All Episodes Discussion

[Irlandesa]

23 minutes ago, Court said:

Thank you! It doesn't show up on my homepage even though I've followed it. 

For those missing forums/threads, this thread explains a bit what is happening.

I missed the latest episode.  I will have to catch it On Demand.

[Audpaud]

On 12/3/2018 at 12:42 PM, Mrs. Hanson said:

Anyone want to comment on Tex, the guy who shot his wife in the car while their friend was driving?  That was an odd case......

I've seen this one a couple of times and still not sure how I feel about him. On one hand it just seems like a foolish old man, but on the other it seems unlikely they'd go after him if something wasn't there?

[ChristmasJones]

Just finished watching "The Trap" about the Canadian journalist who had been kidnapped in Somalia. I had seen the original interview years ago, but this episode had the follow-up with one of the kidnappers being loured to Canada by an undercover agent.

The only thing I could think of was trojan horse.  I hope my fears do not come true. Canada invested so much time and money getting this guy back to their soil so they could arrest him, and now he will sit in a Canadian prison for 15 years.  He may be able to radicalize other inmates while in there who could potentially commit terrorist attacks in Canada when they get out.  That is the risk of putting someone like him in prison in a country like Canada.  This is what has been happening in Europe.

Hopefully he will not do that, but I still don't think they really accomplished anything by investing so many resources into this one guy. I assume they're hoping to send a message to other potential kidnappers in foreign countries.   I hope someone keeps track of him to find out who he associates with while in prison.

[nora1992]

I think the kids saw what happened.  Even a young child has the instinct to protect a parent initially.

[biakbiak]

I found the kids interviews problematic and don’t think I could have voted to convict that said I totally think he did it.

[cooksdelight]

I think he’s guilty as hell. The kids’ stories became more detailed as they got older, but I’d think the opposite would happen ... they’d not remember as much. Which made it seem they were coached. But who else could have killed her? He cannot be retried. Here’s hoping his current love interest doesn’t die mysteriously.

[JudyObscure]

He was the last known person to see her.

He put the kids in the car and didn't come back for some time.

The kids heard screaming or laughing and I doubt there was much laughing going on between them at that time.

She had told her friends he was violent.

She was packing to take the kids far away.

He was behind in support payments.

She had a new man in her life.

I have very little doubt he did it, but I don't know if I could have voted guilty.  Glad I wasn't on that jury.

[TVbitch]

This was a tough one. I think he did it, there was simply no other motive or explanation. 

BUT, how did he not get any evidence in the car? How did he have a change of shirt with him? It didn't really seem like he had pre-planned it. The snitch said he stabbed her in the neck, was that where she was stabbed and was that detail public? 

It seemed pretty clear that the kids were coached. The therapist telling the child to "just say yes," and when the boy said he heard "laughter and maybe screaming" the other therapist was like, "So you heard screaming!!" But I can see where a little kid not exposed to people screaming might confuse screams for laughter. 

Reminds me of the guy who went to the birthday party for his son and his wife was suppose to follow them later, but she was dead by shotgun in the house. The son and his friend say while waiting for their dad to get in the car they heard a loud noise which they came to believe was a gun. He was convicted, but years later on appeal, not guilty. And he got custody of his son back. Talk about awkward. 

[iMonrey]

I totally think Jared is guilty, there were just no other viable suspects from what I could tell and it was a classic case of the ex husband whose wife's friends say he had been violent with her. She was getting ready to move out of state and taking the kids with her, it all adds up to him. I guess the jury just didn't think there was enough physical evidence.

I really had to roll my eyes at his new church friends defending his character. Like, "he couldn't possibly have murdered anyone, he goes to church! Nobody who goes to church could ever murder someone!" Bitch, please. 

I think the most damning evidence against him is the colossal balls he has to go on this show and sit there and proclaim his innocence. Talk about cocky - if he were really innocent why would he want to go on TV and publicize this? He's so damn proud of himself and he wants attention and acclaim. 

Quote

BUT, how did he not get any evidence in the car? How did he have a change of shirt with him? It didn't really seem like he had pre-planned it. 

I think you could probably stab someone, do a cursory job of trying to clean up DNA evidence and not transfer any into your car. It's quite possible to stab someone and not get any blood on yourself if you know right where to aim, and the murderer apparently did. Also, he used to live there so it's possible he still had some of his own clothes there. 

