All Episodes Discussion

[UsernameFatigue]

Wow, thanks for all the extra info glowlights! I didn't know there was a limit to the amount of times you could access the news site - I have only looked at two articles so far. How many times can you access it for free?

 

Your info makes me even more suspicious of Ann. Tom phoning the clinic isn't odd to me as he said he called Bryan on Friday night. What I found very interesting from your info is that no one heard from Bryan from Friday night until he was found dead on Sunday morning. Ann was obsessed with him, so much so that when he was gone for the conference from Wednesday to Friday she could not stop herself from going over to his place and hanging out. So what are the chances that when she KNOWS he is home Friday night she does not try to see him from when she talks to him that evening, through all day Saturday and Saturday night right to Sunday morning? Especially since she would not have seen him since at least likely the Tuesday previously given that he left for the conference on Wednesday. Even if she tried to call him and he didn't answer seems unlikely that she would not drive over, considering she had no problem going there when he wasn't home. The only reason would be if she killed him and knew he was dead so not accepting visitors, so to speak.

 

The hair thing is very suspicious. Yes, it could just have randomly happened to be in Bryan's hand when he died but it was 11 inches long - not something he would not have noticed happened to be on his hand. That scenario is more far fetched to me that the prosecution inventing a whole scenario regarding Tom killing Bryan which does not fit with either his autopsy results or the dog being in the house for 36 hours without urinating or defecating. And of course the fact that he made eggs at some point. If he had steak at 7pm how likely is it that he had eggs at 10pm the same night. I think it is more likely he was killed Saturday. Did Ann have an alibi for Saturday?

 

I almost feel like emailing Dateline (if there is a site to email) regarding the lousy job they did covering this case. The only reason I can think that they did not bring up Ann's hair being in the dead man's hand is that she made that a stipulation of being interviewed for the show since they also did not bring up her going to Bryan's place and hanging out there while he was gone without his knowledge. I would rather have not had her on the show at all and more facts presented regarding other possible suspects. They certainly had no problem showing Larry on the stand.

Edited January 21, 2016 by UsernameFatigue

[glowlights]

^^ I think I was allowed 10 articles before they cut me off (and conveniently there were about 10 articles on the trial, so that worked well). My news archive subscription probably has access, I'll check on the weekend.

 

Regarding the hair, it could have been on the floor or on his shirt or other surface and then got stuck to the blood peri- or post-mortem. I think that's what the prosecution argued and it's a valid point imo. Given the way the crime scene was handled and how many people were shuffling around, who knows what got disturbed and when. The local yokel cop said he remembered that you're supposed to bag the hands so he did that, but I doubt he did it right away. But of course the hair could have been in Bryan's hand for a less innocent reason. Thanks to the cops, we'll never know.

 

You make a very, very good point about Ann not going over there after the Friday night phone call when she had been so clingy before. Of course that call may have been more rancorous than she's letting on, given that he hadn't told her he was coming home a day early, and he would have discovered that she'd been over there cutting his grass and hanging out in his house without his permission. I found the ep on Youtube and there are a bunch of comments stating suspicions about Ann, so you're not the only one to go "hmmmm?" after seeing her talk. I only had time to watch the first few minutes last night and it was weird the way she smiled when she said if it weren't for her Bryan wouldn't be dead. I know some people smile through pain, but her smile looked like she was bragging. A friend claims that right after Ann met Bryan she said he was the man of her dreams. Ick.

 

There was a late night emergency call to his satellite office in Denton on Friday night and in his house they found jeans covered in animal blood. But the cops never followed up on that because it didn't fit their preconceived theory that he died Friday night. Of course, one would expect that whoever placed that call to Denton would have come forward to say that Bryan met them in Denton, if he did go. Just like if he'd been with another woman one would expect her to come forward. Weird. Or even if he didn't respond to Denton, why didn't that person come forward to say, "No, he didn't call us back." Weird weird weird.

 

Regarding the bloodhound certification, that is just such complete nonsense. Even if he'd lost his papers (and what kind of police agency calls in someone who can't show cert papers?!?!?) the handler should have been able to say where and when he'd been certified, and by whom. He should have also been able to call the certifying agency and ask for documentation. Can you imagine a first responder saying, "Yeah I'm certified in swift water rescue but gosh I can't remember the details, sorry." B to the S.

