All Episodes Discussion

[JudyObscure]

7 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Like others, I don't understand why the roommate who saw the killer when he was leaving the house didn't call the police.

I keep thinking about her.  Dateline didn't do her any favors showing her picture, giving her name, and Keith sounding skeptical about her. 

I did hear a psychiatrist on a news show saying that some people go into a shock like state of fear that can last for hours.  To me that sounds unlikely.  It doesn't take much courage, if you have your phone, to call or text the police that a housemate seemed to be in trouble and a masked stranger was spotted.

I once heard a psychologist say that when children are under stress, like from witnessing their parents have a terrible fight, they go to sleep. It's an avoidance response.  Could this girl have just gone to sleep for 8 hours?

I'm afraid she's going to be hated online and on campus.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I'm afraid she's going to be hated online and on campus.

Another victim of that demented bastard.

[TVbitch]

My thoughts are that several things probably contributed to the one girl not calling the police right away:

1) It seems like they had all been partying the night before. In my college days, I would wake up pretty damn out of it/dazed/still drunk after a night of drinking. In a stupor like that, it would be easy to see and even be unnerved by something, but not fully perceive or understand the situation and just want to lock the door and go back to bed. 

2) That house seemed to be full of people/strangers all the time, so maybe seeing some guy walk past her and go out the sliding door was not that completely weird. Maybe in her dazed state she could just tell herself that one of girls had a guy over or somebody had passed out there and he was leaving. They really didn't say what kind of "mask" he had on. Maybe it was a COVID mask or a winter weather thing.

[LuvMyShows]

On 1/7/2023 at 2:24 PM, PsychoKlown said:

I’d like to add that Birch View Drive is one place I would not want to live. 

The Three Musketeers or The Three Amigos were beyond nosy, intrusive and just plain old annoying.  The one “best friend” tried as hard as she could to muster a few tears but alas, none came. That small detail did not stop her thought from wiping her eye and cheeks not once, not twice but three times.  Lord have Mercy. 

I feel better seeing that someone else came to that same conclusion, cause I thought maybe I was just being overly harsh when I thought I noticed that!

[iMonrey]

The Idaho college murders have been all over the news lately so it's no surprise Dateline would jump on the bandwagon, but episodes like this seem pretty pointless to me. There's just not enough information yet - understandably, since the prosecution hasn't even presented their case yet. This was just two hours rehashing things that have already been reported.

Quote

I knew it'd be two hours and I couldn't fathom how they'd fill that time given how early it is in the case.

Well it seems like an hour of it was spent talking about a white Elantra! I swear to God. At some point I literally yelled "Please stop talking about the Elantra!"

The other really frustrating thing was how there was next to nothing mentioned about the two surviving roommates. That's a huge part of the story, and all we got was a statement from one of them at the very end. Nothing from the other. That drove me crazy. If they can't even tell that much of the story yet, then it's not time to tell any of the story.

Also, the friend in the blue sweater had the worst case of vocal fry. I wish speech lessons were mandatory in school to correct people who talk like that. Or else that Dateline had a speech advisor on hand to prompt witnesses to speak up and not croak out their words. I swear, is this some sort of generational epidemic?

[Lsk02]

The biggest thing I learned from this episode is how little respect Keith has for the internet sleuthers! He spoke of them with disdain, for sure. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

The biggest thing I learned from this episode is how little respect Keith has for the internet sleuthers! He spoke of them with disdain, for sure. 

That's another thing. There was so much time devoted to armchair detectives on social media I thought they were going to play some part in cracking the case, but they didn't. Just more pointless filler in a bloated 2-hour episode.

[Whimsy]

On 1/14/2023 at 12:07 PM, Irlandesa said:

This is why I haven't watched the episode yet. I knew it'd be two hours and I couldn't fathom how they'd fill that time given how early it is in the case. I am not a fan of Dateline doing episodes about recently breaking murders/crimes.  I get why they feel like they need to strike while the iron is hot but the episodes simultaneously feel overdone (because the news is covering the case too) and not enough (because so much is still not known.)

 

21 hours ago, iMonrey said:

The Idaho college murders have been all over the news lately so it's no surprise Dateline would jump on the bandwagon, but episodes like this seem pretty pointless to me. There's just not enough information yet - understandably, since the prosecution hasn't even presented their case yet. This was just two hours rehashing things that have already been reported.

I’m usually frustrated with Dateline in particular but also 20/20 in that they rehash the same old stories over and over. I always wonder why they can’t feature a lesser known story. Murders happen every single day. You can’t tell me none of the, are interesting. However, these murders were just too soon. The suspect hadn’t even submitted a plea yet. Also, I had watched 48 hours and saw that both Dateline and 20/20 were covering the same story so I skipped both. There just isn’t enough information yet. My heart goes out to the families, but I just don’t think it’s helpful or worthwhile to hear the same information from three different shows with no resolution.  

[12catcrazy]

59 minutes ago, Whimsy said:

 

I’m usually frustrated with Dateline in particular but also 20/20 in that they rehash the same old stories over and over. I always wonder why they can’t feature a lesser known story. Murders happen every single day. You can’t tell me none of the, are interesting. However, these murders were just too soon. The suspect hadn’t even submitted a plea yet. Also, I had watched 48 hours and saw that both Dateline and 20/20 were covering the same story so I skipped both. There just isn’t enough information yet. My heart goes out to the families, but I just don’t think it’s helpful or worthwhile to hear the same information from three different shows with no resolution.  

