All Episodes Discussion

[biakbiak]

On 9/11/2020 at 7:44 AM, Melina22 said:

I wonder why this thread is such a ghost town lately. Are we only getting reruns? Anything new on the Vallow case? 

New episodes start this coming Monday.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I watching some older ones (the Secrets Revealed version) on OWN.   Some of those are so old that I don't even remember what happened in the trial.    I can't wait for new ones.  

This rerun was fascinating to me, "Secrets in the Smoky Mountains" where a Stolen Valor case and VA fraud case exposed the murder of the second husband, by the current husband.    It's so sad that in the article the woman's adoptive son has never been given any answers about his adoption, or other questions he has.   What started some of the investigation is that the adoptive son was always puzzled by the suicide of his father.   Then the third husband who watched his victim die, was making appearances claiming all kinds of classified awards from missions in Vietnam  (There are awards given for classified missions, without citations made public.  There are not classified awards, the awards are the same ones that are already established.    I hope that's not as confusing it sounds. ). 

https://www.wbir.com/article/news/crime/nbcs-dateline-revisits-murder-mystery-in-monroe-county/51-339906151

Edited September 13, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[iMonrey]

Saw "Death in the Driveway" this week, that was a new one (to me anyway). I knew it was Julia from the start, the show was suspiciously avoiding her account of the crime at the outset of the episode. Also, the children were all painting a glowing, rosy picture of their relationship at the beginning, but by the end we found out Melvin had broken up with her and already had a new girlfriend. So the kids had to have suspected Julia right from the start.

Sad they have not found her accomplice, I hope they manage to somehow.

[Ohmo]

8 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Sad they have not found her accomplice, I hope they manage to somehow.

Agreed.  Whoever this is has been able to evade capture for ten years.

Lori Vallow: Woman speaks out after spending 4 days in jail alone with Lori Vallow Daybell

Chad Daybell's attorney says combining case with Lori Vallow Daybell's would be unfair

[Melina22]

That's a really interesting article about Lori. If anything, she sounds worse than I thought. Conceited, oblivious, and extremely strange. 

[12catcrazy]

Anybody see this past Monday's episode?   Another one involving very old DNA and Parabon.  The jury convicted the guy in three hours on nothing more to go on but the DNA taken off the victim's dress from a murder in 1979.   I dunno - the guy probably did it - but I'll bet his lawyer filed an appeal immediately.    

The suspect's reaction was very odd when the cop interviewed him (at his place of business).  He didn't deny doing the murder; all he basically said was , "Test the DNA", which the cop told the guy they had, and the suspect repeated "Test the DNA".   OF COURSE, his relatives don't believe that he did it, and the man had no prior arrests or anything really bad on his record.  He did have some sort of "perverse" (they didn't give us details) porn on his computer which involved mostly blond women (the victim had very blond Farrah hair).   Such a shame though - the victim was a beautiful teenage girl who had the bad luck to walk alone to her car in an empty dark mall parking lot.   There was a man they interviewed who was among the last people to see her alive - he said that he feels such guilt in that if he had waited for her and walked her to her car that night, she'd probably still be alive.   

[biakbiak]

I watched, I think he did it but when they make big deals about things like “one of his search terms in his porn was blonde women,” I roll my eyes.

[TVbitch]

I suspect this genealogy DNA stuff will come to be accepted as "air tight" just like regular DNA matching is now. I watched a few episodes of that Genetic Detective show on ABC which goes into a lot more detail of how it works and it's just (complicated) science. But right now it does seem kind of science fictiony. 

I feel for the relatives who do not want to believe a loved one could have violent secrets, but there is no other way his DNA gets on her dress. His reaction when the detective shows up is not evidence, but his lack of shock or confusion was telling. I am extremely stoic myself, but if the coppers showed up out of the blue and told me my DNA was found at a murder scene, I would be like ...."Whosis what now?!"

I do hope someone took in that little lovebug kittycat.

[Irlandesa]

I don't think the argument was that the DNA wasn't his; it was that it was from many years ago and could have gotten there through transference because he admits he was at the mall. 