[TVbitch]

And why were the church friends' conclusions about the cell phone locations/timing being reported as fact. Did the police or Dateline verify that? Did they verify with the victim's brother that she had handed Jarod her phone that day cuz the brother said he wanted to speak to Jarod? Did the defense attorney even say much? It was all kind of weird. 

[atlantaloves]

Oh man, that guy absolutely did it. It's a good thing that I wasn't on that jury I would have hung him.

[Enigma X]

Wrong thread.

Edited February 16, 2019 by Enigma X

[nora1992]

2 hours ago, TVbitch said:

It seemed pretty clear that the kids were coached. The therapist telling the child to "just say yes," and when the boy said he heard "laughter and maybe screaming" the other therapist was like, "So you heard screaming!!" But I can see where a little kid not exposed to people screaming might confuse screams for laughter. 

Was that on video?  I can see the words as innocuous if the child started nodding in answer to the question.  If that were the case, then the comment isn’t leading.  Dateline showed video interviews before; why not the questionable one?

[TVbitch]

Good point. Can't remember if the lady saying "just say yes" was audio only or video, and I already deleted the episode. The only with the lady zeroing in on the word screaming when both kids seemed to lean toward it being laughing was definitely a video. 

[Tdoc72]

I think it would’ve been hard to not get evidence in the car. They said the scene was very bloody. 

Also they mentioned that a mans watch was tangled in the sheets so I want to know more about that. Was it bloody?  Any dna or fingerprints?

I also want to know if the victim’s brother did indeed call and speak to Jared. Dateline, wind up some of these dangling threads. 

If I were on the jury, I think I would have to disregard any of the children’s testimony. Just too convoluted, especially the changing shirt & white bottle info that (I think) came up years later after living w/the moms family. 

Occasionally I would believe a snitch but not this one. If anything, Jared seemed too smart to confess to anyone. 

So I couldn’t convict him and still unsure if he was guilty or not. 

[TaxNerd]

45 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

Good point. Can't remember if the lady saying "just say yes" was audio only or video, and I already deleted the episode. The only with the lady zeroing in on the word screaming when both kids seemed to lean toward it being laughing was definitely a video. 

It was on video, and the "just say yes" was very under her breath and said very quickly between two questions.  

There was also a man who was pushing the screaming question.  I can't remember exactly but something like was there screaming?  And the kids said laughing and he said laughing or screaming?

Overall very coached.  I thought by the end that he did it, but I would have thrown out the kids' testimony and without that, not enough to convict.  I wouldn't be totally shocked if someone else did it, but no one on his side mentioned looking for the real killer either.

The real shame was him trying to get custody.  Even if he's innocent, those kids have been poisoned to think they heard him kill their Mother and it is not in their best interest to uproot their lives to live with him.  And he didn't care that it wasn't in their best interest either.

[Mondrianyone]

26 minutes ago, Tdoc72 said:

Also they mentioned that a mans watch was tangled in the sheets so I want to know more about that. Was it bloody?  Any dna or fingerprints? 

I thought this was going to end up being a major piece of evidence, and then  . . . nothing.  I know that high-end watches have serial numbers that can be traced to the purchaser, but I don't really know if that's true of all watches.  Still, the old theater adage about if there's a gun on the mantel in act 1, it had better go off in act 3 apparently doesn't apply on Dateline.

If I believed in hell, I'm sure I'd be going there after saying this, but every time I see the church group of the accused rallying around him/her, that's tantamount to proof of guilt for me.

[dshgr]

6 minutes ago, Mondrianyone said:

If I believed in hell, I'm sure I'd be going there after saying this, but every time I see the church group of the accused rallying around him/her, that's tantamount to proof of guilt for me.

I'll be there with you, Mondrianyone!

[JudyObscure]

I think he might have taken his clothes off before stabbing her, then showered quickly and what the child saw as him "changing his shirt" was Jared, putting  his shirt back on.

[TVbitch]

1 hour ago, Mondrianyone said:

If I believed in hell, I'm sure I'd be going there after saying this, but every time I see the church group of the accused rallying around him/her, that's tantamount to proof of guilt for me.

