All Episodes Talk: 48 Hours

[LittleIggy]

Honestly, I thought more than once that she might have wished he was a girl.

She did name him "Garnet." Gem stone names are usually female.

[glowlights]

There are certain kinds of diuretics that can cause hypernatremia, but that's also something that wouldn't have just happened.  If he'd had poorly controlled diabetes, that might have been a cause, but clearly that wasn't the case.

 

Thank you! No doubt the hospital was looking for anything and everything that could explain his symptoms. I'm just very cautious after hearing of what that other mother went through.

 

 

I absolutely thought Lacy had/has MBP.  Letting other people think your friend/neighbor's kid is yours?  Creepy.  And the NY neighbor had no reason to lie about Lacy asking her to throw out that bag.  Why would you even be thinking about that while your child is dying or had just died?  It reeked of guilt.  It also seemed like Garnet could eat just fine when his mother wasn't there or when she deemed it was okay for him to eat.  

 

Yes, that struck me as well. Poor Garnet. Regardless of the cause, he led an agonizing young life.

[Fable]

I saw the Lacey Spears case covered before.  I'm not sure if it was on this show or a different one, but I remember that while she was in Florida, she led a neighbor to believe that her father had been molesting her and that he was Garnett's biological father.  I don't recall the mention of a deceased law enforcement officer being the father.  Among other things, she is pretty clearly a pathological liar.  

 

As to the episode about the studio apartment murder, I just can't see how Taylor was not involved.  Maybe she instigated it, maybe participated in it or maybe outright killed him herself.  There were just too many red flags for her to be free of any guilt.  Her behavior while being interviewed was just too flat.  Even if she didn't actually remember what happened, she didn't seem to be very fazed by what had happened.  The fact that she had changed clothes wouldn't be that significant in and of itself (many people do that when they get home from an evening out and want to relax), but the fact that the clothes she had taken off had blood on both the dress and under garments, indicate she was likely wearing them when the murder took place.  I guess one could argue it was a small apartment and she left her clothes in heap on the floor and so they had blood splatter.  The biggest thing though was the hair.  I agree some people shed more than others, and so if some hair had ended up on his body it could possibly be explained, but the hair was in his blood on the wall, wrapped around the knife and clutched in his hand....that defies explanation.  

[biakbiak]

In addition to her hair, her contact lens was on his body.

[glowlights]

I saw the Lacey Spears case covered before.  I'm not sure if it was on this show or a different one, but I remember that while she was in Florida, she led a neighbor to believe that her father had been molesting her and that he was Garnett's biological father.  I don't recall the mention of a deceased law enforcement officer being the father.  Among other things, she is pretty clearly a pathological liar.  

 

!!!!! No, I don't recall that being mentioned on the 48 Hours ep. But I found this article. It's a jaw-dropper. The other parts in the series are linked at the end:

http://www.lohud.com/story/news/investigations/2014/06/17/lacey-spears-past-disturbing-stories/10659539/

[ari333]

That Lacey chick gave me the straight up chills

[starri]

From that link about Lacy Spears:

 

 

Hammack, while working alongside Lacey at day care, said Lacey had Garnett and was already talking about wanting a second child. It got to the point of Lacey being jealous when Hammack became pregnant with another child. Lacey had even picked out a name for her second: Hammack thinks it was Granite.

*facepalm*

[Ohmo]

Last night was an update on the Irene Garza case.  Good that that other DA was voted out of office.  I think it's pretty clear that John Fiet did it.  The question now becomes will he be convicted and actually jailed at his advanced age?

[patty1h]

Last night was "The Soldier's Wife" - the case of the 20 year old soldier (name?) who shot his teen wife in the back of the head with the assault rifle he gave her as a gift.  This is one where the husband definitely did it but he said it was all a terrible accident.  I have a hard time believing that.  He's trained in weapons, which is strike one, but to get a headshot?  Not shoulder or arm or leg or into the wall, but a perfect killshot... that makes me go hmmmm.  