I guess it would depend on how much DNA they found.   The defense's theory is that he cut himself, left blood somewhere, she touched it and didn't realize she had it on her.  Then she brought it to the car.  I find it hard to believe I would not notice blood on me but that's their supposition.  I guess it'd maybe work if it were a minuscule amount. 

I think it's a stretch.  I think he probably did this on a whim and thought he'd never get caught. Or maybe there are others out there? 

But it is a good question.  When you're being investigated for something rather random from 20-some years ago, it's hard to build a defense if you are innocent.  Who remembers where they were on a certain day?  Or whether or not they cut themselves? 

[Melina22]

I've been watching Dateline and other true crime shows and podcasts forever. Well, not podcasts because they're recent, but I used to read lots of true crime books. Ann Rule, etc. 

Anyway, until recently all the stories interested me as long as they weren't about children being hurt or murdered. But just lately I'm finding I don't want to watch any more shows where men target and murder women, whether it's their husband or a stranger. I'm just sick of how often it happens.

"Husband kills wife so he can be with someone else and not have to pay alimony." "Man kills woman he was stalking because... no reason." I find I'm constantly deleting shows off my PVR because they fall into one of the above two categories. 

This means I'm mostly watching shows where women kill men, or men kill men, or women kill women. It makes me feel a bit bad because men have just as much right not to be murdered as women. Then I start to question my motives for watching these shows at all. 

But I know I'll keep watching because people fascinate me. I just needed to vent. 😁

[12catcrazy]

18 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

 

I think it's a stretch.  I think he probably did this on a whim and thought he'd never get caught. Or maybe there are others out there? 

But it is a good question.  When you're being investigated for something rather random from 20-some years ago, it's hard to build a defense if you are innocent.  Who remembers where they were on a certain day?  Or whether or not they cut themselves? 

I tried doing an on-line deep dive into this case and didn't come up with a lot.  I did find something (in a local to the area newspaper) that mentioned that a boyfriend or ex-boyfriend of the victim said that she mentioned that she felt as if somebody had been following her in the week prior to her murder.   So I don't know if this murder was done on a whim (she was alone in the dark parking lot and he suddenly decided to strike), or if he had been planning this and she was finally in a spot where he was able to put his plans into action.  

Regarding his family all saying he didn't do it - it makes me think of the infamous BTK murderer - a guy who was a Boy Scott leader and very active in his church - and worked for ADT (which was one way he stalked his victims), and could just blend in as an ordinary guy who wouldn't hurt a fly.   I don't think he ever had so much as a traffic ticket.  And he killed people for something like 10 plus years before he finally got caught.   There was enough evidence that nobody could say ' "No, it couldn't have been HIM".  A good example of the banality of evil.  

[Irlandesa]

14 minutes ago, 12catcrazy said:

Regarding his family all saying he didn't do it - it makes me think of the infamous BTK murderer

It makes me think of the show Mindhunter which ran for two seasons on Netflix.  I remember there being talk--and I don't know if it was in the show or outside of the show--surrounding developing profiles for serial killers. 

General profile information about serial killers was crafted by interviewing serial killers in jail.  One of the potential drawbacks to that is that their profile is being developed based on serial killers who had been caught.  The serial killers who hadn't been caught--like the Golden State killer and BTK at the time--weren't part of that profile.  So they were missing a whole subsection of serial killers who were able to blend in with the rest of society.

There were definitely little signs and things they did but to the general community, they were upstanding and "normal."

Edited September 17, 2020 by Irlandesa

[Annber03]

4 hours ago, Melina22 said:

I've been watching Dateline and other true crime shows and podcasts forever. Well, not podcasts because they're recent, but I used to read lots of true crime books. Ann Rule, etc. 

Anyway, until recently all the stories interested me as long as they weren't about children being hurt or murdered. But just lately I'm finding I don't want to watch any more shows where men target and murder women, whether it's their husband or a stranger. I'm just sick of how often it happens.

