All Episodes Discussion

[JudyObscure]

13 hours ago, OpalNightstream said:

Glad us taxpayers could pay for her college degrees while we struggle to pay for our own children’s tuition.

Tuition has gotten so high,  the best way to get an education is either to commit a crime or have a baby while single.  Young people who try to live responsible lives, using birth control and obeying the law,  are out of luck.

[lb60]

I could have done without seeing Pamela Smart praise dancing.

I've always thought she was guilty, guilty, guilty. This episode did nothing to change my mind.

[Irlandesa]

Ah there's my happy ending love story twist. Real life The Bodyguard.

Too bad it had to happen during such a frustrating episode.

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

Ah there's my happy ending love story twist. Real life The Bodyguard.

Too bad it had to happen during such a frustrating episode.

Yeah, I loved that ending, too :). I'm glad something good came out of all of this.

But god, yes, the rest of that story was just... Allowing a child to continue to visit the very man who traumatized him and his mother and threatened to kill the both of them, and making his wife pay for his stuff besides. What. The. Ever-Loving. Fuck? 

And once again I say, if you think somebody remains such a danger to the point where you feel you'd have to warn people about them should they get out, then don't let them out to begin with. 

And I'm biting my tongue HARD on the gun aspect of all of this, but suffice to say they're absolutely right that this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. This guy had a criminal history, which was about as red a flag as you could get, but even with the people who commit mass shootings who don't have criminal records, you always wind up hearing something about them afterwards that hints at some serious underlying issues that were ignored for far too long. People really do need to pay better attention about this stuff. 

It'd be great if they could find a way to hold accountable the city officials who dropped the ball so spectacularly. 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Annber03

[Lisa418722]

If Pamela Smart would say, "yes, I set this into motion" and finally take responsibility for her part in it, I would be OK with them giving her parole at this point. No, she didn't pull the gun's trigger, but she set it up.

[JudyObscure]

I think Pamela Smart set it all up, too.  I read the true crime book about it, before the movie, and much of it was interviews with Cecilia who was the friend of that group of guys and, like them, idol worshiped Pam at the time.  Everything she said rang true and Pam definitely had that boy enslaved. 

Even so, I think life without parole was too much.  Just contrast that with the man who held his little boy hostage and got a slap on the wrist.  It was Pam's first offense and she has been motivated to prove herself redeemable while in prison.  I'm not sure I agree with the parole board denying parole because she wont confess to masterminding the murder.  Any con knows he/she can lie about that and it will help them get out, so it doesn't mean a lot to me one way or another, just like the, "I've become a Christian" thing.  Maybe it's sincere maybe it isn't. I think the only considerations should be behavior in prison and likelihood of repeat offense.

So, if it was up to me, I would probably let her out now -- if it wasn't for that liturgical dancing.

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I'm not sure I agree with the parole board denying parole because she wont confess to masterminding the murder. 

I didn't get the impression that that's what the guy from the parole board was looking to hear (although I think he would have considered hearing it a positive in terms of parole).  My sense of what he was getting out wasn't so much "I set this in motion" as it might have been "I was the adult in this situation.  I now have an understanding that what I said and how I acted with these kids carried weight, regardless of what I intended,."

She keeps going back to "I didn't tell him to kill Gregg."  She might not have, but as my ethics professor tried to explain, when you work with children/students in a position of authority, you have to know that you are the adult.  If anything happens, school districts are going to side with the student as a matter of that student's protection.  If they say that you told them the sky is purple, you have to be able to say that you, in fact, did not do that.  He told us that right, wrong, fair, or unfair, when we are interacting with students, we have to know better, and we have to understand that we have to know better.  We have to not put ourselves in situations that could be misconstrued because if something happens "I didn't mean that" or I didn't say that" is not going to be enough, even if that's true,

I think the parole guy is more broadly looking for acceptance of her responsibility as an adult in this situation, not just "I didn't tell him to..."

[JudyObscure]

Oh I agree with all you say about adult responsibility around children, I'm just not sure that I think her parole should depend on her understanding this. They would have registered her as a sex offender and she would never be working around kids again. She's always going to be a vain, rather stupid person, but she's paid a 29 year debt to society for what she did an I think that should be enough.

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I'm just not sure that I think her parole should depend on her understanding this. 