 

I still can't shake my hinky feeling about those landlords.

[ari333]

I did wonder if the gf was slick enough not to participate, but that she knew about it and may have helped hatch the awful plan. Her eyes gave me the chills. Also,   her words on the jail phone sounded scripted to me.

[Ina123]

Update covering Russ Faria second trial. This will be a good one, folks.

 

Face it. All us ID Channel addicts know it's always the husband, right? Unless he has an ironclad alibi. This one did and the prosecution managed to convince a jury that 4 people who were with him were all lying for him. Turns out...they weren't.

 

Don't miss this one. Tonight.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/video/keith-morrison-previews-return-to-game-night-606826563807

 

Stay with it after the ad.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Ina123

[hoosiermom]

So glad he is out and free! I thought it was a terrible injustice when the case aired the first time. Why haven't they arrested that lying liar who lies Pam Huff? Oops. Pam Hupp.

Edited January 23, 2016 by hoosiermom

[monkeypox]

I don't mean to be stupid, but why can't the real killer of Betsy Faria, Pam Hupp, be prosecuted?

[backformore]

I worked for a community college for a few years. While we think of college freshmen as 18 year olds, the average age of students at a community college is often over 30. And most are part time. Many are not in typical degree programs, but are taking classes toward a certification. Fashion design would be one of those programs. My point is , the girl's situation is not out of the ordinary - living with parents, taking classes in your 20s. It's pretty typical. And parents waiting up ? Yeah, all the time.

I agree about Rachel. There's something off about her demeanor, like she rehearsed what she was saying.

[Stampiron]

 

I don't mean to be stupid, but why can't the real killer of Betsy Faria, Pam Hupp, be prosecuted?

 

Because then the police and prosecutor would have to admit (to themselves) that Pam Hupp played them and they fell for it hook line and sinker? 

[biakbiak]

The scene with the two of them in the interrogation room really seemed like an acting class improv.

I still don't understand murdering Julie, that means the police are looking for two people and will most likely start monitoring Sam's financials. Why not send texts to a select group that he was taking off for a few weeks because of stress/PTSD. I bet the police wouldn't have even taken his missing person case that seriously for a few days at least given he was an adult and had sent notice of leaving.

Edited January 23, 2016 by biakbiak

[Lizzing]

It's been a long time since I seriously studied criminal law, but shouldn't there be some kind of Brady violation (or similar, maybe I've got the cite wrong, withholding exculpatory material) for the cops/prosecutor not turning over the photos that showed no blood evidence in the kitchen on the first go around?  It wouldn't be shocking to me if that was part of what the judge was referring to in his opinion about how poorly the case was handled.

 

I just don't get that Hupp woman.  I buy that she planted the letter on Betsy's computer, but it undermines her claim to the insurance money.  It was sloppy crafting of a "letter".  And how can Betsy's family be so sure of their conclusions against Russ if the daughters are suing Hupp for the money?  Also, if the other old friend & her husband considered being trustees for the daughters' money, but landed on having one of Betsy's sisters be the trustee, why didn't she/they do that?  Was there some problem with Betsy's relationship with her sisters?

 

So many questions!  But I'm glad Russ is out.  The prosecution/cops had such tunnel vision on this case.  It kind of reminds me of the episode about the Canadian Air Force guy who was a deranged pervy murderer; the first victim's husband was hounded by the cops until the whole thing was figured out. 

[biakbiak]

I am so happy that Russ was freed, I don't understand Betsy's family's reaction given all of the evidence.

On a completely different note I hope dearly that Keith actually played whatever game they were playing at the end.

[monkeypox]

And how can Betsy's family be so sure of their conclusions against Russ if the daughters are suing Hupp for the money?

 

Easy. Russ killed Betsy, then Pam stole their money, as unrelated events. Except that the police/prosecutor were incompetent and Pam was the one who killed Betsy in order to steal their money.

