Just watched this story again. It reminds me a lot of the Aileen Conway story from special 4. But, did anyone notice that no one from Bonderson's family was interviewed for the story? Makes me wonder if her family thinks the whole murder theory is BS. It's pretty clear to me Bonderson was the victim of a tragic car accident; not murder.

Also, if Bonderson really was killed, what was the motive? UM didn't even attempt to explain one.

One of my favorite UM segments JS and I beg to differ with you on the car accident theory. I'm not completely convinced that it was foul play but there are some facts that don't jive with it just being a car accident. A gas can was found near the scene of the fire. The undercarriage of the car was in good condition and the gas tank was nearly full after the fire was extinguished. Both of these seem strange for a car accident in which the car exploded. It seems as though Kathy had gas on her clothes but don't remember that fact for sure. Also she had died from a blow to the head before the fire started. Although it is possible she hit her head during a collision she also could have been hit by a person. Although I don't really buy the "just a car accident" theory it is tough coming up with an alternate logical story as to what happened to her. I just can't get past those strange clues I highlighted.

I think the reason why the family wasn't interviewed is guilt. Remember Kathy and her husband had just had a fight and he wasn't able to locate the son so she went out to look. Also can you imagine how much guilt her son probably has? I mean he's out past curfew and his mother goes out to look for him and is killed in the process? That was always why I thought they weren't interviewed.

Maybe it was a combination of both things that have been mentioned. She could've been involved in an auto accident, then the other person/driver killed her with the blow to the head and set the fire to cover up the murder. The full gas canister makes the least sense.
Haven't seen the case in a while and don't remember all that was said about the accident?

Well, it was her husband and the motive was money and divorce. He had just taken out a large life insurance policy on her and was wanting a divorce. He re-married shortly after her death. By the way, he just committed suicide about a month ago when they were closing in on the case and about to arrest him because of DNA. I would say it was no accident, but definitely murder. I lived in her hometown for 19 years and knew her and her sons personally!

WOW! Now that's an update you'll only find at a place like this...

WOW!

My thoughts exactly.

I guess now we know why her husband didn't appear on the show!

I am amazed that people don't check the facts. Watch the Unsolved Mysteries episode on this case from 1991. At that time, Jamie was saying that it was his mother that he passed and "NOW" is saying it was his father. Was he lying then or is he lying now? Rob did not remarry shortly after Kathy's death. She died in 1987, he did not remarry until 1991. Hardly, shortly after. Rob committed suicide after being hounded for 20 years on Feb. 22, 2006. There was no DNA evidence to convict him of anything. If you read the article in the Bismark Tribune from 6/28/2006 - Stenehjem said that "However, no special science or DNA analysis went into determing who murdered Bonderson". So much for that theory, huh? Why was Kathy so concerned about her son Jamie being out at night? DRUGS!!!! Why didn't the police do a better investigation at the time? Cover up maybe. Kick backs from drug dealers maybe? No one will ever know because it is easier to close the case and blame it on a dead man than it is to really investigate the death. People are saying that Kathy had a head injury but according to the autopsy, she had neck & throat injuries. Why no origional autopsy? And as for the suicide note that was found, the first thing the police should have done when they received it was do a handwriting analysis. But that was not done. Why is that? Would it maybe put a few holes into their airtight case against Rob? No one knows all the facts, so why point fingers? Or were you there and know exactly what happened? I do think Jamie should be investigated further because his story just doesn't stay the same.

Here are a few opposing opinions on the case.

Authorities POV:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/14920316.htm

Family POV:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/14917198.htm

The opinions are very different.

Okay, I have read both articles and here's what I think:

1. The first article states they are certain Rob murdered his wife, but they don't give what evidence led them to this conclusion except that he took out a $50,000 insurance policy on his wife 2 months before her death. That is very circumstantial and weak. There is no mention of DNA evidence or conclusive evidence (unless not given out) linking Rob to the scene of the crime. Sorry, seminolegirl. I know you say there is DNA evidence, but why didn't the authorities mention it? I would think if there was connecting evidence, they would be touting this all over the front page.

2. The first article stated that he married Nan "shortly after Kathy's death" and that she was his girlfriend 20 years ago. Sorry, but the time frame of 1987 - 1991 is anywhere from 3 1/2 years to 4. I don't consider that "shortly after Kathy's death". It also states that he moved to WY 6 months after. Yes, some consider that weird, but it could also be he wanted to get away for a fresh start.

3. According to the family, Rob had suicidal tendencies. Why didn't the authorities mention this in their article? People usually do not air their dirty laundry unless necessary. Even thought it was probably embarrasing, they family chose to share about Rob's less than stellar mental health. Why didn't the police look further into this? The part w/ the boot camp and the attempt in WY can be verified through medical records and military records. His wife obviously lived w/ him for 15 years w/o any fear of death. Yes, they didn't talk much about it, but why would they? Who wants to talk to their husband about their dead previous wife? I sure wouldn't.

4. The first article hints that Kathy's family thought he might have been guilty. It is not spelled out, but implied. Kathy's father quote only mentioned that they were glad it was all over and that some of the questions regarding her case were answered. SOME, not ALL. If it were my daughter, I would push until I got them all. That part of the article was too vague.

5. I don't know if anyone else thought this, but doesn't Stenehjem sound arrogant in his quotes? Like he knows everything and would not consider alternatives? I thought so. Tunnel vision is a danger in police investigations and could lead an innocent man to prison, letting the guilty get away.

In conclusion, I can not conclude he is guilty or innocent based on what I have read alone, although I do lean towards innocence. There is not enough evidence discussed to not have reasonable doubt. However, I do get the impression that once Rob committed suicide, the police decided what the hell, and pinned the murder on him. How is a dead man going to fight back against that? It's easier than actually doing the footwork. I am not tearing down police, but in this case, it seems they wanted a conclusion, and took the easy way out. That is immoral and wrong. I'm sorry if this reply offends some (seminolegirl), but basing a conclusion on innuendo and rumor is not only ridiculous, but wrong. How would one feel if it was them? I wouldn't like it. It's probably one of the reasons that Rob committed suicide.