All Episodes Discussion

[UsernameFatigue]

3 hours ago, Ohmo said:

 

I know Bobby Joe's a career criminal, but that's why I believe him.  Andrea's purses were missing, and he took the coin collection, which I think he believed would get close to $5K.  He was counting on jurors to believe Mr. Mild-Mannered Milktoast would never be involved in a crime, and I don't think he ever had an intention of paying Bobby Joe.  That's why the money wasn't there.

 

There wasn't a coin collection. It was a roll of quarters and a jar of coins that Bobby took. He would have been lucky if the total amounted to even a $100.  Same with purses. He was likely hoping there might be some money in them, but I doubt Andrea was buying designer type purses. 

As far as Chris not paying Bobby, why would Chris not be afraid that Bobby would  return and exact revenge on being double crossed? He obviously had no problem killing a woman who was nothing but nice to him.

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by UsernameFatigue

[Guest]

Chris is as guilty as sin and the attorney must’ve had a lot of makeup in her vanity that was about to expire. 

And for the life of me I had no idea what that juror was saying.   Between talking fast and having a mush mouth…I was baffled.

And having Kevin as a son would be a great joy  

[Ohmo]

6 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

There wasn't a coin collection. It was a roll of quarters and a jar of coins that Bobby took. He would have been lucky if the total amounted to even a $100.  Same with purses. He was likely hoping there might be some money in them, but I doubt Andrea was buying designer type purses. 

As far as Chris not paying Bobby, why would Chris not be afraid that Bobby would  return and exact revenge on being double crossed? He obviously had no problem killing a woman who was nothing but nice to him.

I didn't mean a fancy coin collection.  I come from a family where collecting coins in jars isn't an unusual thing.  It's just a coin collection.

Since we never heard from Chris, we have no idea what he might have feared.  He also got lucky.  Bobby said that he would have gone after him had he not gotten arrested again.

The way Chris spoke, his word choices...It all felt calculated to me, like he was putting on a performance.  Bobby also didn't benefit.  He's still in the same prison.  i also think Chris got incredibly lucky because I agree with Andrea's friend. For the jury to come back in an hour, there could not have been any substantive discussion. A family member who's served on a jury has told me there are forms to fill out.  That means deliberations were next to nothing, and I simply don't think the case was that cut and dry.  Chris got lucky.  I don't think he's innocent.

[Ohmo]

51 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

There was no evidence that Chris made any payment to Bobby.

That's not a point in Chris's favor, in my opinion.  I don't think he had any intention of paying Bobby at all.  That doesn't mean that Chris didn't tell Bobby that he was going to pay him.

[UsernameFatigue]

29 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

That's not a point in Chris's favor, in my opinion.  I don't think he had any intention of paying Bobby at all.  That doesn't mean that Chris didn't tell Bobby that he was going to pay him.

Again, why would Chris think that Bobby would not come after him for the money? Bobby didn't because Chris had nothing to do with the murder.

I also saw the 20/20 version of this story, and came away with the same conclusion. 

As I often do, I googled the case to see if there was info I was missing. One thing that was interesting was that I came across a site where Andrea's son was posting. It was after the 20/20 version, and he said that he was not interviewed by 20/20 because he was going to be interviewed by another show (obviously Dateline). He also said he would share info that pointed to Chris's guilt. Still waiting for that, Andrea's son did nothing to change my mind.

Edited to add: I also read that all of the jurors but one felt right away that Chris was not guilty (and that the case should never have been brought to trial). The verdict took an hour as discussion was held due to the one juror who was uncertain, and who after an hour decided as well that Chris was not guilty. 

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by UsernameFatigue

[Ohmo]

32 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Bobby didn't because Chris had nothing to do with the murder.

That's waaay too simplistic for me.

Another thing that stood out to me is that Chris kept "playing" with the police in the sting operations.  He knew that one of the stings was a sting.  He mentioned the guy being a cop with Arlington.  At that point, he didn't say "I didn't kill Andrea.  Stop harassing me."  He said things like "what money?" and "I don't know how I owe him money" along with other things that were similar.  To me, that's evidence of cunning, of being very careful with one's words so as not to incriminate yourself.

Assuming that the material mentioned in Dateline was part of trial, it stuns me that the jurors didn't discuss that or that they felt "right away" that Chris wasn't guilty.

He's paying for his porn using a credit card she doesn't know about.  That's deception.

If the beach house were mentioned, I'd want to see financial records.  What would happen to that house if they no longer worked on it?  Andrea already told her ex she wouldn't sign a form that resulted in her receiving less money.  Was Chris aware of that fact?  If so, he'd likely think she'd fight him, and that points to motive.

