All Episodes Discussion

[cooksdelight]

Thanks @Jeeves!

[iMonrey]

Quote

 There are some murders where family members have no desire to talk to reporters, go on TV or be recorded in a podcast.

Party poopers!

[Annber03]

Jesus Christ, did this sick creep get enough lucky breaks in his life or what? Utterly infuriating that he got that kind of deal, and that he doesn't have to reveal the how and why of what happened to Tina. That arrogant look on his face when they went out to the cemetery...you just want to punch him. 

And now the family has to keep fighting to make sure he doesn't get out so soon. 'Cause, y'know, they haven't suffered nearly enough already. Fucking hell.

Edited December 14, 2019 by Annber03

[iMonrey]

That was definitely depressing. Up for parole next year, already? I hope the parole board sees what a sicko this guy is and keeps him locked up as long as possible. 

The episode itself was better paced than most of the 2-hour episodes. They didn't spend an hour throwing red herrings at us, they got right to the heart of the story which was all the leg work police had to do to arrest this guy. Whenever the case involves a murder suspect who is in the midst of a divorce and/or custody fight, it's a given the spouse is the culprit and there is no reason to devote 2 hours to the story. This was a rare exception.

[TVbitch]

I nodded out, what was the final tipping point to be able to arrest him? 

Totally sucks that now the family has to relive this shit every six months for the parole board in order to keep him in prison. 

Okay no disrespect to the decedent, but we see so many murderers try to dispose of bodies in dumb ways and get caught, but burying a body under a body was gruesomely clever. ....and other reason we do not want this guy walking the streets.

[walnutqueen]

21 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

I nodded out, what was the final tipping point to be able to arrest him?

I think it was when a new DA took office, and he was willing to prosecute without a body or much physical evidence.

[Lsk02]

They also noted that the passage of time really worked in their favor. Going after him too soon, even a few years, after she disappeared they knew the runaway argument could have carried more weight. That many years without a peep really swayed the DA to accept the case. 
 

Wasn’t that part about her social security number being used crazy? I know it ended up being a typo, but another nurse in the same state was just insane! 

[UsernameFatigue]

Wow, just when you think you have seen it all, a murderer buries the body in an empty grave? I often wonder when a murdered person is never found, if the murderer was just lucky or smart. I think if I had a missing loved one that was suspected of being murdered, I would be asking the police to check with any local graveyards to see if there was a burial a day or two after the loved one went missing, 

I agree with others that this was a rare Dateline that warranted two hours. This episode laid out more thoroughly why it sometimes take so long to bring a killer to justice, even when it is pretty obvious who the killer is. One thing I didn't understand was why, when the ex was in police custody and started to bite his nails and spit them on the floor, why the police didn't collect the nails he spit out? I also wonder why he didn't just swallow them if he was trying to get rid of DNA. Was amazed as well to see all of the scratch marks on him. He really was lucky that he had so many years of freedom before he was finally arrested. 

I was also creeped out by the video of him following those women in LV, gaining access to their hotel room and sexually assaulting one. I assume the police were never able to track down the women in the tape? Can you imagine if you were watching this show, and realized it was you and your friends on the tape?! 

[Annber03]

5 hours ago, TVbitch said:

Okay no disrespect to the decedent, but we see so many murderers try to dispose of bodies in dumb ways and get caught, but burying a body under a body was gruesomely clever

I actually did a double take when that part came up, like, "Wait, what? Did I hear that right?" 

I like how the detective who was involved in getting that grave tried to keep things as respectful as possible for both the person buried there and their family.

10 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I was also creeped out by the video of him following those women in LV, gaining access to their hotel room and sexually assaulting one. I assume the police were never able to track down the women in the tape? Can you imagine if you were watching this show, and realized it was you and your friends on the tape?! 

That was chilling. And of course none of those women could report him, 'cause they had no idea he'd done that to them. And the few who did try to report his creepy behavior, nothing came of it. Just...what the hell do we have to do to make it tougher for people to get by with this crap so easily? 

