A few nights ago the story about Joan Jefferies was shown, she was murdered after having dinner with one of her co-workers. Joan had started a business with one of her co-workers, an Indian man named Sam, and she wanted to get out of the business because she wasn't getting paid. A few weeks before her murder, Sam showed up at Joan's house unexpectely, but Joan was on the phone with her daughter and her daughter had heard Sam at the front door when Joan. The night of the murder, Joan had dinner with Sam at a Applebee's restaurant and Sam had given Joan a paycheck. After dinner, they went their separate ways, according to Sam. When Joan's body was found in her car later on that night, Sam's vomit was found near the car. Sam is insistant that he didn't murder Joan. Such a strange case. Joan's family was unable to collect her insurance money since her case is still pending.

Yeah, the guy's name was Sam Patel. He was a real creep in the interveiw. I can just tell that he was a liar. He had all the motive, and the reason to do it. Why he is not behind bars remains to be an unsolved mystery.

Originally posted by unsolvedfan4life
Yeah, the guy's name was Sam Patel. He was a real creep in the interveiw. I can just tell that he was a liar. He had all the motive, and the reason to do it. Why he is not behind bars remains to be an unsolved mystery.

I agree. Something about Sam Patel doesn't seem right.

As I recall from the segment, DNA tests on the vomit found at the crime scene were inconclusive. But I'm sure that Patel is still a person of interest in the case, and there's no doubt in my mind that he was involved in Joan's murder. Too bad they don't have enough evidence to indict him (or whoever was involved in the crime).

are you saying that it was bob bean that killed joan jefferies? if anyone knows anything please help, this is joans other daughter.

are you saying that it was bob bean that killed joan jefferies? if anyone knows anything please help, this is joans other daughter.

Well hello Joan's daughter, I think I speak for everyone here when I say I am terribly sorry for your loss. I do hope whoever did this meets justice one day. We do appreciate you posting here, and we are certainly willing to listen to whatever you have to say. Is there anything not mentioned in the segment that you would like to share?

Bob Bean was a suspect in a different case, and was later cleared by police. The person who posted that was using it as their signature, which appears in every post that they make. Bob Bean is totally not connected to this case.

Yes, Bob Bean is kind of a "running gag" on these boards, as he was someone who didn't come across too well in the UM interviews. But his case and your mother's case are two different things.

We are sorry for your loss. Since you've posted on here, I'm assuming that your mother's case is still open? Do you know if Sam is still being considered a suspect? I agree with everyone who has commented about him... he certainly did seem like he was hiding something.

In any case, we are always happy to hear from family members. I hope that you get the answers you are looking for in your mom's case.

we thank everyone for there words of condolences. Yes the case is still open, we really cant get anything from the police, almost like they droped it. they dont talk to us. my sister has called and they just put us off. It is very frustrating and unfinished. we still look for any leads and dont get anywhere. In my heart of hearts I know it was him (sam). Sometimes I feel That God is going to have to take care of this situation, because our law enforcement cant.:confused:

Okay now the co-worker of Joan's who acted suspicious was Sam Patel, right? Its been a while since I've seen the segment. I did watch on Greta several months back where a man had vanished and his wife was desperately searching for him. Turns out he was recently found in Illinois (meaning he left on his own) and his name is Samir Patel!! Here's an article with a picture. Could this be the same man from the Joan Jefferies segment?

http://www.indianewengland.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=95936D031DD6444384F3960A96415E0E

Here's an article about him being found:

http://www.connpost.com/ci_10280377?source=most_viewed

Wow, good catch, CD. I haven't seen the case in a long time and don't remember what Sam Patel looks like. Since they kept quoting an unrelated coworker of the missing Samir Patel who's last name was also Patel, I'm guessing it might be a pretty common name. I hope someone can review the segment and give us their opinion.

This case always reminds me of the line from Spinal Tap, "You can't exactly dust for vomit." It turns out you can! Well, sort of, anyway. I'm not sure why the police would let this case drop. It seems extremely solvable.

Patel is an extremely common last name for certain Indian ethnic groups along with Singh, they are the Jones and Smiths of that part of the world. There have been Patels in that area of Connecticut for at least 20 years (even before the recent influx of immigrants). Samir is not that uncommon a name either, it is one of the most popular first names of Indian origin in the US. (http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/16/stories/2005051601142000.htm) In fact, there was a National Spelling bee contestant named Samir Patel recently. The odds of the Milford Samir being the same one are pretty slim.

That being said, after the Chichester/Rockefeller incident, I'm certainly not going to summarily rule anything out. :)

Patel is an extremely common last name for certain Indian ethnic groups along with Singh, they are the Jones and Smiths of that part of the world. There have been Patels in that area of Connecticut for at least 20 years (even before the recent influx of immigrants). Samir is not that uncommon a name either, it is one of the most popular first names of Indian origin in the US. (http://www.hindu.com/2005/05/16/stories/2005051601142000.htm) In fact, there was a National Spelling bee contestant named Samir Patel recently. The odds of the Milford Samir being the same one are pretty slim.

That being said, after the Chichester/Rockefeller incident, I'm certainly not going to summarily rule anything out. :)

This is very true. The Gujarati last name, Patel is like our Smith....And the Punjabi, Singh is also very common.

But just a small, unrelated, random tidbit about this case, besides taking place in Houston, where I live, I know the guy (not personally) who played Sam Patel in the reenactment. He's a local Radio DJ for a very popular Indian station here!! :lol: :p

The case as presented on UM, which was just on, is very troubling, as the segment presents a clear case against patel, which begs the question why the police haven't been able to get a search warrant on him (for the shirt referenced in the segment) and make a case.

