General True Crime Shows

[nokat]

9 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

I wonder if the jurors who acquitted Sam Little felt guilty after learning he killed other people?

I know I would have. Being a juror is a heavy burden, and if there is doubt, you say no.
 

[LuvMyShows]

What an awful family situation on Cold Justice's recent episode "A Family's Nightmare".  And then the SOB had the nerve to paint himself as the victim because of living for so long under a cloud of suspicion!

Also, can't remember which show (and the crime actually was solved), but the detective was describing one of the earlier suspects who was cleared that had showed up early at the crime scene.  He said that if the suspect had been guilty, he never would have showed up at the scene, and instead would have stayed as far away from the scene as possible.  I guess the detective hasn't seen the murders that we have, because I have gotten to the point that if a person decides to take someone with them to go check on someone that they are concerned about, I will absolutely suspect that person of being guilty, because we have seen that sooo many times.  They think it will throw suspicion off of them because that other person will be a witness to their 'shocked' reaction upon finding the victim dead, and because they hope the detectives will be thinking like this detective did.

[Razzberry]

On 4/22/2020 at 7:29 PM, LuvMyShows said:

Disclaimer:  Kathleen's murder hasn't been solved, so it could turn out that it really wasn't the serial killer, in which case I retract my disgust! 

I didn't agree with Holes' expert on that either. She kept insisting that the killer was someone she knew, but the crime was too bizarre and fetishy.

[funky-rat]

On 4/18/2020 at 11:39 PM, badhaggis said:

Did anyone see "Raw Terror" last Sunday. I liked that the parents got to tell their own story. Apparently their daughter did not light up the room. The mother's voice in the teaser for this week is driving me up the wall.

Was that the one who had a baby at 15, then married a guy who mistreated her and had more kids with him, then got Cancer and started sleeping with the boyfriend of her BFF who took care of her?  Her mom made a LOT of excuses for her, and it made me mad that her mother blames herself for her being killed.  It was NOT her fault.  She shouldn't have been sleeping wither her BFF's man.  No, she didn't deserve to get killed - I am NOT saying that - but her mother will forever beat herself up for that when she didn't do anything wrong.

[badhaggis]

Just now, funky-rat said:

Was that the one who had a baby at 15, then married a guy who mistreated her and had more kids with him, then got Cancer and started sleeping with the boyfriend of her BFF who took care of her?  Her mom made a LOT of excuses for her, and it made me mad that her mother blames herself for her being killed.  It was NOT her fault.  She shouldn't have been sleeping wither her BFF's man.  No, she didn't deserve to get killed - I am NOT saying that - but her mother will forever beat herself up for that when she didn't do anything wrong.

That was the second episode. I agree there was a plethora of bad choices that created that outcome. I wrote this after the first episode. The first episode was about Valerie Tieman. I really admired her parents.

The second episode not so much. I'm sorry the mom's voice and excuses for her daughter really got on my last nerve.

[funky-rat]

16 minutes ago, badhaggis said:

That was the second episode. I agree there was a plethora of bad choices that created that outcome. I wrote this after the first episode. The first episode was about Valerie Tieman. I really admired her parents.

The second episode not so much. I'm sorry the mom's voice and excuses for her daughter really got on my last nerve.

Yeah, I felt bad for them.  When you said she "didn't light up a room", I thought you mean the 2nd one.  The excessive excuses told me that her mom had been bailing her out of one bad decision after another.  Again, not saying she deserved what she got - not at all - but she would have been destined for some sort of tragedy at some point.

[LuvMyShows]

So I figured out some of the reason why Deadly Recall seems so much more boring than the other shows.  At least with the most recent episode, the entire first half of the show was spent with Postiglione describing the crime scene and the victim's position, and also with friends/relatives describing the victims.  Since his recall is part of the premise, I guess that's why they spent so much time on it, but it doesn't make it interesting, and it doesn't move the plot forward.

[auntjess]

On 5/1/2020 at 6:53 PM, LuvMyShows said:

So I figured out some of the reason why Deadly Recall seems so much more boring than the other shows.  At least with the most recent episode, the entire first half of the show was spent with Postiglione describing the crime scene and the victim's position, and also with friends/relatives describing the victims.  Since his recall is part of the premise, I guess that's why they spent so much time on it, but it doesn't make it interesting, and it doesn't move the plot forward.

Ah, I like this one, and others that move along rapidly, like It Takes a Killer, because of the pace.
I don't like all the friends and family praising the person.
On shows like Recall, I'm not tempted to google and/or fast-forward.
 

[geekgirl921]

Did anyone watch Diabolical last night? Boy, those two friends were twisting themselves into knots to argue that the guy couldn't have done it!!

[ApplesandPears]

On 4/7/2020 at 4:22 PM, LuvMyShows said:

Watched the new show on ID, If I Should Die.  The first episode, Unfinished Business, was about a 15-year old girl who disappeared and was found murdered.  She had snuck out of the house, so the police knew the crime scene wasn't her house, so therefore they decided there was no need to check her house...including her bedroom!!!!!  Every show I've ever seen about such disappearances, they ALWAYS check the house, and especially for minors they check the bedroom, for clues about where the person might have gone.  So who could possibly have expected that when the mom finally got up the courage to look in her daughter's bedroom, she found the girl's diary, which broke the case wide open.

