All Episodes Discussion

[UsernameFatigue]

2 hours ago, saber5055 said:

This is sort of a non-important fact to me, since he was only inside the dorm waiting for Lauren. Maybe it was too cold outside for him. As soon as he saw her, he went outside and killed her outside. So the end was the same if he was waiting in the lobby or the bushes outside.

Oh for sure, but my post was in regards to the fact that he was being continually let in to the dorm by people who lived there, even after it was known by the school and police that he was dangerous. Both the school, and campus and city police are very lucky that he did not kill other people as well as Lauren. It was horrific enough that they all let her down. 

[Lsk02]

4 hours ago, saber5055 said:

This is sort of a non-important fact to me, since he was only inside the dorm waiting for Lauren. Maybe it was too cold outside for him. As soon as he saw her, he went outside and killed her outside. So the end was the same if he was waiting in the lobby or the bushes outside.

Yes, I wondered about this too. Why not block his calls or change her number or something. But I guess what's a no-brainer for me isn't for everyone else. 

They mentioned in the episode that she blocked his number, and “other people” kept texting her about him, including trying to get her to go to his (fake) funeral. Obviously all those texts came from him. It was brought up several times that he was tech savvy, so it sounds like he was spoofing numbers to get to her. I did wonder if she got a new phone number, and if not, why? 

[thejuicer]

Lauren's story is just so, so sad to me. 

I am not blaming her at all, but I wonder why at some point Lauren didn't just pack up her bag and fly home to her mom and dad's. Get away from that psychopath. Fly far away from him and start over new if need be. So many what ifs. RIP Lauren. 

[Irlandesa]

I think it's easy to say that she should have changed her phone number or left school but both of those things make her life harder.  It could delay graduation for her.  She wasn't getting much help from her school so there's no indication that they'd be understanding about her leaving.  And having to give out a new phone number is a pain.

Now in retrospect, I bet all involved wish she would have tried those things but very few people think they're going to get killed. I imagine it's hard to cope with having to upend your life because someone won't stop stalking you.

[Manda317]

One thing I kept wondering the entire time I was watching Lauren's case is why nobody ever suggested that she go to court and file for a protection order. At that point it would be a crime for him to contact her or be in the vicinity of her. It also has to be served by the police, (not the campus police) so a more competent officer may have done a background check and realized his parole status. I also don't understand why the regular police did not have jurisdiction. This was occuring on her phone, not exclusively on school property, and he is not even a student. The idea that she had to go through the campus police sounds like a bunch of bs. I'm feeling like they just didn't care.

Sadly, I have to wonder if a protection order would have mattered. The police would have had to be willing to enforce it, and I don't know if they would have been. Their concern about arresting him for extortion doesn't give me much confidence. How hard would it have been for them simply to notify everyone on campus (at least security personnel) that he was not allowed to be present? If they had done that, he may have never been able to get it. He may have been outside and discovered before she got back to her dorm. 

Finally, why would a police force disregard an extortion threat from a sex offender? A sex offender who lied about his age and identity at that. This man's history demonstrated that he is a potential threat and that his behavior should be taken seriously. This obviously wasn't a case of someone saying horrible things after a breakup. Did they need to see a homicide in his record to understand that he was dangerous?

[Annber03]

Yeah, I wonder how a protection order would've worked out, too. On the one hand, it would've been a good thing to show to the police and any other officials, both as proof of how serious things truly did become and as something that they could help enforce if he did try and violate the order somehow.

On the other hand, I've also sadly seen so many stories where protection and restraining orders did absolutely zip in helping the victim, because criminals don't care about them and know how to get around then, and even with those orders in place, it often feels like there's still a lot law enforcement can't or won't do, and then tragedy ensues anyway.

But yeah, given his criminal record and the extortion and such, that alone should've been enough for police to act and remove him from the premises altogether, and perhaps serve some jail time as well. 

