All Episodes Discussion

[Guest]

I’m still stuck on the death of Chad’s first wife.

What happened?  And more importantly, even if she did die of natural causes he just moved on two weeks later?  

And folks, I just don’t buy the “it was only an emotional affair” excuse.  His children are deluded.  That is, the three children who spoke.  The two bookends apparently didn’t have anything of value to say or didn’t agree with what was being said.

And this is just my take on it but cheatin’ is cheatin’…and Chad cheated.

[Melina22]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

What happened?  And more importantly, even if she did die of natural causes he just moved on two weeks later?  

Seriously!! And we know Lori had purchased their wedding rings well before that. 

Also, if the authorities say Tammy was asphyxiated? Then she was probably asphyxiated! Not a natural death. 

Edited September 4, 2021 by Melina22

[Melina22]

I just watched The Hunt for El Chapo on Dateline Extra. It's completely fascinating to me because even though the name is familiar, I've managed to avoid reading a single thing about El Chapo for years. So it was all new. 

What caught my attention was that Drew Hogan is so ridiculously good-looking. He looks like a Hollywood actor hired to portray Drew Hogan. He's not just handsome, but tall and muscular with perfect hair and grooming and wardrobe. And shades.

El Chapo on the other hand looked so schlubby and unkempt. Hardly your typical Hollywood drug lord/billionaire! He even complained he had bad teeth. 

More and more lately I find myself thinking that reality is much weirder and more entertaining than fiction. Writers want their fiction to make sense. Reality doesn't worry about any of that. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

El Chapo's wife also has an interesting background in the family business. 

[Melina22]

I started watching Only Murders in the Building, a new limited series with Steve Martin and Martin Short. Right near the beginning they reveal that the three main characters love true crime podcasts, and one of them says she watches Dateline so she knows how not to be on Dateline. 😁

But the part that made me LOL is when Steve Martin is discussing true crime shows and says there's always the charming, perfect victim "whose smile lit up the room." I've mentioned that here more than once, it's such an annoying trope, so I cracked up. Anyway, it's a fun watch, if you don't mind some salty language. 

[Tabbygirl521]

On 9/2/2021 at 1:26 PM, Ohmo said:

I fell asleep and have only watched a few minutes.  The episode is going to feature Chad's five kids who, even from the very little bit that I saw, place all the blame on Lori and Alex. One of the boys contended that anyone who knows his father knows his dad wouldn't have been involved in this. In a promo clip, Emma, one of the daughters (who we've heard about) says why would her father bury the bodies in his backyard when there was adjacent available land where the kids could have been buried and not been found. One of the boys said that Chad used to be a gravedigger and wouldn't have dug such a sloppy grave. 

Will report more when I watch the rest of the episode.

The only problem is, she forgot the part about her dad being CRAZY. 

[Stacey]

Those dizzy, dingbat, ungrateful daughters should be locked up with their Jekyll and Hyde, horrible father!!! Maybe they could continue with whatever warped family dynamic they were involved in. Goofy creepy people… Nancy is better off without dingbat 1 and dingbat 2🤬

[Ellee]

Not sure where to put this but it caught my eye. It’s on Oxygen. 
 

Sept 26 -  Escaping Captivity:  The Kara Robinson Story

Happened in 2002.  

[iMonrey]

"What Happened to Amy." Sadly, I fear they might never know. It's been over 30 years now, it's quite possible her abductor is dead and gone. And yet, with all those leads and no arrests, I have to wonder if they actually know who did it and just need harder evidence to make an arrest. That's often the case when they open up the investigation to the public. 

[Annber03]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

And yet, with all those leads and no arrests, I have to wonder if they actually know who did it and just need harder evidence to make an arrest. That's often the case when they open up the investigation to the public. 

I can see that, yeah. 

Even if the abductor is long dead, at the very least, maybe someone who knew them could come forward (and feel more comfortable doing so now) and share what they know or suspected. They kept talking about how Amy's body was found in such an out of the way area, which seemed to indicate the killer was familiar with the area. And it looked like a stretch of farmland, where the people who lived there were few and far between. So I would think anyone who lives in that area would be especially familiar with anyone who does come through there, or, at least, would be more attuned to any suspicious behavior or individuals who came through. 

Such a sad, creepy story. The ruse this guy came up with, calling these girls at their homes and knowing when their moms would be gone...that's beyond chilling. I agree with the one guy who said that someone like this likely has a history of other crimes with children on their record, stuff that was a precursor to them graduating to abduction and murder.

I also can't get over how easy it was for this person to abduct her - she was in a public area, the police station was literally right nearby. That's bold. I felt bad for the kids who gave the police their descriptions of the man. I can't imagine how scary it'd be for them to have to talk to police and describe a guy who abducted a girl who was around their age, and who was right near where they were. I get why the police are hesitant to rely solely on their descriptions and the police sketches, given their age and all, but still, I appreciate them doing their part to help all the same. 

