Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
halgia

All Episodes Talk: Crime And Punishment

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I think that's where glossing over borderline personality disorder probably didn't tell the full picture of what it was like to be her friend and why they might always take her first account. 

And did his new girlfriend ever go out to the freezer?  I don't know about you guys but if I had a big chest freezer in the garage, I'd want to use it.

I had to laugh at the lawyer using "MN Nice" as a defense for his defendant.  "He was MN nice."  MN nice isn't always actually nice.  It's all about hiding the true vicious opinion under vague statements like "that's interesting."

 

The poor girl was a mess. She needed help and I feel her so called friends contributed to the problem. That male friend who slyly half admitted to introducing her to Tinder strikes me as someone who loves the drama...and the cameras. 
the defence attorney was obnoxious and Keith’s face told me that he shares my opinion.

Edited by sainte-chapelle
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, sainte-chapelle said:

The poor girl was a mess. She needed help and I feel her so called friends contributed to the problem. That male friend who slyly half admitted to introducing her to Tinder strikes me as someone who loves the drama...and the cameras. 
the defence attorney was obnoxious and Keith’s face told me that he shares my opinion.

I would still like a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy in the time of the murder and the body washing up on the shore 2 yrs later.  The freezer scenario doesn't hold weight with me because with all the traffic in the house through the years it simple seems implausible.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, pdlinda said:

I would still like a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy in the time of the murder and the body washing up on the shore 2 yrs later.  The freezer scenario doesn't hold weight with me because with all the traffic in the house through the years it simple seems implausible.

I agree and if the body was frozen that would create crystals within the cells that apparently can still be detected after thawing. The freezer story doesn’t hold up. I highly doubt the body was held in the home with all the kids running around,never mind the new wife and multiple house searches.  I was waiting  for them to present the science that would state that the body was frozen but it never came.

Edited by sainte-chapelle
  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, sainte-chapelle said:

I agree and if the body was frozen that would create crystals within the cells that apparently can still be detected after thawing. The freezer story doesn’t hold up. I highly doubt the body was held in the home with all the kids running around,never mind the new wife and multiple house searches.  I was waiting  for them to present the science that would state that the body was frozen but it never came.

I guess only Matt can answer that question and, as with so many other murderers on these true-crime shows, he will no doubt be buried with the secret of when he killed Elizabeth. 

I noticed his demeanor as he was answering questions from Keith Morrison during the jail interview and it signaled his complete and utter ability to lie without even the slightest twitch of an eye or stutter of his tongue.  That type of sociopath will never relent in their version of the truth no matter how much it might mean to the victim's surviving family and friends.

  • Like 6
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I had to laugh at the lawyer using "MN Nice" as a defense for his defendant.  "He was MN nice."  MN nice isn't always actually nice.  It's all about hiding the true vicious opinion under vague statements like "that's interesting."

I guess that lawyer never saw the original Fargo movie.

  • Like 3
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent comments on Friday’s Dateline.

Elizabeth had so many issues, but what a beauty.  Stunning.

One thing I’d like to add, and by no means is this meant to judge the victim but I noticed that in every single photo of Elizabeth....she’s holding a drink.  Nothing wrong with that except the medication she was taking is never to be combined with alcohol.  But again, every single picture there’s a drink in her hand.   That combination alone caused me worry.

And yes, the poster who said that cutters usually don’t cut deep is absolutely right.  Slashes to cause pain but rarely are they deep enough to cause the bloodshed that was found at the threshold of the bathroom.  

That much blood equals a suicidal cut.  

