General True Crime Shows

[kathyk2]

1 hour ago, LuvMyShows said:

Watching the "To Have and to Kill" episode of the new Oxygen show A Plan to Kill, I was once again amazed (in a bad way) at how detectives are so clueless when it comes to ambush murders. I'm talking about the type of situation where just as the person returns to their house, they are ambushed and killed. Unless someone has a perfect view of your door and can afford to wait all day/night for you to show up, it's going to take insider help to time it right. Yet I have never seen that be something that detectives think of in a timely manner. And in this case, they had been fooled for over a year and a half that the victim's wife was not involved, until someone else spilled the beans. They had never, ever considered the timing of the murder vis the victim's return from going on a fast food run for everyone, to wonder how the killer knew the exact time to be at the door.

And what a truly awfully atrocious piece of sh*t that woman was. She told her boyfriend that she had cancer and no health insurance, so he married her (ostensibly so she could get health insurance), and then she basically killed him for the life insurance not terribly long after...and of course, she never actually had cancer. And IIRC, she told the people who would do the killing for her, that he was an awful person that abused her, when he sooo didn't.

That case has been featured on several true crime shows. I really liked the case featured on Philly Homicide since I hadn't seen it on other shows.

[Vermicious Knid]

Sounds like an episode of Forensic Files as well.

I've been listening in my car to HLN on Sirius when I can't find any music I like. Yesterday they ran an episode of Nightmare Next Door that was also featured on Forensic Files about the murder of 9 year old Cindy Allinger. There weren't any substative differences between the programs really but I was struck this time by the realization the police were actully incompetent and would have been able to make an arrest months earlier.

The main suspect was Guy "Ras" Rasmussen who the neighborhood kids, including Cindy's sister, reported was inviting children to his cabin to play with his dog and drums. Cindy was told to stay away from him but just never told her mother she was still going to his home. They checked but he was not on the list of sex offenders. But that's all they looked at. They kept surveillance on him because he was the only real lead they had. He moved away but they didn't have any hard evidence and just kept watching in case he was a danger to other children. Well, months later, someone finally got around to running a criminal background check and it was right there; 5 years in prison for assaulting a 16 year old and a short stint for assaulting a 10 year old. Only then did they get a search warrant and were able to collect and test his clothing, which had both their DNA.

He had fallen through a very fortuitous crack in legislation. The law requiring sex offenders to register wasn't passed until a few months after he got out of jail and didn't grandfather in earlier conviction. My question is, what in the hell were the police doing that they didn't run a background check on their main suspect? Sure they got the guy, and it didn't take years, but they wasted months. Background checks are like, the very first thing that should be done. It seems many of the true crime programs don't realize instead of lionizing the police they are just exposing their poor performance. 

[LexieLily]

Is Feuds Turned Fatal not the same series as Fear Thy Neighbor?

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, LexieLily said:

Is Feuds Turned Fatal not the same series as Fear Thy Neighbor?

Pretty close, yeah :p. 

[LexieLily]

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

Pretty close, yeah :p. 

Different cases or the same cases so I don't need to bother recording it? :p

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, LexieLily said:

Different cases or the same cases so I don't need to bother recording it? :p

No, different case. It's not just neighbors fighting with each other - the one I'm watching now involves a woman and her brother's ex having a whole feud with each other (the woman thinks her brother's ex is not a good perosn and hurt her brother and she's mad about it). But the general premises aren't too dissimilar. 

[kathyk2]

Oxygen is airing a great documentary The Lady of the Dunes. It's about the murder of an unidentified woman on Cape Cod in 1974. I'll wait to share my opinions after I see the conclusion tomorrow.

[kathyk2]

The local police are heroes for their determination to solve the Lady of the Dunes case. They were determined to solve the case with limited resources. The State Police stonewalled the case by getting rid of physical evidence that could have been tested for DNA. They also made life difficult for one of the detectives by ruining her reputation. She got the FBI involved because the victim was found on federal land. It is worth watching if you haven't seen it.

[Elizzikra]

Is there a place to discuss the Netflix three-part series, Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[SoMuchTV]

14 hours ago, Elizzikra said:

Is there a place to discuss the Netflix three-part series, Cold Case: Who Killed JonBenet Ramsey?

There's a thread in the Netflix forum:

 

[Vermicious Knid]

You may remember the case of Ron Rudin and his wife 'Black Widow' Margaret Rudin, who was found guilty of his murder and sentenced to prison. It was the subject of the Forensic Files episode 'For Love or Money'. In 2022 her conviction was overturned and she was released. Now a judge has dismissed the murder charges altogether and she can't be re-charged. I watched that FF episode just a couple days ago and was pretty convinced she did it. But at this point she's 81 and unlikely to be a danger to anyone else. 