48 Hours, Dateline, and 20/20 are all covering this story because there is such massive national interest in it.  There may not be much to tell us that hasn't already been covered in an evening news show or online but its all about the ratings.   I watched both 48 Hours and Dateline and knew that there wasn't much they could tell us but I wanted to see each show's "take" on the story.

Frankly, I really hope that the police got their man in this case.  The evidence is mostly circumstantial but it seems to be a drip, drip, drip in that it adds up to pointing the finger at this guy.   And I'm afraid that his lawyer is going to use all the national publicity and interest about this case to argue that there is no way he can get a fair trial basically anywhere.   

Since I'm among friends here, I'm going to put in my two cents as a person who has been reading about "True Crime"  for over 50 years (I was weaned on the Sunday NY Daily News Justice Story, and was given a  multi volume True Crime "encyclopedia" when I was 15 as a gift).   I'm going to guess that our killer became obsessed with one of the blond girls and started stalking her.  I don't think she was a "random" victim but I think that the other people killed were collateral damage.    I believe it was on Dateline that it was mentioned that the killer probably didn't expect to have a large young man staying at the house and he probably killed him and his girlfriend first.   Supposedly, the two blond friends were in the same room, so if he planned to kill one girl, he had to kill the other.    The witness girl who saw him was probably spared because the killer was probably wrapped up in thinking that he'd better get the hell out of there fast.   

My guess is that he was able to dispatch all four victims so quickly was that it was 4 am and the victims were sleeping and had probably also had been drinking so maybe their responses would be much slower than if everybody had been stone cold sober and awake at noon.  

If only one of the young women had been killed, it would have of course shocked the town but maybe not have made national news.  I think that the killer was planning on one murder and circumstances turned it into four.  Would the killer have gone on to murder other people if he had gotten away with this crime?  I don't know - he was supposedly interested in the BTK Serial Killer - but I believe that the bottom line here was an obsession with one girl.  I just hope they got the right guy and he gets put away for life. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

48 Hours, Dateline, and 20/20 are all covering this story because there is such massive national interest in it. 

And I've been scratching my head wondering why every since I started seeing the stories all over the place. Is it because the victims were all young and pretty? 

[BusyOctober]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

And I've been scratching my head wondering why every since I started seeing the stories all over the place. Is it because the victims were all young and pretty?

Yup.  Just like Gabi Petito, and so many (too many) other young, pretty, white, middle-class women.  Not much media attention for missing/ murdered women of color.

[12catcrazy]

18 hours ago, iMonrey said:

And I've been scratching my head wondering why every since I started seeing the stories all over the place. Is it because the victims were all young and pretty? 

They were young and pretty and there were four of them and they were living in a "safe" small town where pretty much the worse crime is probably stupid stuff done by drunk college kids.    It plays on the fear of parents who already have anxiety about their kids leaving the nest, and it's like if your kid isn't safe in a place like Moscow, Idaho, where can they ever be safe?

I also think it has something to do with how young people today keep putting themselves out there on TiK Tok and other apps.  It like when Andy Warhol said that "in the future, everybody will have 15 minutes of fame".  The first thing I think of is yeah, put yourself out there where every obsessive psycho can see you and pretty quickly find out who you are and where you live.  But young people being who they are and being raised in the world of social media don't look like it that way.  

It's rotten that missing and/or murdered Women of Color don't receive as much attention.   And part of that might be racial and part of it might be because many of these victims aren't living in "safe" areas or in "safe" situations. Also not traversing America in a van and putting the adventures on You Tube.   A young Black woman is murdered by a jealous boyfriend with a machete - oh well.  Might get a few days mention in the NY Daily News but nothing to see here on National TV unless they are doing a story on domestic violence.  

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, 12catcrazy said:

It's rotten that missing and/or murdered Women of Color don't receive as much attention.   And part of that might be racial and part of it might be because many of these victims aren't living in "safe" areas or in "safe" situations. Also not traversing America in a van and putting the adventures on You Tube.   A young Black woman is murdered by a jealous boyfriend with a machete - oh well.  Might get a few days mention in the NY Daily News but nothing to see here on National TV unless they are doing a story on domestic violence.  

One of my podcasts had Josh Mankiewicz on as a guest.  For the life of me I cannot remember which podcast.  Anyway, Josh was an interesting guest and said specifically that their audience likes for a case to be wrapped up and completed before Dateline does their story.  In other words, Dateline's audience doesn't want to hear of a murder/kidnapping etc., without some finality meaning court cases.

My point is that somehow Dateline wants to know what their audience wants.  I am dismayed too that there aren't enough stories about people of color missing or murdered.  Why not?  Is it because no one is letting Dateline know that we're aware there's a discrepancy in the reporting.

A bit back on this message board I called out Andrea Canning.  She did one story about missing indigenous women and her level of cluelessness was mind boggling.

She actually said to the relative of the missing woman (paraphrased) It's a shame that these stories are not reported by the mainstream media.