[walnutqueen]

I think the reason the "regular police" kept referring Lauren back to the campus police was because at least some of the campus cops were sworn police officers.  Which makes their actions (or, more accurately, inaction) that much worse.

[Vivigirl10]

Quote

If I were Lauren's parent, I would sue the ass off of both departments for their do-nothing approach to multiple very real problems Lauren reported.

Absolutely!  I tried to find out information online if they were suing, but couldn't find any evidence of it.  Very baffling. 

Quote

I was surprised the guy was able to walk into the dorm.

When I was in college (granted, a long while ago) you had to come in the front door of the dorm, the other doors were locked and you could only go out, not in.

Quote

What shocked me was that they said that he was practically living with Lauren in her dorm. WTF?? How was THAT allowed to happen? No one who was not paying to live there (ie someone who does not have a pass key) should have been living there! I said to my husband that not only did that put Lauren at risk (unbeknownst to her in the beginning) but it also put all other students at risk as well! 

The dorm situation upset me as well.  Back in the dark ages when I lived in the dorm, it was like Fort Knox.  Complete with "night security", where you had to produce your ID to even get to the stairway. 

I remember another case where a very mature/adult student (probably 25+) was allowed to live in the dorm and he ultimately had full access to kill a student there.  I think it brought to light that many dorms did not have age restrictions in place. 

In Lauren's case, the fact that this criminal, practically middle-aged man, was able to live among students as young as 18 years old is chilling.  I can't believe some astute dorm dweller didn't blow the whistle on the fact that he appeared to be living there unauthorized.

No shred of victim blaming here but I would really like to know more about this relationship.  I know the murderer (what was his name?) said he was a master manipulator.  I must have missed the very beginning....he wasn't a student was he?  How did he present himself to Lauren where this cute, socially active, athletic, young woman would even give him a second glance?  He was twice her age (admittedly, lying about that fact), physically intimidating and "creeped" other young women out (as her friends attested to).    

Infuriating case, all the way around. 

[cooksdelight]

Getting a protection order takes the plaintiff proving the defendant is a danger to her, in front of a judge under oath. She could have tried going to the DAs office. I guess she thought police were on watch.

[12catcrazy]

1 hour ago, Kiki620 said:

Absolutely!  I tried to find out information online if they were suing, but couldn't find any evidence of it.  Very baffling. 

The dorm situation upset me as well.  Back in the dark ages when I lived in the dorm, it was like Fort Knox.  Complete with "night security", where you had to produce your ID to even get to the stairway. 

I remember another case where a very mature/adult student (probably 25+) was allowed to live in the dorm and he ultimately had full access to kill a student there.  I think it brought to light that many dorms did not have age restrictions in place. 

In Lauren's case, the fact that this criminal, practically middle-aged man, was able to live among students as young as 18 years old is chilling.  I can't believe some astute dorm dweller didn't blow the whistle on the fact that he appeared to be living there unauthorized.

No shred of victim blaming here but I would really like to know more about this relationship.  I know the murderer (what was his name?) said he was a master manipulator.  I must have missed the very beginning....he wasn't a student was he?  How did he present himself to Lauren where this cute, socially active, athletic, young woman would even give him a second glance?  He was twice her age (admittedly, lying about that fact), physically intimidating and "creeped" other young women out (as her friends attested to).    

Infuriating case, all the way around. 

I was under the impression that Lauren didn't have much dating experience.  She also seemed to be a "good girl" and probably liked to please the people closest to her which made her a good target for an abusive boyfriend.   And many young women seem to be attracted to older boyfriends as they feel "protected" by an older man.  

[Lovecat]

2 hours ago, Kiki620 said:

In Lauren's case, the fact that this criminal, practically middle-aged man, was able to live among students as young as 18 years old is chilling.  I can't believe some astute dorm dweller didn't blow the whistle on the fact that he appeared to be living there unauthorized.

