Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

All Episodes Discussion

halgia

By halgia
in Dateline

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Mondrianyone
Mondrianyone

Well, if this story does nothing else, it proves that you don't have to be a femme fatale to be a fatal woman. How on earth did this stumpy little fireplug get multiple men wrapped around her finger?

12catcrazy
12catcrazy

Anybody watch last night's Dateline?  How very sad a story - the poor victim had been dating his new girlfriend for such a short period of time and got murdered because she had an obsessed ex.   

UsernameFatigue
UsernameFatigue

I thought The Clearing was a fascinating case. I don't know if her husband killed Emily, but I do know I could not have convicted him had I been on that jury. And that his attorney was one of the most

Posted Images

freeser

freeser

3 hours ago, biakbiak said:

I hadn't seen this repeat, Vanished, about a nursing student in Hayward, CA but Keith’s one minute plus explanation and demonstration of what a key card was and how it was used was crazy even in 2013 when this apparently originally aired!

I was watching this episode for the first time last night.  I fell asleep during the last half hour and woke up when they were waiting for the verdict. Last thing I remember was the friend being arrested.  I missed out on the explanation of how she killed her and what she did with the body.  Some help filling me in on the details please!  

  • Love 2
freeser

freeser

1 hour ago, Ellee said:

https://www.bing.com/amp/s/heavy.com/entertainment/2020/07/michelle-le-murder-giselle-esteban-baby-prison/amp/

 

@freeser  Here is something I found.  

Thanks for the info site.  Interesting that the cause of death was never determined.  Also when I watching the show, the police thought there might be an accomplice.  They  kept saying Esteban was so small that they thought she must have had help.  Makes you wonder if she was physically able to carry and bury the body in a canyon by herself.  But I have not read that they found any one else was involved.  

  • Love 2
TVbitch

TVbitch

It kind of seemed cruel for the police to ice the family out and let them keep hoping to find her alive. I know police can't reveal details of the case such as all the blood they found, but they could have sat the brother and sister down, looked earnestly into their eyes and said, "Listen, our investigation leads us to strongly believe your sister is not alive."  

  • Love 2
Lsk02

Lsk02

49 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

It kind of seemed cruel for the police to ice the family out and let them keep hoping to find her alive. I know police can't reveal details of the case such as all the blood they found, but they could have sat the brother and sister down, looked earnestly into their eyes and said, "Listen, our investigation leads us to strongly believe your sister is not alive."  

It’s sounded like that’s pretty much what the police did, though. The family was told it had turned from a missing person case to a murder investigation shortly after the car was searched. I knew right away that must mean there was a lot of blood in that car, then later it was revealed there was also a pool of blood in the parking garage where her car was parked. I think the family was upset that they weren’t told the details, but they were told early on it was suspected murder. They chose to keep hoping she was alive, but they had to know the volunteer searchers weren’t looking for a live person in that canyon. 

  • Love 5
CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama

A weak sentence isn't unusual.   In the 1970's two family friends were murdered, the man who killed them was convicted of two charges of first degree murder.   His sentence was 17 years (even though the original sentence was two counts of life in prison), and they trained him as an auto mechanic.     So he's been out in public for many years.   I wonder if he's still around, out of jail or what?    

kieyra

kieyra

Podcast listener: I just listened to the audio version of Vanished about Michelle Le / Giselle Esteban. They play the audio of Giselle threatening Scott and it sounds SO FAKE at the end. It sounds like a normal squabble at the beginning, but when she starts saying “I will take your LIFE and you can take that to the grave”, and especially when she says “this is your LAST and FINAL warning” she sounds like a teenager reading, not 100% confidently, from a bad script. (Then she repeats “last and final” to make sure we get the redundancy ...)

I understand that she was convicted, definitely not questioning whether she did it, more wondering if they re-created the audio using (bad) voice actors. 

It just sounded so weird and hokey. It probably doesn’t help that I just finished a podcast series with tons of audio interviews with Israel Keyes, which all sounded depressingly convincing. 