As presented, Sam has motive, means, and opportunity, plus an "alibi" that sounds nonsensical and conflicting statements on key elements of the case. It leads me to think that either the case against Sam isn't nearly as good as UM portrays it to be (a not-uncommon situation) or the police haven't given this case the attention it deserves, since it seems solvable.

Its so obvious to me that Sam was lying in his interview. I also remember in the original segment (didn't notice it in today's version though, maybe I just missed it) the mention that there was vomit near the crime scene and the contents apparently matched what Sam had during his dinner with Joan. I wonder if any samples were kept because they could check it for dna. If it was a match with Sam's at least that would put him at the crime scene and maybe they could finally build a case against him.

I would have to think no sample was mantained (or has been misplaced), as I can't fathom why it wouldn't be typed if it was still in existance.

The combination of the over-kill and vomit (presumably indicating an "amateur" killer who got sick over the sight of blood) again would point to sam. I agree with you that he did not seem credible in his interview.

I wish I would have paid closer attention when this segment aired today.

Was Joan Jeffries Samir Patel's employee, or was she his business partner? It's very odd that he would have a $250,000 life insurance policy on a mere employee. Just that fact alone should raise eyebrows of law enforcement.

If she was a business partner, then she should have also had a $250,000 life insurance policy on Mr. Patel. If not, there's more reason for him to be the primary suspect.

The website calls them business partners but the tv show said she was his employee. The website also says that she was essentially a secretary and that in seven months he had paid her one check that bounced. In that 7 months, he owed her $4,000 in back pay. Why insure a secretary making less than $10,000 a year, for $250,000?

For goodness sake, that is a huge amount of money, especially for back when this happened, in 1994. From reading the site, I think Patel planned it from the very beginning. Patel said he was insuring the "key employees" of Best Aviation. It would be interesting to see just how many key employees his company had.

That quarter of a million dollars is the enormous motive. He was out to dinner with her the night she was killed, there's the opportunity. Did he have access to a gun? Duh! What's taking the cops 15 years to solve this?

Joan's family needs to call police on a weekly basis, to the point that the investigators expect to hear from them. And Texas has the death penalty. It would be nice to drag this guy out of his hidey hole and get this case closed.

I'm curious to know whether the $250,000 was ever given to the family or donated like he said it would be in his interview?

His comment about if the police asked him nicely, he would turn over the shirt...whatever! If you're innocent they don't need to ask, you just give it to them.

Dawn, wasn't his whole smug attitude so annoying that you just wanted to slap his guilty smirking face right throught the tv!?

"All the police had to do was ask nicely, may I please have the shirt". Oh BS! That shirt was burned and the ashes discarded between midnight the night of the murder and dawn the next morning.

I read, I think in this thread but I will have to go back through and verify, that Joan's family was not able to obtain her life insurance money due to the fact that her murder is unsolved. I would assume that her obvious murderer, Smug Samir, would also have been barred from collecting on the policy he had taken out on her, due to the same conditions of the murder case still being open. Just guessing, and without all the facts....

I wonder if any of her life insurance policies would have been cashed (if she had any others) due to the status of the unsolved murder.

What if she had a personal $10,000 or $20,000 policy to cover her funeral expenses and any outstanding debts upon her death, so that her kids would not have to pay for those? And then she ends up being the victim of a 15 year unsolved murder, so those funds are in limbo.

I guess it would also depend on the clauses in those policies. I know there are some lawyers and folks who are knowledgeable in legal issues who visit here who could maybe explain such circumstances to us.

And I thought that I read that he had gone back to Asia. I have forgotten where. Maybe Pakistan? But if he is over there, it will be nearly impossible to drag his sorry murdering a$$ back to Texas so the state can properly inject this useless excuse of a human with all his special death chamber IV cocktail ingredients.

I've skimmed back over the posts in this thread.

I may be mistaken in my assumption that Smug Samir has fled the country and gone back to Asia. I don't know if I imagined that event or got my cases confused.

I've been doing a lot of true crime investigation online today since I've been kindof under the weather with a bad cold and spending my time curled up on the sofa with my laptop. Maybe my meds are making me goof up my facts? So sorry. :(

So.... That means this murderer could very well still be in the USA. Get him back to TX, and work on that huge $250,000 motive and that big old opportunity he had when he dined with her just minutes before her murder.

With those two necessary packages neatly documented, proving the means shouldn't take too much longer, even if they only assign one detective.

C'mon TEXAS, show us why you've got that "fast track to the death chamber" reputation!

Dawn, wasn't his whole smug attitude so annoying that you just wanted to slap his guilty smirking face right throught the tv!?



Absolutely!!!! :schmack:

[QUOTE=TracyLynnS]Dawn, wasn't his whole smug attitude so annoying that you just wanted to slap his guilty smirking face right throught the tv!?

Yes! Yes! Yes! And when the girlfriend thinks things were off when he came to her place you know he's GUILTY!

Oh and..."I hadn't exercised in months"...but all of a sudden you decide to ride your bike around the cul-de-sac...give me a break!

I just watched it last night, and yeah - Sam Patel looks guilty as hell. It's not even close. :rolleyes:

So obvious that it was him!