No shred of victim blaming here but I would really like to know more about this relationship.  I know the murderer (what was his name?) said he was a master manipulator.  I must have missed the very beginning....he wasn't a student was he?  How did he present himself to Lauren where this cute, socially active, athletic, young woman would even give him a second glance?  He was twice her age (admittedly, lying about that fact), physically intimidating and "creeped" other young women out (as her friends attested to).    

And I can't believe that the Resident Assistant (RA), Diamond, didn't boot him out or escalate the issue to Student Affairs or Housing if he refused to leave.  My heart goes out to her because she obviously feels some guilt over Lauren's death (and the Mank was so very sweet, trying to make her feel better), but it really is part of the RA's job to make sure that only paying customers (so to speak) are living in the dorms.  In retrospect, that would have been one way to get rid of the guy--let someone know he wasn't paying to stay there!  Money talks, even if Campus Security is sitting around with their thumbs up their ass.

To partially answer the second question, Lauren met Sean (I forget his real name, too) at a bar; I believe he was working Security.

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, 12catcrazy said:

I was under the impression that Lauren didn't have much dating experience.  She also seemed to be a "good girl" and probably liked to please the people closest to her which made her a good target for an abusive boyfriend.   And many young women seem to be attracted to older boyfriends as they feel "protected" by an older man.  

Plus, he was a security guard, so she naturally felt he was trustworthy. Despite all the stories we've heard over the years of people in trusted authority/position of power roles turning out to be real scumbags, a lot of people still tend to just assume that people of that stature are harmless. 

[TVbitch]

I remember a previous Dateline where it turned out it was a campus cop that abducted, raped and murdered a college student. And I believe it was his first crime. Yikes. 

[saber5055]

23 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Getting a protection order takes the plaintiff proving the defendant is a danger to her, in front of a judge under oath.

I don't think any piece of paper or bunch of words telling this guy to stay away from Lauren would have made any difference. He was going to kill her. Period. And that he killed himself afterward ... I'm not sure what that says. But he wasn't going to go back to jail, and he made sure of that.

It's so dumb that someone has to prove they are in physical danger or have been physically abused to get a restraining order. After they are dead is too late.  And as for men not having an record of physical abuse/violence so police ignore their threats, every murderer has a first victim. They aren't born with a bunch of kills under their belt. How about stopping stuff before it happens, not having all this hindsight.

I'm still gobsmacked that Utah students can all legally be packing guns in class.

[car54]

:Article in the SLC Gazette about the local response 

https://www.sltrib.com/artsliving/2019/06/14/scott-d-pierce-almost/

[saber5055]

Thanks for that link, @car54. Now I know why that woman was chosen as spokesperson ... she's retiring so will be out and gone. I'm glad Dateline put the spotlight on Lauren's story. I just hope the U gets burned, as do all of the people who did nothing. Then got awards for letting a student be murdered. And yeah, gotta love the spokeswoman saying the Dateline comment was "harsh."

Excellent article, and thank you SLC Gazette for running it.

[Annber03]

Quote

University President Ruth Watkins and campus police Chief Dale Brophy both declined interview requests.

Isn't it great that they get to avoid any opportunity to answer for this tragedy? A young woman died on your campus, you damn well better have the time to answer questions about it. 

Great article. Agreed that the responses all around are just shamefully bad. And these are the people in charge of trying to help prepare these students for the real world? That's unsettling to think about. 

[Manda317]

14 hours ago, saber5055 said:

I don't think any piece of paper or bunch of words telling this guy to stay away from Lauren would have made any difference. He was going to kill her. Period. And that he killed himself afterward ... I'm not sure what that says. But he wasn't going to go back to jail, and he made sure of that.

It's so dumb that someone has to prove they are in physical danger or have been physically abused to get a restraining order. After they are dead is too late.  And as for men not having an record of physical abuse/violence so police ignore their threats, every murderer has a first victim. They aren't born with a bunch of kills under their belt. How about stopping stuff before it happens, not having all this hindsight.