And why does it seem that wherever there is a guy under suspicion of killing his ex, there is a line of church-centric ladies just waiting to take up with him. I mean, I'm not super picky about looks, but I prefer my dates not be under suspicion of murder. 

[OpalNightstream]

I wonder if her “found Jesus” With the idea of having the church folk rally around him if he was brought to trial.  It occured to me that maybe the police saw the child nod their head in the affirmative but needed the child to actually say the word “yes” for the recording hence they said “say yes”.

[Annber03]

3 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

If I believed in hell, I'm sure I'd be going there after saying this, but every time I see the church group of the accused rallying around him/her, that's tantamount to proof of guilt for me.

I totally get that, yeah. Just been burned by one too many stories about the "church-going family man/woman" who wound up being involved in a murder. 

It's so, so tough when little kids are witnesses in a murder case, 'cause on the one hand, yeah, they can prove helpful, but on the other hand...well, we often have moments like this as a result, with fears that the kids were coached, or their memories too vague and inconsistent, or whatever. And then of course the fact that kids are even being interviewed about something so serious and scary, too, affecting what they do and don't say. 

Yeah. I dunno. I think there's reason to believe he did it, and they didn't really offer up much in the way of any other viable suspects. But I can also understand why the jury voted as they did, too. 

[ChristmasJones]

This one seemed like a no-brainer... but I was not impressed with the evidence, at least as presented by Dateline. I would have liked to hear more about the cell phones, the knife, any video recordings of the parking lot, etc.

Those poor kids are going to be messed up for life.  They were quite young when it happened, and then they lived with their mother's family for 6 years. Then they testified against their father.  I don't believe that her family told them to never talk about it during all those years.  

He seems like the only obvious suspect but based on what we saw here, it felt like a somewhat weak case.  In other ways, though, it seems like a normal amount of circumstantial evidence. I don't know. Maybe I should go find more info.

Just now, ChristmasJones said:

This one seemed like a no-brainer... but I was not impressed with the evidence, at least as presented by Dateline. I would have liked to hear more about the cell phones, the knife, any video recordings of the parking lot, etc.

Those poor kids are going to be messed up for life.  They were quite young when it happened, and then they lived with their mother's family for 6 years. Then they testified against their father.  I don't believe that her family told them to never talk about it during all those years... and talking about it would definitely affect their memory. 

He sees like the only obvious suspect but based on what we saw here, it felt like a somewhat weak case.  In other ways, though, it seems like a normal amount of circumstantial evidence. I don't know. Maybe I should go find more info.

[glowbug]

Police interviews, even with adults, are often very problematic. Some techniques that were once best practice have been found to be leading nowadays but it’s hard to change the established norms in policing, especially since police aren’t one big agency but a bunch of smaller independent ones. Those kids were definitely coached, intentionally or unintentionally, so it’s impossible to know what they actually saw and what was suggested to them. For that reason I would, as a juror, throw their testimony out.

The jailhouse snitch wasn’t credible at all either. Most of them aren’t so without some very compelling evidence I wouldn’t consider their testimony either. If the police were willing to coach the children who’s to say that didn’t feed the jailhouse snitch some information too. Too many jailhouse snitches have come out and said the cops did this and recanted their statements after the defendant was convicted. 

Without the children's testimony there just wasn’t enough evidence, IMO, to convict. I lean towards him being the murderer but I’m not 100% convinced. The problem is it appears the police immediately suspected him and got tunnel vision. It doesn’t seem that they did much investigating aside from the current boyfriend (or at least Dateline didn’t present any other leads they might have followed). Statistics say he did it because it’s almost always the current boyfriend/husband or the ex, and if it’s true he was violent towards her then that makes it even more likely, but without physical evidence or something more concrete I just think there is enough reasonable doubt. 

[nora1992]

4 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

I thought this was going to end up being a major piece of evidence, and then  . . . nothing. 

The apartment was in such “disarray” that it wouldn’t be a surprise if it had been there for a while.

I just rewatched part of the episode.  The “just say yes” clip was only audio; the episode did not show a video of that interview.

[talktoomuch]

4 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I think he might have taken his clothes off before stabbing her, then showered quickly and what the child saw as him "changing his shirt" was Jared, putting  his shirt back on.