Caught this on a rerun today on my DVR and was practically screaming at the television that Patel was guilty, guilty, guilty! But then I thought, wait a minute...what exactly is the motive here? Joan was insured for a half a million dollars, but wasn't this through the company? Unless Patel embezzled the money, how would he get his hands on it? And at the end of the segment, Patel says that he got together with the company's board of directors and they all agreed to either donate the money to charity or give it to Joan's family. And then I got to thinking about the claims that Joan wasn't getting paid for 7 months. Any person in their right mind would have left after 2-3 months of no paycheck. Why would Joan wait 7 months for some guy she barely knew outside of work and who her family claims she didn't trust? Makes no sense. Unless of course the claims were exaggerated, and Patel's version is the more correct one.

If the UM segment as presented is the truth, I find it hard to believe that the police did not try to charge Patel for a crime. The evidence should be there. Unless of course UM left out some information (shocker, they do this all the time) that would have helped clear Patel. For instance, they make no mention of any firearm ever being tied to Patel let alone the type of weapon used to murder Joan. They also never speak about the shirt that Patel was wearing on the night that Joan was killed, his ex-girlfriend (hardly an impartial witness) brings it up. And the ex-girlfriend makes no mention of Patel acting weird or shocked that night, outside of him having his shirt off and sweating. You would think she would have noticed some sort of change in his demeanor had he actually just murdered someone. They also say that the only part of Patel's story that changed was whether or not he was in Joan's car before. Now before someone starts to rip this theory to shreds, I am still about 80% convinced that Patel was responsible. But the more I thought about it, the more doubts came into my mind. The biggest reason is the lack of law enforcement trying to charge Patel with a crime. Seems like there's something missing that we don't know that would hold them back from charging him. I just can't think of a reason as to why Patel would want her dead, much less actually murder her himself.

Caught this on a rerun today on my DVR and was practically screaming at the television that Patel was guilty, guilty, guilty! But then I thought, wait a minute...what exactly is the motive here? Joan was insured for a half a million dollars, but wasn't this through the company? Unless Patel embezzled the money, how would he get his hands on it? And at the end of the segment, Patel says that he got together with the company's board of directors and they all agreed to either donate the money to charity or give it to Joan's family. And then I got to thinking about the claims that Joan wasn't getting paid for 7 months. Any person in their right mind would have left after 2-3 months of no paycheck. Why would Joan wait 7 months for some guy she barely knew outside of work and who her family claims she didn't trust? Makes no sense. Unless of course the claims were exaggerated, and Patel's version is the more correct one.

I thought Patel owned the company. I would imagine it would relatively easy for him to get a hold of at least a piece of that payout.

It's been a long time since I've seen the segment, but I was also under the impression Joan was married. Perhaps her husband's income made up for the seven months of non-payment. By all accounts it was a small company and Joan did have a key position in that company, so perhaps she felt some personal responsibility to it. Not many people are willing to do it, but I've known at least one person who's forgone a paycheck for a period because he believed in his organization that much, and he eventually did receive all his back pay. So perhaps she was still hanging on.

If the UM segment as presented is the truth, I find it hard to believe that the police did not try to charge Patel for a crime. The evidence should be there. Unless of course UM left out some information (shocker, they do this all the time) that would have helped clear Patel. For instance, they make no mention of any firearm ever being tied to Patel let alone the type of weapon used to murder Joan. They also never speak about the shirt that Patel was wearing on the night that Joan was killed, his ex-girlfriend (hardly an impartial witness) brings it up. And the ex-girlfriend makes no mention of Patel acting weird or shocked that night, outside of him having his shirt off and sweating. You would think she would have noticed some sort of change in his demeanor had he actually just murdered someone. They also say that the only part of Patel's story that changed was whether or not he was in Joan's car before. Now before someone starts to rip this theory to shreds, I am still about 80% convinced that Patel was responsible. But the more I thought about it, the more doubts came into my mind. The biggest reason is the lack of law enforcement trying to charge Patel with a crime. Seems like there's something missing that we don't know that would hold them back from charging him. I just can't think of a reason as to why Patel would want her dead, much less actually murder her himself.

I agree this one is weird and I think a lot of pieces are probably missing.

It's been a long time since I've seen the segment, but I was also under the impression Joan was married. Perhaps her husband's income made up for the seven months of non-payment. By all accounts it was a small company and Joan did have a key position in that company, so perhaps she felt some personal responsibility to it. Not many people are willing to do it, but I've known at least one person who's forgone a paycheck for a period because he believed in his organization that much, and he eventually did receive all his back pay. So perhaps she was still hanging on.

It seemed like in the reenactment that Joan lived on her own. Oddly, there were several boxes shown in her living room area in the reenactment. I don't know if UM was implying that she was moving or if the boxes were work related. According to Joan's children, she was nothing more than a secretary and that she also did not trust Sam Patel. Just seems odd to me that she would be willing to stay with a company ran by someone who for one owed her 7 months in back pay and also someone whom she did not trust.

It seemed like in the reenactment that Joan lived on her own. Oddly, there were several boxes shown in her living room area in the reenactment. I don't know if UM was implying that she was moving or if the boxes were work related. According to Joan's children, she was nothing more than a secretary and that she also did not trust Sam Patel. Just seems odd to me that she would be willing to stay with a company ran by someone who for one owed her 7 months in back pay and also someone whom she did not trust.

Secretaries ARE key employees, especially in small companies. There is no such thing as being "just" a secretary.

She also helped Patel build the company, so at one point, there was trust there.

Secretaries ARE key employees, especially in small companies. There is no such thing as being "just" a secretary.

She also helped Patel build the company, so at one point, there was trust there.

I was going off of what Joan's own son said in the segment. He said his mother was a secretary and not a key point employee, and didn't understand why the large life insurance amount was taken out on her. Which is weird because she was on the board of directors, and in the reenactment Patel says he wanted to use Joan as a PR person for meetings that they had with the investors. Which makes his account of their business relationship seem more credible, and that the large life insurance amount makes sense.

