20/20

[pdlinda]

11 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

They say he's up for parole next year, but will he have trouble if he is supposedly required to admit his crime to get parole?  The guy who confessed knew a lot of detail--about stopping at the Texaco station and driving to a particular place.  I think he did it. 

Absolutely YES,  to get a pardon, he would have to admit his guilt. 

Let's see if a mass swell of support erupts after seeing this POWERFUL 20/20 episode.

I worked in criminal defense for MANY YEARS and the confession made to the investigator including such excruciating DETAIL about the murder of Michelle SHOULD provide enough NEW evidence to AT LEAST get Leo a new trial.  

20/20 did itself very proud with airing this case.  I was truly captivated every step of the way and will be thinking about this case, and following up about it in the future.  Very authentic and well produced.

[Annber03]

I can see why some were wary of Jeremy's confession, given he seemed to be all over the place and saying things like, "For $1,000 I'll confess to anything" and whatnot. But the point about him knowing specific details about the case is a good one. Granted, he could've read or heard about the case, too, but still, between that and his fingerprints being tied to the car, I would think that'd be enough to take a new look at things. I dunno, maybe the standard does need to be especially high in some places, I guess? It's pretty fucked up that you have to admit to guilt to get a pardon, even if you didn't actually do the crime in question. That's hideously backwards. 

I was sure that we'd eventually find out that the husband's dad had some involvement, given that weird thing about his "vision" of where Michelle was. But no.

Also found something of a dark irony in the fact the husband was originally from Fall River,  Massachusetts - aka, the site of the infamous Lizzie Borden case. Something about that town and people from there being suspected of murder, it seems...

[Kiss my mutt]

I admire the tenacity and doggedness of his wife to keep this case alive and to fight for his freedom. There was so much love in this family that despite the circumstances, were closer than many families without a parent in prison.

It was gut wrenching and frustrating to see how many times his appeal for a new trial was denied. The prosecutor obviously has a chip on his shoulder about this case and doesn’t want to admit that a rush to judgement was made and evidence ignored and a confession dismissed. I’m really hoping for a good resolution and that the podcast is effective in putting pressure on the state to retry the case with ALL the evidence or less likely to acquit him.  

[patty1h]

I watched the 10/07 episode on Lyntell Washington, the Baton Rouge teacher whose 3 year old daughter found wandering around a parking lot holding a pillow. 

From the outset, I had a feeling this was going to involve a domestic issue and not a carjacking or robbery and it turned out to be your basic "partner kills because they're hiding a secret life":  Robert Marks tells girlfriend/coworker Lyntell he's separated from his wife, they will soon be divorcing and then they can live happily ever after.  Then Lyntell sees on social media pics of Robert on a cruise with his wife and they do not look separated.   Soon, Lyntell is missing, her car is full of blood and her 3 year old is alone with blood on her feet.  You can guess the rest of this case.

This could be seen as victim blaming, but I shook my head when Lyntell's friends were saying that she was irate after finding out that Robert was not separated and was going to confront his wife with the news of their affair and her pregnancy.  Lyntell wants to see him in person so she can "see if he's lying or not" and then she's throwing out the threat of 18 years of child support and telling him he better "do the right thing for your child".  All of that sounds very immature coming from the mouth of a 40 year old teacher - using blackmail, guilt and threats could push someone to unreasonable actions... and it did in this case.  

I felt terrible for the little girl to have to have witnessed what she did, but I'm glad that justice was served and that creep is rotting behind bars.  Oh, and God bless Leslie Parms, the good Samaritan who helped that scared little baby that awful day.

[Rain88]

This story didn’t warrant 2 hours. They repeated almost every sentence with three different speakers. 20/20 style of stories are difficult to watch. Their episode subjects are interesting but they kill the suspense with their style. At least they do t use Nancy Grace anymore.

[amarante]

I had to fast forward to just confirm the boyfriend would be convicted since it was going to be so obvious that it was the boyfriend.

And not to blame the victim, but she certainly made poor choices for a seemingly intelligent 40 year old woman. The first baby daddy was an alcoholic drug addict when she was involved with him. The second was married and still living with his wife. If that wasn’t a serious red flag for avoiding any kind of relationship I don't know what was Even if he weren’t a murderer, why would anyone want a relationship like that let alone have a child with him. 

