All Episodes Discussion

[iMonrey]

"The Pin at Apartment 210"

I completely missed what pin they were talking about.

Seems like Jazzy's family had to do their police's work for them.

SELF DEFENSE?
I can appreciate a one-hour show versus and padded two-hour show but what the hell was Jason Chen's motive here? We got zero background on this guy or any sense of a theory why he did this. He didn't have to stab his roommate 52 times to steal his money. WTF.

[Irlandesa]

44 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

I completely missed what pin they were talking about.

Around the time the victim died, she sent a pin to her mother of her location. 

[TVbitch]

Given the disturbing evidence of her car being abandoned, and her personal valuables being in the guy's apartment, aren't the police allowed to go in if someone could be in mortal danger? At that point, she could have still been alive and he might still have her. 

Sounds like Jason was a long time sociopath who enjoyed pulling elaborate destructive "pranks" on people who are supposed to be his friends. I agree we needed more background and information on him.

[iMonrey]

11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Around the time the victim died, she sent a pin to her mother of her location. 

Heh. I'm usually up on technical jargon but I don't think I'd ever heard "sending a pin" before. 

[Irlandesa]

41 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Heh. I'm usually up on technical jargon but I don't think I'd ever heard "sending a pin" before. 

It's something similar tot this. This is pretty generic. 

[Pi237]

Jason’s roommate was vague about his ‘crazy’ pranks other than the last straw being him changing all of his passwords.  He definitely wasn’t saying all he knew about this guy. (Not implying he knew he was a murderer, of course! Just would’ve liked to have heard more about these ‘crazy’ jokes.) 

What a sociopath-kills her, then, goes right back on the dating app while her body was in bags in his apartment.   What was the appeal with this guy? He wasn’t attractive, seemed scary weird… That poor girl. And her poor Mom, she’ll torture herself forever over not seeing that pin. 
 

Kudos to her family, who knew all the things to do-get that neighborhood camera footage, question the other neighbors immediately, thoroughly research her phone, etc.  I’m not hating on the cops, they have a process they’re legally obligated to follow, but they had a case before there even was a case manager assigned.  Too bad they couldn’t save her, that would be absolutely soul crushing to live through. 
 

Stay single, ladies! It’s getting worse and worse out there. 

[iMonrey]

"A Cool Desert Morning." I swear I've seen this one before. 

They had me going for the first hour, it seemed like Susan's parents were simply unable to accept a rather obvious suicide ruling. Then all that stuff the private investigator found out about Brent. The coke habit, the forged check, the life insurance, all the lies he told. Then he admitted in his deposition that Susan threatened to expose his coke habit, and he would lose his license. And finally took an Alford plea. 

I can sort of understand the daughters' position though because Susan did seem to have some pretty serious mental health issues and her daughters would have seen that a lot more than Susan's parents or brother. It also explains why initially the police thought it was such an open and shut case.

[badgerwoman]

20 hours ago, iMonrey said:

"A Cool Desert Morning." I swear I've seen this one before

You have.  It was on after the sentencing.

I just have to say calling the life insurance company right away isn't that unusual.  30 plus years in the industry and people worry about money right away.  

[pdlinda]

On 4/19/2025 at 8:54 AM, iMonrey said:

And finally took an Alford plea. 

I don't know who his lawyer was, but that was ONE SMOKIN' DEAL he obtained for his client! 

From my experience doing criminal defense work, I would say, if he behaves in prison (that one could assume would be the case), he's likely to spend a MINIMAL amount of time behind bars. That's because he's a first-time offender whose crime (in the eyes of the prison authorities) is very "run of the mill."

Actually, as the toxicologist expert testified, Susan's death was one of excruciating cruelty and pain!  

I was surprised that the family, after investing what I think must have been MILLIONS of $$$ in pursuing the case, was OK with the plea deal.  Of course, the prosecutors don't have to follow the family's wishes but it's usually an important component of its decision to offer an Alford plea.

Also, he was held accountable for her death in civil court, so, probably like OJ, he's tie up his future earnings in various ways to avoid having to pay damages to the family he hates with avengence!  