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Vermicious Knid said:

You may remember the case of Ron Rudin and his wife 'Black Widow' Margaret Rudin, who was found guilty of his murder and sentenced to prison. It was the subject of the Forensic Files episode 'For Love or Money'. In 2022 her conviction was overturned and she was released. Now a judge has dismissed the murder charges altogether and she can't be re-charged. I watched that FF episode just a couple days ago and was pretty convinced she did it. But at this point she's 81 and unlikely to be a danger to anyone else. 

FF convinced me too. Everything pointed to her.

[Minivanessa]

I've just watched the Paramount+ original true crime miniseries, The Pillowcase Murders. I was familiar with the underlying story - in fact I may have posted about it somewhere in these forums, if not upthread here.

I thought it was well done. It's the story of the murders of at least 22 elderly people (all but one women) in the Dallas area - and the attempted murders of two women. Most of them occurred in upscale retirement living complexes, and the killer's MO was to smother the victims with pillows and steal their jewelry. 

Although I'd read about the case(s), it was still kind of jaw dropping to see how the deaths were routinely treated as "natural causes" even when there were yellow, and sometimes red, flags to be seen if anyone was looking. 

Those were upscale facilities, at least one of them in the "luxury" class. I'm not poor, but I doubt I could afford to live in any of them. But security was - lax, and sometimes nonexistent. And the corporate management policies seemed to be, shut up, don't make waves, don't call the cops, we don't want to get a reputation as a place with any problems. Ugh.

Once the suburban Plano cops got on the trail after suspicious deaths in a facility in their jurisdiction, the investigation widened into Dallas etc., and good grief there was a LOT of evidence of prior suspicious deaths that had been overlooked or ignored. 

I empathized with the grieving children, grandchildren, and nephew of the victims. They were plunged into a nightmare scenario and I applaud their strength and resilience, and persistence.

The perp was arrested and indicted for a big number of capital murders. He went to trial on two cases, and was convicted on both, with a life-without-parole sentence for each one. Those convictions ensured he'd never be free. The DA decided to dismiss the remaining indictments, and some of the survivors were upset by that. I thought some of them were really over the top and unreasonable about it. I can't remember the exact words but one or two of them said the dismissals meant their mother's case meant nothing and there was no justice, etc. At least one of them, however, acknowledged in passing that the DA and courts have limited resources. I mean, really, with all the serious criminal cases that must be pending Dallas in need of prosecution, how could the DA justify taking eleven more murder cases to trial, just to obtain essentially pointless additional convictions? That's a lot of courtroom and law enforcement time and resources that could be better spent. 

The series features the lawyers who represented several of the victims in litigation against the living facilities' owners. It was encouraging that one of the facilities apparently made meaningful security improvements, but the biggest most luxurious one, with the most murders, seems to be stonewalling. Bah.

Edited December 21, 2024 by Minivanessa

[Vermicious Knid]

Yikes.
 

Quote

 

A longtime Colorado Bureau of Investigation scientist who mishandled DNA testing in hundreds of criminal cases was charged with 102 felonies this week, the latest turn in a year-long scandal that has shaken Colorado’s court system and cost the state more than $11 million...

A 35-page affidavit filed against her in the criminal case widely echoes the findings of the CBI’s internal investigation, which found that Woods took unethical — and now allegedly criminal — shortcuts in order to work faster, produce more cases and avoid time-consuming but mandatory troubleshooting.

She told criminal investigators that she deleted the data for “expediency,” because it moved cases along — so she could work seven cases a day instead of five, she said, according to the affidavit...

Woods told internal affairs investigators she deleted data about low quantities of male DNA in some sex assault cases so that she wouldn’t have to complete additional testing that was unlikely to produce conclusive results on those small genetic samples. She deleted the data in sex assault cases “because it was easy,” she said, according to an internal affairs report.

 

So of course convictions are being challenged and cases are messed up. 

[Annber03]

So I'm watching the "Curious Case.." episode about the Colorado funeral home that was raided for its grotesque (and that's putting it mildly, frankly) mishandling of bodies...