There was also one weird thing about the show.  When the show was reading from her diary, it was mostly done in the young female voiceover that had been narrating from the perspective of the dead girl.  But then, it would alternate with the lead male detective on the case, and he was reading her words, which was very very disconcerting.  And then he would sometimes immediately go into his regular detective narration right after having been saying the girl's words from the diary, but the transition wasn't clear, which was very confusing.

The second episode was Vanished in Virginia, which was the Taylor Behl murder.  Different franchises stress different things when they do the same murder, and this one stressed a lot of what the VCU campus police did, or didn't do, and it was appalling.  The VCU police kept telling the mom that she was just a college student who went away for a few days.  Even after she was gone for 10 days, they STILL were planning to just shelve it until she showed back up (and then presumably work on the kidnapping, murder, or whatever AFTER the body or the live person shows back up?).  WTAF?  Fortunately, it eventually got assigned to the 'real' police detectives.  But IIRC, both the campus police and the detectives accepted Ben Fawley's 'alibi' that he was robbed, beaten up, and kidnapped by unknown people on the night of Taylor's murder, and they didn't look into him ANY further.  How on earth do you not think to yourself, "Wow, that is certainly a bizarre AF alibi.  How often does THAT happen?  Let's look at it, and him, more closely."  But nope, they were like, "I'm good.  No questions whatsoever about his story" and moved on to other suspects. But even if his story were true, they hadn't narrowed down the timeframe of her disappearance/murder yet, so he still could have done something to Taylor before or after his 'kidnapping'.  So no matter how you view it, it is NOT an alibi!  

I watched maybe two or three episodes on the DVR and had to stop watching it.  I'm used to watching crimes shows, but this show just got to me and I had to switch it off.

[ApplesandPears]

On 5/1/2020 at 5:53 PM, LuvMyShows said:

So I figured out some of the reason why Deadly Recall seems so much more boring than the other shows.  At least with the most recent episode, the entire first half of the show was spent with Postiglione describing the crime scene and the victim's position, and also with friends/relatives describing the victims.  Since his recall is part of the premise, I guess that's why they spent so much time on it, but it doesn't make it interesting, and it doesn't move the plot forward.

Yeah, I won't be watching it again.  It was half of the episode just explaining things.  I'm glad he's a determined detective though or was since I guess he retired.

[auntjess]

What was the case that there were a couple of specials on, a few years ago?  
Not the Golden State killer.
I remember some experts writing things on a blackboard, and I think it was messages the killer had left, or sent.

[andromeda331]

Watching that old Forensic Files episode where the husband kills his wife and blames it on "sleepwalking". The doctor that testified for him was idiot and smug. Nope she's completely convinced that he was sleepwalking and he had no reason to watch to kill his wife. Well she wanted a divorce Dr. and I don't know if you noticed. Spouses kill each other for that. She's absolutely certain that her determination was correct. Well, he managed to an amazing amount of things while "sleepwalking" get dressed, go downstairs, stab his wife, change his clothes, put on a bandaid, put up a knife and his bloody clothes in a bag and in his car go, quiet their dog, go out see she's not dead yet and roll her into the pool and hold her head down. She's all why would he do that? Ah, to get away with murder? Also, she leaves out the biggest problem with his claim or the part that would at least make the most sense to question it. His neighbor saw most of the crime. He saw him change his clothes, heard moaning and went to check it out and saw him role his wife into the pool and hold her head underwater and called the cops. The one thing he couldn't anticipate. When the cops showed up he had to say something since he was just witnessed killing his wife. That seems like a big thing to throw his credibility in doubt. Nope she's still convinced science failed. You keep thinking that. Its not surprising the jury went with the witness who saw everything and how much that he managed to do while sleepwalking. The only thing the neighbor missed was him stabbing his wife a bunch of times. 

[LuvMyShows]

Watched the new ID show "My Family's Deadly Secret".  All through the first three episodes, I kept waiting for the big reveal of the family's secret that caused the deadly crimes to occur.  But there never was one.  So I guess the 'secret' is just that the crime ended up occurring in the family, and not that there was some family secret that was revealed and explained why something deadly actually happened.

The first episode of the show featured some more bad detective work.  A murder occurred in a very small town, to a nephew who had recently been added to the will of his dying uncle, and the uncle cut out his own son from the will at that point.  So the son had a big motive and very few other people had motives.  A baseball cap was found in the dead guy's truck, with a hair that had come from a monkey!  That's kind of unusual, right?  And the dead guy didn't own a monkey.  So maybe the cops could see if any of the people close to the dead guy have a pet monkey, or even see if anybody in the small town has a pet monkey or knows who has a pet monkey?  Nope.  And what a surprise, guess who actually had a pet monkey?  The wife of the guy with the motive!