If the prosecution didn't highlight those things, they screwed up.  However, I completely disagree that there was no reason to bring this case or that it was obvious "right away" that Chris wasn't involved.  He was the significant other, and plenty of significant others have had their partners killed.

Also notice that he said that he was relieved and it was sad that she was gone. Not "I loved her" or "I didn't kill her."  More careful language in my opinion, especially since he's going to file a lawsuit.

I would have had no problems hanging that jury if I couldn't convince my fellow jurors of his guilt.  Then the prosecution would have had another chance.  In my opinion, there was plenty of there "there" to discuss for more than an hour.

[Mondrianyone]

Did they happen to mention whether Andrea had actually seen the beach house? (Honest question--I could've missed it if they did, since I dozed off at one point.) What if there was no beach house, and all the money she was contributing was really going to pay for his porn addiction? Just an icky speculation. And a powerful motive, I'd think.

[partofme]

This is the second time I’ve seen this story and I think the jury got it right and Chris is innocent.   It made no sense that he’d ask some guy he never met to murder his girlfriend.  I think Bobby is a liar and did it on his own.  But if anyone had a motive to hire him I think it would have been the victim’s ex husband.  He was mad she wouldn’t take less money from his pension than she was entitled to, keeping him from being able to retire and he told his son at one point to stop investigating his mother’s murder.  

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Did they happen to mention whether Andrea had actually seen the beach house? (Honest question--I could've missed it if they did, since I dozed off at one point.) What if there was no beach house, and all the money she was contributing was really going to pay for his porn addiction? Just an icky speculation. And a powerful motive, I'd think.

The episode never said if she saw it, but there were several pictures of it in mid-construction, so I think it did actually exist.

3 hours ago, partofme said:

 I think Bobby is a liar and did it on his own.  But if anyone had a motive to hire him I think it would have been the victim’s ex husband.  He was mad she wouldn’t take less money from his pension than she was entitled to, keeping him from being able to retire and he told his son at one point to stop investigating his mother’s murder.

Except at one point, Bobby referred to the man as an engineer, which is what Chris sometimes called himself.

Criminals do lie, but Bobby was aware of things that were not common about Andrea or Chris---like the fact that this occurred on a day when Andrea wasn't typically home.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Ohmo

[Mondrianyone]

31 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

The episode never said if she saw it, but there were several pictures of it in mid-construction, so I think it did actually exist.

Thanks, @Ohmo! But what if he was just showing her photos of some other house in progress? I only wonder because I knew a woman who was conned in a kind of similar way. And it seemed odd to me that Andrea was a librarian and he worked at Home Depot, so they probably weren't knee-deep in cash, they lived in a very modest apartment, and yet they were building a beach house? I watch too much true crime, I guess.

[UsernameFatigue]

The beach house was featured in the 20/20 episode. Chris and his wife (who have been together for 23 years now) finished it. Not sure if they still have it as they live in a different state I believe. 

[Morrigan2575]

Yeah, I'm going with Chris being innocent and the Jury got it right

[leslieo54]

3 hours ago, Mondrianyone said:

Thanks, @Ohmo! But what if he was just showing her photos of some other house in progress? I only wonder because I knew a woman who was conned in a kind of similar way. And it seemed odd to me that Andrea was a librarian and he worked at Home Depot, so they probably weren't knee-deep in cash, they lived in a very modest apartment, and yet they were building a beach house? I watch too much true crime, I guess.

They said that she put in money and sweat equity, which I took to mean she worked on the actual construction with him. I dunno, odd that the whole jury (minus one convinceable member) was immediately convinced he was innocent, but those phone calls were still really sus to me. Who calls that much for absolutely no reason, especially pre-cell phones…?

[Irlandesa]

I probably would have been one of the immediate "Not Guilty" people.  The prosecution really didn't have a case.  I rarely agree with defense attorneys on this show, but the one woman who said something to the effect that the police want you to believe the liar over the guy they (the cops) lied to is basically my assessment of the trial. 

And I feel truly sorry for the son.  He spent years believing Chris was not guilty but he fell victim to the "why did he say that?" convincing by the police--he's like so many other people who truly do not understand what the effect of hours and hours of interrogation, mixed with lack of sleep and manipulative interrogation can have.

And in the end, they only got Chris to speak to theoreticals that they knew weren't true and didn't even become their theory of the crime. 

