All Episodes Talk: 48 Hours

[starri]

Hooray for drones!

/s

[glowlights]

I just caught an older ep about the torture and murder of Brenda Sue Schaefer at the hands of Mel Ignatow, a sexual sadist, and his new girlfriend. After he was acquitted a carpet installer discovered the photo evidence in a duct - it had been missed by not one but THREE law enforcement agencies who searched that house!!! But Ignatow could not be retried due to double jeapordy, and when neighbors inquired why Erin Moriarity was outside asking questions he said with great scorn, "Some people don't know what's important in life." Just pure evil. To top it off, he was babysitting his grand daughter. Who the fuck would leave their kid with a sexual sadist murderer? Is the whole family bing-bong?

I can't imagine how surviving family and friends felt with this travesty. Erin Moriarity did a great job, imo, especially calling bullshit on the creepy defense lawyer. The girlfriend accomplice was a real piece of work.

Punchline: He bled to death after crashing through a glass coffee table - the same kind he had tied Brenda to during the torture. I choose to believe she came back from the dead and tripped him.

[NewDigs]

Ha! So justice was, finally, served. And how appropriate! Thanks for the recap.

48 Hours recently repeated the "Murder in Aspen" episode about the murder of high-lifer Aspen native Nancy Pfister. I quite recently read about this case in the book "Shadow on the Mountain: Nancy Pfister, Dr. William Styler, and the Murder of Aspen's Golden Girl" and am always interested in seeing more of the participants of the true-crime books I read.

48 Hours seemed much more sympathetic to all of the "players" with the exception of Dr. Styler. At the end of the book I felt that justice was not totally served so was glad Maher brought up some doubts about who-all dunnit.

And for some reason Maher kind of got on my nerves. She had an odd affect that made me want to tell her to, Spit it out!

[biakbiak]

Was anyone bothered by the fact that they covered the Highway of Tears but didn't mention the aspect of race? More than half the victims were First Nation/aboriginal and many people think it's why the police/media weren't as proactive as they should have been. It just seemed a weird omission because been a large part of the story.

[walnutqueen]

5 hours ago, biakbiak said:

Was anyone bothered by the fact that they covered the Highway of Tears but didn't mention the aspect of race? More than half the victims were First Nation/aboriginal and many people think it's why the police/media weren't as proactive as they should have been. It just seemed a weird omission because been a large part of the story.

Yes, and that was the impetus for Prime Minister Trudeau's unprecedented action.  Viceland's new show, Woman just devoted an episode to the subject of violence against indigenous women - and the disappearances of First Nations women from Vancouver's East End is even more disturbing.

https://www.viceland.com/en_us/video/canada-the-missing-first-nations/5720e9735ee98e4a2cbc0e0d

[starri]

Hey, look, Erin raided Maureen's closet for a jacket!

[Fable]

The Cal Harris ordeal had my interest.   I truly thought he was creepy, yet I could not convince myself that he was guilty.  I think the judge made the right call at Not Guilty!  

[Christina]

I must have missed this episode of Highway of Tears, but my prior knowledge of that case was that most of the missing women were First Nation and whatever it was I watched stated how difficult it was to get cooperation between the tribal and city police departments, in part because no one knew for sure where the women disappeared, so the jurisdiction couldn't be determined and both police agencies pointed fingers at each other and said, "Not our case."  It was a frustrating look at how the different law enforcement agencies can't bother to work together. Part of the argument had to do with each department's limited resources, but it was clear something was happening somewhere, and someone needed to take action. I grew up in South Dakota and I had a friend who had an issue that fell between the tribal and city police departments, and was left feeling abandoned by the police, and watching the episode I saw was like reliving her experience. Thanks for the Viceland link, it looks like it will play in the U.S. (ETA:Turns out I'm an idiot. I thought that was a Canadian channel, but is actually a channel I get that seems to have absorbed H2. Still it was a great link and excellent 22 minutes about the missing aboriginal women.)

I also couldn't have convicted Cal Harris. 

Finally, the reason I started to post here, if anyone has not yet given Las Vegas Law a chance, you should do so. I read something that said it wasn't getting great ratings, and I don't know why. The article said something about the people being polled thinking it was a re-enactment show, because there was a show named similar that was re-enactments with bad actors. 

It shows the actual behind-the-scenes discussions of the attorneys and the victims. It's on Investigation Discovery, and I'm going to put this in the Dateline and 48 Hours forums too, so please forgive the duplicate postings. The 6/2 episode showed the defendant torpedoing his own case, and the judge yelling at him. It was funny.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Christina

[walnutqueen]

10 hours ago, Christina said:

I must have missed this episode of Highway of Tears, but my prior knowledge of that case was that most of the missing women were First Nation and whatever it was I watched stated how difficult it was to get cooperation between the tribal and city police departments, in part because no one knew for sure where the women disappeared, so the jurisdiction couldn't be determined and both police agencies pointed fingers at each other and said, "Not our case."  It was a frustrating look at how the different law enforcement agencies can't bother to work together. Part of the argument had to do with each department's limited resources, but it was clear something was happening somewhere, and someone needed to take action. I grew up in South Dakota and I had a friend who had an issue that fell between the tribal and city police departments, and was left feeling abandoned by the police, and watching the episode I saw was like reliving her experience. Thanks for the Viceland link, it looks like it will play in the U.S. (ETA:Turns out I'm an idiot. I thought that was a Canadian channel, but is actually a channel I get that seems to have absorbed H2. Still it was a great link and excellent 22 minutes about the missing aboriginal women.)

