All Episodes Discussion

[txhorns79]

27 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

But I do not feel it was an accidental death. There's just too much weirdness for me to think it's that simple. I will say, though, that Michelle's sister insisting that she was too smart to die accidentally...I mean, smart people can make mistakes and do stupid things all the time, and as she herself notes with that letter she said Michelle had written, Michelle did seem to have a history of picking men who weren't right for her. So if she could do that.... I don't mean that in a victim-blaming way, mind, just saying that, like I said, smart people can still make mistakes. 

I just was like: She was drinking and had taken drugs (or did they not establish if she took anything that night?).  She can make a mistake. 

I thought the whole thing was really weird.  I did feel like the police were determined to pin the blame on Marcus because they screwed up so badly with Clark. 

[Annber03]

30 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

I did feel like the police were determined to pin the blame on Marcus because they screwed up so badly with Clark. 

I could definitely see that on their end, yeah. They really did bungle that up - the one guy kept going on about how he told Clark to stay back, and yet they still didn't keep a close enough eye on him to ensure he didn't go back into his house. If you're that concerned about where Clark should and shouldn't be standing, people, take him and put him in either the police car or have him sit somewhere and keep an officer next to and talking to him at all times. 

[Motor City]

Her name was Marianne Shockley not Michelle

[TVbitch]

I paused when they showed the autopsy report and she was at .1 alcohol which is a couple drinks, but not drown in the hot tub drunk or anything. And there was a bit of speed but not the ecstasy. 

I think if Clark had killed her, he would have confessed in the note. 

Marcus must be a real toxic guy for his young son to feel he has to warn Marcus' girlfriends about him. I don't care how "charming" a man might be, if his own son warns me about his father's violent outbursts, I would hit the freaking highway on that one!  

[12catcrazy]

I have to agree with Annber03 and TVbitch.   And yeah, what a weird story all ways around.  

That poor woman got herself mixed up with a real "winner" in that Marcus.  150% agree that if a man's son is warning that his own father is mad, bad, and dangerous to know, I'd be running in the other direction.   And for all of the guy's so-called "charisma" and "charm" , it sure as hell didn't translate through the tv.   Ugh.   I'm glad that the judge had him locked up; just wish it could have been for longer.  

[TVbitch]

Saturday's episode was so horrific. Another case of "I would rather kill you than have you find out I've been lying." I wonder if that poor couple had any idea their kid had that in him. His announcement at the trial was chilling. 

[Annber03]

24 minutes ago, TVbitch said:

Saturday's episode was so horrific. Another case of "I would rather kill you than have you find out I've been lying." I wonder if that poor couple had any idea their kid had that in him. His announcement at the trial was chilling. 

I was thinking about that when they talked about finding the dismembered body of his dad. I know that sometimes, some people do that with bodies because it's easier to carry them to dispose of them. 

But with this kid, I get the feeling his reason for doing that wasn't that simple. I sense he had some deep underlying issues with or resentments towards his parents, real or imagined, for a long, long time. I honestly shudder to think of what else he could've been capable of doing had he not been caught. 

[TVbitch]

Yeah, I could see him going into a fit of rage cuz he was about to get found out and killing them, but there is no way he could have any good feelings for them at all and chop them up like that.

My impression was that he was trying to burn the pieces in the fireplace. They found bone fragments in there, and the neighbor said the fireplace had been raging for days on end around the clock. He probably realized that was going to take forever and decided to dump the parts. 

[Vivigirl10]

17 hours ago, Annber03 said:

But with this kid, I get the feeling his reason for doing that wasn't that simple. I sense he had some deep underlying issues with or resentments towards his parents, real or imagined, for a long, long time. I honestly shudder to think of what else he could've been capable of doing had he not been caught. 

This episode was horrifying and I thought the show didn't do nearly enough digging, it was kind of all glossed over and left a gaping hole.  I mean, WHO was Chandler???  What was this family like???

The cousin didn't give much insight at all into the family dynamics, other than saying the parents absolutely adored their sons.  The family friend didn't offer any details other than what great people the parents were.  And then you had one oddball childhood friend who made a few off the wall statements like the fact that Chandler had good hair.  