6 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Another thing that stood out to me is that Chris kept "playing" with the police in the sting operations.  He knew that one of the stings was a sting.  He mentioned the guy being a cop with Arlington.  At that point, he didn't say "I didn't kill Andrea.  Stop harassing me."  He said things like "what money?" and "I don't know how I owe him money"

I don't think he was playing with them.  He repeatedly denied that he owed Bobby money and his statements reflected suspicion that it was a sting AND covers the base that the visit by the "brother" is an implied threat that he pay.  He didn't call the cops but he smartly called his lawyer.

1 hour ago, leslieo54 said:

Who calls that much for absolutely no reason, especially pre-cell phones…?

 

1998 wasn't pre-cell phones.  Flip phones were pretty popular back then.  I initially thought the number of phone calls was sus but there are people who call each other that much.  It'd have to be compared to their regular usage.  And while texting was possible, IIRC, we were the texting culture we are today.  So imagine how much more people would call if they didn't have text.

Other factors to consider are the fact that the phone calls weren't even his alibi; it was work.  And he kept calling because they had plans, and he was going to be home later than he initially thought.

I also don't think not checking the closet was suspicious.  If I go to my parents' house and their car isn't in their garage, I don't scour the house looking for them.  I assume they're not home. He did call a few people looking for her. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TVbitch]

You would think based on the comments here, that the jury would have been split, too. 

I did not like Chris. I was not getting that he had any great love for Andrea. Nor would I be surprised if evidence had turned up proving he did it. But as it stands, it just seems equally likely that Bobby saw an opporunity when Andrea invited him in to take the computer. He figured he could come back later to rob the place. Maybe he actually did not think she would be home and just decided to kill her after she answered the door, so he could go ahead with the robbery.   

 

[Ohmo]

7 hours ago, TVbitch said:

You would think based on the comments here, that the jury would have been split, too. 

I did not like Chris. I was not getting that he had any great love for Andrea. Nor would I be surprised if evidence had turned up proving he did it. But as it stands, it just seems equally likely that Bobby saw an opporunity when Andrea invited him in to take the computer. He figured he could come back later to rob the place. Maybe he actually did not think she would be home and just decided to kill her after she answered the door, so he could go ahead with the robbery.   

 

To be clear, I think Bobby Joe actually DID kill Andrea.  I think Chris was involved in HAVING Andrea killed.  I also completely agree with you in thinking the jury would have been split.  I was surprised at the speed of the verdict, and then my thought was "Wow, it didn't take them long to find him guilty." Innocence in about an hour wasn't on the table for me at all.

I also share your dislike of Chris. In my opinion, as I've said, what we saw of him was a performance, a facade.  It didn't strike me as genuine.

Maybe I could have been convinced of his innocence, but if the content of the show matched the content of the trial  and I was told that I had to decide within an hour, I would have said guilty.

Another thing I know we agree on = Josh!

[TVbitch]

I do love Josh, his final pocket square this episode was epic! 

Oh, another thing, both undercover cops in the "I'm here about Bobby's money" stings were TERRIBLE. They both calmly said "okay" after every single thing Chris said, which is a total cop interrogation thing to do and made them totally sound like cops! 

[iMonrey]

15 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

And I feel truly sorry for the son.  He spent years believing Chris was not guilty but he fell victim to the "why did he say that?" convincing by the police--he's like so many other people who truly do not understand what the effect of hours and hours of interrogation, mixed with lack of sleep and manipulative interrogation can have.

That's where I landed with the son as well. He knew Chris well enough to judge his character. I mean, if anyone other than Andrea knew Chris, he did. It seems odd the police would show him the interrogation footage. And even if Chris was involved, the police completely ignored Bobby and told the son they had cleared him at the very beginning of the investigation.

15 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I rarely agree with defense attorneys on this show, but the one woman who said something to the effect that the police want you to believe the liar over the guy they (the cops) lied to is basically my assessment of the trial. 

That's what had me wavering, too. I still lean towards Chris being involved but the defense made some really salient points WRT the police. I think they were right it was a boon to their case when the prosecutor showed the juror the interrogation tape.

Edited June 25, 2023 by iMonrey

[partofme]

18 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Except at one point, Bobby referred to the man as an engineer, which is what Chris sometimes called himself.

Bobby could have been fed this info by the police.  My other theory is that Andrea’s ex-husband could have been trying to frame Chris, like I said above, I think the ex had motive and he told his son to drop his investigation.  

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, Ohmo said:

I also share your dislike of Chris. In my opinion, as I've said, what we saw of him was a performance, a facade.  It didn't strike me as genuine.

