All Episodes Discussion

[Ohmo]

34 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

According to the detective Bill was not contacting the sister by phone, etc, until after Mary died. The only person to say otherwise was a neighbor of the sister  who thought she had seen Bill there before Mary died. Now, quick, go back several months - can you say what exact day/week/month you saw your neighbor with a visitor outside of their home? And can you say for a fact what the expression on their faces were? Because this  neighbor supposedly could.   

We shouldn’t convict or accuse someone without real evidence, there wasn’t any for Bill or Adam. There was for Katie.  She wrote the letter, she knew where the pills were, she touched the wrapper. The email account was accessed only on her phone or laptop. She bought the prepaid debit cards used to buy the stuff.  If I am going to vote guilty for any of the 3, it has to be her. 

As for the immunity- that’s a good lawyer talking. Costs the state nothing to give immunity to a person they don’t  believe is guilty.  who knows what you will get asked on the stand that could incriminate you in other matters- drugs, tax evasion, etc. 

It's not eeney, meeny, miney mo.  You don't have to vote anyone guilty if it can't be proven that he or she was not the only person who did it.  In this case that was not true.  There was a boatload of evidence against Adam.  His e-mail account, and he and Katie were a couple for awhile.  The cousin testified that he was in possession of her laptop.  It's not a stretch that he might have used it.  Touching the wrapper means nothing.  Yeah, it could have been her, but Adam could have also been smart enough to have worn gloves (which are found in a doctor's office) to preserve Katie's prints without leaving his own.

Bottom line, for everything that can be said that points to Katie, nothing excludes Adam.  I have no idea why he was given immunity and even less of an idea why Dateline didn't explain how he got immunity.  All immunity means is that he can't be prosecuted.  Doesn't mean that he couldn't have done it.

Edited December 2, 2017 by Ohmo

[ari333]

This eppy could have gone three hours and I'd still be confused. Why did Adam have Katie's laptop? Hey, can I borrow your phone? And I leave my phone lying around all the time when I go to the shower etc. Who benefits the most from her death? I also leave my wallet and cards around bc I trust my husband. but they were dating. Adam could have used her card number. Some folks with no bad credit or no credit or bad credit use those prepaid cards.  My neighbor does.  Bill and or Adam seem fishy to me, but they have immunity now so..

Also, I thought that was a bottle of pills. Maybe I am misremembering. Was it a vial of liquid?

[Stampiron]

3 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Not necessarily. Dad could have framed both of them.  I don't think that if Dad did it or Adam did it that they were both working together. If Dad's responsible, he uses Katie's computer and typewriter.  He places the cardboard tube in Adam's car.  If it's Adam, he just has to frame Katie.

The use of the computer and typewriter is key to me.   Even if you're cunning, it's a big leap for Katie to knowingly use the equipment at her office.  She could if she was supremely confident, but that along with not asking for a lawyer seven times.  It's possible, I guess, but if I'm going to say that about Katie, I can also make a similar statement about Adam being cunningly confident enough to drive to the police station with evidence in his car.  If Katie is supposedly confident enough to use equipment at her office when she could have placed that order from anywhere, then can't the same be said for Adam?  She's considered suspect because she doesn't accuse him of assault for three months, yet his rebuttal is that he blacked out?  Not a different version of events, but no version of events?

And let's say that Katie is this cunning.  She's going to do all of this to get Adam back?  Again, possible, but why Mary if that's her goal?  Why not make Adam sick and tend to him or make herself sick to get his attention?  A lethal dose of anything seems more likely that you're trying to get something from that person for which you need that person to be gone....which speaks more to a spouse or a child.

The letter speaks to me of genuine gullibility...Katie was trying to be helpful.  Same reason she talked to the cops seven times, and frankly, same reason her gullible parents didn't get a lawyer on speed dial at the police station and her father genuinely thought he could pound on the door and "fix" things.  Apple not falling far from the tree, etc.

I've got a person in my family whom I would genuinely consider to be one of the most gullible trusting people on this planet.  I've also got a person (by marriage) in my family whom I'd consider has the "sweet girl" routine down to an art form, but is not to be trusted.

I think it's far more likely that Katie's gullibility is genuine than she's some mastermind.  If Katie is THAT cunning, then she's got my relation beat.  And I know Katie could very well have been poised enough for Dateline cameras, but she would have let it slip in other situations with other people.   You'd think the prosecution would have found some of those people to bolster their case.  Even if they did, and it wasn't shown, Adam and Dad aren't excluded enough for me, immunity or not.  If Katie is a mastermind, why couldn't Adam or Dad have been smart enough to dupe law enforcement into giving them immunity? Either one of them was around Katie all the time.  They could have figured that her gullibility was like hitting paydirt.

Yes, necessarily. Again: Kaitlyn wrote police that Adam had told her he did it. She identified the drug and told police where in the car the pill bottle could be found. If anyone thinks the dad is responsible then Adam has to be in on it too. 

