S29.E08: The Bugs Bunny Defense

[photo fox]

Quote

A husband shot dead – a wife’s frantic 911 call – her bizarre story was a first for police, and Richard Schlesinger of CBS News.

[starri]

I've been waiting for this one for weeks.

[ari333]

Did I miss it? I was looking for it on the dang DVR. I still don't know which channel is what . ....since we moved here.

Maybe it is on On Demand? Does it have a title for the eppy? TIA. 

(Is the title Bugs Bunny? Or a snark title? heh)

[starri]

You didn't miss it, it's tonight's episode.

[ari333]

The bunny story lady did not sound truthful to me.. I know the story was absurd, but it was her delivery that was hinky for me... not the story itself.

I was always taught not to point a gun at anyone (anyone I didn't want to shoot, intruders etc) even if they gun was thought to be unloaded. Still -  do not point it at loved ones.. period.

Then she changed her story. BAH.

Edited November 1, 2015 by ari333

[walnutqueen]

I was always taught not to point a gun at anyone (anyone I didn't want to shoot, intruders etc) even if they gun was thought to be unloaded. Still -  do not point it at loved ones.. period.

 

I was also taught that ALL guns are loaded; even if someone tells you a gun is unloaded, you always clear it yourself.

[photo fox]

Yes to both of those! Basic gun safety. I'd go so far as to say I'd never point a gun at anyone even if I had just unleaded it myself. You cannot be too cautious.

[psychoticstate]

The Bugs Bunny defense was ridiculous but stranger things . . .

 

What convinces me the wife was guilty is that she claims she was a novice shooter and shot her husband accidentally.  If true, there never would have been a second shot with the gun that was used.  The noise of the first shot would have shocked and scared her.  She never would have accidentally shot twice. 

 

Not only that, but she claims she was going to show her husband she could shoot like the cowboys.  How is that going to work if he was lying down with the back of his head toward her?   Did he have eyes in the back of his head?

Edited November 1, 2015 by psychoticstate

[ari333]

The Bugs Bunny defense was ridiculous but stranger things . . .

 

What convinces me the wife was guilty is that she claims she was a novice shooter and shot her husband accidentally.  If true, there never would have been a second shot with the gun that was used.  The noise of the first shot would have shocked and scared her.  She never would have accidentally shot twice. 

 

Not only that, but she claims she was going to show her husband she could shoot like the cowboys.  How is that going to work if he was lying down with the back of his head toward her?   Did he have eyes in the back of his head?

 

 

THIS,

 

.

[starri]

I don't know if that was more or less off the wall than I was expecting.

 

The woman clearly did it.  Anyone who has their gallbladder removed three separate times is not playing with a full deck.  But where I was getting stuck is why she threw in the Bugs Bunny part at all.  I mean, wouldn't that make the cops look at the case with even more scrutiny by adding a detail that was that insane?

 

I found myself wishing Susan Spencer had been the one covering this story.  I could hear her verbal eyerolls.

[psychoticstate]

Also wanted to add that if this was an accidental shooting, the head can be a relatively small, limited target in some cases.  She didn't hit the sofa, she didn't hit the wall, or even her husband's arm, leg or torso (which would be a larger space to hit).  No, she hit him in the head.  TWICE.  And with both shots being grouped close together in a small area (so close that the initial cops on the scene didn't recognize the second shot.)  I would think the chances of that happening with two accidental gunshots are a million to one.

[UsernameFatigue]

Yep, her story definitely did not make sense. Also she claimed to be inexperienced where guns are concerned, but said her hubby had shown her over 20 times how to fan a gun when shooting. And yes, I don't own a gun and never will but who the heck points a gun at someone and just assumes there are no bullets in it?

 

I was surprised that no motive was brought up. No life insurance, no affairs, no money problems. Very strange case, or very strange covering of the case.

 

I think the thing that surprised me the most was the amount of time it took to bring her to justice. They interviewed her once right after the shooting,  then didn't again for two years until after the expert said that you could not shoot using fanning (forgive me if my terminology is wrong as I know nothing about guns) with the gun that was used in the shooting. Why did the detectives bring her in and then ask her to go to a shooting range (which she never did) to show how she would have done this? Why not have a gun of the same make right there in the interview room and ask her to show them? Obviously according to her it can be done without bullets as that is what she claimed she was trying to do and had done before with her husband. That right there would have proved that she was lying. But no, they let it go for several more years. Seems like the only thing that got them motivated was that she remarried. She if she hadn't they would have just let her go on without bringing her to justice?

[Matkat]

I just had to emerge from lurkdom to comment on this murder.  I actually was a co-worker with Linda and Julie for several years.  I went to the viewing, memorial service and the get together after the memorial service at Linda’s house as well as the closing statements at her second trial.  I’ve heard her lie about medical issues (yeah, nobody has three gallbladders) as well about several bizarre incidents which simply could not have happened the way she related.  She also told me that she never, ever had any kind of disagreement or argument with Patrick throughout her entire marriage.  There was something very off about Linda and it was something that you couldn’t quite put your finger on, you just took what she said with a grain of salt. But, as far as motive is concerned, IMHO Patrick was not a nice husband nor father and did not give Linda or the boys positive attention. 
Also to partially answer the question as to why this investigation went so long, I understand, but don’t know for certain, that there was some pressure from the life insurance company to bring this to a final resolution.
Alhough I know better, I was struck by how well she lied about the murder.  Believe me when I say, she intentionally shot him.  I also think that if she had shot him just once, she would have convinced everyone that it was an accident and would have walked.  She’s that good.  I feel bad for everyone involved including her new husband who believes her.  My prediction is that she will be a good inmate and will impress everyone with her sincerity and will be paroled in about 10 years or so.  She’ll go back with her new hubby and be fine. 
My opinion only…….