[UsernameFatigue]

It was interesting that he chose LV to live - lots of access to unsuspecting (and in some cases inebriated) women. I bet he isn't the only perv who has chosen to hang their hat there. I used to go to LV yearly during the time that he lived there. I am happy to say I almost never wear dresses, and never have in LV. And now for sure never will. 

[EtheltoTillie]

He knew enough to bring a carpenter’s level to neaten up the grave site. That’s some kind of crazy planning.  But why did the family let her go alone to a meeting with him to discuss their acrimonious divorce?  I guess they hadn’t seen enough Dateline episodes. The man was already known to be a sex offender. They didn’t take that seriously enough. 

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, GussieK said:

He knew enough to bring a carpenter’s level to neaten up the grave site. That’s some kind of crazy planning.  But why did the family let her go alone to a meeting with him to discuss their acrimonious divorce?  I guess they hadn’t seen enough Dateline episodes. The man was already known to be a sex offender. They didn’t take that seriously enough. 

I mean at the end of the day she is an adult who made her choice to go by herself, they have no control of her. Her sister said she expressed her reservations but it’s not like they could control her.

[EtheltoTillie]

40 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

I mean at the end of the day she is an adult who made her choice to go by herself, they have no control of her. Her sister said she expressed her reservations but it’s not like they could control her.

In this case, I think she wanted sister to go.  But sister said she had to go do something else.  I'm not going to rewatch, but I think that was implied. 

[Mondrianyone]

6 minutes ago, GussieK said:

I think that was implied. 

I think it was more than implied.  The sister said she couldn't go, so Tina asked someone else.  I'm not sure why the someone else didn't go.  But also, if Tina was concerned enough not to want to go alone, I don't know why she didn't wait to meet with him till she could have somebody with her.  She had at least one brother--seems it would've been smart to ask him.  None of which is to blame the victim, but she did know she'd married a very bad guy.

If nothing else, this episode reminded me to always get glasses that fit my nose properly.  Who wears glasses so tight that they make permanent indents on his nose?  I guess he had more pressing things on his mind.

[JudyObscure]

The sister said something to the effect that now she wishes she had gone with Tina, but I'm glad she didn't because this evil man would have been perfectly capable of killing both of them. Tina's nice work friend told her they should meet somewhere neutral like a restaurant. If only.

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, Mondrianyone said:

I think it was more than implied.  The sister said she couldn't go, so Tina asked someone else.  I'm not sure why the someone else didn't go.  But also, if Tina was concerned enough not to want to go alone, I don't know why she didn't wait to meet with him till she could have somebody with her.  She had at least one brother--seems it would've been smart to ask him.  None of which is to blame the victim, but she did know she'd married a very bad guy.

If nothing else, this episode reminded me to always get glasses that fit my nose properly.  Who wears glasses so tight that they make permanent indents on his nose?  I guess he had more pressing things on his mind.

The idea of victim blaming is very heavy on my mind today.  I live only about a mile downtown from the site of the murder of the Barnard College student, and, in fact, I attended the school in the 70s.  At that time it was known that you would never go in Morningside Park--ever!   Even now, I retain the same fear.  I have never been in Morningsoide Park, although at one point during school I lived around the corner from the murder site.  So it's hard for me to shake the blame.  Plus now they're putting out there that she was going to the park to buy weed.  They are trying to malign her more.  So terrible.  This crime--and who they will try to convict--raises all the issues of the Central Park Jogger case all over again.

Edited December 15, 2019 by GussieK

[Mondrianyone]

4 minutes ago, GussieK said:

I attended the school in the 70s.

Me, too, Gussie!

I've been having all the same thoughts you describe.  The first thing I said to my husband when the story came on the news was, "What the hell was she doing down there?!"  I think in the whole time I lived uptown, I was in that park a total of once--just passing through--and I wasn't alone.  Of all the idiotic chances I took, that wasn't one of them, and it seems like the sort of place that gentrification hasn't changed much.  I don't know if Barnard and Columbia do any kind of neighborhood orientation for freshmen these days, but these kids from more naive parts of the country have to get some serious advice on what is and isn't safe in Manhattan.