Then, again, he has his daughters' love and support.  Tough for the parents to accept but it's unlikely the daughters will "come around" to accept them into their lives anytime soon.

All in all, I think he should have received at least 25 yrs in prison and that would have likely been the case if there was a trial.  He DIDN'T GET AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE FOR THE HEINOUS CRIME HE COMMITTED.  

Finally, he will still be considered a CONVICTED FELON for the rest of his life, so there's that...AND, his future earnings and reputation may be severely compromised by the fact that he's a confirmed ILLEGAL DRUG ADDICT.  That's a felony offense in my state, SOOO if it's a crime in OKLAHOMA and he's ever charged with that crime (like OJ was put in prison for another crime), he's likely to have the "book thrown at him."

 

 

[Peanut6711]

10 hours ago, pdlinda said:

All in all, I think he should have received at least 25 yrs in prison and that would have likely been the case if there was a trial.  He DIDN'T GET AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE FOR THE HEINOUS CRIME HE COMMITTED.  

100% agree with you. He got off way too easy. The DA should have made the minimum sentience higher considering the defendant came to them for the deal and the family had worked so hard to get justice. 

Shame on the local police for not investigating it better in the first place. So many red flags---he was more interested in telling 911/first responders his story rather than focusing on her medical emergency; there was no suicide note; he had access to the computer to do the searches; he kept her family from seeing her before pulling the plug. 

I felt so bad for the victim's parents, losing a daughter would be horrible enough, but having a murderous drug addict son-in-law and those nasty brainwashed granddaughters added more insult to injury. The oldest daughter especially was a real callous piece of work. 

[pdlinda]

11 hours ago, Peanut6711 said:

The oldest daughter especially was a real callous piece of work. 

Yes...very brazen and falsely "sanctimonious."

We must remember...she had TWO parents...seems like the genetic "bond" is more closely aligned with the convicted felon father.

Also, I wonder how many of Susan's "mental health issues" were caused by whatever severe "stress" she likely suffered in that marriage. 

From my lengthy experience in the field, a person doesn't become an obsessive cocaine addict to the extent he was overnight.  It takes YEARS of trying to cope with life situations by using illegal stimulants (or prescription meds usually obtained illegally) to evolve to the point he was at after Susan's death.  

I would venture to guess that, as I heard many times from clients incarcerated due to illegal drug addiction:  "My household growing up was DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION."  In other words:  A real "crazy house."  That in spite of the financial wealth and his profession as a "psychologist." 

[Peanut6711]

10 hours ago, pdlinda said:

Yes...very brazen and falsely "sanctimonious."

We must remember...she had TWO parents...seems like the genetic "bond" is more closely aligned with the convicted felon father.

Also, I wonder how many of Susan's "mental health issues" were caused by whatever severe "stress" she likely suffered in that marriage. 

From my lengthy experience in the field, a person doesn't become an obsessive cocaine addict to the extent he was overnight.  It takes YEARS of trying to cope with life situations by using illegal stimulants (or prescription meds usually obtained illegally) to evolve to the point he was at after Susan's death.  

I would venture to guess that, as I heard many times from clients incarcerated due to illegal drug addiction:  "My household growing up was DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION."  In other words:  A real "crazy house."  That in spite of the financial wealth and his profession as a "psychologist." 

Agree, the oldest girl was definitely her father's daughter, and the wife's depression and anxiety likely stemmed from her teenage crush turned addict husband. This was certainly one of those times when the person you think is "the one" is better left "the one who got away." Because she got her prince and then found out that he was a coked-out frog. 

[pdlinda]

16 hours ago, Peanut6711 said:

This was certainly one of those times when the person you think is "the one" is better left "the one who got away."

Yes, I was always taught and went on to promote the proposition (as you said):  

"IT'S BETTER TO BE WITH NO ONE THAN TO BE WITH THE WRONG ONE."

Just now, pdlinda said:

Yes, I was always taught and went on to promote the proposition (as you said):  

"IT'S BETTER TO BE WITH NO ONE THAN TO BE WITH THE WRONG ONE."