[walnutqueen]

Pam Hupp is a lying fucking liar who lies.  So are the cops.  But the prosecution and the cops would rather let a probable murderess skate than lose face and admit they not only bungled the case, but actively encouraged false testimony and withheld evidence.  Pam Hupp should have been prosecuted for perjury and obstruction of justice if there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder.

 

Grrrr

[JudyObscure]

What about that detective who coached Hupp before the first trial to open trust accounts for the girls?  Isn't that against the law? Or was that her lawyer?  What a despicable woman.

[walnutqueen]

JudyObscure, on 23 Jan 2016 - 04:25 AM, said:

What about that detective who coached Hupp before the first trial to open trust accounts for the girls?  Isn't that against the law? Or was that her lawyer?  What a despicable woman.

 

It was the detective, and unfortunately falls within the scope of "witness prep".  He was very careful to suggest rather than instruct.

[BusyOctober]

Once again someone is murdered for relatively small payout. Pam is definitely guilty in my eyes. She killed a dying woman with 2 kids for $150k (not that ANY amount is justifiable, but I think that's what the insurance was worth). And I'm confused why one of her sisters or even her mother wasn't named trustee for the children. If Betsy knew her husband couldn't be trusted to do right for her girls, good for her for thinking ahead but she sure didn't choose wisely. Her "trusted friend" not only screwed the daughters out of their inheritance but most likely killed their mother to get enough money for a new car and a few fancy purses.

The police and the prosecutor should be terribly ashamed and embarrassed by their sad-ass efforts on this case. I guess the only silver lining is that the husband only served a few years in jail and not decades like some wrongfully convicted do.

[monkeypox]

And all Hupp had to do was to wait a couple years until Betsy died of natural causes. Then she would have had the $150k by now without committing murder. Betsy's daughters likely would have still sued her after the theft, but she didn't need to also rob a dying woman of her remaining months with her young daughters and family.

 

I hope against hope that Betsy's family will petition someone above the prosecutor (the governor?), to bring Pam Hupp, who planned and committed Betsy's murder, to justice. Or why couldn't her daughters bring a wrongful death suit against Hupp, like Nicole Brown Simpson's and Ron Goldman's families did?

[saber5055]

And all Hupp had to do was to wait a couple years until Betsy died of natural causes. Then she would have had the $150k by now without committing murder.

Except that change of beneficiary to Pam was suspect in my eyes. Going to the local library to change that and not a lawyer or a rep of the life insurance company or something? My thinking is Betsy didn't change that at all, it was all Pam's doing. I mean, she knew where to find Betsy's laptop and plant a bogus letter on it.  She would know how to find those papers and get them fake signed at the library.

 

I hope this show makes Hupp's life impossible to live, from now until eternity. 

 

I can't believe the cops took no DNA evidence ... except they wanted to pin it on the husband, period. End of story. What a bunch of lying liars that all should be prosecuted.

 

I LOVED the defense attorney. Good on him. What a great person, lawyer or not.

 

It sickens me that a murderer is walking around free, and with $150,000 in her pocket. And she flashes a "V" sign to the camera at the end ...

Edited January 23, 2016 by saber5055

[ButterQueen]

That prosecutor and detectives are liars and should have been reprimanded. What a shit show this was, So sad that Betsey's family and step-daughters don't see the truth.

Pam Hupp is a killer and should be charged for the murder.

Loved the defense attorney.

[glowlights]

Well... this one made no sense! Dan did all this (and it was quite a lot, even by Dateline standards) for the sixty grand which he would have to access in measly $400 increments with unwitting accomplices and elaborate ruses, all the while staying one step ahead of LE who would be tracking activity on Sam's account? WTF. Sorry, but the motive sounded weak, and I suspect that if the prosecution had accepted his attorneys' offer of a guilty plea (life in prison with no parole) the victims families would have learned a lot more about exactly what the hell went on. Instead, the prosecution dug in their heels for a death penalty case, which forced his hand to plead not guilty, and here we are. :(

 

Two questions I wish the show had addressed:

- how did Dan know Sam's PIN code

- where, when and by whom were those fake "official" government bounty hunter documents made

 

At first I thought Rachel sounded cagey and measured in her interview with Josh M because she had been coached by attorneys to answer questions very, very carefully in light of her upcoming trial. But when she said the thing that most upsets her is people thinking something about her that's not true, a little chill went down my spine. A young woman was lured to her death and shot in the head then her corpse was staged, a young man was lured to his death, shot and then dismembered and his body parts scattered around, their two families are living a nightmare, this was all done by a man she lived with and planned to marry... and the thing that most upsets Rachel is her personal image?!?!?!? Wow.

