I just watched the NBC version, but it was from 1989 and didn't have the update so I was wondering if anyone can fill me in on the specifics. Does anyone recall the update from Lifetime? I think it was something along the lines of his case being presented to a grand jury, but there not being enough evidence to get an indictment. This was in the mid-nineties, I believe.

I really don't know what to think, but I lean more towards his guilt. There just seem to be too many independent factors working against McClure. For one thing, the credit card company said that McClure had called to cancel his mother's credit cards because he said she was deceased - this was a couple days before her body was found. In addition, his alibi for the night of her a murder - a period of about six hours - was never corroborated by anyone despite the fact that he claims he was partying it up with his wife at various bars, casinos and dance halls. Both McClure and his wife failed polygraph tests. He failed entirely while his wife missed the question "do you know who killed Terry McClure?" Finally, he was the beneficiary of his mother's life insurance valued at 5K.

Hardly a clincher, but enough to make the authorities strongly suspect he was involved in his mother's death.

I remember the update on Lifetime. It was one of those "text only over creepy music" updates that said he had been arrested and charged with murder or arrested and case sent to grand jury (something like that).

I think he is 100% guilty. His case is so bad and so full of holes.

- He canceled the credit cards early.

- He found his mom's purse on some remote road.

- He searched for her in every casino lot except the one she was found in. He said he "had a bad feeling" about that lot, yet he was looking for her body?

I think he is absolutely guilty. I was happy to hear he was arrested but I only saw the update once and then never saw it after that.

The update is just as you describe it JS.

I don't know if he's guilty or not, I really don't have a definitive opinion on it. But there was someone three or four years ago who came on these forums who used to work with McClure and said that Tim was one strange dude. I think he mentioned that McClure was very high strung.

One thing that might point toward him being innocent: Stack did mention that McClure contacted UM and asked that the case be profiled. Pretty ballsy if he was guilty since he had, for all intents and purposes, gotten away with the murder for years and really had nothing to gain and everything to lose by thrusting the case back into the public eye for scrutiny.

One thing that might point toward him being innocent: Stack did mention that McClure contacted UM and asked that the case be profiled. Pretty ballsy if he was guilty since he had, for all intents and purposes, gotten away with the murder for years and really had nothing to gain and everything to lose by thrusting the case back into the public eye for scrutiny.

true, but, McClure never says he wants to search for the "real killer". Stack says that he only came on the show to clear his name. Pretty ballsy since I think he's the guiltiest person ever profiled on UM.

there's nothing I can say on this case that I haven't already said. If you do a search, there's a fairly recent thread where I outline about 15 points that all point towards McClure's guilt, and nothing that points towards his innocence. Although one thing I don't think I've mentioned before is that he pulled a Donnie Hansen of sorts by saying it was preposterous that the authorities were considering him as a suspect.

I know that they don't have any physical evidence tying him to the crime, but gah, it's an overwhelming circumstantiave case.

true, but, McClure never says he wants to search for the "real killer". Stack says that he only came on the show to clear his name. Pretty ballsy since I think he's the guiltiest person ever profiled on UM.

Yep. Don't let his crazy attempt to clear his name distract you from his guilt.

A couple of other things I forgot. . .

Tim and his wife both failed lie detector tests! Tim admitted in the segment that he failed. In fact, he said something like he bombed the test. His wife failed on the question "Do you know who murdered Mrs. McClure." I realize lie detectors are somewhat of an inexact science, but please... Tim showed major deception.

The other thing, Tim said someone should have been able to recognize him in the casino because of his height. I agree. A 6'5" guy with long hair wearing jeans and a tuxedo top and NO ONE remembers seeing him during the time of the murder??? Hard to believe. Hell, if anything he should get locked up for felony abuse of good taste and fashion.

If you have the segment or get the chance to see it, watch it again. Like Wiseguy said, there is so much evidence against him and next to none to clear him.

Maybe he should team up with OJ so they can look for the "real killers" together. :rolleyes:

sorry I couldn't resist posting again, Tim McClure is so guilty that I enjoy picking on him.

Here's something I don't recall mentioning before: How exactly does Tim McClure know to just check casinos to find his mother and nowhere else? She could have been anywhere, perhaps she went to a motel and got a room, perhaps she was hungry and went to a restaurant, perhaps she went to a grocery store for milk and eggs. Maybe she stopped at a rest stop, well you get the point.

and why on Earth would Terri McClure go to another casino, when she can just be at the one her son is at and be with him on his wedding night?

yeah that is a long gap of time, as someone else had mentioned. I thought an hour and a half gap was a long time for Wayne Hecker in the Tara Breckinridge case, but this guy has all night.

sorry I couldn't resist posting again, Tim McClure is so guilty that I enjoy picking on him.

I feel you on that one...

Maybe one of these days old Timmy McClure will write a book called "If I Did It." :lol:

Okay I know I'm in the minority here but I have never thought Tim McClure was guilty. Just because the guy came across as a bit strange doesn't mean he killed his mother. I even sent a copy of this segment to someone who used to work with him. They did say he was a strange guy but also said he was a nice guy and didn't seem to think he killed his mother. Was there any proof that he did it? The lady at the credit card company could have definitely been mistaken so that comment by her really does nothing for me. Everyone said he was genuinely devoted to his mother and her life insurance policy was quite small and Tim was even to share it with his sister. I think the most logical explanation was that she was robbed and murdered. She was in a casino parking lot and was shot at night in her car. Her purse was even missing from the crime scene, correct? Which is another point in the favor of it being a robbery. I'm glad he was never tried because I don't think there's enough evidence against him and think he's innocent.

Oh, crystaldawn... and I used to like you! :lol:

I realize most of the evidence against Tim is circumstantial and there is no smoking gun. However, how do you explain:

- He and his wife failing lie detector tests (by his own admission)

- Him looking in every casino lot but the one she was found in

- Him miraculously finding her purse along the road

- Him canceling the credit cards early

- No one remembers seeing him in the casino that night


I know you explained some of that and there is no physical evidence. But all of the above is too much to be just a coincidence. Some of it you could explain away but all of it???

There are some cases that are just too tough to tell (like Cindy James). But this one, to me, is very clear cut. What was his motive? Maybe the insurance, maybe they had a fight... I don't know. But I do know there is too much pointing at him to say he's innocent.

So why did Tim call UM to display his story if he is guilty? Tim doesn't strike me as being that bright. He is either dim or arrogant or both.

We all have are own opinions but on this one it is almost impossible for me to see it other than Tim being guilty.