I finally got around to re-watching this one. What an ass Sam Patel is. Not paying her for 7 months, trying to talk Joan out of wanting to quit, dragging out the whole issue, then killing her. It wasn't enough he made her last 7 months on Earth miserable, then he had to go and do that. What a jerk, I hope cold case investigators are able to pin this on him someday.

Okay, is Sam Patel the new Tim McClure? First he offers this statement: "I had no reason to kill Joan. No reason whatsoever." Um, yeah you did, several in fact: 1) you owe her money, 2) you have a life insurance policy on her, and 3) she could have exposed you as a fraud. There's 3 reasons right there.

Then he offers this: "Joan never approached me and said that she wanted to leave the business." and in the very next sentence he says "There was a time when she said 'Hey look, this isn't working out and I don't like it'" which is completely the opposite of what he just said.

And why on Earth would Sam bring a check, only to want to go out and copy it? It defeats the purpose of his first trip to Joan's house and is essentially a wasted move. I used to write checks at one of my old workplaces, and it seems like any good business would have gotten the kind of checks that have carbon copies so there's already a built-in copy on file.

And personally, I found all of his talk about there being "an investor group" and "Board of Directors" to be completely bogus. It doesn't seem the company ever amounted to much more than himself, Joan and maybe one other employee, as far as I can tell.

What gets me is that Patel had her insured for $250,000. That seems like an extraordinary amount of money to insure someone working for a tiny start-up that apparently can't even pay its employees. He had the motive and he had the opportunity.

I'm willing to be that "company", if you can call it that, went belly up shortly afterward. Patel doesn't strike me as being bright enough to run a successful organization.

I think another striking thing is that Patel originally stated that he wasn't in the car, then later recanted and admitted that he was. To me, this says 2 things: 1) it further proves he's a liar, and more importantly, 2) not only was he the last known person to see her alive, we can also place him directly at the murder scene. Not only was he at the restaurant, he was in her car. What's especially important about this was that 2 weeks prior to Joan's death, her daughter specifically told her not to allow Patel into her car. Which she didn't. Patel, quite frankly, has no business being in her car and if he admits to being in there, it's pretty obvious why he was in there.

Sorry, but this must have been a really inept police department.

I can't remember, did the segment ever talk about the weapon?

What gets me is that Patel had her insured for $250,000. That seems like an extraordinary amount of money to insure someone working for a tiny start-up that apparently can't even pay its employees. He had the motive and he had the opportunity.

But he didn't receive a dime of the life insurance. It was paid off to her family and charities, IIRC. Makes no sense to kill someone and not collect the insurance. That was the part of the segment that made Patel seem the most believable, IMO.

But he didn't receive a dime of the life insurance. It was paid off to her family and charities, IIRC. Makes no sense to kill someone and not collect the insurance. That was the part of the segment that made Patel seem the most believable, IMO.

That may be, but it doesn't make any sense insure an employee in a very small company for a quarter of a million dollars, either.

Perhaps after doing God-knows-what with seven months' worth of her wages, Patel may have planned to cash in on the insurance, hesitating only after a suggestion by another one of his employees to donate the proceeds. It could be, in fact, a crafty trade-off: he doesn't get the payout, but he gets the admiration of outsiders and a built-in "testament" to his character.

That may be, but it doesn't make any sense insure an employee in a very small company for a quarter of a million dollars, either.

Perhaps after doing God-knows-what with seven months' worth of her wages, Patel may have planned to cash in on the insurance, hesitating only after a suggestion by another one of his employees to donate the proceeds. It could be, in fact, a crafty trade-off: he doesn't get the payout, but he gets the admiration of outsiders and a built-in "testament" to his character.

I know absolutely nothing about business or insurance policies, so I may be dead wrong, but I don't see how Patel could have gotten access to the insurance payout and kept the money for his own personal finances. Wouldn't this have been an incredibly stupid thing to do, if an insurance investigator or even law enforcement official found a large lump sum of money transferred to Patel's account? That would be a dead giveaway that he was the one who murdered Joan. And if in fact he balked at the suggestion of a coworker to donate the money, why on Earth would he have gone through all of the trouble to murder Joan in the first place? He went through great lengths in planning the murder out (even going through a trial run when he kept showing up at Joan's house), and then when he actually goes through with it and murders Joan, he does a 180 and agrees to donate the insurance payout at the suggestion of another employee...it just doesn't make sense. Another question I have is why Joan? There was at least one other employee insured for the same amount, why wasn't this person offed? It wasn't like Joan found out about some shady business activity, the segment makes it clear that she wanted to quit because she wasn't getting paid. So why murder her when the easiest thing Patel could have done was simply let her quit and cut ties with her?

It's exactly as Meg said. Stack said that Patel hadn't seen a penny of the insurance money (and it's unlikely that he ever would) so Patel is free to throw out the line of donating it in an attempt to strengthen his character. The thing is -- Patel had already damaged his character so badly at that point, it was beyond repair.

I don't know if it was so much a matter of Patel spending Joan's wages, rather I think it was probably a matter of the company not making any money to begin with. I don't know much about it, but would there be a huge market for a shuttle service from Texas to Las Vegas?

The motive for Joan's murder still makes no sense to me. The only thing she was threatening to do was quit the company, because she wasn't getting paid. So instead of simply saying, "Ok fine, you can quit", Patel instead decides to murder her? There's nothing online about this case outside of the UM wiki and UM's website, which sucks because I'd like to know if there's information left out of the UM segment that would make it more clear as to why the cops haven't charged him with anything.