 

[Cherrio]

That prosecutor and detectives are liars and should have been reprimanded. What a shit show this was, So sad that Betsey's family and step-daughters don't see the truth.

Pam Hupp is a killer and should be charged for the murder.

Loved the defense attorney.

You summed it up for me.    I kept thinking the whole time I was watching was how dirty a bunch of police and a prosecutor were/are.     Of course all of them get off scot free.   I think they are worse than the criminals in some cases.  Search for the truth?   Not.

[saber5055]

I kept thinking the whole time I was watching was how dirty a bunch of police and a prosecutor were/are.     Of course all of them get off scot free.   I think they are worse than the criminals in some cases.  Search for the truth?   Not.

Does anyone know if a show like this has repercussions, like a shake-down of that police force? Has that ever happened? 

 

The husband bought dog food on one of his stops, but no dog was ever mentioned. This bugs me. Was the dog in the house when Betsy was killed? I had the same question about the Montana vet who was killed and had a Dateline show a couple of weeks ago. THAT was another case of killer walking free.

 

The show kept talking about Betsy's "terminal" cancer, meaning she was going to die. What did the husband stand to gain from killing her?

 

There are always so many unanswered questions after these shows, and I know Dateline can get us thinking one way or another. But it's so suspicious when people won't be interviewed or appear on camera. If they are innocent, what's to lose?

 

ETA: Google "Pam Hupp Missouri" and some interesting pages come up with more details about her, the civil trial, plus one page has a transcript of what she told police. Turns out Pam is married, has a son, plus told police she would get $500,000 when her mom died. Which was a lie, found out after her mom died. Pam was getting $800/month disability as her only income, which the judge froze during the civil trial. Lots more to read there. There is reason to believe Pam's husband was in on the murder.

Edited January 23, 2016 by saber5055

[LakeGal]

I loved this defense attorney.  He was right to go straight with the judge and no jury.  After the first trial I wouldn't trust a jury either.  Although I would be interested to know if any of the orignal jurors have changed their minds after this.  Pam was certainly proved to be a liar.

 

I don't understand how Betsy's family can let Pam go unpunished for the murder.  All their evidence against the hubbty came from Pam.  She has lied to all of them.  Why do they still believe her about the murder?  They must really hate the husband.  

 

Glad it was a Keith case.

[Ohmo]

I think I am getting obsessed about this case but HOLY CRAP- I just read this on the Great Falls Tribune website of the testimony of Ann (whose surname is now Stone):

 

Seriously????????????? An 11 inch hair with root still attached belonging to Ann was found in Rein's palm and she was never considered a suspect?? WTH is wrong with these cops? And why did Dateline leave that rather important piece of evidence out of their story??? Again, WTH?????

 

Interesting.  I just watched this episode before I read anything in this forum, and I often thought that Ann did it, even before I read this.  Tom (her ex) was indeed a stupid kid, but I thought the case that the state brought against him was complete garbage.  That prosecutor was literally inventing a story as he went along that he couldn't prove if his life depended on it, and I'm highly suspicious of all of Ann's tears.  I think she's totally weepy because SHE was directly involved in Brian's death somehow.  And another thing...you couldn't pay me to live in Montana.  it is utterly frightening what Montana LEOs do to the law in their state *cough* Barry Beach* cough*   There is no way that I'd have convicted Tom based on that evidence.  If he did actually do it, Montana deserves what it got, because it once again showed its level of complete incompetence.

 

With deep condolences to Bryan's family, I think the sister who said "don't waste our time" was entirely correct.  Montana's incompetence in handling the crime scene ensured that Bryan's family will never know his true fate until each family member's time on Earth has ended.  That is a horrible reality, but I'm glad that the jury didn't compound the horribleness further.

 

My money's still on Arkansas Ann.  She may have been in Great Falls that night, but something about her is wonky.