  • Love 1
Ellee

Ellee

(edited)

Help ... I don’t quite follow ... is that ... that woman getting out on bail?????

Or is Vallow still held in custody since she has a million dollar bail amount in another county?   Does that county take her into custody now?   
 

She shouldn’t get one minute of freedom.  
 

Sorry I’m so obsessed with this.   I just am.   

Edited by Ellee
  • Love 3
saber5055

saber5055

I just watched the rerun of The Good Husband, where dentist Gilberto was having an affair with the wife of his best friend Tom, who ends up dead in a parking lot, Midazolam in his system. The show said Gilberto's taped interview couldn't be shown because he hadn't been read his rights (dumbass cops), so the jury missed the part where Gilberto said he didn't have any Midazolam, then changed his story when told his fingerprints could be on the bottles of the drug they found in his office. All of a sudden, backpedal.

The two jury members interviewed said Gilberto could have given Tom the Midazolam to relax him and help him sleep. My question is, if that is true, why wouldn't Gilberto say he gave Tom some of the drug to help him relax. Wouldn't that have been a good question to ask instead of just ASSUMING that's what happened, jury guys? Gilberto could have said yeah, that was me in my white SUV stopping to give Tom the dose he wanted, he was my  best friend after all so I did that for him. What I gave him was just 1/2 cc so he could take a nap, not enough to kill him.

Sure, he'd probably lose his license, but maybe not if he wrote a prescription for the drug in Tom's name. Like Michael Jackson's Propofol. It's like those jurors didn't think any of this through.

  • Love 4
Annber03

Annber03

Funny they showed this one tonight, 'cause I caught a rerun of this story earlier this week on a whole other channel. 

But yeah, I thought the jurors' rationale was a complete and total WTF? moment, too. Your point is an excellent one. That, and...okay, so this guy decides he's going to get up and head out at 4:30 in the morning, of all times, to meet up with his friend in this parking lot, outside a gym of all places, and give him a drug to help him sleep...just a few short hours before said friend has to be at work? A friend who's married to the woman he's been having an affair with, no less. Boy, that's one hell of a generous friend!

There was also the point in the interrogation when Gil talked about how he'd never been to that gym before and seemed unfamiliar with the place and all that. Meanwhile I was sitting here like, "I dunno, you sure seemed to know where it was when you came barreling up to the crime scene and started freaking out over your friend being found dead." I mean, I suppose he might have a general idea of where it is since he's friends with Tom, but it still seems odd to say you've never been there before and yet you're able to get there quickly enough upon not hearing from your friend. And you seemed to arrive not long after the wife that you'd been having an affair with did. How very coincidental. 

And why was he the one calling to tell Tom's wife he didn't show up for work? He and Tom didn't work together, how would he know that? Even if someone called to notify him, that'd still be rather strange, because wouldn't the workplace try to get a hold of the wife first to tell her her husband hadn't shown up? 

Add in all the stuff about the anonymous texts that he'd sent to both his lover and Tom, and his threats about how he might want to kill himself, and the numerous other criminal activity he'd been involved with*, and the tension with the affair (I can believe Gil and Tom were genuine friends early on, sure, but do I believe the buddy-buddy thing remained innocent to the very end? Hell, no) and yeah, I just find it really, really hard to believe that if he did indeed meet up with Tom that morning, it was out of the pure goodness of his heart. 

*Seriously, why in the world would you go up to a retired cop and show off a fake CIA badge and claim it's real? 

  • Love 7
CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama

(edited)

In the "Good Husband" case, I am glad the dentist was finally brought to trial, but too bad the case was so badly handled from the first day that no one will ever be convicted.   

However, I find it absurd that he was so involved with notifying the wife/lover of the husband not showing up for work.    Him going right to the scene for his phony collapse way at the end of the parking lot, next to the crime scene, and  at a gym he claimed he had never been to was ridiculous.    The victim's SUV parked way at the end of the parking lot, at 5 a.m. or so was bizarre, and obviously for a meeting.    Then the dentist's SUV being next to the victim's SUV and then leaving was an obvious clue too.     

