General True Crime Shows

[nokat]

8 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I think some networks call things new, because they haven’t aired it before. So, it’s new for them. 

That's a good point. There are many cases that have had multiple shows made about them. There are several networks and streaming services that have these shows.

[LuvMyShows]

Watched Reasonable Doubt, the "For Her Love" episode where Tim was convicted of killing Justin in his truck, because Tim supposedly had a thing for Nicole, Justin's ex and Justin seemed to be making a play to be back in Nicole's life.  Things that were odd:

• When Chris (detective, one of the show's two leads) asked Tim where he was when the murder occurred, he said he was "probably" at home.  Yeah, that makes for a strong alibi.  And the cell records showed in fact he was nowhere near home, but corroborated everything else he had said.
• He claimed that he did not have romantic feelings for Nicole, therefore no jealousy motive to kill her.  But they found texts where he said, "I love you so much" to her.  He then claimed he said that to all his female friends.  Fatima (defense attorney, other show lead) had been interviewing a female friend who was close to him and actually had a crush on him, and they should have asked her point blank if he had said that to her, so they could compare.  All they did was tell her that Tim had texted it to Nicole, and she said that made her mad, but then the segment ended with that girl, so we didn't hear any more. 
• This girl with the crush, mentioned having hoped something would happen with him when she met him, but then she found out he was married.  I don't remember hearing anything about that in any other part of the show.  Both this girl and Nicole were high school age, and he was at least 21.
• Tim admitted that he called/texted Nicole 20-30 times a day, and more on weekends, yet still maintains he had no romantic feelings for her.
• On the night of the murder, Nicole told Tim she was meeting Justin at the park, but then told Tim she changed her mind.  So guess who showed up at that park at the exact time when Justin was to have met Nicole?  Tim said his reason for going to the park was because he had just learned about it from Nicole and wanted to check it out.  Apparently Nicole had changed her mind again, because when he went to the park at that time, she was there, and Tim said he would leave.  But he came back an hour later, which was after dark, and he explained that he came back because he hadn't had a chance to experience the park earlier when he had been there.  SMH.
• At the end, when Chris and Fatima met with the family to give them the results, Chris was about as blunt as I have ever seen him, and told the family that Tim did it, and was right where he needed to be, in jail.  The sister had questioned how Tim could have done it when he and Nicole didn't have a sexual relationship, and Chris replied that there are other ways to be intimate.  The sister then sarcastically said something like, "Yeah, driving someone to school is real intimate," because apparently he drove her to school every day.  But sis needs to wake up and smell the roses, because a married guy over 21 driving a high school girl to school every day, who he also texts/calls all the time and says "I love you so much" to, IS definitely trying for intimacy by driving her to school.

[nokat]

Deadly Women, the episode was definitely after Candace getting the face pulled. I have no idea why it was labeled as S4:E4.

[LuvMyShows]

The recent Reasonable Doubt episode "Cult of David" was interesting.  Usually the clues turn out not to be true, but in this case, many of them were...but detective/co-host Chris deemed them as not relevant to getting a new trial.  It actually seemed odd, because Chris was the testiest I have ever seen him, almost as though he had made up his mind of David's guilt and handled all subsequent information accordingly:

• One of the clues that turned out to be true, was that the person, Joe, who David supposedly hired to kill his ex-wife Yvonne, gave a confession statement with details about where in the house the murder took place, that substantially did not match the actual crime scene.
• Another clue was that the supposed murder weapon, a small serrated knife, was too small to do so much damage to the victim.  The expert said it wasn't likely that it could have done all that damage to the victim, but that technically it could have.
• A third clue was that there was an ex-cop with a history of violence that had a thing for Yvonne, but wouldn't come in for questioning, so he was never questioned.  And that was found to be true.
• Also, and I can't remember if this was specifically a clue or not, but the motive was disproved.  It was said by the original prosecutors that David didn't want the financial burden of paying monthly child support, but according to David, he had enough money that he could have even paid it all at once.  Nor did he appear to want sole custody, which was another suggestion (in other words, kill the mother so he can get the child all to himself), and I don't think anyone who knew him provided any indication of any motive based on things he would say.

Chris minimized the importance of all of these.

