All Episodes Discussion

[mythoughtis]

I think most people are going to find fault with the other woman. It’s an emotional response.  They may intellectually know the husband  is  responsible for his own choices and the one breaking a vow, but they will still have an emotional response. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by mythoughtis

[ButterQueen]

6 hours ago, Annber03 said:

 

And I seem to remember hearing a murder case elsewhere once about a woman who'd actually tried to sue for "alienation of affection" because her husband had taken up with another woman. I don't think that lawsuit went anywhere, though.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Business/wife-wins-million-husbands-alleged-mistress/story?id=10177637 

There was a Lifetime movie made about another case.  It was called The Price Of A Broken Heart.  Park Overall starred in it.

[UsernameFatigue]

I vaguely remember this episode from the first time it aired but not the details, so watched it again. 

My hubby watched it with me, and he kept wondering where Frank was getting all the money to pay off the Hee Haw gang. I said a few times that I figured he was embezzling from his rich employer, and that I hoped the authorities looked into that. So I was happy to see at the end of the show that they did. I wondered if the knowledge that their father stole 6 million dollars removed the daughters' rose coloured glasses, but figured they would just think he was justified in that he had to pay off those bad blackmailing men. The daughters were really a special kind of stupid, even more so that the Hee Haw gang who saw Frank for who he was. 

Speaking of stupid, the mistress wasn't that bright either. Frank told her that he was separated from his wife but living in the same house for convenience sake. What convenience? The kids are grown and gone. He had money to buy a house and a vacation house with the mistress. Maybe suggest that he buy a house or condo and move out of the house he lives in with the wife he supposedly is no longer with. 

I laughed at the comment above this being like a Coen brothers movie as that is exactly what I thought while watching this episode. Other than for Nancy's sake as she seems like a nice woman, I would love this to be made into a dark comedy, complete with Frank/John, the Hee Haw gang and the dippy daughters. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by UsernameFatigue

[JudyObscure]

I don't blame Nancy one bit for her anger at the other woman.  It doesn't mean she thinks her husband is innocent and it certainly isn't the same as "casting stones," against some random woman who had nothing to do with her. Words are not stones. Her husband was guilty of breaking vows he had made to her and trying to murder her.  This was someone she had loved and trusted so I imagine the anger and hurt against him is so conflicted and intense she can barely get her head around it, so it won't be expressed as simply. 

  But this other woman was not just an innocent bystander that Nancy is supposed to feel loving kindness toward.  She is guilty of breaking the commandment against "coveting thy neighbor's spouse," and she has broken the part of the marriage vows that admonish the public, "What God has put together, let no man put asunder." 

I don't know what part of Nancy being a Christian means she has to speak kindly about a woman who knowingly took what belonged to her.   Would she have to love someone who stole her car or burned down her house or hurt her children?

I seriously doubt if Frank would have tried to kill Nancy if the other woman had not been in his life, constantly telling him they were soulmates and convincing him that they would be oh so happy if they could just be together all the time.  I'm not saying she's guilty of anything from a legal stand point, but she is morally guilty of alienation of affection.  Now Nancy is the bad person for calling her ugly?  Not to me.

[biakbiak]

18 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I don't know what part of Nancy being a Christian means she has to speak kindly about a woman who knowingly took what belonged to her.   Would she have to love someone who stole her car or burned down her house or hurt her children?

No one is suggesting that she love her. In other passages she herself states that she has come to terms with everything and forgiven what has happened. And offers herself up as an example of Christian forgiveness. That is where the hypocritical part of her lies. The only person that hurt her family was her husband.

She literally suggests that this ugly women with an annoying voice caused this devoted and good man ro be led astray.

Edited December 29, 2017 by biakbiak

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, biakbiak said:

The only person that hurt her family was her husband.

She literally suggests that this ugly women with an annoying voice caused this devoted and good man ro be led astray.

I think the other woman definitely did play a part in leading him astray and in doing that, she did hurt Nancy's family.  Yes, Frank was already very "astray," embezzling money and probably going to strip clubs and committing adultery, but it was the whole "falling in love," long term affair that led to the murder attempt and blew up the family in an irrevocable manner.  Nothing and no one is all good or all bad.  Even Frank, who I don't think was ever the good person his family thought he was, fell by degrees, gradually getting worse and worse.  I think the other woman helped drag him to the bottom. 

[biakbiak]

18 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

  Even Frank, who I don't think was ever the good person his family thought he was, fell by degrees, gradually getting worse and worse.  I think the other woman helped drag him to the bottom. 

Even in your scenario you are acknowledging he wasn't a good person she does not and that what I judge her on. She could have written a book that even though she was a woman of faith she was stuggling with forgiveness, that isn't the book she wrote. The only texts between Franl and whatshername support the othet women's scenario that he kept tellinf her that he was going to get a divorce and her encouraging him to do that. He didn't want a divorce because his embezzlement would come to light, the article posted above said it was about 30 million, not just the 6 million  he pled to and she had access to all this information. In the end she is just as delusional as her daughters refusing to lay the blame on the person actually responsible andlooking fora scapegoat. She has cleatly been through hell and I can admire her for how in some ways she has moved on and question why she still gives the douchebqg she married a pass by fimding ways to excuse his behavior and others to blame.

Edited December 29, 2017 by biakbiak

[mythoughtis]

Because she believes ‘it takes two to tango’. She is looking for a scapegoat, or some way to understand why the person she married wasn’t who she thought he was. Some reason that doesn’t reflect poorly on her.  Same stupidity on the part of the daughters. 

It’s the same reason why families of drug addicts blame the dealers, families of gambling addicts blame the casinos, families of smokers blame the cigarette companies, families of alcoholics blame the bars, families of criminals blame the friends and associates. Remember prohibition? Although cigarette companies did false advertising, so there is that. As I said earlier, emotional reaction vs intellectual. 

[AZChristian]

Often, forgiveness is like peeling an onion.  On these outer layers, Nancy can forgive Frank because he was led astray by the hussy he met at the casino.  If she continues the process, she's going to wake up one day and realize that the center of the onion has been reached - and it's him.  All him.  There would not have been a cheating hussy in Frank's life if Frank had been committed to Nancy and his family.

Frank is just evil.  He stole and cheated.  It's all Frank.

[JudyObscure]

4 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Even in your scenario you are acknowledging he wasn't a good person she does not and that what I judge her on

So you're judging her for not judging enough?  She has decided to forgive him and  to focus on what she considers the good in him. I can't understand why that is  a bad thing to do.  

2 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

Some reason that doesn’t reflect poorly on her. 

Does this mean you think it's Nancy's fault that Frank had an affair?   How does his  affair reflect poorly on her?  She wasn't exciting enough or thin enough or she hadn't figured out how to stop the aging process?   Is that what Nancy did wrong?

 

I can't believe how fast this all became Nancy's fault.  Two adults deliberately decide to commit adultery and it's not their fault it's the fault of the person who is being cheated on.  Nancy is being called stupid, hypocritical, and catty, while the woman who was having sex with someone else's husband for years and demanding that he divorce his wife, is a poor  innocent lady who mustn't have anyone call her "less than beautiful," because that's mean.

 

2 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

It’s the same reason why families of drug addicts blame the dealers, families of gambling addicts blame the casinos, families of smokers blame the cigarette companies, families of alcoholics blame the bars, families of criminals blame the friends and associates

  To continue the addict analogy, if some woman went up to a known alcoholic, every day, and poured a tall drink in front of him waving it under his nose and begging him to drink it, I definitely would hold her partly responsible if he fell of the wagon in a weak moment.  Ultimately she wouldn't have forced him to drink it, but I think she would be a real skank to have kept deliberately tempting him.  We are all ultimately responsible for what we do, but the fact remains that drug dealers and tobacco companies do have a share in the guilt when someone dies from their products.  Prescription drug abuse now causes more deaths than car accidents in this country and the drug companies and doctors who prescribed these drugs and  told their patients that the drugs were not addictive and kept prescribing it for them are very much to blame in my view. 

[mythoughtis]

3 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Does this mean you think it's Nancy's fault that Frank had an affair?   How does his  affair reflect poorly on her?  She wasn't exciting enough or thin enough or she hadn't figured out how to stop the aging process?   Is that what Nancy did wrong?

Absolutely not. Im not saying she did anything to bring this on at all. I’m saying she may have insecurities about it and is thereby looking for someone else to blame. Emotional response rather than intellectual. 

 

As you said, continuing my analogy. She’s saying that the other woman could have turned him down once learning he was married. It’s still Franks actions and he’s responsible for them. 

Edited December 29, 2017 by mythoughtis

[JudyObscure]

5 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

She’s saying that the other woman could have turned him down once learning he was married. It’s still Franks actions and he’s responsible for them. 

Nancy's right.  The other woman could have turned him down once learning he was married.  That fact has nothing to do with Frank, his actions or his responsibility.

1.  Frank is a total loser, who embezzled, cheated on his wife, and contracted murder.  He is in prison where he should be.

2.  Suzanne (the other woman) is a cheater who thought nothing of having a long affair with a married man.  She doesn't compare with Frank for bad actions, but  that doesn't make her a good person.

Nancy has forgiven Frank, probably because she loved him for most of her life, had three children and a long, happy  history with him.

Nancy has not forgiven Suzanne, probably because all she knows about her is that she helped ruin her marriage. 

I see no reason why Nancy should be expected to forgive Suzanne and speak highly of her,  anymore than I see why Nancy should be judged for forgiving Frank just because we can't stand him.

[veronicamers]

On 12/27/2017 at 10:19 PM, ButterQueen said:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Business/wife-wins-million-husbands-alleged-mistress/story?id=10177637 

There was a Lifetime movie made about another case.  It was called The Price Of A Broken Heart.  Park Overall starred in it.

My weird connection to the alienation of affection case mentioned in the link: I worked for the "other woman" who got sued for a couple of years in college. 

[JudyObscure]

I've always been fascinated by that case, Veronica!  Obviously, from my arguing above,  I lean toward siding with the wives in these cases, but I might have a different opinion if I actually knew the other woman.  What was she like?

[EtheltoTillie]

Has anyone watched last night's case yet?  I knew it was the husband from the moment I heard his fake crying on the 911 call, a Dateline hallmark. It was kind of surprising that all that DNA and other evidence was forgotten. 

My husband and I thought the third defense team really blew it with their new strategy. By revealing Lisa's affair they finally gave husband a more realistic motive. He probably got angry and shot wife on the spur of the moment. Then ran out and dumped the shotgun behind the house. 

That poor veteran next door. He was tormented by Seth and his buddy.

Another indication Seth had a violent mindset. 

[iMonrey]

Well it was easy to predict Seth would end up being tried as the perpetrator since they were doing interviews with everyone except him. These shows are just so predictable and overly stretched out - one hour would suffice in almost every case. However, I'm not sure I would have convicted him because the sketchy neighbor was another viable suspect, and Seth's acting was worthy of an Oscar. The fact that Lisa was also having an affair just spells chaos and uncertainty all around. 

Quote

That poor veteran next door. He was tormented by Seth and his buddy. Another indication Seth had a violent mindset. 

Yeah, maybe. We're dealing with some messed up people here, all around.

[EtheltoTillie]

27 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Well it was easy to predict Seth would end up being tried as the perpetrator since they were doing interviews with everyone except him. These shows are just so predictable and overly stretched out - one hour would suffice in almost every case. However, I'm not sure I would have convicted him because the sketchy neighbor was another viable suspect, and Seth's acting was worthy of an Oscar. The fact that Lisa was also having an affair just spells chaos and uncertainty all around. 

Yeah, maybe. We're dealing with some messed up people here, all around.

That's exactly why they had two hung juries. Reasonable doubt. The third defense team abandoned that strategy and earned a quick conviction. The case was ultimately chaotic and uncertain as you noted. 

[Annber03]

38 minutes ago, GussieK said:

My husband and I thought the third defense team really blew it with their new strategy. By revealing Lisa's affair they finally gave husband a more realistic motive. He probably got angry and shot wife on the spur of the moment. Then ran out and dumped the shotgun behind the house. 

I thought about that, too, yeah. I was like, "Okay, but...wouldn't that give him more incentive to want to kill her?"

I also love how quickly things escalated after Seth's initial interview with the cops. He talks to them and is all, "No, I wasn't having any affairs." 

Then later on it's, "Okay, well, maybe I knew this one girl who I might've given a hug a time or two."

Then, "...okay, so, yeah, she sent him topless pics..."

And then the other woman becomes a witness in the trial and is talking about how he kept promising her he'd end things with his wife and they'd be together soon (why, oh, why do people keep buying that line in these sorts of situations?). Seriously, for somebody who was initially like, "I know you guys have to look at me, 'cause the husband is always the first suspect", you'd think he would've been more upfront from the get-go about all the other stuff. I know he claimed he was trying to hide his affair so as not to upset his father-in-law, but c'mon, dude, if you're savvy enough to know the cops look at the husband first, surely you'd expect that they'd follow up on other things related to you, too. 

The story felt awfully familiar to me-I think I've seen it on some other show at some point. I feel bad for the family having to go through three trials. I find it interesting that in the first two, which were mistrials, there were more jury members voting to find him guilty than not, though. 

Also, yaaaaaay, another case that takes place in my state :/. 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Annber03

[LakeGal]

I have seen this case before.  I was hoping they had new info.  But it was the same stuff I had already seen.  Not sure if I originally saw it on Dateline or 48 Hours.  

I thought introducing the fact the wife was having an affair just gave the husband more motive.  Not a smart move by the new lawyers.

I believe the couple just got married too young.  They had been dating for 7 years and they were only 21 and 22 when they got married.  Obviously neither was really ready to settle down with just one person.  Seth didn't want to break up with his wife and lose his father-in-law's influence with his new job.  

[Blissfool]

Felt sorry for the cranky old neighbor, "Get off my lawn!" He really was being tormented by Seth. Loved (not) the conflict of interest when the dad responded to the old man's call. The dad started to lose his cool and the old man called him on it, "Why are you yelling at me?" The dad had to admit it , "You're right. I'm raising my voice." Ha!

Ignoring the lawyer banging on the door to stop the interview is very manipulative, but I guess it's legal.

So what about the PB&J sandwich? Lemme guess, not dusted for fingerprints either. 

[mythoughtis]

I was truly amazed at how much the investigation had been botched. No gunshot residue test, no shell casings, etc. no fingerprints or DNA on the sandwich. This victim was the  daughter of a deputy sheriff, a reserve officer and jailer herself, married to a firefighter. They called the state police in due to the situation. That was to counterbalance the conflict of interest and the inexperience of the responding depury( his first homicide case). And still, no one ordered the appropriate tests.  No investigation of the victim. No real investigation as to whether Seth and his friends had terrorized the neighbor.  

Seth was stone faced when the verdict was read.  He must have been prepared for it. 

[Tdoc72]

2 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I thought about that, too, yeah. I was like, "Okay, but...wouldn't that give him more incentive to want to kill her?"

I also love how quickly things escalated after Seth's initial interview with the cops. He talks to them and is all, "No, I wasn't having any affairs." 

Then later on it's, "Okay, well, maybe I knew this one girl who I might've given a hug a time or two."

Then, "...okay, so, yeah, she sent him topless pics..."

And then the other woman becomes a witness in the trial and is talking about how he kept promising her he'd end things with his wife and they'd be together soon (why, oh, why do people keep buying that line in these sorts of situations?). Seriously, for somebody who was initially like, "I know you guys have to look at me, 'cause the husband is always the first suspect", you'd think he would've been more upfront from the get-go about all the other stuff. I know he claimed he was trying to hide his affair so as not to upset his father-in-law, but c'mon, dude, if you're savvy enough to know the cops look at the husband first, surely you'd expect that they'd follow up on other things related to you, too. 

The story felt awfully familiar to me-I think I've seen it on some other show at some point. I feel bad for the family having to go through three trials. I find it interesting that in the first two, which were mistrials, there were more jury members voting to find him guilty than not, though. 

Also, yaaaaaay, another case that takes place in my state :/. 

If his friend hasn’t told them about the secret tracphone, the police might not have ever known. Seth didn’t tell them until they said they knew. 

Also I felt bad for the neighbor who knew he had problems and was open about them.  Seth continued to torment him by blaming him for murder.  I know the police had to look at him but Seth created that whole situation.  

And I don’t understand why the police aren’t printing eveythinging sight. There was an episode a few weeks ago (Keith Bryan murder) where they found the weapon and shell casings in the clothes dryer yet they didn’t print them. I understand they didn’t originally because the eyewitness/murderer said the ‘perp’ didn’t go into the laundry room but when they found the items in there they should have. It’s only helping defense attorneys have some reasonable doubt when they can argue police incompetence. 

[Blissfool]

How does one go about collecting "buckets of dog manure" to toss into person's yard?

Who does that!

[JudyObscure]

This was the third time I've seen this one, all on Dateline titled, "Before Dawn." Not exactly "new,"  Dateline fibbers.

I always end up wishing there was some way to add years to Seth's sentence for what he did to the poor mentally ill man next door.  Long before the murder he had been tormented by Seth until he was a nervous wreck.  How horribly frustrating to have someone frightening and bothering you and the deputy, who happens to be father-in-law to the tormenter, keeps coming around threatening you.  The poor man was probably starting to doubt his own mind and then his worst nightmare comes to light when a large group of armed men come striding up to his house, shouting at him and charging him with murder.  His sister said he hardly ate or slept after that and died a short time later.  Whatever anger, or more likely lust, caused Seth to murder his wife, the cold blooded, calculating heart that tormented that old man is why Seth should never walk free again.

Edited December 30, 2017 by JudyObscure

[partofme]

I hated what Seth did to his poor neighbor.    I couldn't get over how arrogant and incompetent his third set of lawyers were.    Their change of strategy is what got him convicted.

[saber5055]

I'm with JudyObscure, I was all set to watch a NEW! Dateline (as it was advertised) and 10 minutes in, knew I had seen this one before so *channel turn.* I didn't remember who killed the woman, but the husband's over-acting and histrionics and making sure his extreme "misery" was caught on the police cam made it pretty clear to me who did it. Given the overhead view of the property, it's not like that neighbor was right next door. And who the heck tosses a deer carcass over the fence or dog poop or whatever when one lives out in the country? You bag it, and put it in trash pickup. It's sort of like the husband was setting up the neighbor for a long time so neighbor would turn into the bad guy/suspect. Reading here, I guess I remembered correctly.

[thejuicer]

I just saw the case with Frank hiring hit men to murder his wife Nancy. Jesus those two daughters are stupid.

[JudyObscure]

25 minutes ago, thejuicer said:

I just saw the case with Frank hiring hit men to murder his wife Nancy. Jesus those two daughters are stupid.

Good golly, yes.  It's the one thing we all agreed on.

[EtheltoTillie]

2 hours ago, saber5055 said:

I'm with JudyObscure, I was all set to watch a NEW! Dateline (as it was advertised) and 10 minutes in, knew I had seen this one before so *channel turn.* I didn't remember who killed the woman, but the husband's over-acting and histrionics and making sure his extreme "misery" was caught on the police cam made it pretty clear to me who did it. Given the overhead view of the property, it's not like that neighbor was right next door. And who the heck tosses a deer carcass over the fence or dog poop or whatever when one lives out in the country? You bag it, and put it in trash pickup. It's sort of like the husband was setting up the neighbor for a long time so neighbor would turn into the bad guy/suspect. Reading here, I guess I remembered correctly.

So that's two weeks in a row with old cases masquerading as new.  I actually had seen neither case before myself, but it's annoying when you can see that the events took place years before so they can't be new.

[mythoughtis]

Is it husband murders wife week on Dateline? Tonight’s repeat episode was the Starbuck family.   I still can’t decide if I think husband actually did it or not. I do know I feel sorry for the 5 children- especially the oldest son who has custody of the three youngest, while recently becoming a father himself. I also feel especially sorry for the youngest son, who found out he was  not biologically his fathers’ son due to DNA testing as part of the crime investigation. 

[bubbls]

I hated Seth on sight. Call me judgmental and shallow or maybe it’s old baggage, but he looked exactly like what he turned out to be....a manipulative, cruel, immature, redneck, good old boy bully, and cheater. And murderer. 

I became very very suspicious when he kept saying his wife “found out” about the texts to blond gal. If it’s innocent friend texting you wouldn’t use that phrase. 

[cooksdelight]

Seth’s eyes weren’t set right. There’s your sign.

I remembered this case from when it was on the nightly news.

[biakbiak]

Blake barely blinked during the interviews it was creepy.

[JudyObscure]

I don't think I'll ever fully understand the judges who throw out pertinent information because it might be "prejudicial."  I thought it was important for the jury to know that Chanin had met with at least ten strange men just before her murder.  And I say that even while thinking the ex-husband probably did it. How often do cars break down and require a full day to get running?  Why would a father of five ever turn off his  phone?

[biakbiak]

12 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I don't think I'll ever fully understand the judges who throw out pertinent information because it might be "prejudicial."  I thought it was important for the jury to know that Chanin had met with at least ten strange men just before her murder.  

Most likely because they had alibis. The defense attorneys were circumspect in how they talked about them.

[mythoughtis]

I still think the jury needed to know that she talked to a lot of strangers over the internet and invited them into her home.  Those 10 may have had alibis, but the jury may have decided that it was reasonable to think some other guest might have been invited in that day. It gives the husband reasonable doubt. They didn’t prove he did it, they just proved he didn’t have an alibi. 

This is part of why I can’t decide if he actually did it or not. 

[Mama No Life]

Yeah this was one of the few that I finished wondering if they had the right guy.  He probably did it but I certainly don't think it was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

[rhys]

Regarding Frank & Nancy's case: I was really disturbed by something Charlie said. He was talking about how dirty the money was when the gang got it from John. Charlie said it was covered in blood and hair and he asked about that. Billie (?) told C it was because the money was smuggled into the US in body bags from Kuwait. OMG. 

[EtheltoTillie]

1 hour ago, rhys said:

Regarding Frank & Nancy's case: I was really disturbed by something Charlie said. He was talking about how dirty the money was when the gang got it from John. Charlie said it was covered in blood and hair and he asked about that. Billie (?) told C it was because the money was smuggled into the US in body bags from Kuwait. OMG. 

Yeah, this is somethiing fishy too.  There was a very limited explanation, maybe in that Dallas article, or I'm just reading between the lines.  It seems as if the guy Frank was working for was also a crook and maybe was doing something unsavory with his war contracting.  Didn't they say he was also prosecuted for something?

[iMonrey]

Quote

The story felt awfully familiar to me-I think I've seen it on some other show at some point. 

Any case where a murdered woman's husband turns out to have been having an affair . . . feels like you've seen it before.

Quote

 I find it interesting that in the first two, which were mistrials, there were more jury members voting to find him guilty than not, though. 

Yeah it was 9-3 or something - and that's kind of where I come down on it. I'm about 70-80% sure he's guilty but I'm not sure that's enough to convict him.

[ari333]

They were vague about how Shannon (Chanin?) was posed after death. Was it with a dildo? ANd what was the sex toy gift from her ex? A dildo?

Her fifth child was conceived after she was divorced (the first time?) from the father of the other four, Clay. That is not a crime. Letting Clay think he is the father, though, is ... well.... not good.

Also, a divorced woman in her 40s may need to date several men in order to find a good fit for a new relationship. And shocker that the Mormon folks didn't approve. A man can get a divorce and go out and date and have sex with anything walking and breathing and no one blinks or they give him a hearty, "atta  boy.". A woman has to stay home and ...what? 

Also, having 10 email addresses and correspondence does not make a person a whore.

Edited December 31, 2017 by ari333

[biakbiak]

Quote

Letting Clay think he is the father, though, is ... well.... not good.

Did they say Clay didn't know? They never asked Clay about it so I just assumed that they knew and the son did not.

I want to know, if Keith asked it wasn't aired, how he walked home repeatedly if not on that street. It wasnt like it was  a huge amount of options and if his back was so fucked up , i can't imagine he repeatedly mosed off the beaten track. That was a huge red flag for me that he never called anyone to help him with the car if his back was so bad. 