[Major Bigtime]

I had no knowledge of this case before this episode, but I knew right away that Pam was the killer. For money. She didn't try to hide her greed.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Major Bigtime

[UsernameFatigue]

I looked at the you tube site of this episode and most of the people posting thought Ann did it as well. And for many of the reasons that have been posted here.

 

As far as the prosecution apparently accounting for her hair being in Bryan's hand as possibly ending up there after the fact due to the shoddy police work I suppose that is possible. But what stands out to me is that it had the root attached. If someone just sheds hair naturally it does not have the root attached. A hair comes out that way due to force. Like being pulled by someone - maybe the person whose hand it happens to end up in.

 

There are certainly at least a couple of possible suspects but I am sure this case will go the way of many others when the suspect chosen by law enforcement goes free. The real killer will as well.

[UsernameFatigue]

Wow, this epi was even more annoying that the one about the murdered veterinarian.

 

First of all I was totally ticked off that the judge in the first trail was allowed to ban the defense attorney from asking Pam Hupp questions. Why is a judge allowed to rule that way just on a whim? As the defense attorney said he has never had a case where he was not allowed to bring up inconsistencies in someone's testimony, or show the jury that there is another suspect. We see it all the time. What gives? Had he been able to show that Pam was the last person to see Betsy alive, that she kept changing her story about what happened when she dropped Betsy off and that Pam was the person who would benefit from Betsy's death, maybe the jury would have come back with a different verdict.

 

And the jury - just wow! An air tight alibi and they still convict? At least the jury in the veterinarian's case had a few brain cells to rub together. It just goes to show how weak people can be swayed by people in power. Twelve people obviously thought that if the police and prosecution think that 4 people covered for this guy and came up with a ridiculous scenario of how the murder happened, it must be true. Maybe juries should have to take an IQ test before they are accepted to serve. But prosecutions would never go for that - at least the crooked ones like this one was.

 

I hope against hope that Betsy's family will petition someone above the prosecutor (the governor?), to bring Pam Hupp, who planned and committed Betsy's murder, to justice. Or why couldn't her daughters bring a wrongful death suit against Hupp, like Nicole Brown Simpson's and Ron Goldman's families did?

 

 

But all of Betsy's family including the daughters think Russ is guilty. One would think the evidence of Pam saying she was supposed to give the money to the daughters, then when they sue her say no she was to have the money would give them a clue that she is the guilty person. Mind boggling. The only thing I can come up with is that they are mad at Russ for cheating on Betsy previously and want him to pay for that. The fact that he was step dad to the daughters since they were little kids makes me sad for him.

 

Finally I am tired of seeing these cases where police and prosection railroad an innocent person and get away with it with no ramifications. It is sickening. As someone upthread said they are worse in many cases than the criminals. Or to put it more bluntly, they ARE criminals.

Edited January 24, 2016 by UsernameFatigue

[UsernameFatigue]

So many questions!  But I'm glad Russ is out.  The prosecution/cops had such tunnel vision on this case.  It kind of reminds me of the episode about the Canadian Air Force guy who was a deranged pervy murderer; the first victim's husband was hounded by the cops until the whole thing was figured out.

 

I am not sure if you are referring to the Russell Williams case? This case if very different than that one. There were three different types of crimes in three different areas. The first 'suspect' was not the husband of the first victim but the next door neighbour. She was blindfolded, tied up and assulted by Williams, and she ID'd her next door neighbour as she thought it was his voice. Williams carried out another assualt as well in that small town where he owned a cottage. Two hours away where he and his wife had a home he was committing break ins and stealing lingerie. His first murder was in another town an hour away from the first and thought to be totally unrelated. So three police forces working on seemingly three unrelated types of crimes. His mistakes in his second murder lead to his capture.

 

This epi though does remind me of the case of the murdered veterinarian as the police and prosecution still think they had the right guy, and have never looked at anyone else despite that fact that there are at least a couple of viable options. Sickening.

[Tunia]

What about that detective who coached Hupp before the first trial to open trust accounts for the girls?  Isn't that against the law? Or was that her lawyer?  What a despicable woman.