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone know the name of this Dateline episode? 
A man (30-40, thin, blond) is a mechanic. A woman (I’ll call her Mary) walks into his biz one day, they hit it off right away, especially because Mary tells him all she wants is fun and sex, never exclusivity, never wants to live together etc.
He breaks up with his current girlfriend (I’ll call her Sarah) and she moves out. On the way out the door the two women briefly meet. 
A few days later Mary emails him saying the complete opposite, she wants a commitment etc. Sarah harasses this man to death, but never in person. 
In the end we learn that Sarah killed Mary shortly after they briefly met and has been impersonating her. 
it was the best episode I ever watched and want to recommend it to friends and watch it again!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Allie123 said:

Does anyone know the name of this Dateline episode? 
A man (30-40, thin, blond) is a mechanic. A woman (I’ll call her Mary) walks into his biz one day, they hit it off right away, especially because Mary tells him all she wants is fun and sex, never exclusivity, never wants to live together etc.
He breaks up with his current girlfriend (I’ll call her Sarah) and she moves out. On the way out the door the two women briefly meet. 
A few days later Mary emails him saying the complete opposite, she wants a commitment etc. Sarah harasses this man to death, but never in person. 
In the end we learn that Sarah killed Mary shortly after they briefly met and has been impersonating her. 
it was the best episode I ever watched and want to recommend it to friends and watch it again!

I’m pretty sure it was called Scorned. It’s from 2018... Cari Farver?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, GussieK said:

There's no media topic here.  Here's an article about Dateline from The New Yorker.

I don't want to create an account so I can't read it. Can you give us the gist? 

Share this post


Link to post

Daybell’s indicted for first degree murder:

 

  • Like 6
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post

I truly didn’t think I’d live long enough to see the day. 
 

Now get her on the two ex-husbands. 
 

 Vallow can’t pay her attorney’s fees.  

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please don't take away my Dateline membership card, but are indicted and charged the same thing? Does this essentially mean they've agreed that Chad and Lori might have done it so they'll go to trial? (Where they might conceivably be found Not Guilty?) 

How on earth did it take so long? They could have just asked everyone on this thread. We'd have indicted them for half the ten gazillion dollars the lawyers have probably made so far. 

I know it's how the system works, but I hate to think of the massive amount of time and money that's going to go into defending these two. Like they have a leg to stand on. (I'd be a terrible juror. And I'm not rural, either. 😁

Is it possible they'll take a deal before the trial? Is that just a TV thing I'm misapplying? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Melina22 said:

 

Please don't take away my Dateline membership card, but are indicted and charged the same thing? Does this essentially mean they've agreed that Chad and Lori might have done it so they'll go to trial? (Where they might conceivably be found Not Guilty?) 

 

 

All indictments are charges, not all charges are indictments. Indictments are when a grand jury issues the charges which is required for certain crimes and it varies by state. Prosecutors might also want a grand jury to bring the charges for a variety of reasons. Charges are when a Prosecutor brings them without the grand jury. Yes, they will now proceed with the trial proceedings/plea deals, etc. 

Our criminal justice system takes a long time and that is not when there is a pandemic, since they were arrested in late Feb. 2020 that has most likely factored into some of it.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Melina22 said:

Is it possible they'll take a deal before the trial? Is that just a TV thing I'm misapplying? 

It's possible.  But they might not want a deal because they're that delusional.  This is also a high profile case. Prosecutors might not want to be seen as going "easy" on them since kids are dead.  It will depend on how strong both sides feel the prosecution's case is and how much each side is willing to compromise if at all.

 

  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks! Interesting information, and very complicated. What you both say is very helpful in terms of what might happen. 

Then again, as mentioned, they're both delusional. Or were. I feel like literally anything could happen at this point, even though, as also mentioned, public opinion on their murdering children in cold blood might strongly affect the way the trial progresses. 

I don't think I've ever felt quite this invested in a trial before, based on a Dateline case. We've seen so many truly heinous criminals, but I've never before had any interest in following the progress of a case. It's been unique in that way. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for educating me!

Is it possible that the Daybells will pull another date out of their asses that the world will end and they’ll be two out of 144 people that live?  No??  
 

Is it possible the other ‘players’ in this cult will get a clue that they’d be better off telling every little detail that they know about these two?   

A question. I know that people are innocent until proven guilty. That they have the right to an attorney.  Does the attorney (even public defenders) have the right to say ‘I don’t want to take your case.’   I think of what they did to those kids and can’t help but want that done to them.  And I can’t help but hope they are being told daily that they’ve turned into zombies.  
 