And nobody has called Kaitlyn a mastermind or even especially cunning. She's an idiot. That's why she got caught.
 

[ari333]

There seems to be a lot of re direction going on. And if you're going to freely admit that you wrote the letter, why not just go to the cops in the first place? and skip the letter. There is something missing from this story But by choice driving up to LE in that jeep with that Rx under his seat -- if he knew it was there - took some balls, But it did make him look more innocent bc WHO DOES THAT?

[Annber03]

10 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

When the episode started and the title was "Poisoned,"  I said it was probably a woman perpetrator because poison has always been known as the female's weapon of choice.  I was shocked that the police put so much emphasis on Katie saying that, when I thought it was fairly common knowledge.

I think the main issue with her saying that was the fact that she brought it up while knowing she's being interrogated for somebody's death. If I'm truly innocent, I'm probably not going to be sitting there talking to the investigators about what type of method most people tend to use to kill somebody. I'm going to be too focused on proclaiming my innocence to think about or discuss things like that and if I do talk about it, it's going to be because they brought up possible methods of murder, not me. But other people might start talking about things like that, who knows.

7 hours ago, ridethemaverick said:

I watch too many of these shows because the big twist was surprising but not !SHOCKING! the way dateline billed it. I was expecting the twist to be that Katie and Bill were messing around.

 

9 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

No way that girl could have poisoned her with enough of the drug to kill her. You would have to take more than one or two tablets, you’d have to take the entire bottle for it to be fatal. Did no one look into the possibility that the husband made her a healthy shake or something, that she then drank during her lunch break? Then he could have fed her more of it when she got to the hospital.

YES. Both of these things came to my mind during the show as well. Katie and Bill having an affair, or Bill kinda manipulating Katie, would make a whole hell of a lot of sense as a motive. 

And the poisoning thing, yeah, in many of the stories I've seen where somebody poisons their spouse, they do it a little at a time over a period of months, and slowly and steadily increase the dosage each time, both to examine the effects on their spouse and to see how much poison will eventually be enough to kill them. 

Now, in this case, it wouldn't have happened over a period of months, I don't think, since there was no mention of Mary having fallen violently ill before this tragic incident, and I would think they would've mentioned her being sick before with similar symptoms if that sort of thing was happening. But even if she only got poisoned once, that obviously doesn't automatically rule out her husband possibly poisoning her. 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Annber03

[UsernameFatigue]

2 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

According to the detective Bill was not contacting the sister by phone, etc, until after Mary died. The only person to say otherwise was a neighbor of the sister  who thought she had seen Bill there before Mary died. Now, quick, go back several months - can you say what exact day/week/month you saw your neighbor with a visitor outside of their home? And can you say for a fact what the expression on their faces were? Because this  neighbor supposedly could.   

We shouldn’t convict or accuse someone without real evidence, there wasn’t any for Bill or Adam. There was for Katie.  She wrote the letter, she knew where the pills were, she touched the wrapper. The email account was accessed only on her phone or laptop. She bought the prepaid debit cards used to buy the stuff.  If I am going to vote guilty for any of the 3, it has to be her. 

As for the immunity- that’s a good lawyer talking. Costs the state nothing to give immunity to a person they don’t  believe is guilty.  who knows what you will get asked on the stand that could incriminate you in other matters- drugs, tax evasion, etc. 

Bill was not contacting the sister by his phone. Doesn't mean he didn't have another phone. I thought the neighbour was credible. If I noticed my neighbour kissing someone who was not his wife, it would register. If his wife turned up dead a couple of weeks later - you bet I would remember that. 

What was not credible (and was brought up on the Free Katlyn Conley website) was the drug sales person who said she talked to someone in the office that was a female with a soft voice. It was maybe a year later or more before police were even investigating and found the drug link. Why in the world would she remember this with all the calls she would make? And the drug order was from someone named Adam (as far as she knew) so why was she talking about the order to a woman? 

Edited December 2, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[Annber03]

4 hours ago, Ohmo said:

The letter speaks to me of genuine gullibility...Katie was trying to be helpful.  Same reason she talked to the cops seven times, and frankly, same reason her gullible parents didn't get a lawyer on speed dial at the police station and her father genuinely thought he could pound on the door and "fix" things.  Apple not falling far from the tree, etc.

If that's the case, that would also explain the way she started crying during her interrogation, too, when she realized that she was their main suspect and wouldn't be going home right away. Something about the way she sounded while sobbing and freaking out about going to jail came off very, "Oh, my god, I got in way over my head with this mess!" If she thought she was trying to be helpful only to realize how badly her help backfired, her freaking out makes a lot of sense in that context.

(Of course, there's also the obvious fact that she'd be freaking out simply because realizing you're going to be arrested and potentially going to jail is a frightening prospect, too. But still.)