I tend to believe the facts given by the police - he was jealous and controlling.  He had a teen bride who wasn't conforming to what he believed a wife was supposed to do, going by his texts about her cooking and cleaning. He also thinks she's talking to other guys.  So, he gets home from boot camp, sees things that made him angry and he lost control.  His crying in the squad car rang really false to me - like he knew he was being recorded and started setting up his 'it was an accident' scenario.  

I feel terrible for the girl's family - what a senseless way to lose a relative.

[starri]

Murder.  1000% murder.

I was afraid the jury was buying his poor, pitiful me routine when he was on the stand, and ended up impressed that they didn't.  While I don't agree with their verdict, I do think their reasoning of how they got to Man-1 was pretty sound.  And I'm also glad he ended up with the maximum sentence.

[Albino]

16 minutes ago, patty1h said:

His crying in the squad car rang really false to me - like he knew he was being recorded and started setting up his 'it was an accident' scenario.  

I feel terrible for the girl's family - what a senseless way to lose a relative.

 "I killed my wife!  I love her so much!  She was my world!  I love my wife so much!  My wife - I love her!  How could this happen?"

 I pretty much thought it was murder - not manslaughter - in the first 10 minutes.  His behavior in the police car was laughable....all the wailing and gnashing of teeth was ridiculous.  

I hope his appeal to have his sentence reduced is denied.  13 years is not enough, but it's the best the judge could do with a manslaughter verdict.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Albino

[tobeannounced]

I was curious why they didn't really address the backseat drama llama show.  I would have loved to hear what the prosecutor said about it during the trial or what the jurors thought, but then I'm wondering if for some reason it wasn't allowed in as evidence.

I'd really love to know more of the background of the husband.  He said his mom lived in a multi-million dollar house, yet he was going straight into the service instead of college, which is not something I associate with rich people.  And why did mom encourage them getting married so young?

Edited May 9, 2016 by tobeannounced

[Superpole2000]

53 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Last night was "The Soldier's Wife" - the case of the 20 year old soldier (name?) who shot his teen wife in the back of the head with the assault rifle he gave her as a gift.  This is one where the husband definitely did it but he said it was all a terrible accident.  I have a hard time believing that.  He's trained in weapons, which is strike one, but to get a headshot?  Not shoulder or arm or leg or into the wall, but a perfect killshot... that makes me go hmmmm

That's the issue for me too. Accidentally firing a gun is something unlikely to occur. So combining that unlikely event with the unlikely circumstance that the victim's head just happened to catch the bullet makes me think two unlikely events is too many.

I might have stuck with a guilty verdict based on that assumption alone, but then seeing how the victim had no blood on him and showed more concern with moving stuff around than helping his dying wife...well that confirmed to me that this was much more likely to be murder than an accident.

[Ohmo]

His behavior in the car seemed like a performance to me.  The amount of talking came across as a red flag, moreso than what he did with the gun.  Schylar was trained, but the training in and of itself wasn't the convincing factor to me. Training does not always prevent a shooting. Chris Kyle (the American Sniper)'s training didn't prevent that other guy from shooting him, and that trained gun instructor was not able to prevent that young girl from accidentally shooting herself.  He was right next to her.  I needed more other than "Skylar was trained" because accidents can and do happen even with trained individuals present.  That's still plausible to me, but his behavior in the car raised several eyebrows, along with the text messages, and the situation over buying the alcohol.

Not that she deserved to get shot, but I have to say that the pictures of Danielle bothered me.  They BOTH seemed rather blase about the gun.  She seemed to be posing with it like it was a toy.  Which in twisted sort of way bolsters his claim of an accident.  If they treated the guns the way that the pictures came across, they were an accident waiting to happen.

[patty1h]

Another thing that struck me was was they were both so darn young.  Fifty years ago, teenagers got married and no one blinked an eye.  These days, it seems very weird.  In my eyes, these are two children playing house, playing grown up.  I feel like Judge Judy does about the teenage brain - she says they are still "cooking".  I can see Skyler not having very good impulse control, feeling betrayed by Danielle and having a moment of blind rage. (Thank you to Ohmo for reminding me of their names)

[ponyglue]

So guilty and enjoying playing the system to get out of it.  Did you check out his grin after hearing the jury was out for so long? He was like, yup totally put the doubt in them.  And he NEVER said her name--always my wife.  This guy is Ted Bundy Jr.