...and holy shit, this is beyond disturbing. I seem to vaguely remember this story popping up in the news a few years ago, but hearing these details is just..ye gods. My heart absolutely breaks for the families who thought they had their loved ones' ashes only to realize that they may not even have ashes, period, let alone those of thier own loved ones, and that they don't know where their loved ones' bodies/remains even are. I just...cannot even imagine how utterly devastating that realization would be. The one guy talking about how he would've just pounced on Jon and ripped him to shreds...yeah, cannot say I blame him one bit. 

I also feel for the poor investigators who had to go into that funeral home and discover that entire scene. Ugh. Just...ugh. 

[LuvMyShows]

I watched the most recent Cold Case Files episode, "No Known Enemies", and was once again astounded at the lack of critical thinking demonstrated by supposedly competent and seasoned detectives. Widow is murdered in her home, body is found burned elsewhere, no obvious suspects or even possibilities. A few weeks before the murder, her purse was stolen from her house one day when she was gardening and left the side door open (and I think some hidden money was also taken), and also her spare house key that she kept outside was stolen. When the next door neighbor was questioned about the murder, he gave as his alibi that he had his daughter with him that weekend (visitation in a divorce) and they spent most of the weekend at his mother's house. Oh, and he said a gas can was stolen from his porch (but nothing else was).

Now I'm no trained detective, and don't even play one on TV, but the first thing I thought of with the gas can thing is that he was trying to get out in front of the situation of them finding his fingerprints/DNA on the gas can when they would eventually find it having been used in the fire. And who else other than a next-door neighbor has such a prime opportunity to see a side door open and go in to steal something. So if I were a detective, maybe I would look into this guy a little further? But nope, didn't even check his alibi, such as it was. So five years later the case is cold, and the detective in his voiceover says that he always kept the case file on his desk, but cases go cold when there are no more leads to check...uh, my man, you didn't even finish checking the leads you were handed on a platter!

So....when a cold case unit got the case after five years, they found that the neighbor's life had been falling apart back then, and he was a broke druggie (who would have needed money for drugs, duh). They also checked his alibi, and he in fact did not have his daughter that weekend (the ex-wife kept meticulous custody records!). (I think there was also something that fell apart with his alibi regarding his mother, but I can't recall the deetz.) Of course he turned out to be the perp...could have closed the case a lot sooner if the first detective had done his job!

[andromeda331]

On 2/11/2025 at 2:48 PM, LuvMyShows said:

I watched the most recent Cold Case Files episode, "No Known Enemies", and was once again astounded at the lack of critical thinking demonstrated by supposedly competent and seasoned detectives. Widow is murdered in her home, body is found burned elsewhere, no obvious suspects or even possibilities. A few weeks before the murder, her purse was stolen from her house one day when she was gardening and left the side door open (and I think some hidden money was also taken), and also her spare house key that she kept outside was stolen. When the next door neighbor was questioned about the murder, he gave as his alibi that he had his daughter with him that weekend (visitation in a divorce) and they spent most of the weekend at his mother's house. Oh, and he said a gas can was stolen from his porch (but nothing else was).

Now I'm no trained detective, and don't even play one on TV, but the first thing I thought of with the gas can thing is that he was trying to get out in front of the situation of them finding his fingerprints/DNA on the gas can when they would eventually find it having been used in the fire. And who else other than a next-door neighbor has such a prime opportunity to see a side door open and go in to steal something. So if I were a detective, maybe I would look into this guy a little further? But nope, didn't even check his alibi, such as it was. So five years later the case is cold, and the detective in his voiceover says that he always kept the case file on his desk, but cases go cold when there are no more leads to check...uh, my man, you didn't even finish checking the leads you were handed on a platter!

So....when a cold case unit got the case after five years, they found that the neighbor's life had been falling apart back then, and he was a broke druggie (who would have needed money for drugs, duh). They also checked his alibi, and he in fact did not have his daughter that weekend (the ex-wife kept meticulous custody records!). (I think there was also something that fell apart with his alibi regarding his mother, but I can't recall the deetz.) Of course he turned out to be the perp...could have closed the case a lot sooner if the first detective had done his job!

Her poor family had to be pissed at how he could have been in jail the whole time if they had bother to look into him.

[One Tough Cookie]

Anyone watching the Sean Diddy documentary? I believe it's on hulu.

The guy is a sociopath/serious repeated sex predator I don't think anyone in the country could find him innocent; he should go to prison for life.

[LuvMyShows]

OMG "The Windshield Murder" case on Prosecuting Evil was absolutely insane, unlike anything I have ever heard of. I don't want to give anything away, so I'll just leave it at that. You have to see it to believe it!