It did to me.  I've known guys like Chris.  And I think it's telling only the cops were suspicious of him.  The son didn't think he was giving a performance.  The only thing that flipped him was the bizarre behavior in the interview and I highly doubt they showed the whole 20 hours but instead showed highly curated edits chosen with the intent to manipulate.

42 minutes ago, partofme said:

Bobby could have been fed this info by the police.

Yep.  And they do it through leading questions.  Dateline has covered cases where cops have done this to elicit false confessions.

10 hours ago, TVbitch said:

You would think based on the comments here, that the jury would have been split, too.

For me, I think consideration that he might have been part of it makes sense even if I disagree.  But it does make me nervous to think that even one juror thought the cops proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and it highlights just how much of a built-in advantage cops and prosecutors have against ordinary citizens. 

[Ohmo]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

That's where I landed with the son as well. He knew Chris well enough to judge his character.

My rebuttal to that is: Did Kevin (the son) know that Chris had a thing for porn? Chris isn't the only guy to watch porn, but the show mentioned that he was paying for it with his own credit card, which leaves open the very real possibility that he was keeping his porn habit a secret from both Andrea and Kevin. That's deception, which speaks to character.

If the content of the show matched the content of the trial, the scenario that Josh mentioned makes complete sense to me as a possibility.  That's why I'd want to see financial records. The suggestion during the episode was that this wasn't an infrequent porn habit. He communicated with the women only three times, but as Josh said, $2/minute can be expensive. So, how much was Chris spending on porn? Did Andrea know about it?  Did either the porn or the amount of money Chris was spending on porn cause a wedge in Andrea and Chris's relationship?

Then the beach house enters the picture if he and Andrea were to part ways as a couple. How much of that investment would have been Andrea's, and would Chris have been able to pay her back?  All of that points to motive to me.

My bullshit meter was pinging on Chris well before Bobby Joe entered the episode.  That female defense attorney was so willing to believe that Bobby Joe was lying, but Chris was trying the truth.  Why is it so hard to believe that Chris was also capable of being deceptive?

I would have thoroughly investigated the porn angle if I had worked for the prosecution.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Ohmo

[iMonrey]

1 hour ago, Ohmo said:

My rebuttal to that is: Did Kevin (the son) know that Chris had a thing for porn? Chris isn't the only guy to watch porn, but the show mentioned that he was paying for it with his own credit card, which leaves open the very real possibility that he was keeping his porn habit a secret from both Andrea and Kevin. That's deception, which speaks to character.

There were several things that made me suspicious of Chris but the porn thing wasn't one of them. That just seems like something people latch onto because it seems salacious. I think most people are secretive about their porn habits. That's not info you generally share with your girlfriend's kid . . . or even your girlfriend, necessarily. The prosecution didn't present any evidence that the porn thing was bankrupting him or was about the bring about his ruin.

The beach house, on the other hand, is a different story. I wonder if they could have gotten a guilty verdict if they hadn't make the mistake of showing the jury that interrogation tape. It just made it look like the cops were framing him, and that might have been the end of it for the jurors.

Edited June 25, 2023 by iMonrey

[UsernameFatigue]

I read somewhere that Chris and Andrea kept their finances separate. Chris owned the beach house, and Andrea contributed to it via sweat equity as they worked on it most weekends. There was some discrepancy as to whether she contributed money as well. Chris paid Andrea money towards the mortgage on the apartment which was in Andrea's name. 

Didn't Kevin only turn on Chris after Bobby came out with the murder for hire story? He praised Chris for how he treated Kevin, and felt quite close to him. Though they drifted apart, as far as I know from both shows Kevin was not suspicious of Chris until police told him of the murder for hire story. Chris was suspicious right away that Kevin was wearing a wire as it had been years since he had seen him, and Kevin had never before accused Chris of being involved in his mother's murder. Likewise, he was suspicious that years later two different people would claim that they were there to collect money on behalf of Bobby. The officers in both of those cases were keystone cops. 

11 hours ago, partofme said:

Bobby could have been fed this info by the police.  My other theory is that Andrea’s ex-husband could have been trying to frame Chris, like I said above, I think the ex had motive and he told his son to drop his investigation.  

Though I think Bobby acted alone, if he was hired by anyone I would put money on the ex, who had the motive. I don't think that is what happened, but it makes as much or more sense that Chris. 

The ex may also though just have not liked how the case consumed his son. When Kevin said that he wanted to be remembered as someone who didn't give up, Josh said I think you already are. I don't think Josh meant it as a compliment. Personally I found the son a little "off". 