Like you said, it's a long shot, getting any further answers after all this time, but stranger things have happened, so.... I really hope the efforts to bring more attention to this case pay off. 

[12catcrazy]

On 9/19/2021 at 12:50 PM, iMonrey said:

"What Happened to Amy." Sadly, I fear they might never know. It's been over 30 years now, it's quite possible her abductor is dead and gone. And yet, with all those leads and no arrests, I have to wonder if they actually know who did it and just need harder evidence to make an arrest. That's often the case when they open up the investigation to the public. 

I personally know of two murders (both of women) where that was the case.  The police knew who did it but didn't have enough evidence to bring it to trial.   In one of the cases, the killer actually mocked the police every time they showed up at his door.  This was back in the mid 80s.   Not all the cameras that are around today.  

I'm really hoping that somebody remembers that green curtain the police think that poor child had been wrapped in.   I'm still wondering how the killer got info on the children he targeted like knowing where their mothers worked, mothers bosses names, etc.   Many of those small towns had local newspapers then and maybe some of the info would be in the paper.  

[iMonrey]

Quote

 I'm still wondering how the killer got info on the children he targeted like knowing where their mothers worked, mothers bosses names, etc. 

Maybe he worked with them? I wonder if there is some connection between all the children he called, like if all their mothers worked at the same company. That would be another thing that makes me think they really know who did it but need more evidence.

[CrazyInAlabama]

It's shocking to me how much people put out on social media about their personal lives, and their children.     Databases, like Next Door, give a lot of access to other participants information.    It's not hard to find out about someone from online postings. 

[Lsk02]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

Maybe he worked with them? I wonder if there is some connection between all the children he called, like if all their mothers worked at the same company. That would be another thing that makes me think they really know who did it but need more evidence.

The show mentioned that they got all of the families who received the calls together and went through their entire lives to try to find any kind of connection. Stuff like shopping at the same store, using the same repair company, etc. The officer said they couldn’t find any connection. 
I wondered how much information may have been available and accessible through the schools back then. I when I remember when I was in elementary school we had a “Buzz Book” published every year that listed every family name, children’s grade and teacher, parents names, phone numbers, and jobs. Probably not it here, but the information was likely not too difficult to find. 

[Lizzing]

Regarding the 8/24/21 episode "The Evil That Watches"

I have a question about the timeline of the murders that I can't figure out based on Dateline and a handful of articles I found on line.  Based on the show, Calvin was staying home to await the delivery of the new washer in the morning.  The delivery driver called his wife at work in the morning when Calvin didn't open the door.  The dog lady called and then stopped by in the morning and saw the inside door open and thought it was weird, but then went home.  So one could assume that Calvin was murdered in the morning.

Pamela, Calvin's wife, keeps trying to call Calvin all day and then decides to leave work early to check on Calvin.  On the way home, she calls her neighbor to go check on Calvin.  From the police's investigation of the neighbor's house, he had just made dinner, so it is at the earliest, late afternoon.  When Pamela gets home & sees the message on the machine from the dog lady, she calls dog lady back just after five (the call where Pamela yelped & the call ended).  

Everything written about the prosecution's theory of the crime was that Kit killed Calvin to stop Calvin from testifying in the court-martial trial.  Fine, I buy that 100%.  But they also theorized that Kit killed Pamela & the neighbor as collateral damage because they stumbled upon the crime scene.  But that seems weird to me.  I really, really want to know what the hell Kit was doing in the house from the morning until around 5.  The clean-up wasn't great.  There was no mention of torture.  A guy with that many years of military training should be able to kill someone in under 6 hours---and it doesn't take long to shoot someone five times.  So did Kit come back?  If so, why?  Or did he really sit in a guy's house he just murdered for hours on end? Did he really have another motive to kill Pamela?  Was he really seen on base during the day? (Kit alleged he was there, but Dateline didn't show any testimony from the Army one way or the other.) If Kit's ex-wife really did have something going on with Calvin, I could see HER having a motive for killing Pamela...lying in wait and the neighbor just was wrong place, wrong time.  And if the cops really cleared the ex-wife, why?  Wouldn't the prosecutors have put on a rebuttal witness to fortify their position that the ex-wife had zero to do with it, and share why she was cleared?

OK, I wrote a whole damn dissertation here....but Dateline's starting out Season 30 leaving me with more questions than answers.  Keith usually is so much better!

[Annber03]

15 minutes ago, Lizzing said:

And if the cops really cleared the ex-wife, why?

That's what I wanted to know, too. The show kept constantly bringing her up in a way that seemed to insinuate she had something to do with this...but then...nothing. There were hints of her having a questionable past of her own, with the bigamy and all - and granted, while that's illegal, that doesn't automatically mean you're a murderer - but even then, yeah, the cops did seem to just kind of move on from her pretty fast. 

If she was involved in this crime, I definitely don't think she worked alone. That's a lot of effort and detail involved, to where I can see it requiring more than one person to carry out. 