1 hour ago, Lizzing said:

Andrea Canning episodes are so heavy on the personal sob stories (the sisters crying non stop, Katie woefully grooming a horse) and light on asking important questions.  

She also asks some mind-numbingly obvious questions, too. At one point one of the investigators had talked about the reasons why they considered her a suspect, and Andrea said something to the effect of "You really think so?" and I was sitting here going, "No, he just gave you that answer for the hell of it." 

And then when she's asking the women what Mary was like as a sister. Gee, what do you think they're going to say? 

[ari333]

24 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

Bill was not contacting the sister by his phone. Doesn't mean he didn't have another phone. I thought the neighbour was credible. If I noticed my neighbour kissing someone who was not his wife, it would register. If his wife turned up dead a couple of weeks later - you bet I would remember that. 

What was not credible (and was brought up on the Free Katlyn Conley website) was the drug sales person who said she talked to someone in the office that was a female with a soft voice. It was maybe a year later or more before police were even investigating and found the drug link. Why in the world would she remember this with all the calls she would make? And the drug order was from someone named Adam (as far as she knew) so why was she talking about the order to a woman? 

THIS ^^^^^^

[biakbiak]

8 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

thought the most obvious reason for Katie to have that on her phone was that she would have looked it up when she heard that Mary was poisoned by it.  When it first was delivered to the office she would have just handled and stored it like all the other drugs and had no reason to be particularly interested. 

They said the searches showed up before the drug was ordered. As how she got it they literally showed the order form for the drug came from the typewriter in her office. She didn't force tablets down get throat they mentioned the number of pills purely to illustrate it wasn't something you could accidentally ingest. She ordered the pure drug in liquid form and could have doused her food or drink. In its pure liquid form it could easily be lethal in a dose that she wouldn' realize.

William got the 400k not from her dying but because of another family member. 

I am 100% certain she is guilty, not sure I could have convicted her based on the evidence.

[ari333]

I know he got the 400 k from someone else, but IF he wanted a divorce would he have to split the money and half the office/practice. Odd to me that a 60 yr old Dr would have no life insurance.

[MerBearHou]

I must have missed it -- somebody remind me -- what would Adam's motive be for killing his mom?  

[cooksdelight]

6 hours ago, Stampiron said:

What's in it for him to be involved in this case testifying against his own cousin when he really doesn't have any knowledge or evidence

He witnessed Adam using Katie’s laptop.

 

1 hour ago, UsernameFatigue said:

It was maybe a year later or more before police were even investigating and found the drug link. Why in the world would she remember this with all the calls she would make?

If you are led by investigators to remember something, it happens before you realize you are being led.

 

17 minutes ago, MerBearHou said:

I must have missed it -- somebody remind me -- what would Adam's motive be for killing his mom?  

They didn’t get along, is what we were told by people in the beginning of the episode. The Crying Sisters were singing his praises by the end of the episode.

 

I still want to know why Bill and Adam were given blanket immunity for their testimony.

[Wings]

3 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

According to the detective Bill was not contacting the sister by phone, etc, until after Mary died. The only person to say otherwise was a neighbor of the sister  who thought she had seen Bill there before Mary died. Now, quick, go back several months - can you say what exact day/week/month you saw your neighbor with a visitor outside of their home? And can you say for a fact what the expression on their faces were? Because this  neighbor supposedly could.   

We shouldn’t convict or accuse someone without real evidence, there wasn’t any for Bill or Adam. There was for Katie.  She wrote the letter, she knew where the pills were, she touched the wrapper. The email account was accessed only on her phone or laptop. She bought the prepaid debit cards used to buy the stuff.  If I am going to vote guilty for any of the 3, it has to be her. 

As for the immunity- that’s a good lawyer talking. Costs the state nothing to give immunity to a person they don’t  believe is guilty.  who knows what you will get asked on the stand that could incriminate you in other matters- drugs, tax evasion, etc. 

This makes sense.  But why?   What did she gain?  Any guesses.  

How did Bill and Adam get immunity?  I heard they did but missed how.  Usually it is only given when someone has information to give and won't do it unless they are safe.  

[cooksdelight]

Nothing.

Let’s imagine she’s at work, and her boss Bill asks her to pick up some prepaid debit cards for “gifts” he’s giving someone. And he does it long in advance of the murder, perhaps the previous Christmas.

She signs for packages, letters, etc. Her fingerprints are on all of them.... why was only the cardboard wrapper examined, why not everything else she touched? That would show she handles all incoming mail and packages.

She had no motive. The husband had a huge one, he’s having an affair with his wife’s sister. He’s getting a huge sum of money he doesn’t want to split with the wife. His son, doesn’t get along with his mother, was acting strangely after her death. Was violent and physical with Katie... no way she killed a woman she admired in an attempt to get Adam back.