I also couldn't have convicted Cal Harris. 

Finally, the reason I started to post here, if anyone has not yet given Las Vegas Law a chance, you should do so. I read something that said it wasn't getting great ratings, and I don't know why. The article said something about the people being polled thinking it was a re-enactment show, because there was a show named similar that was re-enactments with bad actors. 

It shows the actual behind-the-scenes discussions of the attorneys and the victims. It's on Investigation Discovery, and I'm going to put this in the Dateline and 48 Hours forums too, so please forgive the duplicate postings. The 6/2 episode showed the defendant torpedoing his own case, and the judge yelling at him. It was funny.

Christina - I am so glad you took the time to check out the Viceland link.  It is an interesting new channel with several shows I really enjoy, and I always learn something new.

I am also a fan of Las Vegas Law - there are a few of us over on the ID Channel forum who are watching, so I hope the show succeeds.  Loved the judge yelling at the pimp, too.  :-)

[txhorns79]

The Neulander case was just odd.  For me, the lack of any real motive for the husband to kill the wife (and the fact that the wife's siblings were very supportive of the husband) made the whole thing very strange.  They also made such a big deal about the sheets allegedly being changed, I wondered why no one ever looked at the mattress.  Surely if the sheets were bloody to the point that the husband changed them, some of that blood would have bled through the sheets onto the mattress.  He may indeed be guilty, I just didn't like that they never established the "why" of it all.     

I also didn't like the fact that the retired ME (who was a neighbor and friend of the decedent) was involved in the case.  I don't think someone who clearly has an interest in the outcome should have been part of this matter.     

[starri]

In fairness, the prosecution doesn't need to prove motive. I definitely thought he was guilty, but I really can't explain why.

I don't remember the correspondent's name, but I hope he's not going to be added to the regular rotation.  I did not really care for him, and between Richard Schlesinger and Troy Roberts, they've got their quota of uncharismatic men.

I've been listening to the audiobook of Juan Martinez's account of the Jodi Arias trial, and I couldn't help but give a "You go, girl!" when he name-checked Maureen.

[txhorns79]

Quote

In fairness, the prosecution doesn't need to prove motive.

That's true.  However, it does make for a difficult case.  I understand people are capable of anything, but a husband suddenly, violently murdering his wife of nearly three decades for no real reason gives me pause. 

[stillhere1900]

Cal Harris: Good thing the Judge said "Not Guilty" because I'm pretty sure the Prosecutor would have tried him for a 5th time.

Edited June 5, 2016 by stillhere1900

[Albino]

On 6/5/2016 at 9:15 AM, txhorns79 said:

The Neulander case was just odd.  For me, the lack of any real motive for the husband to kill the wife (and the fact that the wife's siblings were very supportive of the husband) made the whole thing very strange.  They also made such a big deal about the sheets allegedly being changed, I wondered why no one ever looked at the mattress.  Surely if the sheets were bloody to the point that the husband changed them, some of that blood would have bled through the sheets onto the mattress.  He may indeed be guilty, I just didn't like that they never established the "why" of it all.     

I also didn't like the fact that the retired ME (who was a neighbor and friend of the decedent) was involved in the case.  I don't think someone who clearly has an interest in the outcome should have been part of this matter.     

I want to believe he didn't do it...but then who did?  Who sneaks in a house (somehow?) and stabs a perfectly innocuous woman for some random reason and then leaves without making a sound?  And why?  Nothing was stolen.

IIRC there was no other DNA or fibers or any other evidence left at the scene. 

On the other hand, the female prosecutor created a scenario without a single shred of evidence.  Wife found out about husbands affair (no proof, never an affair) and husband freaked out and stabbed her.  It makes no sense.  

Edited June 6, 2016 by Albino

[txhorns79]

Quote

On the other hand, the female prosecutor created a scenario without a single shred of evidence.  Wife found out about husbands affair (no proof, never an affair) and husband freaked out and stabbed her.  It makes no sense.  

I'm with you.  If the husband didn't do it, who did?  And if he did do it, what really brought all this on, and why would he do this with his daughter in the house?  I know we rarely get the entire case, but if I were on the jury, I would need some reason that makes sense in the context of everything else we saw.   

Edited June 6, 2016 by txhorns79

[Lovecat]

I always thought the Neulander daughter was somehow in on it. I don't know why, just a hinky feeling from her.

[Christina]

On June 10, 2016, Cal Harris held a press conference. It was almost 30 minutes long, and I'm going to try and post the YouTube video, but seem to be having a bit of trouble. To summarize, Cal posted something for sale online. Someone contacted him, and he drove to the address provided so that it could be looked at by that person. The address was on a street where the numbers went in a sequence, and it fit in that sequence, but he couldn't find it. So he sat there for a little bit waiting to see if the man showed up. He got out of his car to stretch and talk on his phone, and one of the detectives on his wife's murder case, Terry Schultz, returned home from work and saw him outside of his house. His car was parked a little bit down the road and he was walking around.