Would make sense. But what was she doing while he took off his clothes so he could stab her?

[Tdoc72]

Katie Ingram, the new wife, was on some of the Dateline FB posts. There were a few so I don’t remember which ones. She was pretty open answering some questions. This is what I asked her and her answers:

was the watch tested—Yes, 2 male dna. One was the son’s and the other unknown (not Jarod)

Did autopsy show any sexual assault?—no

did her brother confirm the call?—Phone records showed he called twice that day, once around the time in question. But on the stand 6 yrs later the brother couldn’t remember. 

A trial attender had posted the police failed to fingerprint her place (actually she said they played a videotape at trial of the scene and the fingerprint tech asks if he should do prints and the cop responds no, we have our man. Again that’s according to her post.)  So I asked if that was true—They took fingerprints on purse items and her phone. No others were in the police reports. The officer swears that they couldn't possibly fingerprint the thermostat, which played a big part.

~~~~~~~

Another poster claimed to be the mail lady for Ciara’s apartment complex. She said there were no security cameras. 

[TaxNerd]

On Demand, the "What They Saw" episode is 59:48 long.  Rearranging the interviews somewhat:

Around 38:30:

Male detective, day of murder (audio)

Was Momma screaming, or Daddy screaming or hollering?  Nobody was screaming or nothing?

At around 37:40, interview five days earlier than the first interview that aired:

Did you hear anything when Daddy was inside?

I didn't hear nothing

The first interview aired, which is the last shown in the actual timeline, starts around 26:00. At 27:30 the forensic interview is really ignoring laughing and pushing screaming.  They should know better, as a good defense attorney would rip the interview to pieces:

What'd you hear?

Uh laughing, some almost screaming 

You heard screaming?

Uh huh

Yeah?

Tell me, did you hear, were they just saying, like, screaming noises or something else?

Like like laughing screaming 

The say yes part is yet another interviewer:

39:09 (audio)

You remember that? Wispered- say yes.  I mean do you remember that?

It does seem like the wispered say yes was likely a prompt to say the answer out loud, but they should know better and just ask them to verbalize their answer because a defense attorney could use "say yes" as evidence of coaching.

At least three intense interviewers, over four occasions and to me it seems like the story evolves.  A kindergartner goes from doesn't remember to an elaborate story about getting out of the car twice, seeing Daddy through the mail slot twice, one time where Dad sees the daughter and tells her to get back in the car, and another time where she sees him holding a white bottle.

Those poor children.

Edited February 17, 2019 by TaxNerd

[nora1992]

But the dad had custody for six days before Ciara was found.  Six days of influence from a parent.

But who was on the other end of Ciara’s last phone call, the one that set up the cell phone tower alibi in the 3 minute call?

[iMonrey]

Even if you disregard the testimony of the children, the fact that Jared put them outside and then remained in the house for a long time - long enough that the children got antsy and tried to find out what was going on? Very suspicious. If they were just talking why make the children wait outside? I mean, even if they were talking about something they didn't want the children to hear, why didn't he say that?  Why didn't they discuss whatever it was they had to discuss when he first got there, and the children ran upstairs to play with their toys? 

Opportunity and motive both point to him.

[Annber03]

7 hours ago, TaxNerd said:

It does seem like the wispered say yes was likely a prompt to say the answer out loud, but they should know better and just ask them to verbalize their answer because a defense attorney could use "say yes" as evidence of coaching.

That's what I thought, too. 

Quote

Those poor children.

Agreed. So much pressure to put on such young kids. 

[JudyObscure]

13 hours ago, talktoomuch said:

Would make sense. But what was she doing while he took off his clothes so he could stab her?

She might have been packing while she thought he was still outside with the kids, or he could have said he needed to go to the bathroom and come out naked  -- Hey!  That might explain laughter turning to screams.

[12catcrazy]

I think the guy did it and I think this is another case of botched police work.  Occam's razor here:  ex-husband with anger issues (probably control issues as well).  She found new guy (and how well did she know HIM) who was going to help her move.  Ex "co-parenting" kids and probably not happy she's taking the kids with her.  Victim had told friends that ex was violent and abusive.  Victim ends up brutally murdered, apparently right after ex shows up to take the kids.  Burglery gone bad?  From the looks of that house, a burgler would run like hell in the other direction!  

There are some questions I want to ask: why didnt the victim's oldest child live with her, and does the state she lived in have no divorce/child custody laws that prevent a parent from leaving the area if the other parent objects?  