[txhorns79]

Quote

I might have stuck with a guilty verdict based on that assumption alone, but then seeing how the victim had no blood on him and showed more concern with moving stuff around than helping his dying wife...well that confirmed to me that this was much more likely to be murder than an accident.

I had the opposite reaction.  I thought the "rage" motive offered was very, very weak.  I agree his behavior after the death was strange, but I also have no real idea as to how I would react in that situation.   I was comfortable with the finding him guilty of manslaughter, as opposed to murder. 

[ridethemaverick]

I will never understand the culture these two grew up in...I guess you'd call it gun culture. I can't imagine buying my kids rifles as gifts and normalizing deadly weapons. I agree that the cavalier way they viewed guns (lying around loaded?) was a disaster waiting to happen.

Poor Danielle. She really didn't have an adult in her life who could be completely responsible for her. She had her coach and the neighbor who cared about her but they weren't her guardians. She was trying to create her own family and ended up with a murderer.

[Ohmo]

Reminder: Next week's 48 hours is going to be Jane Laut (spelling?), the woman who shot her husband, the former Olympian.  Dateline's already done this case, and IIRC, our discussion was fairly lengthy.  We'll have the 48 Hours version to compare with the Dateline version.

(Yes, I know I watch a lot of crime TV.)

[Ohmo]

47 minutes ago, ridethemaverick said:

I will never understand the culture these two grew up in...I guess you'd call it gun culture. I can't imagine buying my kids rifles as gifts and normalizing deadly weapons. I agree that the cavalier way they viewed guns (lying around loaded?) was a disaster waiting to happen.

 

Ridethemaverick, I agree.  I'm not someone who has (or wants) a gun, but I can understand someone having a handgun for protection.  However, Skylar and Danielle had something along the lines of an assault rifles.  Skylar was a soldier, but I see no reason why Danielle needed that type of gun, even for shooting at a shooting range.

[LittleIggy]

6 hours ago, Ohmo said:

Ridethemaverick, I agree.  I'm not someone who has (or wants) a gun, but I can understand someone having a handgun for protection.  However, Skylar and Danielle had something along the lines of an assault rifles.  Skylar was a soldier, but I see no reason why Danielle needed that type of gun, even for shooting at a shooting range.

Thank you. I mean, who would even want something like an assault rifle just casually laying around the house? The episode should have been titled "Young, Dumb, and Dead."

[Christina]

I watched part of this trial on Wild About Trial as it aired. The local news had it livestreamed, and WAT broadcast it. I saw his testimony, and was ready to convict him of murder based on that alone. He was insufferable, trying to cry when his attorney asked him something but just "not remembering" when the prosecution asked him the same thing. He didn't cry with tears, either. Someone in the Wild About Trial chat actually went and found a statistic of how many people cry without tears because we were all wondering. I don't remember the answer, but it was like 20 percent or something. We all agreed he was a faker, though.

The jury foreman in this case created a Twitter account to live tweet with Erin Moriarty and 48 Hours when the episode aired. According to him, 4 jurors wanted murder based on the fact he shot her center mass of the head, but the other 8 couldn't meet the burden for the "intent" portion of the jury instruction, and the first 4 came around to manslaughter after 7 days. The only evidence they had that he intended to do it was the testimony of the friend (Faas?) saying he was angry about the liquor and the text messages, but those were spread out over several months. He said they still wonder about it, but are all glad the judge gave him the max sentence. The defense wanted Manslaughter 2 but they gave him Manslaughter 1. He had an additional 60 months added to his sentence for the crime being committed by a gun.

Apparently some woman claimed to be his girlfriend and said she lived next to the aunt where he was living on house arrest. People at another court chat site saw an interview with her, or something, and wondered why it wasn't brought up as a motive, but Erin said it was checked out and untrue. Who would make up a rumor about being in a relationship with a man who murdered his wife and was awaiting trial? People are insane, but it gives me court shows so I guess I'll just have to shake my head and deal with it.