The dog tags are a curious detail for me, too - on the one hand, I don't put it past a killer to be stupid enough to leave something identifying them at a crime scene, 'cause that's happened more often than one might think it would. On the other hand, yeah, the fact they're on a white string, and the name on the tags isn't quite right, is odd, and it does seem like the sort of thing that could easily be staged. 

I also wonder how much sooner the investigation might've been able to get moving had that woman who'd come to check on Cal and Pam called the police the moment she got that weird feeling when she came to the house. That made no sense - you hear a concerning noise on the phone when talking to Pam, and this happens after you know that people are getting worried about not being able to get a hold of Cal all day. All of this is, logically, reason enough to get you to go check on them, and then while there, you get a creepy feeling that's strong enough to where you (wisely) decide not to go inside the house, instead choosing to turn and leave....

...and yet you don't call the police to notify them of any of this? Okay. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Annber03

[Lizzing]

@Annber03 Yes to all of your post! Especially the dog woman--she SHOULD have called the cops and asked for a welfare check.  The suddenly ended phone call, yet her car was still in the driveway at that time, Cal missing, and the doors being open all warranted a welfare check.  

[JudyObscure]

I felt sorry for Pam before we even got to her murder.  She's working long hours at the bank while Cal is supposed to be taking care of the house and it didn't look like he had lifted a finger. Those old houses with lots of "history" have wiring ready to kill you the minute you plug in your hairdryer, plumbing that barely does the job and basements that are like the worst level of hell.  There was so much filth and clutter everywhere that no one will ever know if that dog tag and bullet casing was there earlier or not.   And all the while Cal is asking Pam to live like that, because "he had always dreamed of a fixer-upper," he has time for an affair with the bigamist across the street.

[Melina22]

Weirdly, until this show I'd never once heard of a female bigamist, or at least I'd never heard that word applied to a woman. I thought of a bigamist as being male by default. Obviously, that's not the case. 

I have no clue what the bigamist lady was or was not guilty of (other than bigamy and adultery) but something about her facial expression twigged something in my mind. On shows like Dateline as well as in my own life, I've come to connect that open, almost blank and innocent expression with someone bad. It's like they don't have any lines on their face because they're untroubled by guilt and anxiety. I know this is a massive generalization, but this is what went through my mind. 

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, Melina22 said:

Weirdly, until this show I'd never once heard of a female bigamist, or at least I'd never heard that word applied to a woman.

I'll bet the men get reported to the police more often because they're owing child support etc.  When the women like Joan disappear their husbands are probably just thinking, thank God and Greyhound they're gone.

[Irlandesa]

Once again, I think Dateline leaves out some information in order to tell a compelling story.  I really thought Joan did it for so much of the episode.  She wasn't interviewed.  They certainly made her past seem suspicious. And there were some weird things--like the poor police work and that strange dog tag situation. 

But then there were things that made me believe they had the right guy.  Mostly gut feelings.

The more he talked, especially toward the end of the episode, the more he came off as a narcissist.  He mentioned he got letters of support. I can believe that.  He's relatively good looking and I bet he has groupies.  But then he said how the court bailiffs were telling him that the prosecution had nothing and they were sure he was going to walk.  I don't believe that.

He was wearing a cross prominently which made me realize he had probably been convicted and he was trying to make a statement about his goodness. 

He tried to control his alibi with his security system.  Only one way out of the house?  Pfft. 

He has the strength go beat Cal and move the other two. 

When speaking of the abuse, his new wife was about to defend him but she looked up and away just before she said he was gentle and kind.  That little look made me think she was lying.

Joan certainly did look suspicious but if I might engage in some wild spec, it's certainly possible she was in an abusive relationship before she got together with Kit. Simply accusing a past ex of abuse. Sadly, women (heck--anyone) can find themselves in similar unhealthy relationship patterns.  Maybe that explains the bigamy as well.  She escaped from an abusive marriage, ran away and hoped her ex would divorce her.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kit placed the fake dog tags there to try and frame himself so he could claim he was framed knowing he'd be a primary suspect.  He liked to make that claim. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Ohmo]

Irlandesa, the one thing that made me really raise an eyebrow about Kit was his claim that she was able to get all of that classified information out of his office.  That seemed implausible to me.

However, Cal never did directly refute the fact that there was something between him and Joan. If she felt scorned, I could see her shooting Cal.

I'm wondering if Kit and Joan did it together.  After it happened Joan had the faux dog tags made, planted them, and then just didn't talk. She turned on Kit after the murders.  He accused her, but he didn't cop to anything himself.  If Kit's intent on saving himself and not say, "Yes, we did it together," all Joan's got to do is hope there's no evidence that directly ties her to the crime.  So far, that has turned out to be the case.

It does seem likely that a man would have to be involved given that three people were killed, and two of them were moved.  If the neighbor had a gun and Joan had a gun, that's equal force, but if the neighbor had a gun, and Kip and Joan had guns, it makes more sense that two people could subdue and control three people.