Finally, I think that the murderer (calling him that) battling to get custody of the kids shows how much of a dickhead this guy is.  As he was asked, wouldnt it be better if he let his kids just be for now and then have a relationship when they are older, and he seemed very arrogent in his reply.  To me if you really cared about your kids you'd do whats best for THEM, but thats not how this guy rolls.  Poor kids - I hope his custody bid is denied and if I were the victim's family, I'd sue him for wrongful death in civil court.

[Morrigan2575]

The odds are that he did it but, that was a horrible investigation and Dateline didn't provide much information either way.

If I was on the Jury I would have dismissed the children's testimony, especially at trial which seemed unreliable based on the previous interviews. I didn't believe the jail house snitch and there wasn't much left to the case.  Not enough (IMO) to get beyond a reasonable doubt.

So yeah, he probably did it but, they didn't prove it, which is a major failure of the police and DA.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Morrigan2575

[UsernameFatigue]

48 minutes ago, 12catcrazy said:

I think the guy did it and I think this is another case of botched police work.  Occam's razor here:  ex-husband with anger issues (probably control issues as well).  She found new guy (and how well did she know HIM) who was going to help her move.  Ex "co-parenting" kids and probably not happy she's taking the kids with her.  Victim had told friends that ex was violent and abusive.  Victim ends up brutally murdered, apparently right after ex shows up to take the kids.  Burglery gone bad?  From the looks of that house, a burgler would run like hell in the other direction!  

There are some questions I want to ask: why didnt the victim's oldest child live with her, and does the state she lived in have no divorce/child custody laws that prevent a parent from leaving the area if the other parent objects?  

Finally, I think that the murderer (calling him that) battling to get custody of the kids shows how much of a dickhead this guy is.  As he was asked, wouldnt it be better if he let his kids just be for now and then have a relationship when they are older, and he seemed very arrogent in his reply.  To me if you really cared about your kids you'd do whats best for THEM, but thats not how this guy rolls.  Poor kids - I hope his custody bid is denied and if I were the victim's family, I'd sue him for wrongful death in civil court.

I also wondered where the mother's oldest child was. And I didn't believe that Jared was fine with his ex taking the kids out of state. And like you I wondered how she was able to do that if he was against it. The fact that Jared now wants custody of his kids, years after they have been with their grandparents, shows me that he would not have been OK with his ex taking them out of state and away from him in the first place. 

That said I could not have convicted him based on the evidence presented, though I do think he is guilty. The kids testimony was all over the place. At first the daughter said that their dad never left them alone in the car. But then he did, and she got out to look in the mail slot. A couple of times. And the fact that the kids remembered more details as they got older just doesn't ring true to me. 

I laughed at your comment that a burgler would take one look at that house and run like hell in the other direction. No kidding. I am a pretty neat and tidy person, but sometimes I look around the house and think to myself "If I was murdered and police filmed my house, would I be OK with how it looks?". Lol. Am I the only one? 

[Ohmo]

I thought he did it as well.  Something about his demeanor was off.  I can't put my finger on it.  His second wife also seemed like she had a cognitive disability of some kind.

This was an episode where I wanted two hours.  I felt like I couldn't tell if it was botched police work or just the fact that the police didn't have much.  Its witnesses were small children and he had been in her condo/apartment several times before.  Two hours would have told us more about botching evidence versus not having much evidence to find.

If I were her family, I'd fight like heck in court to keep the kids away from him.

[Ohmo]

On 2/16/2019 at 1:07 PM, TVbitch said:

It seemed pretty clear that the kids were coached.

But I don't know that we can assume intentionaliity behind it by the cops.  With the little girl, she was in kindergarten.  Small children have limited vocabularies and their understanding of concepts is still developing.  It's very difficult to NOT prompt a young child in some way while talking to him or her, and I don't mean when talking about a crime.  I mean in everyday life.  I did several educational stints with young children when I was in college, and prompting happens.  It just does because you have more vocabulary than a young child.  You're trying to supply them with vocabulary so you can understand what they mean.