In the third episode, we have to be thankful for stupid criminals.  A woman was about to have custody change and she would have to let her ex start having unsupervised visits with their child, which she did not want to do.  Up until then, the supervised visits occurred with the grandmother (the woman's mother) as the supervising person.  So at the very last supervised visit, which took place inside a small church, in a very remote part of town, with no one else was around, the ex and his new wife were gunned down when they exited the church (the child was still inside with the grandmother).  How much more obvious could the woman have made it, that she was the one behind the murders?

Finally, I was confused about something in the recent Paula Zahn episode.  A woman had been murdered in an apartment complex.  Police said that the knives used had come from the apt, but the rope used had not come from the apt so the person must have brought it.  They also said she wasn't raped.  When they finally solved it, the perp was the property mgr of the apt complex (I think), and he said that he had gone there to rape her.  I'm pretty sure he said that he did rape her, and he gave no indication that he brought a rope with him.  The show didn't address either of these inconsistencies, so it left me confused.  I also don't think they explained why he ended up killing her in the first place, instead of just raping her.

[nokat]

I'm kind of liking the Raw Terror show. No cheesy reenactments.  Just the people who loved them talking about and celebrating a life.

[LuvMyShows]

The first Accident, Suicide or Murder of the season was heartbreaking.  It just seems sooo implausible that there could be so many wounds to someone's back and it would be a suicide.  The cops on the scene said that the absence of defensive wounds indicated suicide, but there hadn't even been an autopsy yet, which could have shown she was drugged and therefore unable to defend herself.  That wasn't the case, it turns out, but the cops at the time didn't know that, and it really seems like that first uninformed opinion/ruling by the cops is what doomed everything from that time forward.

i'm liking the new The Killer Truth on HLN.  It moves at a good pace, and you get a different narration from each of the 5 different people.

[Annber03]

5 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

The first Accident, Suicide or Murder of the season was heartbreaking.  It just seems sooo implausible that there could be so many wounds to someone's back and it would be a suicide.  The cops on the scene said that the absence of defensive wounds indicated suicide, but there hadn't even been an autopsy yet, which could have shown she was drugged and therefore unable to defend herself.  That wasn't the case, it turns out, but the cops at the time didn't know that, and it really seems like that first uninformed opinion/ruling by the cops is what doomed everything from that time forward.

That was such a bizarre story. I agree with you on the implausibility of it being a suicide. I mean, yeah, there have been occasional examples of really unusual suicides, but...I find it very hard to believe that if someone really wanted to kill themselves, they'd stab themselves THAT many times in the back of the neck/head, and not let any of those wounds be fatal ones, only to then turn around and stab themselves in the front. That just doesn't make any sort of logical sense whatsoever. Most people who want to kill themselves with a knife, they'll just slash their wrists and be done with it. 

The only other even remotely plausible explanation, if they're trying to argue that she did this to herself and they kept bringing up her issues with anxiety and seeing the therapist and taking the medication and whatnot, is that maybe, maybe there's a line of thought about how it wasn't so much a suicide, per se, as a weird psychotic break that led her to stab herself that many times? Even then, though, I still don't think her body would've landed in such a "neat" position afterward, and I would still imagine one of those stab wounds to the back would've been enough to, at the very least, incapacitate her, if not outright kill her. 

And the stuff with the lack of a break in and the fact that the security cameras didn't catch anyone that wasn't a resident of the place...well, to me, that would indicate, if this was murder, that the killer was likely someone she knew and/or was familiar enough with the building's setup to know how to sneak in and out or something. But it didn't seem like that was ever much of a consideration for the investigators. 

But yeah, the police investigation was hideously inept. The lady who couldn't even remember if she'd had a bill for her analysis of the piece of spinal cord, and what's more, couldn't even remember if she'd done the analysis at all...WTF? That's just freaking weird. I very much sympathize with the parents' frustration at how badly all of this was handled, and I hope they'll finally be able to get the kind of investigation and help they deserve to figure out just what the hell went on here. 

As for other shows, was watching the "Deadly Cults" episode on Heaven's Gate tonight, and it was perhaps the most chilling and sad take on that story I've heard. My heart broke for Gail's poor family, feeling so helpless to try and get her away from them. 

I also really liked the detective they interviewed, Rick Scully (couldn't help being a bit amused at that particular choice of last name, given the weird sci-fi-ish element to this story). His analysis of what he saw and the way this cult operated was very interesting, and I felt for him, too, because it was clear how much this particular crime scene (understandably) haunted him. First he has to go to the actual scene of horror itself, and then he has to watch all those tapes, and see all these people just happily talking about how they're preparing to die. Damn. 

The way they went into detail of just how methodically this was all planned out was so creepy, too. I kept wondering about those patches they had-who made them? Was it someone in the group? Did they go to a place where those kinds of things were made? If so, did the person(s) making the patches ever wonder why they were making so many that said "Heaven's Gate: Away Team"? 