As I recall from the episode, the kid who actually shot Gregg cried during his testimony and years later while asking for parole.  Whether he's to be believed or not, that's an expression of remorse.  Pam, however, is still going with "I didn't tell him to do this."   By doing that, not only is she accepting no responsibility for the influence that she had, she's also expecting people to believe that these kids just decided to conspire to kill her husband, and she had absolutely no role in it.  No one's going to buy that, and that's what's keeping her locked up.  It's lack of responsibility and no show of remorse. 

No one is going to be released from prison if that person continues to say. "It was my husband, and yes, I slept with the shooter, but I had absolutely no idea."  She's denying everything, not just being the mastermind, but even having knowledge of what happened.  She has to accept responsibility for having SOMETHING to do with this situation, and if she continues with "it was all them, not me." jail is exactly where she belongs.

[biakbiak]

8 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I'm not sure I agree with the parole board denying parole because she wont confess to masterminding the murder.  An

Showing remorse and taking responsibility for one’s actions is one of the criteria that all parole boards take into account when granting release. 

[JudyObscure]

50 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Showing remorse and taking responsibility for one’s actions is one of the criteria that all parole boards take into account when granting release. 

I guess I don't agree with that.  I think those things are important when doing the sentencing but once someone has served that sentence and behaved themselves, I don't think it  should matter anymore.  Pam was given a longer sentence than the actual shooters precisely because of things like that.  Not allowing parole is getting her on both ends of it.  If we give Pam Smart, who wasn't even on the scene of the crime, life without parole then she's getting the same punishment as a serial killer (in a no capital punishment state) who raped and tortured children before killing them. 

I'm against capital punishment, and now that this case has got me thinking about it I think I'm against this sort of parole qualification that says you not only have to pay society for your crime by going to prison for X number of years, we're also going to  demand a convincing performance of groveling and tears.  

I know she got life not 29 years but that seems like a long enough time to me.  

[biakbiak]

I can see both sides of the issue because if you can’t even be bothered to make a token attempt at remorse and accept responsibility than clearly you haven’t reformed and are probably more inclined to make poor choices including some that might be criminal in the future. On the other hand there have been documented cases of actual innocent people who refused to admit guilt and therefore denied parole and later been released only because there convictions have been overturned. In Pam Smart case I think she is guilty and her stubborn special snowflake sense of entitlement that makes her not want to accept responsibility makes me not give a shit that she is being denied release.

[Ohmo]

22 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I think those things are important when doing the sentencing but once someone has served that sentence and behaved themselves, I don't think it  should matter anymore. 

I think remorse is important because it's an indicator of some attempt at rehabilitation.  It's also true that people can lie through their teeth, but, in a way, Pam Smart scares me more because the idea of remorse hasn't even appeared to cross her mind.  Serving her time and behaving herself are important, but without any thought of remorse, that seems more like gaming the system or self-preservation to me than rehabilitation. 

As others have said, Pam has several degrees.  Behaving herself is about just that---herself.  Without any consideration for her role in any of this, it leaves me to wonder what, if anything, she has learned.

ETA

Quote

In Pam Smart case I think she is guilty

Yup.  I think she's guilty of something.  To actually sit there and try and claim otherwise is absurd.  If she won't admit that, then her rehabilitation is questionable at best.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Ohmo

[cooksdelight]

I think there’s a new episode coming on at 9. I watched a preview, it’s new to me, at least.

[JudyObscure]

I'm finding this discussion very interesting it's something I never really thought about before!

So I've been reading about parole.  Minnesota doesn't have it at all.  Prisoners serve 2/3 of their sentence and then are released under supervision for the last third.  States vary greatly on how often they grant parole.  Nebraska grants parole to 87% of applicants, my state of Ohio only grants 7%. 

I agree with this statement from an article about parole:

Three of the most preeminent writers and thinkers on parole say it best: “The only ground for denial of release [on parole] should be the board’s finding, based on credible evidence, that the prisoner presents an unacceptable risk of reoffending if released.” No other criteria should matter.

Don't get me wrong, I think Pam Smart is an awful person, self-centered and dishonest, but I don't think the state gets to require that she become kind hearted or  generous or learn anything, only that she does her time.

[biakbiak]

7 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

based on credible evidence, that the prisoner presents an unacceptable risk of reoffending if released.” No other criteria should matter.

But I see how people could view not assuming responsibility as an indication that you are likely to reoffend. There is a shit ton of things I don’t agree with in the criminal justice system from mandatory minimums to capital punishment and even some aspects of parole but having to accept responsibility for your actions to get it isn’t one.