[CriticalMass]

8 hours ago, ridethemaverick said:

I watch too many of these shows because the big twist was surprising but not !SHOCKING! the way dateline billed it. I was expecting the twist to be that Katie and Bill were messing around.

I thought the twist was Katie and Mary were lovers, hence the “woman scorned” was dumped by Mary, not by the son. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CriticalMass said:

I thought the twist was Katie and Mary were lovers, hence the “woman scorned” was dumped by Mary, not by the son. 

Yikes.

What a kick-in-the-head conclusion that would be. 

[biakbiak]

1 hour ago, cooksdelight said:

His son, doesn’t get along with his mother, was acting strangely after her death. W

I forget who said he didn' get along with his mother but others said he was close to her and the "acting strangely" after his mother's death was his dropping classes and not leaving the apartment which could easily mean grief/depression. 

She admitted to writing the note that was meant to implicated Adam and led to the discover of the drug. That with all the other evidence including multiple searches on her phone that the defense never even attempted to explain away.

[Ohmo]

2 hours ago, PsychoKlown said:

Yikes.

What a kick-in-the-head conclusion that would be. 

That thought did cross my mind, which would be an actual motive if there were any evidence to support it.

2 hours ago, wings707 said:

How did Bill and Adam get immunity?  I heard they did but missed how.  Usually it is only given when someone has information to give and won't do it unless they are safe.  

You didn't miss it.  It was never explained how  Bill and Adam received immunity.

[ButterQueen]

8 hours ago, wings707 said:

I have questions, too.  

What did Katie gain by killing her is my biggest one?   How could she have gotten her hands on colchicine?  Bill could have.  It is not a drug that a doctor keeps on hand in his office.  

There are way too many questions that were not answered as listed in the above posts. 

I didn't like the judge demanding the jury continue to work on a consensus.  After days of arguing I might be willing to to with the majority because I was tired of arguing.  I don't like to think I would.  

The judge didn't demand anything...he read the Allen Charge to the jury....which is quite common.  

[Wings]

1 minute ago, ButterQueen said:

The judge didn't demand anything...he read the Allen Charge to the jury....which is quite common.  

So does this enable the judge to not accept a hung jury so sends them back to deliberate until they agree?  I am in bed on my phone and too sleepy to google.  :^)

[ButterQueen]

8 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

According to the detective Bill was not contacting the sister by phone, etc, until after Mary died. The only person to say otherwise was a neighbor of the sister  who thought she had seen Bill there before Mary died. Now, quick, go back several months - can you say what exact day/week/month you saw your neighbor with a visitor outside of their home? And can you say for a fact what the expression on their faces were? Because this  neighbor supposedly could.   

We shouldn’t convict or accuse someone without real evidence, there wasn’t any for Bill or Adam. There was for Katie.  She wrote the letter, she knew where the pills were, she touched the wrapper. The email account was accessed only on her phone or laptop. She bought the prepaid debit cards used to buy the stuff.  If I am going to vote guilty for any of the 3, it has to be her. 

As for the immunity- that’s a good lawyer talking. Costs the state nothing to give immunity to a person they don’t  believe is guilty.  who knows what you will get asked on the stand that could incriminate you in other matters- drugs, tax evasion, etc. 

I agree.  She deserved the murder charge.

2 minutes ago, wings707 said:

So does this enable the judge to not accept a hung jury so sends them back to deliberate until they agree?  I am in bed on my phone and too sleepy to google.  :^)

Nope.  Juries still hang after the Allen Charge.  It's just part of the process.

[Ohmo]

More reading for those who are interested

Kaitlyn Conley Retrial: Day 13 – Five Things to Know

Adam Yoder testifies letters tried to frame him for mom’s death

The second article says that Katie loaned Adam money. ($22,000, then the article later says $15,000).

Katie was also charged with forgery and falsifying business records, plus petty larceny,

This is odd.  This is mentioned in the Google blurb for an article. but I don't see it in the article or hear it in the video.

Quote

Yoder testified before a grand jury, he got immunity, as does every witness in NYS who testifies at grand jury. Like ... I've been informed,that it is a NY S law that anyone that testifies is given immunity

Conley Case on Dateline

Quote

All witnesses who testify before the grand jury can’t be prosecuted for what they say. This is called immunity. But, if a witness signs an immunity waiver he or she can be prosecuted based on the testimony. A witness who has signed a waiver of immunity has the right to have an attorney in the grand jury room under the same conditions as a defendant’s attorney.

NYCourts.gov

I don't get it.  What is the compelling reason to believe Bill and Adam in a grand jury? They could lie just as easily as Katie could.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Ohmo

[AZChristian]

5 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

Yoder testified before a grand jury, he got immunity, as does every witness in NYS who testifies at grand jury. Like ... I've been informed,that it is a NY S law that anyone that testifies is given immunity

That sounded so absolutely incorrect that I had to google it.  Here's what I found:

"The prosecution may require a witness to testify, but to do so, must first confer immunity upon the witness."  Maybe Dad and Sonny had to be subpoenaed . . . which automatically gave them immunity.  New York law is unique, and there are constant challenges from prosecutors to change the law.