 

[iMonrey]

These one-hour "Weekend Mysteries" all seem to be regurgitated and abridged versions of earlier two-hour episodes. And all the ones I've seen so far have been spouses murdering spouses.

Can we get a moratorium on the killer being the spouse? It's getting too obvious. Surely there are other murderers out there.

[badgerwoman]

last night's the Devil in the Details.  Wow.  This is a case where I wish we'd hear from the jury.  Not that I think the wife was wrongfully convicted, I just thought it was a tough case.

A couple of things - has anyone heard of anyone taking insulin as part of treatment for cancer?  I am old enough now to know a lot of people who have gone thru treatment and not once did anyone say they were taking insulin.  And for god's sake, don't invest your retirement savings into a new business venture even if you are related to the owners. 

I was also not surprised when they said the wife was faking the cancer.  I have a hard time thinking the husband didn't know that unless he was completely out of it because she was drugging him already.

I want more details about this.

 

[iMonrey]

The Devil's in the Details:

I'm not sure about this one either. The problem is that the wife looks so suspicious because of all the lies she told. But it seems far fetched to imagine the husband wasn't in on the scam the whole time. And it's a fact that this guy was so into performance enhancing supplements and illegal substances it could have been accidental. I also thought the defense made a couple of good points about the lack of motive, and why she would have called someone for help if she were trying to kill him.

The sticking point is the insulin. It's possible it's just another substance the husband was using for whatever reason but I don't get why should would lie about having it for her friends whose kid was diabetic. That didn't make any sense.

Strange case.

[TVbitch]

I remember this one, so it was a rerun. They showed baseball in my city. I don't know if she intentionally murdered him, or maybe just wanted him gravely incapacitated so she would have another good reason to avoid the meeting with the banker, as well as another poor me story to keep "investors" from asking for their money.

Either way, I'm fine she got no mercy because robbing friends and family of their lifes' savings is a heinous crime. She had to know it would come crashing down at some point.

[12catcrazy]

2 hours ago, TVbitch said:

 

2 hours ago, TVbitch said:

Either way, I'm fine she got no mercy because robbing friends and family of their lifes' savings is a heinous crime. She had to know it would come crashing down at some point.

I agree but still am shocked that it only took two hours for the jury to come to their guilty verdict.   It really wasn't a cut and dried case; the defense raised a lot of good points.  If he was taking all those supplements and steroids, who knows if he wasn't using insulin as well and might have overdosed himself.    It's also very hard to believe that he had no idea what was going on with the business and that all of the fraud was her doing.  I think that they were both in on it, and maybe he knew it was about to come crashing down so maybe taking too much insulin was even intentional on his end, leaving her to take the fall.  

[Annber03]

I don't even know that him knowing about all the shady stuff with the business would make her less likely to kill him. If she thought he would throw her under the bus, or if she thought that he'd realize she'd hang him out to dry if and when they did get caught, that'd be reason enough for her to want to get him out of the way ahead of time. There's been plenty of cases where people are in on a plot to pull some shady scheeme, and one or more of them winds up taking out someone they feel could be a weak link or who could keep them from walking away with all the money/goods/what have you that they want. No honor among thieves, and all that. 

And lying about cancer doesn't exactly bode well for one's innocence, either - if you can lie about something like that, after all... 

Honestly, I was also bugged by the way the wife behaved in the courtroom during the trial. I can totally understand a mother being sympathetic and supportive when their children are called to testify in a trial, but the way she just kept on smiling, and the little heart gesture, and all that sort of thing...she just seemed almost too casual and chill about the fact that she was on trial for, y'know, murder. And given her kids were speaking on her behalf, her actions there almost looked like her attempt to manipulate them to her side. I wonder if that wasn't part of the reason the jury ultimtely ruled as they did. 

I am a little surprised they went with a "no mercy" verdict, simply because of the kids' plea on their mom's behalf, but yeah, the fact they ddin't has me wanting to hear from some of the jury members, too, and get their reasoning and take on the case. 