[LuvMyShows]

I just read an article that was "refreshing" in that the family of the murderer didn't just retain their unwavering support and love, after the perp was found to have committed (and legit confessed to) a brutal murder of a stranger. It seems like in so many shows, the family professes their undying love and devotion, even when, say, a father has killed their mother, and even when they believe that he did it!  I can more easily sort of understand it when the perp has killed a stranger or someone unconnected, but to kill a loved one, and then still have the devotion of other loved ones, is mind-boggling. 

Thinking this through for real, if my child was convicted of killing someone (unjustified) and they really did it, I would probably still love them deep inside, but that wouldn't equate to them having my support. They clearly would not be the person I thought they were, and that person doesn't need to benefit from me visiting them in jail or making their stay better or whatever. I suppose it would be more complicated if mental illness is involved, which was not the case in the story I read about.  In fact, in that case, after the one killing decades ago, the perp went on to live a normal life (married, kids, retired military) and was never in trouble with the law (which totally puts to lie that police reliance on looking at suspects and basically ruling out people who've never been in trouble with the law!).

[LuvMyShows]

I have learned two new things lately...one from Kelly Siegler's show and one from A&E's Homicide Squad New Orleans.

• The proper way to conduct a photo lineup, is to have an officer/detective who is completely unaffiliated with the case be the one to present the pictures. I'm pretty sure I had never seen that done before until watching Homicide Squad New Orleans. It makes a lot of sense, to help avoid the appearance of bias, and I'm kinda stunned that I'd never seen that before.
• Kelly made a great point in Prosecuting Evil. When the suspect has a police interrogation video, do not show it in court, unless the suspect will be taking the stand and be available for cross-examination. Otherwise, it lets the suspect's version of events go out completely unchallenged.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

I have learned two new things lately...one from Kelly Siegler's show and one from A&E's Homicide Squad New Orleans.

• The proper way to conduct a photo lineup, is to have an officer/detective who is completely unaffiliated with the case be the one to present the pictures. I'm pretty sure I had never seen that done before until watching Homicide Squad New Orleans. It makes a lot of sense, to help avoid the appearance of bias, and I'm kinda stunned that I'd never seen that before.

They also do that on First 48.

[LuvMyShows]

I hope some of you watched (or will watch) the two-part season 7 premiere of Accused: Guilty or Innocent, "Jealous Killer or Fearful Victim," because I need to hear what other people think! 

First of all, I don't know why they made it a two-parter...he was guilty, there was nothing suspenseful that was revealed as the court date drew closer, and he was not particularly sympathetic.

I'm a little baffled why more attention wasn't paid to the fact that his daughter called him in the car before he even arrived at Daniel Peek's house and she said she'd walk away from the house and he could pick her up on the road. Had he done that, the whole entire eruption never would have happened, and he never gave an explanation for why he insisted on coming to the house to pick her up, other than something like, "I told her to just do what we had already arranged", or something like that. There was only one reason to insist on coming to the house, and that is so that he could unleash on Peek, who he absolutely still had ill will towards for stealing his wife, despite what he said. 

Why did he shoot the warning shot, and then attack Peek anyway? Usually a warning shot is to avoid a confrontation. So what was the warning shot actually for?

Something I also wish they had delved further into, was the whole "I have health issues" thing, as explaining why he was so worried when he was in the fight against two people...but his health issues sure as hell didn't stop him from starting the physical altercation in the first place, and by jumping on the back of a man who appeared to be walking the other way after the warning shot!!!!

The defense tried to paint the second shot as "unlucky" for having hit the victim because the man was so disoriented when he picked up the gun and shot, but he sure as heck didn't look disoriented when he picked up the gun, raised his arm to the right height, aimed at the man fleeing and who was already a good distance away, and shot at his retreating back.

They were all idiots for not having taken the plea deal, and their logic was so faulty. He would have gotten 6-14 years, and they kept using the 14 years when they said that at 47 years old, he'd be 61 at the end of 14 years, and with his health that was like a death sentence. Well, maybe he would have gotten the lower end of the sentence, and maybe he wouldn't die so soon, and he could have had a life again. But now he won't. The defense lawyers didn't appear to even try to talk him into it, so maybe they just really underestimated what the case would look like to a jury.

And that mom deserves to rot in hell for telling the daughter that if she testified for the father, that they would kick her out and she'd have no home. 

On a side note, when they showed him playing with one of the grandsons, the kid wanted to play with some stick. But the guy was basically saying he wanted the stick, and not in a joking/fun way. It just seemed bully-ish, which I suspect is what the guy is actually like some of the time. This is not to excuse Daniel Peek, who seemed like a preening arrogant douchebag.