But it sure seems to be a sweet deal for criminals.  Refuse to testify, get immunity.

[biakbiak]

17 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Refuse to testify, get immunity.

Which is why prosecutors choose carefully the witnesses they subpoena to testify before the grand jury.

[sinycalone]

Quote

Katie was also charged with forgery and falsifying business records, plus petty larceny,

Did not know about those charges.   Could Katie have known that Mary had become aware of her forgery, and been about to blow the whistle?

[cooksdelight]

A true crime group I belong to commented on the Yoder case, as one woman lives there and knew the family. She said the husband cheated on his wife for years, not just with her sister. Everyone in town thinks Dad did it and the son is also somehow involved. They set Katie up to take the fall, right down to her writing the letter telling where the poison was. She thought she was doing the right thing, and it backfired.

[Ohmo]

15 minutes ago, sinycalone said:

Did not know about those charges.   Could Katie have known that Mary had become aware of her forgery, and been about to blow the whistle?

Sure, but the problem that I still have is there is no piece of evidence against Katie that does not either tie to Adam and Bill or benefit Adam or Bill.  We just had a case of that Florida chiropractor who was scamming Medicare for millions of dollars.  Bill could have been involved in something similar.

Katie being an obsessive person who is unstable enough to kill is plausible, but there was no presentation (either by Dateline or within the trial itself) of any evidence of that behavior other than what Bill and Adam say.  No high school or college friends.  No former employers before Bill and Mary.  Anyone.  Behavior to the level that Katie is accused of rarely lies completely dormant.  Did a roommate or employer ever see Katie obsessed about school, another guy, etc.?

The entire case seems to hinge either on what Adam and Bill said or information on devices that they also had access to.

Edited December 3, 2017 by Ohmo

[biakbiak]

21 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

that I still have is there is no piece of evidence against Katie that does not either tie to Adam and Bill or benefit Adam or Bill.

Multiple searches on her personal cell phone and from her house. She also told police that during the period that Internet records indicate her home ISP had accessed the fake Adam's email address she hadn' seen Adam in months. Her credit card was also used to purchase the drug and she never questioned the charge.

Other than Bill having an affair with the sister in law, there didn't seem to be one thing tying him to being involved. Also, where did the sister in law live? They kept mentioning that Bill was out of town when he saw her, I am not necessarily believing the neighbors story of witnessing the kiss before her death.

I see absolutely no credible evidence that Katie was set up and that includes from her own attorneys. Also, why I know it isn' supposed to be viewed as an admission but the fact that she didn' testify in either trial, I find that telling.

[iMonrey]

Quote

Plus he admitted to "slapping her a few times" which to me means there was much more going on with him.

Didn't Katie also claim he raped her, and then she got back together with him later? WTF. Something not right with her, either.

Quote

They said early in the episode that you had to ingest a lot all at once for it to kill you.

The drug they found in the car was a high-dosage/concentrated form, not regular pills

Quote

They said the searches showed up before the drug was ordered.

They said she searched for other poisons before Mary was killed. 

Quote

What did Katie gain by killing her is my biggest one? 

I think the prosecution's assumption was that if she made Adam's mom sick or if she died, Adam would come back to her, because she'd be there to comfort him.

I'd be more inclined to think Katie was framed if she hadn't written that letter. She was trying to point the finger at someone else when all the evidence pointed to her. My gut still says she and Adam were in on this together, and then she turned on him for some reason. 

[applecrisp]

1 hour ago, biakbiak said:

Multiple searches on her personal cell phone and from her house. She also told police that during the period that Internet records indicate her home ISP had accessed the fake Adam's email address she hadn' seen Adam in months. Her credit card was also used to purchase the drug and she never questioned the charge.

Other than Bill having an affair with the sister in law, there didn't seem to be one thing tying him to being involved. Also, where did the sister in law live? They kept mentioning that Bill was out of town when he saw her, I am not necessarily believing the neighbors story of witnessing the kiss before her death.

I see absolutely no credible evidence that Katie was set up and that includes from her own attorneys. Also, why I know it isn' supposed to be viewed as an admission but the fact that she didn' testify in either trial, I find that telling.

Agree. My other problem is with Mary's sisters. How well did they know Katie? It seemed they were defending her so strongly and it baffled me.

[Madding crowd]

I don't understand why the son would want to kill his mother. Usually there is a financial motive or the son was being abused or in some cases, it would be a teen who wanted freedom. None of these apply here. The husband was a total sleaze but again no real proof. Katie seemed odd in the police interview when she was talking about poison being a woman's weapon, and it seemed like the letter she sent was trying to get revenge against Adam. This is a strange case for sure.