7 hours ago, iMonrey said:

why she would have called someone for help if she were trying to kill him.

Eh, that happens more often than one would think. If you want to put on the "I'm innocent" act, all the better to try and make it look like an accident and play the scared spouse caling for help.

Obviously, that ploy rarely ever works, because investigators often see right through that ruse, but still...

Edited April 26 by Annber03

[Peanut6711]

I had a hunch she was faking the cancer before Andrea even dropped that little bomb.  This woman was disgusting.  I didn't have much doubt she was guilty and was glad the jury didn't either.

Agree, her facial expressions and hand motions to her kids on the stand came off both nutty and manipulative. 

The sticking point for me was that she'd been a pharmacist. So she knows all about medications and drug interactions. This is what she studied in college and what she practiced. So even if her husband was pumping a whole bunch of either useless or harmful stuff into his body to look muscular, I'd expect her to have been on him for years to knock it off; and thus, the kids would have said something like, "Mom was always telling dad all those supplements were no good." 

On that note, if my pharmacist neighbor asked for my kid's insulin to treat her own post cancer flu symptoms or whatever she claimed she needed it for, I'd have told her to call her doctor and then seriously side-eyed why a woman educated and trained in pharmaceutical was not going through the proper channels for treatment of her own medical conditions.

As for the husband's knowledge of their shady business, it was really hard to believe he didn't know. I kept thinking he did and was going to spill the beans since his mother was one of the fraud victims until they showed those texts that made it look more like he was just dense and dumb for not catching on till then. 

[GiandujaPie]

I believe Natalie intentionally injected her husband with the insulin. There were text messages that she asked her friend for a vial of insulin to use for herself due to whatever cancer treatment she claimed she was doing. She was lying about having cancer and doing any treatment so what did she need the insulin for? Her friend testified she gave her the insulin when she asked for it, so Natalie had the insulin - what did she use it for if not for herself since she was lying about the cancer treatment? She and the defense attorneys had no explanation for that. I bet when Natalie changed her mind about testifying on her own defense it was because she realized she was going to have to account for that lie among many she told. 

The 20/20 episode on this case focused much more on the business fraud. I don't know why these friends and family aren't more outraged. They gave the Cochrans hundreds of thousands of dollars in "investment" and then watched as Natalie and Michael bought expensive toys and went on luxury vacations  using the money they had given them. They were living the high life financed by their friends. 

And yes the embezzling from the little league team was small potatoes in comparison but really shows Natalie's lack of character. She was using those funds for TJ Max and Olive Garden so this just seemed to be stealing just because she could. 

As for whether Michael knew or not, I think he was being willfully ignorant. He chose to look the other way as long as he had the money to buy his sports car, fund his workouts and go on his luxury vacations. And I call BS on the kids testifying that dad "wore the pants" in the family including when it came to work. Those kids were way too young to know for sure what their parents did for work and how they did it. How many kids know truly what their parents do for work unless they are something tangible like a doctor or teacher?  That testimony sounded coached. 

Edited April 28 by GiandujaPie

[JudyObscure]

"The federal government doesn't come knocking on your door just because they aren't busy."  Heh.  

I liked this one, Beckley is one of my favorite towns in my home state.  I was disappointed that Andrea didn't show any of the gorgeous views as you look down the mountain or mention  the fresh clean air as you keep going higher and higher.  

Of course, then you've got nasty Natalie stinking up the atmosphere.

4 hours ago, GiandujaPie said:

That testimony sounded coached. 

Right.  What kid says my father's condition over the weeks "seemed to worsen?"  "got sicker," maybe or even "got worse," but not worsen.  The boy had been six, how would he know that his father was in his office working all the time.  Probably doing something else all together on his computer.

I'm not sure I could convict Natalie beyond a reasonable doubt but I do believe society is better off without someone who would  steal from the Little League.

[UsernameFatigue]

Regarding "A Cool Desert Morning", like others I am disgusted with the light sentence her husband received. What I don't understand is why the drug dealer was not questioned as to what he sold the husband on the night that Susan died. Could they not have proved that he bought oxy?