Edited June 26, 2023 by UsernameFatigue

[JudyObscure]

On 6/24/2023 at 4:14 PM, PsychoKlown said:

Chris is as guilty as sin and the attorney must’ve had a lot of makeup in her vanity that was about to expire. 

LOL  She looked a quite a bit like your avatar PsychoKlown.

Well!  I just watched it last night and I just loved reading everyone's comments this morning.  Just the volume of opinions here show how negligent that jury was.  There are at least two days worth of discussion points.

I was aghast at the hard core lying and manipulation by the police interrogators. I showed that part to my husband who is a Dateline innocent and didn't know police are allowed to lie.  We decided that if we believed they were truthful and we'd been in the hot seat for hours, we too, might be saying, "Well if you found my fingerprints on the body I must have killed her and blacked it out or something."

On the other hand. I believe online porn has made monsters out of many weak wishy washy men like Chris.  It can be as bad as gambling addiction for ruining marriages and draining bank accounts.  The fact that Chris's addiction  had escalated from all the mountains of free porn online to having to watch the pay for routines and talk to them on the phone makes me think he was dreaming of a life where he didn't have to spend time listening to Andrea talk for hours and boss him around.

I think he might have researched the computer guy online, saw he was a criminal and got an idea.  He might have promised the "money in a shoe in the closet." and then changed his mind about it.

On the other hand," I think it's quite possible Bobby Joe went to her house to rob it, got caught and killed her, or went to her house purposely to rape and kill her.  That was exactly what he did to another woman.  Bobby sounded smart and he believed that murder for hire was a lesser offence and he would get moved off the mountain if he claimed it was Chris's idea.

I didn't understand how Kevin could have had unwavering faith in Chris for all those years and then suddenly be convinced Chris was the murderer over one vague sentence about, "I must have carried her to the closet," during the interrogation torture after he was asked to imagine what could have happened to get her in the closet after he was home from work. 

Bottom line, I think Chris could well be guilty but there isn't enough evidence to convict.

 

[iMonrey]

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

The fact that Chris's addiction  had escalated from all the mountains of free porn online to having to watch the pay for routines and talk to them on the phone makes me think he was dreaming of a life where he didn't have to spend time listening to Andrea talk for hours and boss him around.

This was 1998, free online porn wasn't as superabundant as it is now and chat rooms, etc., were more common. Plus it was all dial-up. They didn't present any evidence that Chris went down some porn rabbit hole that destroyed his life and created a motive for murder. It was only included in the story to cast suspicion on him because it's akin to the revelation he was having an affair. But I just don't see any causal link between his porn habit, such as it was, and murder.

[UsernameFatigue]

4 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

 

I think he might have researched the computer guy online, saw he was a criminal and got an idea.  He might have promised the "money in a shoe in the closet." and then changed his mind about it.

On the other hand," I think it's quite possible Bobby Joe went to her house to rob it, got caught and killed her, or went to her house purposely to rape and kill her.  That was exactly what he did to another woman.  Bobby sounded smart and he believed that murder for hire was a lesser offence and he would get moved off the mountain if he claimed it was Chris's idea.

 

 

Were criminal records readily available online in 1998? And I don't think Bobby Joe's record at that time was anything that would warrant being able to find online. The case that was very similar to Andrea's was a rape and attempted murder of a 13 year old girl, and it happened a year after Andrea's murder, in 1999.  Bobby Joe was apparently surprised that the girl survived as he thought she was dead when he left her. 

What would make Chris think that Bobby Joe was capable of murder? He never met him, and Andrea liked him enough to give him a computer, and invite him back to her apartment. Kevin said that Andrea wasn't a trusting person and that was out of the ordinary for her. So what would make Chris think "I bet this guy that Andrea has just met and seems to like, would be a good guy for me to phone up and see if he would like to murder her"? 

Another thing that makes no sense in Bobby Joe's story is that Chris only called him the day before he supposedly wanted Andrea killed. So Chris calls Bobby out of the blue, says he wants the very nice lady who gave Bobby a computer killed the next day, and he'd leave the money in a closet. Bobby's reaction is "Sure bro, good to go", to paraphrase. Suuurrree. 

I don't think the jury had much to discuss. They had the trial time to take all the "evidence' in, and obviously didn't think there was any. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by UsernameFatigue

[partofme]

3 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Another thing that makes no sense in Bobby Joe's story is that Chris only called him the day before he supposedly wanted Andrea killed.