[Raiderred]

13 hours ago, Annber03 said:

...and yet you don't call the police to notify them of any of this? Okay. 

Exactly! I thought many things just didn't add up.  I am not convinced Kit killed them.  And, yes, I think the ex-wife should have testified.  Also, the police sure didn't spend too much time on the initial crime scene.  What's up with all that?  Also, thought the sister seemed strange acting.

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, Ohmo said:

If she felt scorned, I could see her shooting Cal.

I'm wondering if Kit and Joan did it together. 

Kit never said it was because she felt scorned; he thinks she did it because she just felt that Cal was going to change his mind.  Kit's reasoning?  Kit heard it in Cal's voice.  All I heard from Cal was a lot of non-committal responses.

And no, Cal didn't deny the affair but he didn't seem to talk much to the detectives at all.  Would you?  If your friend, who claimed her husband beat her and her kid (and that teenage kid confirmed), would you openly talk to the PI the allegedly abusive husband who hired them?  I wouldn't.

I don't think Kit and Joan did it together.  He was already with the new woman (current spouse) at that time.  Both of the overt motives, as far as we know, are at cross purposes.  For her, it's supposedly that Cal wasn't going to testify.  For him, it was supposedly that he was.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Irlandesa

[UsernameFatigue]

6 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I felt sorry for Pam before we even got to her murder.  She's working long hours at the bank while Cal is supposed to be taking care of the house and it didn't look like he had lifted a finger. Those old houses with lots of "history" have wiring ready to kill you the minute you plug in your hairdryer, plumbing that barely does the job and basements that are like the worst level of hell.  There was so much filth and clutter everywhere that no one will ever know if that dog tag and bullet casing was there earlier or not.   And all the while Cal is asking Pam to live like that, because "he had always dreamed of a fixer-upper," he has time for an affair with the bigamist across the street.

Ya, Cal was a peach. Not that he deserved to die, but from what they played of the taped conversation, he was shocked that the whole situation with the lap top had gone has far as it had. And he sounded very insulted that he was cheating with a bigamist. Boy, did Joan have a  nerve! He did sound to me though that he was more on Kit's side than Joan's. 

I wonder if, after the visit from the PI, Cal possibly confronted Joan about the convenience of her "finding" the lap top and CDs with him present, wrapped up in her great grandmother's old quilts? Honestly, if Kit had taken the laptop etc, why would he hide them in Joan's possessions? And even if he did (which I don't believe happened),why would he not move them when Joan moved out, assuming she would return for the rest of her stuff? And what was the supposed reason for Kit to take that stuff and hide it in some old quilts in the attic in the first place?

I think Cal was a scorned lover, thinking that Joan was really into him but found that he was just another man she was using. He said in the tape that she would pay, and I think that he turned on Joan so was just another in the line of men who would pay. Framing NotHubbyKit was a way to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. And the planting of the fake dog tags and the casing just part of it. If Kit was going to go to the trouble of having fake dog tags made and planted, he would have done much more to cast suspicion on another party. 

Given what was presented on Dateline, I could not have found Kit guilty. I think it is much more likely Joan, but she was too busy casing her next mark to testify, or be interviewed. I wonder if her oldest kid has now gotten in touch with his NotDeadFather, or her other kids gotten in touch with their NotAbusiveorDivorcedFather. She is a piece of work, just one in a line of many we have seen on these shows. I fully expect to see her in another murder case down the road.......

 

 

[Annber03]

5 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

He was wearing a cross prominently which made me realize he had probably been convicted and he was trying to make a statement about his goodness. 

My eyes kept getting drawn to the cross around his neck, too, while watching. 

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Both of the overt motives, as far as we know, are at cross purposes.  For her, it's supposedly that Cal wasn't going to testify.  For him, it was supposedly that he was.

I don't think Joan's motive had anything to do with testifying at the court martial.  Why would she care?  It was Kit's court martial. Yet, there was plenty of evidence that she was vengeful toward men who wronged her.  She told one of her kids that the kid's father was dead when the man wasn't, and she accused Kit of domestic violence. If she perceived Cal as spurning her (even if that didn't actually happen), I can see her attacking him.  I think it's possible that they both worked together to kill Cal for separate reasons (the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of thing) and then Joan turned around and screwed Kit over.  I strongly think she's involved.  The cops either didn't investigate thoroughly enough and/or can't prove it, but I think she's involved.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Ohmo

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Yet, there was plenty of evidence that she was vengeful toward men who wronged her.  She told one of her kids that the kid's father was dead when the man wasn't, and she accused Kit of domestic violence.

Maybe Kit actually was guilty of domestic violence? 

And if Joan is so vengeful she's willing to commit murder, why did she kill Cal and not Kit or her previous husbands who she also felt hurt her and who she seemingly was more entwined with than Cal? 