"Husband kills wife so he can be with someone else and not have to pay alimony." "Man kills woman he was stalking because... no reason." I find I'm constantly deleting shows off my PVR because they fall into one of the above two categories. 

This means I'm mostly watching shows where women kill men, or men kill men, or women kill women. It makes me feel a bit bad because men have just as much right not to be murdered as women. Then I start to question my motives for watching these shows at all. 

But I know I'll keep watching because people fascinate me. I just needed to vent. 😁

I get that, yeah. I think some of that has to do with the fact that even though the motives why men and women kill people are the same-greed, jealousy, revenge, etc.-there's still some difference in the ways and means men and women tend to kill others, or the psychology and dynamics involved tends to be different, or things of that sort. It's a new angle to explore and understand, and it touches on certain types of crimes that may not get as much attention as your typical "husband kills his wife" stories. 

I get your hesitation to not want to watch some of those kinds of stories-sometimes I'll watch this stuff and find myself very thankful that I'm single, and it just reinforces my "Not rushing to get married" stance. They are a good way for me to learn about some of the red flags to watch out for if/when I ever do date/marry someone. 

The stories involving murders in marriages that lasted 25, 30, 40 plus years always fascinate me, because I just keep wondering what the hell happened in all that time for someone to get to that point? There's some marriages that are quick and under messy circumstances, and when they fall apart you're sitting here like, "Gee, who could've seen that coming?" And even the marriages that lasted for years, but the couple was miserable together for much, if not all, of the time, well, no surprise that wouldn't end well, either. 

But the ones where it was clear that at one point, the couple did genuinely love and care about each other...to see it all just collapse and go horribly awry like that, it's crazy. And sad. 

[crowsworks]

Deadly Liaisons was another in a line of white women either saying a balck man did it or in this case acually wearing "dark Makeup" so witnesses discribed a dark-skinned black man. The barely mentioned it in passing. The DA balked at charging the woman even tho the cops had mountains of evidence. He finally HAD to charge her when she discribed in gruesom detail on a hidden mike.

SNL needs to parody this show.

DA..."so we have him on camera, buying the machete, tarp and shovel. And then there's the threatening voice mails, the blood found on his clothes, his DNA all over her body in the oil-drum in his garage for 5 yrs" Can we get him to talk about the details on tape and does her have any polaroids?" 

"So a white guy?"

"Yeah."

[crowsworks]

On 9/16/2020 at 12:11 PM, 12catcrazy said:

Anybody see this past Monday's episode?   Another one involving very old DNA and Parabon.  The jury convicted the guy in three hours on nothing more to go on but the DNA taken off the victim's dress from a murder in 1979.   I dunno - the guy probably did it - but I'll bet his lawyer filed an appeal immediately.    

The suspect's reaction was very odd when the cop interviewed him (at his place of business).  He didn't deny doing the murder; all he basically said was , "Test the DNA", which the cop told the guy they had, and the suspect repeated "Test the DNA".   OF COURSE, his relatives don't believe that he did it, and the man had no prior arrests or anything really bad on his record.  He did have some sort of "perverse" (they didn't give us details) porn on his computer which involved mostly blond women (the victim had very blond Farrah hair).   Such a shame though - the victim was a beautiful teenage girl who had the bad luck to walk alone to her car in an empty dark mall parking lot.   There was a man they interviewed who was among the last people to see her alive - he said that he feels such guilt in that if he had waited for her and walked her to her car that night, she'd probably still be alive.   

man I'll bet some old farts who thought they got a way with murder are listening for footsteps now 

On 9/16/2020 at 12:25 PM, biakbiak said:

I watched, I think he did it but when they make big deals about things like “one of his search terms in his porn was blonde women,” I roll my eyes.

they said Deviant Websites i think?

[biakbiak]

42 minutes ago, crowsworks said:

they said Deviant Websites i think?

With regard to the blonde women they just said porn and didn’t describe it as violent or anything similar.