That said, the "say yes" was fishy BUT I also think it's unrealistic to expect no prompting whatsoever with a young child and expect there to be anywhere close to a conversation.  The prompting makes it possible for the young child to have a conversation period.  If I were the prosecution, I would have called an expert in child development to help the jury understand that the mere presence of prompting is not an indication of duplicity.

ETA: I would have thought that the cops would have done something like this: Present the child with pictures of people joking, laughing, crying, screaming, laughing, etc.  A range of emotions like a line up.  Then you ask the child "What did you hear/see?"  It's like a word bank/ picture bank or a word box.  You're providing the child with a range of possibilities that are on equal "footing" without tipping one over the other.

ETA 2: There's a difference between prompting and tipping a response.  in the above example of the picture bank, tipping the response would be like including five picture of "negative" emotions to one picture of a positive response.  To not tip, you include three negative and three positive, or all negative or all positive.  You present without stacking the deck.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Ohmo

[AnnieHeights]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 1:00 PM, 12catcrazy said:

There are some questions I want to ask: why didnt the victim's oldest child live with her, and does the state she lived in have no divorce/child custody laws that prevent a parent from leaving the area if the other parent objects?  

I was wondering about the victims first child as well........I guess this will be a bit of victim shaming but we do not know of all the men she could have been involved with.......I got the impression she had never met the online boyfriend in person yet he was flying to help move her and her children? Move in with him?  Also the fellow nurse friend who said she had been told the ex-husband was abusive but confirmed she had not seen any bruising or scratches because she (the victim - I cannot remember her name) was the type who didn't want to worry her friend?  What is the difference between telling about the abuse and showing evidence of it?  Also 6 years later and the kids remembered more evidence? IMO of course they were coached if not by the authorities then by the family.  I have said all of this to say I did have a hard time believing the ex husband wasn't the guilty party but there were way too many questions to convict him.     

[JudyObscure]

Yes, why not show bruises to your friend and even have her photograph them if  custody and divorce was in question?  This is one of those cases where you don't want to bad mouth the victim ...but... the mess.  It looked like Kleenex and food wrappers had just been tossed on the floor and it gave me an idea about why the couple might have been fighting on the day after they married. 

Those poor little kids will probably always wonder if they either let their mother down or sent their father to prison.  One thought I had about their changing story is that they might have memories of things that happened on other days.  Like looking through the mail slot and hearing laughter a few weeks before the murder.

We've seen on Dateline how a man she might have gone out with months ago, could have been fixated and stalking her right up until the morning he saw Jared leaving the house and felt angry and betrayed.

[butterflyeludesme]

19 hours ago, AnnieHeights said:

I was wondering about the victims first child as well........I guess this will be a bit of victim shaming but we do not know of all the men she could have been involved with.......I got the impression she had never met the online boyfriend in person yet he was flying to help move her and her children? Move in with him?  Also the fellow nurse friend who said she had been told the ex-husband was abusive but confirmed she had not seen any bruising or scratches because she (the victim - I cannot remember her name) was the type who didn't want to worry her friend?  What is the difference between telling about the abuse and showing evidence of it?  Also 6 years later and the kids remembered more evidence? IMO of course they were coached if not by the authorities then by the family.  I have said all of this to say I did have a hard time believing the ex husband wasn't the guilty party but there were way too many questions to convict him.     

I didn't believe one word that friend said, to be honest. They had a going away lunch for the victim (can't remember her name either) and she was so worried but obviously did nothing until she heard she was dead the next day? If my good friend/coworker didn't show up to their own going away party and failed to return phone calls I'd have done whatever it took to get in touch with them. I think they were work friends but not really as close as this lady insinuated so I'm doubting the everything she's saying including the abuse claims.  

[butterflyeludesme]

I found some additional details that many of you were wondering about. 

- The older child was 10 and had already gone to Indiana and was living with Ciara's mom. 

- Ciara called Indiana at 6:19 p.m., but got no answer. She called again at 6:35, and they talked for about five minutes, until 6:39. At 6:44 p.m., the signal from Jarod Ingram’s phone hit a tower in the Lakebottom area, and at 7:08 it connected to a tower in Harris County.