But what was really surprising to me, were two things:

• One of the clues was that Joe's confession was coerced.  Fatima (defense lawyer/co-host) listened to the audio of the confession and said it didn't sound coerced because it didn't sound like he was reading a statement.  Well, that's not what I think of when I think about a coerced confession.  To me, coerced is more like when the cops lead the suspect, just like they did when they asked Joe, "Did you wipe the knife on the pillowcase?" and he replied, "I think I did."  Those sort of non-committal answers are textbook from the coerced confessions that I've seen, and leading questions like that are how the cops reveal information to a suspect, so they can then say "he knew things that only the killer would know".  The expert also listened, and said Joe sounded genuine in the confession, but if a suspect has been convinced by the cops to confess or even convinced that they must have done it, I could easily see it sounding genuine.  At one point in the confession, Joe cried, "I did it!"  To me, that wording was not normal and sounded weird. 
• The other surprising thing was that all along we had been told how charismatic David was, and charming, and he could talk anyone into anything (which was part of what was used against him, that he convinced young, impressionable Joe to commit the murder for him).  But good grief, he didn't sound any different from any other average guy when he talked to Chris.  Yet Chris continued to use that characterization as 'evidence' against David, even though I seriously doubt that Chris actually thought that after the interview.

[SunnyBeBe]

Supposed to be a new Reasonable Doubt on ID tonight at 10.  

[Jalyn]

19 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

The recent Reasonable Doubt episode "Cult of David" was interesting.  Usually the clues turn out not to be true, but in this case, many of them were...but detective/co-host Chris deemed them as not relevant to getting a new trial.  It actually seemed odd, because Chris was the testiest I have ever seen him, almost as though he had made up his mind of David's guilt and handled all subsequent information accordingly:

• One of the clues that turned out to be true, was that the person, Joe, who David supposedly hired to kill his ex-wife Yvonne, gave a confession statement with details about where in the house the murder took place, that substantially did not match the actual crime scene.
• Another clue was that the supposed murder weapon, a small serrated knife, was too small to do so much damage to the victim.  The expert said it wasn't likely that it could have done all that damage to the victim, but that technically it could have.
• A third clue was that there was an ex-cop with a history of violence that had a thing for Yvonne, but wouldn't come in for questioning, so he was never questioned.  And that was found to be true.
• Also, and I can't remember if this was specifically a clue or not, but the motive was disproved.  It was said by the original prosecutors that David didn't want the financial burden of paying monthly child support, but according to David, he had enough money that he could have even paid it all at once.  Nor did he appear to want sole custody, which was another suggestion (in other words, kill the mother so he can get the child all to himself), and I don't think anyone who knew him provided any indication of any motive based on things he would say.

Chris minimized the importance of all of these.

But what was really surprising to me, were two things:

• One of the clues was that Joe's confession was coerced.  Fatima (defense lawyer/co-host) listened to the audio of the confession and said it didn't sound coerced because it didn't sound like he was reading a statement.  Well, that's not what I think of when I think about a coerced confession.  To me, coerced is more like when the cops lead the suspect, just like they did when they asked Joe, "Did you wipe the knife on the pillowcase?" and he replied, "I think I did."  Those sort of non-committal answers are textbook from the coerced confessions that I've seen, and leading questions like that are how the cops reveal information to a suspect, so they can then say "he knew things that only the killer would know".  The expert also listened, and said Joe sounded genuine in the confession, but if a suspect has been convinced by the cops to confess or even convinced that they must have done it, I could easily see it sounding genuine.  At one point in the confession, Joe cried, "I did it!"  To me, that wording was not normal and sounded weird. 
• The other surprising thing was that all along we had been told how charismatic David was, and charming, and he could talk anyone into anything (which was part of what was used against him, that he convinced young, impressionable Joe to commit the murder for him).  But good grief, he didn't sound any different from any other average guy when he talked to Chris.  Yet Chris continued to use that characterization as 'evidence' against David, even though I seriously doubt that Chris actually thought that after the interview.

If you listen to podcasts and want a deeper dive on this one, there's one called Murder in Alliance that is just about this case. (At least thus far) It is biased toward David being innocent, if that matters to anyone.

[geekgirl921]

On 8/13/2021 at 9:08 AM, nokat said:

That's a good point. There are many cases that have had multiple shows made about them. There are several networks and streaming services that have these shows.

I understand that, I have seem many different shows that do the same case. But there are times when they literally slap a new name on another show and call it new. 

[LuvMyShows]

Well I learned something new from the "Relentless Pursuit" episode of Accident, Suicide or Murder.  The case involved the death of a man's wife, and the man had said it was suicide.  The coroner couldn't decide, so he held a coroner's inquest.  I had not heard of those before, and it is defined as, "an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a death. The purpose of the inquest is to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered." 