[Lsk02]

I feel like there was more to this than shown. How in the world did the guy supposedly remember he was at the mall on that specific day 40 years ago?  Unless he remembers it because it was a big day in his life, like the day he killed someone.  When the defense threw out that theory about DNA transfer at first I was thinking, okay, maybe that’s possible, but then when he said the guy admitted being at the mall that day, I changed my mind. There is no way anyone can remember random normal days specifically that long ago. 

[patty1h]

I have a question about the episode Secrets From the Grave (A man calls 911 to report that his pregnant wife has died by suicide; the case is closed until a suspicious house fire 24 years later leads police to question what really happened that day). 

I must have zoned out because I don't remember why Scott Purk tried setting the neighbors house on fire.   She didn't know him, so what was he going to gain from burning down her house?  I know it was revealed that he had a history of burglary, but did I miss that he got off on setting fires as well? 

[Koalagirl]

2 hours ago, patty1h said:

I have a question about the episode Secrets From the Grave (A man calls 911 to report that his pregnant wife has died by suicide; the case is closed until a suspicious house fire 24 years later leads police to question what really happened that day). 

I must have zoned out because I don't remember why Scott Purk tried setting the neighbors house on fire.   She didn't know him, so what was he going to gain from burning down her house?  I know it was revealed that he had a history of burglary, but did I miss that he got off on setting fires as well? 

They never really addressed why he set the fires. But he was sentenced to 28 years for setting them.  Maybe the first fire was a rehearsal, or to throw the police off track when he set his house on fire, or maybe just because, in his sick mind, he could.

[Annber03]

Yeah, considering he'd already been committing burglaries (though, I have to say, as serious and creepy as that part of the story was, I couldn't help being amused by the term "ninja burglar" :p), maybe he was graduating from that to being an arsonist? I dunno. 

I just keep wondering what would've happened had any of his family, or that woman, had died in one of those house fires. That would've been an awfully hard thing for him to explain away, given he'd already lost a wife under suspicious circumstances. 

For the sake of the case, thank goodness he was dumb enough to not keep his mouth shut when talking to that cop that night, but man, the whole time I was listening to that audio I just kept thinking, "...uh...you are aware of the whole 'right to remain silent' thing, right?" 

I think this case was covered on another show once. I want to say "Forensic Files", perhaps? 'Cause I kinda remember the bits with him babbling to the cop and the test with the dummy. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by Annber03

[Fable]

7 hours ago, Koalagirl said:

They never really addressed why he set the fires. But he was sentenced to 28 years for setting them.  Maybe the first fire was a rehearsal, or to throw the police off track when he set his house on fire, or maybe just because, in his sick mind, he could.

The first fire was his home.  The second fire, in theory, was set to hopefully lead law enforcement to believe there was a serial arsonist.  

I am not sure I would have convicted for his first wife's murder, not because I think he didn't do it, but I always wonder about people who call 911 even without making sure the victim is dead.  What if they don't end up dying?  Now, you have a real mess on your hands if they recover and are able to tell the authorities what really happened.  However, the belt mark was compelling.  

[NoSpam]

Glad to see some action here. 

 

As a former genealogist, I'm fascinated by the use of genetic genealogy to solve old cases, but I have reservations. After decades have passed, any exculpatory evidence like phone records or employee time cards will be destroyed. And there have been cases where a suspect was having a consensual relationship with the victim, so his semen was on her, but he had an air tight alibi. I saw one on First 48 recently...taht case is still unsolved, and sadly there were 4 similar murders in a six month period. 

 

I'm comfortable with DNA genealogy when there's a mountain of it across multiple victims, like with the California Golden State Killer AKA East Area Rapist. But in cases where it's a small amount that could be explained if it was closer to the date of the crime, I have reservations. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by NoSpam

[MsJamieDornan]

16 hours ago, Lsk02 said:

I feel like there was more to this than shown.

I think you're right. There seemed to be parts missing, and as the years go on, Dateline seems to be doing that more and more.