I let out such a yelp when she said that.  Is Miss Halter-Top, sheer skirt, 9 inch heels also clueless on what comes out of her mouth.  SHE HAS A VOICE IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA.  USE IT !!  

I have several suggestions for potential two-hour Datelines.  Several.  Get with it producers...your audience wants this. 

On a side note I do remember a question posed to Josh about 20/20 and 48 Hours and does Dateline feel pressured with their reporting.  Josh said they never say "20/20 or 48 Hours".  They are referred to as "The other show" and "Avis".

Avis?  Yeah, because they try harder to get your business.

Wish I could remember that podcast name.  

 

 

[bluegirl147]

On 1/16/2023 at 4:42 PM, 12catcrazy said:

 I'm going to guess that our killer became obsessed with one of the blond girls and started stalking her.  I don't think she was a "random" victim but I think that the other people killed were collateral damage. 

People magazine had a story about this case and it said BK followed at least two of the victims on social media.  That is the only place I have seen that reported. If that is true he might have seen posts that made him think the house wasn't as occupied as it was that night.  

[Irlandesa]

Oh I do not know about this conclusion.  Not one bit. In fact, unless there's more evidence--any evidence--that Dateline didn't offer, I am uneasy that the jury thought this case didn't have reasonable doubt.

It seems they hung their hat on the opinion that the murder couldn't have taken place after the husband left even though the original opinion was that it was possible and multiple experts testified for the defense that it was possible.

And the fact that he was ABD with his PhD.  I'd never do it but fudging qualifications with very little left to do isn't uncommon.  And it's certainly not proof of being capable of violence which he never displayed in any of his other marriages?  Even though the ex-wives would have no reason to hide any abuse if they experienced it. 

He did have a lot of marriages but they could easily be the result of the trauma of losing his wife. 

But more damning to me is that the sex offender they suspected (and didn't overly pursue), who lived close and was actually capable of sexual violence and murder tried to confess.  He may have details wrong but again, literally capable of murder. 

And the jury really didn't have reasonable doubt?  I'm not arguing innocence but this just feels like so much trust is placed on what the cops and prosecutors think rather than evidence. 

Oh and fuck you to the cop who said the husband wouldn't have had any experience to not trust cops and therefore hiring a lawyer was suspicious.  I liked Andrea's question there and I wish she would have pressed further.  All you have to know is that cops are human and prone to the same confirmation bias as anyone else to know having a lawyer around to protect you is a smart thing. He should have insisted on having one when they appeared on his doorstep.

[nora1992]

Regarding the 1/20 Dateline episode, I heard a quote the other day that seems to apply to this case: innocent until proven guilty is often overlooked.  Now you have to prove who really did it (paraphrased from my memory).  This case embodies that idea.  The daughter saw a “bad man” - if that doesn’t create doubt, what would?

[TVbitch]

To be fair, I was a little bored and spent most of the 2 hours analyzing AC's eyebrows. 😁 Having said that, it didn't seem like they had enough evidence. It was more like, a lack of other evidence. 

It did seem like a staged crime scene. What burglar finds a woman and child sleeping in th home and decides to axe mom in the head instead of A) leaving; B) using a kitchen knife or something if they are intent of robbing the place; but then C) doesn't even take anything! 

The sexual predator thing didn't make sense either. They said maybe he was mad because he was on a court ordered drug at the time so that he could not get an erection. So he goes into their house just to kill her with something he might find in there? Then ransacks but doesn't steal anything? And leaves no DNA?  

The daughters only sketchy memory was that she may or may not have seen the "bad man." That sounds like something she have been told by her dad and adopted it into her memory. 

The letter to the police from the "affair" guy. Well, no burglar sent that, so either the sexual predator guy or the husband was trying to throw the police a red herring. 

[iMonrey]

I have a lot of thoughts about The Bad Man.

That initial investigator was so smug about the fact that the husband went and got a lawyer. "If you come home and find your wife murdered why would you need a lawyer?" Andrea: "Everyone trusts the police!"

Uh, NO. Geez Andrea, are you new? Maybe she was being facetious, it's hard to tell because she says so many dumb things. But I've watched enough Dateline to know that's exactly what you should do. There was even an episode about a married couple who were arrested for (I think) the murder of one of their parents. They were eventually exonerated, but their takeaway - and message to us, the audience - was "get a lawyer and don't talk to the police."

Flash forward 30+ years, they are interrogating him and think it's "suspicious" he seems uncomfortable. Duh! They're accusing him of murdering his wife, they don't think he should be uncomfortable?

Also, the detectives who flew to Houston to question the daughter were very heavy-handed and manipulative with her. I didn't like that conversation at all.

I do not think it was suspicious that the husband took his kid and left so soon after. That's exactly what I would do. Even Andrea agreed. 

Then there's the fact that none of his other wives ever said he was violent or had a temper.

Plus the serial rapist who lived four minutes away and confessed to the crime! I don't think the fact that he couldn't remember what she looked like invalidates that confession completely.

I also question the ability to pinpoint the time of death 40 years after the fact. Especially when it had been determined to be later at the time of the crime.

Finally, what kind of monster would leave their three year old all alone in the house like that? If he was that big a monster it's hard to believe she felt so close to him for all those years.