The wife of the victim was pathetic, I think part of the issue was when the cops found out about the affair, and the bizarre relationship between the victim, the dentist, and the victim's wife, they really weren't all that into finding out who killed one of the sex triangle.    I think the fact that the dentist, and victim's wife were part of the triangle, and everyone involved knew, and was part of a triangle was a factor in the lack of effort.     The cops should have suspected him a lot sooner, especially after finding out about him, and the wife.     I also don't believe that the affair had ended either.   If it wasn't for a medical examiner, and two exhumations, then the death would have been considered a heart attack, and ruled natural causes.  

I think if Gil had kept up the affair, or married the widow, his lover, instead of marrying another woman, then I think the widow would have defended him to the end.    I think she turned on him, after he married someone else, and started a family.   

I think that with the publicity in the case, that even though I'm sure Gil's patients would be excluded from the jury,  there was enough on the news, and gossiped about to make the jurors side with him.   I'm betting that the jurors saw at least some of the stories that the woman in his office told, and other stories about his charity work, and what a nice guy he is.     

There was a case I knew about, because the arrests were in my town.    An allergist, and his wife were arrested for conspiring to kill the wife's first husband in a 'hunting accident'.   It took years for the authorities to arrest them, and go to trial (he was convicted, I don't know about her).     What happened is the first husband, and the doctor who killed him were best friends, the wife was having an affair with the friend, and they didn't want to lose property through divorce.   So the boyfriend killed the husband, and it took a long time to prove it was murder, and meanwhile they married, and moved where I lived.   The ironic fact is the killer was married, and divorced his wife to marry his girlfriend.    He had a great reputation working as an allergist, and treating asthma, and if they had tried him in that city, he never would have been convicted.   Instead, he was tried in the state they were from, and convicted (It took two trials to convict him).      The worst part is the coroner ruled it was an accident, after hearing the story the allergist told, and it took a second autopsy, and 20 years to bring this man to the courthouse.   He also raised the wife, and victim's two kids, and they both claim their stepfather was innocent, and have no relationship with their grandparents (their father's parents).     

 https://people.com/archive/case-closed-vol-48-no-19/

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Love 6
saber5055

saber5055

4 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Yeah, I think Gilberto murdered Tom, but I still wanted some follow up on the Be Naughty thing.

They dropped that bomb, then never said another word about it. When Tom was found with his pants unzipped, my first thought was BJ. Although that could have been a set up by Gilberto too, arranging the Be Naughty (not sure if they said where they found that, on Tom's phone? In which case, Gilberto could have done it while with Tom, giving him the "coffee.") Then unzipped Tom's pants after he passed out so it would look like he was meeting a sex partner.

Although I do know guys will unzip their pants when napping in their cars. At least, that's what I've been told.

Plus dentists have all kind of gloves, so no fingerprints.

The CIA phony badge was so whack. Like ... why? There must be more to that story.

It was odd the CC footage showed the SUV in the far end of the parking lot, then driving away, but no person walking. Or was Tom's car in that same far end where the SUV was parked? I couldn't tell.

  • Love 5
Ohmo

Ohmo

16 hours ago, saber5055 said:

The two jury members interviewed said Gilberto could have given Tom the Midazolam to relax him and help him sleep. My question is, if that is true, why wouldn't Gilberto say he gave Tom some of the drug to help him relax. Wouldn't that have been a good question to ask instead of just ASSUMING that's what happened, jury guys?