In any case, it was obvious that he would have gotten away with murder had Susan's parents not had deep pockets. And with the light sentence he received, he pretty much did get away with murder. 

[LuvMyShows]

On 4/27/2025 at 12:00 AM, Peanut6711 said:

As for the husband's knowledge of their shady business, it was really hard to believe he didn't know. I kept thinking he did and was going to spill the beans since his mother was one of the fraud victims until they showed those texts that made it look more like he was just dense and dumb for not catching on till then. 

Those texts convinced me that he didn't have any actual knowledge of what was going on, especially since she didn't reply by saying things like, "Why are you asking this? You know as well as I do what's going on here." I do think he was one of those idiot men who take at face value what their alpha-type wives say, so I think he believed her lies about the business, especially since she went to the trouble to make lots of false documentation. It sounds like he drew up the contracts, but since they were never signed, I'm guessing his involvement ended after drafting them. Even before they mentioned the fraud, right from the start when they mentioned that the contracts were for procuring guns for the military, I thought to myself, "How is this two-man company, with their lack of any knowledge, experience, or contacts, going to be able to compete for, let alone fulfill, government contracts?"  

[iMonrey]

Murder in Minot: Whoa, I think someone got away with murder. Well, someone definitely did, but specifically the woman on trial. I guess I'm not too surprised by the verdict because it was a fairly weak case but I still think Nichole killed Anita. 

What kind of pissed me off was that Anita's dad knew things between her and her roommate were so bad he put a lock on her bedroom door. So . . . wouldn't Nichole have been suspect number one from the start? As usual the show wasted about an hour on red herrings and testimonials about how wonderful the victim was.

I'm not sure if the jury voted not guilty because they felt there wasn't enough evidence, or if they thought that other guy - Devin Hall, the one who was incarcerated for breaking and entering elsewhere - was the real perp. But as far as we were told, that guy never killed anyone. And Anita's death seemed personal. 

Plus I can't think of any reason two people would lie about Nichole confessing to the murder.

Strange they made a point of showing us how unique the knife was but never managed to trace it back to anyone.

[badgerwoman]

41 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

 

What kind of pissed me off was that Anita's dad knew things between her and her roommate were so bad he put a lock on her bedroom door. So . . . wouldn't Nichole have been suspect number one from the start? As usual the show wasted about an hour on red herrings and testimonials about how wonderful the victim was.

if the police fumbled in this case, it was probably not digging into Nicole more than they did at the beginning.  or finding out where that knife came from.  

A person who drunkenly confesses to murder to two different people at two different times is likely to be guilty.  But the 18 years between murder and trial does make things tough.  Locally, we've had murder cases solved after longer periods of time but they've had confessions or found evidence hidden away like the case where the murderer (and always number 1 suspect) stopped paying on the storage unit he hid the murder weapon and the bloody clothes.  

[Peanut6711]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

What kind of pissed me off was that Anita's dad knew things between her and her roommate were so bad he put a lock on her bedroom door. So . . . wouldn't Nichole have been suspect number one from the start? As usual the show wasted about an hour on red herrings and testimonials about how wonderful the victim was.

Not looking strongly into the person living with the victim (and w/keys to a door lock that requires one) seemed like a big miss on the police's part from the very beginning. 

I was suspicious of Nichole from the audio they played where she kept referencing Anita's good looks and how that got guy's attention. There seemed to be an underlying tone of jealousy. Especially since Anita's male friends commented on how kind she was, not her looks. 

I think Blyne has been training under Andrea and not Keith. She spends way too much time running innocent people through the ringer on national TV and little time on the actual perp. On that note, I agree that Nichole was the perp. 

 

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

And Anita's death seemed personal. 

Plus I can't think of any reason two people would lie about Nichole confessing to the murder.

Strange they made a point of showing us how unique the knife was but never managed to trace it back to anyone.

Agree on all these points too. I'm inclined to think the knife was probably already in the apartment too and belonged to one of them. Too bad they couldn't tie it to her.  The aunt's testimony about her having details about the crime that only the killer or first responders would also made a compelling point. 