Same with the waiter who took their order when they went out to eat that last day. They all ordered the exact same thing and were all dressed so similarly. Did the waiter find that at all odd? You just wonder what might've happened if somebody, upon noticing them out in public in those final days, found their behavior unusual enough to say something. 

The stuff about the plastic bags, though, and the fact that there were people standing around watching others die before they took their turn. I mean, that's just...wow. 

Yeah. That series is both fascinating and utterly horrifying. It's just so scary the things some people can manipulate others into believing and doing. 

[BloggerAloud]

I have been watching reruns of the ID show Obsessions: Dark Desires and it sometimes reaches places of unintentional dark comedy with some of the truly bizarre choices the victims on the show make. The episode  where a woman develops an entire relationship with a man online without ever speaking to him and going to meet in person and having her baby stolen not once BUT TWICE by the same scammer was so wild. Like I don't know whether to laugh at the sheer insanity or cry over someone who clearly was so desperate for affection that they overlooked any red flag of danger.

[Tabbygirl521]

On 5/18/2020 at 8:16 AM, BloggerAloud said:

I have been watching reruns of the ID show Obsessions: Dark Desires and it sometimes reaches places of unintentional dark comedy with some of the truly bizarre choices the victims on the show make. The episode  where a woman develops an entire relationship with a man online without ever speaking to him and going to meet in person and having her baby stolen not once BUT TWICE by the same scammer was so wild. Like I don't know whether to laugh at the sheer insanity or cry over someone who clearly was so desperate for affection that they overlooked any red flag of danger.

That girl was a MORON. I first saw this quite a few months ago and I still can’t get over her. She is so lucky the cousin who drove her on the second trip was not some kind of pedo/weirdo (he had been duped too, as I recall).  I belong to a FB group for people who enjoy true crime shows and every time this one airs, the group goes insane.

ETA: Come to think of it, I may have seen this on Web of Lies. The girl lived in Washington State and was lured to Spokane to meet the non-existent love connection. Same case? 

Edited May 20, 2020 by Tabbygirl521

[Andyourlittledog2]

Did anybody know that there are going to be nine at nine starting Memorial Day on ID channel?  Did you know that?  Did you know?  (If I see that commercial one more time I may scream.)

It does seem bizarre, however, that in a string of names of serial killers for the nine at nine shows Brittany Murphy's name suddenly pops up in the middle there.  It's jarring.

On another note: at this point anyone who commits a crime while carrying their cell phone is a moron. Double moron points for those who text the crime details or planning etc on their cell phones. It's 2020, You'd think folks would have figured that out by now.

[Annber03]

55 minutes ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

On another note: at this point anyone who commits a crime while carrying their cell phone is a moron. Double moron points for those who text the crime details or planning etc on their cell phones. It's 2020, You'd think folks would have figured that out by now.

Oh, god, I saw a show last week, I think it was, about this woman whose husband had been murdered, and come to find out that, surprise, surprise, she was having an affair with the local pastor.

The day of the murder, she and her lover were constantly calling and texting each other, up to and after she and her husband were leaving church services ('cause WWJD, right?) and driving home. And the lover claimed he was in a whole other town that evening, but cell phone records proved otherwise. 

Just. Yeah. The investigators will check this stuff, people. You literally can't go anywhere or do anything nowadays without your cell phone/online activities and such being tracked and recorded and monitored along the way. Like you said, how do people still not understand this? 

At the very least, maybe try not discussing your murder plans on the day of the murder itself. 

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

Did anybody know that there are going to be nine at nine starting Memorial Day on ID channel?  Did you know that?  Did you know?  (If I see that commercial one more time I may scream.)

It does seem bizarre, however, that in a string of names of serial killers for the nine at nine shows Brittany Murphy's name suddenly pops up in the middle there.  It's jarring.

On another note: at this point anyone who commits a crime while carrying their cell phone is a moron. Double moron points for those who text the crime details or planning etc on their cell phones. It's 2020, You'd think folks would have figured that out by now.

 

4 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Oh, god, I saw a show last week, I think it was, about this woman whose husband had been murdered, and come to find out that, surprise, surprise, she was having an affair with the local pastor.

The day of the murder, she and her lover were constantly calling and texting each other, up to and after she and her husband were leaving church services ('cause WWJD, right?) and driving home. And the lover claimed he was in a whole other town that evening, but cell phone records proved otherwise. 

Just. Yeah. The investigators will check this stuff, people. You literally can't go anywhere or do anything nowadays without your cell phone/online activities and such being tracked and recorded and monitored along the way. Like you said, how do people still not understand this? 

At the very least, maybe try not discussing your murder plans on the day of the murder itself. 