Ding, Ding, Ding!  That literally jumped off the screen at me immediately.  If that's what happened, even though the jury didn't see Gil's interrogation, they know that Gil himself never said that's what happened...which meant that he kept that from the police.  Honestly, the biggest reason I thought Gil was acquitted is because the jury didn't seem to possess higher-order thinking skills. They didn't seem to grasp Sabar's point (which is a biggie), and the female juror made a point of saying that she had made up her mind about this supposed scenario on the first day.  That's not a hallmark of a person who is thinking critically.  Plus, the jury only took six hours.  Not enough time to weigh or discuss any situation in a meaningful manner, in my opinion.  I think Gil did it and got exceptionally lucky with the jury he had.  Either that, or his lawyers recognized what they had during jury selection and capitalized on it.  (Yes, I watch Bull.)

  • Love 6
saber5055

saber5055

Now I'm trying to piece together the true story of why Gilberto killed Tom. Because he did, w/o a doubt, in my mind. The wife said she broke it off with Gil the day before Tom was killed. If that was true, did Gil kill Tom because of that old stand by, "If I can't have you, no one can." The wife didn't seem to want to be with Gilberto, although Gil did tell the police in that taped interview that he had been over to see the wife many times after Tom's death. So what happened during those visits. If she didn't want to be screwing around with Gilberto any more, why was he over there so many times to see her. So many questions!

Maybe she was so broken up about Tom's death, she didn't want to fool around any more. If she had been in on it, they would have gotten together a few months after the funeral, no questions asked. So I don't think she was involved.

Odd that Gilberto got rid of (sold) that white SUV a couple weeks after Tom's death. Too bad police didn't look at it right away. You know, for evidence, like empty bottles of that drug and an empty coffee cup with drug residue in it.

My thinking is Gilberto catphished Tom with a Be Naughty date, then stopped by while Tom was waiting for his date. "Hey, hi buddy, I was just driving by and saw your car. Everything alright? I just was at a (24-hour!) Starbucks and got this coffee. Here, you can have it ..."

  • Useful 1
  • Love 5
CrazyInAlabama

CrazyInAlabama

My guess is that the wife, and Gil lied about everything.   I don't think she dumped Gil right before the murder, and I think they were still carrying on the affair for quite a while after the husband was murdered.    How could the jury not convict him?   He had the access to the Midazolam, (they called it "Dazzle" for short on the Law & Order episode it was featured on).  Did the jury think someone was wandering around with a dangerous prescription anesthetic, and decided to kill the dentist's romantic rival?     I think the affair was on-going, and then he got tired of waiting for the widow to pick him, or he tired of her, and met and married the other woman.   

  • Useful 3
JudyObscure

JudyObscure

(edited)
3 hours ago, Ellee said:

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2020/07/20/philadelphia-police-tianna-parks-babysitter-of-missing-2-year-old-king-hill-arrested-in-connection-to-his-death-charged-murder/

Oh dear Lord how do we protect these babies.  😢

My baby had bad colic and spent most of his first year crying. There were moments in my perpetually sleep deprived state when only a mother's love kept me patient and gentle, I'm not totally surprised when young immature babysitters, who do not love the baby, do something awful. (Thinking of the British nanny case.) I sometimes think daycare is safer.

ETA This woman doesn't look that young, just strung out on something. "The stepfather put the toddler in her care."  Oh dear God.

Edited by JudyObscure
hookedontv

hookedontv

14 minutes ago, Lsk02 said:

Today is the big day for Lori and Chad. Guessing their followers already have excuses prepared for when we all wake up tomorrow. 

Ha ha ha that's right! I am still here at 9:05 AM Eastern time. Am I one of the 144K chosen few? I think NOT! 

The people who believe this nonsense are batshit crazy. Truly. All I can say is - those poor kids. 

  • Love 6
iMonrey

iMonrey

Watched the update Monday night on Jennifer Dulos. I'm so irritated with these shows that just recycle themselves with "new" material so they show up on my DVR as new, and I feel like I just watched this very recently. But I guess the fact that her husband committed suicide is new info.

We see so many of these stories: nasty divorce, bitter custody dispute, wife (or husband) suddenly goes missing or dies under mysterious circumstances. What never fails to baffle me is the sheer arrogance of someone like Fotis Dulos thinking he'd get away with it when he would be the most obvious suspect at the most obvious time. The delusion is astounding.