And then Cal's wife and and neighbor to boot--apparently at times apart?

That's Kit's big advantage.  Because Joan refused to be interviewed and victim's sister and child really weren't super involved in the day-to-day lives of the victims, it was largely Kit who got to shape the point of view.

But I just can't see Joan working with a man she was allegedly framing or he working with her. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by Irlandesa

[pdlinda]

6 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Given what was presented on Dateline, I could not have found Kit guilty. I think it is much more likely Joan,

I agree.  I couldn't find Kit guilty because I don't think the State proved Kit's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  I believe there were "doubts."

Also, I was curious why the state or defense didn't elaborate on the last-minute witness who said he saw Kit at the scene of the burnt car.  I thought that was important evidence that would either corroborate the State's case or been debunked by the Defense with a reasonable explanation of either mistaken identity or some reason why Kit was at that location.

[UsernameFatigue]

More things that didn't make sense in the "evidence" against Kit:

 Why would he use his own gun to kill Cal, and then keep it at home for the police to find? I also think the casing was planted after the fact.

The man who supposedly saw Kit a few days before the murders near a fence in the area where the burnt out car was found? Why would Kit be casing a place to bring a car with bodies, to then burn? How would he have known ahead of time that he was going to kill Pam and the neighbour, hours after Cal was killed? And then want to dispose of their bodies somewhere else? Also, how far was this from his home? Because he would then have had to walk home. But his girlfriend said he was home the whole time. 

There is speculation that Joan's oldest son may have acted with her. Which would certainly make sense as far as moving bodies, and someone to follow Pam's car and bring Joan home from the outskirts of town after the car was set on fire.  Her kids shown at the AT&T store were certainly teenager age. And what was up with Joan supposedly finding Pam's phone in her yard a month after the murders? Where did she even live at that point? 

I also read that Joan was expecting a 6 figure compensation payout at Kit's court martial, which didn't happen. She may have killed Cal because he was going to turn against her when he testified, and that would put her payout in jeopardy. I also think it is possible that the pictures were staged. Kit's first wife of many years did not believe the stories or that he was guilty of abuse or murder. But Joan needed the abuse allegations for a possible payout. 

 Also as someone else pointed out the time line is strange, with hours passing between when Cal was killed, and Pam and the neighbour were killed. Kit was shown arriving home around the time. The day of the murders was a week day - it was never stated where Kit was during the day, but one would assume at work? I don't think they said either way? 

 

Edited September 26, 2021 by UsernameFatigue

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, UsernameFatigue said:

How would he have known ahead of time that he was going to kill Pam and the neighbour, hours after Cal was killed? And then want to dispose of their bodies somewhere else?

Yeah, they never really did say why whomever killed Pam and Ed put them both in a car and took the car out to that rural area and left it burning, did they? That seemed an odd way to get rid of them, as surely someone would notice a burning/burned out car eventually. Maybe they wanted to put them in the cellar with Cal, but found there wasn't enough room? 'Cause that cellar didn't look that big. 

[pdlinda]

3 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

There is speculation that Joan's oldest son may have acted with her. Which would certainly make sense as far as moving bodies, and someone to follow Pam's car and bring Joan home from the outskirts of town after the car was set on fire.  Her kids shown at the AT&T store were certainly teenager age. And what was up with Joan supposedly finding Pam's phone in her yard a month after the murder? Where did she even live at that point? 

Even if Joan (her lawyer) responded to her subpoena by saying she would exercise her 5th amendment rights to any question asked of her at the trial or at any interview, I think the defense should have called her.

 The jury would then have had the opportunity to actually see how Joan comported herself on the stand, how she looked (facial expressions), her clothing, her general demeanor.  I don't think Joan should have been let off the hook by that legal maneuver. 

Maybe that's permitted in Kentucky; however, it would not be permitted in my State.  If the defense called her she would have had to get on the stand and repeat her 5th amendment rights as many times as questions were asked on her.

[UsernameFatigue]

1 hour ago, pdlinda said:

Even if Joan (her lawyer) responded to her subpoena by saying she would exercise her 5th amendment rights to any question asked of her at the trial or at any interview, I think the defense should have called her.

 The jury would then have had the opportunity to actually see how Joan comported herself on the stand, how she looked (facial expressions), her clothing, her general demeanor.  I don't think Joan should have been let off the hook by that legal maneuver. 

Maybe that's permitted in Kentucky; however, it would not be permitted in my State.  If the defense called her she would have had to get on the stand and repeat her 5th amendment rights as many times as questions were asked on her.

I didn't understand that either, how Joan could get away with not being called to testify. Even if she didn't answer questions, the jury could see that she was not cooperating. 

[CraftyHazel]

I’m glad I wasn’t the only one not convinced of either Joan’s innocence or Kit’s guilt.  I thought maybe I was just being naive again.  I need to know what exactly convinced the police to clear Joan.  I want to know why the police turned the house back over to the family so quickly.  So many things just don’t make sense.