[EtheltoTillie]

I’m back for new episodes. The 24 year old murder case was great. He was a lifelong serial criminal, kept trying different crimes. Murder, then burglaries, then arson. What a wacko. He studied criminal justice in prison LOL. What did he do for a living after he got out?  Did they ever say?  How did he get a second wife?  

[biakbiak]

12 hours ago, NoSpam said:

I'm comfortable with DNA genealogy when there's a mountain of it across multiple victims, like with the California Golden State Killer AKA East Area Rapist. But in cases where it's a small amount that could be explained if it was closer to the date of the crime, I have reservation

But they didn’t just have DNA genealogy. They used that to identify several people of interest and than tested people’s actually DNA. Two different samples were retrieved for DeAngelo and tested before he was arrested.

[Ohmo]

On 9/19/2020 at 5:01 PM, Koalagirl said:

They never really addressed why he set the fires. But he was sentenced to 28 years for setting them.  Maybe the first fire was a rehearsal, or to throw the police off track when he set his house on fire, or maybe just because, in his sick mind, he could.

I thought the episode said something that he was trying to get the police to believe there was a serial arsonist (i.e. he wasn't the one who torched his house), but the cop said he liked trying to convince everyone of how smart he supposedly was.

Oh...and yay for a Josh episode!

[TVbitch]

I thought he set the first fire for insurance money, and the second one to draw suspicion away from him.

Strange to have so little mention or photos or statement from his second wife. And nothing about the kids again after the 911 call.   

[Melina22]

Well, this was a first for me. I don't know if it's new or old, but I just attempted to watch Crossing the Line, and it was so horrendously awful I had to fast forward constantly. I'd watch a minute then FF 3 minutes. Too much horror and sadness. 😢😢😢

[NoSpam]

On 9/20/2020 at 1:45 PM, biakbiak said:

But they didn’t just have DNA genealogy. They used that to identify several people of interest and than tested people’s actually DNA. Two different samples were retrieved for DeAngelo and tested before he was arrested.

I think you've misunderstood my post. 

I acknowledged they had multiple samples from multiple victims of GSK / EAR. Meaning he'd left DNA on multiple victims. 

I was saying that in the case previously discussed, they had *one* victim from whom they obtained DNA of the suspect. And after 24 years, it's hard to prove any reasonable alibi for how that DNA got there. 

E. G , when I was in my 20s I had a few random hook ups. Say I was killed after one of them, and 25 years later they found a match to the DNA. That suspect would have a hard time proving he'd met me at a college party and we'd hooked up, even though it was true. After all those years, no one would remember  that he was working at the time of my murder. I don't think a conviction based solely on that DNA would be justice. 

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, NoSpam said:

I acknowledged they had multiple samples from multiple victims of GSK / EAR. Meaning he'd left DNA on multiple victims. 

I was saying that in the case previously discussed, they had *one* victim from whom they obtained DNA of the suspect. And after 24 years, it's hard to prove any reasonable alibi for how that DNA got there. 

 

I still don’t understand your point because you stated you were uncomfortable with why genealogy DNA being used when it is then confirmed to the actual DNA. They weren’t acquainted and his DNA was on her body. His coming up in the investigation could have happened several different ways, this is just one more tool that than is reinforced by other investigating technique. If you think the DNA evidence wasn’t convincing that’s one thing but that should be the same if they had found him through other means.

[Annber03]

"And you chalked that up to what?"

"...crazy?"

Actually laughed at that exchange. Not often you see someone who's just not even bothering to sugarcoat their feelings about somebody like that.

(But seriously, ew at Stephanie wanting to keep those couches full of rat crap.)

I appreciate Josh bringing up Deb's calendar comment, because that struck me odd when I first heard that, too. Yeah. Your kid goes missing, that's not going to be a date you'll just forget and need to check a calendar for. At the very least, you're going to remember the month. I also thought her comments about the specific kinds of food her son had supposedly taken were odd, too. I could even understand being like, "My son was going on a trip, and he said it wouldn't be a long one, but he took an awful lot of food with him that seems to indicate otherwise, which concerns me." But something about specifically mentioning he took Chef Boyardee food and whatnot just seemed an odd thing to focus on (you can remember that, but not the date that your son went missing?). Also, wouldn't that be information that'd probably be more important for the police to know instead of, or at least, before, a reporter? 

