All Episodes Discussion

[ButterQueen]

10/10 to your posts Ohmo, particularly the first one. And really I get tired of people pointing out their ages. She was almost 16 and he was 18. There is a reason why many teenage girls go out with guys a year or two older than they are. Boys are emotionally more immature than girls, so they were pretty much on an even playing field in that respect. She had just as much responsibility to act maturely as he did. They both acted irresponsibly IMO.

I believe she acted responsibly by saying NO when she wasn't interested in sex. No means No -- he should have listened and his life wouldn't be ruined. He alone is responsible for his actions.

[LGGirl]

I remember seeing this one before. Can't remember if it was on 48 Hours or Dateline. Missed the ending. Need to reseat have this again.

[UsernameFatigue]

I believe she acted responsibly by saying NO when she wasn't interested in sex.

 

But she was interested in sex, so much so that SHE HELPED him remove her clothes.

 

I totally agee with Ohmo's post that 'no means no' has totally taken away any responsiblity of females where their own actions are concerned.

 

Now lets say this 18 year old is your son.  He gets into this position with an almost 16 year old female.  She may or may not have said no after she exchaged many flirting texts/emails with him (as this female did), agreed to meet him in secret, made out with him, helped him take off her clothes, and then maybe said no or maybe only in her mind said no.  She also exchanged flirty texts with your son after the fact and admitted to a friend that she 'might have had a sexual encounter" with him. She also told police that she didn't know whether to be happy or excited that she was with your son. I assume you would be fine with your son's life being ruined? Because regardless of whether it is a so called player like Owen or your son who is sweet and innocent - the results are the same.

Edited November 15, 2015 by UsernameFatigue

[UsernameFatigue]

The intro to the show asked us to consider that this time around the husband may not be guilty, but he looked guilty as sin from the get-go. And lo and behold, for the hundredth time, the husband did it.

This family had such a bizarre way of defending the killer. I mean, even his daughter helped him by sending some ridiculous email to the prosecutor. But I got the sense that both daughters knew he was guilty, but that did not seem to matter to them because he was still their father, and they still wanted him in their lives. I would not be as forgiving if I was in their shoes. And his sister annoyed me with her whole "well, I've looked at the renter's medical records and he did not have Cancer". The hell? Aren't HIPAA laws supposed to prevent inappropriate reviews of patient files? Because unless she treated him, which was not stated on the show, she had no business getting her hands on his medical records.

And I agree, Butterqueen, at the very least, the renter's death looks suspicious to me.

Usernamefatigued, I am always startled when I see your name as I think "I didn't write that post" or "I didn't 'like' that post". Lol. I remember the first time I saw it I was surprised that the PTV would allow two user names that are almost identical but I guess you and I are the only ones who would notice.

 

I definitely agree that the ex looked guilty from the get go. I was surprised that he was paying alimony.  Is that common in the states? The only times I can think of where I know that people here (in Canada) have received alimony is when the wife has small children and she has stayed at home with them rather than have a career. I have one friend who was in this position and the ex paid alimony for 4 years while she attended university.  Another paid alimony as he and his wife were in their late 50s and she had never worked (this was 20 years ago) so he was required to pay alimony for the rest of her life. However Carol had worked as a teacher and from what I remember left her job of her own accord. Neither daughter was living with her even so I am puzzled as to why she would receive alimony. As much as the ex claimed that they got along well the letters they showed (which I freeze framed to read as much as possible)  a different story. He was paying $72,000 a year (one would think after taxes) so I am sure he wasn't too pleased about that.

Edited November 15, 2015 by UsernameFatigue

[cooksdelight]

In the States, if you've been married a while, and both parties contributed to the marriage, home, children's education costs.... everything.... money is split equitably. If she put more money into it (and the way he was spending, she may have) then he has to pay her back her fair share. I can't remember if she kept their marital home or he did. Whichever party keeps the home, they have to pay the other spouse their 1/2 share of what it's worth. Now, this is a generalized statement. Every case is different. Also, he made a LOT of money and if you're married more than 10 years you are entitled to 1/2 of your spouse's future pension earnings. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so this is just what little I know based on personal experience. And every state has their own laws about who gets what and how much.

[UsernameFatigue]

Thanks for your answer cookdelight. That would be similar to what happens here. Which is why the alimony makes no sense to me. That is spousal support, not repaying her monies owed because she contributed more during their marriage than he did. I don't remember who kept the family home either, but again that would not be spousal support but one partner buying out the other. I think even on one of the documents they showed it was referred to as $6,000 alimony per month.