- The air conditioner had locked up because the thermostat was turned down all the way. Besides the clutter of someone moving away, they found furniture cushions slashed with a blade, cabinets open, drawers pulled out, cleaning products on the kitchen floor, and Ciara Ingram’s body in her upstairs bedroom, by a pool of blood and a white bottle of Clorox bleach, with its blue lid nearby. Some bleach had been poured on the body, fading the woman’s blue jogging suit. Some had been poured on the arm of a sofa downstairs, fading the carpet underneath, and some was on a green cloth by the kitchen sink, in which lay the butcher knife with the victim’s blood on it.

- Ciara fought back but Jarod had no evidence of being in a fight or scratches. 

[TVbitch]

Thanks @butterflyeludesme. It's hard to believe they actually decided they had enough to try this case. 

[Melina22]

I'm still stunned by the one where the couple plotted to kill her husband and make it look like he drowned while duck hunting. The scheming and coldness are mind-boggling, especially the woman's apparent confidence that God would forgive them. After all, I'm sure God understands they needed to be together with the $1.5 million insurance money more than her husband needed to keep living. 

And then the eccentric mother of the victim with her weird pigtails. You cannot make people like this up. I would totally watch a well done fictionalized version of this story! 

[rlc]

3 hours ago, Melina22 said:

I'm still stunned by the one where the couple plotted to kill her husband and make it look like he drowned while duck hunting. The scheming and coldness are mind-boggling, especially the woman's apparent confidence that God would forgive them. After all, I'm sure God understands they needed to be together with the $1.5 million insurance money more than her husband needed to keep living. 

And then the eccentric mother of the victim with her weird pigtails. You cannot make people like this up. I would totally watch a well done fictionalized version of this story! 

That mom, though. That was one of the strangest episodes yet.

[UsernameFatigue]

1 hour ago, rlc said:

That mom, though. That was one of the strangest episodes yet.

This case was covered before by Dateline, but I guess they revisited it because the trial just happened at the end of last year. I am so glad that the wife was convicted, even if it meant that the "best friend" really didn't pay for killing Mike. The testimony though was horrific - that poor Mike had managed to get the waders off and reach a safe place, but was then hunted down by Brian. Mike may have died instantly, but I can't imagine what he went through before he was shot, knowing that his best friend was going to killl him one way or another. Bless his mother for never giving up on getting justice for her son.

Also I laughed at Brian claiming that Denise didn't want a divorce because she was so religious, and didn't want the stigma of divorce. Sure, that is why they put the waders in the lake, to make sure he would be declared dead to free up the insurance money. Because of religion. God had nothing to do with it. 

They never did say if Cheryl was ever reunited with her granddaughter, who would now be old enough to make her own mind up about having a relationship with her grandmother. Poor woman. You could really see how small she was when she was testifying, and could barely see over the railing. Small but mighty. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by UsernameFatigue

[cooksdelight]

Since they took away all the episode threads, I cannot remember the name of this one... I saw a rerun last night but had never seen it the first time around.

A woman who just got married was murdered in her home, looked like a home invasion. Her husband was cleared immediately, so they started looking for who might have broken in.

It turned out to be a woman who used to date the woman’s husband, and she wanted her out of the picture. She became a LAPD officer and it was something like 23 years before they solved the case.

I’m hoping someone remembers so we can find a photo of that woman. She had the batshit craziest eyes I’ve ever seen!!!

[cooksdelight]

Found her! Stephanie Lazarus was the cop.

[cooksdelight]

Here’s the episode if you haven’t seen it.

[Melina22]

Yikes! She does look crazy! 

Speaking of which, the pigtailed woman in last night's episode even admitted everyone thought she was crazy. I'm embarrassed to admit that everything about her, her appearance, her signs, her refusal to quit, would have been enough for me to dismiss her as a kook. But she was right! I can't imagine what drove her to keep going. I really admire her for that. And by all accounts, her son was a really nice person. I'm glad she never gave up. 

[thejuicer]

Re: Secrets in Lake Seminole

I may have missed it but what concrete evidence was presented in court that Denise played a role in Mike’s murder? I was waiting for them to reveal something irrefutable but nothing came. All the life insurance, marrying his best friend stuff is still pretty flimsy evidence. And Brian(?) had a good reason to point the finger elsewhere.