Hi all, does anyone know where/how I could get hold of this particular episode of UM? Thanks...

Watched this again this morning...why couldn't they get the shirt? Could they not get a warrant?

I think maybe she knew too much. I can only imagine what he was doing on his books. If he is taking out life insurance out on employees, not paying them..etc...what else is he doing? I'm willing to bet something illegal big time and she probably knew it. She probably told him at dinner that you better pay me or I'm going to blow the whistle. Who else is going to shoot her and leave that jewerly behind? Just a thrill killer who happens to kill her? Nah..he is guilty as sin and he looks like a total guilty person on UM. I hope some bad karma finds this man if the LE isn't going to put him behind bars.

Just rewatched this one after about a decade.I had completely forgotten the details.

I wonder if they could test the vomit sample again? Technology has vastly improved after twenty years. Perhaps this time they wouldn't get an inconclusive result. It's too much of a coincidence that it contained the exact food he consumed at dinner. It sounds like he shot her and (having never committed murder before), vomited after committing the crime. Biking around without the shirt on (that likely had her blood and his vomit on it) over his shoulders and refusing to give it to the police, while lying on camera= highly suspicious. He may not have received the money, but he certainly wouldn't have known that to be the result at the time of the crime.

Also, did he or did he not own a gun? Do they have proof of him owning one? I can't believe that they haven't been able to pin this on him. It may be "he said, she said" between Patel and Joan's daughter, but authorities have proof about the bounced checks and other problems with the business that would have compelled her to leave.

So you're telling me he's the last one seen with her alive, she's shot in her car, and vomit that coincidentally matches exactly what he ate right before is next to the car, and he's completely innocent? That's just laughable.

I can only imagine how frustrated her family is. They're pretty sure they know who did it and can't get it solved and justice served. :(

I had forgot about that bit with the vomit. The case against Sam Patel is largely circumstantial, but most murder cases usually are. I wonder what's holding them back from making an arrest. Do they think Patel was involved but not necessarily the trigger man?

I rewatched it this weekend since I was cleaning out the DVR and in the very beginning of the segment it was stated "business partners". So maybe that is why she was murdered. Again I just can't see how a "thrill killer" just happened to be wanting to kill Joan and then leave behind her jewerly.

It's been a long time since i've seen this episode, i've looked online but there isnt much online. Did Sam Patel ever go to trial? Or has anyone been charged?

It's been a long time since i've seen this episode, i've looked online but there isnt much online. Did Sam Patel ever go to trial? Or has anyone been charged?

I saw this segment recently. Her former business partner, Sam gave me the creeps. He hadn't paid her for her work in months, and the night she decided to quit, she had dinner with him...and was murdered. His business took a life insurance policy of $250K USD on her and it was not made clear in the segment if that settlement went to her family or charity, as Sam claimed.

I think maybe she knew too much. I can only imagine what he was doing on his books. If he is taking out life insurance out on employees, not paying them..etc...what else is he doing? I'm willing to bet something illegal big time and she probably knew it. She probably told him at dinner that you better pay me or I'm going to blow the whistle. Who else is going to shoot her and leave that jewerly behind? Just a thrill killer who happens to kill her? Nah..he is guilty as sin and he looks like a total guilty person on UM. I hope some bad karma finds this man if the LE isn't going to put him behind bars.

This is what I think happened. I think the dinner conversation wasn't as pleasant and mutual as Samir had said. I think she quit, and possibly demanded that she be paid or she was going to file a lawsuit against him and that freaked him out. It's also obvious she was killed for the life insurance policy. I'm sure he had planned on taking it until her children pointed the finger at him, then he came up with the charity BS.

But it makes me wonder if he came with the gun with the intent to kill her from the beginning? Or did he just have a gun in his car and used it after they got into a dispute at dinner?

So incredibly guilty! How is this guy not in prison...what else does law enforcement need? I can't think of anything easier than a DA convincing a Texas jury of this.

On a side note...Joan's daughter is incredibly guilty too...of stealing hearts :eyes: Even Danny Wheeler would have to admit that's a good-lookin' woman

But really, why? What is missing from this case that they can't charge him? Didn't he mislead police? No alibi, All the motive in the world, He hid evidence, even his girlfriend knew he was guilty.

So incredibly guilty! How is this guy not in prison...what else does law enforcement need? I can't think of anything easier than a DA convincing a Texas jury of this.

On a side note...Joan's daughter is incredibly guilty too...of stealing hearts :eyes: Even Danny Wheeler would have to admit that's a good-lookin' woman

But really, why? What is missing from this case that they can't charge him? Didn't he mislead police? No alibi, All the motive in the world, He hid evidence, even his girlfriend knew he was guilty.

I couldn't agree more. They should just go for it. It's Texas. They'd throw his ass in prison for life in about 15 minutes flat and not give it a second thought.

Few people on UM burn my biscuits as much as Sam Patel. Not only is he a murderer and a liar who is guilty of running a sham organization, but his treatment of Joan in the 7 months preceding her death (not paying her a dime for all those weeks worked) is infuriating, and then profiting off her death was the final insult. I don't know if he had good intentions with the business to begin with, but he's an out-and-out creep. It's disgusting to know he's never seen a day in prison for his actions.

I don't get what's holding things up here. He was the last person to see her. He had tons of motive as well as opportunity. He lied about his version of events.

I couldn't agree more. They should just go for it. It's Texas. They'd throw his ass in prison for life in about 15 minutes flat and not give it a second thought.