 

The reason I am wondering is that would appear to be one of the reasons that he murdered her? Maybe this was brought up by the prosecution? I am afraid I don't remember as I watched a few similar shows back to back so the details escape me. The insurance money would not be a reason as it went to their daughters. And he had moved on and had a girlfriend. But he definitely was a narcissist and it seemed to run in the family.

[cooksdelight]

He was borrowing money from his father, so if it was that bad, he probably killed her to stop having to send her a check each month. His money woes are over now, though.

[walnutqueen]

He was borrowing money from his father, so if it was that bad, he probably killed her to stop having to send her a check each month. His money woes are over now, though.

 

Except for the one daughter who not only used her inheritance to fund his first defense, but is now probably being guilted into helping fund his appeals war chest.  Purely speculation, but once a person takes a stance and invests emotionally and monetarily in a "cause", they often fight mightily to keep that cause alive.

[pamplemousse]

 

I think a large number of women have interpreted "No means No" as universal protection no matter what, but those words weren't intended as three magic words.  There seems to be much less of an emphasis on encouraging women and young girls to think critically in the steps before events get to needing "No means no," and THAT bothers me more as a woman...the implication that women can't or shouldn't be expected to think four, five, or even six steps ahead to ensure their safety because hey, we've got "No means no."  Those words were intended as words of absolute last resort, but I think many women have interpreted them as an absolution against thought and responsibility for their own personal safety.

It's interesting that I've heard arguments like this made time and again and they never hold water for me because they always insinuate or have the implication that women are not only responsible to think four to six steps ahead in regards to their own behavior but also responsible to think in advance for the potential bad behavior of men. So what are men responsible for? Not their own behavior, nor for the behavior of women. Women are supposed to learn how to not get raped and not put themselves in dangerous situations, we spend so much time and energy berating in the guise of 'educating' women about how they shouldn't dress, where they shouldn't go, what they shouldn't do, how about we put half that time and energy into educating men about oh, I don't know, NOT TO RAPE? Or not to assume that women owe them sex if a woman does or says A, B, C, and or D? That when a woman says no, she usually means it? That not all, in fact not even most, women are cock-teasing little b*tches who just like playing hard to get? So if women are using no means no to get out of using their critical thinking skills, where is the expectation that men will use some critical thinking skills to not rape, to not make assumptions about sex being owed to them? Why are women held to a higher standard of critical thinking and responsibility when it comes to sex than men?

 

People can be raped at any time and in almost any situation, just like people can be robbed/assaulted/murdered at any time and in almost any situation. But it's only with rape that society expects victims to carry so much responsibility not to be victims or not to 'make themselves' victims or let themselves become victims. I find that attitude truly despicable.

 

And sorry, but my little violin is broken so I won't be playing it for poor victimized Owen Labrie. This girl's life was ruined too.

[A.Ham]

Usernamefatigued, I am always startled when I see your name as I think "I didn't write that post" or "I didn't 'like' that post". Lol. I remember the first time I saw it I was surprised that the PTV would allow two user names that are almost identical but I guess you and I are the only ones who would notice.

 

Oh Dear. I started to notice on Friday. A little strange, right? I did not mean to copy off of your name, it was just whatever popped into my head at the time of registration. I may get a different one so as to avoid confusion, lol.

James Knapp's medical records were part of the trial. That's how the sister was able to view them.

 

Ah, thanks for clarifying. I must've missed that as I was multitasking.

 

ETA: That was so much easier than I expected. Change made! (With Semi-obscure Hamilton Musical reference to boot).

Edited November 18, 2015 by A.Ham

[Lura]

When Cosby's career got off the ground back in the 1960s or 70s, he was almost like a white man's black man.  I mean by that that he filled roles usually given to white actors.  He was the "new" black man, not the usual goofy stand up comic, but also an actor.  He had a college degree and was accepted by viewers of all nationalities.  He was an icon.

 

What happened to him over the years is anyone's guess.  The death of his son, Ennis, had something to do with it, I think, but many people lose children and don't become predators and sex offenders.  I tend to think that it was ego that drove him to think that he was infallible.  In any case, he took out his aggressions on the women of the world.