CD... are you just attracted to really tall men in tuxedo jackets and jeans??? Come on, you can admit it! :D

Her purse was even missing from the crime scene, correct? Which is another point in the favor of it being a robbery.

but the thing is, Tim went looking for the purse even before he knew it was stolen.

but the thing is, Tim went looking for the purse even before he knew it was stolen.

He tried to back paddle in the interview and said that the police misunderstood him. There are an awful lot of "misunderstandings" going on here if you believe he was innocent.

The lady at the credit card company could have definitely been mistaken so that comment by her really does nothing for me. .

the way I remember it, The lady claims Tim called on a Friday, Tim insists it was a Monday. Terri went missing Friday and was discovered on Monday. I could see the clerk being a day off, maybe two, but to be three days off? She must have had a very rough weekend in order to miss it by three days.

He tried to back paddle in the interview and said that the police misunderstood him. There are an awful lot of "misunderstandings" going on here if you believe he was innocent.

I agree. At least with the final appealants, they have reasonable, rational scenarios/answers to questions, even if some of them turn out to be guilty. They at least do a convincing job of making you believe they might be innocent. But with McClure, his answers to all of the questions are like "I don't know, I'm not sure how that could have happened."

I agree. At least with the final appealants, they have reasonable, rational scenarios/answers to questions, even if some of them turn out to be guilty. They at least do a convincing job of making you believe they might be innocent. But with McClure, his answers to all of the questions are like "I don't know, I'm not sure how that could have happened."

Exactly!

He never says, "I got a drink in the casino... ask the waitress!" Or "I heard from the cops the purse was missing." It was all "Well... you know... I really don't know how that happened" like you said, wiseguy.

He is just riding the fact that they don't have the weapon to tie him to it. He had the motive (arguably, but it's there) and the opportunity. The fact they never found the weapon is surprising considering how bumbling he was with everything else.

I put him in the same category as Al Henderson (I think thats his name) not only because he was also accused of a casino related death/disappearance but because they both seem to have a lot of trouble explaining their actions and seem to get very upset when their explanation of innocence is challenged. I remember Al Henderson getting very upset when the survailence cameras didn't pick him up playing his fiance's favorite slot machine saying something like "I'm not a technology whiz, I'm an old man I don't know how that stuff works"

Anyhow wiseguy, you actually think McClure is more guilty than Jule Caylor. In the end its all relevant but that surprises me.

Anyhow wiseguy, you actually think McClure is more guilty than Jule Caylor. In the end its all relevant but that surprises me.

Jule is a close second. :)

Well, I dont know on this one, obviously it doesnt look good for Tim McClure, but there is stuff here that makes zero sense. Knocking off mom for 5 grand? Also, if McClure was planning on doing this WHY would he cancel the credit cards BEFORE his mother was dead? That makes zero sense, McClure is many things but doesnt come off as stupid to me, strange but not stupid. This could have been a mistake on the credit card companies part, again I am not saying it was for sure a mistake, maybe he did cancel them on Friday, but it could have been a mistake, the people that work at these credit card companies as hard as it is to believe are humans being too and fully capable of making a mistake.

I think saying Tim McClure is the guiltiest man on UM is a bit of stretch, yes some of the stuff in his case looked terrible for him, but there were others shown far more guilty than McClure. I just think what some people are doing here is pretty sad, thinking a guy is more likely to kill his mother because he is an eccentric guy. I mean, why would McClure kill his own mother the night of his wedding?

Then again, there are things working against McClure, such as the alabi, he also claimed he went off alone by himself for two hours to play slots on the night of his wedding? Who goes off alone by themselves the night of their wedding for any extended period of time? That I found strange. Also, the casino's, when McClure went searching in the casino parking lots, he looked in everyone except one parking lot, the parking lot where his mother's car and her dead body just happened to be.

I just dont know, McClure just seems eccentric enough to me where he could have been rail roaded. I mean, if McClure did this, why would he admit to looking in any casino parking lot period? Why would he pick up the purse? By the way, the cops played that up, it is entirely possible for McClure to have just found the purse by coincidence along the road, the same thing happened with Jeff Olberholtzer when the cops thought he killed his wife.

It is just a strange case overall, also, polygraphs, I dont know, I am weary of them. 9 times out of 10 if a suspect takes a polygraph given by the police he fails, when he takes one given by the defense, he passes, this is why they arent allowed as evidence and regardless of if McClure and his wife failed polygraphs, I think TM is putting way too much stock into them. Polygraphs are 70 percent accurate if I remember right, guilty people pass them, innocent people fail them, far from accurate.

I dont think they would have got a conviction in this case had they tried it, yes in 1992 the Carson City cops who appearantly never bothered to try to form any other suspects or really do any investigation except for nailing Tim McClure, issued a warrant for his arrest without a grand jury indictment.

Usually in murder cases they dont arrest people until after the indictment, so that made this case stink almost instantly to me when the cops arrested him before an indictment which tells me they were after him from the start and never did an investigation into any other possibilities. But in 1992, McClure was arrested but was released shortly thereafter when the Douglas County, Nevada grand jury refused to indict McClure.

With McClure much like kadrmas15 I have problem scratching out motive. I believe this is the infamous segment where they interview an investigator who says "People have been bumped off for a lot less than 5 Gs"

The thing is though (and this is coming from someone who didn't have a great relationship with either of his parents) it in my mind takes a great deal of hatred for someone to just bump off their mother. I believe if McClure is guilty that this would've likely been a crime of passion and probably has nothing to do with the insurance.

The thing is that we don't have anyone who has come out and said Tim McClure had a bad relationship with his mother. Could it be possible that Tim's wife and mother didn't get along and some type of violence erupted from that? - I dunno but I still find the insurance policy alone wouldn't provide enough fuel for Tim McClure to murder his mother. But then again nobody knows for sure the character makeup of McClure so you really can't say for sure.

Yea I figured I'd get raked over the coals overnight after I posted that. :lol: Thats okay you guys are never going to convince me. Another thing that doesn't make much sense if you guys think he's guilty, why in the world would he choose to kill his mother in a pretty public place on his wedding day of all days? :confused: You know there's a reason lie detector tests aren't admissible in court. He did say he was nervous taking it because the guy administering it made him close his eyes during it! I have never heard of that and surely if it wasn't true the guy who gave him the test would speak up. Didn't he go looking for the purse even before she was found? Maybe he just drove around looking for any clues and found it. I'm assuming it wasn't too far from where she was found. I can see the whole scenario about him having a feeling that kept him from not going into that particular parking lot. Haven't you guys ever got a bad feeling about something and just couldn't explain it but it caused you to alter your plans.