 

Hmmm...I had a different read on this.

 

I thought he was throwing this out as a suggestion to gauge her reaction.  She was obviously a greedy b****, and that money seemed important to her even though she was claiming to be just a custodian to protect the funds for the girls.  If, in fact, that were true, she should have no objection to opening the trust accounts.  BUT, if she murdered Betsy to get her hands on the cash, there would be no way she'd want to open trust accounts giving the money to the girls and letting it slip through her fingers.  I think she felt that she was the named beneficiary and the money was hers, fair and square.  The "custodian" claim was just a red herring to make the cops think she didn't have the cash as a motive.  YMMV

[biakbiak]

Hmmm...I had a different read on this.

 

I thought he was throwing this out as a suggestion to gauge her reaction.  She was obviously a greedy b****, and that money seemed important to her even though she was claiming to be just a custodian to protect the funds for the girls.  If, in fact, that were true, she should have no objection to opening the trust accounts.  BUT, if she murdered Betsy to get her hands on the cash, there would be no way she'd want to open trust accounts giving the money to the girls and letting it slip through her fingers.  I think she felt that she was the named beneficiary and the money was hers, fair and square.  The "custodian" claim was just a red herring to make the cops think she didn't have the cash as a motive.  YMMV

Guage her reaction for what reason? This conversation happened during Russ's trial. He wasn't questioning her he was helping to prep her as a witness.

[Tunia]

Guage her reaction for what reason? This conversation happened during Russ's trial. He wasn't questioning her he was helping to prep her as a witness.

Well, Russ' trial being ongoing doesn't necessarily mean that he was guilty.  That's the purpose of the trial obviously.  The detective  may still have had suspicions about Pam Hupp that he was trying to resolve.  Therefore, it could be important for him to know if Hupp really had any intention of turning the insurance money over to the girls.  If she were telling the truth, she wouldn't mind opening trust accounts.  However, if she killed for the money, she'd object to opening the accounts b/c then she wouldn't be able to get her hands on it.  The proceeds would rightly go to the girls.

 

Why would a detective be prepping her as a witness rather than her attorney doing so?  The detective would be the one to do the questioning and investigating to ferret out the truth.  The fact that Russ was already on trial is irrelevant.  His guilt or innocence had yet to be determined.  Pam could very well be the guilty party, and the detective's job would be to trip her up, starting with measuring her response to the money issue. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Tunia

[biakbiak]

They were not investigating her at the time, hell they are not investigating her now.

[RedheadZombie]

I don't mean to be stupid, but why can't the real killer of Betsy Faria, Pam Hupp, be prosecuted?

  

I've never heard of a different suspect being persued after a previous suspect has been acquitted, so I think it's pretty uncommon. First, by taking another person to trial, they are admitting they prosecuted and wrongly held an innocent man. I also think Hupp's attorney would easily create doubt by explaining another person was the suspect from the beginning, and the state had already prosecuted and failed to convict.

I would like to see the husband sue the state, but some states don't allow for damages even when people are exonerated and deemed wrongly convicted.

 I hope against hope that Betsy's family will petition someone above the prosecutor (the governor?), to bring Pam Hupp, who planned and committed Betsy's murder, to justice. Or why couldn't her daughters bring a wrongful death suit against Hupp, like Nicole Brown Simpson's and Ron Goldman's families did?

First of all, the family seems willfully blind. The mother stated she wouldn't change her opinion even with compelling evidence. Also, the Browns and Goldmans were suing a wealthy man (who managed to hide and evade the judgment). Hupp's probably blown the money already, so the family would be sinking a ton of money on a civil case that even if they won, wouldn't cover the lawyer fees.

[applecrisp]

I have to say as far as wrongful convictions this was resolved rather quickly.  Progress????  i hope so.

[glowlights]

Why would a detective be prepping her as a witness rather than her attorney doing so?  The detective would be the one to do the questioning and investigating to ferret out the truth.  The fact that Russ was already on trial is irrelevant.  His guilt or innocence had yet to be determined.  Pam could very well be the guilty party, and the detective's job would be to trip her up, starting with measuring her response to the money issue. 