It proceeds sort of like a court hearing, so, ok, that is all well and good.  But what blew my mind is that sometimes there can be a jury to help make the decision about the cause and manner of a person's death!  To me, determining whether it's suicide should primarily come from the medical evidence about bullet angle etc., along with basic information about the victim and their lifestyle/circumstances, and should not be based on some fancy lawyer representing a guilty spouse with a very vested interest in the ruling being suicide, being able to persuade a medically uninformed jury that the cause of death was suicide!

[SunnyBeBe]

21 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

Well I learned something new from the "Relentless Pursuit" episode of Accident, Suicide or Murder.  The case involved the death of a man's wife, and the man had said it was suicide.  The coroner couldn't decide, so he held a coroner's inquest.  I had not heard of those before, and it is defined as, "an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a death. The purpose of the inquest is to find out who the deceased person was and how, when and where they died and to provide the details needed for their death to be registered." 

It proceeds sort of like a court hearing, so, ok, that is all well and good.  But what blew my mind is that sometimes there can be a jury to help make the decision about the cause and manner of a person's death!  To me, determining whether it's suicide should primarily come from the medical evidence about bullet angle etc., along with basic information about the victim and their lifestyle/circumstances, and should not be based on some fancy lawyer representing a guilty spouse with a very vested interest in the ruling being suicide, being able to persuade a medically uninformed jury that the cause of death was suicide!

I suppose each state has specific laws that specify the procedures in such cases.  I think in my state that type of hearing is not an option………………..

Well, I was wrong. 😳 I took a look at the law and there IS a provision for empaneling a jury.  I’m surprised. I’ve never seen it done. Oh well.  

https://law.justia.com/codes/north-carolina/2015/chapter-152/section-152-7/

 

 

Edited August 19, 2021 by SunnyBeBe

[SunnyBeBe]

I’ve read they haven’t ruled out foul play in the deaths of these family members.   It’s such a mystery.  I wonder what actually happened to them and their dog.  Doesn’t it seem unlikely they all would have drank algae laden water, when they took their own water with them?  
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9917759/Investigators-hope-phones-family-dead-hiking-trail-solve-baffling-mystery.html

I think one thing that puzzles me is why experienced hikers fail to notify someone when they should be expected back from a hike to a remote area.  It seems that I read about someone who gets stranded, suffers and dies in remote areas and no one figures out where they are for days, because they didn’t tell anyone where they were going and when they should return.   Isn’t that a basic thing to do in hiking?  

 

 

[Minivanessa]

2 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I think one thing that puzzles me is why experienced hikers fail to notify someone when they should be expected back from a hike to a remote area.  It seems that I read about someone who gets stranded, suffers and dies in remote areas and no one figures out where they are for days, because they didn’t tell anyone where they were going and when they should return.   Isn’t that a basic thing to do in hiking?  

I agree 100%. There are several devices (that link is just one) on the market to allow people who are hiking or just traveling, to stay in touch with their families and friends - even in areas where there's no cell signal. I just watched a YT video about a woman who'd just gone on a short local hike, hadn't taken her device with her, and fell and broke a leg while in the woods. She was rescued by a woman camped nearby in her RV, who saw the hiker literally scooting out of the woods on her butt. The video was a follow up visit in which the hiker said her big mistake was not taking her locator device along with her. That's in the video starting at about 2:30. The woman in the RV is a full-time nomad who also talked about using that device to notify family each time she relocates on her travels.

I hope they find out what happened to that family. How tragic and bizarre!

Edited August 23, 2021 by Jeeves
To use the correct words.

[SunnyBeBe]

I also wonder who takes a toddler to a remote, arid, area to hike?   That seems odd to me.  

[SunnyBeBe]

It sounds interesting.  I don’t have Discovery+, though. 

[SunnyBeBe]

There was a new episode of Reasonable Doubt again last night.  The inmate was once again a woman.  Brutal crime, too.  They declined to intervene.  

[One Tough Cookie]

4 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

There was a new episode of Reasonable Doubt again last night.  The inmate was once again a woman.  Brutal crime, too.  They declined to intervene.  

I saw that also {I have limited mobility so I can't type much}.  I couldn't BELIEVE how smug and, nasty and indifferent Kara was.  Showed absolutely no sympathy for Anthony nor could she give a logical explanation as to why she dyed her hair in the middle of the night.  She's right where she belong and then some. I was also skeeved out by the Jailhouse Informant.  Methhead? Heroin? Oxy?  She was obviously dentally impaired; also Prayers to Anthony for his ordeal.  The mother and sister are cruising down the river of Denial.