We don't know if anyone remembers seeing him. He was hoping they would and in fact after the segment aired there could have been a lot of people call in and corroborate the story (remember there wasn't even enough evidence to try him!). Like I said considering this phone operator from the credit card company probably fields dozens of calls each day, you don't think its possible for her to get confused about which one was Tim and mistakenly write down something? The biggest red flag and you guys don't even have a rational explanation for this was why in the world when they didn't even have enough evidence to try him would he open up this can of worms and ask for UM's help in investigating his mom's murder??? I mean the guys's not stupid, if he wasn't arrested for the crime and was guilty he would surely want to leave well enough alone. The act of calling UM sounds like the act of a devoted son who really wants to find out who killed his mother.

You guys can throw rotten tomatoes at me all you like but I still say innocent. :D

Well, obviously the cop was right, people have been killed for a lot less than 5 grand, the problem is, those are usually random armed robberies that go bad. I would just think if money was someone's motive that first off they would want to get a lot more money and also they wouldnt go to such elaborate lengths to conceal it, just for 5 grand, even in 1983, 5 grand was not an impressive amount of money. If McClure did this, I can guarentee that money was not the motive.

I dont know, to me, it just doesnt make sense that McClure did this, it is kind of one of those things, you cant prove he did it and you cant really prove that he didnt, so in my book that makes him innocent until proven otherwise. In this case they didnt have the evidence in 1983, they didnt have it in 1992 when the cops went to the unusual step of arresting him for murder without an indictment and he hadnt even been charged by the DA's office, neither the Douglas County, Nevada grand jury nor the Douglas County, Nevada District Attorney's office went for it because frankly, they would have lost the case.

The problem for McClure is, he basically cant prove where he was during a two hour period of time when it is presumed his mother was murdered, but this was Carson City, Nevada, lots of people around, so it wasnt like McClure is the only one that could have knocked off mom. The thing I always found odd, was that McClure's mom sat in her car in a parking lot of a casino for over two days in plain view and no one noticed a dead woman was in the car?

Here is the thing, McClure admitted he didnt search the parking lot of the casino where his mom's car was found, he admitted that was the only casino parking lot he didnt search. Why would he admit that if he was the murderer? Why wouldnt he just say he searched it and didnt see the car? He could have, they couldnt prove that he was lying, since hundreds of people at least saw her car during those two days with her dead body in plain view and no one noticed.

Aww, heck... I need to watch this again today now. :p

I'm pretty sure, IIRC, that the purse was not only not known to be missing when Tim found it, but also in a ditch on some remote road. I seem to remember him saying he was searching ditches for his mom's purse and the cop said, "Huh, that's funny since no one said it was missing." It was certainly not near or at the scene of the crime.

$5,000 doesn't seem like much until you have nothing. Also, it may not even have been something that big. What if they got into an argument over his new wife and Tim flipped out? Maybe unlikely, but my point is that it doesn't take much in the heat of the moment. I'll admit I don't know his motive to do this, I just think his story has more holes than truths.

Lie detector tests are not admissible in court because they aren't perfect. In fact, all they do is show patterns of deception and those are pretty accurate. The fact that Tim showed so much deception and his wife did on the question "Do you know who murdered Mrs. McClure" says a lot.

The credit card issue we could debate all day. The purse, lie detector, and Tim having no alibi??? Not so much.

Tim didn't strike me as being bright at all. If he was, he'd have better answers than just saying "I don't know."

It's okay CD, I'll get over you being wrong on this one. Just this once, though. :lol:

Here is the thing, McClure admitted he didnt search the parking lot of the casino where his mom's car was found, he admitted that was the only casino parking lot he didnt search. Why would he admit that if he was the murderer? Why wouldnt he just say he searched it and didnt see the car? He could have, they couldnt prove that he was lying, since hundreds of people at least saw her car during those two days with her dead body in plain view and no one noticed.


Why search casino lots at all? For all he knew, as someone else stated, she was at a Pizza Hut or the laudrymat. Why look through casino lots, and then everyone but where she was found?

Tim is almost clairvoyant about some things like her being in a casino lot and her purse being missing then knowing where to find it.

Yet he doesn't have an alibi anyone can substantiate???? Hmm...

It's okay CD, I'll get over you being wrong on this one. Just this once, though. :lol:

Yep, right back at ya....:lol:

Well, I just watched the Tim McClure case again. Here's a few of the facts from the broadcast (better than just my shaky memory...):

I did have one thing wrong (*gasp* Imagine that! ;) ) I was getting confused with another case about the purse. Tim did not find the purse in the story, but he was driving the road between Lake Tahoe and Reno looking along the sides of it for her purse. The cop said he found that very odd since no one knew it was missing. Tim said he thought it would be a good idea to look for it, but had no explanation how he knew it was missing when no one else did.

The cop said when asked about why they bombed the lie detector test, neither Tim nor his wife had any explanation at all.

Tim said he walked his mom to her car and then gambled alone for 2 hours.

NO ONE could place Tim and his wife anywhere between midnight and 6am, despite the fact they visited a dance club and several other places. (Again, Tim was 6'5" and in a tuxedo top.)

Tim's mom took out a $10g life insurance policy a few months earlier. He had "no idea why" and it was split between Tim and his sister.

The cop said $5g is not a lot of money but he said "people have been killed for less."

Terri McClure was shot twice in the head. Only her purse was missing. Her jewelry was still on her.

The credit card company rep wrote down the date that Tim called to cancel the card. The cop said that when they interviewed her, she was adament it was Friday and not Monday. They show the original credit card company memo in the story.

He drove the lots of all the casinos between Lake Tahoe and Reno, even though he had no idea to believe she would be at one. All but the one she was found at.

_________________________________________________________________
**********************************************************


I don't know if Tim is guilty or not, as there is no physical evidence. However, watching that story again, he is one of the LEAST credible people I have ever seen, based on his story and how he acted in his interview. There is no strong motive unless they fought about him getting married or something. But there is a ton of circumstantial evidence and it all points to Tim either doing the deed or knowing who did. I have no doubt he did it or is in on it even though the physical evidence isn't there.

Jule Caylor has more of an alibi and a story than Tim McClure, and we ALL know that he is guilty as sin! :lol:

Oh, well... Just anotherhttp://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/026.gif post for me!