Was he a pathological liar his whole life?  Any previous run-ins with the law?  Concerning behaviors, at all?  I just don't know how you go from zero to not only killing your parents but dismembering them as well.  I know sometimes the signs aren't there but the show didn't even offer that as a counter.  They told us literally nothing about this kid and his family.

I guess you truly never know what goes on behind closed doors. 

As an aside, who didn't see through the Space-X lie the second it flashed on screen...... 

[badgerwoman]

On 11/6/2022 at 6:39 PM, TVbitch said:

Saturday's episode was so horrific. Another case of "I would rather kill you than have you find out I've been lying." I wonder if that poor couple had any idea their kid had that in him. His announcement at the trial was chilling. 

I live about 4 miles from the family, and for all the local coverage this case had, little wasone o discussed about them.   i don't think the police ever believed the parents had left on the trip, but the episode didn't confirm that.  And they still haven't found the rest of his mother.  

Oh, and I know the husband of one of the people who testified - we used to work together.  He's retired now, and we aren't in touch so  I never got the chance to ask him about it.

[12catcrazy]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:06 PM, Annber03 said:

I was thinking about that when they talked about finding the dismembered body of his dad. I know that sometimes, some people do that with bodies because it's easier to carry them to dispose of them. 

But with this kid, I get the feeling his reason for doing that wasn't that simple. I sense he had some deep underlying issues with or resentments towards his parents, real or imagined, for a long, long time. I honestly shudder to think of what else he could've been capable of doing had he not been caught. 

Well said!  I thought the same thing while watching this episode.   It's horrible enough that he killed his parents (and I personally think that the saddest murders of them all are either parents killing children or the other way around) but to dismember(!) and then burn them - that is another level or hatred and weirdness there.  

And I too would have liked more of a deep dive into this family.  This kid must have had some issues that people noticed.  He seemed to be a psychopath squared.   That young woman he was dating probably dodged one hell of a bullet. 

[amarante]

This is the third time a son has killed his parents after lying about attending college. 

There was the Porco son in upstate New York who took an axe to his mother and father. The mother lived and denied that it was her son who had done it. 

There was Thomas Whitaker (Sugarland, Texas) who tried to kill his whole family in order to collect the insurance and estate. His father lived but his brother and mother died. The father lobbied extensively to get his death sentence commuted to life.

And of course others like the Menendez brothers but the lying about college attendance was unique in these three cases and being found out appears to have precipitated the murder  

I think it is such an alien thing for most people that it is beyond comprehension and being able to dismember a body takes a special kind of mental pathology because dismembering strangers is beyond what most people could do - let alone parents or children. 

And yes this one was really just half a story because there was really nothing in it to make one even have a clue as to why the son felt that killing his parents and dismembering them was something to do. Not that I am excusing abuse but there was absolutely nothing to indicate that their home life was in anyway horrendously dysfunctional. 

And beyond that his sheer idiocy in terms of the half baked manner in which he tried to cover it up.

I do understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt but in this specific case I wonder how the defense attorneys actually were able to even attempt to argue that despite finding the parents bones in the family fireplace with pictures of the fireplace being on for hours AND the son being spotted at the location where one of the parts was found - that it didn't mean that he was guilty - that there were other possible explanations. Why not attempt some kind of plea agreement rather than go through the complete charade of the case - of course the kid's solicitation of an appeals attorney probably meant that the kid himself was unwilling to take a plea of any kind.

Edited November 14, 2022 by amarante

[Kiss my mutt]

This episode felt more like a news brief rather than an investigative piece. I feel like there was more to the story and background to flesh out, I was left thinking, “was that all”? 
Erin Moriarty looks like she could be Keith Morrison’s sister. 

[badgerwoman]

23 hours ago, Kiss my mutt said:

This episode felt more like a news brief rather than an investigative piece. I feel like there was more to the story and background to flesh out, I was left thinking, “was that all”? 
Erin Moriarty looks like she could be Keith Morrison’s sister. 

i don't think anyone locally ever had much on the family or family dynamics.  Maybe because the arrest came fairly quickly?  