I'm still gobsmacked that Utah students can all legally be packing guns in class.

Oh I definitely think he would have tried to violate the order, I just wonder maybe at that point he would have been arrested because the police didn't have to actually get off their butts to investigate anything. There is a part of me that wonders if they would have even bothered to enforce it though, and if she called the SLC police they would just refer her to campus police. The biggest impact I think it could have had is a possible background check that would have revealed his parole status. Protection orders are served by the police (I believe the Sheriff's Office), and there is a good chance they would have run a check before they went to serve him. 

It is very rare that an order will not be granted. Protection orders are ex parte at first, so they are only temporary. They are put into place, and then a hearing is set to determine if they are permanent. Granted, I am only familiar with WV, but protection orders are granted for a lot less. I actually worked on a case where a wife got an order based on phone harassment and creepy statements. As I recall, none of them were outright threats to her, and there was definitely no extortion. The only problem she could possibly have is that the calls and messages weren't proven to have come from him (because the police would not investigate), but I still have a hard time believing that the judge would not grant it as a precaution. When reading about problems with protection orders, it seems to be accepted that they are always granted to be on the safe side. Nobody wants to deny one and then something happen. There could be cases that I haven't read about though, or things could be different depending on where you live ( I don't know that WV is real progressive though lol).

[cooksdelight]

2 hours ago, Manda317 said:

Oh I definitely think he would have tried to violate the order, I just wonder maybe at that point he would have been arrested because the police didn't have to actually get off their butts to investigate anything.

In NC, if he called her, texted her, came anywhere that she was (such as her dorm) she could dial 911 and he’d spend 48 hurs in jail. As you said, they are ex parte in the beginning, but once a trial is held or he pleads guilty, they are permanent for one year. They can be renewed each year if she is still in fear. That’s where you need an attorney to help convince a judge, but Legal Aid will appoint one free in cases of domestic violence.

A woman has to be proactive to protect herself in these situations. With those clown cops in Utah, she was struggling on an uphill battle. Hindsight being what it is, she should have gotten a lawyer help her to get a protective order from the first time she felt threatened.

[Ohmo]

Back to the Farm

I think Jason did it, but the DA didn't have enough to prove it.  When Dateline did the first episode about this case (titled "The Farm," I believe), I seem to recall that the land was worth a fortune.  Something like $8 million, and Jason was supposed to get everything above ground.  Even if he were financially stable, there's such a thing as plain old greed.

The affair may have been salacious, but to me, it still also speaks to motive.  Jason was greedy.  He wanted it all: marriage, mistress, and farm.

I think Jason found an attorney who was skilled enough to do her job well and get him off, but I think he did it.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Ohmo

[iMonrey]

I don't know about the farm. It seems like the police and the prosecutor seized on the fact that the son was having an affair like that proved he was a murderer. I just don't see the relevance and think it's a huge leap to "he was having an affair" to "he killed his mother." What's the connection? He wouldn't inherit the farm until both his parents were dead; was his father next on his hit list? The prosecutor theorized his mother had found out about the affair and would tell his father, and he feared being disinherited over it but a.) that's complete speculation and hogwash and b.) still a huge leap that he would go that far. Would his parents really disinherit him over an affair and would he really kill his own mother just to make sure that didn't happen? 

I'm suspicious of the husband. If he was as controlling as the defense made him out to be he fits the personality type of an abusive husband to a tee. And he was the one pointing the finger at the son.

[CrazyInAlabama]

One thing they brought showed during Jason's marathon interview was when Jason said that he'd had multiple affairs, not just the current one.  

I think Jason thought with his mother gone, the father would not only make him manager of the farm, but wouldn't have the mother saying that she didn't trust Jason.      I think it was entirely greed on Jason's part, and he thought that with his mother dead, the father would rely on him even more, and probably retire from the farm.    I think he killed her in the house, because he thought the father would never set foot in the house again.       The father was the one who hired the private investigator that found so many facts the police hadn't.    