Well, Caylor actually doesnt have much of an alabi, his alabi is that he drove Dottie to the bart station and she disappeared out of thin air. Now Jule has changed his story and said he never drove her there. Dottie was his supposed alabi and she is missing so Caylor doesnt have much of a story.

TM, I get you are trying to burn Tim McClure at the stake but come up with some better stuff. Why is that so unusual he searched the casino parking lots? That is where his mother was last seen, maybe he figured she was kidnapped and her car would still be there?

The lie detectors you overrate, but that is to be expected. Fact of the matter is, they are 70 percent accurate at best, a tool, hence why they are not allowed in court, except for when a person fails, then magically they find their way in some how, usually through over zealous prosecutors. Yet in this case, no indictment, why? You say the case is so rock solid, yet no indictment, that is because it isnt rock solid. They cant place that gun in Tim McClure's hands, they cant prove he had anything to do with his mother's death other than innuendo and cheap tabloid headlines.

You act like because they cant explain why they failed they are guilty automatically. Well, actually Tim did explain why he failed it, he was nervous, extremely nervous, the person that worked for the cops who was giving the test told him to keep his eyes closed, no doubt to make him more nervous and make it more likely he would fail the test.

If Terri McClure knew for sure, no doubt, that Tim murdered his mother would she stay with him? No. Unless Terri McClure herself murdered Tim's mother, like I said, I dont know if Tim or his wife were involved with the murder, but the evidence is hardly rock solid. Honestly, most of you think he is guilty, because you think he is a strange, weird looking guy. If he looked and acted "normal" (whatever the heck that is supposed to mean) than you wouldnt think twice about McClure, you would think he was innocent.

Also one more thing, while it hurts McClure that no one could substaniate his alabi, it doesnt necessarily mean it isnt true. This was a crowded casino in the holiday season, I'm sure regardless of what Tim looked like, people were not paying attention to him and wouldnt remember him from the next guy that came in, lots of the visitors to the casino were from out of state I am sure and probably had no idea a case was going on and if Tim was playing slots he would be sitting down probably so they wouldnt be able to tell his height.

Oh, boy... You are reading WAY too much into what I'm saying here.

Well, Caylor actually doesnt have much of an alabi...

I know. That part was a joke.


TM, I get you are trying to burn Tim McClure at the stake but come up with some better stuff.

I never said I want to "burn Tim McClure at the stake." I said I think he is guilty and his story is about the shakiest I've ever heard. You're putting words in my mouth. My opinion is that he is guilty, that's it. You are making this into something it's not and I'd appreciate it if you would STOP doing that.

I've outlined, several times in this thread, why I think he is guilty. Innocent people don't do things that make them look guilty like Tim McClure.


You act like because they cant explain why they failed they are guilty automatically. Well, actually Tim did explain why he failed it, he was nervous, extremely nervous, the person that worked for the cops who was giving the test told him to keep his eyes closed, no doubt to make him more nervous and make it more likely he would fail the test.

Lie detector tests are more accurate than you say but we could debate that all day.

Just remember, you technically don't "pass" or "fail." The tests show patterns of deception based on subconscious responses (pulse rate, breathing rate, etc.). His test showed lots of deception BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. Just "being nervous" won't make you fail a lie detector test more than being confident will make you pass it. And if he's nervous, maybe he has something to hide. And yes, guilty people sometimes do consent to polygraph tests only to fail them. Not unheard of.

The reason they aren't allowed in court is because they aren't fool proof. DNA and fingerprints have a tiny error potential, while lie detectors aren't to that level. But they are surpisingly more accurate than you would portray.

Also, are you saying the cops are trying to frame him?!? That's a new one. Closing your eyes shouldn't make you so nervous that you fail. Also, there are certain ways you have to answer a lie detector test. I'm sorry if Tim didn't like it, but if that's his only excuse for why he was being deceptive (AND HIS WIFE) then that makes him even less credible.


If Terri McClure knew for sure, no doubt, that Tim murdered his mother would she stay with him?

Plenty of spouses stay with guilty people. Plus maybe she was in on it? Your point here holds no weight with me.


Honestly, most of you think he is guilty, because you think he is a strange, weird looking guy.

Me laughing at how he looks and me thinking he is "guilty of murder" based on his looks are NOT the same thing. Again, you're putting words in my mouth and others here. I think he is guilty by facts, albeit circumstantial, but not based on how he looks.

Am I not allowed to poke fun at someone in a UM case? :confused:


Also one more thing, while it hurts McClure that no one could substaniate his alabi, it doesnt necessarily mean it isnt true.

No, but having no alibi for SIX HOURS sure gives him plenty of opportunity. And he claims to have been at places where plenty of people should have seen him, yet no one did.

__________________________________________________________

Look, I think he's guilty... that's my opinion. If you think he is innocent, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

If you want to discuss the facts, I'd be more than happy to do that. But please stop accusing myself and others of saying things we aren't. I'm not condemning this guy to hell. I just think he is guilty based on his own story.

Another thing that doesn't make much sense if you guys think he's guilty, why in the world would he choose to kill his mother in a pretty public place on his wedding day of all days? :confused:

that confused me as well, you would think someone would have noticed her over the course of 3 days. I still think it's probable someone murdered her elsewhere and drove her there: which again would indicate Tim since he was probably going for a 'murder her and drive the car to a casino/airport/bus station' like Al Henderson, Jim Harrison or Jule Caylor. Had this instance been true, then Tim would have had even more time on his hands to clean up, etc.

The credit card company rep wrote down the date that Tim called to cancel the card. The cop said that when they interviewed her, she was adament it was Friday and not Monday. They show the original credit card company memo in the story.

good point, thanks for bringing that up. Of course none of us know the credit card rep's job, but in my job, not only is all of my stuff dated, but I put it in a nightly packet: so I can be pretty darn certain about the date of a certain document. I tend to agree with the rep.

here's the thing:

if your mother is murdered, and you are innocent, and you are getting faced with alot of accusations, and you have a chance to go on a nationally televised show, do you:

A) try to find your mother's killer
B) try to clear your name

Now, finding your mother's killer should be his top priority, even if he is innocent. Can't really blame him for wanting to clear his name if he is innocent, but finding the killer should take priority over that. Stack himself at the begininning of the segment says Tim's call was unusual because he only asked to clear his name. This is further backed up by Tim saying 'if anyone saw ME the night of ..." and not "if you saw anyone attack my mother the night of..." Tim's extreme laid-backness (word?) doesn't really help matters at all. Granted, some people are more emotional than others, but Tim is extremely laid back for someone whose mother was murdered. Some family members are cry/devastated, others are pissed off and want to find the murderer real bad. Tim is laid back and is only interested in clearing his name.