I don't know how much of this the jury heard or understood, but judging just by this show, I'd have had enough reasonable doubt to vote not guilty

Quote

The sexual predator thing didn't make sense either. They said maybe he was mad because he was on a court ordered drug at the time so that he could not get an erection. So he goes into their house just to kill her with something he might find in there? Then ransacks but doesn't steal anything? And leaves no DNA?  

That part actually made sense to me after the defense explained it. He went into the house with the intention of raping her, couldn't get it up and killed her in a furious rage. 

I'm not convinced the scene was "staged," given the attitude of the initial lead investigator. That's just his opinion. I don't know there's anything significant about what was found where, given that a three year old was wandering around the house alone all day. And just because they didn't find any foreign DNA doesn't mean there wasn't any. They may not have even searched for it back then.

[Guest]

Not that this would change a thing but regarding the ABD for the dissertation:  the defense attorneys said he "failed" his oral defense of the dissertation but could spend a month and "fix" it for Kodak so that wasn't an issue.

In some universities and in some departments you cannot fix the mistakes if you failed your oral defense of your research.  That's it.  One bite of the apple and you're done.  I have a friend who failed his oral defense of his dissertation at Penn State University and boom...done.  His only option was to enroll in another PhD program and start over.  He refused to do that because he went through so much work, time and expense.  He also heard through the grapevine that the serious universities (ones that offered graduate assistantships or research assistantships) would never accept a student who failed the oral comprehensives or defense.  They're looking for success.  He failed once, odds are strong it will happen again.

I can't speak for all universities but when the subject comes up and I mention my friend several people agree that their universities practice the same.

Anyway, not sure it would be much of a reason to put an ax in your wife's head but it could have added to the pressure of finances and the possibility that Kodak would release him from his contract if his PhD was a requirement for his job.  

One more thing.  The sister of the deceased professed that she and her father wanted a relationship with Sara and that the door would always be open.  I get that...what I didn't get is marching out of the courtroom after the verdict whooping and hollering that "they got him".   Perhaps a more subtle display after the verdict in the hall, and a let loose one in private.  Sara loves/adores her father.  Trying to establish a relationship with her after that display, I think, would only make it harder.  

Sad all around.  Really sad.

[Irlandesa]

10 hours ago, iMonrey said:

That initial investigator was so smug about the fact that the husband went and got a lawyer. "If you come home and find your wife murdered why would you need a lawyer?" Andrea: "Everyone trusts the police!"

Uh, NO. Geez Andrea, are you new?

I think you missed the "not." (Or I misheard a 'not' because she did strike me as critical of the cop's POV). She said "not everyone trusts the police."  It was actually one of her finer moments, IMO.  And the smug original investigator had the gall to say that he (the husband) didn't have any reason to not trust the police.  I don't know what his implication was.  But basically, I assume the cop was trying to say he's not the guy cops normally harass so he shouldn't have been afraid of them.

11 hours ago, TVbitch said:

The letter to the police from the "affair" guy. Well, no burglar sent that, so either the sexual predator guy or the husband was trying to throw the police a red herring. 

Or it was just something random.  Strange stuff can happen in murder cases.  They weren't able to tie it to him nor were they able to find out who sent it. 

Edited January 22, 2023 by Irlandesa

[nora1992]

1 hour ago, TVbitch said:

The daughters only sketchy memory was that she may or may not have seen the "bad man." That sounds like something she have been told by her dad and adopted it into her memory. 

The letter to the police from the "affair" guy. Well, no burglar sent that, so either the sexual predator guy or the husband was trying to throw the police a red herring. 

I thought the daughter mentioned the bad man at the same time she drew the pictures.  Is that wrong?

As for the staging, it was done by someone who left an ax in a human head.  A lack of logic is not surprising.

But the letter was sent by someone who sounded like drawing attention to the husband was the whole point.  

[TVbitch]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

That part actually made sense to me after the defense explained it. He went into the house with the intention of raping her, couldn't get it up and killed her in a furious rage

True, but I thought she was asleep when the axe went into her forehead. If he tried to rape her first, she would obviously be awake and why would she just lay there while someone swung an axe into her face. They did not say she had been choked or otherwise subdued. It's all just so bizarre! 

[LakeGal]

It seems I am all alone on this one.  I think the husband did it.

[Enigma X]

43 minutes ago, LakeGal said:

It seems I am all alone on this one.  I think the husband did it.

I also think he did it. I also think those who don't bring up valid points.

[nora1992]

46 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

I also think he did it. I also think those who don't bring up valid points.

I don’t know if he did or not, but there is - in my opinion - reasonable doubt.  It seems as if it took years, and the lack of an arrest of anyone else, for the arrest to come.  But one detective’s opinion on shoe prints?  Were the original investigators so clueless that they never tried to match the prints to the actual shoes in 1982?  I don’t know he didn’t do it, but there are still questions.

[12catcrazy]

I think that the husband was guilty (for pretty much all of the reasons given by the prosecution) but I don't think they had enough evidence to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". 

There didn't seem to be anything new from what they had in 1982 and if they thought they had enough evidence now, they should have charged him then. 