To say nothing of how she claims her son has a drug problem, but apparently isn't too concerned when he just up and leaves on a trip...supposedly with someone she doesn't know, no less. Sure, he's a grown man, but if I were a parent and my son or daughter had a drug problem, I'd be incredibly antsy about them just up and leaving to go god knows where, with god knows who. I sure wouldn't wait around for months and let day after day go by without hearing from them before filing a police report to see that they're all right.

But of course, clearly all those claims were moot, so... What a sad story. It's just so bizarre how Deb tried to protect her daughter by claiming she had nothing to do with any of this, but willingly shot her son to death and participated in covering up his murder. 

Also, somebody should've probably told Dave and Stephanie that if they wanted to try and avoid suspicion, maybe it wasn't a good idea to post photos of them happily riding around on her missing brother's motorcycle. Especially given how protective he was over it. Just saying. 

[cooksdelight]

I dozed off before the end ... where did they find the body, how, etc? Was the sister and her looney husband charged with anything?

[Annber03]

The sister and her husband were charged, too, yes. All were sent to prison, and Deb died there of her health issues. 

The body was found when a prosecutor and police were poking around the farm, but it took a while before they actually prosecuted everyone involved, because they had to figure out who actually pulled the trigger (Deb confessed, but there were doubts as to if she was strong enough to do it). 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Annber03

[NoSpam]

50 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I still don’t understand your point because you stated you were uncomfortable with why genealogy DNA being used when it is then confirmed to the actual DNA. They weren’t acquainted and his DNA was on her body. His coming up in the investigation could have happened several different ways, this is just one more tool that than is reinforced by other investigating technique. If you think the DNA evidence wasn’t convincing that’s one thing but that should be the same if they had found him through other means.

We don't know if they were acquainted or not. It's been far too long for anyone to attest to any innocent contact that might have had that would have left his DNA on the victim. 

Another example is the Jon Benet Ramsey case. A tiny speck of DNA (likely skin cells) on her underwear doesn't prove that person killed her. Could have been the DNA of the person who sewed the tag on. 

 

I never said I didn't believe they had DNA, or that the DNA doesn't match. I'm saying we can't presume to know that having DNA on one victim = killer in an old case. Particularly when the DNA is on one victim, not many victims. 

 

For GSK Aka EAR, there is the same person's DNA on many victims, so it's unlikely he came into innocent contact with all of those victims. 

[Irlandesa]

5 minutes ago, NoSpam said:

I never said I didn't believe they had DNA, or that the DNA doesn't match. I'm saying we can't presume to know that having DNA on one victim = killer in an old case. Particularly when the DNA is on one victim, not many victims. 

But I think it'd depend on how much DNA as well.  A spec could be due to transference.  But a lot of DNA will likely mean more contact.  It's also important if they can tell where the DNA came from. Blood?  Saliva? Semen?  Hair? Skin...etc.

[NoSpam]

15 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

But I think it'd depend on how much DNA as well.  A spec could be due to transference.  But a lot of DNA will likely mean more contact.  It's also important if they can tell where the DNA came from. Blood?  Saliva? Semen?  Hair? Skin...etc.

Yes, but there could be an innocent explanation even for semen. If a DNA match is found 20 years later, it's tough to prove the innocent connection. 

I saw an episode of The First 48 in Ohio where detectives found semen on a rape victim, it didn't match the boyfriend, and they were convinced it was the killer's. Turns out she was having a casual fling with a coworker, and he proved it with text messages. He could also prove he was at work at the time of the killing. 

If that match had been found 20 years later, all the evidence proving he was at work and that she was seeing him on the side would've been lost to time, and an innocent man would've been convicted. 