The private investigator proved that the father would have to be very efficient to follow the proven timeline, and kill his wife.     Jason lied about everything, and I'm convinced that even though they couldn't prove it in criminal court, that he did it.      I hope the father did everything legally possible to make sure Jason never gets a dime from the farm or his estate.    

Edited June 15, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[LakeGal]

Jason's wife was as greedy as Jason.  She was willing to overlook all the affairs.  She just wanted the land and her lifestyle to continue.  I am not even sure she was being truthful about how dad treated mom.  She did not want Jason convicted because she would then lose everything.  

[Irlandesa]

44 minutes ago, LakeGal said:

Jason's wife was as greedy as Jason.  She was willing to overlook all the affairs.  She just wanted the land and her lifestyle to continue.  I am not even sure she was being truthful about how dad treated mom.  She did not want Jason convicted because she would then lose everything.  

Or maybe she didn't care about the affairs as much as people think she should.  She was going to lose everything anyway.  The father owns the farm and he if he thinks his son did it, then he'll remove the son from the will even if he, himself, were convicted of the crime. 

I guess it depends on how much her farm was worth.

I think the "she's been dead for two hours" thing is what convinced me.  That's a very specific amount of time. Not "hours" or "a while" but two hours?

[Ohmo]

On 6/15/2019 at 11:27 AM, iMonrey said:

I don't know about the farm. It seems like the police and the prosecutor seized on the fact that the son was having an affair like that proved he was a murderer. I just don't see the relevance and think it's a huge leap to "he was having an affair" to "he killed his mother." What's the connection? He wouldn't inherit the farm until both his parents were dead; was his father next on his hit list? The prosecutor theorized his mother had found out about the affair and would tell his father, and he feared being disinherited over it but a.) that's complete speculation and hogwash and b.) still a huge leap that he would go that far. Would his parents really disinherit him over an affair and would he really kill his own mother just to make sure that didn't happen? 

I'm suspicious of the husband. If he was as controlling as the defense made him out to be he fits the personality type of an abusive husband to a tee. And he was the one pointing the finger at the son.

From experience, I've seen family members do some seriously shady things for a lot less than $8 million.  Also, I think it's entirely possible that Jason's parents could have disinherited him.  It was their money/farm.  It's not necessarily a given that family members receive the money or assets within their families.  People sometimes act like it's a right, and it's not.  Those with money can do whatever they wish with it.  Bill and Shirley were also of a certain generation.  They got married when she got pregnant.  That's what couples did back then.  The fact that their son was a horndog might not have gone over well.

Also, I'm not at all suspicious of Bill.  First, the allegation of "controlling" behavior only came from Jason's wife, who was busy trying to save his butt.  Second, that description of controlling came from someone who was not of Bill or Shirley's generation and no one else.  What may have seemed controlling to Jason's wife (if she was telling the truth) may not have been that way to Shirley and Bill.  Defining behavior by one generation by the viewpoint of another generation can be tricky.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Ohmo

[Ohmo]

57 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I think the "she's been dead for two hours" thing is what convinced me.  That's a very specific amount of time. Not "hours" or "a while" but two hours?

Agreed.  That screamed at me (as an indicator of Jason's guilt) as well.  He didn't say that he thought his mother had been dead for "a bit" or " a while."  He said two hours, which seems to be very specific for a guy who has nothing to do with this.

I'm also surprised that the jury only deliberated for two hours.  To me, there was more that pointed to Jason, not away from him (even though the jury was in the dark about the affair).  I think that would have taken more than two hours to discuss.  It was not that cut and dry, in my opinion.

Edited June 15, 2019 by Ohmo

[cooksdelight]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

she's been dead for two hours

That was a dead giveaway (no pun intended) that he was guilty as hell.