[biakbiak]

4 hours ago, iMonrey said:

They said she searched for other poisons before Mary was killed. 

She searched for other poisons in addition to colchicine but also had searches for it.

The only place the Gmail account was ever accessed was from her cell phone, her home and her work computer.

[ari333]

Quote

 

Why weren't Katie's other charges mentioned on the show? If it's true that's pretty big.

[Ohmo]

23 minutes ago, ari333 said:

Why weren't Katie's other charges mentioned on the show? If it's true that's pretty big.

More specifically, why didn't the prosecutor mention the other charges?  She was the one who kept bringing up all of this "woman scorned" material, which still sounds outlandish to me, given that Katie and Mary were not in a relationship.  If you're the prosecutor, wouldn't you try to make an easier "sell" as a motive, one that's more plausible (i.e. office assistant stealing money vs. office assistant killing boss in an attempt to woo back ex-boyfriend who is related to boss?)  I mean, as the prosecutor, one's goal is to convict and that would be a much simpler motive, if true.  However, the prosecution never brings up the other charges, either with Dateline or during the trial footage that we saw.  Why?

Another question that I have.   There is major discussion about all of the searches that Katie is supposed to have done on these various devices.  Yet, I find it curious that, if her motive is to supposedly get Adam to come back to her that there are no examples of that communication to Adam.  No "I miss you. " "Please come back to me. "We should be together again," etc.  That's supposed to be her motive, but there's no evidence of anything like that on her phone, yet these searches for drugs are on the phone.  If this was her plan, I'd expect to see evidence of both types of communication on her phone or both types to be absent from her phone.  You're careful enough to not communicate with Adam on your phone, but you don't delete searches?  And if you're not communicating with Adam at all, then where's the evidence that you desperately want him back and that's your motive for killing his mother?

Edited December 3, 2017 by Ohmo

[ari333]

8 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

More specifically, why didn't the prosecutor mention the other charges?  She was the one who kept bringing up all of this "woman scorned" material, which still sounds outlandish to me, given that Katie and Mary were not in a relationship.  If you're the prosecutor, wouldn't you try to make an easier "sell" as a motive, one that's more plausible (i.e. office assistant stealing money vs. office assistant killing boss in an attempt to woo back ex-boyfriend who is related to boss?)  I mean, as the prosecutor, one's goal is to convict and that would be a much simpler motive, if true.  However, the prosecution never brings up the other charges, either with Dateline or during the trial.  Why?

Another question that I have.   There is major discussion about all of the searches that Katie is supposed to have done on these various devices.  Yet, I find it curious that, if her motive is to supposedly get Adam to come back to her that there are no examples of that communication to Adam.  No "I miss you. " "Please come back to me. "We should be together again," etc.  That's supposed to be her motive, but there's no evidence of anything like that on her phone, yet these searches for drugs are on the phone.  If this was her plan, I'd expect to see evidence of both types of communication on her phone or both types to be absent from her phone.  You're careful enough to not communicate with Adam on your phone, but you don't delete searches?  And if you're not communicating with Adam at all, then where's the evidence that you desperately want him back and that's your motive for killing his mother?

I agree. It seems some things are missing from the story. If Katie were stealing and or committing forgery, that may be a motive if she didn't want Mary to find out, but wouldn't she want Bill not to find out too? It was half his business too, was it not? Why just off Mary?  And in  this day and age who does searches on their own devices on ways to kill people? Are folks that stupid? Unless it was a setup and Adam would have access to all those devices. right? Or did I miss something? ALso colchicine is not the standard poison that the average, non doctor,  person knows about... cyanide... arsenic... rat poison, antifreeze. I have watched so many of these shows.

[Annber03]

Just now, ari333 said:

And in  this day and age who does searches on their own devices on ways to kill people? Are folks that stupid?

Considering some of the incredibly dumb things I've heard about some criminals doing, somebody doing that honestly wouldn't surprise me :p. There are some criminals who really don't seem to grasp the concept of, "Erase your browser history". 

(Mind, not like that that will save them, either, really, 'cause there's also the fact that once something's on the internet it's out there forever, and savvy tech people can pull up deleted searches and whatnot. But still. It's amazing how some people don't even TRY to cover their tracks.)

[ari333]

7 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Considering some of the incredibly dumb things I've heard about some criminals doing, somebody doing that honestly wouldn't surprise me :p. There are some criminals who really don't seem to grasp the concept of, "Erase your browser history". 

(Mind, not like that that will save them, either, really, 'cause there's also the fact that once something's on the internet it's out there forever, and savvy tech people can pull up deleted searches and whatnot. But still. It's amazing how some people don't even TRY to cover their tracks.)