Just a note on the appeal he filed. My understanding is that it is only on the sentence since the judge did not give him any credit for the days he was on house arrest, and he is asking that it be taken into consideration because he was only allowed out of the house for 1 hour a day and if he had been in jail awaiting trial, he would have received credit for those days. I, personally, don't think he should receive any time credit since sitting at home, even under house arrest, is barely suffering. But if the appellate court says he should, I certainly hope it isn't a day for a day, maybe a day for each month.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Christina
Fixed bad link

[Fable]

I'm not even sure how this guy got a manslaughter charge.  Even if the jury wasn't allowed to see the footage of this clown in the minutes after he was picked up, they had to realize he never bothered to call 911, tried to get rid of the alcohol and put the gun back in the closet.  There is no excuse for that.  So what if there was reasonable doubt about the gun accidentally discharging, it was clear he didn't give a shit about the welfare of his wife.  Of course, we don't see what the jury sees and they don't see what we see but, damn, it seemed so open and shut to me

[Christina]

He had no reason to put his finger on that trigger. NONE. Even if his story was true, and he thought it was unloaded, he didn't need to pull the trigger. They didn't really show it on the episode, but during his testimony, he told another story (making it like number 5 because he kept changing it) about why he had grabbed it in a way that his finger was near the trigger. It seemed asinine to me, and I would have been one of the 4 who wanted murder, and just may have hung the jury over it. Grab the gun in a way that you accidentally fire it? Possible; accidents do happen. Just happen to shoot your wife in the back of the head, dead center? A bit too coincidental to me.

Also, he was discharged from the military but it doesn't look like they brought him up on any charges. This took place off base, but he still could have been court-martialed for his behavior, including under-aged drinking.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Christina
Added paragraph

[JeezumCrow]

8 hours ago, Christina said:

He had no reason to put his finger on that trigger. NONE. Even if his story was true, and he thought it was unloaded, he didn't need to pull the trigger. They didn't really show it on the episode, but during his testimony, he told another story (making it like number 5 because he kept changing it) about why he had grabbed it in a way that his finger was near the trigger. It seemed asinine to me, and I would have been one of the 4 who wanted murder, and just may have hung the jury over it. Grab the gun in a way that you accidentally fire it? Possible; accidents do happen. Just happen to shoot your wife in the back of the head, dead center? A bit too coincidental to me.

Also, he was discharged from the military but it doesn't look like they brought him up on any charges. This took place off base, but he still could have been court-martialed for his behavior, including under-aged drinking.

I agree 100%. The only alternative I could come up with - and the only "accidental" way this could have happened - is if he was in a rage, looked at the gun quickly and thought it wasn't loaded... and then aimed square at the back of her head and pulled the trigger, thinking no bullet would fire and he could live out a fantasy. In my gut, I believe it was just pure murder, though. He "couldn't remember" how he was holding the gun, why he pulled the trigger, IF he pulled the trigger (but acknowledged that that's how a gun fires), didn't try to help her OR call 911 (I can stretch my imagination to think that in a frightened panic one may do one but not the other, but definitely not NEITHER) and put on that big whiny show in the police car and on the stand. I'm just relieved the jury didn't completely acquit, which was what I feared. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by curlyblackeggs

[txhorns79]

Quote

Possible; accidents do happen. Just happen to shoot your wife in the back of the head, dead center? A bit too coincidental to me.

I think my problem is that is all there is, things that seem too coincidental without much else.  I mean, I just have trouble with the idea that a guy without much of a history of violence (I think a smashed phone was mentioned), suddenly becomes ultra-violent to the point where he is executing his wife in a fairly gruesome manner.  It's certainly possible, in the sense that anything is possible, I just felt like the motive was very weak for a murder charge.   

[Christina]

There was testimony from the friend that was supposed to buy the alcohol that Skylar was jealous and angry that she had someone else buy it, and the cops said that there was alcohol on his breath but didn't bother to test him to see if he was impaired. I think alcohol may have been a factor that we will never know, because the cops didn't test his BAC. The broken cell phone wasn't introduced at trial. It seems that it was too far in the past so the judge ruled it inadmissable, but I don't remember for sure why it wasn't introduced. It seems like a sudden decision; I don't think he planned it for longer than a minute or two, but I do think he aimed and shot her on purpose as opposed to grabbing the gun wrong and it accidentally discharging. He's the only one who knows what happened, and he couldn't keep his story straight so her family will never know for sure.