[cooksdelight]

10 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

But I see how people could view not assuming responsibility as an indication that you are likely to reoffend. There is a shit ton of things I don’t agree with in the criminal justice system from mandatory minimums to capital punishment and even some aspects of parole but having to accept responsibility for your actions to get it isn’t one.

Agree 100%. It’s like an alcoholic who refuses to accept responsibility. They will go on a drinking binge again and again. Criminals who kill, or cause someone to be killed, will think it’s OK to go that road once again if they were let out early.

[cooksdelight]

Andrea’s eyebrows tonight ..... they’ve taken on a life all of their own.

[Ohmo]

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Don't get me wrong, I think Pam Smart is an awful person, self-centered and dishonest, but I don't think the state gets to require that she become kind hearted or  generous or learn anything, only that she does her time.

I'm not looking for a Mother Teresa like conversion here, but I don't even remember her saying "You know what, I'm sorry that Gregg is dead."  She can't even do THAT at a minimum!  She's yammering on that she's been in jail for 29 years, which is five more than Greg got to live, and Pam's still breathing.

As to the "doing her time" issue, I'm sure that one of the reasons the shooter was released.  That's part of "doing your time"---of coming to some realization that you are responsible for why you're incarcerated.  There are definitely people who are innocent who are jailed, but Pam is not one of those people.  On one extreme, she may not have been the mastermind, but on the other extreme, in no way do I believe that she's a complete and total innocent.  She was involved in Gregg's death in some way.  Of that, I'm certain.  The degree can be debated, but until she actually admits that she had a role in what happened (or even appears to give a shit that Gregg is dead), no, I don't think she's doing everything required to do her time.

And yes, I'm always up for a brisk discussion. 🙂

Edited August 4, 2019 by Ohmo

[Melina22]

Is The House on Pitch Pine Avenue a repeat? I know I've seen it but I'm not sure if it was the Dateline version. Either way it's one of the most unbelievable stories yet. When you find out what happened, it seems like a bad thriller. 

So tragic. 

[JudyObscure]

Yes, it's a repeat.  Boy I haaate that woman and her beast-like husband who can choke people to death just because it will make their own life easier.  When he referred to that nice victim family as "awful people,"  I almost came out of my recliner.  This may have been the episode that had us all talking about the insane hatred that builds up around custody issues.  

That couple has six children and they think everything they did was "for the children" -- like killing both of the kids loving grandparents, grandma left so that the little boy found her body, then killing their loving biological father, and finally getting themselves sent to prison.

The police really dropped the ball on this one.  Woman dies under odd circumstances the night before custody hearing and they don't look at the person who would benefit?

This one strained my new found beliefs about parole conditions. 😉 

[saber5055]

15 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

Andrea’s eyebrows tonight ..... they’ve taken on a life all of their own.

I spend my time staring at her hair so don't even notice the brows.

House on Pitch Pine Avenue: Dateline always does this, sets up the entire episode to make someone appear to be the guilty one (the son), then at the end the rest of the evidence and the real killer is revealed. I hate that, but it shows how easily people are swayed by telling only one part of a story. Dateline totally left out that mom was going to testify in the custody hearing the next day. Red flag, people. One that, apparently, the cops conveniently overlooked.

This was a prime example of how police and coroner are just people being paid to do some job and just putting in their time to collect a paycheck. The police and coroner in this case were no better than office workers who spend their day shopping online or standing around outside smoking instead of actually doing what they are being paid to do. Just keep collecting those checks, folks.

The husband's body found in a locked bathroom? Nothing suspicious there kids. The wife dead on the floor, marks on her neck? Keep moving folks, nothing to see here. Then the son and father to the kids murdered? Oh, so three dead people in that one house made those officials actually get off their rears and think, hey, something weird is going on here. As the show said, if they had done their jobs after Bob's murder, the mom and son would still be alive. But if the killer had done a better job of making the son's murder look like a suicide or something, he never would have been caught.

I wonder about the reasoning behind the murders, that it was "for the kids." Yeah, those kids will grow up just fine knowing dad/step dad murdered three people, and mom was in on it too, and finding dead grandma won't affect me at all, and having my parents in prison won't leave any lasting scars either.

I did wonder what family members the kids were living with now though. I'd be worried they would end up dead some day too if I were one of those children.