I’m not convinced Kit is innocent, but I couldn’t have found him guilty based on what was presented by Dateline, for certain.

[TVbitch]

Well you guys covered all the unanswered questions. I am astounded that no matter which one did it, they would be willing to take two other totally innocent people out. That points more toward Kit, who was military and did what he needed to do to complete his mission. And also Cal's face was punched in big time. Joan obviously didn't do that, and Cal fucking Kit's estranged wife seems a better reason for Cal's face being punched in. 

So I think Kit did beat/shoot Cal, threw him in the cellar, lit the place on fire and left. But he fucked up the fire by closing the cellar door. Hours later, he expects the place to be up in flames, but it's not, so he needs to go back over to cover the crime. This time, he is surprised by Pam and the neighbor and now he is seen, so he takes them out, too. He needed to get out of there quick at that point so putting them in her car and driving away was his on the spot strategy.   

I also thought Kit came off as thinking he was smarter than everyone else and I would not put it passed him to plant some false evidence that would point to him, but that he could ultimately discredit like the toy dog tags. That was probably his Plan B. And he very well could have planted that stuff after the cops released the house, since the sister only went there sporadically.  

Either way, people, this is why you DO NOT get involved in your neighbors' drama. 

[The Closer]

Sometimes I really struggle liking Dateline because, in their need to keep the story compelling, it means they need to present it in a way that invariably smears others. You end up with viewers believing others are murderers based on the show’s portrayal of evidence and defending convicted murderers. That gives me pause about supporting shows like this as it must really suck for those who lost loved ones or those who now have the public thinking they got away with murder because a TV show presented evidence to make the show more interesting.

There are two takeaways for me in that regards. The military guy who was prosecuting the court martial of Kit believed Cal was going to testify against him. I trust that he’d have a good take on Cal as a witness. I don’t buy that he was going to support Kit.

The jury heard the actual case, saw the evidence presented - not a tv show’s version of evidence- and it took only several hours to convict him for murder. The evidence must have been pretty compelling to them.

Can juries get it wrong? Sure, but then let’s save those episodes for cases that have been vetted by the Innocence Project. Dateline, please do better. The story here was fascinating enough without you slanting it to keep us guessing and it’s kinda gross.

[iMonrey]

I'm 50/50 on Kit's guilt. He certainly had the motive, but there are a lot of things that don't add up. I like TVbitch's speculation about the timeline though.

I have my own theory that Cal and Pam's son and his aunt planted some of that evidence themselves to frame Kit. I think it's quite likely they firmly believed in his guilt and were pressuring the cops to arrest him, just like Kit's defense attorney said they were. And when no arrest was made, they kept "finding" new evidence laying around the house to turn over to the police, like the dog tag and the shell casing. I mean, how on earth did investigators miss the shell casing which was lying just steps away from the cellar door where Cal's body was found?? That seems absurd. Plus Cal's sister absolutely refused to believe he was having an affair with Joan, and it seemed pretty clear that he was. I wouldn't put this past her for a minute.

That's not to say Kit is innocent, but I think Cal's sister and son may have "helped" the investigation along a bit on their own.

And Kit's defense attorney: for God's sake, man, trim those eyebrows! Yeesh!

[UsernameFatigue]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

I'm 50/50 on Kit's guilt. He certainly had the motive, but there are a lot of things that don't add up. I like TVbitch's speculation about the timeline though.

I have my own theory that Cal and Pam's son and his aunt planted some of that evidence themselves to frame Kit. I think it's quite likely they firmly believed in his guilt and were pressuring the cops to arrest him, just like Kit's defense attorney said they were. And when no arrest was made, they kept "finding" new evidence laying around the house to turn over to the police, like the dog tag and the shell casing. I mean, how on earth did investigators miss the shell casing which was lying just steps away from the cellar door where Cal's body was found?? That seems absurd. Plus Cal's sister absolutely refused to believe he was having an affair with Joan, and it seemed pretty clear that he was. I wouldn't put this past her for a minute.

That's not to say Kit is innocent, but I think Cal's sister and son may have "helped" the investigation along a bit on their own.

And Kit's defense attorney: for God's sake, man, trim those eyebrows! Yeesh!

I was just going to post several of the points you have made. The casing was found by Cal's sister 8!! months after the murder, but as you say was basically steps away from the cellar door. Also with regard to the timeline posted above by TVBitch, I am not sure about the on the spot decision with regards to Pam and the neighbour's bodies, as the prosecution thought that Kit got up at 1:10 am to drive the car to the outskirts of town and burn it. Not really an "on the spot" decision.  Also by the time Cal was killed, Joan was long gone from Kit's life and he was living with his new girlfriend (can't remember her name). Why would he beat Cal up three years later for sleeping with Joan? One would think given Joan's past and pack of lies, he might buy Cal a beer for giving him yet one more reason to split with Joan. In addition, both Joan and her oldest son were supposed to testify at the trial but refused. 