[Ohmo]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:06 PM, Annber03 said:

But with this kid, I get the feeling his reason for doing that wasn't that simple. I sense he had some deep underlying issues with or resentments towards his parents, real or imagined, for a long, long time. I honestly shudder to think of what else he could've been capable of doing had he not been caught. 

I got the impression that his parents probably had no idea.  Chandler had a lot going on, but he hid it well.  I don't know if serial killer would describe him, but I could see him being abusive to or killing his romantic partners.  His girlfriend is quite lucky.  I think it's almost certain that his parents missed some warning signs, and I'm not talking recent ones.  Probably further back in his childhood.

Marianne Shockley: Marcus is no prize, but I couldn't have convicted him on that evidence.  There was Clark's presence, along with the fact that she took the drugs and drank.  By all accounts she liked to drink.  Marcus COULD have killed her, but I don't think the prosecution PROVED that he did.

[nora1992]

I hope the undercover officer from Saturday’s show (the one with extended camera time) has moved to another department: even criminals watch true crime TV.

Who would‘ve thought, back in 1987, that little scrapings would catch a killer and exonerate another man?  I wonder which of today’s mysteries will be solved with tomorrow’s technologies?

[TVbitch]

I'm so glad some of these scumbags who've been living their lives for years and years are finally seeing justice for their crimes. I hope a lot of others, who have been thinking they got away with it, are quaking in their boots. 

[12catcrazy]

Did anybody watch last night's episode about the young man who had been convicted of his mother's murder and recently got out of jail?   Seems like the police figured that he did it and it was end of story and they didn't seem to be bothered to maybe look further (like at the woman's ex-husband and his cousin).  

Imagine going to prison at the age of 18 and not getting out until you were almost 40 and that you didn't do the crime.   And even worse: that your father (who was probably behind it) seemed to be happy to let you take the fall.   Really a tragedy.  

[pdlinda]

4 hours ago, 12catcrazy said:

Did anybody watch last night's episode about the young man who had been convicted of his mother's murder and recently got out of jail? 

Yes,  I just watched it and think it's amazing that he actually got paroled due to some recent MO law that his lawyers accessed to get him out of there.

When they were wrapping up the episode they said that the prosecutor who was more sympathetic to his plight lost his election and that the MO AG who was not was re-elected. 

Therefore, inasmuch as he is out of prison, has a job, a driver's license and is functioning lawfully in society, I really don't see the State spending the resources to exonerate him.

It's not impossible, but seems unlikely to me. 

I'm not sure how long he'll be on parole and, of course, is still a convicted felon in the eyes of the law.

His best shot at exoneration is if his lawyers can convince a judge to hear all their "new evidence" that casts doubt on his conviction and the judge ordering a new trial.  Then, the prosecutor might simply decide that too much time has elapsed for the State to reasonably assume they could make a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and dismiss it.

[TVbitch]

DNA is killing it on 48 Hours this season. ...no pun intended!

Go trees! Glad that put that boy/man away. He clearly thought he was smarter than everyone else. Strange for an egghead to have such caveman ideas about women. His defense attorney was a terrible liar and could barely look the correspondent in the eyes when going over the absurd accidental death scenario.  

[Annber03]

Ugh, god, yes, that guy gave off creepy vibes from the word "go". Yeow. He looked like the stereotypical guy who would pop up on the news for shooting up a mall or theater or something. Absolutely one of those "I am so smart, I know everything" sorts - thank god that arrogance came back to bite him in the ass in the end. 

I felt so bad for his poor daughter. How utterly creepy and horrifying to know that she was likely witness to her mom's murder, and then everything with her being in the car the next day... Such a scumbag, this guy - he's right where he belongs. I hope the little girl is doing okay. 

[amarante]

There was a Forensics Files episode where a tree also was used to convict a murderer.

The husband had filled up all of his wife's orifices with gasoline and then lit her up in order to destroy evidence. He buried her underneath a tree - or what was left of her.