I think Bobby Joe most likely acted alone, but if he had an accomplice this is another thing that made me think Andrea's ex is a better suspect than Chris.  Didn't they say Andrea spent the day before she was murdered with her ex at their son's graduation?  So he probably knew she was off the next day.

[iMonrey]

4 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Another thing that makes no sense in Bobby Joe's story is that Chris only called him the day before he supposedly wanted Andrea killed. So Chris calls Bobby out of the blue, says he wants the very nice lady who gave Bobby a computer killed the next day, and he'd leave the money in a closet. Bobby's reaction is "Sure bro, good to go", to paraphrase. Suuurrree. 

You know . . . when you put it that way it does sound pretty absurd.

[JudyObscure]

I kept forgetting it was 1998, so Chris wouldn't have been doing research on the computer. 

One thing we know for sure is Bobby Joe doesn't need a reason to kill women. Getting $5000 for it is probably just a favorite fantasy for him.

Edited June 27, 2023 by JudyObscure

[badgerwoman]

6 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

 

I would really love to know the truth about this one.

this is one story that just left me confused.  I can see why Chris was a suspect - the whole thing with not noticing the closet for hours was just weird, and Chris seems off.  But everyone seemed just off, and there was bad police work in the beginning.  

 

 

[Ohmo]

On 6/25/2023 at 4:39 PM, iMonrey said:

There were several things that made me suspicious of Chris but the porn thing wasn't one of them. That just seems like something people latch onto because it seems salacious. I think most people are secretive about their porn habits. That's not info you generally share with your girlfriend's kid . . . or even your girlfriend, necessarily.

I agree that the porn may be a small thing in and of itself.  However, if the porn was a big thing to Andrea and was the straw that could end the relationship, that gets us to the bigger deal, which was the beach house.

[MooCat Pretzel]

Is it just me or does it seem like Dateline and 20/20 just recycle the same 40-50 murder stories?!  I am getting annoyed at sitting down to watch Dateline and it features a case I’ve seen two or three different times!  Are there just no more new “mysteries” out there or is it just incredibly lazy television production?!

[Ohmo]

On 6/26/2023 at 9:01 AM, JudyObscure said:

Well!  I just watched it last night and I just loved reading everyone's comments this morning.  Just the volume of opinions here show how negligent that jury was.  There are at least two days worth of discussion points.

Once we started discussing the case here, I pictured all of us in a jury room.  We'd be ordering pizza, coffee, energy drinks, and whatever else people needed for long-term discussion.

The one-hour thing completely blows my mind.

[MsJamieDornan]

4 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Once we started discussing the case here, I pictured all of us in a jury room.

There are some cases that I could decide in an hour, this isnt one of those !

[iMonrey]

14 hours ago, MooCat Pretzel said:

Is it just me or does it seem like Dateline and 20/20 just recycle the same 40-50 murder stories?!  I am getting annoyed at sitting down to watch Dateline and it features a case I’ve seen two or three different times!  Are there just no more new “mysteries” out there or is it just incredibly lazy television production?!

I don't watch 20/20 but Dateline definitely repeats stories and repackages them as "new" by tacking on a few extra minutes at the end. I'm worried they're running out of murderers!

[12catcrazy]

In some ways this was a WTF of a case.   

If I had been on that jury, I don't think that I could convict Chris based on what we have been told.   He sure is one helluva an odd man; and could he have wanted Andy dead?  Well, he might have had motive (guess it depends on what Andy's reaction on finding out about his porn addiction was) but there was really nothing tangible linking him to the crime other than the word of a rapist/murderer who wanted to cut a deal and not get the death penalty.  

If Chris was behind the murder, the guy has got to go down as a criminal mastermind.   His demeanor and answers were hinky enough to lean you into thinking that he was behind it but it also beggars belief that Bobby Joe would murder this woman for a "promised" 5 grand and didn't even ask for a deposit first.   

My guess?  That Bobby Joe came to the house to rob it and Andy was there so he killed her, and that Chris wasn't especially upset that Andy was dead.  He seems to be a guy who probably keeps all of his cards close to the vest and may have a deceitful personality.  Maybe as far as he was concerned, he was better off without her and really didn't care about the murder as it made his life easier.  "shrugs".  Just weird all the way around.  

[CrystalBlue]

5 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I don't watch 20/20 but Dateline definitely repeats stories and repackages them as "new" by tacking on a few extra minutes at the end. I'm worried they're running out of murderers!