On a superficial note--I'd smack my grammy for Fatima's hair

[SunnyBeBe]

Yeah, I think it takes a lot of nerve to swear you jumped out the bed in the middle of the night to eat at subway and dye your hair in their restroom, just for the hell of it.  

[SandyToes]

15 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

There was a new episode of Reasonable Doubt again last night.  The inmate was once again a woman.  Brutal crime, too.  They declined to intervene.  

Off to watch on On Demand!  Subway and hair dye.  Wow.  

Edited September 1, 2021 by SandyToes

[SunnyBeBe]

39 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

Off to watch on On Demand!  Subway and hair dye.  Wow.  

There was a child witness.  Very heartbreaking,  

[SandyToes]

The hair dye job was heartbreaking.  But I think they made the right call. "She never would have done that" is a common theme among families of drug addicts.  And that's probably true!  But the drug addict is NOT the same family member (in my opinion), and yes, she may have been under the control the guy, but I didn't see or hear anything that would lead to a belief that she was not involved. 

Can not imagine the little boy's life after witnessing that, and then the mom who can't let it go.  It seemed more than fighting for justice;  something else that was now almost like an addiction for her. Very sad all the way around. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by SandyToes

[Annber03]

2 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

yes, she may have been under the control the guy, but I didn't see or hear anything that would lead to a belief that she was not involved. 

Yeah, even her own family didn't seem to completely rule out her being there at all. They mainly just didn't believe she was the one who did the killing. But even if she wasn't the one who actually shot and killed them, if she was there and involved in any way, she's still guilty. Being an accomplice isn't exactly any better. 

Quote

Can not imagine the little boy's life after witnessing that, and then the mom who can't let it go.  It seemed more than fighting for justice;  something else that was now almost like an addiction for her. Very sad all the way around. 

Agreed. The boy's phone call to 911 was heartbreaking. I found it interesting, the discussion about how reliable six year olds are as witnesses. It is a tough issue to navigate, and I certainly wouldn't hang a case on a child's testimony alone, no, but we've also seen plenty of cases where children's witness statements have played a role in solving a crime and getting people convicted, so...

17 hours ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I couldn't BELIEVE how smug and, nasty and indifferent Kara was.  Showed absolutely no sympathy for Anthony nor could she give a logical explanation as to why she dyed her hair in the middle of the night. 

One of the people interviewed described her as manipulative at one point, and watching the interview with her, I can easily believe that. She had this permanent smirk on her face that had me thinking, "You're not exactly helping yourself here...". 

[SunnyBeBe]

I am very skeptical of eye witness testimony.  I’ve read a lot about it over the years in law enforcement, school and the practice of law.  Yes, there are incidences where someone gives a description for a composite sketch that is accurate, but that’s unusual.  Most people are not that observant and people interpret things on many different ways.  The eyewitness really believes they are right…..but….I rarely trust it.  Unless, it’s someone you actually know.  Of course, I do believe the little boy saw a woman.  That much he knew and I find that credible.  

[kathyk24]

5 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I am very skeptical of eye witness testimony.  I’ve read a lot about it over the years in law enforcement, school and the practice of law.  Yes, there are incidences where someone gives a description for a composite sketch that is accurate, but that’s unusual.  Most people are not that observant and people interpret things on many different ways.  The eyewitness really believes they are right…..but….I rarely trust it.  Unless, it’s someone you actually know.  Of course, I do believe the little boy saw a woman.  That much he knew and I find that credible.  

Kara may not have been a sympathetic defendant but there were huge holes in the case. The little boy's testimony changed so much I thought he had been coached by the police. The use of jailhouse informants is a huge red flag for me I don't trust them especially after reading An Innocent Man by John Grisham. It's a true story and two men were sent to prison by a jailhouse informant. I found the stepson very credible.

[SunnyBeBe]

I laughed when lead the investigator says the co-defendant wasn’t smart enough to figure his way out of a room with one door!  He was no prize, that’s for sure. 
 

I do believe the woman did the shooting. Her gun, her dna and her being out and about that night doing bizarre stuff.  

[nokat]

On 9/1/2021 at 5:37 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

I laughed when lead the investigator says the co-defendant wasn’t smart enough to figure his way out of a room with one door!  He was no prize, that’s for sure. 
 

I do believe the woman did the shooting. Her gun, her dna and her being out and about that night doing bizarre stuff.  