A few years later, his girlfriend who had been a witness to the whole thing for some reason told the authorities and a botanist was able to prove by the size of the rings of the tree that there had been contamination by gasoline during the year the wife "disappeared" as they were smaller than normal and gas in the soil contaminated it and impeded the normal growth of the tree.

[txhorns79]

On 11/6/2022 at 8:06 PM, Annber03 said:

I sense he had some deep underlying issues with or resentments towards his parents, real or imagined, for a long, long time.

This whole episode was very strange.  48 Hours clearly did not have access to anyone who had real insight into the family dynamic.   I realize people can be capable of anything, even if there is nothing in their past to suggest how far they would go.  Having said that, the guy murdered and dismembered his parents.  He was trying to burn body parts in the family fireplace.  It's hard for me to believe this was the first time he had ever shown signs that he was deeply disturbed.  

[TVbitch]

Saturday's episode was a throw away about the Idaho murders. Unless you've been living in a monastery, nothing new. 

[12catcrazy]

3 hours ago, TVbitch said:

Saturday's episode was a throw away about the Idaho murders. Unless you've been living in a monastery, nothing new. 

I agree but I guess they felt the need to be first in line as a  True Crime TV Show.    I think they were very respectful to the victims and talked about them more than the accused.   Maybe they have to be careful about how much they say about Kohberger so his legal team doesn't scream that he can't get a fair trail  and from what the show said towards the end, it seems that a bunch of stuff that the police have in evidence has been sealed, so maybe the show is not allowed to bring much up. 

[Sara2009]

On 1/8/2023 at 9:05 AM, TVbitch said:

Saturday's episode was a throw away about the Idaho murders. Unless you've been living in a monastery, nothing new. 

I thought it was interesting because I hadn’t really followed that case.

[Vivigirl10]

13 hours ago, Sara2009 said:

I thought it was interesting because I hadn’t really followed that case.

I thought it was interesting too.  I've followed the case some but this episode really focused on the victims and learning about them.  The part that is still so unclear to me is the account from one of the surviving roommates who said she saw the attacker in a mask and heard crying and whispering.  When she saw him, was he inside the house or outside?  They never specified.  If he was inside, who in the world would be able to close their door and just go back to bed?  This seemed like a close group of roommates, I'm surprised she didn't text one of them and ask if they heard anything or tell them what she saw (if she didn't want to call the police).  I know it's been made very clear that the others in the house who weren't harmed were not involved and that's not at all what I'm insinuating.  It just seems that all reports are really glossing over the survivors.  Maybe they are doing that to protect the case, I suppose.   

And can we please stop with the "he was such a good boy who would never harm a fly" talk from the accused's family???  They could have still issued a statement expressing sympathy for the victims and their families and said they too hope whoever committed the crime is held responsible.  I just don't know why time after time the "good boy" defense MUST be stated by the family (I mean this across the board, in almost all cases).  Just stop.  

[Kelly]

On 1/11/2023 at 10:32 AM, Kiki620 said:

The part that is still so unclear to me is the account from one of the surviving roommates who said she saw the attacker in a mask and heard crying and whispering.  When she saw him, was he inside the house or outside?  They never specified.  If he was inside, who in the world would be able to close their door and just go back to bed? 

She saw him inside the house.

The one reason I thought was, perhaps if alcohol was involved, the roommate wasn't thinking clearly.

[TVbitch]

Was last night's a re-run? I hadn't seen it before. Wowzer! That bitch needs to keep her day job, cuz she CANNOT act. She also was a moron for not lawyering up immediately. And finally, her posture on the security cam was atrocious. 😅 

PS. Props to Erin Moriarty for wearing pants! 🤣<egregious dig at Andrea C! 

[Annber03]

Said it was a new episode on our guide. 

But yeeeeeeeeah, it was so obviously clear she was acting with the tears and the attempts to be all emotional and whatnot. That video and that audio were incredibly damning*, and that massive cut on her hand obviously didn't help matters, either. Neither did the fact that she saw him bleeding out and did absolutely nothing to call for help sooner. The verdict was spot on - I agree she didn't plan that night to kill him, but it's also clear she has some serious anger issues she really needs to work through and get help for. 