Few people on UM burn my biscuits as much as Sam Patel. Not only is he a murderer and a liar who is guilty of running a sham organization, but his treatment of Joan in the 7 months preceding her death (not paying her a dime for all those weeks worked) is infuriating, and then profiting off her death was the final insult. I don't know if he had good intentions with the business to begin with, but he's an out-and-out creep. It's disgusting to know he's never seen a day in prison for his actions.

I don't get what's holding things up here. He was the last person to see her. He had tons of motive as well as opportunity. He lied about his version of events.

An aside to this is that this is one of the only cases I have watched recently that is worth commenting on. As much as I appreciate the amount of time and effort it took getting every season on streaming, watching seasons 8 & 9 are leaving me pretty cold...there are a lot of garbage segments to get through (psychic pets, children with past lives, etc.) yet for some reason I am feeling the need to watch every one of them...UM really lost its footing during this time period which is pretty sad. Sorry for ranting off topic.

An aside to this is that this is one of the only cases I have watched recently that is worth commenting on. As much as I appreciate the amount of time and effort it took getting every season on streaming, watching seasons 8 & 9 are leaving me pretty cold...there are a lot of garbage segments to get through (psychic pets, children with past lives, etc.) yet for some reason I am feeling the need to watch every one of them...UM really lost its footing during this time period which is pretty sad. Sorry for ranting off topic.

You'll never hear a complaint from me on this. Number one: I go off topic frequently. Number two: You've made a comment that I've heard almost unanimously from other folks about the declining quality of UM as the show went on...

Now back to Sam Patel. Yeah, the decision not to go forward with anything on him is kinda baffling. I'm not one to advocate for a careless or overzealous prosecution, but it seems to me that they have more evidence on him than we've seen in a lot of other murder cases...

Patel's going for a bike ride story is the funniest thing I've ever heard on UM. Haha.

You'll never hear a complaint from me on this. Number one: I go off topic frequently. Number two: You've made a comment that I've heard almost unanimously from other folks about the declining quality of UM as the show went on...

Now back to Sam Patel. Yeah, the decision not to go forward with anything on him is kinda baffling. I'm not one to advocate for a careless or overzealous prosecution, but it seems to me that they have more evidence on him than we've seen in a lot of other murder cases...

I am a bit hopeful that there will be some improvement when I get to seasons 11 & 12, because there were some quality Lifetime-produced segments that were on the DVD sets.

My home state has often been criticized for overzealous prosecution (and perhaps that is a valid criticism) - but in this particular case I wouldn't mind that one bit! The chances of anyone other than Sam Patel being responsible for this crime are positively nil.

This guy is 100% guilty. Changed his story with the cops. He was very aggressive with her. Screwed her out of thousands of dollars in wages. Even his own girlfriend didn't stick up for him very much like when she said his shirt was missing and is the key evidence. He claimed the cops could gladly have the shirt yet they were unsuccessful in obtaining it from him.

I put this guy up there with Tim McClure. Both guilty as charged like a humpback whale in the room.

No idea why she jacked in her job for some pipe-dream with this clown, well it was obviously the money he was promising but it sounded like total bs. She was also very lax with her security after his bizarre turning up at her house multiple times in one night-should never have met him alone or unarmed. The guy is a total sleaze & he obviously had the intention of killing her or one of the others from the time he set the deal up with the life insurance.

Amazed she didn't just walk when the money didn't come, seems to have been a waste of time as it appears the money on that policy was donated to charity, but was it in reality? Did the company succeed or fail? Again this is another case where UM really should have delved in to those questions. His story is total bs & his smarmy response about the shirt they could come & get makes you want to punch him in the face, the cops of course said he refused to hand the shirt over.

This guy is 100% guilty. Changed his story with the cops. He was very aggressive with her. Screwed her out of thousands of dollars in wages. Even his own girlfriend didn't stick up for him very much like when she said his shirt was missing and is the key evidence. He claimed the cops could gladly have the shirt yet they were unsuccessful in obtaining it from him.

I put this guy up there with Tim McClure. Both guilty as charged like a humpback whale in the room.

Yep - she was taken for a ride for certain!!! Your own girlfriend is not covering for you - I wouldn't either.

I just saw this one over the weekend, and notice something edited out from the original Stack version. When Patel shows up unannounced at Joan's apartment 2 weeks prior to her murder, he actually brings her a stun gun and a door alarm "for her protection". I'm not 100% certain, but I think this was also edited out of the Lifetime reruns. They also edited out the portion with the vomit found by the car.

While rewatching the case, I started to wonder if it was possible that Joan and Patel's relationship was more intimate than what was implied in the segment. It would explain the motive better (IMO), would explain why Joan stayed at the company for 7 months without ever being paid, would explain why Patel would lie to the police about being in her car and then saying that he in fact had been in her car before, the visits to her apartment, and would explain why Patel hired her on the board of directors.

I did find a comment from Joan's son on the write up about the case on unsolved.com, and he says that the life insurance was paid out to Joan's 4 children. Which would make her murder, assuming that Patel is guilty, really bizarre.

While rewatching the case, I started to wonder if it was possible that Joan and Patel's relationship was more intimate than what was implied in the segment. It would explain the motive better (IMO), would explain why Joan stayed at the company for 7 months without ever being paid, would explain why Patel would lie to the police about being in her car and then saying that he in fact had been in her car before, the visits to her apartment, and would explain why Patel hired her on the board of directors.