To me this isn’t like a murder when a psychopath breaks into a home or abducts you off the street at random. One has deliberately make certain choices that increase the risk of one being killed. 

There are a lot of these "true crime" stories in which everyone claims that the victim lived an exemplary low risk life and then as it turns out they did indeed have significant risk factors in their life. Not every "affair" with a married man ends up with a dead pregnant woman but certainly the odds for that happening are much higher than someone who leads a "simpler" life.

ETA - In my opinion this didn't merit any kind of show because there was no "mystery" at all and unfortunately this is the kind of murder that happens fairly often - a form of domestic violence. The only reason it made it into the news and then ultimately a show was because they had footage of the little girl with the pillow walking back and forth and my god did they use that footage over and over again to stretch it to an unendurable two hours length. I could see it as a 1/2 hour Forensic Files type of show - one hour would be too long but 2 hours was ridiculous. 

Edited October 9, 2022 by amarante

[oliviabenson]

Resubcribed to hulu will watch some shows tonight 

[DanaK]

Former 20/20 anchor Barbara Walters has died at 93. The show interrupted its true crime story tonight for a tribute to Walters

[TVbitch]

Friday's episode with AJ killing his parents. I think he did it, but where did the gun go? Who was he talking to on the 911 call when he whispered "how did you get in here?" I thought that was going to end up being the older brother, so I was surprised that turned out to be a red herring. 

 

[LakeGal]

I was very curious about the older brother.  I found it strange he was never put on the stand.  I don't know who killed the parents.  

[pdlinda]

3 hours ago, TVbitch said:

Friday's episode with AJ killing his parents. I think he did it, but where did the gun go? Who was he talking to on the 911 call when he whispered "how did you get in here?" I thought that was going to end up being the older brother, so I was surprised that turned out to be a red herring. 

 

I thought the most compelling evidence the prosecution presented was AJ's phone usage that showed no usage during the commission of the crime and a black screen during the commission of the crime that they said acted as a flashlight for AJ to navigate the dark upstairs where his parents were sleeping.

I also learned in the brief snippet at the end that the prosecutor repeated all the privileges and rewards AJ's parents deprived him of due to poor grades and other negative behaviors, like drug use, prior to the crime just prior to the crimes.  That included his car!

AJ seemed like a good kid who couldn't possibly have committed such a heinous crime.  HOWEVER, he was only 16 and such aberrant behavior, under the circumstances of his seemingly deteriorating lifestyle situation, might have caused his adolescent brain to act in this horrendous way.

I am curious regarding AJ's financial situation after the death of his parents as that might explain who's paying for his presumably high-priced lawyers who have provided him with such an exemplary defense in what will be 3 trials!!

[UsernameFatigue]

I am always curious as to what info might have been left out of an episode like this. I know given the info we were presented with, I could not have found AJ guilty. 

I looked up a report on his second hung jury and found some interesting info. I didn't really understand how AJ could be considered a viable suspect given that he had no GSR, no blood on him, and his fingerprints and DNA were not found at the crime scene. Apparently AJ was in communication with his girlfriend until 1:02 am, and he called 911 at 1:40. So in 38 minutes he was able to kill his parents (or mom, dad died in hospital) and clean himself up. But the bathrooms did not show that they had been used, no evidence of a clean up. This I believe was info given in the epi. 

Despite the problems AJ was having with his parents and the measures they were taking to change his bad grades, etc. the prosecution had to admit that in the thousands of text messages AJ sent, none disrespected his parents. 

In addition with regards to the security system, in the three weeks before the murders, it had recorded incorrect information 77 times. 

I never understood why the older brother Josh was not investigated more. (Other than the police seem to have tunnel vision where AJ was concerned). The sister testified that the garage had a code that only family and close friends knew.

Despite the prosecution saying that Josh's mental problems did not start until after the murders, he had previously tried to burn down his grandmother's house. And in the days before the parents' murder, he started a fire in their house. His sister testified that around the time of the murders, she felt unsafe around Josh. 