[biakbiak]

2 hours ago, saber5055 said:

Dateline always does this, sets up the entire episode to make someone appear to be the guilty one (the son), then at the end the rest of the evidence and the real killer is revealed. I hate that, but it shows how easily people are swayed by telling only one part of a story. Dateline totally left out that mom was going to testify in the custody hearing the next day. Red flag, people. One that, apparently, the cops conveniently overlooked.

<snip>

The husband's body found in a locked bathroom? Nothing suspicious there kids.

I didn’t mind them focusing on the son because apparently the police did to and they also ignored the custody battle so that made sense for them to not focus on it on the show to illustrate how the story unfolded. 

As for the husband being in a locked bathroom, I didn’t find that strange. Some people do lock the door when they go to the bathroom even if they are alone in the house just out of habit and people do in fact die from undiagnosed heart issues all the time even if they appear healthy. 

Edited August 4, 2019 by biakbiak

[TVbitch]

I had seen this one before, but forgot they killed the son too. Jesus God, people, if you are lucky enough to get away with murdering ONE member of a family, and then a SECOND, are you seriously gonna go for a third! I guess they felt after the first two went unsolved, it was easy pickings. 

I found it bizarre that the police went from barely seeming to care to having numerous officers doing those elaborate email schemes, garbage collection, constant surveillance, and extensive wire-tapping to get evidence.  

[saber5055]

42 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

As for the husband being in a locked bathroom, I didn’t find that strange. Some people do lock the door when they go to the bathroom even if they are alone in the house

First, most men I know don't even close the door when they go to the bathroom when family is in the house. Men pee outside all the time, in groups, and public urinals are just that, public, one next to the other. I don't know anyone, male or female, who would close the door when they knew they were alone, much less lock that door to keep out ... who? I live alone and never close my bathroom door. And when I did live with someone, I closed the door but never EVER locked it. I mean really. Why?

But maybe some people are paranoid. I just don't believe the dead husband was. So hey, BIG HUGE RED FLAG you dumbass cops. And heart failure doesn't cause neck bruising. So there's that, too.

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, saber5055 said:

And heart failure doesn't cause neck bruising. So there's that, too.

But falling in the middle of having a heart incident can the report was vague and there were no picture so who knows the level of bruising. 

Anytime I am an a household with young children I lock the door even if they aren’t there because of they show up their lack of boundaries can be high. But then again I know plenty of men who lock the bathroom door and don’t pee outside.

[Irlandesa]

I think the family could speak to his bathroom habits better than anyone else but it still probably wouldn't be enough to convict unless there was DNA there that they didn't take.

The failure of the police department was pretty stunning in that I'm thinking off all the murders in their jurisdiction which were never labeled as murders and the murderers were smart enough to stop at 1 instead of 3. 

I didn't mind that the show focused on the son because he was obviously a red herring.  He was in jail when his father was killed.  And then he appeared to have an alibi when his mother was killed.  I knew as soon as I saw the wife (not even ex, apparently) and her boyfriend that they likely did it. I just didn't know why. I thought maybe it was for the inheritance in that if both parents died, Caleb would get the money.  But if Caleb died, it'd likely go to his kids who would then likely go into her custody.

She should have waited until Chris got out of jail and just killed him.  I don't know Canada laws but do grandparents automatically have a custody claim?  It feels like the grandmother's claim was all via her son's custody rights.

[saber5055]

Who here locks their bathroom door when you know you are home alone and no one is expected to be home for hours?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And a fall in a small bathroom during a heart episode would leave bruising on maybe the neck, but moreso on the head, arms, legs, torso, where the person might have fallen against a sink or toilet. The neck would be protected by the head/shoulders, which should have more bruising than the throat.

JMHO of course since I wasn't there. But family members thought the bruising and locked door was funky, and they should know. Even Bob's friend/guy relative said Bob locking the bathroom door was bogus. I give him more cred on that topic than anyone else. Especially the police.

2 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I didn't mind that the show focused on the son because he was obviously a red herring.

Dateline always tosses us red herrings. That's what irks me. Although as I posted earlier, it demonstrates how easy it is to influence others when only one side of a story is told. It's a life lesson, if only we would listen to it.

[biakbiak]

1 minute ago, saber5055 said:

Who here locks their bathroom door when you know you are home alone and no one is expected to be home for hours?

It was never said that no one was expected home for hours and dinner was literally on the table. 