I did find a comment from Joan's son on the write up about the case on unsolved.com, and he says that the life insurance was paid out to Joan's 4 children. Which would make her murder, assuming that Patel is guilty, really bizarre.

I've read your comments about this case over the years and it seems like there are some assumptions being made.

Yes, there are some UM cases where details are left out but this doesn't appear to be one of them. Going by the facts, Sam seems to have been the only one poised to benefit from Joan's death and the suspicious elements of his behavior - and the life insurance policy - seem to corroborate that.

Many of your comments earlier seem to grapple with how Sam could benefit, as if this tiny, borderline-scammy startup he founded was a serious company with an actual board of directors. It appears to have been a one-man show; his references to investors (who didn't materialize for quite a while) seems to have been a way to instill confidence in Joan (and probably clients too!) that this was a legit business. I am guessing that the allure of a start-up was a bit different in 1994 and it was probably a very new concept. Maybe Joan was waiting it out because she thought it would become legit, maybe she was bored by her other job, maybe she was of independent means and the lack of paychecks from Sam was more of an annoyance than a threat to her livelihood. We don't know. Implying intimacy between the two of them seems out of line.

What's most likely is he insured her in case he needed money despite the fact that she was basically an administrator, he did end up desperately needing money, decided to stage a robbery-killing, and didn't anticipate the heat he would face from the family (and the notoriety of being featured on UM less than 18 months later). He probably thought a face-saving gesture like donating the insurance money to the family would avert suspicion. His comments in the show made clear that this was a choice he made after her death (and likely after repeated police questioning). It's not hard to see why he is the clear (and so far only!) suspect.

From what her daughter said in this thread in 2007, looks like he got away with it and law enforcement stopped actively investigating this a long time ago. Lack of concrete evidence (including DNA from that crime scene vomit) seems to have been the biggest gift to Sam.

I've read your comments about this case over the years and it seems like there are some assumptions being made.

Well yeah. That's kind of the point of discussing true crime on the internet. You sometimes have to make assumptions.

Yes, there are some UM cases where details are left off but this doesn't appear to be one of them. Going by the facts, Sam seems to have been the only one poised to benefit from Joan's death and the suspicious elements of his behavior - and the life insurance policy - seem to corroborate that.

He didn't receive the money. And I don't know how he could have used the money from her death to benefit him or his company.

Many of your comments earlier seem to grapple with how Sam could benefit, as if this tiny, borderline-scammy startup he founded was a serious company with an actual board of directors. It appears to have been a one-man show; his references to investors (who didn't materialize for quite a while) seems to have been a way to instill confidence in Joan (and probably clients too!) that this was a legit business. I am guessing that the allure of a start-up was a bit different in 1994 and it was probably a very new concept. Maybe Joan was waiting it out because she thought it would become legit, maybe she was bored by her other job, maybe she was of independent means and the lack of paychecks from Sam was more of an annoyance than a threat to her livelihood. We don't know. Implying intimacy between the two of them seems out of line.

There is a screenshot in the segment listing other people within the company other than Joan and Patel. Patel showed up to Joan's apartment, multiple times. He rode in her car. She met with him at his girlfriend's house. This is highly unusual in a business setting. And that is without factoring in the working with no pay for 7 months.

What's most likely is he insured her in case he needed money despite the fact that she was basically an administrator, he did end up desperately needing money, decided to stage a robbery-killing, and didn't anticipate the heat he would face from the family (and the notoriety of being featured on UM less than 18 months later). He probably thought a face-saving gesture like donating the insurance money to the family would avert suspicion. His comments in the show made clear that this was a choice he made after her death (and likely after repeated police questioning). It's not hard to see why he is the clear (and only!) suspect.

I think Patel is guilty. I think the motive is more deep than killing her to gain access to more money.

Well yeah. That's kind of the point of discussing true crime on the internet. You sometimes have to make assumptions.

He didn't receive the money. And I don't know how he could have used the money from her death to benefit him or his company.

There is a screenshot in the segment listing other people within the company other than Joan and Patel. Patel showed up to Joan's apartment, multiple times. He rode in her car. She met with him at his girlfriend's house. This is highly unusual in a business setting. And that is without factoring in the working with no pay for 7 months.

I think Patel is guilty. I think the motive is more deep than killing her to gain access to more money.

He was the founder of a small business with 2 or 3 other employees listed. We don't know who they were. Maybe it needs to be pointed out that small business owners often singlehandedly control their business's finances.

If he's guilty, it's not hard to see how he would have benefited. The insurance money would likely have gone directly to him as the owner of the company (and "company" should probably be used loosely, which was my point. This was a little startup that had barely gotten off the ground). I'm not sure how to respond when you say that you don't see how $250,000 in insurance money would benefit a struggling business.

If Sam was guilty, straightforward financial gain seems to be the motive and overthinking it doesn't appear to be helpful. Giving a longtime former co-worker and now your boss a ride in your car - or having a meal with them - once or twice doesn't indicate anything more serious! Ascribing intimate aspects to the relationship - without evidence - seems a bit disrespectful to the memory of this poor woman whose violent death has gone unsolved for two and a half decades. We don't "have to" make those assumptions.

Ascribing intimate aspects to this relationship - without evidence - seems in my opinion a little crass. This poor woman's death has gone unsolved for two and a half decades. We don't "have to" make those assumptions or add rumors to the already sad state of her untimely violent death.

There is evidence that Sam Patel carried on affairs while married and insured a woman, who was described by her son as "just a secretary" as a key point employee for him at $250,000. He also met with her, multiple times at multiple places, for business. The officer interviewed in the segment said:

Because of the multiple gunshot wounds to the body it would make you normally think that the person was angered or that it was an overkill type situation, which again would indicate that the offender is known to the victim or had a grudge, or something of that nature.