Earlier today, Erin Moriarty posted a link to this article from someone who was arguing with her on Twitter. I wouldn't have been so nice. But in the article, it links to a response on FB from Danielle's loved ones who are angry with how the 48 Hours episode was prepared and edited. I didn't think it was as one-sided as he does, and there probably isn't any way to make everyone happy. He doesn't want anyone to watch 48 Hours anymore. 

[ChristmasJones]

Regardless of any of his behavior after the shooting, I did not feel strongly convinced that he did this on purpose due to rage at her.   If I had to go solely off of what was shown in this episode I would have gone with manslaughter.  

[UsernameFatigue]

On April-12-16 at 9:39 PM, LittleIggy said:

She did name him "Garnet." Gem stone names are usually female.

She may have wanted a girl, but I have never heard of a girl named Garnet. On the other hand I do know three guys named Garnet. Besides the name of a gem stone it is an Old English name meaning seller of hinges. (Just a little trivia).

I just watched the Soldier's Wife epi and will confess that I was packing for a trip while it was on so not always paying close attention. Was the jury not told about his not immediately calling 911, not comforting/helping Danielle, hiding liquor bottles and the gun, and that fact that he changed his story multiple times? When they said that Skylar's mother had hired a high profile lawyer my first thought was that he needed to get acting lessons for his client, based on Skylar's performance in the police car. But I guess not as apparently the jury bought his lies, right down to the sobbing on stand without so much as a tear shed. At least he didn't get off scott free so I guess that is something, but I would have had no problem with finding him guilty of murder had I had the same info as was presented during the show. So back to my question, did the jury not know of his actions immediately following the shooting? Not the actions of an innocent man (and yes I realize he was found guilty but it was not manslaughter IMO).

[starri]

1 hour ago, UsernameFatigue said:

But I guess not as apparently the jury bought his lies, right down to the sobbing on stand without so much as a tear shed.

They didn't actually.  The jurors interviewed said they didn't buy his tears for a minute, their manslaughter conviction was based on the prosecution not having sufficiently proved intent.

[UsernameFatigue]

You are right - I stand corrected. Mind you they could not have bought his 'tears' since there were none shed. However I would have disagreed had I been on the jury that he did not have intent given his actions following, plus his jealousy beforehand. Not to mention the problems in the marriage including his annoyance over her spending, etc. Many women have died for less.

Edited May 13, 2016 by UsernameFatigue

[Tdoc72]

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 5:44 PM, Ohmo said:

 

(Yes, I know I watch a lot of crime TV.)

My reply:  My 9 yr old made me a Mother's Day card at school & listed facts about me.  One of my facts was "my mom likes to watch creepy murder shows".  I've always explained to all of my kids that I'm interested in the killer getting caught/justice, not the actual murder, but I wonder what her teacher thinks now.  :-)

Edited May 13, 2016 by Tdoc72
can't separate my reply from the quoted post

[LittleIggy]

The jury got it right about that woman murdering her husband. Hiding the gun in a grandfather clock? WTF.

[Albino]

Jane Laut's meek, "poor helpless me" voice and demeanor wore thin after about 15 minutes.  

They just did this story on Dateline or 20/20 a few months ago.  We need new murders! 

[Medicine Crow]

14 minutes ago, Albino said:

Jane Laut's meek, "poor helpless me" voice and demeanor wore thin after about 15 minutes.  

They just did this story on Dateline or 20/20 a few months ago.  We need new murders! 

I hadn't seen the story before, but her demeanor left me cold.  I ff'd to the end because I knew they'd find her guilty, because she was.

[starri]

I'm not entirely sure that the relationship wasn't abusive, but I doubt it was physical even if it was.  It really says something that even after the police brought in a forensic accountant to track down where the family money had been going.