Also hope Vallow gets charged in Charles’ murder and they somehow can charge her in Ryan’s death.  While I realize the penalties will be the same I want this for the families of the men. 
 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

They better not make a plea deal!  I've waited a long time for this trial and I want to see every minute of it on Court TV, my front row seat to justice!  Otherwise I'm suing the state of Idaho.

  • Useful 2
  • Laugh 2

Share this post


Link to post

What always jumps into my mind when I think of them is the two of them, smiling, tanned and holding hands, on their way to the beach, knowing that the children were at that very moment buried in his yard. While his wife of many years was in the cemetery. That image still horrifies and baffles me. 

  • Like 8
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yes, and let's not forget, Melina, the two of them carrying the heavy totes full of the children's bodies into a storage unit -- and he gives her a playful squeeze on the butt as they walk out.

  • Sad 8

Share this post


Link to post

That picture made my heart hurt. 😢

Is Colby Lori's son? He must have changed his mind about supporting her. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

If I’m not mistaken Colby was from her second marriage and when she married her third victim Colby became his stepson. 
 

Wonder how her first husband and second husband got by with a divorce?  I guess the third and fourth did too as they didn’t get whacked until after the divorce. 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

34 minutes ago, Melina22 said:

Colby Lori's son? He must have changed his mind about supporting her. 

I thought he stopped supporting her a long time ago. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

You're probably right. I only saw him interviewed once, at the very beginning of the saga. 

Edited by Melina22

Share this post


Link to post

What about the niece?  The Lori Mini-Me.  

Share this post


Link to post

Which one of her husbands did Lori convince people abused Colby? I do wonder if that has changed for him at all. I think in the first Dateline he was still more on Lori’s side, but not anymore? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think that was #3.  Joseph Ryan.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Melina22 said:

Please don't take away my Dateline membership card, but are indicted and charged the same thing? Does this essentially mean they've agreed that Chad and Lori might have done it so they'll go to trial? (Where they might conceivably be found Not Guilty?) 

Not all grand juries are the same term of serving, or the same numbers of jurors, so I'll tell you what I learned being on a grand jury in New Mexico years ago. 

 The prosecutors could either take the accused to a preliminary hearing with a judge, who would decide if there was enough to take the accused to trial.     If it was a drug case, or child abuse, then we would hear it.   Actually, anything that the prosecutors wanted to present to us.   If we decided there was enough evidence to take the person to trial, then we voted (we needed a quorum of a certain number of members to attend (I think 11 was the magic number), and if 7 or 8 voted to indict, then the person would go to trial), and if we voted to indict and take the person to trial, it was called a "True Bill", or if we didn't have enough votes, then it was deemed a "No Bill", and charges were dropped.   

We had testimony by police, witnesses, the victim, and in child abuse cases, on video.   It was a grand jury covering several counties, so some cases were from my county, others were from another county.   Since it was a smaller town, I often knew more than I wanted to about what happened in some cases.    If a case was voted to indict, and a True Bill, then we could talk about it after the grand jury term was over, but not before, and if we didn't indict (No Bill), then we could never discuss the case.     This was not double jeopardy to take someone to a grand jury, that only applied for a trial.    

They brought drug cases to us, so someone couldn't sit outside the courtroom, and identify the undercover officers (many of them shopped at my grocery store, and I felt kind of funny to run into them. None of us acknowledged we knew each other, and I'm hoping they didn't even recognize me, and wonder why they knew me).    The person we would hear evidence about was called a "target", and they did have the right to testify, but they couldn't have an attorney with them in the grand jury room.   

  • Useful 5
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

So much information here! First, I always assumed a grand jury only ever heard one case. Second, I think I've been awed by the term "grand jury" into thinking it was something exceptional and important. I'm going to Google the term next because I'm definitely uninformed. I'm also confused by so many years of crime shows, true and fictional. 

I'm not even American so no doubt so much of what I think I know about the law in my country is incorrect. I've only been in a court twice. Once when I was young and my parents were divorcing. Next, when my teenage daughter was a witness to an incident and had to testify. Clearly, I learned almost nothing. 

Anyway, thanks for the excellent information. I'm off to do more research. All this will help me understand what's going on with the Daybells in upcoming days. 