But here is another interesting point: Tim says that he's baffled that he is considered a suspect. But why? Family members are usually the first people look at, so why is Tim suprised? I think it's because he thought he could get away with it. I think he just figured he would dump the car to make it look like she was robbed, but the jewerly was still there. and no signs of a struggle. And Tim probably didn't plan on so many things against him popping up.

here's the thing:

Now, finding your mother's killer should be his top priority. . .

Tim says that he's baffled that he is considered a suspect. But why? Family members are usually the first people look at, so why is Tim suprised?


Excellent post, wiseguy! Those are two great points.

When I watched the case again today, I was momentarily surprised that it was "Unexplained Death" and not "Final Appeal." Obviously, it can't be your final appeal if you aren't convicted, but the whole story was more about Tim and less about his mother.

The story never mentions going after other suspects for the robbery/homicide. Now in fairness, they never mention if there was money in the purse, if her credit cards were used, etc. so we don't know if there were more signs of a robbery, but you would think they would have mentioned that if it was the case.

Tim was the LAST PERSON TO SEE HER ALIVE. Should he be surprised they are focusing on him, at least initially? I agree that her sitting there for a few days is odd, but who knows. Why was she even there if she had planned on going straight home from when Tim walked her to her car?

Like you said, maybe he grieves differently and that doesn't make him guilty. But from what they show in the story he seems to have put in as much to find the "real killers" as O.J. :rolleyes:

i just watched the segment and uncovered some more things that make me think Tim is guilty.

1. segment states that Terri told Tim she was driving straight home, which further indicates that Tim should have no idea where Terri will be discovered. Tim, ironically enough, gets the notion to check out casinos, where ironically enough, Terri is discovered. As I mentioned before, how does he know to just check casinos? she could literally be anywhere in the world, and why go to another casino when you can gamble at the one where your son is at and be with him on his wedding night?

2. Tim says he's baffled that his mother took out a life insurance policy. Why? She was a senior citizen with living relatives, of course she's going to take out an insurance policy.

3. Tim looks for the purse, which covers a long strech of highway. He's really looking for a needle in a haystack there, and I doubt someone would ditch it on a busy highway as opposed to a dumpster or rural area.

Well we could go back and forth on this all day. I think both sides have some good points but my opinion on the case still stands. Given some fights we've had in the past while debating the cases I did want to point out that this thread is a perfect example of how people can have strong opinions about a case and be on different sides and still have a rational debate without it turning into an argument or getting personal. I think thats great. :)

Whatever, Crystaldawn. You're stupid. :D

(Yes. I'm obviously kidding. Obviously. I haven't really gotten into this debate too much, but I will say that it's a pretty interesting read! I'm not sure where I'm at on this one...there's compelling info on both sides.)

The only thing I will contribute to the conversation is this: Lie Detectors?! Booo! I took a Social Psychology class once and they taught us how to beat a polygraph. No joke. I place no credibility in those machines whatsoever.

The only thing I will contribute to the conversation is this: Lie Detectors?! Booo! I took a Social Psychology class once and they taught us how to beat a polygraph. No joke. I place no credibility in those machines whatsoever.

WHAT?!? You liberal scum! :lol:

Just kidding, CRicci... you always add a nice bit of levity to this place. ;)

Like CD said, lots of good stuff but nothing we know now will tip the scales one way or the other at this point unless new stuff is found. It does make me more anxious to see the updates on Spike now!

Whatever, Crystaldawn. You're stupid. :D

Now Ricci, its not nice to make fun of someone with a learning disability ;)

Well TM, to each his own I guess, I wasnt trying to turn this into anything and I'm not 100 percent sure what you were alluding to in making that allegation, but I have a pretty good idea.

Well, okay, the credit card rep wrote Friday, maybe he did call on Friday, maybe he called on Monday, she is a human being it is possible she made a mistake. If Tim called to cancel the credit card on Friday, before his mother was even dead, that would be an extremely stupid thing to do and Tim McClure may be eccentric but he isnt stupid. So if he did in fact call it in on Friday, he is quite the sluthe then, planning on bumping off mom but decides to cancel "only" one of her credit cards but not the others before she is dead?

McClure actually didnt have a 6 hour window where he couldnt be accounted for, it was 2 hours where he was supposedly by himself, the rest of the time, his wife was his alabi, whether or not it was true was anyone's guess. I think if anyone here was making this out to be more than what it was, it was you, not me, this even isnt really an argument about whether or not you think he is guilty, but it is your reasoning behind that, I am not saying McClure for sure is innocent, McClure's case is unique in that basically, there is nothing proving he is guilty, yet he cannot really prove his innocence either.

Well, the search, I dont know, yes Tim searched casino's, that was not the only place he looked, in fact, didnt Tim drive to the casino's look around and then take the route his mother would have taken back to Reno looking for her? He happened to find the pursue along a busy road, I guess I dont think it is that unusual, it was well traveled, Jeff Olberholtzer found his wife's backpack in a rural field and he wasnt the killer of his wife. But the cops went off and running with it "he found the pursue, guilty, guilty, guilty!"

Well TM, I hate to break it to you, but the cops have set people up, you are pretty ignorant if you dont believe that has ever happened. Does it sound far fetched? Sure. But the cops have set people up, they could have set up Tim McClure, they certainly werent open minded in their investigation, they just werent willing to consider even the possibility that anyone else other than Tim McClure shot his mother and if Tim McClure did not shoot his mother or have anything to do with her death, than someone has got away with murder now for over 25 years.

CRicci, I agree on polygraphs, they are beatable if you train and know how to do it, innocent people have flunked them, guilty people have passed them, not surprisingly, a majority of the time when the cops are the ones giving the test, the defendant fails, not surprisingly a majority of the time when the defense gives the polygraph the defendant passes. I just dont find them very credible, like I have said before, from what I have heard, at best they are 70 percent accurate.

What I have always found interesting though is how people hold a different standard on this issue depending on who is giving the test. Like if the cops or an examiner hired by the cops to give the test gives it, suddenly it is 100 percent reliable, cops never lie right? No one would be nervous taking a polygraph, let alone taking a polygraph being given by the very people accusing you of the crime! No way!

Yet when the defense gives it, people for some reason dont find it credible at all, because they assume the questions were easy ones or because they assume the test was rigged somehow. The only way I would find polygraphs reliable would be if an independent examiner gave it, like in the case of Tommy Ziegler.