He says he had no idea where the cop lived, and now thinks he was set up. He doesn't say it outright, but I think he feels it was by the cops, whereas I think it's likely it was some random nutcase who thought it would be funny. In any event, the cop calls it in as Cal stalking and harassing him, and approaches him outside of his car demanding to know where his wife's body is, and being otherwise aggressive. Cal said he got in his car to drive away, and the cop noticed that he had a dash cam, which Cal said was filming the entire time. He made it a little bit down the road and a State Police officer pulled him over. He was taken to the barracks while a judge was consulted for a warrant to seize his cell phone and car, which had been towed. This bit was a little bit scattered to me, because he went from saying he was taken to the barracks and was handcuffed so tightly his wrists were bruised to saying that he was taken in front of the judge in a different building and kept asking him to not allow them to have his cell phone or his car, because he fears/insists that the cops are going to delete the video from his dash cam, which shows Schultz being aggressive to Cal, and the evidence on his phone that he was supposed to be in that area for a reason that had nothing to do with the cop. He was absolutely boiling in anger while he was speaking.

At about minute 23 or 24, someone asked if he was looking for Michele. He said that he has done the job of the State Police, and didn't just stumble upon Stacey Stewart, it came from the police investigation and he has no power or ability to go to Texas and arrest him. He mentions, but doesn't go into detail about the lawsuit he is filing about the prosecutor and police misconduct involving their failures in this case, including allegations of falsifying evidence. 

I've followed Cal Harris' case for a long time. I would not have been able to convict him because I have a reasonable doubt about his guilt. If he is guilty, I think the police investigation focusing on him and not looking into anyone else failed Michele. Cal is an asshole, I can't think of anything nice to say about him, and don't doubt that he could be capable of murdering her, but Michele was manipulating one young man and also having a sexual relationship with a co-worker who had a criminal history of domestic violence. She told her boyfriend, that only a few friends knew about, that she wanted to marry and move in with him and he left his live-in girlfriend and put a down payment on a house that she picked out and which was near where her kids went to school but over an hour to where her boyfriend worked, but told her friends that she didn't intend to marry him and didn't know how she would come up with the funds for her half of the home purchase.

The prosecutor presented evidence of blood splatter stating that it was hers, only for it to be corrected to it being hers or someone related to her and likely came from someone at a low angle such as one of her kids, and withheld some of that evidence from the defense until the last minute.

I don't believe that everything the police and prosecutor did was wrong and a set-up to convict poor innocent Cal of a crime he didn't commit, which seems to be his opinion. I think that he is such a hateful person and that he didn't respond the way they expected, and with the spouse (in the case soon-to-be ex) usually guilty they just got a bit lazy in the investigation. They searched for her and they searched for a crime scene in her home, her boyfriend's home, and her car, but when one didn't appear, they chose to ignore other evidence, including a witness who saw someone in a truck arguing with her in the early morning hours. That witness passed away a few months later and the info was not given to the defense until another man came forward several years later. The fact that he was tried four times, and even the juries who convicted him of second-degree murder discussed doubts, kind of amazes me. 

I found an article that discusses his theory about Stacey Stewart. I don't think we will ever know what happened to her, but if Cal did it, the state couldn't prove it to me. 

I had no idea how long this was until I posted it. Typing while under the effects of insomnia make me unable to be concise, I guess. I think the video is working now, if you want to listen to him rant for 30 minutes. I summarized it above. 

 

Edited June 11, 2016 by Christina
Fixing video and acknowledging my long post.

[walnutqueen]

I, for one, am royally sick and tired of Cal fuckin Harris.  Not interested in anything else he has to say, but thanks for the synopsis.  ;-)

[glowlights]

I, too, have enough reasonable doubt re: Cal Harris that I wouldn't be able to convict. But I'm sick of him, too. :)

Did anyone else see the repeat of the Sherri Rasmussen case? 23 years later they arrested an LAPD officer who had been Sherri's husband's ex-girlfriend. I was really surprised

Spoiler

she was convicted, given the shoddy evidence handling and the way LAPD didn't do much investigating at the time

. Frankly, her husband pinged for me. Maybe this is one that the audience is left having to google because the show left crucial stuff out... AGAIN.

[Ina123]

On 6/3/2016 at 0:38 PM, walnutqueen said:

I am also a fan of Las Vegas Law - there are a few of us over on the ID Channel forum who are watching, so I hope the show succeeds.  Loved the judge yelling at the pimp, too.  :-)

Do you have a link for the ID Channel forum?

[tobeannounced]

On 6/16/2016 at 6:33 AM, Ina123 said:

Do you have a link for the ID Channel forum?

http://forums.previously.tv/forum/936-network-talk/ - hopefully that works.  If not, you go to the forums page, scroll all the way down to Misc Talk, and you have to follow Network Talk under that.  ID has a subcategory, so you can't just follow ID.  In summary, Forums, Misc Talk, Network Talk, ID Channel.