I'm the opposite.  I saw this Behind the Closet Door case on 20/20 and am waiting to watch on the NBC app when it becomes unlocked because I'm too lazy to use a credit to watch.  I remember thinking the cops pulled shenanigans, albeit legally, to get the confession and that is probably what caused the jury to come back in only an hour.  It would be interesting to watch the two shows back to back to compare versions and any journalistic biases, if any.

[Irlandesa]

On 6/25/2023 at 2:28 PM, Ohmo said:

My rebuttal to that is: Did Kevin (the son) know that Chris had a thing for porn?

I'm guessing Kevin didn't think about whether or not his stepdad had a porn habit any more than I'm likely to think about whether or not my dad watched porn.  I don't know and I don't want to know.

But I was mostly talking about the idea that his demeanor was a facade.  It seems like that was his demeanor. 

11 hours ago, 12catcrazy said:

Well, he might have had motive (guess it depends on what Andy's reaction on finding out about his porn addiction was)

Did he have a porn addiction?  Maybe but I don't recall them saying that.  From what I remember, the only time porn was mentioned was when Chris offered it up himself.  And then Kevin, who was told about it by the cops, theorized that could have been a motive. 

I think it's also important to remember that this show leaves things out but it also probably puts things in that the jury never hears. I wouldn't be surprised if the porn stuff was something they might not have heard.  A lot of judges would put limits on that kind of speculation and wouldn't allow it in unless they could prove that Andy knew about it and was mad about it. 

IMO, the timing doesn't really work for a murder-for-hire because Chris thinks Andy is going to leave him.  In the time to set it up, you'd think she would have mentioned that to someone.  Her son?  Her friends?  But everyone believed them to still be together at the time of the murder.

[Vivigirl10]

I watched a super old rerun last night about Frank and Nancy Howard; where Frank put a hit on his wife using what was described as the "Hee Haw Gang" down in Texas.  Nancy was shot in the face, lost her eye, but survived. 

OMG - I don't think Dateline has ever inspired such hate in me as it did for the two daughters.  The younger just seemed like kind of an idiot but the older one?  First, before you even knew the ending, she was so over-the-top, difficult to tolerate, I thought, this is the type of person who is so annoying in real life, you see them enter a room and you look for the nearest exit.  Such a dramatic, theatrical way of speaking, always gesturing with her hands.  I wanted to tell her to turn it down about five hundred notches and get a hold of herself.  But the fact that they turned their backs on their victim Mother to side with and support their guilty as all hell Father?  There was simply no explanation in the world!!!  Disgusting human beings!!

And Nancy, God bless her, seemed like such a wonderful and kind woman.  Completely dedicated to her family and just kind of......dumbfounded by the entire unfolding of the multiple layers of this tragedy?  And all that this man had done to her?  It was so heartbreaking.  

Maybe someone else caught the rerun and would like to join in and vent.  I just had to get it off my chest!

    

[Annber03]

Ohhhhhhhhh, yes, that one has been discussed quite a few times in here - I think there's a section a good number of pages back where everyone's just ranting about the episode, and we all had pretty much the same thoughts and conclusions you did. The daughters were...truly something. Yes. 

My favorite thing about that case was Frank's defense attorney trying to say that we couldn't trust anything that Hee-Haw gang was saying during the trial because they were a bunch of criminals. Which might be a valid point to bring up...except Frank himself had been caught embezzling money from his company, so he's a criminal, too. So by his own attorney's logic, we shouldn't trust anything he says, either, right? 

There's also the rather obvious fact that this gang of people would've had no reason to target Nancy, since they'd never met her, didn't know her, none of that, and this wasn't some random attack, it was very clearly a targeted thing. So the only way they would've known who she was, and where to go to target her, would be if someone who did know her hired them. Like, say, her husband. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

I loathed the murderous ex, and the disloyal adult kids who sided with their father.  They actually wanted the mother who was almost killed, to give a statement to the court at sentencing for leniency.   The Dateline show was heartbreaking, but the Texas Monthly article about the case was even worse.    The church refusing to give back stolen donations from the husband was just as bad.    Interesting how the ex-mistress and daughter who profited so much from the embezzlement, and being hired for no-show jobs were so glad to abandon the killer husband too.   

 

I hope the adult kids will realize how awful they were to their mother, but I'm guessing they sided with the person with the most money.   Despicable actions for everyone but the poor victim. 

[TVbitch]

Was Friday actually a new episode? I think so. Pretty disturbing. Not sure why the vlogger was featured so heavily as she didn't really progress the case.  

[chick binewski]

On thing that gives me hope for our country is the unity of our absolute and unwavering reaction to The Carrollton Plot.