Being dead in a locked bathroom, which like most bathroom doors likely locked from the inside, with no damage to the door doesn’t strike me as something that would cause red flags of being a homicide.

[saber5055]

4 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Being dead in a locked bathroom, which like most bathroom doors likely locked from the inside, with no damage to the door doesn’t strike me as something that would cause red flags of being a homicide.

The situation of the death raised red flags to his family and friends. Just not for the cops or coroner.

As for peeing outside, if you don't live where there is winter, you've never had the joy of seeing your boyfriend/husband "write" his name in the snow. Or been outside with your man who is too lazy to go inside so he pees in the bush in the side yard. As one gets older, one gets to have more joys in life such as those. Hopefully, you will be able to stay thinking all men lock the bathroom door to pee in the toilet. I wish I could go back to those days. But as Mr. Poe wrote: "Nevermore."

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, saber5055 said:

Hopefully, you will be able to stay thinking all men lock the bathroom door to pee in the toilet. I wish I could go back to those days. But as Mr. Poe wrote: "Nevermore."

I literally never said that all men lock themselves in the bathroom or don’t pee outside just that there are men and women who have all sorts of habits.

It didn’t actually appear that the family had that many concerns about his death at the time and a lot was hindsight and I don’t understand how he ended up dead in the locked bathroom if it was the boyfriend with no other disturbances to the house. Did he try to strangle him, chase him into the bathroom, luck out that the injuries caused his death in the locked bathroom and just leave? Which is probably why he wasn’t convicted of it.

Edited August 4, 2019 by biakbiak

[Irlandesa]

20 minutes ago, saber5055 said:

Dateline always tosses us red herrings. That's what irks me. Although as I posted earlier, it demonstrates how easy it is to influence others when only one side of a story is told. It's a life lesson, if only we would listen to it.

Sure but they also gave us enough information to know the cops were barking up the wrong tree.

[slensam]

2 hours ago, saber5055 said:

Who here locks their bathroom door when you know you are home alone and no one is expected to be home for hours?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

And a fall in a small bathroom during a heart episode would leave bruising on maybe the neck, but moreso on the head, arms, legs, torso, where the person might have fallen against a sink or toilet. The neck would be protected by the head/shoulders, which should have more bruising than the throat.

JMHO of course since I wasn't there. But family members thought the bruising and locked door was funky, and they should know. Even Bob's friend/guy relative said Bob locking the bathroom door was bogus. I give him more cred on that topic than anyone else. Especially the police.

Dateline always tosses us red herrings. That's what irks me. Although as I posted earlier, it demonstrates how easy it is to influence others when only one side of a story is told. It's a life lesson, if only we would listen to it.

I do...

[Annber03]

3 hours ago, TVbitch said:

I had seen this one before, but forgot they killed the son too. Jesus God, people, if you are lucky enough to get away with murdering ONE member of a family, and then a SECOND, are you seriously gonna go for a third! I guess they felt after the first two went unsolved, it was easy pickings. 

Yep. They got away with it thus far, so they got cocky and felt they could keep going. Thank goodness that cockiness wound up being their downfall (I mean, openly talking about the crimes in public, c'mon. I know they didn't know they were being recorded, but still, if you want to get away with a crime, don't talk about it in public!). 

I remember seeing that story before, too. Wasn't that the same case where the family initially tried to brush off the woman's fall down the stairs as her "dying of a broken heart"? That was odd. 

[cooksdelight]

3 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Being dead in a locked bathroom, which like most bathroom doors likely locked from the inside, with no damage to the door doesn’t strike me as something that would cause red flags of being a homicide.

My first thought would be suicide, if he was known not to lock the door. However, if he was murdered, the killer still could have locked the door. Just turn the button or push it in and close the door. I’ve locked myself out of a room a time or two when I was younger this way. The killer might have thought he could do that to make it look like suicide.

I don’t know, I’m just glad the two of them are behind bars. God help the children.

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

My first thought would be suicide, if he was known not to lock the door. However, if he was murdered, the killer still could have locked the door. Just turn the button or push it in and close the door. I’ve locked myself out of a room a time or two when I was younger this way. The killer might have thought he could do that to make it look like suicide.

I don’t know, I’m just glad the two of them are behind bars. God help the children.

I can’t for the life of my understand how a lock door would indicate suicide with no other things pointing toward suicide or why someone would lock the door if he was already dead or leave the house nor making sure he was dead. 