[Irlandesa]

Although I will say that I don't know that there was enough for me to convict him either. The two hours was a big red flag and enough for me to agree with the civil suit but in a criminal trial, I would have needed something more--like motive. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

$8 million that the farm's worth is plenty of motive for Jason in my view.     Look at the father's history in the years since his wife died, with multiple suicide attempts (according to what he told a local reporter).     All Jason had to do was kill the mother, and wait for the father to either get convicted, or to die, leaving everything to his son who worked on the farm.    Or turn the farm over to Jason to manage, pending his inheritance.   Or for the father to sell to Jason, with very favorable financing, because the father couldn't stand to be on the farm after his wife died.     

I think the son was also sick of being the hired hand in the business, instead of the father retiring and giving him the business, and the farm.    The 'robbery' was obviously faked too.   The 'my mother's been dead for two hours' in the 911 call was very suspicious to me, too.      Sad when a bunch of internet posters seem better at investigations than the local detectives were, but the private investigator certainly was worth every penny he costs.      I'm betting the wife knows a lot more than she told.     I bet the fact that there was a lack of evidence shows the amount of planning that went into the crime.  

However, the father is fooling himself if he thought that the conviction of his son for murder would lead to him having the grandchildren in contact again.   There is no way that Jason's wife would allow that, and I bet she would have moved and taken the children with her. 

Edited June 16, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[TVbitch]

I wish they could have found some evidence. Did they even test Jason's hands? Did they search his place? Did they track his phone? He would have had to go dispose of the gun and then come back to "discover" the body. What a shitty fake robery that was. Why not take the money and jewelry? 

The husband's pain seemed very real. And he hired his own detective. And he spent a million dollars pursuing the son knowing he would never see a penny of the judgement. That all suggests he is probably not the killer.

Jason shot his mom with his dad's gun. I'm sure he was hoping dad would get nabbed for it. Still though, Jesus God, it seemed like they had a decent relationship. I fucking hate my dad and I can't even imagine harming him in any way.  

[cooksdelight]

Tonight’s episode will keep me awake for a while. Why that guy hasn’t been executed... he’s the reason we have the death penalty.

[LittleIggy]

Farm episode: I’ll just add that whoever killed the mother had to have been a family member to have known where that rifle was kept. And I don’t think it was the husband either. He looked like a broken man (I didn’t hear the part about his suicide attempts). 

[CrazyInAlabama]

The suicide attempts, and other information was in a recent article about the crime in a local newspaper, they interviewed the husband (Bill?) .     The son and wife actually are renting property near the parent's farm.   

Edited June 16, 2019 by CrazyInAlabama

[Ohmo]

13 hours ago, LittleIggy said:

He looked like a broken man (I didn’t hear the part about his suicide attempts). 

I also think the suicide attempts were discussed in the initial episode about the case.  We didn't hear about them on Friday night, but I know I've heard about them before.

I've been thinking about the concept of evidence, and what that word means.  I think there was evidence, but the jury didn't consider it evidence.  They were looking for something like DNA.  This  points to the need to think critically

1) This was in rural Iowa, so  we're not talking someone wandering in off the street.   Evidence #1

2) Nothing indicated that it was a robbery Evidence #2

3) The gun and ammunition used were in a location that would likely only be known to someone in the family. Evidence #3

4) Jason failed the polygraph. Evidence #4.  I know that polys aren't reliable, but is the mere mention of them specifically barred from trials?  Can they be used as one piece of evidence among many? Evidence #4

5) Jason's 911 call Evidence #5

6) Whether he was financially strapped or not, Jason stood to financially lose if Bill decided to change  his will.  Bill stood to gain nothing from Shirley's death.  In fact, her death made it more difficult for him to maintain his investment.  He now has more work to do with one less person to do it.  Evidence #6

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe there was enough evidence, but it required the jury to think critically and put pieces of information together.  The fact that they only took two hours to deliberate seems to suggest that they were looking to be spoon-fed with a very explicit piece of DNA or a confession by Jason.  I find that troubling because life isn't always explicit.