[iMonrey]

14 hours ago, TVbitch said:

Not sure why the vlogger was featured so heavily as she didn't really progress the case.  

Yeah that was odd, especially since it was only a one hour episode. She certainly didn't add anything to the story or to the investigation. The show must be hard up for new cases. Are they running out of murderers?

[Annber03]

Oooooookay, so, the inevitable episode on Kouri, who wrote that book about her husband's death and is now the main suspect in said death. She is one hell of a stupid witch. Writing out a check, thus leaving a paper trail. Writing a book and going public with your "grief". Writing a letter while in prison and then trying to pass it off as some kind of "fictional novel" when talking to her mom. Looking up stuff about whether or not you can be made to take lie detector tests online why do people do this?!?!

Like, I get that people like her are cocky and think they'll never get caught, but holy shit, she didn't even TRY to hide her tracks. It's amazing, the level of arrogance/stupidity we're working with here in regards to her. 

I had to laugh at the reveal that Eric had made it so his sister was in charge of the estate instead of her, that he got the jump on ensuring she'd get little to nothing if/when he died. Smart move on his part. Though I fully agree with his sister's comments at the bail hearing, where she expressed worry for the safety of her family and of Kouri and Eric's boys, 'cause I thought about that, too, when Kouri attacked her over the storage space. Between that and the fact that this woman used her sons' grief to try and enrich herself, used their pain and trauma over losing their dad for her own benefit...that's pretty damn sadistic and cruel, and is perhaps the most horrifying aspect of this story. And if she can do that, then yeah, she absolutely needs to be kept as far away from her kids and relatives as much as humanly possible. 

Also, okay, so I get that the person who emailed that morning show wanted to bring attention to the suspicions surrounding Eric's death, and they wanted to get their attention and all that...but, uh, maybe add a little more to the email beyond an all-caps, "YOU KNOW SHE KILLED HER HUSBAND!!!!" message? For all those people knew, that could've been the killer trying to throw them off, or some sicko who just wanted to get in on the media attention surrounding the case. You kinda have to give them a little more than that to work with. 

The woman who worked with Kouri at Home Depot was an interesting interview subject, between her stories about interacting with the customers and how she was familiar with drug addicts and all that. 

But yeah. Wow. What a strange, disturbing case this is. I'm glad the judge agreed to not let Kouri out on bail. Let her continue to stew in her misery and have to deal with the consequences of what she's done. 

[Medicine Crow]

Thanks for the info., I just started watching the show & was barely tolerating Andrea Canning, when I took a quick break.  (Hate to knock a fellow Canadian, but...)  There's better stuff to watch, so ...

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Medicine Crow said:

Thanks for the info., I just started watching the show & was barely tolerating Andrea Canning, when I took a quick break.  (Hate to knock a fellow Canadian, but...)  There's better stuff to watch, so ...

Andrea Canning.  Hoo-boy. 

I tune in just to see which eyebrows she’ll be wearing.  Caterpillar?  Arched?  Tweezed?  Groucho?

After that I like to see which halter dress and strappy 9 inch heels she’ll wear trudging through a field with the police or onboard a Coast Guard craft. 

When that’s determined I then concentrate on her hard hitting journalistic skills like asking a grieving parent What did you think when you heard your daughter was murdered?

Yep. Plenty to take in when Andrea Canning graces the screen. 

Edited September 23, 2023 by PsychoKlown

[CrystalBlue]

1 hour ago, PsychoKlown said:

Andrea Canning.  Hoo-boy. 

I tune in just to see which eyebrows she’ll be wearing.  Caterpillar?  Arched?  Tweezed?  Groucho?

After that I like to see which halter dress and strappy 9 inch heels she’ll wear trudging through a field with the police or onboard a Coast Guard craft. 

When that’s determined I then concentrate on her hard hitting journalistic skills like asking a grieving parent What did you think when you heard your daughter was murdered?

Yep. Plenty to take in when Andrea Canning graces the screen. 

Don't forget her tight white jeans she frequently wears.  And her jewelry of the day and whether or not it's coordinated with the interviewees' bling.

[TVbitch]

I know they had kids together, but if I found out my partner was abusing our credit cards or bank accounts to the point I had to redo my trust AND I felt I had to tell my family to look at my partner if anything happened to me, I WOULD LEAVE THAT PERSON!!! 

Looks like next week is the official Season Premier. 

[Mondrianyone]

How did she take out five (was it five?) life insurance policies on him without his knowledge? I thought that wasn't doable, and yet it still seems to keep happening.