[cooksdelight]

I think I didn’t explain that well.... if the killer wanted it to look like a suicide, he figured the person would lock the door so no one would be able to stop him, whatever. He had no idea that the guy never locked the bathroom door, he’s thinking of setting it up to look like he might have killed himself by whatever means.

[Melina22]

Was it ever conclusively established the father was murdered? The murderer says while confessing to 2 murders that the father was the only nice one in the family. Why on earth would he kill him? 

[Irlandesa]

7 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

Was it ever conclusively established the father was murdered? The murderer says while confessing to 2 murders that the father was the only nice one in the family. Why on earth would he kill him? 

The coroner changed their opinion and now believe he was killed.  The prosecutor's theory was that the guy went over and got into a bit of a fracas with the father/grandfather and ended up killing him.  I think "not guilty" was the right verdict there as they really didn't have anything. I think he may have realized that they had more on him for Bridget and Caleb but nothing on Bill (the dad).  The only striking thing is that the couple ran away with the kids right after Bill died.  The timing on that is suspicious.

I am a little surprised that the guy's defense was that he didn't mean to kill Caleb but that Caleb started fighting and so he killed him yet in the tapes, he said that Caleb didn't even put up a fight. 

[TVbitch]

Monday night's episode (a repeat with update) was weird. I wonder what really went on between the two young men. Maybe the white kid was just a racist looking to pound someone of color, and came upon the other guy. But then what was the other guy doing out wandering around at night, taking rides from strangers (since it was shown he was not drunk). I almost thought it was going to be some kind of "hook up" gone wrong. 

[Annber03]

I thought he just needed a quick lift back to his place.

But yeah, his comment about how he's "not used to being around that kind of population" was definitely eyebrow-raising. I know they wanted to claim that his comments on Twitter were from "over a year ago", and that's why they weren't shared in the trial, but a year isn't exactly that far back into the past, and his comments during the interrogation didn't seem all that different from what he was spouting on Twitter. 

And it was very frustrating how people kept insisting Pravin was intoxicated despite all the tests proving otherwise. That one guy was claiming that the alcohol must've metabolized in him quick enough to where the tests would be negative, but the people who insist he died of intoxication keep making it sound like he was drunk to the point of disorientation. If somebody's that wasted, are they really going to be able to absorb that much alcohol that quickly? 

His poor mom. I hope that she can get the proper justice she deserves eventually. 

On an equally sad note, man, the segment in which "Dateline" traced out the life of one of the victims of this weekend's mass shootings against the backdrop of every other mass shooting that's happened over the past twenty years was deeply, deeply sobering. Next time I hear somebody griping about millenials and their attitude about certain issues and their worldviews and whatnot, I want to point them to that segment. This is what an entire generation of kids has had to grow up hearing about and dealing with, and nothing significant has happened in all that time to actually try and stop this madness. Shouldn't be all that surprising that'd have a rather dramatic impact on them and their beliefs and actions and so on as a result. 

[hookedontv]

I see that Pamela Smart hasn’t stopped using the dark, heavy lower lash eyeliner. Was a bad look way back then and looks worse now. 

Witch with no remorse. A murderer. And a child predator. I have no sympathy and remember this clearly when it happened. 

End rant. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

House on Pitch Pine Avenue:

I'd like to know who wound up buying that house and what kind of price they got it for. I mean, a house where three people were murdered  . . . all at different times . . . is a pretty tough sell. 

All I could think of was American Horror Story: Murder House.

[TVbitch]

Friday was a rerun with no update, so I'll just ask: Why does Andrea Canning wear super tight skinny jeans and 3-4 inch heals to interview a cop about a tragic murder in a gravel lot?

Sorry y'all, but you know I have to get my poke at Andrea in! I'll be nice and won't even mention this exchange:

Mom: A body had been found and I could not locate my daughter and the police called and asked me to come down to the station.

Andrea: OMG, I just got chills! Did you get chills?!

Mom: ... ... 

Edited August 11, 2019 by TVbitch

[saber5055]

Saturday night's ep was a rerun but I hadn't seen it. It was the 20-something woman who was having an affair with a co-worker and got pregnant, then got murdered with less than one month to go on the pregnancy. The show made everything point to the boyfriend, who had "15 or 20"  other "girlfriends" he was having sex with. But this show does like to not tell us everything. I was stunned at the boyfriend being interviewed throughout the program, his hair all neat and very short 5-o'clock shadow beard. Then the very last talking head with him, he had a scraggly beard, long hair growing straight up and a couple zits or moles on his face that weren't there before. Wow to that before-and-after.