This case has really been haunting me, 'cause it could easily have been me or any of my friends, despite the advantage we all had of being native NYers.

[JudyObscure]

I believe that when we talk about things the victim did that we wonder about, we're  asking why this happened and how it might have been prevented -- not to blame the victim in any way, but to make ourselves feel safer and to warn ourselves and others.  It's  a form of learning and prevention.  Until this Dateline forum I had never heard that during a divorce is one of the most dangerous periods for a woman and she should never be alone with her husband at that time. It's good to know these things. 

Tina is not at fault at all. She probably did not think of her husband as a dangerous man, she had shared her home and her bed with him for years and probably thought the window peeping was the worst he would ever do.  We don't blame her, but we all  wish we could have been there to insist she meet him at the local coffee shop.

(If Tina had her teeth fixed she could have been a Victoria Secret model, what was she doing with that guy in the first place?)

[biakbiak]

13 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

he probably did not think of her husband as a dangerous man, she had shared her home and her bed with him for years and probably thought the window peeping was the worst he would ever do.

I really find her description of his voyeuerism to be beyond creepy. Not blaming her but that should have been a contact the police kind of thing. She clearly had on blinders where he was concerned. 
He was smart with how he disposed of her body but one of his biggest mistakes was probably doing it when people knew that they were meeting. I mean he was stalking her so he probably had tons of other opportunities where she wouldn’t have told a bunch of people that she planned on meeting him.

Edited December 15, 2019 by biakbiak

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, Mondrianyone said:

Me, too, Gussie!

I've been having all the same thoughts you describe.  The first thing I said to my husband when the story came on the news was, "What the hell was she doing down there?!"  I think in the whole time I lived uptown, I was in that park a total of once--just passing through--and I wasn't alone.  Of all the idiotic chances I took, that wasn't one of them, and it seems like the sort of place that gentrification hasn't changed much.  I don't know if Barnard and Columbia do any kind of neighborhood orientation for freshmen these days, but these kids from more naive parts of the country have to get some serious advice on what is and isn't safe in Manhattan.

This case has really been haunting me, 'cause it could easily have been me or any of my friends, despite the advantage we all had of being native NYers.

Same here, especially 'cause my husband went to Columbia with me--that's where we met.

we have grown accustomed to the City being so much safer than years ago. 

26 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I believe that when we talk about things the victim did that we wonder about, we're  asking why this happened and how it might have been prevented -- not to blame the victim in any way, but to make ourselves feel safer and to warn ourselves and others.  It's  a form of learning and prevention.  Until this Dateline forum I had never heard that during a divorce is one of the most dangerous periods for a woman and she should never be alone with her husband at that time. It's good to know these things. 

Tina is not at fault at all. She probably did not think of her husband as a dangerous man, she had shared her home and her bed with him for years and probably thought the window peeping was the worst he would ever do.  We don't blame her, but we all  wish we could have been there to insist she meet him at the local coffee shop.

(If Tina had her teeth fixed she could have been a Victoria Secret model, what was she doing with that guy in the first place?)

This is a protective human impulse. 

[Mondrianyone]

9 minutes ago, GussieK said:

Same here, especially 'cause my husband went to Columbia with me--that's where we met.

Same here again--me at B, him at C.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I really find her description of his voyeuerism to be beyond creepy. Not blaming her but that should have been a contact the police kind of thing. She clearly had on blinders where he was concerned. 

It's hard to gauge the level of seriousness with which she regarded her husband's "illness" because we only heard about it from her friend. The friend did describe the conversation as being oddly casual, I agree. But I don't know whether to assign that attitude to the victim or the friend describing the conversation after the fact. It may just be the latter's manner of speaking. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by iMonrey

[biakbiak]

1 minute ago, iMonrey said:

It's hard to gauge the level of seriousness with which she regarded her husband's "illness" because we only heard about it from her friend. The friend did describe the conversation as being oddly casual, I agree. But I don't know whether the assign that attitude to the victim or the friend describing the conversation after the fact. It may just be the latter's manner of speaking. 