It still boggles my mind how somebody could put an axe into his wife's head and leave his child alone with her mother's body for 8 hours and also go to work and be in meetings and deal with other work stuff and act as if nothing was wrong.  And to also go on with his life for the next 40 years as if he didn't commit a horrible  murder.    And you wonder what happened with this guy mentally to make him "snap" like that.  There wasn't the usual spousal murder stuff like an affair, insurance policies, tons of money/assets to be split.  And his ex-wives didn't seem to have a bunch of nasty stuff to say about him and his daughter seemed to adore him.   This was a very odd case.  

The more I watch shows like this, the even less I understand my fellow humans.   

[pdlinda]

55 minutes ago, 12catcrazy said:

I think that the husband was guilty (for pretty much all of the reasons given by the prosecution) but I don't think they had enough evidence to be "beyond a reasonable doubt". 

I would have voted not guilty if I were on that jury because, as you say, regardless of whether or not he did it, the State DID NOT meet their burden to prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt." 

I thought Jim's defense team did an excellent job of raising doubt in several areas.  As a matter of fact, I leaned toward finding him guilty BEFORE the defense presented their case.  Then I changed my mind.

I was surprised they didn't interview the jury to see what the dynamics were among all the members to convict.  In any event, I hope some circumstance arises where he can get a new trial.

Last, I was surprised that the couple was in such precarious financial shape necessitating them receiving numerous collection notices, the inability to fix a washing machine and only having 1 car. 

If they didn't make such a "big deal" over Kathy "marrying up" into such a wealthy family, I might have felt otherwise; however, that there wouldn't have been some "family money"--a trust or a loan that would have supplemented his salary at Kodak (that apparently was not sufficient for them to live comfortably), was very surprising to me. 

I agree that Jim's panic over losing his job because he lied about receiving his PhD. and the financial stress the family was apparently experiencing, might have led him to "snap" and kill Kathy; however, I'm surprised that at least 1 juror didn't have a "reasonable doubt."

Edited January 21, 2023 by pdlinda

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, nora1992 said:

I don’t know he didn’t do it, but there are still questions.

Yep.  It's not about guilt/innocence for me.  And it's not even about having questions because I don't expect the prosecution or defense to answer every open question. 

But it's about what the definition of reasonable doubt is.  And it makes me nervous that this met the burden for 12 jurors.

I mean, even her family felt he was innocent.   The thing that changed their minds was that he moved and took their granddaughter with him.  Basically,  a separate non-violent family dispute did it.  They were mostly mad at him for that and transferred their anger. 

6 hours ago, TVbitch said:

True, but I thought she was asleep when the axe went into her forehead. If he tried to rape her first, she would obviously be awake and why would she just lay there while someone swung an axe into her face.

I think she was in bed.  I don't know how they'd know for sure she was sleeping. 

[Josiemae]

I agree that there appears to be reasonable doubt from the evidence we are privy to. With such slim circumstantial evidence, I think Krauseneck's legal team screwed up big time by not requesting the case be tried by a judge only, waiving the right to a trial by jury. (Apparently that is allowed in New York State for crimes other than first-degree murder.) I believe a judge's verdict would have resulted in an acquittal. 

 

 

[UsernameFatigue]

3 hours ago, Josiemae said:

I agree that there appears to be reasonable doubt from the evidence we are privy to. With such slim circumstantial evidence, I think Krauseneck's legal team screwed up big time by not requesting the case be tried by a judge only, waiving the right to a trial by jury. (Apparently that is allowed in New York State for crimes other than first-degree murder.) I believe a judge's verdict would have resulted in an acquittal. 

 

 

As I often do when there is a puzzling case on Dateline, I googled to see if I could find more info on why the jury voted to convict. I could not find any info other than was already presented, and the jury apparently convicted because they agreed that the crime scene was staged and that Jim was the person who staged it. 

What did surprise me was a quote from the presiding judge. He said that he often has sleepless nights over verdicts, but that with regards to this case "I lost no sleep over the verdict". So it sounds like he would have convicted Jim as well. 

There are certainly suspicious things, like James leaving with Sara right away, and basically not contacting police...ever... to see how the case was progressing. And also taking Sara away from her mother's family, even though initially they did not think he was guilty. 

What I can't wrap my head around was, if James was the killer, leaving his daughter alone with her dead mother for the entire day. I can only surmise that he may have thought the friend who was supposed to take Cathy to the Dr appointment would have stopped by when she could not get hold of her, and discovered Cathy. 

In any case given what we saw on the episode, I could not have convicted Jim as I do not think the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

In any case given what we saw on the episode, I could not have convicted Jim as I do not think the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

I wonder if opinions of reasonable doubt would change if we were able to see this court case in total.

The miracle of Dateline allows them to pick and choose what and how we see it. 

And a really good question.  Why didn’t we see a few of the jurors?  Usually they’re more than happy to make an appearance and spout their opinions. Wonder why?

[tinderbox]

7 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

 

“…What I can't wrap my head around was, if James was the killer, leaving his daughter alone with her dead mother for the entire day. I can only surmise that he may have thought the friend who was supposed to take Cathy to the Dr appointment would have stopped by when she could not get hold of her, and discovered Cathy….”

 

Bingo ^^^

You just answered one of the biggest questions I had regarding this case.  I couldn’t wrap my mind around why he left his daughter alone in the house for hours.  You’re absolutely correct. Thank you.

