hour spread, could someone have bludgeoned her.  Put a bag over her head to keep the blood intact, and taken her to that part of the building using her key?  Maybe she never entered the building on her own?  Considering the extent of her injuries, the murderer did not realize she was still alive when she was left and so she continued to bleed out?  Because I never heard any evidence that proved her head injuries had to have taken place where her body was found. 

 

I think it is funny that the broken in door was focused on so much but was never taken into consideration in any other way but the one that served their theory Dooley did it. Could they ever prove she had been in the office?  Again.  The timecards were with her body. 

Edited November 23, 2014 by heebiejeebie

[heebiejeebie]

Something is wrong with this picture.  I actually had to google this case and read up on it because I felt the show must have left some things of significance out, but no not really.  In fact, one article I read said the medical examiner testified that Michelle may have lived up to 2 hours after the attack, which is absolute BS because she arrived at work at 5:53 and was found dead at roughly 7:00.  I may not be Einstein but I can do simple math.  The prosecutor's case seemed to come out of thin air.  I'm surprised the case even made it to trial let alone resulted in a guilty verdict.  I won't say this guy didn't do it, but I have more than enough reasonable doubt.  Personally, I think he was railroaded!

 

 

This has got me bothered.  What if the two hours is right?  But that means going back two hours from the discovery a little after 7 am.  that would put her death as far back as a little after 5 am.  I always go by the "blood flow" indicates time of death but I also saw an accident once where the person's body still leaked well after death.  With the damage done to the head area, could that be the reason there was a pool of blood?  If not I don't think that doesn't rule out the time problems.  Later with that.

 

Everything the police used to build on starts with 1.the video of her car.  You have no idea who is driving that car.  2.the time cards.  Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see how they used that to determine SHE was present alive and well at that time.  If she had her own time card and was not salary, anyone could have punched her card.  If she was salary and did not have a card, then they were determining the time still based solely on her car on the video.  Her car and Michelle are not necessarily the same thing.  Sloppy. 

 

Now I'm starting to think the husband could have done it after all.  He is the only other means of establishing time.  It is his word.  If the M.E. is correct about the two hours and the pool of blood could have somehow released from her wounds even after death, then the husband is lying.

 

However if everything I learned from CSI is true, it still means that she could have been brought to the warehouse by her husband dying and bled out her last moments in that upstairs space.  Hubby drives her there.  Stages the office break in.  Leaves her car and walks home or has his car somehow stashed close by.

 

Yeah I've watched way too many of these things.

[ari333]

The husband gave me the chills when he laughed while he said that his alibi was not good (at home sleeping). He laughed. I know folks can have a nervous laugh especially if they're not used to being on camera, but to laugh about the alibi for your wife's murder? I don't see the funny. And I agree with all the points made above.

Edited November 23, 2014 by ari333

[Fable]

Everything the police used to build on starts with 1.the video of her car.  You have no idea who is driving that car.  2.the time cards.  Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't see how they used that to determine SHE was present alive and well at that time.  If she had her own time card and was not salary, anyone could have punched her card.  If she was salary and did not have a card, then they were determining the time still based solely on her car on the video.  Her car and Michelle are not necessarily the same thing.  Sloppy.

 

Now I'm starting to think the husband could have done it after all.  He is the only other means of establishing time.  It is his word.  If the M.E. is correct about the two hours and the pool of blood could have somehow released from her wounds even after death, then the husband is lying.

 

 

I had thought about this, and the only reason I didn't really lend it much credit was because two of the eliminated suspects were supposedly the last two people to see her alive at the time clock that morning, unless of course they were in on it and lied, but that doesn't really make much sense. 

[emily842752]

This episode was pretty disturbing. I definitely thought something was off about the janitor (and his wife), and their complete inability to get their respective stories straight certainly didn't help, but I don't think there was nearly enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, I think he could have done it (and I very much doubt that it went down like the prosecution surmised), but if Dateline truly presented us the most compelling evidence proffered at trial, I think there was a miscarriage of justice. 

 

I, too, was on a jury. It wasn't a murder case, but it was a very serious criminal case. All of the jurors took their roles extremely seriously, and even though we were split 6-6 upon entering the deliberation room, we did finally return a not guilty verdict after carefully debating the evidence. I actually thought the guy on trial was *probably* guilty, and I think nearly all of us felt that way, but there simply wasn't enough evidence. Assuming Dateline did a decent job on this story, I totally would have been that holdout juror!  

[tobeannounced]

I'm with everyone else.  This is one of those cases that scares me to death because if you get stuck with a crummy jury, you're toast.  You always hear on these shows about the CSI effect, that jurors expect DNA evidence if they're going to convict.  Apparently there was someone else's DNA all over the victim and her stuff, and they still convicted.