 

The lead detective was alleged to be having an extra-marital affair with the prosecutor (Askey) leading up to and during Faria's trial. I'm not sure if that was ever proved or if it was just some dirt thrown by Askey's ex-husband, but it would go a long way to explaining why a witness was being prepped for the prosecution by a detective, and prepped in such a way that her suspect behavior was minimized...

 

The husband bought dog food on one of his stops, but no dog was ever mentioned. This bugs me. Was the dog in the house when Betsy was killed? I had the same question about the Montana vet who was killed and had a Dateline show a couple of weeks ago. THAT was another case of killer walking free.

 

The dog was a question mark, thanks to more screwing around on the part of the prosecution:

Buettner also said she didn’t see any blood on the Farias’ dog. An alleged bloody paw print was a big part of the prosecution’s evidence during the first trial. Prosecutor Leah Askey said a bloody paw print on Betsy was evidence that Russ was the killer. But Buettner said not only was there no evidence of blood on the dog, but she was specifically ordered not to test for it.

 

http://fox2now.com/2015/11/02/russ-faria-retrial-day-1-csi-agent-contradicts-original-prosecution-theories/

[saber5055]

Wow, glowlights, thanks. As I've said before about Dateline, I always have so many unanswered questions afterward, and there is lots of information not aired. Or it's presented in a lopsided manner. Instead they repeat the same things over and over.

[Cherrio]

Another thing about the prosecutors case/closing statement. She claimed that the 4 friends helped and provided an alibi, but none of that was presented at trial.

      Am I right about that or did I get it mixed up with another case?

 If I am remembering correctly, you are not allowed to use anything in a closing statement that was not presented at trial, yet the judge allowed it.

 

 The meeting between the prosecutor and Hupp seemed very unprofessional to me too. There was also never a mention of Hupp  being asked to or taking a polygraph.

 This case stinks like a overflowing septic tank.

 Reminds me a lot of the Ronda Reynolds case.

[glowlights]

^^ They allegedly wanted Hupp to take a polygraph but then were "made aware" that she had a head injury and was taking medications, and that would not be conducive to an accurate polygraph. So they told her she could get a doctor's note. She specifically told her doctor not to disclose the reason or any details, just to say that she can't take a polygraph, and he complied. Therefore who knows if there really is a head injury.

 

All of which leads me to suspect the investigators didn't want her to take a polygraph because they were scared she would come up dirty and screw their "slam dunk" case against Faria, so they coached her on how to get out of it. Just my own speculation, of course. :) But it could have been Hupp's own attorney who intervened at her request because she didn't want to take the poly.

[ButterQueen]

Guage her reaction for what reason? This conversation happened during Russ's trial. He wasn't questioning her he was helping to prep her as a witness.

Not only that, but as they were preparing for the second trial and Pam was "remembering more details", it seemed the detective was embellishing her embellishments. I was livid at his unprofessionalism.

[ButterQueen]

The lead detective was alleged to be having an extra-marital affair with the prosecutor (Askey) leading up to and during Faria's trial. I'm not sure if that was ever proved or if it was just some dirt thrown by Askey's ex-husband, but it would go a long way to explaining why a witness was being prepped for the prosecution by a detective, and prepped in such a way that her suspect behavior was minimized...

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

[mythoughtis]

I remember watching the original episode.  I believed then that Pam Hupp should have been the logical suspect.  I was amazed that the detective was 'prepping' her as a witness.  That goes so beyond his job duties.  The more he prepped her by pointing out what the defense was going to say, the more suspect she became.  As near as I can tell, the police never seriously looked at her. 

 

I also could not figure out why the victim wanted friends to be the beneficiaries, and then supposedly be unofficial trustees on behalf of the daughters.  Why didn't she talk to an attorney?  All she needed to do was set up a trust with the daughters as the beneficiaries of the trust.   I think Pam Hupp took advantage of a women with cancer, lied to her about being willing to take the money on behalf of her daughters, and then kept the money.  Heck, even the fake letter said Pam was to hold the money for the daughters, then Pam turned around and denied it. 

 

Why would law enforcement think that 4 normally law abiding people lied on a friends' behalf in a murder case? I don't care how good of a friend you are. I'm not lying for you if I think you killed your cancer stricken wife.  I'm darn sure 4 people aren't going to lie for you.