[OpieTaylor]

Watched a 48 Hours episode on ID Channel yesterday - about Danielle Thomas, who was murdered by her boyfriend Jason Bohn. And the audio to the murder was caught on her cell phone which somehow got turned on to record. I was truly in tears by the end of the show, and I'm still dwelling on it today, so that's why I'm here writing about it now. Her boyfriend had been abusive to her for awhile and she had gone back to their apartment that night only to get her dog and leave, because he had threatened to hurt her dog. But he killed her that night in a slow torturous manner. And she had called 911 an HOUR before the inadvertent cell phone recording, but for some unexplained reason no police ever responded. I'm just traumatized by the little I heard on the recording. Danielle's mother and grandmother were on the episode and they were so sweet - the only uplifting part of the episode. And Danielle's dog lived. My heart just breaks that she went back for her dog. Why, oh why didn't she take the dog with her earlier?

[Tdoc72]

8 hours ago, OpieTaylor said:

Watched a 48 Hours episode on ID Channel yesterday - about Danielle Thomas, who was murdered by her boyfriend Jason Bohn. And the audio to the murder was caught on her cell phone which somehow got turned on to record. I was truly in tears by the end of the show, and I'm still dwelling on it today, so that's why I'm here writing about it now. Her boyfriend had been abusive to her for awhile and she had gone back to their apartment that night only to get her dog and leave, because he had threatened to hurt her dog. But he killed her that night in a slow torturous manner. And she had called 911 an HOUR before the inadvertent cell phone recording, but for some unexplained reason no police ever responded. I'm just traumatized by the little I heard on the recording. Danielle's mother and grandmother were on the episode and they were so sweet - the only uplifting part of the episode. And Danielle's dog lived. My heart just breaks that she went back for her dog. Why, oh why didn't she take the dog with her earlier?

I'd seen this one before but watched again last night.  I pretty much had the same thoughts as you.  I wish they would've said more about the 911 call.  I wonder if it was an issue because it was a cell phone or because she couldn't give an exact address or apartment number.  And while I think his mother was a complete bitch and horrible mother, I never bought his stupid 'bad childhood' excuse.  I'm glad the jury had the recording to help with the timeline.

[Ohmo]

There was a brief update about Stephen Nodine tonight.  He was the Mobile, Alabama politician who was involved with Angel Downs.  She was the woman who was shot in her driveway on Mother's Day, 2010.  Her family believes he killed her.  He contends it was suicide.  He was tried once and the result was a hung jury..  There was a change in DA.  New DA did not retry the case, but Nodine was convicted on a weapons charge and a charge of perjury related to another matter.

The update said he had ended up in prison because of several probation violations like leaving Alabama without permission and missing his curfew.  After his latest stint in jail for a probation violation, he moved to Florida because he can't find a job in Mobile.  He's on supervised probation there until October 2017.

While such behavior doesn't prove that he killed Angel, it does make one go,"Hmmm...."  Is this simply an expression of his arrogance, or an indication of a crime that he might have done in the past?

[Court]

I think Nodine did it. I don't have a good reason, I just feel he is guilty.

 

Maybe because he does come off as an arrogant jerk?

[UsernameFatigue]

I agree that Nodine was an arrogant jerk, but I don't think he killed Angel. That fact that she was killed in the driveway makes me think it was a suicide. If he was going to kill her why do it in the driveway where there could be potential witnesses? Also if someone was pointing a gun at me, (and according to one expert the gun was pressed up against her temple) I sure as heck would be screaming. But no mention of even an argument heard by neighbours let alone screaming because someone is about to be shot in the head. And why in the world would someone stand still and let another press a gun up to her head, and pull the trigger? Makes no sense. Add to that no blood spatter on any of his clothes and the timeline and I say nope, it was suicide.

[txhorns79]

Quote

And why in the world would someone stand still and let another press a gun up to her head, and pull the trigger? Makes no sense. Add to that no blood spatter on any of his clothes and the timeline and I say nope, it was suicide.

I felt like it was a suicide as well.  If he wanted to kill her (and I don't think they ever really gave us a motivation as to why he would have suddenly decided to murder her), it seems like randomly shooting her in her driveway was not a good choice.  I get why the family was convinced that he was a murderer, but I thought it was pretty obnoxious that two prosecutors brought murder charges on a case when their own ME couldn't conclusively say whether a homicide had even occurred.     

[Ina123]

I watched this one, too. I agree that it was suicide, especially since she had attempted it before. I was stunned that the prosecutor demonstrated a woman with long hair falling backward and her hair did splay out perfectly to match the scene instead of disheveled and all over the place. Major Fail. Didn't they try it before the trial?

I couldn't convict him. Too much reasonable doubt.

I really feel for the family in these situations but her sister didn't help matters. She was like she was on a Crusade and determined to GET him no matter what. If it was more cut and dried and proven as suicide, I think she would still be trying to convict him. She just could not accept suicide even though her sister had tried it before.

[txhorns79]

I agree.  It felt like the sister simply had a vendetta, and didn't want to accept the truth.  She had such animus towards the prosecutor who didn't think a murder charge was appropriate that it felt a little ridiculous.  That is even more so since the special prosecutor agreed that the situation could not meet the reasonable doubt standard. 