I posted this before in the "guiltiest people in the history of UM" thread, but here it is again:

I hate to say this, but as my girlfriend and I were watching this segment, we were laughing by the end of it, his explanations had gotten so ludicrous. He is brazen -- I'll give him that.

There's something wrong with dude from the get-go. Firstly, he appears as himself in the reenactments, even though they deal with the murder of his mother, a supposedly traumatizing event for him. That's fishy right there. Secondly, in the segment, he also voluntarily (I suppose for the sake of accuracy?) donned a standard black tuxedo and wore WHITE TENNIS SHOES with it! I mean, I know the guy is a hillbilly, but really! Thirdly, he admits, as part of his alibi, to gambling in a casino alone for almost two hours --- on his wedding night!?!? While his wife gambled with her parents? I don't even know what to say to that.

Those, of course, prove nothing, I just find them strange and/or amusing. What I find laughably absurd, but which I think does prove alot, are his increasingly desperate explanations for obvious slip-ups. He told police that he was looking for his mother's purse as he drove around the weekend following her disappearance --- even though no one knew Terri McClure's purse was missing until her body was found on Monday. His explanation? His sister put the idea in his head that someone could have commandeered his mother's car in an effort to steal her purse, and tossed it out by the side of the road after removing all of its relevant contents. Uh-huh.

Next, he carefully searched every casino parking lot in the area, except one --- and guess which one it was. His explanation? He got "a feeling" it would be best if he didn't look there, to save his sanity. He has no problem reenacting the whole thing for Unsolved Mysteries, however.

Finally, he and his wife both volunteer to take polygraphs --- and they both fail miserably. Why? Well, he can only give the reasons why he failed, of course, but he says that there was so much time between the questions, and his eyes were closed, that he started thinking about what would happen if they thought he did it, and that made him nervous, and so he failed.

At some point, they'll find the gun he shot his mother with, covered in his fingerprints, wrapped in a typed and notarized confession produced on a typewriter he owned, signed by himself, and he'll say "Well, I was just thinking about how I would have killed my mother if I had done it, and I thought it would be interesting to type it out --- perhaps give police a guide to how the murder was done --- and of course I signed it because it was my original theory --- and I wrapped it in a gun I had, which, oddly enough [a favorite phrase of his], turned out to be the murder weapon, even though I have no idea how that could be."

I think this guy missed his true calling as a politician.

Well Mozart, yet another lengthy, yet unconvincing argument from one of our in house pro prosecution, the cops are never wrong folks, here at the UM forum.

Well, one must remember, this was 1988 or 1989, at that time almost always the people portrayed in the re-enactments played themselves. Yes there were a few other cases where people didnt play themselves but in even a lot of tragic events, people portrayed themselves. By your line of reasoning, anyone that portrayed themselves on the show, in a tragic case, must automatically be a suspect in the case.

How in the heck do you know whether McClure is a hillbilly or not? Yet another classless swipe, the guy is from northern Nevada! Reno to be exact, hardly hillbilly country. The guy had long hair at the time of his wedding, I do not really see what else made him a hillbilly. In the re-enactment he wore white shoes, are you honestly trying to argue the guy is a murderer because he wore white shoes with a tuxedo? Or are you just taking classless swipes at someone's physical appearance that you happen not to like?

What I find most remarkable is, why pro prosecution people keep aruging this case, the man wasnt indicted for a reason, if they couldnt even get an indictment here, that means they had literally no real evidence other than innuendo and conjecture about what happened that night. As the saying goes, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, it is probably the easiest thing to do is to get a grand jury indictment, so if they couldnt get it there, that tells me they really had no real evidence.

They couldnt link the gun to Tim McClure, not only could they not put the murder weapon in Tim's hand they couldnt even find the murder weapon! They could find no record of McClure having bought a weapon that was like the one used to kill his mother!

Also, if Tim was going to kill his mom why in the heck would he kill her in a casino parking lot? Why? Yes it is possible that he could have killed her somewhere else and then moved her back to her car, but wouldnt there be blood on Tim? On the ground when he moved her back to her car? Something? Anything? There was none of that! Not only that, but people in that area must be pretty dense as a dead body sat propped up in the car over the entire weekend yet no one noticed it?

What is really interesting is how some people work, they dont like how a person looks, or they dont like that a person is eccentric or because a person isnt wealthy or famous they automatically think the person is guilty. Yet OJ and Robert Blake are innocent. Right.....

To be fair though the OJ jury was an example of vigilante justice, a majority black jury acquitting a guy they thought was guilty of a double homicide because they wanted payback for the Rodney King beating cops getting acquitted in 1993. As for Blake, even though I think he had some involvement in his wife's death, on that one at least the jury had a right to acquitt, they couldnt put the gun in his hand because ironically, his alabi, was he had to go back into the restaurant to get a gun he left at the table.

Mozart, the guy wasnt brazen, McClure probably didnt kill his mother, I dont care how arrogant or sociopathic one is, they would not do what Tim McClure did, I'm sorry, they wouldnt. In this case, McClure put himself at the scene, of both where the car was found, where the pursue was found, he admitted he flunked a polygraph, he admitted he didnt have an alabi that anyone could substantiate, doesnt mean he is guilty. Good thing you arent on a jury.

Also, that was pretty classless comparing McClure to a politican, since you assume McClure is the murderer, then either you are saying all politicians are murderers or you are saying McClure is so slick he should be a politican. Neither opinion on your part would be fair or true or right and it is all wrong! I take offense to that last little swipe of yours against politicans personally as I am a political science major and I have a future ambition to hold public office.

Oh one last little note, I will no longer argue back and forth on this case with TM and Mozart as it will just lead to more bickering and get increasingly nasty, so I will put a stop to it before it really begins, I dont want to get in trouble and have people go off and taddle on me.

Well TM, I hate to break it to you, but the cops have set people up, you are pretty ignorant if you dont believe that has ever happened.


Of course I believe it! That's what the LAPD did to O.J., isn't it?

TM, you arent even really worthy of a response because you have proven yourself ignorant to where you dont seem to believe there is police corruption or that wrongful convictions do in fact happen from time to time. Ironically, in OJ's case the LAPD was responsible for getting him off, when the prosecution put that racist piece of garbage Mark Fuhrman on the stand it was all down hill for the prosecution from there. So yes the LAPD did do something to OJ, they were in large part responsible for him getting acquitted because they bungled that case so badly, they also washed the glove so it shrunk so it wouldnt fit OJ, leading to Johnny Cochran's famous line "if it doesnt fit you must acquit".