I found the video of Josh standing outside his parents house as they were being brought out rather creepy. How did he even know to go there? I don't remember it being said that he was called and told what happened. He said  later that he witnessed the death of his parents. Seeing them loaded into ambulances is hardly the same thing, though prosecution painted it that way. 

It seems to be both a sloppy investigation, and one where the police set their sights on AJ and ignored Josh as a suspect. Apparently when the police entered the house, a policewoman picked up the gun which was on the kitchen counter, with her bare hands. WTF??? She was told to document that she had done so, but she did not.

In any case if I were a resident of Houston, I would be up in arms that money was going to be spent on trying AJ for a third time when they could not get a conviction the first two times. Obviously someone has gotten away with murder, but I don't think it is AJ. 

Edited January 9, 2023 by UsernameFatigue

[pdlinda]

20 minutes ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I would be up in arms that money was going to be spent on trying AJ for a third time when they could not get a conviction the first two times.

I noted that the first jury voted 8-4 to CONVICT.  The second jury voted 8-4 to ACQUIT.  

Having worked in criminal defense for MANY years, I can say that from my experience, the State will likely revamp their presentation in the 3rd trial and try not to continue the slide from guilty to not guilty on the next jury's part.

I will also add, that from my experience, if AJ is acquitted after a 3rd trial, I wouldn't expect the State to commence an all-out investigation into who killed A.J.'s parents.  Sad but true.....

[UsernameFatigue]

24 minutes ago, pdlinda said:

I noted that the first jury voted 8-4 to CONVICT.  The second jury voted 8-4 to ACQUIT.  

Having worked in criminal defense for MANY years, I can say that from my experience, the State will likely revamp their presentation in the 3rd trial and try not to continue the slide from guilty to not guilty on the next jury's part.

I will also add, that from my experience, if AJ is acquitted after a 3rd trial, I wouldn't expect the State to commence an all-out investigation into who killed A.J.'s parents.  Sad but true.....

Just based on watching true crime shows,  if AJ is acquitted in his third trial, I would totally expect the prosecutors/police will insist that they had the right person. We have seen that happen even when there is overwhelming evidence pointing to another person. Criminal, really. No pun intended. 

[Court]

I don't think AJ did it. I think the police had tunnel vision and made everything fit what they wanted. I think it was the older brother. 

[Vivigirl10]

On 1/8/2023 at 6:41 PM, UsernameFatigue said:

I know given the info we were presented with, I could not have found AJ guilty. 

I looked up a report on his second hung jury and found some interesting info. I didn't really understand how AJ could be considered a viable suspect given that he had no GSR, no blood on him, and his fingerprints and DNA were not found at the crime scene.

THIS.  Agree with your entire post.  I would not have been able to find him guilty.  At the same time, I'm not 100% sure he didn't do it.

I really disliked the Assistant Prosecutor that provided so much commentary on a case she was not involved in.  She was a prime example of how you can take teenage behaviors and twist it to make it appear the teen was an out of control monster.  Even his Aunt said it was just typical teenage stuff.  I would trust an inside family member to know better than a prosecutor. 

As an aside, I was a little bugged about the girlfriend having the baby.  Even Grandma said she was too!  AJ is still on house arrest, correct?  He can't go anywhere.  I'm assuming he can't or isn't working?  He's facing a possible life sentence in jail.  Sure - sounds like a perfect time to bring a baby into the world!  Maybe they wanted him to have a child and experience that if in fact he is locked away for the rest of his life.  Maybe that's the reasoning.  

The little sister was so beautiful and well spoken.  I wonder who she went to live with?  Grandma too?  

   

 

 

[patty1h]

Last nights episode was called "What the Little Girl Saw":  This was the case of an upstate NY couple w/2 children; the husband was a hockey player turned businessman.  Husband is playing poker with his friends and comes home to find his wife bludgeoned to death on the kitchen floor.  Unfortunately, their 7 year old daughter was witness to her mother's murder, but the killer had on a mask.  It took me five minutes to realize I've seen this before.  These newsmagazine shows are getting lazy, with the recycling of old material - this case was was done by at least one other show, maybe two.  20/20 did not bother adding anything new for the folks like me who have been watching this type of programming for years.  Guess who was behind the murder... wink wink

I guess the showrunners think true crime folks are easy to please or that there's always new viewers, so we can throw a years-old case on the screen and feed it to the masses.