[ButterQueen]

On June 5, 2016 at 11:39 AM, starri said:

In fairness, the prosecution doesn't need to prove motive. I definitely thought he was guilty, but I really can't explain why.

I don't remember the correspondent's name, but I hope he's not going to be added to the regular rotation.  I did not really care for him, and between Richard Schlesinger and Troy Roberts, they've got their quota of uncharismatic men.

I've been listening to the audiobook of Juan Martinez's account of the Jodi Arias trial, and I couldn't help but give a "You go, girl!" when he name-checked Maureen.

There's an audiobook????  Damn, I like to listen to those in the car.  Who narrates it?  I bought the hardback book. BOO!

On June 11, 2016 at 10:31 AM, walnutqueen said:

I, for one, am royally sick and tired of Cal fuckin Harris.  Not interested in anything else he has to say, but thanks for the synopsis.  ;-)

HE'S GUILTY---!!!!!!!

[starri]

9 hours ago, ButterQueen said:

There's an audiobook????  Damn, I like to listen to those in the car.  Who narrates it?  I bought the hardback book. BOO!

On 6/11/2016 at 10:31 AM, walnutqueen said:

The narrator's name is Patrick Lawlor.  Full disclosure, I didn't really care for the job he did, especially because the tone and inflection he uses for Jodi sounds uncannily like David Sedaris.

To be truthful, I had some problem with the book, which is similar to my problem with some of Travis' family.  Jodi Arias is a terrible person, and deserves to spend the rest of her life in a dark, dark cell.  But there's this level of slut shaming that really bothers me.  And anything that suggests that Travis was not exactly the paragon of Mormon values his family tries to claim is glossed over.

[ButterQueen]

22 hours ago, starri said:

The narrator's name is Patrick Lawlor.  Full disclosure, I didn't really care for the job he did, especially because the tone and inflection he uses for Jodi sounds uncannily like David Sedaris.

To be truthful, I had some problem with the book, which is similar to my problem with some of Travis' family.  Jodi Arias is a terrible person, and deserves to spend the rest of her life in a dark, dark cell.  But there's this level of slut shaming that really bothers me.  And anything that suggests that Travis was not exactly the paragon of Mormon values his family tries to claim is glossed over.

I watched the entire trial.

Jodi Arias is the lowest form of trash on this earth, she butchered Travis because she couldn't have him, so I hope she rots in prison and in hell.  Slut is the nicest word I can call her.

I have nothing but sympathy for Travis's family.  They handled the trials with such grace, and my heart breaks for them.  I was one of thousands who donated to help with their expenses.  Judge, and I use the term loosely, Sherry Stephens is a twit who should have never been allowed to preside over a death penalty case.  She drug it out for years.

Travis was a young man, living his life, working hard, doing what young men do.....until Jodi Arias, decided he had to not only die, but be tortured for daring to break up with her.  Travis was a victim, and I will not disparage his name or reputation.  

Kirk Nurmi is the sleaziest lawyer I have ever watched.  He made it his job to slander the victim.  Hope karma catches up with him.

Juan Martinez is my hero.  He did everything in his power to make this trial about murder, but God bless him for not letting Travis's family be hurt anymore than they already were, by standing up and protecting Travis's reputation.   No matter what Travis Alexander did in his bedroom, was no one's business.....and he certainly didn't deserve to be butchered for it.

Of the two parties involved, Jodi was in fact a slut and a master manipulator.  Travis certainly was a saint in any dictionary where Jodi is described.

RIP Travis.

[Christina]

About to write a book, so  for the too long, didn't read crowd: During that trial, it seemed to me that  a lot of the slut shaming was put forth by the defense, and in large part towards Travis. They explained her previous long-term relationships and that she then became a member of the LDS and celibate, until Travis entered the picture and manipulated her into a sexual relationship. Now, I don't believe that at all, just stating that seemed to be their position.

The defense was big about his previous sexual relationship with his ex-girlfriend, and how he confessed to his church leadership and did whatever repentance was asked of him. They questioned his ex about their sex life even though it had nothing to do with his murder and happened years prior. Then Jodi got on the stand and explained, continuously and in depth, her sex life with Travis, the sexy outfits she would wear, positions, locations, efforts to assure prevention of pregnancy, played their phone sex call that I had to work really hard to avoid, because they played or interjected it all the time, read the sexy texts and emails and finally, selected, I think, four emails and texts where he was insulting and verbally abusive and Nurmi still, to this day, says "You can't pick your facts" when referring to those few texts, even though they were during the time period when Jodi had slashed his new female friend's tires and had anonymously sent rude and nasty texts to him and any woman she thought was in his life.

Travis is an example of a man who needed to get police involved but thought he could handle it. One of these shows had an episode recently of that male attorney who had his co-workers insisting he get a restraining order against a girlfriend and he wouldn't, and turned out that in Kentucky he couldn't because they didn't live together. I think that both that man and Travis were not completely innocent in their relationships with the woman, leading them on a bit, until they got in over their heads and couldn't extricate themselves. Travis continued to try and be Jodi's friend after she returned to her grandparents in another state, probably thinking that it would taper off peacefully, but let her believe he was going to travel with her for their list of places to see before they died, and continued to have sex with her when she would show up uninvited.