I can't believe how many still do that either. Cellphones can be traced, everyone knows that. They can ping the cell towers and noticed if your cellphone was right where the shooting or dead body was found. In one the cops were able to see the victim get into the car. So both cellphones pinged together all the way to place where she was shot, and down to where he dumped her body. Just her body not her cellphone. So it continued to ping along side his on the way home until at some point it was turned off. I've mentioned before the two idiots to claimed they were calling and texting each other all night long so he couldn't have killed his girlfriend when the cellphones showed they were in the guy's living room all night long and the detective laughing at the idea of two guys sitting beside each other texting all night. How many text messages end up revealing the entire murder plot. That's the reason burner phones were invented. Although that also assumes their not stupid with burner phones. Like the idiot on Forensic Files II who called the burner from his cell to make sure it worked. And yet case after case their always shocked that the police were able to learn all that from their cellphones. Yeah how shocking. Its only be around fifteen or twenty years. 

[auntjess]

22 hours ago, Andyourlittledog2 said:

On another note: at this point anyone who commits a crime while carrying their cell phone is a moron. Double moron points for those who text the crime details or planning etc on their cell phones. It's 2020, You'd think folks would have figured that out by now.

My favorite dumb move, was the guy who'd put a GPS tracker on his wife's car, and removed it.
The cops recognized the hanger thingy, looked up the tracking on his computer, and found that after he'd removed, as he walked back he was dropping things like bloody gloves, weapon, etc.

 

[LuvMyShows]

Finally, a Deadly Recall episode that held my attention!  Postiglione didn't spend forever describing the crime scene, and there was a lot of interesting legwork involved in him solving the murder.  Couldn't help but notice that the way he solved the murder, was by seeking out other murders nationwide that might be similar.  He found one several states away, with similar details, but really not outstandingly unique details, yet it turned out to be the same guy.  Contrast that with the idiocy I posted about, where there were two murders in the SAME CITY, where the victims had been killed in one room of the house and then taken to the bed in the master bedroom, with items placed in their orifices, and a chair placed near the bed as though to watch, and some expert thought there was no connection between those two murders.  SMH 

[Tdoc72]

On 5/20/2020 at 10:49 PM, Andyourlittledog2 said:

 

On another note: at this point anyone who commits a crime while carrying their cell phone is a moron. Double moron points for those who text the crime details or planning etc on their cell phones. It's 2020, You'd think folks would have figured that out by now.

Nah, they’re so smart they’ll never get caught. They won’t even be suspects, their stories are so good. 🙄

[Brattinella]

Paula Zahn, please work on appearing less ghoulish and bloodthirsty, okay?

 

[Vivigirl10]

I can't seem to find a forum for "Filthy Rich", the four part Netflix documentary on Jeffrey Epstein.  Is there one?

Thanks for the answer, Josette!

Edited June 3, 2020 by Kiki620

[Josette]

 

1 hour ago, Kiki620 said:

I can't seem to find a forum for "Filthy Rich", the four part Netflix documentary on Jeffrey Epstein.  Is there one?

Here it is under Specials, TV Movies & Other One-Offs.

[Annber03]

Okay, this episode of "The Case That Haunts Me" that's on right now is super disturbing. It's a two-parter, and I am learning WAY more about the online cannibalism world than I ever wanted to know. The investigator discussing this case can barely even discuss certain aspects of it, it's so fucked up. 

So, yeah. Warning anyone else who might be planning to watch this or something. 

[Andyourlittledog2]

I watched that The Case That Haunts Me. I have watched a ton of crime TV but nothing has creeped me out more than that case.  I mean, international cannibalism, a cannibal website, serial murderer, the whole thing. And the things they did describe were awful enough I cannot imagine (fortunately) what was too awful to describe for the episode. Good Gawd. 

I liked the detectives though, especially the narrator. He was so deadly serious at all times. There was just something so utterly human about that detective while at the same time wonderfully diligent and competent.

What I find fascinating, having watched a ton of non-US crime TV, real and fictional, is how non-US cops just break into homes when no one is home, bug them, clone their computers, wire them for video and sound, and then sneak out without seeming to be at all concerned about the legality of it, which of course, means it's legal there. No talk about warrants and meeting standards of probable cause, they just go in and look around, take things, set up trackers on cars, etc. On US shows they always talk about getting warrants and probable cause and judges signing things etc. On non-US shows nary a peep.

[Andyourlittledog2]

I was watching something yesterday although I don't remember which show, but an interchange occurred that I've heard a dozen times on these kinds of shows:

Accused interviewee: 'I didn't do it!'

Detective: 'We'll decide whether you did it or not.'

That is such a weird response. I read it as, 'It doesn't matter whether you did it; if we decide you did it then you did it and we'll arrest and prosecute you regardless.'

On some of these shows the detectives do seem a little pig-headed and tunnel-visioned.

[Fable]

Thanks for the heads up @Annber03.  I was actually thinking of watching some ID shows again, but maybe I'll skip this one.  I really haven't watched much true crime since the quarantine started.  I've been sticking to crosswords and jigsaw puzzles.  I really can't face too much reality right now.,  

[Annber03]

You're welcome, @Fable. I completely get that. Watching true crime shows in the wake of current events is especially tough, for a whole host of reasons, so yeah, I can understand the need for a break. 