[UsernameFatigue]

I think the jury got this one right. There is no way if I were a juror I could have convicted Nichole. I don't know if she is guilty or innocent, but there are certainly things that don't add up.

It makes no sense to me that if Nichole was the killer, she would leave the door locked, knowing that only 4 people had keys. It would make more sense to leave the door unlocked, as if Anita let someone in, and they also left through the front door. 

The screen thing is interesting. The maintenance man said in the initial police interview that he noticed that the screen was cut, and took it to be repaired. They when he returned it, he let himself in, called out, and threw the screen into the bedroom (where it just happened a murdered Anita lay). Odd.

As I often do when Dateline covers a case, I tried to find more info on what happened during the trail. One thing I read was that the girlfriend of the maintenance man testified. She testified because he was dead, he had committed suicide (did they mention this in the episode?). She said that he told her that he found the screen on the ground. But in his interview with the police he said that the screen was in the window. Why the change in story? 

I also found the murder weapon interesting. It doesn't seem to be the type of knife a woman would have, more like something a guy would own. (Do women usually collect knives? None that I know). And the fact that it couldn't be traced back to either of the roommates. Then of course there is also the unknown male DNA.

I think the fact that Cold Justice rode into town to solve the case may have worked against the prosecution. The scene they showed from the show where law enforcement tearfully tell the family that they have arrested a suspect I found distasteful. Is that series still running? I remember attorney Kelly Siegler being in hot water several years ago for withholding evidence when she was a lawyer. Possibly manufacturing it as well? Can't remember the details but I think it was in more than one case. I find her repugnant. 

 

[UsernameFatigue]

Forgot to add to my above post:

What was the motive for the killing? It was established that the two roommates had decided to part ways, so what would be the motive?

As is often the case, I found the fawning over the victim a little over the top. Yes, she was beautiful and popular. But someone who repeatedly turned off the fish tank filter and eventually killed the fish (because she thought the tank was too loud) is not someone I would call kind. 

[pdlinda]

1 hour ago, UsernameFatigue said:

What was the motive for the killing?

I agree with you regarding the verdict.  I, also, would have voted "NOT GUILTY" as the State failed to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There WERE DOUBTS, as you point out.

From my many years doing criminal defense work, when a jury acquits a defendant, the prosecutor and police dept. usually DO NOT PURSUE FINDING THE KILLER OF THE VICTIM OF A CRIME. 

HOWEVER, there is no statute of limitations for murder cases in my State, SO, IF IN THE FUTURE some new info surfaces that is reported to the police, the case may be referred for prosecution.  Short of that, the case will remain unsolved in the eyes of the law.  

 

[iMonrey]

15 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I think the fact that Cold Justice rode into town to solve the case may have worked against the prosecution. The scene they showed from the show where law enforcement tearfully tell the family that they have arrested a suspect I found distasteful. Is that series still running?

Yes, it's on the Oxygen network.

[pdlinda]

On 5/3/2025 at 10:49 AM, Peanut6711 said:

Blyne has been training under Andrea and not Keith. She spends way too much time running innocent people through the ringer on national TV and little time on the actual perp.

I hope the episode host refines her skills as I was distracted by her manner and style of conducting the interviews. 

Distractions ranged from the NUMEROUS hairstyles she showed at different times interviewing different people to the verbal cues she showed when responding to their remarks.

I think this episode was in the works for a VERY LONG TIME so i'm glad the case finally ended with the verdict of 'not guilty" so Dateline could put this episode "to bed" without going through the appeals process.

[TVbitch]

I've been trying to give Blyne a chance, cuz I tend to be overly hard on new correspondents, but so far, her delivery is too cloying and performative for me. 

[pdlinda]

44 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

I've been trying to give Blyne a chance, cuz I tend to be overly hard on new correspondents, but so far, her delivery is too cloying and performative for me. 

She ruined the episode for me.  The focus of the episode should be on the storytellers involved in the crime and the victim, not the host.