I don't think either one of the men expected violence, and in Travis' case, I think he was a bit fearful of having to admit his sexual relationship with Jodi to his family and church. I don't think he was using her for sex, but trying to pacify her because I believe she had threatened to send the sex recording to his newer love interest, and I doubt he knew she had recorded it. I think that is what set off the angry emails from Travis to Jodi, and that's when Jodi realized she was not going to go with him to where ever that trip was taking place, and if she can't have him, no one could.

She is the textbook sociopath, and still remember that she had rented a car for a camping trip with some men she had just met, and after her arrest, the rental company found a gun hidden in it. She thought she got away with Travis' murder and I think had plans to murder more people. As much as I hate that she gets any attention, because she thrives on it, I have liked that it has opened up some dialog about female to male violence, and the men who think they need to accept it. There were several articles and comments about that during her trial.

I know this has been long, but also wanted to note how some of Jodi's fans had screen-capped the crime scene photos and were posting them to the Facebook walls of his family. There are some sick, sick, people in this world who enjoy emotionally abusing others. Jodi is their hero. They insist he was verbally and physically abusive, when the only evidence is the word of Jodi and some very hateful texts and emails after Jodi began blackmailing him; at the very least after he told her to leave him alone and she wouldn't. The comments about how he deserved to be butchered because he "used" her were some of the worst slut shaming, and they came from Jodi's fans. I don't think either one was a slut, they were in a consensual sexual relationship that was frowned upon by their religion, and he seemed to have a harder time with that then she did.

[starri]

Jodi has fans?  That's not a scary thought at all.

Please understand, I'm not defending Jodi, nor am I trying to minimize the magnitude of what she did, but it bothers me when women do evil things, but the part that people focus on isn't their evil deeds, but their sex lives.  But like I said, dig a deep hole, throw her in it.

[ButterQueen]

On July 11, 2016 at 2:01 PM, starri said:

Jodi has fans?  That's not a scary thought at all.

Please understand, I'm not defending Jodi, nor am I trying to minimize the magnitude of what she did, but it bothers me when women do evil things, but the part that people focus on isn't their evil deeds, but their sex lives.  But like I said, dig a deep hole, throw her in it.

No one enjoyed exploiting the sex part of this trial more than Kirk Nurmi himself -- Aria's lawyer.  You know, because the victim must be slandered.

[Court]

I just rewatched the Julianna Redding case and I cannot fathom how that jury acquitted Kelly. Even if you buy the secondary transfer crap, that doesn't explain how her fingerprint is in the blood. It's absurd. 

 

I can it crap because I'm pretty sure that towel would have been washed in the past 5 months. Oh, the killer just happens to pick the towel she may have touched months ago?

She got away with murder.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Court

[Christina]

That case is one of the most infuriating I've watched. I really would like to hear from the jurors on that trial, just to see where the case fell apart. It seems like they must have bought the DNA evidence as presented by the defense, but it's so absurd that it's a bit hard to believe. It's also hard to believe that the judge allowed it, since it didn't seem to have a solid scientific basis, but apparently there was testimony that it was possible from the prosecution's expert, which we didn't see on the show. When it aired originally, I read all kinds of articles about it, and walked away more frustrated.

[ButterQueen]

On June 6, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Albino said:

I want to believe he didn't do it...but then who did?  Who sneaks in a house (somehow?) and stabs a perfectly innocuous woman for some random reason and then leaves without making a sound?  And why?  Nothing was stolen.

IIRC there was no other DNA or fibers or any other evidence left at the scene. 

On the other hand, the female prosecutor created a scenario without a single shred of evidence.  Wife found out about husbands affair (no proof, never an affair) and husband freaked out and stabbed her.  It makes no sense.  

No one stabbed Dr. Neulander's wife.  He said he found her in the shower, where she had fallen.  Then as he has his daughter call 911, he drags his dead wife into the bedroom.....you know, to explain all the blood spatter they found in there.  He's right where he belongs.

[Sowkkat]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I'm looking for a very old 48 hours mystery episode. I don't know the title of course and remember only a few details. 

So, a seemingly perfect husband and wife great marriage, etc...which fits the description of almost all of these episodes. She was found shot dead in the basement. He claimed it was a suicide, but the cops were convinced he did it. It turned out that she had rigged the gun to go off in the basement with a mousetrap like set up in order to not have her finger prints on it...so it was a suicide??!

its all very hazy. I'd love it if I the off chance any of you bright sleuths could help!!! I know it's a long shot. 

[RedheadZombie]

On ‎9‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 9:29 PM, Sowkkat said:

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I'm looking for a very old 48 hours mystery episode. I don't know the title of course and remember only a few details. 

So, a seemingly perfect husband and wife great marriage, etc...which fits the description of almost all of these episodes. She was found shot dead in the basement. He claimed it was a suicide, but the cops were convinced he did it. It turned out that she had rigged the gun to go off in the basement with a mousetrap like set up in order to not have her finger prints on it...so it was a suicide??!

its all very hazy. I'd love it if I the off chance any of you bright sleuths could help!!! I know it's a long shot. 