I'm not saying we should never use genetic genealogy to close cold cases, only that I have reservations about it. I hope they have more evidence in every case. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by NoSpam

[crowsworks]

after they found GSK there was a lot of evidence that he moved into an area and suddenly the rapes and murders jumped to near-by - also he had a somewhat unique physical feature (Micro-penis) that could  be proved. Many victim discribed it. 

[saber5055]

I've been away from Dateline since dealing with all the murders and liars and cheaters and just generally horrible people on a tv show is too much after dealing with the same things IRL. But I watched the 711 Ranch episode because it was in Gunnison, Colorado, so at least the locale was interesting.

Another high point for me was the cadaver dogs being tested in that area. I kept looking for friends from Colorado who do that with their dogs. I knew the body would be found by one of them since I am familiar with the work these dogs do. So, yeay for that.

What I did not understand though, was why was the murdered man the one who would inherit the ranch? Was there a will? If Deb was the ranch owner, why didn't she just change the will so Stephanie was the sole beneficiary? That part went just way over my head.

I also wonder who is running/owning the ranch now that everyone in the family is either dead or in prison. Dateline always leaves me with unanswered questions.

[TVbitch]

The ranch hand was infuriating: "I didn't say anything cuz these people were like my family."

Dude, they murdered their own son/brother, and you said you felt so threatened you couldn't even sleep at night. WTF?! 

[NoSpam]

2 hours ago, crowsworks said:

after they found GSK there was a lot of evidence that he moved into an area and suddenly the rapes and murders jumped to near-by - also he had a somewhat unique physical feature (Micro-penis) that could  be proved. Many victim discribed it. 

GSK is one of the genetic genealogy cases I don't have a problem with. They had a ton of evidence and he gave a confession that doesn't appear to be coerced. 

 

I think I'm going to stop posting now as my comments are getting misunderstood and I don't know why. 

[Ohmo]

There are a lot of significantly messed up families on Dateline, but this one is even significantly messed up by Dateline standards,

A mother shots her son just because (unless his sister really did it.  The mother is dead.  Sister and her husband are in jail.   Where is their son?

Jake sounded like a very decent human being,  What a waste,  Thank goodness fir his friends.

[hookedontv]

7-11 Ranch story was out-of-control. Crazy family - full stop. I figured it had to be someone in the family since NO FAMILY MEMBER seemed the least bit perturbed that Jake left and wasn't heard from in months, a year, etc. No phone, no credit card or bank activity. No phone calls. Then the sister told a different story than the mother. And the sister and BIL posing on Jake's prized motorcyle. I mean really. 

Thank goodness for Jake's friends who truly cared about him and wouldn't rest until this mystery was solved. I'm sorry for the outcome though.

@TVbitch : The ranch hand infuriated me too! "These people were like my family."

Here, let me publicly apologize to my own family in advance: "If I ever happen upon some terrible crime that I suspected any of you were involved in, you are shit out of luck. I am going to the police. No debate here."

When the Mom Stephanie didn't want them to throw out the rat poop covered couches, I sat up in my seat and thought "Oh good, here it is, finally what I've been waiting for forever: a Dateline and Hoarders crossover episode!

 

[MsJamieDornan]

11 hours ago, Ohmo said:

There are a lot of significantly messed up families on Dateline, but this one is even significantly messed up by Dateline standards,

This is going to sound terrible but the family and their surroundings made me sad and then angry. The house was a mess, the yard and out buildings were a mess, they were all unfortunate looking and had bad teeth. Well and they are all crazy.

[Lovecat]

19 hours ago, saber5055 said:

What I did not understand though, was why was the murdered man the one who would inherit the ranch? Was there a will? If Deb was the ranch owner, why didn't she just change the will so Stephanie was the sole beneficiary? That part went just way over my head.

Probably the same reason people kill their spouses instead of filing for divorce.  Which frankly, I don't understand either.  Do they think it will be easier?  Do they not want to pay for a lawyer?

6 hours ago, MsJamieDornan said:

This is going to sound terrible but the family and their surroundings made me sad and then angry. The house was a mess, the yard and out buildings were a mess, they were all unfortunate looking and had bad teeth. Well and they are all crazy.