Shirley was murdered.  She did not do this to herself, and allowing a defense attorney to sell you that "it could have been someone else" for this set of facts is like saying that the Easter Bunny could have done it.  It's just not plausible.  If you can eliminate Bill (which as far as I'm concerned, I could do), that only leaves Jason, whether there's DNA or gunshot residue or whatever.

Now, if this had happened in a metro area or if there were signs of a break-in, I'd feel differently, but in this case, I think geography with no signs of a break-in are HUGE.  I'm frustrated because I think the jury allowed themselves to be led by a defense attorney's claim of "there was no evidence."  Yes, there was.

Edited June 16, 2019 by Ohmo

[LittleIggy]

Polygraph test results are generally not admissible in court.

[TVbitch]

@cooksdelight Not only that he will actually be elligible for parole. ....Seriously? 

[cooksdelight]

1 hour ago, TVbitch said:

@cooksdelight Not only that he will actually be elligible for parole. ....Seriously? 

Him getting out of prison is like saying, “Sorry folks, you’re all on your own!”

[TVbitch]

I also did not care for the mother saying to the killer in her victim's impact statement that she knew Kayci would have forgiven him, so she would to. Ummmm, that was a bit presumptuous. For the  record, if I am ever murdered, please do not forgive the murderer on my behalf. 

[Irlandesa]

28 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

I also did not care for the mother saying to the killer in her victim's impact statement that she knew Kayci would have forgiven him, so she would to. Ummmm, that was a bit presumptuous. For the  record, if I am ever murdered, please do not forgive the murderer on my behalf. 

Yeah.  I was wondering how the dad felt about that. It's not her fault she married a monster but still....I think I'd feel guilty and forgiving him in open court on behalf of your daughter feels presumptuous. 

[car54]

The mother made me crazy.   How she could stand in court and say that in front of her dead daughter's father is beyond me.

The three fathers who lost daughters broke my heart.

I wanted to know what happened to the child that "Hannibal" tried to kill for the insurance money.   I hope he was raised away from that poor excuse for a father.

[TVbitch]

Yeah and how on earth was that child returned to his father?! The kid said dad tried to KILL him. And then next thing was the uncle came down to help care for him on the farm, which implies he went right back there! WTF? 

Also, did Dateline run this episode for Father's Day? If so, that is fucked up. 

[Ohmo]

Dennis interviewed three of the jurors from Jason Carter's trial.

https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/three-jurors-discuss-the-criminal-trial-of-jason-carter-61933637842

My opinion hasn't changed.  I think the two hours of deliberation was not enough time to make a determination of acquittal, knowing that the U.S. justice system only allows for Jason to be tried once for this crime.

If it were me, I would have hung the jury before I voted for acquittal.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Ohmo

[iMonrey]

Quote

Now, if this had happened in a metro area or if there were signs of a break-in, I'd feel differently, but in this case, I think geography with no signs of a break-in are HUGE.  I'm frustrated because I think the jury allowed themselves to be led by a defense attorney's claim of "there was no evidence."  Yes, there was.

I suppose people have been convicted on less but the case just hangs on too much speculation. We don't actually know whether or not Jason's mother knew about the affairs, for example. Or that Jason feared disinheritance. That's all speculation. It also hangs on the fact that he told the 911 operator it looked like his mother had been dead a couple of hours. I think a little too much emphasis is resting on that. If he'd simply knelt down to feel that her body was cold but not rigid, a couple of hours wasn't exactly psychic absent guilt. 

I know that I came away thinking the police really pounced on the affairs and read way too much relevance into it. I'd have felt the same as a jury member. 