I am glad that the judge didn't allow the stuff with her work in the trial. I get the prosecution wanting to use it to prove that she's acting on the stand, but a) that was pretty obvious on its own, if that one juror's comments were anything to go by, and b) I could easily see somebody focusing more on the fact she's doing all this sexy work and people judging her (and by extension, women like her) on that, instead of focusing on the actual issues at play here. 

*I don't know what struck me more abut the audio from the night of the murder - the fact that the camera could pick up audio from a house across the street that well, or the fact that Melissa and her boyfriend's voices were THAT loud that they could be heard across the street like that. I wonder if the investigators interviewed any other neighbors, 'cause if their voices were loud enough to be picked up on a camera across the street, surely someone who lived right next door would've heard something, too. 

I also kept thinking about the dog that you see wander through the rom early on in that camera footage from inside the home. I hope they found a safe home after all of this. 

[AManfred]

3 hours ago, Annber03 said:

I also kept thinking about the dog that you see wander through the rom early on in that camera footage from inside the home. I hope they found a safe home after all of this. 

Me, too! The cat(s) also.

[Vivigirl10]

19 hours ago, Annber03 said:

That video and that audio were incredibly damning*, and that massive cut on her hand obviously didn't help matters, either. Neither did the fact that she saw him bleeding out and did absolutely nothing to call for help sooner.

This was one of those incredibly aggravating cases where the defense is literally asking you to throw out all common sense.  The video/audio, the cut on her hand, knowing she attacked him.......the "I just gave him a little light stab in his back to get him off of me".  Are you kidding me??  The jury was supposed to throw all common sense out the window and somehow get all this to fit the narrative that he attacked her?  Puh-lease.

Her acting was sooooo bad.  I kind of loved when the prosecutor was going so hard at her and she dropped the tears quite quickly to snap back and be sarcastic.  

[LakeGal]

I still get creeped out by her all hunched over following him around on the video.  That was like something out of a horror movie.  

[Court]

I knew she did it immediately. WTF with "I lightly stabbed him in the  back!!!"  No, you killed him. She's a terrible actress. 

[amarante]

On 1/16/2023 at 7:26 AM, Kiki620 said:

This was one of those incredibly aggravating cases where the defense is literally asking you to throw out all common sense.  The video/audio, the cut on her hand, knowing she attacked him.......the "I just gave him a little light stab in his back to get him off of me".  Are you kidding me??  The jury was supposed to throw all common sense out the window and somehow get all this to fit the narrative that he attacked her?  Puh-lease.

Her acting was sooooo bad.  I kind of loved when the prosecutor was going so hard at her and she dropped the tears quite quickly to snap back and be sarcastic.  

I am pretty sure it was a 48 Hours that did a recent update on the Melanie McGuire "Suitcase Killer". She is the Jersey wife who killed her husband - dismembered him and then tossed the three suitcases over the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

There was  a huge amount of circumstantial and forensic evidence - buying a gun with unusual bullets two days before he was shot - corpse had those unusual bullets; corpse was in the couple's matching suitcases; corpse was partially wrapped in a towel from the fertility center where she was employed as a nurse; EZ pass charges which she then had to come up with incredible excuses as to why she had driven to both Atlantic City and Chesapeake - others as well.

They interviewed these two "forensic" experts who had a podcast in which they were trying to convince everyone that she was innocent - despite the massive body of evidence against her. This wasn't even a gray case.

So I guess they do this because this whole niche of true crime podcasts in which a convicted person is found innocent are a thing? 

 

[Ohmo]

Death of an Officer's Wife

I think Seth did it, and the biggest take i took from his police interview was that almost every sentence started with "I".  Plus, his daughter's interview with the forensic psychologist was telling.  I'm glad he was convicted.

[TVbitch]

Kind of a heart warming episode on the bank robbery. (If there is such a thing on these shows.) Kudos to Michelle and Brea for making lemonade out of some pretty hard knocks.