I don't recognize what you're describing, but here's something that may help.  http://www.cbsnews.com/48-hours/full-episodes/

[RedheadZombie]

NBC aired an episode tonight from 2010, that covered the murder of a 39 y/o woman, named Jennifer, and was titled, My Mother's Murder.  Her daughter, 18 y/o Noura, called 911 crying she came home to her mother murdered.  Jennifer was dead in her bedroom, stabbed over fifty times.

The police immediately focused on Noura.  They said Jennifer was killed with a basket over her head, therefore it was somebody close to her that didn't want to see her face.  The broken window on the door seemed to indicate that the perpetrator knew about an out of site bolt, therefore it was someone who knew the house.  What they pretend not to realize, is that a SO would know these things.  Jennifer was on and off dating a minister, and he would obviously be close to her (and possibly want to cover her face while killing her), and he would know where the bolts on her door were.  He also had no alibi, but said he was sleeping.  Police - welp, he was sleeping, we can't prove he wasn't.  And they dismissed him as the killer.  Statistically, women are most likely killed by their SO, and rarely killed by their teenager.  And one of Jen's closest friends said her impression of the preacher was that he was angry, and controlling.

Jennifer's close friends discuss how close mother and daughter were.  Noura's best friend's mother said that Noura, "practically lived with her", and she would have known if there were red flags, and she said there weren't any.  And another of Jen's friends said Noura would cancel plans to spend time with her mother when she felt her mother needed her.  There were some vague claims that mother/daughter had frequent arguments.  And the police, ignoring what multiple friends of Jen's said, claimed that Noura "hated" her mother.  Noura had a small cut on the top of her hand, and claimed she had been out with her friends that night, drunk, and fell on a broken bottle.  Cops immediately dismiss that claim, and say you wouldn't fall and hurt the top of your hand.  Yet they're ignoring the fact that when stabbers cut themselves, it's typically because there hand slips on the blood knife, and they cut their fingers or palm on the blade.  The cops say Noura was a teenager who wanted her freedom, hated her mother's discipline, and hated her mother.  The closest any of the victim's friends said on this issue, was that Jennifer was a little too permissive, Jennifer wasn't going to school and partying, and Jennifer was trying to get a little tougher.

Things Noura's lawyer and the show pointed out:  The murder weapon and bloody clothes were never found.  There was DNA found on Jennifer's sheets that did not match her or Noura.  Jennifer was found with hair clutched in her hand - it could have been Jennifer's, but didn't appear to be Noura's (Jennifer was a bleached blonde, and Noura had lightened brunette hair.  Police never DNA tested it, because they were so sure the killer was Noura (and likely didn't want to rule her out completely).  On police photographs, you could see Noura's face, neck, chest, entire arms, and legs.  There are absolutely no cuts, bruises, or abrasions, and her fake nails were in pristine condition - no blood stains, no chips, no scrapes.  I *think* there was never blood found in Noura's car, at least it was never mentioned.  Noura's DNA wasn't found on the sheets, pillow cases, pillows, or the bloody light switch.

Noura's father, who was divorced from Jen, had been murdered less than a year and a half earlier.  Police called it "an assassination".  The killer seemed to be looking for something in the father's office.  When he died, Jennifer took control of his estate, and some feel that these people may have assumed that Jen had what they were looking for during his murder.

Her lawyer said that instead of basing the case on unalterable evidence, the state bases it on a teenager's behavior.  Interestingly, Noura's aunt and uncle testified against her, and claimed Noura was just a partying drug user, and that Jennifer had told her she could go to boarding school, or move out - she was sick of her.  The uncle said Noura was "unusually interested" in what she would inherit from her mother.  A friend testified that at a party before the murder, Noura said, "my mom's a bitch and she needs to go to hell".  At some point, it was pointed out that only 2% of murder are matricide, and only a fraction of those are committed by daughters.

Noura's attorney was pro bono, and has a good reputation.  I was concerned that not only did Noura not testify, the defense called zero witnesses.  Her closing argument was pretty powerful.  She said - let's put all of the evidence that doesn't link to Noura on this side of the room.  And piece by piece, she took what looked to be all the forensic evidence, and placed it in a huge pile.  Noura was found guilty of second degree murder, and sentenced to twenty years and nine months.  After a decade, TN granted her a new trial.  The court said that the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense, and violated Noura's right to remain silent in their closing arguments, when the prosecutor stood before Noura and yelled at her, "just tell us where you were!".  Rather than a re-trial, the state offered her a deal - voluntary manslaughter, with an Alfred Plea (where a defendant proclaims innocence, but pleads guilty).  She got a reduced sentence which translated to her being released less than a year later.

Noura was released this August.  In September, disciplinary proceedings began against the two lead prosecutors.  Jennifer's family is fighting Noura's attempt to claim her mother's $1.5 million dollar estate.  And with that, I begin to understand the family's vehemence to testify against her and get her convicted, as compared to Jennifer's closest friends, who most seem to insist Noura would never do such a thing.  I apologize for the length of this post, I was fascinated by this episode.
 