ETA Grand jury duty lasts 18 months? How is that possible? Do the jurors get paid? 

Edited by Melina22
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Melina22 said:

So much information here! First, I always assumed a grand jury only ever heard one case. Second, I think I've been awed by the term "grand jury" into thinking it was something exceptional and important. I'm going to Google the term next because I'm definitely uninformed. I'm also confused by so many years of crime shows, true and fictional. 

There are some grand juries that are convened for one case (I knew someone who was on the Watergate Grand Jury, except only the boss knew that he was on it, so he was excused from work for those days, but she couldn't breathe a word about what he was doing until after the sessions were over.   She didn't tell what he was doing, even after the jury was ended, only the co-worker did.  ).     Also, a friend was on one in Oregon that met one day a week for over a year, so my three or four months term one day a week was much easier. 

Usually it's either a preliminary hearing, or a grand jury session deciding whether you need to go to trial.   It's not guilt or innocence, but if there's enough evidence for you to go to trial.    

Some times a prosecutor, or other official can convene a grand jury to investigate a certain case, or a situation.    

I think we had to have 11 members present to hear cases, with 7 voting to indict.    However, there were more members in case of illness, etc. so we could still have a quorum.      I've heard of other places where the grand jury has a lot more members than we had.   It really varies according to location how many people are on the grand jury, how long the terms are, and what they investigate or have presented to them.   It's not guilt or innocence, but if you should go to trial.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

So interesting. Thank you! After reading your information last night and doing a bit of research, I watched the news and a grand jury was mentioned multiple times. I finally understood. 

Last question. Why "grand" jury? I find that term misleading and confusing. In my mind I'm going to start calling it a "guiltiness" jury, as distinct from a "trial" jury, to help me remember. 

Who says Dateline isn't educational? 😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Melina22 said:

question. Why "grand" jury? I find that term misleading and confusing. In my mind I'm going to start calling it a "guiltiness" jury, as distinct from a "trial" jury, to help me remember. 

It’s really not a “guiltiness” jury in that they usually side with the prosecution because only one side is presented and obviously not everyone indicted is guilty. There is even a saying that grand juries “would indict a ham sandwich” if the prosecution asked them.

Grand Jury is from the French because it is larger, has more jurors, than trial juries which used to be more frequently called petit juries. 

*Ironically the judge who coined the phrase ended up being indicted and pleading guilty.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Like 1
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, biakbiak said:

Grand Jury is from the French because it is larger, has more jurors, than trial juries which used to be more frequently called petit juries. 

Beautiful explanation, and fascinating. Thank you. (I'm the person who's always on Youtube finding out where things and places got their names, so this is right up my alley.) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If I remember correctly,  Chad's adult children were still supporting his innocence in having anything to do with the death of their Mom.  Have there been any recent comments from them?

I'm baffled by how Lori shows up in court everytime sporting bright red lipstick and a fully done head of "beachy waves" hair.  I suspect she'll get a make-under for the trial, complete with no make-up, spinster bun, glasses and a peter pan collared dress. 

 

Edited by Kiki620 · Reason: Their is not there.
  • Like 3
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

Quote

 I know that people are innocent until proven guilty. That they have the right to an attorney.  Does the attorney (even public defenders) have the right to say ‘I don’t want to take your case.’ 

Of course they do. Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet attorneys would line up to take such a high profile case. It doesn't matter whether they think the accused are guilty or innocent, it's a chance to raise their own profile and get famous. 

Edited by iMonrey
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, iMonrey said:

Of course they do. Unfortunately, I'm willing to bet attorneys would line up to take such a high profile case. It doesn't matter whether they think the accused are guilty or innocent, it's a chance to raise their own profile and get famous. 

Yeah, we've definitely seen a few cases like that on this show over the years. I remember there was a story once where this guy who's defending Alex Jones was interviewed for some reason, and he seemed to give off that vibe, too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Lori Vallow Daybell found incompetent to stand trial.

I'm furious.

  • Like 1
  • Surprise 3
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

There are conflicting reports on this.  From what I'm reading, this is specifically for her concealment of evidence charges.  It's not related to the murder charges yet.