ADDED:  Here's a link to the case for anyone not familiar.  It's very interesting:  https://www.distractify.com/p/thomas-clayton-now

Edited January 21, 2023 by patty1h

[amarante]

4 minutes ago, patty1h said:

Last nights episode was called "What the Little Girl Saw":  This was the case of an upstate NY couple w/2 children; the husband was a hockey player turned businessman.  Husband is playing poker with his friends and comes home to find his wife bludgeoned to death on the kitchen floor.  Unfortunately, their 7 year old daughter was witness to her mother's murder, but the killer had on a mask.  It took me five minutes to realize I've seen this before.  These newsmagazine shows are getting lazy, with the recycling of old material - this case was was done by at least one other show, maybe two.  20/20 did not bother adding anything new for the folks like me who have been watching this type of programming for years.  Guess who was behind the murder... wink wink

I guess the showrunners think true crime folks are easy to please or that there's always new viewers, so we can throw a years-old case on the screen and feed it to the masses.

I think the title on the previous show was Eyes Like Daddy or something similar.  

[TVbitch]

Yeah, definitely a re-re-run. Such a gruesome death. What a psycopath. That poor kid. 

[pdlinda]

On 1/21/2023 at 4:25 PM, amarante said:

I think the title on the previous show was Eyes Like Daddy or something similar.  

Thank you for posting this as I, too, was scratching my head as to why they referred to the episode as "new"; however, I agree it might have been another true-crime show that featured the case.

This was on top of a similar case (which WAS NEW) on Dateline where a seemingly upper-class, professional man was accused of murdering his wife by lodging a hatchet in her head while their 3 y.o. daughter was home and possibly saw the crime committed.  The husband then went to work and left the little girl home alone to meander through the premises while her mother lay lifeless in the blood-spattered bedroom and upstairs hall.

That "double-header" left me limp and stunned at the level of sociopathy displayed by 2 men with no criminal backgrounds and seemingly happy marriages.   

In both cases, there were financial benefits to killing the wives who both had life insurance that the surviving spouse cashed in after their death., I wonder if the insurance companies sought to retrieve the payout after each was convicted at trial of murdering the insured.   

[ellenr33]

I saw this story on Dateline.

[BusyOctober]

Re. 1.27.23 episode

Another ‘slip and fall’ in a bathtub = husband did it.

Another unemployed, unmotivated, overbearing, aggressive, unfaithful, easy to anger loser who’s only ambition is to be a ‘professional backgammon player’ = husband did it.

This guy was an absolute psychotic idiot telling his girlfriends he wanted his parents dead, he wanted his ex-wife dead, he wanted his young daughter involved in a poison plot.  WTF?? He’s also a moron for so obviously staging that bathroom.

I can respect the religious beliefs that the whole person must be returned to God in the same way they entered the world.  I get that if the M.E.told the rabbi it was an accidental death, then for religious reasons, there would not be an autopsy.  I just don’t see how the disconnect occurred between the rabbi and the M.E.  He heard from the cop on scene it was an accident.  Wouldn’t he want to see the coroner’s report to determine cause of death BEFORE a burial was done?

Now for the shallowness…their “luxury apartment building” has an uptown address, but IMO it looked so dated!  Totally 60’s-70’s architecture.  And that bathroom looked very un-luxurious.  Maybe the building had rules about doing remodels? 

 

[Court]

Yep, it was immediately clear that the ex husband did it. I hated his parents. 

Sometimes I feel so bad for the parents of the murderers but not in this case. His Dad is also an asshole. 

[amarante]

21 hours ago, BusyOctober said:

Re. 1.27.23 episode

Now for the shallowness…their “luxury apartment building” has an uptown address, but IMO it looked so dated!  Totally 60’s-70’s architecture.  And that bathroom looked very un-luxurious.  Maybe the building had rules about doing remodels? 

 

Apartments in that building (3 bedroom) are about $3 million dollars.

Whether that qualifies as luxury - at this point location near Lincoln Center is prime but obviously this isn't competing with the super luxurious new building where apartments sell for $10 or $20 million.