[tobeannounced]

Yeah, I remembered this case and being baffled why they wouldn't test the hair in the mom's hand.  Couldn't the defense insist it be tested?  Why does the prosecution just get to say, "Well, 20/20 hindsight," blah blah blah.  I was kind of back and forth on Noura's guilt or innocence though. I'm not positive she didn't do it, but I don't think I could convict.

[txhorns79]

I thought that case was odd too.  They never really explained what would have caused the daughter to snap like she did.  I mean, even if the mom was tired of the daughter's partying, the testimony indicated she wasn't cutting the daughter off.  Rather she was going to send her to boarding school, or ask her to move out of the house.  To me, the murder sounded extremely brutal and they never gave us a history that suggested the relationship between mother and daughter had degraded to that point. 

[junemeatcleaver]

Those pro-Bernie Tiede people were ridiculous.  Was he dissociating when he stuffed that old woman in the freezer and kept on spending her money?   Thankfully the new jury didn't fall for his lawyer's and Linkletter's bullshit.

Edited October 2, 2016 by junemeatcleaver

[Albino]

On 9/26/2016 at 7:29 PM, Sowkkat said:

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I'm looking for a very old 48 hours mystery episode. I don't know the title of course and remember only a few details. 

So, a seemingly perfect husband and wife great marriage, etc...which fits the description of almost all of these episodes. She was found shot dead in the basement. He claimed it was a suicide, but the cops were convinced he did it. It turned out that she had rigged the gun to go off in the basement with a mousetrap like set up in order to not have her finger prints on it...so it was a suicide??!

Hmmmm...not sure if it was on 48 Hours or something else but I remember a fascinating case where the defense claimed the woman had set up a rifle in an adjoining room in the basement, perched somehow to go off.  I can't remember how she did this, dammit!  Her family insisted she would never commit suicide but her husband said she had been despondent and unhappy for a long time.

It's kind of a stupid set-up for a fake murder since obviously police would find the rifle in the next room, all rigged up.  I can't remember if he was found guilty or innocent.  Again, dammit!

I kinda feel like I saw this on ID or someplace, many years ago but as you can tell my memory is shaky.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Albino

[Albino]

3 minutes ago, junemeatcleaver said:

Those pro-Bernie Tiede people were ridiculous.  Was he dissociating when he stuffed that old woman in the freezer and kept on spending her money?   Thankfully the new jury didn't fall for his lawyer's and Linkletter's bullshit.

It was ludicrous.  I remember this case being covered by virtually every show on ID (or whatever it was called back then...) and of course, Forensic Files.  And the Hollywood posse weighing in...who cares what you think?  

I may be mistaken, but I think Bernie was also a suspect in the murder or "disappearance" of two elderly sisters in the same area before this crime.  I should check that out...I may be confusing charming, gentle, caring Bernie with another murdering bastard.

[FanOfTheFans]

Bernie sure snowed a lot of people with his nice guy routine. He went through 3.5 million dollars of her money. He was really living high on the hog with her money and all the traveling too.  It is really sad how easy it is to take advantage of lonely older people. I wish her family had been more involved though I am not blaming them. 

[Fable]

I’m puzzled how so many people were taken in by his story.  He must have been a first-class charmer.  The fact that he waited until he was made her sole beneficiary before choosing to move out and the fact that he continued to spend millions of dollars after her death and lying to her friends and family about her whereabouts tells me all I need to know.  Dissociative episode Indeed! 

Edited October 3, 2016 by Fable

[Christina]

On Twitter, someone asked the Executive Producer if he was responsible for the deaths of two others, and she said no. That doesn't mean he wasn't a suspect, though. It's a bit coincidental that a few people remember it that way, but all of these shows do tend to run together. 

He was a smooth con man, who had that entire town snowed. Her family was something else, too. Many people in town said she was hard to deal with, which her family vehemently denies, yet they didn't know or report her missing for 9 months, because they didn't find her failure to respond to them unusual? 

I plan on being a mean and crotchety old woman myself, and hope my loved ones would come check up on me if my companion wouldn't let them talk to me, especially if they found him shady.  Her family seemed to be the only ones who thought she was a great person and he was not, when the town felt the exact opposite. It's like some of them still don't want to believe they were taken in by a con man. 

[Vivigirl10]

15 hours ago, Christina said:

Her family was something else, too. Many people in town said she was hard to deal with, which her family vehemently denies, yet they didn't know or report her missing for 9 months, because they didn't find her failure to respond to them unusual? 

I was so irritated by this.  The granddaughters gushed over how much they cared about beloved, sweet, Nana and yet none could be bothered to check on her?  Even worse, what about her own children?  As mentioned above, it took her own son 9 months to even go into the house.  Gram's money seemed to be the only thing they really cared about.  I think Gram knew it too.  She was of sound mind (it seemed) so she changed the will to leave everything to Bernie of her own accord.  Yes, she may have been manipulated, but she also may have been quite happy to stick it to that bunch.

This was my first time hearing about this case.  I felt like they completely glossed over the shooting itself.  What did Bernie claim happened?  That it was self defense and the only way he could leave her clutches?

Loved the commentary by the sprightly cousin!