On 6/4/2020 at 3:58 PM, Andyourlittledog2 said:

I watched that The Case That Haunts Me. I have watched a ton of crime TV but nothing has creeped me out more than that case.  I mean, international cannibalism, a cannibal website, serial murderer, the whole thing. And the things they did describe were awful enough I cannot imagine (fortunately) what was too awful to describe for the episode. Good Gawd. 

Right? I can imagine that case led to quite a few sleepless nights and nightmares for all involved. I appreciate them wanting to be respectful of the victim and his family by not going into such graphic detail. 

Quote

I liked the detectives though, especially the narrator. He was so deadly serious at all times. There was just something so utterly human about that detective while at the same time wonderfully diligent and competent.

Agreed. It was clear how much this case affected him, yet he was so matter-of-fact and direct when talking about it all. His compassion for the victims and their loved ones came through loud and clear. 

Edited June 6, 2020 by Annber03

[SunnyBeBe]

I've been taking a little break from ID lately.  I've already seen so much of it and am enjoying watching a lot on Amazon, Netflix, HBO and Reelz, especially the documentaries, Filthy Rich, Leaving Neverland, and Heart Of Gold, about the women's gymnastics sex abuse scandal.   The threads for those shows aren't as active as this one is though, so, it's not as much discussion.  I miss that. 

[LuvMyShows]

Watched The Killer Truth episode "A Killing in Kansas", and at one point a person's name came up that the detectives wanted to meet and interview, to see if he could have a connection to the murder they were investigating.  Afterward they said there was no way the guy could be involved, because he was old and frail and had a neck brace and a knee brace.  Well, it turns out the guy was majorly involved, but the show never went back and addressed the whole too-frail-with-braces thing, and it left me with a bunch of unanswered questions!

[Koalagirl]

21 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

Watched The Killer Truth episode "A Killing in Kansas", and at one point a person's name came up that the detectives wanted to meet and interview, to see if he could have a connection to the murder they were investigating.  Afterward they said there was no way the guy could be involved, because he was old and frail and had a neck brace and a knee brace.  Well, it turns out the guy was majorly involved, but the show never went back and addressed the whole too-frail-with-braces thing, and it left me with a bunch of unanswered questions!

I watched that episode and wondered the same thing.  I wonder if it was bad editing that we never saw it addressed.

[SunnyBeBe]

There’s a new show on true crime called The Genetic Detective.  Focuses on tracking killers by DNA hunt. There is a thread on this site for it. Two episodes are listed, but the one on tonight was not either of them. Not sure why.  Tonight it featured tracking Angie Dodd killer.  It’s on ABC.

[LuvMyShows]

Watched a show (can't remember which one) where the detectives were given a tip about where to find a missing person's body, so they were looking at a pond.  One detective thought they saw a body in the pond.  The other detective said, "Are you sure that's not just a mannequin?"...as though seeing a mannequin in a pond would be as common as "Are you sure that's not just a log?"

[smittykins]

Waiting for the day when someone asks “Is that a body?” and it turns out to be a mannequin.

[For Cereals]

Watching Evil Lives Here rerun about the Turpins from the aunt’s POV...I still don’t trust the extended family.  They seemed more fame-hungry than concerned about the kids.  This aunt especially seems a little methy.

[CrazyInAlabama]

I couldn't find a separate thread for this, but Oxygen's "Accident, Suicide, or Murder" last night.   

The Red Sash Death from season 2 was intriguing.   The wife was found strangled, had lost a lot of blood,  but they called it suicide, then tried her husband for the murder, but he was acquitted.     I don't think the sick husband could have physically done this, but I'm wondering if he hired someone?   Or another family member?   Since the entire case was botched from the beginning, and evidence was lost, no one will ever know.     

Then from season 1, "Blood and Justice", about a woman who supposedly killed herself with her husband's gun was very intriguing.  The husband was convicted after local authorities ruled it a suicide, and an attorney took it to the grand jury, and got an indictment.     The detective in the case actually testified for the husband's defense (he was a former cop).     There had been a lot of domestic violence, and the woman (she was a brilliant attorney) left the husband, and then went back.    The tipping point for the jury was when none of the women jurors could get the gun to fire (it was the husband's back up piece when he was still a police officer).  The gun had the hammer filled almost flat, so you had to pull the trigger to fire it, and it was very hard to do.  

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

I couldn't find a separate thread for this, but Oxygen's "Accident, Suicide, or Murder" last night.   

The Red Sash Death from season 2 was intriguing.   The wife was found strangled, had lost a lot of blood,  but they called it suicide, then tried her husband for the murder, but he was acquitted.     I don't think the sick husband could have physically done this, but I'm wondering if he hired someone?   Or another family member?   Since the entire case was botched from the beginning, and evidence was lost, no one will ever know.     

That was an odd case, yeah. I thought it was going to be revealed that it was an assisted suicide sort of thing. I think that makes the most sense as a possible theory for what happened to that woman, given everything she was dealing with. I could see her husband being willing to help her with that (if he didn't do it, maybe he got someone who did, and just didn't want to reveal that lest it make him look more suspicious or something?). 'Cause I agree that some of what happened would be hard for her to do to herself, and the lack of blood on the scarf seems to imply somebody aided her along the way (if they didn't kill her). 