But what I don't get is that she covered up the murder.  I thought you could be mentally unfit but if you can tell right from wrong, which would be the case here since she covered it up, it wouldn't matter.

  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Lori Vallow Daybell found incompetent to stand trial.

I'm furious.

ME TOO!

I read where the prosecutor is going to fight it. 
 

Daybell going to claim that too?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

hought you could be mentally unfit but if you can tell right from wrong, which would be the case here since she covered it up, it wouldn't matter.

It can also be determined that you are unfit to aid in your defense which is what this appears to be because it’s a stay.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 4

Share this post


Link to post

The story I read (NY Post, so kind of iffy source) said that it's a temporary stay, until she recovers.    I'm guessing through medication.      However, from years of watching L.A. Law, Boston Legal, Law & Order, I've learned that the legal definition of insanity is you don't know right from wrong, and at the time of the crime.   It's very hard to get an insanity defense through, since they can medicate almost anything. 

If this woman skates through, I don't think that she would get the reception in the outside world she thinks she'll get. 

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Lori Vallow Daybell found incompetent to stand trial.

I'm furious.

Don’t lose faith. I read cases where this ruling has passed and the accused was held until deemed competent. Then they were convicted. This isn’t a free pass from what I understand.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Lori Vallow Daybell found incompetent to stand trial.

What in the what?!? Was she unable to find her preferred colour of hair dye? I can see how that would make it hard for her to focus on the murders of her husband(s) and children. 

I'm pretty sure that "Expect the unexpected" is going to be the theme of her trial, assuming there is one. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

I drifted off during last nights episode "Secrets in the Smoky Mountains" and missed the conclusion.   RECAP:  Man is found dead of apparent suicide in his home - a pill bottle in hand.  He's found by old army buddy who happens to stop by.  Then wife of dead man gets married to old army buddy.   Later, they are found to be scamming funds from different government agencies.

I got up to the part when the son called his mom and told her he found pics of the murder victim in her PC, and mom says something like "for God's sake, delete them!". 

I also was there for the reveal of the wife being in cahoots with hubby #2 to defraud the government for SS and military benefits, and the hints pointing to the wife being in on the murder of hubby #1 (those posed pics of corpse).  So, was she found guilty of homicide along with being a thief and a scammer? What did the pair of them get after being caught?  TIA

Edited by patty1h
  • Like 2
  • Surprise 1

Share this post


Link to post

https://thecinemaholic.com/where-is-martha-ann-mcclancy-now/

The woman was convicted, and is eligible for parole in about a year from now.    The article explains some of it. 

Here's the article about the third husband, and his sentence:

https://thecinemaholic.com/where-is-chuck-kaczmarczyk-now/

I remember this case either from previous airings, or from other shows talking about the case.    The amount of money both of them scammed from the government is horrible. 

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 2
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think what shocked me is that up until her husband's death she appeared to be living a perfectly normal life, with no hints she'd immediately jump into a life of massive fraud with no apparent conscience.  Her best friend was completely blindsided. 

That said, I don't think there was much love lost between her and her son. He was obviously a very dutiful son, but I get the sense that he was mainly afraid of her. With good reason it turns out. 

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the info @CrazyInAlabama - I couldn't remember any of the perps names, so I couldn't look up their story.

Scammers are the scum of the earth, especially these two, who feel the need to steal from vets.   They want a nice lifestyle, so they work a long con to dupe the government.  Faking it with wheelchairs, canes, walkers and stolen valor on top of murder?   Can't get much lower.

Not that it really matters in the end, but I'm a bit curious... did they say who was the mastermind?   My instinct is it was Chuck, he of the fake military papers or did it come out that Martha Ann always a money-grubbing witch.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think she was the mastermind, but I can't prove it.    I think the boyfriend, later husband was the perfect pawn, and I'm sure was already crooked.    She was the one who set up the problems with the husband, was putting the medication in his food for a long time, and finally overdosed him.    I think the third husband, Chuck, and Mary Ann were two criminals who found the right partner.   Between the two of them, they scammed over $800k from all of us.     

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size