When the building was built in 1964 it was built as a rental building for middle class people. It is the ubiquitous white "brick" building of that era. 

It is a massive building - 680 units. 

It is unclear when the building was converted to a Condominium - it could have been after 2009 (when the murder occurred) in which case the finishes in the bathroom would just have been standard relatively nice rental - that the bathroom had a separate shower and tub was already relatively upscale since such a large bathroom is not typical

So they could have been renting in 2009 if prior to the conversion or didn't want to deal with the aggravation of remodeling when they moved in.

[Vivigirl10]

On 1/28/2023 at 1:51 PM, BusyOctober said:

Another unemployed, unmotivated, overbearing, aggressive, unfaithful, easy to anger loser who’s only ambition is to be a ‘professional backgammon player’ = husband did it.

He asked to have an "open marriage", girlfriends to wine and dine, but wanted the wife to continue to support him in this lifestyle?  Aw hell no!  Absolute loser, indeed.

On 1/28/2023 at 11:00 PM, Court said:

Sometimes I feel so bad for the parents of the murderers but not in this case. His Dad is also an asshole. 

The Dad had that definite air about him that made me feel like I wouldn't be able to spend 5 minutes in the same room with him.  It seemed at one point like they were inching towards knowing what a psychopath loser they had raised, but then they took a sharp right into, "he's such a good boy" territory.

[CrystalBlue]

Did anyone see the Julie Jensen case "The Kill List" aired 2/10/23?  If this case has been covered before, at least this is a current reporting (hosted by David Muir sans his previous sidekick Amy Rohrbach 😉) as of 2023.  There was a second trial with a 2023 jury verdict.

I don't understand or agree with the second trial judge's ruling about the "smoking gun" letter.  Good on the jury though!

[Tdoc72]

4 minutes ago, CrystalBlue said:

Did anyone see the Julie Jensen case "The Kill List" aired 2/10/23?  If this case has been covered before, at least this is a current reporting (hosted by David Muir sans his previous sidekick Amy Rohrbach 😉) as of 2023.  There was a second trial with a 2023 jury verdict.

I don't understand or agree with the second trial judge's ruling about the "smoking gun" letter.  Good on the jury though!

He got a second trial b/c the first one was overturned. They rules the letter was out b/c they couldn’t cross examine her. I think they need new laws on this type of stuff b/c she couldn’t be asked about it b/c she’s dead. 
Good on the 2nd jury for finding this creep guilty. 
Also I hate hypocrites—he didn’t like that she had an affair, put penises all over the place, & wouldn’t divorce her. But then later, he had an affair and I guess that was ok. Jerk. 

[TVbitch]

I just don't understand why Julie did not go to the cops when she realized her husband was trying to poison her. She could have collected evidence, and the cops could have helped her with that. When it went so far that she was in bed dying, she could have called 911 herself or asked her kids or the neighbor to do so. I know Julie was afraid her husband would convince police she was depressed and trying to kill herself, and that she would then lose her kids to him, but if she is dying, she is gonna lose her kids to him anyway. 

[heatherchandler]

Well at least..

Spoiler

https://abc7chicago.com/julie-jensen-mark-antifreeze-killer-murder-kill-list/12800338/

I agree though with @TVbitch she should have contacted the police.  I guess no one knows how they would react in this situation but if I thought my husband had plans to kill me I think I’d go to them. 

[Court]

House of Cards. I haven't finished yet but I swear this isn't new. I just can't quite remember where I saw it before. It's either repackaged as new, there's another similar case or another crime show covered it. The wedding dress and the poetry is where I started to think I've seen this before. 

Or I watch too much true crime and they're all running together. 

[TVbitch]

This one gets filed in the same folder as the one with the cop killing survivalist Loyd Barrus from a recent Dateline. That also guy made his way through a long succession of wives and girlfriends. I can almost cut and past my same comment from that episode:

We seem to have a very long way to go before women on the whole realize that they don't need to put up with creepy behavior, neglect, or abuse, and that being alone is a perfectly fine alternative to being with some violent and/or crazy asshole.  