I always like to google for info on the trial, and this morning found Court TVs reporting under "Former Pilot Guilty in Kentucky Triple Murder Case". Even it points to me more to Kit's innocence than guilt, including testimony that the casing was not from the Kit's gun, and incorrect evidence regarding the cell phones previously. There is also testimony given regarding Joan, including a contractor who saw Joan with a glock in her waistband, Among other things. IN addition Kit's girlfriend and her two children testified to alibi Kit. 

Three friends of Cal and Pam's testified that they did not go away for Thanksgiving as they were afraid that Kit would be hiding in their house when they got home to kill them. Really? Why did they supposedly think that? Why not report it to the police that they were afraid for their lives? And why would they have to go away for Kit to get into their house and hide? If Pam was really concerned that their lives were in danger, why would she wait hours after finding out that the delivery person could not deliver the dishwasher, to have the neighbour check on Cal?  And if she was so concerned that their lives were in danger, why send the neighbour into possible danger? Or go home by herself? That makes no sense to me, and makes me wonder if the friends were convinced by someone close to Cal and Pam to make those claims? And if Cal and Pam were worried about their safety, why not not tell that to their own son, or at least Cal's sister? Did they not tell them why they supposedly weren't going away for Thanksgiving? 

I also don't see why Cal's testimony at the court martial would be so important? Enough to murder him? All he could testify would be that he was with Joan when she found the lap top and CDs. And that the kid told him he was abused, but it didn't sound like Cal believed him. As far the the CDs go, I am wondering why they would have "secret" written on them? Is that something that a military person would do with CDs that they have a work? Seems strange to me - wouldn't that invite someone to look at them? Would not a code of some sort be used, rather that writing the word "secret" on them with a black sharpie?  Wouldn't someone in the military use a word like "classified" rather than "secret" which sounds mickey mouse. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by UsernameFatigue

[UsernameFatigue]

Oh, and another thing. Lol. Kit filed for divorce from Joan, not the other way around. If Kit really had beat her son (and supposedly had been for years) why would she not have filed to divorce him? Why did she not go to the police with the allegations and photographs? Why did the kid not tell someone ie at school? Why did Joan wait until she "found" a laptop that Kit supposedly stole, to bring up the pics and allegations of abuse when he was going to be court martialed? Because the pics and claims might get her a 6 figure payout? Whereas going through the channels that most would if their kid was supposedly being abused, would garner her no money. And possibly a higher burden of proof. 

Anyhoo, I have no idea who killed the three victims, but don't think it is likely Kit anymore than Joan. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by UsernameFatigue

[Melina22]

2 hours ago, The Closer said:

 It must really suck for those who lost loved ones or those who now have the public thinking they got away with murder because a TV show presented evidence to make the show more interesting.

You're so right. I don't think we can even imagine how awful that would be. I hope we never have to. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

One reason that allegations aren't brought to military authorities is if the person is convicted at court martial, they lose all pay and benefits after a jail sentence, or if they're dishonorably discharged too.   The loss of retirement, and medical, and other benefits extends to their family too.   They also lose all VA benefits in that case too. 

Edited September 26, 2021 by CrazyInAlabama

[UsernameFatigue]

2 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

One reason that allegations aren't brought to military authorities is if the person is convicted at court martial, they lose all pay and benefits after a jail sentence, or if they're dishonorably discharged too.   They also lose all VA benefits in that case too. 

But Joan did bring them to the military authorities, as that is what she wanted to happen. 

As far as Dateline goes, they did not report everything that happened in the trial, both for and against Kit.  There were also things brought up regarding Joan in the trial. 

As far as the post above regarding the episode, I  have no problem with how this episode was presented. We have seen family members who, even after someone has been proven not to be guilty, continue to assert that the person is guilty. We have also certainly seen our share of wrongful convictions. Given what a POS Joan is, I have no doubt that she is not the innocent she portrays. And I think Cal's sister is delusional with regards to her brother's relationship with Joan. Cal's son and sister went on Dateline - they didn't have to. They chose to put themselves out there. I don't know that without their input, there would even have been an episode as who else would Dateline have had to interview, other than the dog lady? 

[rwgrab]

Yeah, a few things about this story as presented didn't add up to a guilty verdict against Kit for me. 

I've done a fair amount of contract work for the military, and I've taken the IT training every year about various classified materials.  So yes, it would be very serious to have taken something marked "Secret" (just a classification label, doesn't actually mean it contains "secrets") off-base.  But I don't think that alone would be enough to bring about a court martial.  I could definitely be wrong there, but just saying I'm not sure that Cal's testimony about finding the laptop, the CDs, and a photo he would have no full knowledge of would be damaging enough for Kit to kill over.

I also agree with the poster that said that the son and aunt may have had a hand in some of the "evidence" that was recovered.  Even Joan would have known that Kit's dog tags would have his full name on them, so I don't think she would have made such a mistake if she were trying to frame him.  And oh, what a coincidence that as soon as they put up those security cameras at the old junk-filled home that nobody would bother robbing, it happens to capture the discovery of the shell casing on the porch that everybody missed!