For me even bringing it up in a conversation when they were still together and it didn’t cause her to leave him is more than enough to deduce that she was much to casual about it.

[EtheltoTillie]

21 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Same here again--me at B, him at C.

Hey, I wrote you a note at Small Talk.  Check it out.

[EtheltoTillie]

2 hours ago, biakbiak said:

For me even bringing it up in a conversation when they were still together and it didn’t cause her to leave him is more than enough to deduce that she was much to casual about it.

Yes, I knew someone who was arrested (and later convicted) for taking upskirt photos.  No one suspected anything wrong about him, but as soon as I learned about it, I would have no more contact with him.  I couldn't stop thinking about how gross it was.  The circumstances under which he was arrested left no room for doubt of his guilt. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

For me even bringing it up in a conversation when they were still together and it didn’t cause her to leave him is more than enough to deduce that she was much to casual about it.

She had left him by then, if I recall correctly. The friend was asking what had happened to cause them to split and she replied he "had an illness." Well, yes . . . a mental illness, I suppose. 

[cooksdelight]

They are rerunning Laci Peterson tonight. Yawn....

[cooksdelight]

I’ve watched the last half hour or so of this, and whoever this dude is that claims Scott is innocent is unbelievable himself.

He said Scott wanted to sell Laci’s car right away because money was tight. Then says the boat was to be a gift to his dad or her dad (whichever) and that’s why he took it out on the bay, to test it out.

Geez!!! That is the stupidest summation ever. Money’s tight so, oh yeah, let’s go out and buy a boat!

Edited December 21, 2019 by cooksdelight

[sempervivum]

13 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

I’ve watched the last half hour or so of this, and whoever this dude is that claims Scott is innocent is unbelievable himself.

Yes, he was ridiculous; I wonder if the Petersons are paying him for advocacy or if he's just a fame whore?

I think the reason I find this case so haunting is the extensive recordings of Scott's bald faced lying/fantasizing, especially with Amber Frey. I've never been able to decide if he's a stone psychopath, or 'just' a monster of selfishness.

Edited December 21, 2019 by sempervivum
sentence structure

[cooksdelight]

Tonight’s episode:

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

There is a story claiming that Scott Peterson finally confessed to some interviewer very recently.    I don't believe that for a second.   

The one I loathed was Scott's mother who made excuses for everything, and screwed over the children she adopted out when they made the mistake of contacting her.     Her enabling of Scott was despicable, and I'm sure if she could have managed to get him to Mexico, she would have spent every penny supporting him as long as necessary.     The way she wanted the daughters to lie for him was revolting.     

[cooksdelight]

Did anybody watch the marathon on MSNBC yesterday? I’m still watching....

I saw a few I’d never seen before. One about the manager of this huge farming operation being killed by a bomb in an electrical box when he opened it. The guy who did it screwed up by leaving a piece of paper on his desk that showed the indentations of an anonymous letter with a diagram of the bomb he sent to police. Another about David Moffitt who killed the fiance of his former girlfriend in Grimes, Iowa and his attempts to frame another guy who had nothing to do with it. Amazing how easy it was for him to create a fake ID using the other guy’s name.

[cooksdelight]

Tonight at 10:

 

[cooksdelight]

New Year’s Eve special episode:

 

[cooksdelight]

Tonight at 8 pm eastern time.

 

[EtheltoTillie]

Just watched last Friday’s story about the killer twins. I had never seen this one. So disturbing. But I pegged them as the killers as soon as they showed the fake crying at the beginning. 

[Ohwell]

40 minutes ago, GussieK said:

Just watched last Friday’s story about the killer twins. I had never seen this one. So disturbing. But I pegged them as the killers as soon as they showed the fake crying at the beginning. 

Yup, I pegged them at the beginning too. 