The most chilling thing in this episode was the defense attorney who proudly said his tactic for getting his client (the female mastermind of the kidnapping) acquitted was: "To beat the hell out of the victim." Which he did. And he admitted he KNEW his client was guilty, and had seen her confession. (which got thrown out) He stated getting her acquitted was "the best victory of his career." Ugh. 

[12catcrazy]

5 hours ago, TVbitch said:

Kind of a heart warming episode on the bank robbery. (If there is such a thing on these shows.) Kudos to Michelle and Brea for making lemonade out of some pretty hard knocks.

The most chilling thing in this episode was the defense attorney who proudly said his tactic for getting his client (the female mastermind of the kidnapping) acquitted was: "To beat the hell out of the victim." Which he did. And he admitted he KNEW his client was guilty, and had seen her confession. (which got thrown out) He stated getting her acquitted was "the best victory of his career." Ugh. 

I was wondering how a lawyer like him can actually look at himself in the mirror.  Guess that all that matters is winning for your client.  

Wonder what the jurors who acquitted her thought when and if they saw that confession video.  Talk about being played...

[TVbitch]

While I believe in the idea that "everyone is entitled to a competant defense," of course humans have pushed this to the point where lawyers make cases (and verdicts) about them and wanting to win at all costs. I guess that's how they make the most money.  

[stonehaven]

I was thinking that beating the hell out of the victim and playing up her past was a typical way to go back then but not now. A jury now, would see right through it and a smart prosecutor could have navigated and got that video in somehow.

Still, that episode was a good one...and sad...

[patty1h]

Last nights episode was called The Brighton Ax Murder, and followed a 1982 case involving a woman murdered in her bed with an axe to the head.   The other detail is that her young child was in the home the whole day with her mothers body.

I didn't recognize the name Jim Krausneck but as soon as they said that the husband lied about his education at Kodak and that the daughter was left at home all day with her mothers dead body, it hit me... been there, done that.  Dateline just did this same case less than a month ago and both shows advertised these as NEW.  All I have to say is that these true crime shows have gotten very lazy with recycling the same stuff over and over and need to consult other shows to not overlap cases.  I didn't stick around to see how 48 Hours handled the situation, so if new details were given, it's my loss.  

Edited February 26, 2023 by patty1h

[UsernameFatigue]

The episode was an hour long, and left out a lot of information. They did have an extensive interview with Jim's current wife who of course believes he is innocent. 

They did leave a lot of info out, like the fact that Cathy was supposed to be taken by a friend to an appt that day but when she didn't hear from Cathy didn't go to the house. I always thought that Jim left his daughter alone because he thought the friend would be the one to discover Cathy's body. They did bring up that Jim did not have the qualifications for the job he had at Kodak, but not that Cathy was upset about that.

Some of Cathy's family was interviewed, and at the end they showed her dad at court after Jim was found guilty.   Cathy's family still does not see Jim's daughter Sara. Cathy's dad wants to move Cathy's grave to their family plot, but he has to get permission from Sara who has not given it. They also said at the end of the episode that Sara has moved to Europe.  In any case, I thought it was an episode that did not cover the case that well. 

[txhorns79]

I felt like the jury in the Stephanie Fernandes case got it right.  I didn't think Stephanie intended to kill Andrew, but I did think she intended to hurt him.  I think the juror who said that Stephanie and Andrew were simply toxic together, and things eventually spun out of control, was correct.  I felt bad for the daughter who had to live in that mess for years.  It's amazing to me that she seems to have turned out okay.  

[Whimsy]

20 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

I felt like the jury in the Stephanie Fernandes case got it right.  I didn't think Stephanie intended to kill Andrew, but I did think she intended to hurt him.  I think the juror who said that Stephanie and Andrew were simply toxic together, and things eventually spun out of control, was correct.  I felt bad for the daughter who had to live in that mess for years.  It's amazing to me that she seems to have turned out okay.  

I live right next to Worcester and I knew nothing about this case. It definitely wasn’t big news like some cases. I agree with everything you said. Stephane was toxic and Andrew was toxic and the two of them together were a nightmare. 