[iMonrey]

Quote

the jury apparently convicted because they agreed that the crime scene was staged and that Jim was the person who staged it. 

That's the thing, I'm not convinced the crime scene was "staged." They showed a few pictures of things lying around, apparently in a state of disarray, but so what? There was a three year old wandering around the house alone all day. Who knows what she got up to, she may have just been pulling things down from shelves and out of drawers and playing with them.

Quote

I can only surmise that he may have thought the friend who was supposed to take Cathy to the Dr appointment would have stopped by when she could not get hold of her, and discovered Cathy….”

That's still a long time to leave a three year old alone. Plus to be able to go to work the whole day and go about his business without anyone seeing anything unusual in his behavior suggests he's a sociopath at best. We had no witnesses to testify he exhibited sociopathic behavior. 

The serial rapist who confessed to the ax murder still seems like the more likely suspect to me.

[UsernameFatigue]

4 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

I wonder if opinions of reasonable doubt would change if we were able to see this court case in total.

The miracle of Dateline allows them to pick and choose what and how we see it. 

And a really good question.  Why didn’t we see a few of the jurors?  Usually they’re more than happy to make an appearance and spout their opinions. Wonder why?

That is why I was checking online for stories last night as usually Dateline does leave out pertinent information. I did some more digging this morning and found info that likely led to Jim's conviction. The original medical examiner said that Cathy was killed after Jim said he left for work at 6:30 am. 

In 2015 when the case was looked at again, the new expert Bader said that  Cathy's body temperature when found, undigested food in her stomach and rigor mortis pointed to her being killed some time between 9pm the night before, and 3-4 in the morning. Which of course would point to Jim as the murderer. 

There was apparently tension in the marriage due to Jim lying about having obtained his PHD, and a marriage counselling pamphlet was found in the car. A co worker also testified that he had lunch with Jim on the day of the murder, and Jim seemed very tense, and almost on the verge of tears. 

In any case the change in opinion on time of death seems to be a big point in what convicted Jim. Not sure though why it took so many years for the evidence to be re examined, but I guess that is the way of cold cases. 

 

[Irlandesa]

56 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

In 2015 when the case was looked at again, the new expert Bader said that  Cathy's body temperature when found, undigested food in her stomach and rigor mortis pointed to her being killed some time between 9pm the night before, and 3-4 in the morning. Which of course would point to Jim as the murderer. 

Dateline did address this.  The original examination believed that the murder could have taken place after he left for work.  The new ME decided that it couldn't have happened.

But his defense team put on experts of their own who agreed with the original conclusion that the murder taking place after he left for work couldn't be ruled out. 

I also have a hard time believing she never discussed her husband's situation with her family.

10 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

There are certainly suspicious things, like James leaving with Sara right away, and basically not contacting police...ever... to see how the case was progressing. And also taking Sara away from her mother's family, even though initially they did not think he was guilty. 

It sounds like they both were originally from MI so he left to go back to be with his family.  And while moving to Seattle seemed to piss off the family, we don't know why he moved to Seattle.  It could have been for a job.  He went with his whole family. 

I also don't know that I'd reach out to the police if I knew I were their prime suspect.  I'd just assume they'd contact me.  I can't imagine everyone reaches out to the police to see the status of the case.  The reason I say that is because when a family member does keep reaching out, Dateline mentions how relentless they were in their pursuit of justice. 

[AuntieDiane6]

20 hours ago, nora1992 said:

Were the original investigators so clueless that they never tried to match the prints to the actual shoes in 1982?

It does seem that the investigators were inept.  Living in Rochester like I do, I suspect they doubted an economist with a sterling record working for Kodak would do such a violent crime.  Kodak RULED Rochester back then.  

So they spent their efforts looking for another suspect. 

I had read in local media a few years ago that Kathy had found out about the fake PhD and confronted him the day before her death.  

[Court]

I kept waiting for there to be a smoking gun saying it was the husband. While I think he did it, I couldn't have convicted him. 

I also wonder if the police missed things since they dismissed the sexual predator so quickly and never investigated the husband. 

[UsernameFatigue]

Though I am also leaning towards Jim being guilty, I don't know that I could have convicted him given what we were told in the episode. I would really like to know what made the judge say that he lost no sleep over the verdict.

One piece of info I came across (and forgive me if this was already brought up in the epi as I did fall asleep for a bit of it) was that the original medical examiner at first put the time of death between 4:30 and 7:30 am, plus or minus two hours. That would have put Jim in the home for 4 hours before he said he left for work at 6:30.

[Kiss my mutt]

I was honestly surprised at the verdict in this case. Like many of you, I didn’t think the prosecution met the burden of proof un this one. I sure would have been a hold-out on the jury, unless there’s more evidence that wasn’t featured in the show. 

[Ohmo]

On 1/21/2023 at 3:20 PM, LakeGal said:

It seems I am all alone on this one.  I think the husband did it.