I feel bad for the son.  He's lost both of his parents, and was probably lying for his mom on the stand.  And he's changed his last name from Laut to his mother's maiden name, Laubacher.

Erin was saying on Twitter that she was surprised by the verdict.  She was really expecting manslaughter.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Erin was saying on Twitter that she was surprised by the verdict.  She was really expecting manslaughter.

I would have expected manslaughter too.  They suggested a few reasons why it could have been premeditated, but I didn't see much to suggest any of those reasons were the reason she killed him.  And honestly, the money thing was just bizarre.  I don't see how it was possible she could have kept the money problems hidden from her husband.  Heck, she asked her mother-in-law for $25,000.00!  If I was in the mother-in-law's place, I would have immediately called my son to ask what the heck was going on, not just given her the money.     

I guess the lawyer's closing essentially telling the jury that they could either find for the top count or innocence, helped sink her. 

[Superpole2000]

The Laut case was bad television. Where was the mystery? I kept waiting for the reason to air this case and eventually realized that:

10 hours ago, Albino said:

They just did this story on Dateline or 20/20 a few months ago.  We need new murders! 

Shame on all of us for letting the pipeline of new murders run dry. And shame on the murderers for being so obvious with their crimes that no one but a lowlife lawyer could argue on their behalf.

3 hours ago, starri said:

Erin was saying on Twitter that she was surprised by the verdict.  She was really expecting manslaughter.

Back to serious mode...I think a situation like this needs to be labeled and punished for what it is: a murder. She shot her husband from behind when she was in no danger herself. She then pumped five more bullets into him. I have no desire to see someone like that ever leave prison.

[starri]

I would have been very interested in hearing from the jury.  My gut feeling is that it was murder, but gut feelings shouldn't count for a hill of beans when it comes to the justice system.

[partofme]

Yeah I saw this on Dateline.   I hate when the cover the same cases.  I didn't trust her but I also didn't trust her husband's brother and sister-in-law.   The tape of the sister-in-law telling the police that the wife did tell her that the husband was abusive was interesting, wish the jury had heard it.

[ByaNose]

2 hours ago, partofme said:

Yeah I saw this on Dateline.   I hate when the cover the same cases.  I didn't trust her but I also didn't trust her husband's brother and sister-in-law.   The tape of the sister-in-law telling the police that the wife did tell her that the husband was abusive was interesting, wish the jury had heard it.

I was confused by this part. Was the sister-in-law of the deceased recordings done before or after the interview Erin interview? That seemed suspicious to me. Anyway, Jane's woe is me voice was so fake. She muredered her husband, hid the gun and then called 911 with a totally different story later on. Also, is the grandmother barred from seeing the grandson? She said she might never see him again.

[txhorns79]

Quote

Anyway, Jane's woe is me voice was so fake. She murdered her husband, hid the gun and then called 911 with a totally different story later on. Also, is the grandmother barred from seeing the grandson? She said she might never see him again.

From what it sounds like, the grandson is supporting his mother, and since the grandmother believes the mother to be a murderer, he probably has no desire to see her.    

[starri]

59 minutes ago, ByaNose said:

I was confused by this part. Was the sister-in-law of the deceased recordings done before or after the interview Erin interview? That seemed suspicious to me

She made that call shortly after he was killed (three days later, I think).  The tape only surfaced after Erin had done her interview.

It seemed like the only two people that were interviewed after the verdict were the grandmother and Jane.

[psychoticstate]

On 5/15/2016 at 9:01 PM, Albino said:

They just did this story on Dateline or 20/20 a few months ago.  We need new murders! 

My DVR recorded this but I may not watch it because I saw it on Dateline and fell asleep during that episode.

There has always been runover between 48 Hours and Dateline but it feels as though it's gotten worse.  Or maybe I'm just burned out on these shows.

[CaughtOnTape]

I always side eye family members with their "There is no possible way he was abusive!" schtick.  First of all, you have no idea what happens behind closed doors.  I love it that some of them seem to think if he was abusive they would have known.  What were you people expecting?  For him to hit her in front of you?  And even if it wasn't physical, most people IMO, don't recognize emotional abuse as emotional abuse when it's happening.  And verbal abuse is 9 times out of 10 dismissed.  So I don't believe the brother and the sister-in-law when they say they never saw anything.  They need to change their stories to say "I never recognized anything."  