[tobeannounced]

Thanks for sharing that, Matkat.

I too thought it was really odd how they were just too busy to charge this woman with a crime.

They mentioned later that her motive was not wanting to take care of her ill husband.  When did they mention anything about him being ill?

[Matkat]

Never heard a word about his health.  He was a large guy but he was pretty active with his friends so I'm not sure how relevant his health issues were to Linda.  At the memorial service, several of his sheriff buddies spoke about how he was always eager to go to the shooting range or fly model airplanes with them.  Didn't sound like he was cutting back on activities with his buds.

[ElleBee]

 

They mentioned later that her motive was not wanting to take care of her ill husband.  When did they mention anything about him being ill?

 

I just watched and there was a throw-away line about him being treated for some kind of illness--circulatory issues, I think? (I'd go back and check but the CBS website shows a million commercials--can't sit through that again!)

[ari333]

I thought I heard that there was life insurance, but that the policy was years old. It wasn't one of those new ones then boom, the person dies. Maybe I heard wrong or got confused with another show. [/too much tv] Not saying that's the motive.

I, too, recall the circulatory issue being mentioned.

[psychoticstate]

There was a brief, almost throwaway comment, on health issues the husband supposedly had and perhaps the wife didn't want to have to care for him. 

I don't really care what the motive is because the evidence itself convinces me she did it.  Sure, it would be nice to have a motive to tie things up but it could have been something so simple as she just didn't want to be married to him any longer.

 

Matkat, thank you for your insider info.  The wife saying she never had a disagreement or argument with her husband is a huge red flag and would indicate to me that she's covering something up.  Who doesn't have an argument or disagreement with their spouse at one time or another?  And we're supposed to believe that over the course of the 15 or 20 years they'd been married, they had never disagreed?  Yeah, file that under the same place you're putting your three gallbladders. 

 

I also agree that if she had shot him just once, she likely would have walked.

[Jpxfactor]

She shot him in the top of his head....why does it take soo long to catch these people.

[ChristmasJones]

This episode was underwhelming.  But I am loyal to 48 Hours and will always watch new episodes.

 

I actually found myself feeling that her delayed arrest had even more impact because she had enough time to create a new life for herself. And then she had to say goodbye to it. It might not have hurt as much had she been arrested shortly after his death.

 

Another thing you realize when you watch enough of these cases of women going on trial is how prevalent hair dye is. This was another good example - she was almost completely gray underneath the blonde.

[glowlights]

Matkat, thank you for sharing your experiences. What did you think of her courtroom collapse when she was found guilty? Sincere, or acting?

 

I wanted to strangle the detective who said that he didn't believe she was a killer because she was a married middle-aged woman and thus didn't meet the profile, and then kept wanting to believe her cockamamie story. Talk about working with blinders on. I wonder how many other cases he's let go because someone doesn't "look" like a killer? Gah.

[ari333]

Matkat, thank you for sharing your experiences. What did you think of her courtroom collapse when she was found guilty? Sincere, or acting?

 

I wanted to strangle the detective who said that he didn't believe she was a killer because she was a married middle-aged woman and thus didn't meet the profile, and then kept wanting to believe her cockamamie story. Talk about working with blinders on. I wonder how many other cases he's let go because someone doesn't "look" like a killer? Gah.

 

omg THIS!!!

[Matkat]

Remember, Linda is very convincing.  I think that when Linda and the boys were first interviewed they appeared to be an intact, loving family. It would seem that she had no motive for killing him.  My guess is that the detective initially believed her but after putting more and more clues together he eventually became convinced of her guilt. Also remember that Patrick was non LEO working for the Sheriff's Dept. All those LEO seemed to have no suspicions either and spoke highly of Linda.  If I recall correctly, some anonymous letters to the editors appeared in the local paper inquiring as to why she was not being charged for murder and why she wasn’t in jail.  I also saw some internet documentation from the insurance company refusing to pay off until a further investigation was initiated.  Possibly external pressure caused a further look.  From my point of view though, the investigation really hit high gear after the first jury hung.

My co-workers and I, including Linda, would chair Inter-Disciplinarian meeting which could sometimes get a bit dicey.  Generally though, no big deal and you just get through it.  I recall that Linda had a fainting episode in one of her meetings.  Paramedics were called,  fire engine, police, Program Director, etc arrived.  Much drama.  Meeting canceled.  Out of literally hundreds of meetings that we all chaired, Linda was the only one who ever fainted for no particular reason.   Just saying she might have had some practice for the sentencing!

[Fable]

I wanted to strangle the detective who said that he didn't believe she was a killer because she was a married middle-aged woman and thus didn't meet the profile, and then kept wanting to believe her cockamamie story. Talk about working with blinders on. I wonder how many other cases he's let go because someone doesn't "look" like a killer? Gah.

 

 Actually, I found it rather refreshing that he didn't rush to judgment and wanted to make sure she was indeed guilty so he didn't put an innocent person behind bars.  Too many times on these shows, we see just the opposite where detectives just care about closing a case without looking at all the facts.  

 

I do agree though that you don't have to "look like" a killer to be one.