No, you aren't.  We're a party of two.  I think he did it too.  I think Mr. Ph.D was smug enough to think he'd get away with it.  I also think he left Sara in the house because he knew she was young and wouldn't remember what happened.  He couldn't take her with him or take her to a neighbor's without arousing suspicion.  She'd be safe in the house insofar as she couldn't get out, and she'd provide a heck of an alibi for when he got home and "found Cathy,"

Even if the sexual predator tried to rape her and failed, there would still be DNA somewhere in that house or on her.  Not semen, but DNA.  Skin cells.  Something.  They found no DNA that didn't belong to James, Sara, or Cathy.  I don't buy that the sexual predator could have cleaned up THAT well!

Lots of criminals have confessed to crimes that the didn't do for the sake of notoriety.  I also think the scene was staged.  You're going to have a silver tray set just sitting pretty like that in the living room?  Why is it there to begin with, and why is it so neat?

I think Sara's grandfather is exactly right.  James brainwashed her as her only parent and knew he'd be able to do so.  James kept her close to his family, not Cathy's so he could control the narrative.  Whether ski mask guy exists or not, that doesn't mean it was the sexual predator.  Wearing a ski mask in Rochester, NY in February isn't indicative of criminal intent.  It's cold there in the winter.

I think James is guilty.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Ohmo

[Ohmo]

Regarding the issue of reasonable doubt, I think defense lawyers have to remember that most jurors aren't also lawyers.  Sometimes I think they forget this.  Anything is possible, but that doesn't make it so.  Saying that it could have been a sexual predator doesn't automatically make it so.  These days, I think many jurors (who aren't lawyers) think "OK, this person died.  Someone killed her.  We have a husband and we have a potential intruder."

Then, they begin to weigh the options on the basis of the evidence. I think jurors have gotten more savvy and don't simply see "reasonable doubt" as the introduction of a second suspect. "Reasonable doubt" is about the plausibility of the suspects. Even though the sexual offender is offered as a suspect, I still find the husband as a more plausible culprit based on the evidence presented. Reasonable doubt has been satisfied for me.  Even though the other guy exists, I think James did it, and I would have convicted him.

[MsJamieDornan]

There wasnt really enough evidence to convict him. But when they mentioned that the axe that was used to kill her was from their own garage, that made me think twice.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I also think he left Sara in the house because he knew she was young and wouldn't remember what happened.  He couldn't take her with him or take her to a neighbor's without arousing suspicion.  She'd be safe in the house insofar as she couldn't get out, and she'd provide a heck of an alibi for when he got home and "found Cathy,"

Safe? She was three years old. She could have fallen down the stairs and broken her neck, or broken any number of things in the house and cut herself on them. 

Quote

Even if the sexual predator tried to rape her and failed, there would still be DNA somewhere in that house or on her.  Not semen, but DNA.  Skin cells.  Something.  They found no DNA that didn't belong to James, Sara, or Cathy. 

Yeah, how hard did they look though? This was in the 80s.

Quote

It seems I am all alone on this one.  I think the husband did it.

You're not alone. I think there's every possibility the husband is guilty. It's Dateline after all. I just think in this case there was reasonable doubt. I'm about 50/50 or less on the husband's guilt.

[DonnaMae]

15 hours ago, Ohmo said:

  She'd be safe in the house insofar as she couldn't get out

One of the investigators said the front door was open.  It seems odd to me that Sara, who was almost four at the time, didn't run over to the neighbor's house after she discovered her mother with an ax in her head.  She just went back to her room and her dolls.  

Edited January 24, 2023 by DonnaMae
To add something.

[DonnaMae]

When I started watching this episode, it wasn't long before I thought that the husband did it.  That's because in nearly every episode of this show the spouse is the killer.  Are there no murders in this country that Dateline could cover where someone outside of the family is the murderer?

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, DonnaMae said:

One of the investigators said the front door was open. 

If I recall, that was after James had supposedly come home and taken Sara out of the house.

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Safe? She was three years old. She could have fallen down the stairs and broken her neck, or broken any number of things in the house and cut herself on them. 

I don't dispute that, but of his available options, she would be the 'safest" in her home that she already knew. In 1982, there was no "take your child to work day." He couldn't show up at work with her, and he couldn't leave her with anyone.  That wouldn't instantly arouse suspicion.

Sara being in the house is odd for a parent to do that, but look at what Josh Powell and Lori Vallow did to their kids. James leaving Sara alone in the house doesn't seem so far-fetched.  I think he got lucky. 

The lack of DNA from anyone outside the house, the fact that Cathy was killed with an ax that was theirs, the fact the crime scene appeared staged...all of that points to him for me,  The ax was theirs.  I think it's more likely that James used it than the other guy going to find it and using it. If the other guy had attempted to rape her, failed, and then he decided to kill her, I think it'd be more likely that he would have strangled her. For me, various elements of the crime point to familiarity with the scene, and that points to James, in my opinion.

Quote

She just went back to her room and her dolls.  

I'm wondering if that also points to James.  Did he tell her to do that? "Go play with your dolls.  It's OK."

Edited January 24, 2023 by Ohmo

[Mondrianyone]

Is it possible they didn't find the DNA of anyone else because the ability to test for touch DNA didn't yet exist? Real question--I don't know the answer.