[TVbitch]

This weeks episode appeared to be an old case, then realized I hadn't watched last week's. 

The fact that Stephanie also pulled a knife on the other fiance a couple times was troubling. When VanZant asked her about it, she looked away from his eyes to deny it. She was a bad liar on the stand, too. I do agree that both Stephanie and Andrew were dishing it out in this relationship. I would not be surprised if she ends up in another volatile relationship when she is released in 8 years. 

This case reminded me of the one a while ago where the woman stabbed the boyfriend and he bled out. She claimed abuse and self defense and that the actually stabbing was an accident, but on the interior security cameras it showed her going after him with the knife inside the house. 

[Annber03]

"The Mysterious Death of Tiffney Crawford"...

Lead investigator: "We need to send this case to another agency to investigate, because there's too much potential conflict of interest here, given Tiffney's the daughter-in-law of a woman who works for our office."

Me: Great! Good thinking, that's a very smart move. 

Also these investigators: *Gives the car Tiffney died in back to the family mere hours after she died, thus allowing them to clean it up and scrub out whatever remaining evidence might still be there, didn't look in the house for any further evidence of bloody clothes or other stuff relating to her death that night*

Me: Goddamnit, really? 

Other main takeaways from the episode:

-Jason said that he heard a scream. One of the gunshot wounds was to Tiffney's jaw. If that was the first shot fired, would she be able to even scream in that moment? She might be able to make a noise of some kind, perhaps, but I don't know if she would be able to scream, the way Jason seems to describe her doing. 

-Already suspicious with the "non-dominant hand" thing, because how often does that pop up in these kinds of stories? And if there was no contact wound, then yes, that causes a lot of conflict with whether the door was open or closed, or whether she could shoot herself, not just once, but twice, with her non-dominant hand from a distance, which was already an unlikely scenario on its face. 

-I could understand Jason perhaps being in shock or something upon finding Tiffney's body, thus explaining his demeanor on the 911 call and on the body cam footage. I agree you can't always determine guilt or innocence based off someone's tone, and we've seen people go way over the top in trying to sound emotional to throw investigators off, too, so...

But his family cleaned the van supposedly because he was afraid of his kids discovering the aftermath. One might think he might at least make some mention of his kids on the 911 call, or when talking to the police. Especially since they might've been awakened by the sirens and all these officers showing up at the house and all the general commotion going on. 

-Jason getting all upset about Tiffney's affair felt rather rich to me, 'cause, um, dude, you started your relationship with her when she was married to someone else. Remember that? He's going on about the sanctity of their marriage and how she's destroyed their home and everything...yeah, I imagine the husband she left to be with you might feel similarly, but you didn't seem to care about that*. I don't necessarily subscribe to the "Once a cheater, always a cheater" belief, because there are instances of people making a one-time mistake and growing up and maturing in how they handle relationships going forward that prove otherwise.

At the same time, if you've been burned by someone cheating on you, to the point where you divorce them over it, and then you get into a relationship with someone who's cheating on their spouse with you...you might want to at least prepare for the possibility that what they did to their spouse, they will eventually then do to you. 

*Obviously, Tiffney's the one who's ultimately responsible for the end of her marriage, mind, since she's the one who made the vows and the commitment and everything. Just saying that Jason went into that relationship knowing she was married, so he doesn't exactly have much room to get on a high horse here about the sanctity of marriage, is all. 

-I was struck by the fact that Jason's mom was there the night of the shooting, and was the one to call Tiffney's mom to inform her of her daughter's death. I found that very strange, especially given her connection to the other officers who were on the scene that night. I have so many questions about that - was she at work that night and came along once she heard the report about the shooting at her son's house? Did Jason call her afterward and she came over? Was she already at the house when the shooting happened, and if so, did anyone interview her about what she might've seen or heard? 