I'd feel differently if we have any evidence one or both parents had confronted him about his affairs, or money troubles, or threatened to disinherit him. I could definitely get on board then. 

[cooksdelight]

A Facebook friend grew up with Bonnie, her story will be aired this weekend.

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I suppose people have been convicted on less but the case just hangs on too much speculation. We don't actually know whether or not Jason's mother knew about the affairs, for example. Or that Jason feared disinheritance.

I agree.

I remember one case that was kind of similar to this.  A couple was arrested for killing her parents. The motive was allegedly the land in a rural area, IIRC. They convicted the guy even though there was unidentified DNA in the house.  Later, that DNA pointed to a random guy who had been arrested in another state and DNA tested. So it happens.

But the state didn't have much.  They couldn't enter evidence about his affairs because there was no proof that the mother knew about them.  There wasn't proof that she was threatening to have him disinherited.  Had there been, I'm sure the family would have tried to testify to it.  Killing her to speed up the inheritance doesn't make much sense considering the father is still alive.  If the suicide attempts happened after his wife's death, there's no proof that he expected his dad to off himself which would speed up the inheritance process without him having to kill his dad too.

It's not a fault of critical thinking skills in this case, IMO.  Circumstantial cases are worthy of being taken seriously but I think they need more circumstantial evidence than was provided here for a criminal conviction.

Monday's episode was another "not guilty" verdict.  I can see why the jury reached the conclusion they did as the defense team did a good job of poking holes in the evidence.  It's astonishing how many cases covered on this show don't have good representation.  I feel like he did it, though.

[Ohmo]

12 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Monday's episode was another "not guilty" verdict.  I can see why the jury reached the conclusion they did as the defense team did a good job of poking holes in the evidence.  It's astonishing how many cases covered on this show don't have good representation.  I feel like he did it, though.

See, for Monday's episode, I'm more comfortable with the not guilty verdict than in the Carter case.  With Bonnie Zimmerman, she was murdered in a very public location.  It genuinely could have been "someone off the street."  Plus, the jury deliberated for over a day, which, to me, at least indicates an attempt to discuss the matter.  I have heard that it can take almost half an hour to fill out paperwork during deliberations, which would leave an hour and a half in the Carter case.  Not cut and dry enough for only an hour and a half of discussion , in my opinion, but as has been established, my mileage apparently varies.  Moving on...

In the Zimmerman case, there wasn't enough there for me to convict, along with there being the possibility of it could being someone other than the ex.  Given his assets, I find the $4,000 to be an unusual (if unlikely) motive.  Her last client would also give me pause.

[12catcrazy]

I don't think that Bonnie Zimmerman's ex-husband killed her over the $4k per se.  I think he did it  (again Occam's razor) but it was from some probably long-festering anger at her and maybe the letter demanding the 4k was the straw that broke the camel's back.   We were never given the backstory about their divorce, so we really don't know what could have pushed him to kill her.  

Some people have very long fuses, but when they finally blow, all hell breaks loose. 

[TVbitch]

Tough one. The guy was odd for sure. So meek and deadpan. Something is probably going on inside him but only he knows what. I tend to think the family of the victim probably had a truer picture of him than the kids did. I've seen complete assholes turn into decent people around their kids. 

[iMonrey]

I could go either way on whether it was the ex-husband or the last client she saw. It's odd that the killer cut all the phones and took the appointment book. On the one hand it could indicate a client who wanted to erase their tie to the victim, but the phones?? It could also be someone who wanted to make it look like that.

One thing I'm confident in saying is that the children could in no way be objective about this. The fact that more than one person said Bonnie told them she feared her ex-husband, and that if anything happened to her it was him, is really the most compelling evidence to me. I wonder if the verdict would have been different if the jury were allowed to hear that.

[metalchik]

Pam Hupp update:

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/pamela-hupp-to-serve-life-in-prison-for-murder-of/article_c74df094-8858-5ae3-aa58-66a3e819a728.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest