All Episodes Discussion

[JudyObscure]

I could never hit myself on the back of the head hard enough to raise a lump.  Did a doctor look at that?  Was there even a pillow sham inside the closet? Had the woman wet herself as an unconscious  person is likely to do? If so the defense should have mentioned these things.  Everyone let this woman down.

[cooksdelight]

6 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Did a doctor look at that? 

Yes, they mentioned that and I think a doctor was interviewed. I need to rewatch it sometime today.

[Jpxfactor]

I thought she was guilty right from the start..

[cooksdelight]

@Jpxfactor, I’d be interested in hearing why you think she’s guilty.

[Jpxfactor]

It was just a very strong gut feeling from the start.  The robbery looked staged.

[Ohmo]

Manson update:

Leslie Van Houten has been denied parole again.

Gov. Brown reverses decision to parole Manson family killer

[JudyObscure]

I may be the only person in the world who thinks she should be paroled.  Look at all the murderers we see get out after twenty years, or never go to prison because the husband they killed was abusive.  Van Houten was a first time offender, barely a legal adult, brain washed by a cult leader, stoned out of her mind, and has had good behavior ever since.  I think she has been denied parole over and over because the crime she committed  was so notorious and the victims were rich and famous.  If this was one of these nobody Dateline cases she would have made a plea deal against Manson and never done a day.

[Ohmo]

2 hours ago, Jpxfactor said:

I thought she was guilty right from the start..

We're gonna sit together because I think she's guilty too.  A couple of things stood out to me:

He's stabbed twelve times.  In comparison, her bruises and red marks looked like nothing to me, even after allowing for a couple of days of healing.  The level of violence doesn't match up.  A supposed intruder is going to fatally stab someone twelve times, yet leave another potential witness almost completely untouched?  Sure, she could have had a seizure, and it could have killed her, but if you're going to stab someone twelve times, don't you at least try and injure the other person as insurance?

This is going to get gross, and I'm sorry, but she's supposedly passed out from a seizure in this closet for what 14+ hours AFTER having drank alcoholic drinks.  Knowing myself when I drink (or even when I don't), "holding it" for 14 hours would be next to impossible, but really impossible after drinking.  Drinking alcohol makes one pee, so if she's incapacitated and caged in the closet, where's the pee?  Even accounting for the stress of a supposed home invasion, I still don't think she could have held it that long without soiling herself in some way. I was looking for a pee stain in the closet.

She's a nurse, which means that she knows anatomy.   I buy some version of the seduction scenario as plausible.  I also agree that the scene didn't look right to me.  It seemed "intentionally messy" but not tossed.

I don't think Lizz's ex had anything to do with it.  They were divorced and even if he wanted whatever loot Jamie and Sandra had, he's going to kill her dad?  That's a leap.

I also believe the neighbor.  If she complained about the dogs all the time, it's a huge deal to me that she said they were silent that night.

ETA: The safe.  The blood stain could be from her if she was trying to open the safe to add to the clutter of the scene but could not get it open.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Ohmo

[A.Ham]

Re: last night’s case

I think the wife’s biggest mistake was declining going to the hospital and going to the police instead. She was in a very hazy state and in need of a neurology work up, not a grilling session by incompetent detectives.  She did see a doctor a couple of days later, and lo and behold, they found a hematoma.

I don’t really think she did it. That smug prosecutor. Ugh. Saying there’s “no evidence that anybody else did this”. Well, there’s no evidence the wife did it either,  not beyond reasonable doubt. Also, how could there be any evidence when the police didn’t bother to do the most basic of investigations, no DNA testing or even an interrogation of any other possible suspects.

Then they used the fact that she hald told her doctor she wasn’t having seizures as some kind of proof she had lied. Sure, medications can help to control them, but it's not an absolute fact that she couldn’t ever have one again. There’s a reason she was on medications—to help control seizures. 

I hope the denfese attorney is successful in turning around her conviction.

[cooksdelight]

41 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

ETA: The safe.  The blood stain could be from her if she was trying to open the safe to add to the clutter of the scene but could not get it open.

The safe had the unknown male DNA on the handle. As did the doorknobs and the backpack.

If I hit someone in the head and their body goes into a seizure, then lays still... I’m going to think I killed them. And I’m not smart enough to take a pulse.

[Ohmo]

10 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

The safe had the unknown male DNA on the handle. As did the doorknobs and the backpack.

That only means that a guy touched those things at some point.  Doesn't mean that a guy touched those things that night. 

Another thing about the intruder scenario.  If the intruder manages to leave no significant blood traces or smears anywhere else throughout the house, that is an indication of skill.  The type of crew that would plan and bring stuff to execute this plan.  Yet, Jamie and Sandra were restrained with seemly available items and an XBox is stuffed in a bookbag.  That doesn't match.  A crew with that much skill to not leave a trace as they exit the house doesn't take an Xbox,  The use of the available items points to Sandra and opportunity to use what she had available to stage the scene.

I also found the age of the backpack to be interesting.  It was Lizz's middle school backpack.  Lizz was married and out of the house at the time.  She wasn't in middle school, so it'd be less likely that item would be hanging out in plain view, but it's very likely that it could have been packed away in a place that Sandra would know in order to further stage the scene.

[cooksdelight]

The backpack could have been hanging up in the garage, which was the only available entry point. The husband’s blood was on that handle, with the unknown male DNA. Unless he’d bled at some point previous and tried to open his safe unsuccessfully, there was someone else in the house that night. Also found with the backpack was jewelry and other items.

And what happened to the missing TV?

[Ohmo]

18 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

The husband’s blood was on that handle, with the unknown male DNA.

I just rewound my DVR to be certain.  According to the episode, the blood smear on the handle was not tested for prints or DNA.  There's no indication that we know it was Jamie's blood or anyone else's, and it could have been Sandra's.  I don't agree that it is a certainty that someone else was in that house.

Quote

She did see a doctor a couple of days later, and lo and behold, they found a hematoma.

She's a nurse.  If anyone would know how to injure oneself to make it look good without doing harm, it would be a nurse.  She would also know what a doctor would likely be looking for in an exam.

Also, I can accept that she might have had a seizure, but it's very convenient to me that her memory of anything is gone.  In that case, I'd want her defense team to show me security footage from CVS.  Or interview someone from the parking lot or one of the store workers.  Is there ANY evidence of anyone creepy hanging around at CVS to back up her claim of possibly being followed?  Back again to the neighbor and the dogs.  The neighbor did not like the dogs, so she's more likely to say that they were pains in the butt than not.  The fact that she remembers no noise is telling to me.

[partofme]

I don't understand how the jury convicted.   If she is guilty, there is no evidence and there was potential exculpatory evidence.   There was no evidence of an affair.  Why would she kill him other than she's the wife?

[Ohmo]

15 minutes ago, partofme said:

I don't understand how the jury convicted.  

This won't fully explain that, but there's a short clip of Dennis talking to four of the jurors.  One is like me in that he does not believe anyone else was in the house.  There was also discussion about the validity of Sandra's story based on pictures of the bathtub.

https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline

ETA: You have to scroll down to "The Jury Speaks Out" near the very bottom of the page.  Unfortunately, it's not a direct link.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Ohmo

[Ohmo]

People says the life insurance was $250,000, but there appears to have been some amount of money involved here.

A Daughter’s Outrage After Mom Is Convicted of Murdering Dad in Staged Home Invasion: Why She Says the Verdict Is Wrong

Quote

Not so, prosecutors successfully argued, pointing to Jaime’s $250,000 life insurance policy and the couple’s religious beliefs as Jehovah’s Witness, which made a divorce difficult, as likely motive for murder.

Bizarre Houston murder mystery twists revealed in Dateline episode

Quote

But prosecutors argued that the crime scene didn’t match Sandra Melgar’s story of a home invasion, and instead pointed to a $500,000 life insurance policy as her motivation to murder her husband. A jury agreed and sentenced Sandra Melgar to 27 years in prison.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Ohmo

[LittleIggy]

Strange that, according to her interpretation of her religion, divorce is not is not an option, but murder is! Real screwed up thinking.

Edited January 21, 2018 by LittleIggy
Clarity

[rwgrab]

2 hours ago, Ohmo said:

This won't fully explain that, but there's a short clip of Dennis talking to four of the jurors.  One is like me in that he does not believe anyone else was in the house. 

Yeah, I would recommend that clip as well (it's only about a minute and a half long).  The mentioned how many things they came up with that proved guilt during deliberations, so I have to wonder if this is just a case of Dateline not showing us some of the most compelling evidence from the prosecution's case.  I haven't really researched much on my own to know, but it doesn't sound like to me that the jury didn't take the case seriously at all.

For me, the 3rd party intruder doesn't make a bunch of sense.  Why brutally stab one victim (silently, apparently) and lock another one in a closet?  Or if you think that second victim is dead from a seizure or whatever, why put the chair underneath the doorknob to keep her in?  And if this were really just a robbery, why not just bolt when you encounter the 2 naked people in the bathtub that probably aren't going to chase after you instead of deciding you might as well be murderers instead?

And then the XBOX and the jewelry...I have to wonder if the family didn't do that later on and then tell the cops they found it there.  Here's what I'm thinking: if you're a cop and you're trying to figure out if something's been stolen, you look for electronics first.  You go to the entertainment center.  Wouldn't you notice if an XBOX had been ripped out of there or at least see a hole and ask what used to be there?  So I find it kind of hard to believe that it had been removed and was sitting in the garage that whole time.  Maybe that's a leap, but just a guess.

Edited January 20, 2018 by rwgrab
Added a bit of detail about the doorknob

[Jpxfactor]

I believe her religion was a part of the motive. With him gone she has the house and insurance and is not shunned by her community 

[biakbiak]

8 minutes ago, rwgrab said:

Wouldn't you notice if an XBOX had been ripped out of there or at least see a hole and ask what used to be there?  So I find it kind of hard to believe that it had been removed and was sitting in the garage that whole time

The police work was so shitty that they asked the daughter to do the walk through to come up with what was missing so that was the first person who went through thw home to tell them.

[Jpxfactor]

Why would they lock her in the closet if they thought she was dead.  Also burglars pull drawers out and dump them or empty them all over, just looked soo staged.  She had lots of time to clean up and dispose of evidence 

[Madding crowd]

Since the police work was so shoddy, I don't feel it was right to convict her. I did wonder if it was the ex son in law and he didn't kill her because he was fond of her or knew her medical history and didn't think she was a threat.

[Ohmo]

14 minutes ago, Jpxfactor said:

Why would they lock her in the closet if they thought she was dead.

Along that same line of the closet, the family was supposed to celebrate the next day.  She knew that Jamie's brother and family would be arriving.  An "intruder" locking her in a closet doesn't make much sense if the intruder thought she was dead from a seizure, but a closet is the perfect place to hop into quickly if you want your family to "find" you.  The EMT also testified that she didn't have any restraint marks, and the ones that showed up two days later were fairly light.  I'd expect them to be deeper and less healed if she were restrained for 14+ hours.

Nurses also know how to restrain patients.  I can see her restraining herself and tying them tightly in the short term (15-20 minutes), knowing that people would be arriving to "find" and free her.

[RedheadZombie]

7 hours ago, Jpxfactor said:

It was just a very strong gut feeling from the start.  The robbery looked staged.

Anyone whose sole purpose was to kill Jamie would have just as likely staged a robbery.  I'm choosing to believe the family who found her and how tightly they claim she was tied.  They were family from Jamie's side, and typically the in-laws tend to turn on the accused spouse.  This family has not.

5 hours ago, Ohmo said:

We're gonna sit together because I think she's guilty too.  A couple of things stood out to me:

He's stabbed twelve times.  In comparison, her bruises and red marks looked like nothing to me, even after allowing for a couple of days of healing.  The level of violence doesn't match up.  A supposed intruder is going to fatally stab someone twelve times, yet leave another potential witness almost completely untouched?  Sure, she could have had a seizure, and it could have killed her, but if you're going to stab someone twelve times, don't you at least try and injure the other person as insurance?

This is going to get gross, and I'm sorry, but she's supposedly passed out from a seizure in this closet for what 14+ hours AFTER having drank alcoholic drinks.  Knowing myself when I drink (or even when I don't), "holding it" for 14 hours would be next to impossible, but really impossible after drinking.  Drinking alcohol makes one pee, so if she's incapacitated and caged in the closet, where's the pee?  Even accounting for the stress of a supposed home invasion, I still don't think she could have held it that long without soiling herself in some way. I was looking for a pee stain in the closet.

She's a nurse, which means that she knows anatomy.   I buy some version of the seduction scenario as plausible.  I also agree that the scene didn't look right to me.  It seemed "intentionally messy" but not tossed.

I don't think Lizz's ex had anything to do with it.  They were divorced and even if he wanted whatever loot Jamie and Sandra had, he's going to kill her dad?  That's a leap.

I also believe the neighbor.  If she complained about the dogs all the time, it's a huge deal to me that she said they were silent that night.

ETA: The safe.  The blood stain could be from her if she was trying to open the safe to add to the clutter of the scene but could not get it open.

I'm a nurse - I know anatomy.  The first thing I would know is the easiest way to kill the husband, and that's not by stabbing twelve times.

I don't remember them mentioning if she had been incontinent, and that's something they would have ignored anyway.  The ignored everything that would prove her story was true.

Exes kill their ex-wives and family quite a lot on this type of true crime show.  If he's still involved with drugs, it's even more likely.  I find it pretty plausible that the ex could have broken in (maybe knew where they hid a key outside), gone after the safe, encountered Jamie and tortured him with the knife to get the combination for the safe.  Ended up killing him before he successfully got into the safe.  Found his ex-MIL passed out in her closet, tied her up, and cleaned up the scene the exact same way they're trying to claim the wife did.  Then toss the house for a staged robbery.  He could have left the wife alive because she was already incapacitated and didn't see him.  He could have left her alive because he had residual affection for her.

The neighbor only remembers sleeping well.  That doesn't mean the dogs didn't bark that night.  The wife could have said he got out of the tub to get a snack if she wanted to lie.  Or possibly she remembers Jamie doing that because he had done it so many times before.

I think many people who think she's guilty were influenced by the interview footage.  Her behavior is explained when you understand that she had a seizure and incurred a significant blow on her head.  The killer could have encountered her first and simply knocked her out, but had to get more violent with the stronger male in the house.  Or he knocked her out and was surprised by Jamie so he had to kill him.  It's extremely common for the man of the house to be treated more violently that the female.  Or maybe she received the blow to the head as she fell during a seizure.  Her confusion, withdrawn body language, and inconsistent story actually make me more believing of her story.

To think of all the murderers who've gone free on this show, and this is the one they decide to lock up for life.  It's almost comical.

And while the prosecution rejoiced in pointing out how much time she would have had to clean up the crime scene, that also points out how much time she had to come up with a consistent story.  Yet she couldn't keep her story straight within the same interrogation.  Which is more consistent with a seizure and blow to the head.  Prosecution also pointed out that she had told her doctor she hadn't had seizures later.  Yes, no one has recently had a seizure until they actually do.  If you tell me you haven't had a headache in the past month, it doesn't mean you're  headache free for the rest of your life, and when you next claim a headache that you're a liar.

But the bottom line is this:  Even if she were the killer, the shoddy police work and lack of evidence is more than enough to find her not guilty.

15 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

Along that same line of the closet, the family was supposed to celebrate the next day.  She knew that Jamie's brother and family would be arriving.  An "intruder" locking her in a closet doesn't make much sense if the intruder thought she was dead from a seizure, but a closet is the perfect place to hop into quickly if you want your family to "find" you.  The EMT also testified that she didn't have any restraint marks, and the ones that showed up two days later were fairly light.  I'd expect them to be deeper and less healed if she were restrained for 14+ hours.

Nurses also know how to restrain patients.  I can see her restraining herself and tying them tightly in the short term (15-20 minutes), knowing that people would be arriving to "find" and free her.

Yes, nurses how to restrain patients - with restraints.  They are applied in a certain manner, and tied to the bed frame with a quick release knot.  Which has absolutely nothing in common with the way that she was tied up.  And since she is a nurse, if she was clever enough to fake being tied up, she would have thought of how to mark her arms.

[RedheadZombie]

1 hour ago, rwgrab said:

Yeah, I would recommend that clip as well (it's only about a minute and a half long).  The mentioned how many things they came up with that proved guilt during deliberations, so I have to wonder if this is just a case of Dateline not showing us some of the most compelling evidence from the prosecution's case.  I haven't really researched much on my own to know, but it doesn't sound like to me that the jury didn't take the case seriously at all.

For me, the 3rd party intruder doesn't make a bunch of sense.  Why brutally stab one victim (silently, apparently) and lock another one in a closet?  Or if you think that second victim is dead from a seizure or whatever, why put the chair underneath the doorknob to keep her in?  And if this were really just a robbery, why not just bolt when you encounter the 2 naked people in the bathtub that probably aren't going to chase after you instead of deciding you might as well be murderers instead?

And then the XBOX and the jewelry...I have to wonder if the family didn't do that later on and then tell the cops they found it there.  Here's what I'm thinking: if you're a cop and you're trying to figure out if something's been stolen, you look for electronics first.  You go to the entertainment center.  Wouldn't you notice if an XBOX had been ripped out of there or at least see a hole and ask what used to be there?  So I find it kind of hard to believe that it had been removed and was sitting in the garage that whole time.  Maybe that's a leap, but just a guess.

Considering they didn't even bother to get prints or DNA off the bloody handle of the safe, which was near the dead body, I believe they looked no further for anything that would indicate an intruder.  If they had properly photographed the house, they would have been able to prove the xbox was intact at the time they were there.  Or, Officer Forged Search Warrant disposed of the picture so it couldn't be used to prove the xbox was gone when they documented the scene.  Considering a dirty cop can force retrials of the previously convicted, it's outrageous that the defense wasn't allowed to point out this cop's history.  For all we know, the dirty cop had swiped the xbox and jewelry, and planned to pick it up later.

Edited January 20, 2018 by RedheadZombie
tweaking a sentence.

[Ohmo]

26 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

I think many people who think she's guilty were influenced by the interview footage. 

Actually, the first thing that made me think that she was guilty wasn't her.  It was the condition of the house.  It was a mess, but not a mess in the sense of it being ransacked.  It seemed to me that someone (Sandra) made a giant mess because that's what she thought a robbery was supposedly to look like.  it looked more like she was a slob, not that the house had been robbed.

The second thing was the CVS story.   If her memory is completely gone, from a seizure, then fine.  However, then find me some independent evidence of the existence of possible said creepy guy at CVS.

I do wish that clip  of Dennis interviewing the jurors was a lot longer.  I'd be interested to hear some more of the information that led the jury to reach a guilty verdict.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Ohmo

[biakbiak]

3 minutes ago, Ohmo said:

However, then find me some independent evidence of the existence of possible said creepy guy at CVS.

They didn't seem to look for evidence of anything except for her, including not questioning the family members who found her, the neighbor with a history of burglary or the ex son in law, tgey certainly werent going to go look at security footage.

[Ohmo]

4 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

They didn't seem to look for evidence of anything except for her,

You're talking about the prosecution.  I'm talking about the defense team.   Regardless of what the prosecution does, if the defense team is contending that there was an intruder that could have followed them from CVS and Sandra can't remember details, then the defense team needs to find independent evidence of this theory.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Ohmo

[biakbiak]

Just now, Ohmo said:

You're talking about the prosecution.  I'm talking about the defense team.   Regardless of what the prosecution does, if the defense team is contending that there was an intruder and Sandra can't remember details, then the defense team needs to find independent evidence of this theory.

Any security footage or evidence of a car following them would have long ago been erased, she wasn't arrested and didn't retain counsel until a year and a half after the murder, security tapes aren't retained long at all so I do blame the police for their crappy investigation that followed up on nothing.

[mythoughtis]

I thought the conviction was awful. There was no evidence that she did it/ just a theory.  They didn’t say she hadn’t had a bathroom occurrence in the closet as evidence that she had just put herself in there. They had no evidence that she did put herself in there- just a theory that she could. Seemed like a lot of reasonable doubt to me.  

As a parent of an adult with a seizure disorder.... seizures play havoc with your short term memory. Both before and for hours afterward.   They give you a headache and make you very tired. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t had one for a while- that doesn’t mean you are ‘cured’. It means you are taking your medication and it is currently working. You may forget your medicine, or get sick, or suffer  lack of sleep, or see strobe lights( for some people), or who knows what and bang, there is a seizure. They can be years apart for some people, and minutes for others. There is no cure for a seizure disorder without a known cause. 

If ‘ well she could have done it’ is enough for a conviction.... then let’s pray none of us just happen to walk down a street where a body is later discovered. Or live in the same apartment building as a murder victim. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by mythoughtis

[iMonrey]

Quote

He's stabbed twelve times.  In comparison, her bruises and red marks looked like nothing to me, even after allowing for a couple of days of healing.  The level of violence doesn't match up.  A supposed intruder is going to fatally stab someone twelve times, yet leave another potential witness almost completely untouched?  Sure, she could have had a seizure, and it could have killed her, but if you're going to stab someone twelve times, don't you at least try and injure the other person as insurance?

Well, you make a very good point so now I'm questioning.

Still, I think the fact that she was tied up is hard to explain and I didn't buy the theory of how she did it to herself. Moreover, she had no contingency in place for anyone to find them. It just so happened that her brother in law and niece showed up and found them.

I don't know - as a juror I would have had VERY reasonable doubt.

[Ohmo]

15 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Moreover, she had no contingency in place for anyone to find them. It just so happened that her brother in law and niece showed up and found them.

During the episode, it was stated that Jaime and Sandra were supposed to have celebrated that evening and the family was to join them the next day to celebrate.  There was some plan in place for a family gathering that day.  Jaime's brother's family just didn't show up for an unannounced visit.  Sandra was aware they would be arriving that day.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Ohmo

[glowbug]

Re: Unspeakable

I think the wife's story was very fishy but I would not have convicted because the prosecution didn't make their case. There was definitely reasonable doubt IMO. The police did a really horrible job investigating, and the prosecution provided zero evidence (from what we saw) that she killed him because she wanted out of the marriage and her religion would have shunned her. Of course it's possible this is the case but in order to convict someone of murder I would need some evidence that she wanted out of the marriage and that she was worried about being shunned. I would also need some evidence to prove that she lured him into the bedroom for sex and that's how she got him killed. It's possible but just because something is possible doesn't make it true. The police definitely had blinders on and they should have exhausted all leads to rule out those other suspects. Because they didn't there was ample reasonable doubt in this case. 

[AZChristian]

I think she did it.  Did the police department do a great job of investigation?  No. 

But it's the little things: 

• Did she urinate in the closet during her 14 hours of captivity?  Not that we were told.
• Were there substantial ligature marks on her arms (in other words, did she struggle at all to get out of the wrist ties)?  All reports were of light bruising two days after she was freed.
• I was wondering whether, upon the ties being cut, was she even able to move her arms?  They should have been stiff and painful due to lack of blood flow.  
• And the bottom line is:  Why would they leave a potential witness alive when they kill the husband?

[cooksdelight]

@AZChristian, to answer your points...

• We don’t know if she urniated or not. It was never mentioned, and it would have been a good point to bring up.

• If she were knocked out from either a blow on the head or a seizure, she wouldn’t move.

• We were never told of the condition of her arms once untied. Another good point that the show failed to hit upon.

• The killer didn’t know if she were alive or dead. He/she supposed that the wife was dead, locked her in the closet with the chair holding the door shut. Or, as others have wondered, if it were the former son-in-law, he might not have had a beef with her, just with the husband.

It really bugs me that the police never followed up and interrogated the son-in-law or the criminal neighbor.

[AZChristian]

2 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

@AZChristian, to answer your points...

• We don’t know if she urniated or not. It was never mentioned, and it would have been a good point to bring up.

• If she were knocked out from either a blow on the head or a seizure, she wouldn’t move.

• We were never told of the condition of her arms once untied. Another good point that the show failed to hit upon.

• The killer didn’t know if she were alive or dead. He/she supposed that the wife was dead, locked her in the closet with the chair holding the door shut. Or, as others have wondered, if it were the former son-in-law, he might not have had a beef with her, just with the husband.

It really bugs me that the police never followed up and interrogated the son-in-law or the criminal neighbor.

Why?  If he/she supposed that the wife was dead, why not just leave her out there in the room?  Why tie her up and lock her into a closet?  Logic is that it should have been an "all or nothing" scenario.  If one is killed - and the motive is robbery - why not kill both?  Robbers don't usually have a beef with a homeowner - they just want the stuff.  Killing happens when a homeowner resists.  But the robbers then tend to kill everyone, not just one person.  They particularly don't go to the trouble of tying up a second adult and locking them in a closet.  

And - again - I agree that the police botched the investigation.  But I think that if they had done everything right, they would have arrested the same person.

[biakbiak]

22 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

And - again - I agree that the police botched the investigation.  But I think that if they had done everything right, they would have arrested the same person

How many people are in prison where police did "better" police work and later through testing of similar evidence that hasn't been tested been exonerated? Our judicial process isn't the person arrested or put on trial is guilty its that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a resonable doub and their seems a lot of reasonable doubt because of the police's ridiciously shitty from moment one. 

[Lizzing]

Logic doesn't always rule the minds of home invader murderers, which is why I mentioned the Cheshire murders in my prior comment.  In that case, two perps did a home invasion with just robbery in mind at first. They encountered the husband first, beat him profusely with a bat, tied him up in the basement and locked him in. Then they robbed the house, got the wife to go to the bank the next day for money, took her back home and they killed her, and doused her & the daughters with gas and set them on fire. Meanwhile, the husband came to and escaped.  (That's the gist; I skipped over some of the disturbing parts.). The point is that while it may defy sense to just tie up one seemingly dead homeowner and straight up murder the other, it can and has happened. 

The repeat episode last night was actually a good example of police work; from first blush it looked like the victim's daughter was the killer. She stood to inherit, had a key to her mom's house, found the body, pulled out the knife, bought cleaning supplies by her mom's house, and acted "weird" around the cops.  But the cops didn't stop and kept looking at everyone who had a motive, and thus caught the real killer. 

Even assuming that, had the police in this case done a proper investigation, they ended up with the same conclusion, that is no reason not to do the work.  It bolsters the prosecution's case, helps foster an appearance of competency  and fairness in the justice system that the public can trust, and cuts down on appeal costs. As it stands now, given the abysmal police work in this case, the cop lying to get search warrants, and the past running of the DA's office under Kelly Siegler, there is no way in hell I'd go anywhere near Harris County.

[Ohmo]

1 hour ago, AZChristian said:

Logic is that it should have been an "all or nothing" scenario.  If one is killed - and the motive is robbery - why not kill both?

Yes, and it doesn't track that with Jamie, the "intruder" stabs Jamie twelve times.  That number would be an indication that the "intruder" wanted to be sure Jamie was dead.  Yet, the "intruder" is going to be certain enough that a seizure took care of Sandra and killed her?  That's an awful lot of confidence about killing one victim but not the other.

Another thing.  I understand that a potential seizure could have really messed up her memory, but she could supposedly recall bits and pieces of things from before the attack.  They went to CVS, they bought mixers.  They were eating strawberries.  Yet, there are no bits of recall after the supposed attack.  No recollection of any type of voices or events.  Everything is blank in terms of details of an altercation.  That's very convenient.

Quote

They encountered the husband first, beat him profusely with a bat, tied him up in the basement and locked him in. Then they robbed the house, got the wife to go to the bank the next day for money, took her back home and they killed her, and doused her & the daughters with gas and set them on fire. Meanwhile, the husband came to and escaped.

But even in that example, you said they beat the husband profusely.  I can see why those intruders probably thought he was dead.  Sandra's injuries did not look anywhere close to that to me.  The red marks were fainter than I would have expected after supposedly being held for that length of time.  She had the bump on her head, some bruising around her eye, and no restraint marks according to the EMT at the scene.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Ohmo

[sinycalone]

What a contrast in police procedures and investigation between last night's show about the woman murdered in Rockland Co., NY and the "home invasion" murder we've been discussing.  The detectives last night thought the daughter probably had committed the murder....but did not want to stop investigating.   They did question neighbors, friends, etc....got court orders for wiretaps, etc.  Even though the son and daughter-in-law lived in the Miami area -- and had claimed to be in Miami (son and kids) and Wash. DC. (daughter-in-law - to attend a wedding) -- the detectives kept digging.  The d-i-l was in DC - they had videos of her at the airport and getting into a car outside that airport.  However, using cell phone records (using a Westchester Co. NY phone specialist)....they became very suspicious.  They were even able to track the disposable phone linked to her actual cell phone...which I thought was amazing.

The d-i-l was an idiot -- she told a complete stranger (the one who picked her up at the DC airport) she was planning on murdering her m-i-l.  She gave her $10K to assist with that plan...and drive her to Rockland Co.  Needless to say the "stranger" ratted her out when confronted with evidence they had compiled.

[rwgrab]

20 hours ago, biakbiak said:

The police work was so shitty that they asked the daughter to do the walk through to come up with what was missing so that was the first person who went through thw home to tell them.

I'm just curious, here.  Why is it bad detective work for the police to have somebody familiar with the house and its contents take a look and identify anything that might be missing?  I think that's what you would want the police to do to see if anything looks out of place.

[ButterQueen]

I think the wife killed Jaime.  I read he had 500,000 in life insurance.  

I would have convicted her.

2 hours ago, biakbiak said:

How many people are in prison where police did "better" police work and later through testing of similar evidence that hasn't been tested been exonerated? Our judicial process isn't the person arrested or put on trial is guilty its that the prosecution has to prove their case beyond a resonable doub and their seems a lot of reasonable doubt because of the police's ridiciously shitty from moment one. 

I didn't think it was a shitty investigation.

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, ButterQueen said:

I think the wife killed Jaime.  I read he had 500,000 in life insurance.  

I would have convicted her.

I didn't think it was a shitty investigation.

Even the prosecution said that it wasnt good, the lead detective was under investigation and ey didnt test the bloody fingerprint on the safe in the bedroom where he was murdered. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by biakbiak

[ButterQueen]

Just now, biakbiak said:

Even the prosecution said that it wasnt good, the lead detective was under investigation and they didnt test the bloody fingerprint on the safe in the house.

I know that.  I still don't call that a shitty investigation.  

[biakbiak]

4 minutes ago, ButterQueen said:

I know that.  I still don't call that a shitty investigation.  

You don't call not testing a bloody fingerprint on a safe a foot from the dead body where they insisted the wife was meticulous in cleaning ever aspect of the crime scene not shitty? What possible explanation for not testimg a bloody fingerprint that existed when they took during initial crime scene photos.

Edited January 21, 2018 by biakbiak

[ButterQueen]

2 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

You don't call not testing a bloody fingerprint on a safe a foot from the dead body where they insisted the wife was meticulous in cleaning ever aspect of the crime scene not shitty? What possible explanation for not testimg a bloody fingerprint that existed when they took during initial crime scene photos.

I'm not saying the investigation was perfect.  However, there was enough evidence....for me...to believe she's guilty.

[biakbiak]

26 minutes ago, rwgrab said:

I'm just curious, here.  Why is it bad detective work for the police to have somebody familiar with the house and its contents take a look and identify anything that might be missing?  I think that's what you would want the police to do to see if anything looks out of place.

She was literally living in Europe with her new husbamd and had to fly in. She wasn't familiar with the house. You are the one who questioned how the x box was found so late but it was the first family member who did a walk through to tell the police what was missing.

7 minutes ago, ButterQueen said:

I'm not saying the investigation was perfect.  However, there was enough evidence....for me...to believe she's guilty.

Which is fine that you think she is guilty. That doesn't mean a case without a reasonable doubt was presented which is how our justice system works and missing bloody fingerprints on the safe that aren't tested is criminally bad investigative work.

Edited January 21, 2018 by biakbiak

[cooksdelight]

22 minutes ago, rwgrab said:

I'm just curious, here.  Why is it bad detective work for the police to have somebody familiar with the house and its contents take a look and identify anything that might be missing?  I think that's what you would want the police to do to see if anything looks out of place.

A cop should have been with her. She was alone, from what I got from the show, and that is the epitome of a lazy cop and a shitty investigation. They never questioned the former son-in-law, who I think is the real guilty party here. His ex-wife was Daddy’s Little Girl (her words) and probably helped the daughter to dump his ass. Perfect way to get revenge is to kill Daddy.

[AZChristian]

44 minutes ago, cooksdelight said:

A cop should have been with her. She was alone, from what I got from the show, and that is the epitome of a lazy cop and a shitty investigation. 

Shades of JonBenet Ramsay.  They wanted to keep John (one of the most likely perpetrators) busy, so they send him around the house to look for anything out of place.  At which point, he finds her body.  

[rwgrab]

1 hour ago, biakbiak said:

She was literally living in Europe with her new husbamd and had to fly in. She wasn't familiar with the house. You are the one who questioned how the x box was found so late but it was the first family member who did a walk through to tell the police what was missing.

Thanks for explaining your take on it.  For me, I would think that any family member would be more familiar with the house than a detective who had just arrived.  So even if she didn't live there, she's still a better judge of how the place usually looked.  I'm not defending the police's investigation as sound, but I am saying that seemed like a very good choice to me to ask a relative about the state of the house.