But again, this isnt about you thinking Tim McClure is guilty or whatever, this is about a broader spectrum you have shown on a rather consistent basis of being so ignorant that you honestly believe the cops have never set somewhat up to take the fall for a case, or that there isnt police corruption or that there isnt wrongful convictions.

Cops and prosecutors are human beings too and sometimes like all of us do, they make mistakes, it happens. The problem is, these cops and prosecutors wont admit they make these mistakes and that just leads to more problems. However, evidently, you do not believe this for some reason.

Yes, a majority of cops are good people, a majority of prosecutors are even good people even if their practices and the way they get convictions arent always professional. But there are scumbag prosecutors and cops, just like there are scumbag defense attorney's.

Yes for the record, a majority of arrests cops make and a majority of convictions prosecutors get are the right ones, but not all of them are, they do screw up sometimes, and innocent people get accused, arrested, tried and sometimes convicted and sent to prisons for crimes they simply did not do. I have made my point, you have made yours crystal clear that you are arrogant and simply not worth my time and I will stop now, but I felt I needed to make my point crystal clear to you first.

I better stop, before I get taddled on again and get in trouble again and I have a pretty good idea who was responsible for the taddling, if it was in fact you, in the future, you can direct your concerns about what I post to me. We are not in elementary school, you dont have to go running off to the teacher everytime someone says something to you, you do not like, if in fact you are the one that was taddling on me that is.

Of course I believe it! That's what the LAPD did to O.J., isn't it?

:brent:

Ohh... but that's for another thread, TM... :)

TM, you arent even really worthy of a response because you have proven yourself ignorant

My comment on O.J. was sarcasm. Sorry you didn't get that. I forgot to put the :rolleyes: symbol there, but it should have been obvious anyway.

I know police can be corrupt. I just highly doubt they are framing Tim in this case. If they are guilty of anything, it's probably focusing only on him. But we don't have enough info to tell if they searched hard for other suspects or not.


I better stop, before I get taddled on again and get in trouble again and I have a pretty good idea who was responsible for the taddling, if it was in fact you, in the future, you can direct your concerns about what I post to me. We are not in elementary school, you dont have to go running off to the teacher everytime someone says something to you, you do not like, if in fact you are the one that was taddling on me that is.


I don't know what you are talking about with "taddling." I don't even know who you are and furthermore I don't care. I come here to discuss cases. You obviously have me confused with someone else here. There is nothing personal in anything I say, so please relax.

Am I missing something here??? :confused:

:brent:

Ohh... but that's for another thread, TM... :)


I was hoping that would get a laugh or two! :D

Well TM, some of that stuff I said on purpose, sorry for being paranoid, but I wanted to test you, to see if you were the one that was taddling, lately someone has been taddling on me and others on this board when they do not like things that we say and I wanted to see if you were the one that was doing it, I no longer think you were/are the one doing it, so my apologies and no hard feelings.

Well, sorry for misunderstanding the whole OJ "joke" it is just that, because we are typing and not talking face to face, if you dont put a smiley face or the laughy face or an LOL or something after, it can be hard to tell when you are joking or not.

Well TM, some of that stuff I said on purpose, sorry for being paranoid, but I wanted to test you, to see if you were the one that was taddling, lately someone has been taddling on me and others on this board when they do not like things that we say and I wanted to see if you were the one that was doing it, I no longer think you were/are the one doing it, so my apologies and no hard feelings.

Well, sorry for misunderstanding the whole OJ "joke" it is just that, because we are typing and not talking face to face, if you dont put a smily face or the laughy face or an LOL or something after, it can be hard to tell when you are joking or not.

Well just to clarify Kadrmas no one has been "taddling" on you. I can clearly see your posts are argumentative sometimes and when that happens I say something or I just have to delete your posts. It sounds like that will have to continue given the tone of the last few posts today. I may just have to start deleting all the arguing posts from here on out if you aren't able to police yourself. I wouldn't have brought it to the public board but it seems that you wanted to hash this out on here so I felt I needed to address it on here as well.

Well CD, you are the moderator so if you feel that is what you need to do is delete the argumentative posts I will understand though I do not completely agree with your sentiments. While I certainly can be and have been argumentative on countless instances, I was not always the instigator of those arguments. On this occasion with Todd Mueller, I was the instigator and I apologized to him, I just figured it would be better to bring it all out in the open, to form a dialogue of sorts.

Of course there have been other instances where others on this board, have in my opinion, purposely started arguments with me because they know I am one that will not sit on my hands and let them get away with it and that I will fight back.

There was one particular instance lately where the individual that did that was held accountable, and I was glad as it seemed to be the first time someone else other than me was taken to task. This time I didnt mind being taken to task, because I should have been taken to task because I was the one that instigated the argument but like I said, I would say at least half the time, if not more, I am not the one that instigates the argument it is someone else, when they give it to me, I merely give it back. I want the board to be peaceful like anyone else but when someone does stuff like purposely pick fights with me because they know I will respond, I will just not stand still for that.

In Todd Mueller's case, I overracted, I apologized to him because I was wrong and I wanted to correct the mistake I made and I felt I had to do that publicly because I had openly accused him in public, unlike some others, I apologize for my mistakes and I might not be the most mature individual but I am man enough to admit when I have made a mistake. Again, sorry TM and CD for the misunderstanding.

In any event, here's something I haven't mentioned before.

Tim is show walking his mother to her car at the Lake Tahoe casino, which makes sense: it was 10:00 at night, and I'm sure a 62 year old woman would want her 6'5 son to escort her to her car when she's at a casino and it's late at night.

But then, are we to assume that, since Terri's car was found at another casino, that she went there, when it's even later, and she doesn't have the protection of her son? Does this make sense to anyone?

What we do know is that there is not one single person that can recall seeing Tim from 10:00 to 6:00 (an 8 hour block of time) nor his wife from 12:00 to 6:00 (a 6 hour block of time). Well his wife was his alibi, but that won't obviously hold up. Additionally, the segment really doesn't specify, but to our knowledge, no one sees Terri at the Carson City casino (where she was found dead at). Since her purse was missing, the first guess is that she was robbed, but did anyone see her at the casino? Did she even go inside? This is an awful lot that is unaccounted for.

Well Mozart, yet another lengthy, yet unconvincing argument from one of our in house pro prosecution, the cops are never wrong folks, here at the UM forum.