[pdlinda]

3 hours ago, TVbitch said:

being alone is a perfectly fine alternative to being with some violent and/or crazy asshole.  

As I was always taught by my parents, "BEING WITH NO ONE IS FAR BETTER THAN BEING WITH THE WRONG ONE."  

I've lived it.  I am blissfully and successfully  "alone" after being with "the wrong one" for many, miserable years!!

[CrystalBlue]

House of Cards.  This one was new to me.  I think they overplayed the Tarot cards and Wicca connection.  The murderer wasn't into the religion and it played no part in the murders.  The disguised ex-fiancee Amanda was very distracting with the missing tooth (was that part of the disguise?) and weird facial modifications.

[UsernameFatigue]

I thought it was obvious pretty early on in House of Cards that the killer was the fiancé. The first dead give away was that he was not interviewed, though the mother of his children was interviewed early on.

I thought when the mother gave the name of her son in law as the killer, she likely was disoriented (understandably since she would die from her injuries a day later) and gave the name of her other daughter's ex husband, rather than Angel's fiancé. 

The most telling part was the letter, where the killer claimed to have been with Angel twice, and when he killed her they were going to have sex but she changed her mind. He said that he wore gloves so left no DNA. So he was fully clothed and wearing gloves as he is making out and hoping to have sex with her? Yea. No. Of course the fiancé's DNA was found in the house, as was to be expected, but not a stranger's. Because there wasn't one. 

[nora1992]

What a stupid man. They weren’t married.  There were no kids.  He could have walked away.  But he took all the frustrations out on two women who had been kind to him.  At least he was dumb enough to provide the evidence that led to his conviction.

[Vivigirl10]

7 hours ago, UsernameFatigue said:

I thought when the mother gave the name of her son in law as the killer, she likely was disoriented (understandably since she would die from her injuries a day later) and gave the name of her other daughter's ex husband, rather than Angel's fiancé. 

I'm glad they didn't relentlessly pursue the son-in-law because of this one fact.  The Mom had dementia, who knows why his name came into her head.  There was another murder case where a little girl wrongly identified her Uncle as a killer and that's all it took to put him away.  

14 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

I think they overplayed the Tarot cards and Wicca connection.  The murderer wasn't into the religion and it played no part in the murders. 

Agree.

Angel seemed like a wonderful, special woman but I was a little surprised at how childlike her attitude was towards love and finding "prince charming" as a 35 year old woman.  Her diary sounded much more like something a teenager would write.  I think the pursuit of this fantasy knight in shining armor may have blocked her from acknowledging red flags earlier on.  Why couldn't he have just walked away from her??  It's just so sad.

I never had it but the biological need in women to have babies must be STRONG.  I understand the reason why women stay in these horrid relationships but my pity stops when they seem to be insistent on continuing to reproduce with a monster. Sure, you have the one baby when things still seem fine but Amanda and the first wife both went on to have a second child when the obvious deficits in their partner were long apparent.  Bringing an innocent life into such a mess is unforgiveable.

Just once I'd like to see some fat, slovenly, sneaky, dumb, unlikeable, barely employed woman be able to trick man after man into falling desperately in love with her.  I mean, I wouldn't, but just to even the playing field!   

[Rain88]

I hate the 2 hour format where they repeat everything before and after every commercial. This weeks “A Model murder” was the worst.   The story started all over again at the hour mark. I thought it was  a glitch in my taping. They pick interesting story-lines but they are unwatchable without a lot of fast forwarding.  

[amarante]

16 minutes ago, Rain88 said:

I hate the 2 hour format where they repeat everything before and after every commercial. This weeks “A Model murder” was the worst.   The story started all over again at the hour mark. I thought it was  a glitch in my taping. They pick interesting story-lines but they are unwatchable without a lot of fast forwarding.  

Yes that one was particularly egregious as it was SOOOO drawn out and filled with people being interviewed and saying the same thing over and over again.

I finally just forwarded to the end to confirm what was obvious - the "model" and her boyfriend killed the crazy shrink. 

[TVbitch]

I do a lot of FF on 20/20. Around the hour mark they always recap the entire case, and with ads on both sides of that, there is full 12 minutes there you FF right over.