[mostlylurking]

On 1/21/2023 at 11:44 AM, Irlandesa said:

I think you missed the "not." (Or I misheard a 'not' because she did strike me as critical of the cop's POV). She said "not everyone trusts the police."  It was actually one of her finer moments, IMO.  And the smug original investigator had the gall to say that he (the husband) didn't have any reason to not trust the police.  I don't know what his implication was.  But basically, I assume the cop was trying to say he's not the guy cops normally harass so he shouldn't have been afraid of them.

I liked that Andrea kind of called him out on that.  His attitude is exactly why some people have such poor opinions about cops.  No asshat, just because he hired a lawyer doesn’t make him guilty or mean he has anything to hide.  He just doesn’t want to get his words twisted by a jerky cop like you.

I had chills all over my body thinking of that poor child home alone all day with her mother’s dead body.  And then the dad came home to find her curled up in her bed in a daze.  Mismatched clothes.  No breakfast.  That just broke my heart.

[LuvMyShows]

 

On 1/21/2023 at 11:51 AM, iMonrey said:

That part actually made sense to me after the defense explained it. He went into the house with the intention of raping her, couldn't get it up and killed her in a furious rage. 

That part doesn't work for me because by this time, he would be very well acquainted with the results on his body of the chemical castration, so he would have already known that he wouldn't be able to get it up and rape her, hence no reason to go in and think that he would be able to get it up and successfully rape her, and then get so frustrated by something not at all unexpected. 

On 1/21/2023 at 11:51 AM, iMonrey said:

I also question the ability to pinpoint the time of death 40 years after the fact. Especially when it had been determined to be later at the time of the crime.

On 1/23/2023 at 1:58 AM, UsernameFatigue said:

 One piece of info I came across (and forgive me if this was already brought up in the epi as I did fall asleep for a bit of it) was that the original medical examiner at first put the time of death between 4:30 and 7:30 am, plus or minus two hours. That would have put Jim in the home for 4 hours before he said he left for work at 6:30.

On 1/22/2023 at 12:31 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

That is why I was checking online for stories last night as usually Dateline does leave out pertinent information. I did some more digging this morning and found info that likely led to Jim's conviction. The original medical examiner said that Cathy was killed after Jim said he left for work at 6:30 am. 

In 2015 when the case was looked at again, the new expert Bader said that  Cathy's body temperature when found, undigested food in her stomach and rigor mortis pointed to her being killed some time between 9pm the night before, and 3-4 in the morning. Which of course would point to Jim as the murderer. 

The whole thing with the time of death and food was so murky and it made me mad.  When the detectives visited his sister (?) (sorry, can't remember for sure who the lady was) all those years later, they said that they were now able to pinpoint the exact time that murder had occurred, but that is total crap.  The only way I've ever heard of to pinpoint the exact time of a murder (other than a precise confession or eyewitness), is either to have video evidence or if the person was wearing a Fitbit-type of device.  The food thing and rigor can give you a range, but a pretty broad and sometimes imprecise range. I don't know if the detectives were just trying to lie and embellish, or if the police/prosecution at that time somehow thought that Baden's analysis actually did result in an exact time of murder.

I also wish they had delved into what Baden said/found, the way that UsernameFatigue did.  Clearly the show found it significant enough to feature as some last-minute-important-development thing, so they could have given us the courtesy of passing along the information to us. 

On 1/22/2023 at 12:31 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

There was apparently tension in the marriage due to Jim lying about having obtained his PHD, and a marriage counselling pamphlet was found in the car. 

I have to agree with the defense on this one.  When they showed the pamphlet, it definitely appeared to be about all kinds of counseling-related needs, not just marriage.

On 1/22/2023 at 1:50 PM, AuntieDiane6 said:

I had read in local media a few years ago that Kathy had found out about the fake PhD and confronted him the day before her death.  

Yes, the Dateline story mentioned that.

On 1/23/2023 at 8:34 PM, Ohmo said:

I also think the scene was staged.  You're going to have a silver tray set just sitting pretty like that in the living room?  Why is it there to begin with, and why is it so neat?

This was actually one of the things that would have held serious sway with me.  They said the silver tray set was placed on the floor and the mail was stacked between the pieces.  Their point, which seems valid, is why on earth would a genuine robber carefully put the tray set on the floor, so that's evidence that it was staged by someone not doing a very good job of ransacking or creating disorder.  And if the defense would say, well, it wasn't the robber who did that, then OK, why would a homeowner place a silver tray set on their living room floor?

On 1/23/2023 at 8:54 PM, Ohmo said:

Then, they begin to weigh the options on the basis of the evidence. I think jurors have gotten more savvy and don't simply see "reasonable doubt" as the introduction of a second suspect. "Reasonable doubt" is about the plausibility of the suspects. Even though the sexual offender is offered as a suspect, I still find the husband as a more plausible culprit based on the evidence presented. Reasonable doubt has been satisfied for me.  Even though the other guy exists, I think James did it, and I would have convicted him.

I think I follow what you're saying, but I don't think that's how "reasonable doubt" works.  Reasonable doubt is not about a comparison, since you don't need any other suspect to still assess reasonable doubt.  Likewise, just because an alternate suspect(s) has been discounted, doesn't affect anything else about whether there is or isn't reasonable doubt from the remainder of the evidence. 

[JudyObscure]

I went back and watched "Dark Water" online again, since Murdaugh is on trial right now. I think it's one of the most interesting Datelines with a really despicable villain.