 

I also think we all have stopped at more than 1 gas station or convenience store to get things.  Maybe we like the price of the drinks here, the dog food there, the gas somewhere else. The guy had time to burn off while waiting to go to his friends.  

Edited January 24, 2016 by mythoughtis

[saber5055]

I also think we all have stopped at more than 1 gas station or convenience store to get things.  Maybe we like the price of the drinks here, the dog food there, the gas somewhere else. The guy had time to burn off while waiting to go to his friends.

 

Exactly. Best price gas here, but they only have Pepsi products. Go to next store to get a Coke. Then drive away ... oh, crumb, I forgot dog food. Stop again. Now I want a Frostie, so stop again. And so what that he was on X security cameras. Just proves he was NOT at his house killing his wife, and he didn't have all his buddies driving him around, hiding in the back of his car.

 

I hope this Dateline blows the lid off of that town's cops and ruins Hupp's life. Not that she cares since she's on the government dole so is set for life anyway.

[UsernameFatigue]

Is the cop who was cheating with the prosecutor the same one who before the second trial talked Hupp into 'remembering' that she saw Russ and a friend outside the house the night of the murder? Whoever that was, he should be investigated as well. I have seen cases where cops browbeat a suspect into remembering things that didn't happen, but a witness? Amazing that so many crooked people were allowed to get away with lies because they work on the 'right' side of the law.

 

Good also to see that in the article linked above two of the jurors from the first trial came forward and asked why they were not allowed to hear all the evidence related to Hupp's insistence that she drive Betsy home, among other things surpressed by the judge.  Also I wonder why the 4 friends cannot sue the prosecutor for defamantion of character for accusing them of being in on the murder (and for 'years' beforehand - sheesh - according to the prosecutor) with not a shred of proof. I would be doing what I could to get that witch disbarred.

Edited January 25, 2016 by UsernameFatigue

[ButterQueen]

Yep, that prosecutor was a piece of work. She should lose her license.

[cooksdelight]

Part 1 of 4. Now exonerated Eric Glisson discusses the 18 years he spent in prison for a murder he did not commit.

Edited January 25, 2016 by cooksdelight

[CaughtOnTape]

I fell out laughing at the mother when she gave her reasoning for why she didn't believe any of Russ' friends as his alibi's.  "They all said the same thing.  In the same monotone voice...blah blah blah."
Um, ya think they all had the same story because that's where he was?  She infuriated me and didn't make me feel sorry for her in the least.  She's a woman who won't be happy no matter what she's told.  Had the friends gotten up on the stand and had varying stories that would've been her reason for not believing them.  The fact that all their stories match tells me that's where he was. 

I don't and never will understand police and prosecutor's who like to tout that their job is to PROTECT the public and then knowingly keep a murderer out of jail rather than admitting they are incorrect.  It is the worst ego trip to witness.

[Ina123]

Whoever was prepping Hupp (detective, prosecutor, or attorney) the timing was just days before the first trial started. Hupp then went out "3 days before" the trial and set up a trust for the daughters. Then only "6 days after" Faria was convicted, she canceled the trust. Pam Hupp is scum.

[Ina123]

Ya gotta love this guy. Good luck forever, Eric.

[saber5055]

This episode brought up another subject we've discussed here: The 911 call. Russ was "too emotional" so he is the killer. Other callers are "too calm" so they are the killer. Unless there is some standard protocol for how one should call in when they've stumbled upon a bloody murder scene, I wish 911 calls would be just left out, unless they reveal something relevant to the trial, like: "I just killed my wife. I mean, uh, I just found my wife and I think she's dead."

[glowlights]

 Why would law enforcement think that 4 normally law abiding people lied on a friends' behalf in a murder case? I don't care how good of a friend you are. I'm not lying for you if I think you killed your cancer stricken wife.  I'm darn sure 4 people aren't going to lie for you.

 

And why on earth did they think four people could keep the ruse going without one of them breaking, or screwing up the story? They play board games, so they must be criminal masterminds with nerves of steel. lol

 

edit: typo

Edited January 26, 2016 by glowlights