I thought it was interesting that the husband gave the wife the ok to have another lover.  I guess since he was a truck driver he didn't want her to be lonely?   Or since he looked much older than her, he figured she'd have a lover anyway while he was away, so he might as well give his blessing.   

[TVbitch]

I felt like information was left out of that one. First she gave the kids to Grandma, then she took them back, but when they misbehaved she called the cops and they went back to Grandma. Then she fought the court to get them back even though she was afraid of them. I felt like I really didn't understand the whole family dynamic. And why was Grandma taking care of the kids, where was her mother?  

[EtheltoTillie]

27 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

I felt like information was left out of that one. First she gave the kids to Grandma, then she took them back, but when they misbehaved she called the cops and they went back to Grandma. Then she fought the court to get them back even though she was afraid of them. I felt like I really didn't understand the whole family dynamic. And why was Grandma taking care of the kids, where was her mother?  

Yup, will never understand a lot of that.  Grandma had raised three of the generations and was said to be too lenient in all cases. 

[Court]

I didn't watch but were these the teen twins from Atlanta? 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Court

[Tabbygirl521]

15 minutes ago, Court said:

I didn't watch but wefe these the teen twins from Atlanta? 

Yes, Jaz and Taz. I’ve seen them featured too many times. Absolute freaks. 

[Ohwell]

54 minutes ago, Court said:

I didn't watch but wefe these the teen twins from Atlanta? 

Oops, @Tabbygirl521 already answered the question.  

I think there were a lot of details left out of that story because I, too, didn't understand why the kids and their mother were being raised by Grandma.  I think the dead woman's mother didn't give the whole picture.  I can understand her not wanting to air all the dirty laundry, but I think it left too many important questions unanswered. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Ohwell

[Court]

All right, yes. I've seen several shows on them. They're pure evil. Yet I still can't recall why they bounced back and forth. I think the girls had a history of being violent with their mom and anyone who tried to set boundaries. The mom may have also done drugs/drinking? Let me see if I can find this really good article I read on it years ago. 

I'm watching now and I agree lots of details left out. I find that immensely frustrating with every show!

[Court]

I also think the grandmother has some warped view of the twins. I don't buy their self defense claim for a second. 

 

She gave custody to her mom for some reason. Maybe she stayed on the road with the trucker Dad? When they were 13, she requested custody and won. Grandmother asked for custody and she won. Again, lots of violent and physical altercations prior to this. Grandma let then do whatever they wanted. Mom did not. Custody was given back to Mom. Twins hated it but court said try it for two weeks. Mom was killed 5 days later. 

 

 

[Ohwell]

13 hours ago, Court said:

She gave custody to her mom for some reason. Maybe she stayed on the road with the trucker Dad?

But she was too busy having side pieces, with trucker Dad's blessing, so I doubt she took that many trucker trips with him. 

It just sounds like that whole family was effed up, so it was no surprise that the twins turned out like they did.  The dead woman's mom was just looking for sympathy. 

[Tabbygirl521]

Trucker Dad was basically a sugar daddy, according to one other show I saw. A lonely older guy who gave the mom lots of leeway. He was not related to the twins. 

[Ohwell]

22 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

Trucker Dad was basically a sugar daddy, according to one other show I saw. A lonely older guy who gave the mom lots of leeway. He was not related to the twins. 

Yeah, we knew he wasn't related to the twins but it did seem like he was just lonely.  He's lucky those creepy crazy twins didn't kill him too. 

[Tabbygirl521]

I may be wrong but I seem to recall that the twins were raised by their GREAT grandma? I didn’t catch this Dateline but I  saw them on 48 Hours or something. And I remember thinking that that (G)GM was probably too old and exhausted to be dealing with teenagers (I say this as a fellow old person). 

[cooksdelight]

Friday nights repeat. I remember this case too well, it happened just a half hour down the road from me.

 

[JudyObscure]

I remember it well,  too.  It could have been me, I would follow anyone with an Irish Setter.