I'm sure the detectives love the dummies.

Tonight it's Kenda and Candace. I love Kenda's droll delivery and the cheesiness of Deadly women. Yes, my bar is not set low. I  can walk under it with my drink.

[SunnyBeBe]

Terrible show earlier on ID of woman set on fire by husband. She survived.  Very brutal.  Difficult to watch. 
 

Kenda is doing American Detective now.  It’s pretty good.  

[nokat]

1 hour ago, nokat said:

I laughed when lead the investigator says the co-defendant wasn’t smart enough to figure his way out of a room with one door!

Can't find his way out of a wet paper bag, gets lost in a phone booth (oldy but good if you like Dr. Who), can't find his ass with two hands.

[SunnyBeBe]

1 hour ago, nokat said:

Can't find his way out of a wet paper bag, gets lost in a phone booth (oldy but good if you like Dr. Who), can't find his ass with two hands.

True. I’ll go out on a limb and say that it takes a little smarts to dye your own hair. Granted, there are written instructions, but you have to properly mix it up, cover roots, keep eyes protected, watch the time, and rinse well.  It takes practice. This tells me that maybe lady was the lead in that murder.  

[andromeda331]

I feel bad for Jasmine in American Detective with Kenda. She went from a loving home with her mother and her mother's boyfriend to a group home. To be in the bedroom while the attack on her mother and mother's boyfriend happened. The only reason she wasn't killed was the murder knew she could never identify him.

[nokat]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

True. I’ll go out on a limb and say that it takes a little smarts to dye your own hair. Granted, there are written instructions, but you have to properly mix it up, cover roots, keep eyes protected, watch the time, and rinse well.  It takes practice. This tells me that maybe lady was the lead in that murder.  

If I need to hide, I'm calling SunnyBebe.

[smittykins]

17 hours ago, nokat said:

Can't find his way out of a wet paper bag, gets lost in a phone booth (oldy but good if you like Dr. Who), can't find his ass with two hands.

Can’t pour p*ss out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

[nokat]

Finally watching Deadly Women because Real Life™. I always wonder how women get men to kill for them. Magic vagina? The men obviously aren't the sharpest tacks. They'll say she was a beauty, then show her image and I think seriously? Not a beauty. 

[nokat]

Candace about one eyed Ron. "He had nothing upstairs."

[SunnyBeBe]

On Deadly Women…she doesn’t tell us why these women kill…she just says they are evil or jealous…or born with a murderous spirit.  The show would be much more interesting if they really delved into the psyche of these women instead of the same old slogans about how evil they are.  So cliche. It isn’t that interesting to me anymore. 

Edited September 5, 2021 by SunnyBeBe

[nokat]

21 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

On Deadly Women…she doesn’t tell us why these women kill…she just says they are evil or jealous…or born with a murderous spirit.  The show would be much more interesting if they really delved into the psyche of these women instead of the same old slogans about how evil they are.  So cliche. It’s isn’t that interesting to me anymore. 

Usually jealousy or greed. As I said I like the cheesiness.

[nokat]

I watched Dateline: Secrets uncovered. There was so much circumstantial evidence and the jerk is still saying he didn't do it, and filing appeals. Oh you did it.

[nokat]

58 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

On Deadly Women…she doesn’t tell us why these women kill…she just says they are evil or jealous…or born with a murderous spirit.  The show would be much more interesting if they really delved into the psyche of these women instead of the same old slogans about how evil they are.  So cliche. It’s isn’t that interesting to me anymore. 

Actually if you want to delve into the psyche, there is the show "Signs of a Psychopath" on ID. Very scary.

[LexieLily]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

On Deadly Women…she doesn’t tell us why these women kill…she just says they are evil or jealous…or born with a murderous spirit.  The show would be much more interesting if they really delved into the psyche of these women instead of the same old slogans about how evil they are.  So cliché. It’s isn’t that interesting to me anymore. 

Funny you should mention that. Deadly Women ends its season next week and the week after (9/16) there is a premiere show The Deadly Type with Candice DeLong: Candice DeLong investigates the personality traits that have triggered homicides, going inside the hint for a killer as detectives race to build a psychological profile of the killer amidst a growing chorus of suspects. 

 

[kathyk24]

On 9/3/2021 at 10:08 PM, nokat said:

Finally watching Deadly Women because Real Life™. I always wonder how women get men to kill for them. Magic vagina? The men obviously aren't the sharpest tacks. They'll say she was a beauty, then show her image and I think seriously? Not a beauty. 