 

As a victim of rape, I have nothing but disdain for Cosby.  The humiliation he put his accusers through cannot be underestimated.  Something like that can tear one down psychologically, and it's a tough thing to get over.  I'm glad this show was on, in case anyone had any doubts about Cosby.  He is a monster, plain and simple, and I hope he pays royally for the damage he's caused.  If he cannot be prosecuted for his crimes, then I hope he can be rendered penniless from lawsuits.  Back to Square One.  Let him be a janitor or anything else he can find.  He needs to be penniless, IMHO, to see how far he rose and how far he's fallen.  I've never been a cruel person, but I'd like to see him pay dearly in some way.  I think it's important for him to understand just exactly how he made those women feel. Most of all, these women deserve to be paid back, psychologically, to empower themselves again.  I didn't have that satisfaction, and it's so important to their well being.

 

I'm sorry this is so long, but thank you for reading it.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Lura

[Ohmo]

It's interesting that I've heard arguments like this made time and again and they never hold water for me because they always insinuate or have the implication that women are not only responsible to think four to six steps ahead in regards to their own behavior but also responsible to think in advance for the potential bad behavior of men. So what are men responsible for? Not their own behavior, nor for the behavior of women. Women are supposed to learn how to not get raped and not put themselves in dangerous situations, we spend so much time and energy berating in the guise of 'educating' women about how they shouldn't dress, where they shouldn't go, what they shouldn't do, how about we put half that time and energy into educating men about oh, I don't know, NOT TO RAPE? Or not to assume that women owe them sex if a woman does or says A, B, C, and or D? That when a woman says no, she usually means it? That not all, in fact not even most, women are cock-teasing little b*tches who just like playing hard to get? So if women are using no means no to get out of using their critical thinking skills, where is the expectation that men will use some critical thinking skills to not rape, to not make assumptions about sex being owed to them? Why are women held to a higher standard of critical thinking and responsibility when it comes to sex than men?

 

People can be raped at any time and in almost any situation, just like people can be robbed/assaulted/murdered at any time and in almost any situation. But it's only with rape that society expects victims to carry so much responsibility not to be victims or not to 'make themselves' victims or let themselves become victims. I find that attitude truly despicable.

 

And sorry, but my little violin is broken so I won't be playing it for poor victimized Owen Labrie. This girl's life was ruined too.

 

Truly despicable?  Well, I disagree.  I never said that men weren't responsible for their actions, but so are women.  In this instance, the young lady used the words "notch on your belt/bedpost" (I can't remember which specific word was used).  She knew on some level that Owen had a reputation, so yes, she did have some responsibility---to herself to not put herself in a position where she was alone with him.  Of course, it would be blissfully ideal for the crime of rape to disappear and educating men to not rape is important.  However, until that day comes, I believe women ALSO need to take responsibility for their safety.   "Notch on your belt/bedpost" is a reference to sex.  If Owen has that sort of reputation, that's a clue about him.  If the girl was uncomfortable with reporting the Senior Salute, at the very least don't participate in it.

 

You can call my thinking despicable if you wish, but I refuse to think of personal responsibility as a bad thing.  People (all people) have to think of their personal safety when they walk home late at night, when they are dealing with stangers, or when they are in large crowds, for example.  Everyone has to think like that, particularly in light of very recent world events.  Women are not immune to meeting dangerous events or people, and I think we should take advantage of our ability to think, plan, and be personally responsible for ourselves---and not solely rely on "no means no."  It is one tool to help keep us safe, but it should not be the only one, in my opinion, and I stand by my initial comment that some women only think in terms of "no means no."

[pamplemousse]

Okay, so she acted irresponsibly and 'let herself down' by going to the roof with him, and not expecting that he was going to continue on trying to have sex with her when she told him no three times? Until this country's legal system criminalizes being a teenage jezebel leading poor hormonal boys on and then supposedly using 'no means no' to avoid responsibility for being a flirty tease, maybe we should step back a bit from the victim blaming. Or are you saying Owen Labrie is the victim here? She said no and like many manipulative predatory rapists, he took that message declining his invitation not as the end of but rather as a jumping off point for negotiations. He got a friend to act as character witness for him and convince her that he wasn't bad news. But you'd rather focus on her saying that she didn't want to be another notch on his belt in her message as inculpatory of her being...what, exactly? An accessory to her own rape?