When I first saw a picture of the sister and her carny husband I said, "Well don't those two have a matched set of bad choppers!" and then immediately felt bad.  Come sit next to me, we can be terrible people together.

[hookedontv]

34 minutes ago, Lovecat said:

When I first saw a picture of the sister and her carny husband I said, "Well don't those two have a matched set of bad choppers!" and then immediately felt bad.  Come sit next to me, we can be terrible people together.

Is there enough room on that couch for me? (Please note: I refuse sit on a couch covered in rat feces though.)

First thing I thought of too....

Edited September 23, 2020 by hookedontv

[amarante]

My knowledge of forensics comes solely from true crime shows but it seems with all of the DNA cases, the detectives go to great lengths in the first interview to establish that the suspect has had no contact with the dead person. Therefore there can be no innocent explanation for the DNA being discovered.

There was one case where the girl was jogging and as it turns out the neighbor boy killed her. He had initially stated he had no contact with her and then at trial claimed he had a secret tryst with her. As I recall, he attempted to get his brother to back him up on the tryst but the brother refused to do it.

There was an episode (not sure if it was Dateline or 48 Hours) in which a young woman was killed after ending an affair with a shady very wealthy doctor. The doctor hired a woman to kill the girl. The killer-woman's DNA turned up at the scene. The defense was that somehow the DNA had been transferred because both of the women had been in the doctor's home - months earlier. A DNA expert explained how almost impossible it would be to have someone pickup DNA from one location and then transfer it to another. It was one of those cases where the killer was acquitted and I thought it was clear that the woman had been hired by the doctor to do the actual killing.

[iMonrey]

Quote

A mother shoots her son just because (unless his sister really did it. 

I'm convinced it was the sister and/or her husband and the mother was just covering for them. She must have figured what the hell, she was dying of cancer anyway. Clearly she couldn't have dragged her son all the way downstairs and buried him all by herself if she couldn't even lift a gallon of milk.

Quote

What I did not understand though, was why was the murdered man the one who would inherit the ranch? Was there a will? If Deb was the ranch owner, why didn't she just change the will so Stephanie was the sole beneficiary? That part went just way over my head.

I didn't get this either. The only thing I can think of is that the ranch was actually left to Jake by his stepfather, and that it was held in trust by Deb until her death or something to guarantee she had a place to stay. Even if it was owned outright by Deb and she planned to leave everything to Jake, why would she reward her daughter by changing her will after she killed her son? Then again . . . this was one messed up family.

Quote

The ranch hand infuriated me too! "These people were like my family."

He definitely should have been charged with failure to report a crime, if nothing else. I'm guessing the prosecution needed his testimony against the sister and brother in law so he was given immunity.

Edited September 23, 2020 by iMonrey

[Annber03]

There was also that moment early on in the episode where they talked briefly about how Jake didn't approve of who his sister was with that struck me rather interesting. Obviously, given Dave's involvement in this and the fact people talked about how Jake seemed afraid of him prior to his going missing, he clearly had good reason to feel that way. But I can't help feeling like there was more to that element of the story, too, that they didn't discuss further. Clearly the farm caused a big split within the family dynamics, but I feel like it was the final straw in regards to other family issues that had probably been simmering for years prior to that. 

[Ohmo]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I'm convinced it was the sister and/or her husband and the mother was just covering for them. She must have figured what the hell, she was dying of cancer anyway. Clearly she couldn't have dragged her son all the way downstairs and buried him all by herself if she couldn't even lift a gallon of milk.

I know, but I thought it could be plausible that his mother shot him and sister and brother-in-law disposed of the body.

Or sister could have done it and mother covered for her. In that case, though, you love one child that much and hate the other child that much? They are both your children.

[Court]

12 hours ago, hookedontv said:

Is there enough room on that couch for me? (Please note: I refuse sit on a couch covered in rat feces though.)

First thing I thought of too....

That couch needs to be massive. All I thought about was their teeth.

 

A Hoarders and Dateline crossover episode would be amazing.