I wondered about his alibi. He went to "another girlfriend's" house that night instead of meeting the dead woman he set up a meeting to see, then sat down and watched football on tv instead of telling the woman he was there? She was asleep at 8:30? She said she didn't see him until 10:30 when he woke her up. No one asked him game details to verify his story? Plus, a horn dog like that goes to his girl's house, she's asleep and he just turns on the tv? Yeah, don't think so.

The cops made him bring in the clothes he was wearing the night the woman was murdered. Yeah, I'm positive he gave you all the right ones.

Two other DNAs were on the lingerie covering the dead naked woman. so it couldn't have been the boyfriend who killed her? And if it was a robbery gone wrong, why was she naked, and if the burglar killed her, why not take the tvs and other stuff since she was dead now. Easy peasy to walk out with stuff and leave a dead body. A burglar could have cleaned the place out plus made/ate dinner while he was there.

And do burglars always trash a place, throw flat screen tvs on the floor instead of stealing them? Yeah, didn't think so.

Last question: What was this dude's job, and did they hold it for him while he was in jail all those months? Guy had serious debt, imagine the interest building while he was incarcerated. Maybe that's what popped up those zits he has now.

[JudyObscure]

I remembered that "15 to 20 girlfriends" guy because my disgust for him was still simmering on a back burner.  Those poor, sad, plain girls on the witness stand, each one saying, "I thought he was my boyfriend," and of course the one who was killed while eight months pregnant who had believed they were going to have a life together, until she got pregnant and he ghosted her.

I hated the very way he ran up to the police on the morning of her death shouting, "Let me through, my family is in there!"  Do you get to claim a woman and her baby as your family when you haven't seen her in months and don't want to claim  the baby as yours?

His mother saying, "My son is a good man."  Really?  In what way exactly?  A man who doesn't pay his debts, lies to and uses women, and doesn't want to care for the children he produces, is not a good man.

I noticed the change in him, too.  His weight loss and the big zits  made me think he had added meth to his "good man" activities.  His nasty flare up at Andrea for just asking a question was telling. 

I do wonder about that DNA from someone else on her lingerie.   Was it something that still fit?  Had it not been washed in a long time? What ever the story I'll never be sorry this guy is locked away.

[biakbiak]

My main takeaway was I couldn’t believe the conversations these people had on their work phones during work hours when they knew they were being recorded!!!! I mean I have to imagine being in collections at a mortgage place slowly rots your soul but I can’t imagine having the conversations they were having on a work phone even if I knew they weren’t being recorded.

Whenever they say DNA was found on something I always want to know where exactly and what it was a stain, skin, etc. so having two unknown dna samples on a garment, one of them apparently female, doesn’t lead me to think he couldn’t have done it just that it probably hadn’t been washed or something.

[cooksdelight]

I want to know who the 911 operator was that told the mother to go back into the house.... what if the killer was still in there? That was the stupidest order I’ve ever heard.

[bubbls]

I’m not sure if it was new or a rerun, but did anyone see the one about the murder of Debbie Hawk? I thought Dave Hawk and Keith were going to come to blows. I’ve never seen Keith so confrontational and rightly so. It also surprised me Dave Hawk didn’t stomp out of the interview in a big huff. I was surprised they arrested and convicted him with so little evidence, although I did find a comment online by the jury foreman that said what clenched it for him was the daughter testifying her dad had driven by Debbie’s house and taken pics. 

Edited August 11, 2019 by bubbls

[saber5055]

2 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

I want to know who the 911 operator was that told the mother to go back into the house.... what if the killer was still in there? That was the stupidest order I’ve ever heard.

No kidding. Maybe 911 was going to save the cops a trip if the daughter was still alive or something.

That lingerie might not even have belonged to the dead woman. Maybe the murder guy brought it with, something he stole from one of his other 20 lovers, and dropped on the dead body to throw cops off.

If true, it seems to have worked.

I think Boyfriend is out and free right now though, @JudyObscure. The ending talked about he could be prosecuted again if more evidence was found. At least that's how I remember it.

And I, too, thought meth when I saw his face. Yikes. I guess murdering your girlfriend and your own son will do that to a guy.