Mugshots aren't supposed to be attractive. I've noticed that with other show as well they get beautiful actresses to play average women. I don't have sympathy for men who let their sex drive overrule their morality. I do have sympathy for teens who are manipulated by authority figures.

[nokat]

11 minutes ago, kathyk24 said:

Mugshots aren't supposed to be attractive. I've noticed that with other show as well they get beautiful actresses to play average women. I don't have sympathy for men who let their sex drive overrule their morality. I do have sympathy for teens who are manipulated by authority figures.

There are men and women who I've actually gasped over seeing. Most of us are attractive to average, but there are those who are shockingly attractive. I remember a couple people getting noticed from mugshots.

There are women who manipulate teens through sex to kill by lying about being abused or child abuse. That is when the word evil applies.

[SunnyBeBe]

I recently saw a person being interviewed on a non-crime documentary who had facial tattoos.  It caused me to do a little online research about facial tattoos.  I wasn’t really surprised at what I found. 

Edited September 5, 2021 by SunnyBeBe

[nokat]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I recently saw a person being interviewed on a non-crime documentary who had facial tattoos.  It caused me to do a little online research about facial tattoos.  I wasn’t really surprised at what I found. 

I do make judgments on face and neck tattoos. For one, good luck not getting recognized, so dim bulb to start. I know tattoos are popular (I have one myself) and can be quite artistic.

[SunnyBeBe]

I fight making judgments on tattoos or any kind of physical appearance.  I struggle with it, though.  From what I read, facial tattoos are associated with criminality.

[Annber03]

14 hours ago, nokat said:

Usually jealousy or greed. As I said I like the cheesiness.

Yep. Those kinds of reasons pretty much sum up why most crimes happen in general. Every great once in a while you'll get those that seem to have a much stranger and more hard to understand reason, but they're few and far between.

It would be interesting to delve a little further into some of these women's pasts, though, to see if this aspect of their personality has always been there on some level. But yeah, I just find the stories themselves interesting, so that's the main reason I watch. 

[nokat]

5 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I fight making judgments on tattoos or any kind of physical appearance.  I struggle with it, though.  From what I read, facial tattoos are associated with criminality.

I don't judge on disability or appearance but a tattoo is something you do and not what you're born with. Mostly I admire them, but when it's the neck and face, yes, I'll be cautious around you.

[nokat]

3 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Yep. Those kinds of reasons pretty much sum up why most crimes happen in general.

It's why detectives look first at relationships and financial gain. Find the motive, and then the killer.

[SunnyBeBe]

Right.  I laugh when a murder suspect offers in their defense that there is NO WAY they murdered the person, because they LOVED the person.  Lol   Obviously, they don’t know that many people are murdered by someone who claimed that they loved.

Edited September 5, 2021 by SunnyBeBe

[nokat]

5 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Right.  I laugh when a murder suspect offers in their defense that there is NO WAY they murdered the person, because they LOVED the person.  Lol   Obviously, they don’t know that many people are murdered by someone who claimed that they loved.

I had two who watched my apartment and were always there. I got followed. That is not love, that is stalking.

[SunnyBeBe]

1 hour ago, Alistaire said:

Just thought I’d post a heads up about something I discovered on a cloudy Labor Day. I started this thread and just found that Primetimers does have a true-crime(ish) board. Go to Talk, News, and Non-Fiction Shows, and at the bottom, there’s “Other Non-Fiction.” Lots of true crime discussion of various qualities there. I’ll double check to make sure I got the board name right.

Thanks!

[One Tough Cookie]

On 9/5/2021 at 3:22 AM, kathyk24 said:

Mugshots aren't supposed to be attractive. I've noticed that with other show as well they get beautiful actresses to play average women. I don't have sympathy for men who let their sex drive overrule their morality. I do have sympathy for teens who are manipulated by authority figures.

I remember seeing an episode on Snapped about a married women and her neighbor having an affair,  The woman was beautiful and the man was extremely good looking {naturally}.  When the actual mugshots were shown both of them looked downright skeevy.  The man looked like a ape and the woman looked like she was on drugs.

[badhaggis]

1 minute ago, One Tough Cookie said:

I remember seeing an episode on Snapped about a married women and her neighbor having an affair,  The woman was beautiful and the man was extremely good looking {naturally}.  When the actual mugshots were shown both of them looked downright skeevy.  The man looked like a ape and the woman looked like she was on drugs.

Ahh yes my husband and I always say boy the casting was kind to them!