[UsernameFatigue]

6 minutes ago, rwgrab said:

Yeah, a few things about this story as presented didn't add up to a guilty verdict against Kit for me. 

I've done a fair amount of contract work for the military, and I've taken the IT training every year about various classified materials.  So yes, it would be very serious to have taken something marked "Secret" (just a classification label, doesn't actually mean it contains "secrets") off-base.  But I don't think that alone would be enough to bring about a court martial.  I could definitely be wrong there, but just saying I'm not sure that Cal's testimony about finding the laptop, the CDs, and a photo he would have no full knowledge of would be damaging enough for Kit to kill over.

I also agree with the poster that said that the son and aunt may have had a hand in some of the "evidence" that was recovered.  Even Joan would have known that Kit's dog tags would have his full name on them, so I don't think she would have made such a mistake if she were trying to frame him.  And oh, what a coincidence that as soon as they put up those security cameras at the old junk-filled home that nobody would bother robbing, it happens to capture the discovery of the shell casing on the porch that everybody missed!

So would someone in the military actually take a sharpie and write "secret" on some CDs, while they are on the base?  Wouldn't they have a proper label? Just wondering.

Good point about the aunt just happening to find the shell casing in the now security camera-ed porch.  Why bother now, when the occupants are dead? If Cal and Pam were really afraid for their lives prior to their murders, why would they not have installed cameras then in case someone was prowling around, meaning to do them harm? 

[rwgrab]

1 hour ago, UsernameFatigue said:

So would someone in the military actually take a sharpie and write "secret" on some CDs, while they are on the base?  Wouldn't they have a proper label? Just wondering.

Heh, well ideally there'd be a more official label, but I think the priority is to make sure the CD gets marked if it ever held anything that was considered Secret.  Folks on-base usually err on the side of caution with removeable media, so Sharpie is better than nothing!

[Ohmo]

5 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Why did she not go to the police with the allegations and photographs?

She did go to the authorities about the domestic violence.  They went to court, and there wasn't enough evidence.  The judge  issued retaining orders for each of them against the other.  There was no mention of the photographs, however.

I think that Kit's involved, but I also think Joan's involved.  Cal, Joan, and Kit are so intertwined, I simply don't think it's only one.  TVBitch also said it best about another case months ago.  The reality is it was one and/or the other.  I agree Kit is narcissistic, but I think Joan is too.  Kit's not going to admit it, and Joan has engineered it so she;'s escaped notice, but I don't think either is innocent.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Ohmo

[SoMuchTV]

Hey, could I ask a favor?  When y’all start discussing an episode (or revisiting an old one), could you maybe mention the air date or the episode number or something? I don’t watch on a regular basis, but sometimes the discussion here makes me want to seek it out. It’s sometimes kind of hard to figure out what to look for on the nbc app. And apparently there are different versions, like Dateline vs. Dateline Mystery vs. Dateline Weekend…? I guess I should have been paying closer attention  :)

 

[Ohmo]

5 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Wouldn't someone in the military use a word like "classified" rather than "secret" which sounds mickey mouse. 

"Secret" is an actual term that the U.S. Military uses.

Security Clearance Classification

 

[Irlandesa]

18 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I didn't understand that either, how Joan could get away with not being called to testify. Even if she didn't answer questions, the jury could see that she was not cooperating. 

A judge might not have allowed it.  In watching these true crime shows, I've seen episodes where judges have prevented lawyers from presenting alternative suspects to a crime.

In fact, that's what happened in the new series hosted by Hilarie Burton "True Crime Story: It Couldn't Happen Here."  (Which I need to start a thread for if no one else has because I have thoughts on every episode.)

The judge might know that the defense lawyer will ask questions where she'll invoke her 5th amendment and, from what I understand, once you take it, you have to take it for all of the testimony.

9 hours ago, TVbitch said:

So I think Kit did beat/shoot Cal, threw him in the cellar, lit the place on fire and left. But he fucked up the fire by closing the cellar door. Hours later, he expects the place to be up in flames, but it's not, so he needs to go back over to cover the crime. This time, he is surprised by Pam and the neighbor and now he is seen, so he takes them out, too. He needed to get out of there quick at that point so putting them in her car and driving away was his on the spot strategy.   

I also thought Kit came off as thinking he was smarter than everyone else.

That's why I lean towards guilty.  I think his plan was to burn Cal.  He cased out places to do it.  Decided on the home.  Then when it didn't work and he went back, he ended up killing Ed and Cal's wife.  Maybe he was hoping they wouldn't identify Ed and Cal's wife and he hoped they'd think they ran off together after killing Cal.

[Court]

Kit is an arrogant smug asshole. I don't think Joan is completely innocent here but I don't think she murdered anyone.