If it was another family member, well, it seems the family had some real tension going on with...the oldest brother, wasn't it, during the case? Seems that's a road that could've potentaillyl been explored further. Even the family didn't seem to consider that option-it's not often that you see family members so certain a loved one committed suicide. Normally they're very vehement in denying such a possibility. But of course, the fact that their mom actually did seem to have some suicidal thoughts prior to her death, to the point of actually having to be committed for a time, would make it easier to accept that option. 

It's always so frustrating to hear about these cases that are botched and make it harder for anyone to get any clear, concrete answers. I don't get how people can lose evidence so easily like that. 

[CrazyInAlabama]

It occurred to me that the one brother did want to testify against the father, but it wasn't real information, just his guess that the father did it.   Since she was a great insurance agent, I'm wondering if she left a lot of insurance behind?    They never mentioned that.     We only have the husband, and some of her kids saying she was suicidal though.    She was released after they managed to get her on a limited mental health hold, and the psychiatrist never even talked to her, so I'm discounting the talk that she was suicidal.     I found the entire death scene ridiculous for suicide.    I'm really wondering about some of the adult children thinking they were helping her after the diagnosis, or the husband pushing one of the adult kids to 'put mommy out of her misery".    I found the children's allegations that the parents were a great love story to be ridiculous.   They were divorced, never remarried, and just lived together.   I suspect the wife came back because the husband needed her help.  

I'm wondering if the victim heard her diagnosis, and told the husband she wasn't going to take care of him any longer, and she was going to leave and stop supporting him?   

Edited June 14, 2020 by CrazyInAlabama

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

We only have the husband, and some of her kids saying she was suicidal though.    She was released after they managed to get her on a limited mental health hold, and the psychiatrist never even talked to her, so I'm discounting the talk that she was suicidal.     I found the entire death scene ridiculous for suicide.    I'm really wondering about some of the adult children thinking they were helping her after the diagnosis, or the husband pushing one of the adult kids to 'put mommy out of her misery".    

That's an interesting theory. I do agree that the idea of her just up and killing herself on her own is weird on its face, partially because, again, some of that stuff would've been hard for her to do to herself, and also because, as noted, the idea that she'd be in her underwear and exposed like that...I mean, if she really wasn't in her right mind because of her health, that might explain that, but even so, I also agree that most women wouldn't want to be found dead like that. 

If it is a suicide, I definitely think it was an assisted one, but yeah, even if that were the case, that doesn't necessarily rule out there being a more sinister motive behind whomever "helped" with the suicide. 

[LuvMyShows]

On 6/14/2020 at 7:01 PM, Annber03 said:

Even the family didn't seem to consider that option-it's not often that you see family members so certain a loved one committed suicide. Normally they're very vehement in denying such a possibility. But of course, the fact that their mom actually did seem to have some suicidal thoughts prior to her death, to the point of actually having to be committed for a time, would make it easier to accept that option. 

Yes, that made me suspicious early on.  I do not recall ever seeing that on any other show. This is one where I probably would have had to vote Not Guilty too, because of all the uncertainty.  If the guy really had rheumatoid arthritis, then his ability to make such a tight knot seems to be in question since they said he couldn't even tie his own shoes.  However, does that mean it's like that every single day?  I had wanted an RA expert to give a little more explanation. 

They kept mentioning the bucket, but I was unclear what the actual function of the bucket had been...was it to catch dripping blood so as not to make a mess?  Would the dying dementia mom really have thought ahead to do that?  And they said there were some rags or something in it indicating that someone had already been trying to clean up.  If it was the woman, and she was in the middle of committing suicide, why would she slow the process down to try to clean up?

But the most compelling thing was the sash.  If it's true that it was the asphyxiation that killed her, then all the blood was from the knife wounds beforehand, and there would be NO WAY for her to have tied that sash herself and have no blood on it.  No one from the family or the defense every explained how that was possible.

[LuvMyShows]

Catching up on Killer Affair on Oxygen, episode called The Wrong Woman.  Crazy situation where a couple were married, he cheated, married that cheating woman, and then cheated on new wife with old wife.  SMH.  Anyway, the old wife was killed, and the major piece of evidence was a pink gun that belonged to the new wife and bits and pieces of the pink had been found at the crime scene, and the gun was found later in the new wife's house. 

So they arrested new wife and basically stopped doing any more detective work after that, even though the husband had been texting old wife and making arrangements to meet her that night at the location where her dead body ended up being found and where the murder occurred (he said he never ended up going, i think), and also husband never ever went to visit new wife when she was put in jail before the trial, and he immediately started divorce proceedings with new wife.  Hmm...if I were a detective, I might wonder why she would have been so stupid to leave such an easily traceable gun right there in her house, why the husband basically cut off all ties with her immediately, why there was no other evidence against her...and then wondered why aren't we looking at him for framing her???  Fortunately, they were looking at her cell phone records to convict her, and although hers wasn't working or something, her son's was and he was in the car with her the whole time that the crime would have been committed (he had already said they didn't go to that crime location), and his cell records did show they hadn't gone to that crime location. 