I'm more inclined to believe the kid, who lived in the house and saw what was happening, than I am to believe two people who didn't live there.  

She sure seemed like a battered wife to me.  I don't think it much matters that she shot him in the back.  If he had been coming after her up until that point and she thought he was gonna turn on her again, then I can understand why she shot him while he was turned away from her.  At least then she knew he couldn't come at her again.  And five more bullets doesn't really raise my eyebrows either.  Like I said, if he was abusing her and she wanted to make sure he was dead...five more bullets would do it.

Sad story all around.  

[txhorns79]

Quote

I always side eye family members with their "There is no possible way he was abusive!" schtick.  First of all, you have no idea what happens behind closed doors.  I love it that some of them seem to think if he was abusive they would have known.  What were you people expecting?  For him to hit her in front of you?

In fairness to everyone, this whole situation is a huge mess.  Not every claim of abuse is real, and it wouldn't be like she would be the first person ever to claim abuse to cover up a murder.  Also, if you hadn't heard about serious abuse prior to the killing, it likely is going to be a lot harder to accept there was abuse when the wife has every reason in the world to lie.  In this case, there were also the unexplained money problems that sound as though they were caused by the wife.  I saw the entire thing, and I really question the abuse claims too.    

Edited May 17, 2016 by txhorns79

[CaughtOnTape]

14 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

In fairness to everyone, this whole situation is a huge mess.  Not every claim of abuse is real, and it wouldn't be like she would be the first person ever to claim abuse to cover up a murder.  Also, if you hadn't heard about serious abuse prior to the killing, it likely is going to be a lot harder to accept there was abuse when the wife has every reason in the world to lie.  In this case, there were also the unexplained money problems that sound as though they were caused by the wife.  I saw the entire thing, and I really question the abuse claims too.    

I never said anything along the lines of what you responded.

However, if the family members had kept it to "We never saw anything." rather than to act like it was completely preposterous that anyone would even claim he was abusive maybe I wouldn't have had such a negative reaction to what they were saying.  It's not about the fact that they were denying abuse, it was the voracity with which they denied something they had no possible way of knowing for sure is what irritated me.  It could have been anything.

I get that it was his family but it was also explained that the mother and family members loved her as part of their family.  I've seen enough abuse situations to know that there are two sides. 

Edited May 17, 2016 by CaughtOnTape

[txhorns79]

Quote

I never said anything along the lines of what you responded.

I responded to what you said.  Your comment was that you "side eye" the family members with their "There is no possible way he was abusive!" schtick.  I was pointing out there are legitimate reasons to doubt her story.     

Quote

I get that it was his family but it was also explained that the mother and family members loved her as part of their family.  I've seen enough abuse situations to know that there are two sides. 

 

And sometimes there aren't two sides because there was no abuse.  She killed him, so we'll never know what his side might have been.  I understand her feelings, and I understand the family's feelings.  Maybe things happened exactly like she said.  It's also entirely possible that she killed him for other reasons, panicked and made up a story about abuse and fearing for her life.  Obviously the jury didn't find her particularly persuasive, so it wasn't just family members having trouble with her story.    

[JudyObscure]

This woman reminded me so much of the minister's wife in Selmer,  Mary Winkler who shot her husband in the back while he was sleeping and got 210 days in prison for  voluntary manslaughter.  Both women had run up huge debts and not told their husband, both claimed verbal abuse (Mary had to wear "slutty shoes," during sex!) both looked a lot alike and both talked like their jaws were wired shut.  I guess the mousier the voice the greater the innocence.  You know, ladies, if your husband yells at you and calls you names and makes you wear slutty shoes --  get a divorce.  I don't think there's any excuse for shooting someone in the back.  If everything Jane said about the night in question was true, all she had to do was run back inside, lock the doors and call the police.

[CaughtOnTape]

I like to consider myself pretty well informed about what goes on in the world.

But this special about the CIA is blowing.my.mind.