YES! Even if I delete my history someone could retrieve it if the need arose. When I search something weird I always put "Dateline" etc in the search line so it will be clear that I am following a show and not planning a crime heh [/paranoid]  My only brush with crime is watching too many crime shows. :-)

[Wings]

7 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

A true crime group I belong to commented on the Yoder case, as one woman lives there and knew the family. She said the husband cheated on his wife for years, not just with her sister. Everyone in town thinks Dad did it and the son is also somehow involved. They set Katie up to take the fall, right down to her writing the letter telling where the poison was. She thought she was doing the right thing, and it backfired.

Okay, there it is.  I am back on the Bill did it train. 

18 minutes ago, ari333 said:

YES! Even if I delete my history someone could retrieve it if the need arose. When I search something weird I always put "Dateline" etc in the search line so it will be clear that I am following a show and not planning a crime heh [/paranoid]  My only brush with crime is watching too many crime shows. :-)

Ohhh.  I should do that.  Too late now!  I searched poisons, fast ways to die, fast acting poison, how to conceal their taste etc!!  

[Annber03]

35 minutes ago, ari333 said:

YES! Even if I delete my history someone could retrieve it if the need arose. When I search something weird I always put "Dateline" etc in the search line so it will be clear that I am following a show and not planning a crime heh [/paranoid]  My only brush with crime is watching too many crime shows. :-)

Ahaha, I like that plan :D. Clever. 

[ButterQueen]

7 hours ago, cooksdelight said:

A true crime group I belong to commented on the Yoder case, as one woman lives there and knew the family. She said the husband cheated on his wife for years, not just with her sister. Everyone in town thinks Dad did it and the son is also somehow involved. They set Katie up to take the fall, right down to her writing the letter telling where the poison was. She thought she was doing the right thing, and it backfired.

That doesn't sway me.  Katie was correctly found guilty.  

[rwgrab]

7 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I'd be more inclined to think Katie was framed if she hadn't written that letter. She was trying to point the finger at someone else when all the evidence pointed to her. My gut still says she and Adam were in on this together, and then she turned on him for some reason. 

Yeah, this is where I end up on this case as well.  That letter definitely ties her to the crime because she admits knowing all about the poison used and where it could be found.  That's not something she could have just guessed.  Once she admitted to writing the letter, it was kind of all over for her.  She had too much knowledge for me to think she's not involved.  Her explanation is that Adam told her all of these things, but then how did her DNA and not his wind up on the sleeve of cardboard holding the colchicine?  Also, she (and not Adam) is the one of the two who has the means to administer the poison that day.  It looked to me like a liquid in that container, so maybe she added it to a drink or some component of the victim's lunch.  I'm guessing because of the effects that it would have to be done that day, and I don't think there'd be a way to inject a liquid into some supplement somehow.

I do think Adam was involved, though, and I think that letter had some truth to it.  Adam probably thought he'd get some money from his mom's death and miscalculated how that went down.  He may have had his sights on the father next and that's when Katie decided she had better turn him in before anything else bad happened.  I paused the recording to read the entire letter, and there were a few passages in there about the strained relationship Adam had with his parents and how he had ruined the Father's Day holiday or something like that.  I can see a son with a strained parental relationship taking part in the murder of his mother.

If I'm right about Adam, then my question would be why he didn't then turn on Katie.  The police LET HIM GO after finding the murder weapon (the poison) in his car with a letter spelling out how he did it??  I have no clue why they chose to believe Adam, so it makes me wonder whether it was then just Katie alone.  

[Wings]

I will never give my DNA for an ancestry search.  I don't need mine in a national bank.  One forensic search on my computer will name me as a suspect.  

[Blissfool]

1 hour ago, rwgrab said:

Yeah, this is where I end up on this case as well.  That letter definitely ties her to the crime because she admits knowing all about the poison used and where it could be found.  That's not something she could have just guessed.  Once she admitted to writing the letter, it was kind of all over for her.  She had too much knowledge for me to think she's not involved.  Her explanation is that Adam told her all of these things, but then how did her DNA and not his wind up on the sleeve of cardboard holding the colchicine?  Also, she (and not Adam) is the one of the two who has the means to administer the poison that day.  It looked to me like a liquid in that container, so maybe she added it to a drink or some component of the victim's lunch.  I'm guessing because of the effects that it would have to be done that day, and I don't think there'd be a way to inject a liquid into some supplement somehow.

I do think Adam was involved, though, and I think that letter had some truth to it.  Adam probably thought he'd get some money from his mom's death and miscalculated how that went down.  He may have had his sights on the father next and that's when Katie decided she had better turn him in before anything else bad happened.  I paused the recording to read the entire letter, and there were a few passages in there about the strained relationship Adam had with his parents and how he had ruined the Father's Day holiday or something like that.  I can see a son with a strained parental relationship taking part in the murder of his mother.

 

But then why wouldn't she bring him down with her? Why didn't she say it was all him and she was just an accomplice or that they were equally to blame.?