It's not crass to suggest that there is a possibility of some sort of intimate relationship. It would explain why Patel approached Joan initially about the business, and as to why she didn't quit after her first check bounced. There is no hard evidence to prove this. I find it extremely odd that after failing to pay Joan a paycheck for 7 months, for what amounted to be $4,000, that when she tells him that she wanted to quit, that was the moment he decided to kill her. Why not simply let her leave? Murdering her, and then the very next day, having the board of directors of the company (of which he was one of two if I'm not mistaken) come together and agree to give the insurance payout to her children accomplished...what exactly? This was prior to being scrutinized as a suspect. I'm sorry but the theory that he murdered her because he was desperate to cash in on the insurance money and then a day later agrees to donate said money to her children and/or a charity, might be a reason why this case has gone unsolved for so long.

I've also found a case where the insurance company sued Patel, the company, Richie Guyote (his girlfriend in the segment), Jose Gonzales (the other key point person insured for $250,000 shown in the segment), and another person named Rick Reinesch.

Hi, cad1968! Welcome to the group! :wave: We're happy to have you!

Found this thread via the Unsolved Mysteries wiki. The Unsolved Mysteries FB page posted that the daughter interviewed for this episode passed away.

This JJ segment was one of the few UM where it seemed fairly clear what happened & who committed the crime. SP was shady as hell - he had an answer for everything, though I don't believe a word he said. Too bad that JJ started working for this scam-artist/crook. She should have left the company long before, given that she hadn't been paid for months.

That being said, I don't believe anyone should be convicted unless there's definitive proof; and, there didn't seem to be much proof in this case - just circumstantial evidence.

I agree it's unlikely that JJ would have been the target of a random robbery, given that her expensive necklace was left behind - very implausible.

Found this thread via the Unsolved Mysteries wiki. The Unsolved Mysteries FB page posted that the daughter interviewed for this episode passed away.

Very sad. The daughter seemed fairly young during the interview; if she was 25 (or younger), she would only have been in her late 40's/early 50's when she passed - given that this was the 1995/1996 UM season.

Daughter's obituary here (https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/houston-tx/kelley-walker-9146691). I keep coming back to the vomit found at the murder scene matching exactly what Sam Patel had for dinner that evening. It's baffling as to why a DA never brought charges against him. And now that Joan's daughter has passed away, it's unlikely they'll ever try him for her murder. She was a key witness who overheard him coming to her house asking to be let in to use the phone or to give him a ride home.

This whole case stinks like the Curry in a Hurry left in the toilet bowls at my work... Sam stands only one place behind Donnie Hansen in the sneaky little turd's that have got away with murder.

Surprisingly, I had never seen this episode until recently. After I viewed it for the first time, my immediate thought was that if this had happened in a big city or even a larger town, this would have been solved and Sam Patel would have been convicted. The fact that they knew what he ate at the restaurant hours before Joan was killed and that exact meal just happens to be thrown up steps away from where Joan was found is incredible. It's even more incredible that not a single warrant was ever issued is mind boggling to me. As someone else already said, he will likely never be tried and convicted for this crime due to Joan's daughter passing away some years ago. Such a ridiculous outcome for what seems like a very straight forward case.

I think race is a big factor here. If he were white, he likely would have been charged. It's obvious he is guilty, but there is no evidence. There are only clues. It's likely the police spoke with the DA and the DA refused to take the case figuring he can't win a conviction and double jeopardy would get him cleared forever. It's better to let the case go and hope for better evidence in the future than rush the case, he gets acquitted and tax-payer money is wasted while he goes free forever. I don't believe there is enough here to prove guilt which is what the prosecution has to do. He's obviously guilty. He is the negative Indian stereotype I've encountered in New York. He's a total lying scam artist, thief, murderer.

I think something else may have occurred. He might have told the police that they better prove guilt or he will sue them for racism and violating his civil rights. This all happened shortly after the Rodney King riots and was in the middle of OJ Simpson. They probably felt unless they had a sure thing, the press could get involved saying another non-white man being dragged by the system by the big bad racist white police. He's guilty. The moment I heard him say his first sentence I knew he was guilty. He is such a narcissist and thinks everyone is so stupid around him while he perceives himself to be a genius that he got on Unsolved Mysteries thinking a guilty man would not go on, so he appears innocent. He actually reminds me of several of my cousins and also other former friends I cut off who were total trash. I got sick of their BS. It's the same BS this piece of crap is shoveling while telling you it's caviar.

The children should have tried a civil suit to at least get everything on record and that might have forced the DA to charge him if some good evidence came out of it. Saying something on Unsolved Mysteries does not have the same value and swearing to it in a court of law. It's too late now. He got away with it.

We all likely think the same thing. If i had to put my money on it, i blame Sam Patel, but there’s no proof. His interview was SO bad that he came off as very cocky. My favorite line from him. “The shirt is in my closet, it has no bloodstains on it. If the police wrote a really nice letter requesting me to give them the shirt, then I’d GLADLY give them the shirt.” So cocky and smug, he knows he got away with this. He acted so fishy

I think something else may have occurred. He might have told the police that they better prove guilt or he will sue them for racism and violating his civil rights. This all happened shortly after the Rodney King riots and was in the middle of OJ Simpson. They probably felt unless they had a sure thing, the press could get involved saying another non-white man being dragged by the system by the big bad racist white police.

lol whut

A+ speculation goin' on here.