Sad story for the children. Hard to know if they will ever come to grips with their father killing their mother or if they refuse to believe it, as so many other children haven't in similar situations. (Remember the husband who had his wife shot in the face? She survived but all her children took their father's side.) At least they won't want for money.

  • Love 3
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

22 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

But I guess the fact that her husband committed suicide is new info.

I normally don't watch "new" reruns but I did watch this one--mainly because I didn't remember whether or not I had seen it already and by the time I remembered that I did, there was enough I didn't remember to make it worth continuing. 

I also thought the fact that his lawyer was arrested was also pretty new information.  Clearly we'll get a two hour episode once the trials are over.  I just have to "oh honey" the girlfriend.  You helped your boyfriend cover up a murder and he peaces out on you and leaves you holding the bag.

 

  • Love 4
hookedontv

hookedontv

1 hour ago, Ellee said:

I don’t know about anyone else but my yesterday was pretty much the same as the day before and the day before that.  And so far, life is no different today.

Shocking but - me too!

How do these Doomsday preppers explain all of this? I would really like to know.

I am a cautious / suspicious person by nature. I don't understand how people believe this crap to begin with. And then when the predictions don't pan out, what are they told? 

I don't get it. And I think that's a good thing. 

  • Love 2
Ellee

Ellee

14 minutes ago, hookedontv said:

Shocking but - me too!

How do these Doomsday preppers explain all of this? I would really like to know.

I am a cautious / suspicious person by nature. I don't understand how people believe this crap to begin with. And then when the predictions don't pan out, what are they told? 

I don't get it. And I think that's a good thing. 

I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty that the words ‘Wait ... what ... I killed my babies for nothing’ did not pass through Lori Vallow’s lips.  
 

As far as the others go, they will probably not say a word and come up with something different.  Let’s just hope that one would have to be 30 and over and not have any nor want any babies. 

  • Love 8
Annber03

Annber03

1 hour ago, hookedontv said:

How do these Doomsday preppers explain all of this? I would really like to know.

I am a cautious / suspicious person by nature. I don't understand how people believe this crap to begin with. And then when the predictions don't pan out, what are they told? 

I don't get it. And I think that's a good thing. 

I caught the updated "Dateline" episode about this case recently where they talked to that one friend of hers, and she was going on about the talk of zombies and predictions of death and this special group of people who were going to see Jesus' return (in rural Idaho, of all places, 'cause, y'know, if Jesus were going to come back, that's totally the first place he'd visit) and all that...

...and it was just so incredibly bonkers on its face. Like you, I truly do not get how in the hell anyone falls for this nonsense. 

And again, you look at Chad and he's such a doofy-looking guy. How in the world is someone like him able to manipulate people so easily and get so many women to do his bidding and join his insane causes? 

It really does boggle the mind. 

  • Love 4
JudyObscure

JudyObscure

 

41 minutes ago, Ellee said:

As far as the others go, they will probably not say a word and come up with something different.

Yeah, the Jehovah's Witnesses and their Watchtower group have made all sorts of predictions including firmly stating that 1975 would be The End, and they just claim later that their calculations were a bit off or that the false time was in order to sift the unfaithful from the group.  Lori and Chad will say they forgot to use the right calendar or Lori didn't carry the one ... but they still know a zombie when they see one!

  • Love 3
Ellee

Ellee

12 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Date of Chad Daybell’s predicted end of the world comes and goes

Prosecutor asking judge to block video cameras from Vallow, Daybell hearings

In the first article .... ‘white camps’ ????   In addition to being a cult ... is it ‘selective’ in the members it allows or does this term mean something different in cult language?  (No 3 on the list)

Also regarding the 2nd article ... the jury pool is already tainted.  SMH anytime there are children involved there are strong emotions.   One can’t help it.  Show it all.  The evidence will dictate if they are innocent or guilty. 

  • Love 3

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...