Once that happened, after she had been in jail for over a year, they finally started doing detective work, and surprise surprise, the husband's phone records showed that he had been at the crime scene at the exact time that the crime had been committed.  (They knew the time because of activities that the old wife had been doing beforehand.)  To his credit, the detective felt like sh*t about what he had done (or not done), but still...

[SunnyBeBe]

I just saw two episodes of Accused:Guilty or Innocent. It's on A & E.  It's a great show, imo, although, I hate that title. In criminal trials, the question is Guilty or Not Guilty.  Innocent is not a part of it.  The fact the show makes this mistake it horrible.  Anyway, the content is good.  I didn't see a link on this site about it, but, I did find this article. 

https://www.primetimer.com/features/accused-guilty-or-innocent-is-on-the-wrong-channel

The episode last night shows the ACTUAL video footage of this man killing his wife. Sounds simple, but, it's complicated. She was threatening to kill him and their baby.  I was really impacted by this story.  I really wonder if justice was served.  A part of me wants to check on this guy.  It seems to me that it was a case of self defense of himself and the baby. Even his lawyers thought so.   Now he's in prison and likely exposed to covid and may not survive. Just a messed up situation. I'm not easily impressed, but, I thought this guy was sincere.  

The other episode was about a man accused of murdering his mother! That was really wonky.  

If anyone checks this show out, please post. I'd like to see another perspective. 

[Annber03]

4 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

They kept mentioning the bucket, but I was unclear what the actual function of the bucket had been...was it to catch dripping blood so as not to make a mess?  Would the dying dementia mom really have thought ahead to do that?  And they said there were some rags or something in it indicating that someone had already been trying to clean up.  If it was the woman, and she was in the middle of committing suicide, why would she slow the process down to try to clean up?

But the most compelling thing was the sash.  If it's true that it was the asphyxiation that killed her, then all the blood was from the knife wounds beforehand, and there would be NO WAY for her to have tied that sash herself and have no blood on it.  No one from the family or the defense every explained how that was possible.

That's what the main theory was regarding the bucket, yeah, but even then, I'm with you in noting that still wouldn't really make sense, because aside from your valid point about her not thinking ahead with that sort of thing, there's also the obvious fact that if she wants to commit suicide but doesn't want to make a mess, then why cut her wrists at all in the first place? Why not just take some pills, or, if she really wanted to use the sash, just do so and leave it at that? It doesn't make any sense to be worried about leaving a mess when you're using a method that will be quite messy. 

As for the rags, considering it was one of her kids who discovered her, I figured they may have tried to clean up some of the blood, but yeah, if it was the woman trying to do that, that'd be odd, too. Unless she changed her mind halfway through and realized just how much of a mess she was making, and decided to try a different method instead? But then, as you note, that still doesn't explain the lack of blood on the sash. 

Just lots of weird, unanswered questions lingering about here. 

[Guest]

On 6/16/2020 at 1:06 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

If anyone checks this show out, please post. I'd like to see another perspective. 

I thought this was a terrific series and I really hope A&E renews it. I don't think the one guy killed his mother -- particularly because OTHER PEOPLE CONFESSED TO THE CRIME! The cops in that case are a disgrace. Not only did they ruin the relationship between the guy and his family but they're letting the murderers walk free. 

I don't think the one dude who killed his abusive wife should have taken that plea deal. 

And that other poor. sweet guy who the cops claimed "assaulted" the guy? I kept yelling at the TV, "Don't take the deal! Don't take the deal!" Thank god he didn't. 

Nice to see all that money wasted on prosecuting innocent people. 

[SunnyBeBe]

10 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I thought this was a terrific series and I really hope A&E renews it. I don't think the one guy killed his mother -- particularly because OTHER PEOPLE CONFESSED TO THE CRIME! The cops in that case are a disgrace. Not only did they ruin the relationship between the guy and his family but they're letting the murderers walk free. 

I don't think the one dude who killed his abusive wife should have taken that plea deal. 

And that other poor. sweet guy who the cops claimed "assaulted" the guy? I kept yelling at the TV, "Don't take the deal! Don't take the deal!" Thank god he didn't. 

Nice to see all that money wasted on prosecuting innocent people. 

The man who took the plea for killing his wife could have been acquitted due to self defense, HOWEVER, that’s always a gamble. Even though he had a good reason for shooting her, she didn’t have a weapon on her at the time. AND, she had her purse on her arm like she was going to leave. I wondered why they didn’t hire a lip reader to see what she was saying. It was a hard call. I understand why he didn’t want to risk going to prison for the rest of his life. Sad though, because he could get covid. I really felt for him. It supports what I tell people about staying with an abuser. Even if they don’t kill you, they may MAKE you kill them. He says she was a very violent person. And he was raising a baby with her. That’s horrible. The kid was in danger of both of them.