I dunno. I just feel like there's a LOT more to Jason and Tiffney's marriage that wasn't revealed in this episode, that the affair wasn't the sole thing that led to either Tiffney killing herself or Jason killing her, whichever one believes. The moment they mentioned who Jason's mom was, and the investigators taking great pains to try and stay out of investigating this case because of that fact, I honestly wondered if we'd learn that Jason's mom was a suspect and she was the one who actually killed Tiffney.

It just seems weird that the debate was either that she killed herself or that Jason killed her and that nobody looked at any other theories of other possible suspects, given that so much of the evidence seemed to point to homicide and Jason insisting he didn't do it. Could it have been Jason's mom? The guy Tiffney was having the affair with, who'd just broken up with her not long beforehand? Jason made a big point of stating he was in the house when the gunshots happened, after all, so who's to say someone didn't take advantage of that and shoot her while he was inside? 

-I love how all these people in these stories who wind up shot to death by their own gun had brought said gun for protection. Clearly that worked out well for you in the end, I see. 

Edited March 26, 2023 by Annber03

[txhorns79]

35 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

-I was struck by the fact that Jason's mom was there the night of the shooting, and was the one to call Tiffney's mom to inform her of her daughter's death. I found that very strange, especially given her connection to the other officers who were on the scene that night. I have so many questions about that - was she at work that night and came along once she heard the report about the shooting at her son's house?

Given her connection to the police department, I wouldn't be shocked if her police friends called her, or even if Jason called her after the fact.

One thing I was struck by was how belligerent and angry the state investigator seemed to get when Jason asserted his right to leave the interview.  I get that it was probably a tactic they use to keep someone from leaving, but still.  This is why you either don't agree to these interviews, or bring a lawyer so they can't pull these stunts.   

This is one of those cases where I felt like things could go either way.  It probably speaks to the weakness of the prosecutor's case that the jury was playing Columbo with the 911 call to try and establish guilt.  I didn't love that moment in terms of our overall justice system. 

[Annber03]

45 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

One thing I was struck by was how belligerent and angry the state investigator seemed to get when Jason asserted his right to leave the interview.  I get that it was probably a tactic they use to keep someone from leaving, but still.  This is why you either don't agree to these interviews, or bring a lawyer so they can't pull these stunts.   

Yeah, that struck me, too. Like, even if they think he's guilty, that should be a hard "NO" in terms of how to handle that situation. That's naturally going to make him more defensive, and it'll make people question the results of the polygraph test, because were they this aggressive with him when doing the test, too? His lawyers could easily use that to show that the investigation was flawed and he didn't get fair treatment and whatnot in the hopes of getting a new trial. 

To say nothing of how people need to quit relying so much on polygraph tests as it is, because of all the evidence showing how flawed they are. Lots of people have failed polygraph tests, that doesn't mean squat in terms of their possible guilt. 

[Bazinga]

On 3/26/2023 at 12:15 AM, txhorns79 said:

This is one of those cases where I felt like things could go either way.  It probably speaks to the weakness of the prosecutor's case that the jury was playing Columbo with the 911 call to try and establish guilt.  I didn't love that moment in terms of our overall justice system. 

I really do not understand how his saying 'the gun was beside her' when it was actually slightly in her hand, makes him guilty.  Yes, his statement was factually false, but why exactly does this prove his guilt?  If he faked the crime, he would know the gun was in her hand because he put it there.  To me, his being wrong helps him not hurts him.  And, his being non observant about a small detail makes him guilty???  Think the jury were internet sleuths/true crime podcast listeners, who thought they solved the case with their 'aha!' moment that I think was meaningless.  Same with his unwillingness to say Tiffiney is the one who shot herself in the 911 call.  If he is setting up the fake suicide, would he not want to put that story out there at every opportunity?  Instead, he says nothing and this is used against him.

If someone could explain, I would appreciate it.

I think he probably did it because there were a lot of things that defied explanation (less dominant hand, gun far from head) but I don't think he could have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Just because suicide doesn't make sense, doesn't mean he is guilty, since no real proof he killed her. 

Edited March 30, 2023 by Bazinga

[LakeGal]

I was bothered by Tiffiney keeping her gun in the side pocket of the van.  The van she drove the children around in.