 

I think you're cloaking some very side-eye-worthy specious reasoning and ideas with what you're trying to present as a sensible call to women to take on personal responsibility. Even if I entertain your claim that this woman didn't take personal responsibility for her own safety, so what? So she didn't have the right to say no later on? Because she led him on and put herself in a dangerous situation? So no doesn't mean no, it only means no and it's only rape if the woman did everything in her power to avoid being in a dangerous situation and got raped anyway? So it's women's responsibility to avoid all situations that could realistically lead to rape. Hey, maybe the woman should be on trial as well so we can make sure that she took the proper personal responsibility for avoiding her own rape, to make sure she didn't somehow aid and abet or lead her rapist on. 

 

I suppose we can just agree to disagree because frankly, most of the posts in this episode thread is so SMH to me like I accidentally wandered into a MRA/honey badger thread on reddit ranting about bogus rapes and all those lying crazy women crying rape all over the place and using no means no to get out of everything when they led men on and brought it on themselves.

[Ohmo]

pamplemousse, I read your response.  Here is mine.

 

I suppose we can just agree to disagree

 

Excellent idea.  Let's do that.

[cooksdelight]

Heartily agree on agreeing to disagree. Let's not get too personal with each other, this is a hot button topic as it is.

[walnutqueen]

Heartily agree on agreeing to disagree. Let's not get too personal with each other, this is a hot button topic as it is.

My failing eyesight first read this as "a hot butt thong topic". heh

[cooksdelight]

LOL, that's because there's a typo, which I will fix.

[walnutqueen]

LOL, that's because there's a typo, which I will fix.

 

I dunno, I can't think of anything more divisive and uncomfortable than a hot butt thong.  :-)

[BatmanBeatles]

 

What happened to him over the years is anyone's guess.  The death of his son, Ennis, had something to do with it, I think, but many people lose children and don't become predators and sex offenders.

These allegations happened before the death of his son.

[cooksdelight]

 

A California couple's romantic getaway on a boat turns tragic when the young wife and mother is lost at sea. Did she accidentally drown or was it something more sinister? The case goes cold for years — until a model with a checkered past goes undercover to find the truth. Josh Mankiewicz reports.

 

[Monkeybball]

SO stoked about Russ Faria being found not guilty.  Smart of them to go to a bench trial too.  The original trial for this one was such a travesty of the justice system it's almost hard to comprehend.  There is not a doubt in my mind that he's innocent and I'm glad the whole ordeal is finally over for him and his family.

[ButterQueen]

Another sad story.....a wife betrayed by her husband.

The husband was a horrible actor. Since he couldn't cry during his interview with the Coast Guard, he raised his voice about 10 octaves. What a piece of trash.

[ButterQueen]

Russell Faria episode drives me absolutely nuts because I can't BELIEVE a prosecutor was allowed to pull all that bullshit. She straight up MADE UP A STORY that was entirely implausible and implicated 5 or so innocent people as being accomplices to murder WITHOUT EVER CHARGING THEM?! What?! And what a complete violation of Russell's 6th amendment rights to not allow his lawyer to adequately question Pam Hupp. She's going down, eventually.

I went to google to refresh myself on the Russell Faria case. I found some interesting updates. So glad he is free.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/judge-in-lincoln-county-murder-case-recuses-herself-from-hearing/article_c099bf68-9f1c-5825-a47f-f27039bcc3d6.html

http://m.digitaljournal.com/news/crime/op-ed-allegations-of-inapropriate-affair-in-russ-faria-murder-case/article/410800

[hoosiermom]

This has always been one of my favorites as it has been done by other shows like this. Yes, he is a "terrible actor and a piece of trash" and I see his mother is still delusional as ever. I did notice some differences in this version but nothing major I guess. Glad to see he is still in prison.

[Fable]

I don't have a lot of doubt that the husband did this, but I think his girlfriend was an unreliable witness.  She really didn't get a clear confirmation on tape, and the only other thing she has to offer is a bedroom confession while under the influence of ecstasy?  As juror, I don't think I could have convicted unless there was a lot left out that we didn't get to see.  Maybe his friend also testified about the conversation he had with Eric which shows intent, but he also didn't get anything on tape, so while I am inclined to think he is guilty, I don't think the evidence was there.  

[partofme]

I thought the tape made it very evident he was guilty. I thought his mom seemed batshit and didn't do him or herself any favors being interviewed.

Edited November 22, 2015 by partofme

[biakbiak]

I did crack up when Josh implied that perhaps being high on ecstasy gave her the ability for her to deduce the method of killing.