I will say the defense lawyers did a good job prepping him. He was much more able to think on his feet in a way that reflected better for him, and avoid being painted into the self-incriminating corner that the prosecuting attorney tried to paint him into.

[One Tough Cookie]

I haven't seen that yet, the latest I saw was the man who shot is daughter's boyfriend thru the car.  He got probation.  I would have thrown the book at him.  Maybe I'll see the 2 part on Thursday.

Anyone been watching People? I saw the one with baby Lisa and am outraged that the mother admitted to drinking TEN GLASSES OF WINE while her kids were in the house.  I firmly believe she knows what happened and thought the authorizes would cite for child neglect.

Ten glasses of wine and I'd die of alcohol poisoning.  I wish the mom would fess up.

[kathyk2]

Did anyone watch the Hollywood Demons about Stephen Collins? It was chilling we are lucky that he did not have as many victims as Bill Cosby. It was disgusting that he tried to blame his ten-year-old victim.

[badhaggis]

10 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

Did anyone watch the Hollywood Demons about Stephen Collins? It was chilling we are lucky that he did not have as many victims as Bill Cosby. It was disgusting that he tried to blame his ten-year-old victim.

He is vile and a predator. I had not heard the details before this episode. I am sure he has more victims. 

[One Tough Cookie]

16 hours ago, kathyk2 said:

Did anyone watch the Hollywood Demons about Stephen Collins? It was chilling we are lucky that he did not have as many victims as Bill Cosby. It was disgusting that he tried to blame his ten-year-old victim.

I Wikki'd it  and was disgusted.  Tonite I'm going to try it on streaming.

[Vermicious Knid]

I think one of the Christian channels was still running the show after this all came out because they were defending it as being a wholesome, family friendly series. Yeaaaaah,

I've been enjoying the new season of New York Homicide.

[Spartan Girl]

On 3/26/2025 at 1:50 AM, kathyk2 said:

Did anyone watch the Hollywood Demons about Stephen Collins? It was chilling we are lucky that he did not have as many victims as Bill Cosby. It was disgusting that he tried to blame his ten-year-old victim.

I watched it. Absolutely sickening. He should be in jail, but at least he’s not among the many predators in Hollywood on an apology tour and comeback.

Yet.

[SunnyBeBe]

On 3/26/2025 at 12:42 PM, badhaggis said:

He is vile and a predator. I had not heard the details before this episode. I am sure he has more victims. 

Why do you suppose no female actors from the series participated in the documentary?  It was implied they really liked the actor.  

[LuvMyShows]

 

On 3/26/2025 at 1:50 AM, kathyk2 said:

Did anyone watch the Hollywood Demons about Stephen Collins? It was chilling we are lucky that he did not have as many victims as Bill Cosby. It was disgusting that he tried to blame his ten-year-old victim.

What I found fascinating, in a sickening way, was when he was being interviewed by Katie Couric, and they had that expert woman providing commentary about the significance of the different things he was saying. I was shocked that I hadn't noticed them, until she pointed them out. Like how he called the 10-year old "a young woman" to minimize the disgustingness of having done it to a child, and how he said something about "the situation we were in" to make it seem more like the child had somehow been a willing participant, and how he tried to minimize the amount of time he had her hand on his penis by saying "45 seconds", even though 45 seconds is actually a very long time.

[One Tough Cookie]

So.  Last nite I saw a segment about Jeffrey McDonald.  The moderator had apparently NOT read the book by Maguinas and kept saying he {Mac}  didn't get a fair trial, that Maguinas "betrayed" Jeff, that, he was to write Mac's story in a sympatric light, neglecting the fact that the author was supposed to write about Jeff AND the trial.

I was incensed.  Alan Dershbag was on saying his trial wasn't fair and Helena should have been called.  Uhm, wasn't she dead by that time?  Then a possible "compassionate release" should be considered because he had he had kidney problems.  Jeff is now in his late 80s and looks terrible.  Cry me a river.  He looks terrible; no sympathy from me.

This upset me so much I plan on watching Fatal Vision again this weekend,

I was so incensed that I went down to my husband and started yelling about the segment and gave him the book Fatal Vision and told him to read it.  He's on Chapter 2 and said he already hates him. 

 

Edited Saturday at 12:07 AM by One Tough Cookie

[One Tough Cookie]

Oh, and--the hair found in Colette's hand was not someone else's, DNA tested it and found it was surprise-- surprise--Mac's

Edited Saturday at 08:55 PM by One Tough Cookie