[Court]

I actually believe she was guilty but I can understand why they voted not guilty. 

I don't think it was a planned murder but I believe they were fighting/arguing and Nichole snapped and murdered her. 

What motive did the two people she confess to have to lie about it?

Do they have DNA from the knife? Maybe that would help clear it up. 

 

 

[12catcrazy]

Agreed that a murderer is walking free (and with seemingly no remorse at that).  I also agree that the investigation was botched from the get go in that they let Nichole off as a suspect way too early.  It seemed as if the police had made up their minds that it HAD to be a jealous and/or rejected male suitor (or the out of town drifter) who did the murder.  If the victim did in fact shut off the fish tank and killed the fish, I could see Nichole being angry enough (especially if enough booze was involved) to kill Anita.  My guess is that it was a slow drip of resentments and jealousy and the dam finally burst.  

One can only hope that karma will eventually catch up to Nichole.  She got away with murder; unfortunately the jury couldn't convict on what seemed to be reasonable doubt. 

Re the knife:  my guess is that a knife like that is probably not all that unique in that part of the US.  To me it looked like something that one could buy in a "Western" type of store and there are also plenty of Native American reservations in Eastern Montana (not sure about near Minot N Dakota).  And as a woman who once lived in rural Eastern Montana, I can tell you that plenty of women own knives in that part of America.  I still own the small knife that my ex-husband gave me as a gift many years ago, and I treasured it at the time.   If a guy gave his wife a knife as a present where I live on Long Island, he'd be lucky if she didn't throw it at him.  Different cultures.  

[nora1992]

I’m with the jury on this one.  While the roommate looks suspicious, the report of the Running Man hasn’t been explained.  The guy who claims he was jogging may or may not be the same.

Why didn’t the people who claimed they heard a confession tell anyone about it before the media was involved?  There are many stories of bystanders inserting themselves; this seems to be another example.  

 

[JudyObscure]

I despise Nichole so much I think she's probably innocent.  I think she's enough of a hateful mean girl to; care more about her pink whatsit than her dead roommate, say her roommate deserved it because of the fish, forget exactly where she was the night said roommate died, get drunk and tell greasy young guys she murdered her roommate just to get their attention.

I think she seemed too lazy to actually do a frenzied stabbing like that.

[UsernameFatigue]

This is  case where I would say there are more questions than answers, still. 

Regarding the knife, it was not linked back to either roommate, and  no one testified that Nichole had a knife or liked to collect knives. Also, if Nichole was the killer why would she leave the knife there? Even if she left without it, she would have had a chance to return to get it. 

The knife had 3 DNA profiles on it,  Anita's was the only one that was established. Anita also had unidentified male DNA under her right fingernails.

The prosecution I believe was trying to say that, as a poster wrote above, they argued and Anita was killed in the heat of the moment. But she wasn't, she was killed in bed by two stab wounds to the heart. Hardly seems like a frenzied killing by someone in a fit of rage.

The testimony of the building manager popped up on my phone, so I decided to watch it. It is possible that the jury nodded off at times as the woman prosecutor was mind numbingly boring, and meandering in her questions. I found the defense was much better at questioning and held my interest.

Was it established in the episode that the woman building manager and Marty the maintenance man were actually a couple and lived together? I don't remember it being said but they were together for 10 years and he worked as the maintenance man for 2 years. He showed her the screen and told her that he found it on the ground close to the sidewalk. He told the police that it was in the window. Odd though that neither one thought it was odd to find a screen with a cut in it?

The manager, Laura, testified that she and Marty never talked about finding Anita's body or anything about someone being killed on property, after Anita was found. The defense attorney asked her twice and she said both times they never discussed it. I find that very odd.  Also Marty committed suicide on New Years Day, 6 months after Anita was murdered. Even after his death he was considered a suspect in the case.

I saw a clip of a police officer who carried out interviews after Cold Justice came on the scene being asked if they interviewed the drifter. He said no, they didn't because he was not on the list provided by Cold Justice. OMG. 

Edited 2 hours ago by UsernameFatigue