Never was the outcome in doubt. The doctor clearly had boundary issues with some of his clients as well. As for the "model" ~sorry, but she looked totally average to me. He did not deserve to die, of course, but it never ceases to amaze me that even intelligent, successful, otherwise fairly normal men, even in their 70s, still let their dicks make some really crazy decisions. 

[SunnyBeBe]

Ref. the Bad Barbie episode.  They said she did not reveal the identity of her baby’s father.   Sleeping with both men, how would she have known which one was the father, unless one of them had had a vasectomy or was sterile?  Does anyone know where the baby is now?  
 

Did anyone doubt the story of the roommate/witness?  She seemed all contrite and like the good person, but I really wondered if her role was the way she described.  

While Bad Barbie had a slight resemblance to Playboy model Holly Madison, there was something about her that was not attractive.  
 

 

[donovan]

Another episode that should have been 1 hour. 

 

[Vivigirl10]

I thought this was an interesting episode but agree with everyone else about the length.  I won't watch Dateline in real time for this reason.  You have to be able to fast forward through it.  

Wow - the word "model" sure is thrown around lightly these days.

For all the time they took with the story, I was left not really feeling like I knew who Kelsey was. Sure, the was the small town girl with big dreams.  But why was she such an absolutely psycho and general all-around loser?  

I didn't like the roommate when she was first interviewed - something was so off about her demeanor.  But then I was seething when they shared what her involvement was.  I get situations where you feel you can't intervene because your own life is seriously at risk.  It didn't seem like this was one of those situations.  When they first beat the Doctor with the bat, she should have gone in her room and called 911.  It seems with all the chaos, she could have slipped out of the house.  She was not being held hostage.  His blood is just as much on her hands.  

What a bunch of useless, gross people.  

The Doctor's girlfriend seemed like a lovely person. 

[pdlinda]

4 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

there was something about her that was not attractive.  
 

 

I did not see her looks as being attractive.  Her main appeal seemed to be her body, whom she offered it to and for how much!

I had little to no sympathy for the psychiatrist as he had every reason and occasion to sever from this woman by withdrawing his lavish financial support and chose not to do so. 

Agreeing to confront her in a distant location away from his home was about as dumb as I could imagine.  He may have been a highly credentialed professional; however, he HAD NO STREET SMARTS!!

[oliviabenson]

Take away the plastic surgery, implants and 2 pounds of fake hair and makeup I bet bad Barbie looks average if that.

Dr should have stopped giving her $ from his state. 
 

 

And yes 2 hours are too much. 

That’s why I rarely watch 20/20 anymore.

[SunnyBeBe]

6 hours ago, pdlinda said:

I did not see her looks as being attractive.  Her main appeal seemed to be her body, whom she offered it to and for how much!

I had little to no sympathy for the psychiatrist as he had every reason and occasion to sever from this woman by withdrawing his lavish financial support and chose not to do so. 

Agreeing to confront her in a distant location away from his home was about as dumb as I could imagine.  He may have been a highly credentialed professional; however, he HAD NO STREET SMARTS!!

Right.  The minute he saw the household as it was then, he should have recognized a danger.  Fighting in the car with Barbie and then going into the house where she had reinforcements was crazy.  Anyone would know that threatening to take a mother’s child would push her buttons.  Why would he even had stuff like that on his phone?  You wouldn’t be texting CPS.  

[Court]

On 2/25/2023 at 3:48 PM, Rain88 said:

I hate the 2 hour format where they repeat everything before and after every commercial. This weeks “A Model murder” was the worst.   The story started all over again at the hour mark. I thought it was  a glitch in my taping. They pick interesting story-lines but they are unwatchable without a lot of fast forwarding.  

This crap is exactly why I came here to see how much I could fast forward. Just do 1 hour episodes!

[oliviabenson]

Dr gave her $500,000?! Holy cannoli. Guess he really wanted a sugar baby.

[SunnyBeBe]

I’m curious about the baby.  

[DanaK]

The topic tonight will be on Alex Murdaugh. They lucked out that he was found guilty yesterday

[oliviabenson]

1 hour ago, DanaK said:

The topic tonight will be on Alex Murdaugh. They lucked out that he was found guilty yesterday

He is going to die in prison.