[UsernameFatigue]

I wondered why the police were so sure that he killed her on the boat (other than that I guess he said that to the girlfriend?). Seems like he took quite a chance if he really did hit her on the boat and then throw her over that there would not be a lot of blood. It isn't like he could do much of a clean up when he is then going to be on the boogie board claiming that she went overboard. I wondered if he killed her and then brought her on the boat but since it was a rented boat presumably the rental people saw her boarding the boat alive and well?

 

I kept wondering what happened with the charges that he and his wife falsely billed for millions of dollars in their business before they sold it? (Or did that happen after they sold it and when they were both employees?) According to his mother her daughter in law thought she was going to jail. MInd you who knows if she even said that, or if the MIL made it up to create reasonable doubt. In any case it sounded like they were both up on charges so why would it be dropped against him just because his wife disappeared? Or did I miss something?

[RedheadZombie]

I thought the tape made it very evident he was guilty. I thought his mom seemed batshit and didn't do him or herself any favors being interviewed.

I actually wondered if his mom was drunk.

[grumpypanda]

Eric's mom was off her rocker, I assumed she was drunk too.

Anyway, a lot about this case doesn't make any sense. The lack of blood on the boat bothered me. How did he know that he would have time to clean it up before another boat came by? What was his plan if another boat pulled up and his boat was covered in blood?

I also don't get why Eric would tie his wife up and put her in a bag. If her body were recovered it would be obvious that it was a homicide so why take the risk? If he just threw her body over after he killed her and she were found he could still pretend it was an accident.

The recordings still leave me to believe that he's guilty but I don't necessarily think it happened the way Tina described. Sad story all around, have these people never heard of a divorce.

[cooksdelight]

The huge amount of life insurance money was too tempting to Eric, I guess. And divorce would have ended up costing him. Why on earth people think they can murder their spouse and get away with it, when the surviving spouse is always the first suspect, is beyond me.

[jenkait]

Re: blood on the boat...  He his her with a (presumably heavy) weight.  If you hit someone with such a blunt object, there may not even be any blood, right?  At least that's what I was thinking.  It may not have even killed her, but could've knocked her out long enough to tie her up and throw her overboard, which would actually make it even more horrible :(

[ridethemaverick]

Was it just me or was Josh a little rude to the girlfriend? "You don't say no a lot do you." Really?

Anyway, I think he was guilty and I'm glad the girlfriend came forward. The way she described the wife's picture popping up on the big screen tv was really creepy. I can see why that would have scared him.

[Weird-doe]

Was it just me or was Josh a little rude to the girlfriend? "You don't say no a lot do you." Really?

Anyway, I think he was guilty and I'm glad the girlfriend came forward. The way she described the wife's picture popping up on the big screen tv was really creepy. I can see why that would have scared him.

 

Not just you. I thought he was rude AND creepy to her throughout the interview. 

[Ohmo]

Eric's mom was off her rocker, I assumed she was drunk too.

The recordings still leave me to believe that he's guilty but I don't necessarily think it happened the way Tina described. Sad story all around, have these people never heard of a divorce.

 

 

Was it just me or was Josh a little rude to the girlfriend? "You don't say no a lot do you." Really?

 

 

I think these two things are related.  I do believe Eric is guilty, but I also believe that there's something "off" about Tina, and what we heard from Josh was his bullcrap meter going off... which I must say I like when the interviewer on either 48 Hours or Dateline verbalizes doubt.  Some of these crime show stories are so outlandish, it's nice to hear Josh (or whoever it is) be the voice of the viewer and be like "Come on now!"  In this case, Tina was not involved, but I think Josh also knew he wasn't getting the full skinny.

 

I also think Eric's mom was impaired in some way during the interview.  She reminded me of Katherine Chancellor from about 25 years ago on the Young and the Restless.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Ohmo

[NewDigs]

I think he did it but the evidence was circumstantial enough that I might have had a difficult time convicting. Absence of body never helps. The luminol results of a quantity of blood once having been on deck was damning but, was it fish blood?

Props to the gf's attempts to get a confession. Josh had good reason to further question her but some of his comments were discomfiting. She seemed believable. Except for the whole Ecstasy thing. Drugs can addle a person.

I watched this on Youtube and I'm glad I did not have to rely on closed captioning because it SUCKED!! Had to turn the cc off. Too distracting. Don't know who was responsible but I am guessing it was a voice to text protocol gone very wrong.

[ari333]

Can they not distinguish fish blood from human blood even if it has been cleaned up? IDK.