[rwgrab]

1 hour ago, Blissfool said:

But then why wouldn't she bring him down with her? Why didn't she say it was all him and she was just an accomplice or that they were equally to blame.?

Yeah, that's a good question, but I think the fiction she was spinning for the investigators was that she knew nothing until Adam confessed to her.  So she couldn't then say they did it together because that adds to her culpability.   She still wants to be able to say that Adam commandeered her computer, phone, etc. to do all of this stuff without her knowledge.  If she knew beforehand, then people will ask why she did nothing to stop it.

[Ohmo]

Let's say that Katie dreamed up this plot to kill her ex-boyfriend's mother in some twisted attempt to get him back.   Even if she's the most cunning person on the planet, she knows she's committing a crime.  If one commits a crime, the object is not to get caught.

If she were planting the cardboard sleeve to frame Adam, why would she leave prints on the sleeve that come back to her?  Why not wipe off the sleeve and leave no prints?  If you're knowingly planting evidence, you're seriously going to leave your own prints behind?  This is the girl that supposedly has researched several methods of killing someone, yet she's never watched a crime show?  I know that there are some dumb criminals out there, but that's basic TV knowledge.

The episode said that she talked to the cops seven times without counsel.  Seven times is a lot, and cunning does not mean stupid.  Again, if she actually did it, she's trying to not get caught, so she's going to "thrill seek" seven separate times without counsel?  Defense lawyers are paid to get their clients off.  If she did it, it's more likely that she'd bring counsel with her at some point, or at the very least, demand that questioning stop and ask for representation.

The mix doesn't make sense to me.  Not asking for a lawyer after SEVEN interactions with police strikes me as genuinely not recognizing that you need one (the mark of an innocent person or someone who's gullible.)  If Katie supposedly planned this all on her own, I'm sorry, I have a very hard time believing that she would knowingly do searches on her devices, but say to herself, "Hey, I'm going to talk to the cops seven times with no lawyer...just for fun."

She can't be both the "mastermind" of this grand plan all by herself and let some of the stuff happen that did.  She's smart enough to buy the drug all on her own, but yet dumb enough to never bring counsel on ANY of the seven occasions and allow herself to be interrogated for hours?

You've supposedly got two extremes in the same person...amazingly smart but also incredibly stupid about retaining a lawyer?

It's just too implausible to me that Katie could hatch this solo.  Someone else (or more than one someone else) was involved in this (Adam and/or Bill) and managed not to get caught.

[biakbiak]

15 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

she were planting the cardboard sleeve to frame Adam, why would she leave prints on the sleeve that come back to her?  Why not wipe off the sleeve and leave no prints?

She didn't leave her prints, the found her DNA not her prints so she clearly would have taken some precautions and probably just wasn't aware that some of her DNA got on it.

[ari333]

She worked in the office. Was the drug not delivered to the office? If so, she likely signed for it. Did they say who signed for it? Or did it come in regular mail? If she ordered it, why touch it  all without gloves? I mean if she knew it was going to be a murder weapon. and gloves in the office woudl look weird. I agree with Ohmo. Something is missing

[biakbiak]

7 minutes ago, ari333 said:

touch it  all without gloves? I

There were no fingerprints on it so the person did apparently use gloves.

[cooksdelight]

18 hours ago, applecrisp said:

Agree. My other problem is with Mary's sisters. How well did they know Katie? It seemed they were defending her so strongly and it baffled me.

From what the people I have chatted with told me, Bill was a notorious cheater, he got to have that open marriage whether or not Mary agreed. They knew about him being that way.

[nora1992]

I didn't like the sisters co-opting the grief of the family.  It started when the nurse-sister mentioned that one of the Yoder daughters (maybe doctor-daughter), told nurse-sister that the toxicology screens that NURSE-SISTER suggested were going to be done.....wouldn't any of the attending physicians, or the doctor-daughter, have asked for a tox screen?  But nurse-sister was taking credit for it, because no one else involved would have thought of it?  At first I liked Mary's sisters, but they managed to turn the tragedy into something all about them.  Perhaps that is why the Yoder daughters came off as over dramatic, because they knew they'd be competing against the Greek chorus of the mourners-in-chief. 

And why I think Katie was the only one behind it?  The email address she made up and used in her attempt to frame her boyfriend: a title, first name, last name, year of birth?  That is just one step removed from IDIDIT-NOTKATIE@gmail.com.  ayoder, adamyo, a.yoder, yodera, or even something without a person's name, like yoderchirocliniconeida@gmail.com, and I would have wondered who really was the creator of that email address.  But I believe it was part of Katie's cockamamie plot to have it all come back to Adam, and away from her.  The email showed some evidence of planning; not well-reasoned thought, but planning.  I don't know why.  Not that I have to know why, either.  I think she is too smart to let herself be a victim, but not smart enough to make someone else the perpetrator.

Edited December 4, 2017 by nora1992