Edited December 31, 2017 by biakbiak

[ari333]

44 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Did they say Clay didn't know? They never asked Clay about it so I just assumed that they knew and the son did not.

I want to know, if Keith asked it wasn't aired, how he walked home repeatedly if not on that street. It wasnt like it was  a huge amount of options and if his back was so fucked up , i can't imagine he repeatedly mosed off the beaten track. That was a huge red flag for me that he never called anyone to help him with the car if his back was so bad. 

Excellent points! and good catch on the paternity issue. I missed that point.

His route on the walking back and forth for the car trouble things was way off and fishy for me ; and then he wasnt' on the security camera, so what route DID he take with that horrible back pain? Can't call a tow or a mechanic what with  the back pain and all?

[walnutqueen]

I want to know whose DNA was on her neck & how it got there.  "Unknown male" DNA makes me itchy.

[cooksdelight]

I want to know is this guy on tonight’s episode, Cody, hung like a horse or something to make women go ga-ga over him. OMG....

[ari333]

1 hour ago, cooksdelight said:

I want to know is this guy on tonight’s episode, Cody, hung like a horse or something to make women go ga-ga over him. OMG....

He has oil-workin' money. Cha ching

I know this was a re run, but I had missed the first airing and it was new to me. It was surprising to me that those two Cody friends were willing to get involved... moving the truck or rather giving Cody a ride from the drop off; and then there's the other dude who sent to the fake text. 

[cooksdelight]

I vaguely remembered it, but it was a good refresher on a fricken cold-ass night. He bought the house for the dead girl and he seemed to really have a short fuse. I thought Josh was going to get his mouth realigned.

Edited January 1, 2018 by cooksdelight

[rhys]

I got confused about Clay's younger daughter. Was she the dark haired kid who never spoke? She looked more like an outlier than Marshall. And Biak is correct about Blake rarely blinking. That can't be good for his eyes. 

How do 7 people run 2 houses & feed people on no income? Did Chanin (good god!) work?

[Ohmo]

On 12/30/2017 at 10:38 AM, GussieK said:

My husband and I thought the third defense team really blew it with their new strategy. By revealing Lisa's affair they finally gave husband a more realistic motive. He probably got angry and shot wife on the spur of the moment. Then ran out and dumped the shotgun behind the house. 

I had the opposite reaction.  My first thought was "Why didn't they look at Lisa's lover?"  I would have been the pain-in-the-ass juror because I think "reasonable doubt" came in at that point in spades.  First of all, there was an admitted physical relationship between Lisa and her lover...enough that he could have been the father of the baby.  Then, his alibi is his wife?  Nope.  I'd want more than that.  There's nothing there that can be verified other than her word. I don't think Seth is a prize by any means, but his story of an intruder seems more plausible to me knowing that Lisa had a lover.  I'd want to know why the lover's wife is so willing to alibi him.  The "in bed with me" alibi essentially means squat.  He could have hired someone.   He eventually took a paternity test, but what did lover boy know (or think) about the baby when Lisa was alive?

Plus, the sandwich and the placement of the gun are odd to me.  If you're Seth, you're going to throw the gun away yards from the trailer when your in-laws work in law enforcement?  However, if the lover killed her or hired someone to kill her, how do we know that they never hooked up at her house?  The lover would then know about the gun and he could have thrown it (or had it thrown) where it was found to implicate Seth.

Edited January 1, 2018 by Ohmo

[Ohmo]

On 12/29/2017 at 8:21 AM, biakbiak said:

The only person that hurt her family was her husband.

I don't agree with that.  If Frank had just begun the affair, then I would.  However, after three years, then I believe the other woman does have some culpability as well.  He's not divorced after three years.  At that point, the other woman is choosing to believe the line of bull that he's selling.  There's no divorce.  She knows that he's married.  At that point, she can't plead being clueless.  Something may be hinky in Frank's marriage, but it's not hinky enough to make the other woman reconsider things until she's three years in.  Since she waited around for three years, I think she did play a role in emotionally hurting Nancy.