I think she was killed elsewhere and brought to the boat. We didn't hear, did we? that someone saw her arrive on the boat alive and well and walking.

For an alleged murderer that dude sure was chatty about his doings. Sheesh. 

Edited November 29, 2015 by ari333

[ari333]

Did you guys see this?

 

I keep writing out long posts and they get eaten.

 

 

This eppy was a repeat, but I missed it the first time.

 

How could the evil minister know that the LE officer would be so very inept in recording the "accident" report and get so many important  details WRONG

 

The 16 yr old daughter of the mistress was very brave to confront that murderer about his behavior with her married mother. Although she didnt' know that he was a murderer at the time. She is lucky to be alive imo.

 

 

There was blood UNDER the dead wife, no skid marks, no deer was hit, (later found to be less than 25 an hour,) quarters  still in the change holder. How did the mistress be with him after that? Didnt' she wonder if she'd be next?

[7isBlue]

Yes! I felt so bad for the daughter of the man who committed suicide. As if her trauma wasn't bad enough, she lives with the knowledge that her idiot mother still loves the murderer/ pastor. Terrible

Also, on a completely superficial note: What's with Betty's son's hair? It was very "Dumb and Dumber."

Edited December 1, 2015 by 7isBlue

[cooksdelight]

A beloved doctor is found brutally murdered in his Texas home. As police investigate the crime, an unexpected tip reveals a sinister tale of obsession, revenge and unrequited love. Andrea Canning reports.

[Tdoc72]

So the defense team admitted that this jerk was stalking the doctor & his girlfriend, sending the doctor false stories, and basically harassing them, but was innocent when the doctor ends up murdered?  I'm glad that the jury saw through this completely ridiculous story.  

 

I feel so bad for the sons, with both of their parents being murdered within 2 years or so.  

 

My dvr said that this was supposed to be the anti-freeze murder case that was preempted after the Paris attacks.  But that is now scheduled for next week.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Tdoc72

[cooksdelight]

The doctor was creepy handsome....that smile sort of gave me the chills. But shaving his head and getting rid of those glasses was key. He sounds like someone who started going through a lot of different girlfriends. And didn't want to marry the last one, he was having too much fun.

The murdering doctor was an idiot for texting with his cohort. And dude, putting your phone in water won't erase what's out there in cyberspace. Or on the phone company's servers.

[zxy556575]

So the defense team admitted that this jerk was stalking the doctor & his girlfriend, sending the doctor false stories, and basically harassing them, but was innocent when the doctor ends up murdered? I'm glad that the jury saw through this completely ridiculous story.

 

Ah, defense lawyers with completely unsympathetic clients -- serial cheaters/embezzlers/bigamists/sex fetishists/liars of all stripes: "Nobody is saying my client was husband of the year, but that doesn't make him a murderer!"

 

Maybe not, but it sure gives the jury a pretty good idea of the type of scummy person he is. If someone could do those horrible things without conscience or remorse, well, it's just one step further to murder.

[grumpypanda]

With mom being murdered by her husband and dad being killed by his girlfriend's jealous ex lover, I wouldn't be surprised if the three sons decided to stay single forever.

I'm always surprised that killers confess their crimes to friends or in some cases strangers. I'm glad they do but both men would have gotten away with murder if the big guy would have kept his mouth shut.

[ari333]

I was expecting the anti freeze case, so I almost didn't even turn it on the DVR bc all those seem the same to me.

 

This one was interesting.

[cooksdelight]

The five-year investigation into the death of a retired corrections officer, who was killed by antifreeze poisoning, reveals multiple suspects.

[partofme]

I don't understand how she was convicted. Guilty or innocent, there was no evidence against her. Also as much as I don't like juries I would never want a bench trial.

[cooksdelight]

I agree. If she was found not guilty of tampering, how was she found guilty of murder?

[imjagain]

I'm shocked she was convicted too.

Dateline should be ashamed of themselves. Josh Mankowitz and the detective chuckling on camera that they didn't understand 2 men fighting over a none beauty, like this woman. Completely unprofessional.

Edited December 12, 2015 by imjagain

[ari333]

You guys took one for the team and watched this so I don't have to. Anyway, antifreeze cases are... well I've seen so many. I always feel bad for the person who dies and it's usually by someone they trust which makes it all the more cruel and horrible. From the comments here, the consensus is that the woman did NOT do it? Now i'm not sure I should have skipped this one.