Well, one must remember, this was 1988 or 1989, at that time almost always the people portrayed in the re-enactments played themselves. Yes there were a few other cases where people didnt play themselves but in even a lot of tragic events, people portrayed themselves. By your line of reasoning, anyone that portrayed themselves on the show, in a tragic case, must automatically be a suspect in the case.

How in the heck do you know whether McClure is a hillbilly or not? Yet another classless swipe, the guy is from northern Nevada! Reno to be exact, hardly hillbilly country. The guy had long hair at the time of his wedding, I do not really see what else made him a hillbilly. In the re-enactment he wore white shoes, are you honestly trying to argue the guy is a murderer because he wore white shoes with a tuxedo? Or are you just taking classless swipes at someone's physical appearance that you happen not to like?

Uh, I'm not sure how I got dragged into whatever is going on here, as today was the first time I'd posted in a while, but I'd like to point out that in the post you are responding to, after making my little jokes about white sneakers with a tuxedo, etc., the VERY NEXT THING I SAID was "Those [observations], of course, prove nothing, I just find them strange and/or amusing." So I was not building my case for his guilt on any of that. Just so we're clear.

What I find most remarkable is, why pro prosecution people keep aruging this case, the man wasnt indicted for a reason, if they couldnt even get an indictment here, that means they had literally no real evidence other than innuendo and conjecture about what happened that night. As the saying goes, you could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, it is probably the easiest thing to do is to get a grand jury indictment, so if they couldnt get it there, that tells me they really had no real evidence.

The failure to indict could be indicative of a lot of things; it could be that there wasn't enough evidence, or that the prosecution wasn't very well organized, or that they pursued it only half-heartedly becuase, although they were sure they had the right guy, they were also sure they didn't have enough to win at trial. My post was directed as his "explanations" for perfectly valid concerns raised by investigators regarding inconsistencies in his story. Most of them were comically bad. Would you like to argue that they weren't?

They couldnt link the gun to Tim McClure, not only could they not put the murder weapon in Tim's hand

Because....

they couldnt even find the murder weapon!

See, not so hard to explain.

They could find no record of McClure having bought a weapon that was like the one used to kill his mother!

I said McClure was weird and a bad liar, not stupid. If he were planning on killinghis mother, he'd have been a fool to purchase a gun under his own name shortly before doing so. There are other methods for acquiring fire arms, sadly.

Also, if Tim was going to kill his mom why in the heck would he kill her in a casino parking lot? Why? Yes it is possible that he could have killed her somewhere else and then moved her back to her car

Here you answer your own question.

but wouldnt there be blood on Tim?

As wiseguy has correctly pointed out several times, Tim went eight hours without being accounted for by a reliable witness. And his mother's body wasn't discovered for two days after that. Whose to say he didn't get some blood on himself if/when he moved his mother's body? He had plenty of time to clean himself up.

On the ground when he moved her back to her car? Something? Anything? There was none of that!

I'm not in the least bit bothered by the idea that, if Tim did move his mother's body to her own car, that there was no blood left on the gound underneath where he would have held her. I think he could easily have done that without "spilling" any of her blood. As for the rest, I'm not at all sure what else you're looking for.

Not only that, but people in that area must be pretty dense as a dead body sat propped up in the car over the entire weekend yet no one noticed it?

And this reflects on Tim's guilt or innocence because...?

What is really interesting is how some people work, they dont like how a person looks, or they dont like that a person is eccentric or because a person isnt wealthy or famous they automatically think the person is guilty. Yet OJ and Robert Blake are innocent. Right.....

To be fair though the OJ jury was an example of vigilante justice, a majority black jury acquitting a guy they thought was guilty of a double homicide because they wanted payback for the Rodney King beating cops getting acquitted in 1993. As for Blake, even though I think he had some involvement in his wife's death, on that one at least the jury had a right to acquitt, they couldnt put the gun in his hand because ironically, his alabi, was he had to go back into the restaurant to get a gun he left at the table.

I don't know what to say about this. How'd we get to Rodney King?

Mozart, the guy wasnt brazen, McClure probably didnt kill his mother, I dont care how arrogant or sociopathic one is, they would not do what Tim McClure did, I'm sorry, they wouldnt.

For a guy in a hurry to point out what other people can't know about a person, this is an awfully big assumption you've made here. To cite just one example of someone who WAS that big of a sociopath and who DID murder his own mother, how about William Bradford Bishop? There are many other examples, I'm sure.

In this case, McClure put himself at the scene, of both where the car was found, where the pursue was found, he admitted he flunked a polygraph, he admitted he didnt have an alabi that anyone could substantiate, doesnt mean he is guilty. Good thing you arent on a jury.

No, it doesn't make him guilty. But that impressive list of McClure's missteps and lies you just ticked off there makes it a heck of a lot more probable that he's guilty.

Also, that was pretty classless comparing McClure to a politican, since you assume McClure is the murderer, then either you are saying all politicians are murderers or you are saying McClure is so slick he should be a politican. Neither opinion on your part would be fair or true or right and it is all wrong! I take offense to that last little swipe of yours against politicans personally as I am a political science major and I have a future ambition to hold public office.

Well, if you were offended, I'm sorry, but if you plan on holding public office, you'd better develop a thicker skin, and fast. If you're going to take deep personal offense every time someone suggests that politicians are sometimes snake oil salesmen, and that people who are slick and always have an answer are reminiscent of politicians, your political career, I'm afraid, will be all too brief.

Well, I wouldnt say I took deep, personal offense, I did take offense, I went a little overboard with my rant, Mozart, you are a smart one, I disagreed with your theory, but I am a hothead and I went a little overboard, I can be a bit of a loose cannon as you have discovered.

Well, I certainly never said that politicans never lie, that would be an incredibly stupid and just plain ignorant thing to say. Of course politicians lie! They have to! They have to lie otherwise they would get thrown out of office or never voted into office in the first place. Not to sound arrogant, but trust me, if I want to win a political office, I can. I have things to improve on that is for sure, but I have a deep knowledge of politics, I wouldnt mind being the next Arlen Specter who is one of my political heroes, the magic bullet theory remember? The bullet went up and down, forward and back? Also, the bright one who got Ira Einhorn's bail reduced dramatically so that Einhorn could post bail and flee to Europe where he was a free man for over 20 years.

Well, the reason why I brought up Rodney King, was someone had brought up OJ and Rodney King was actually in part responsible for OJ's acquittal because the majority black jury acquitted OJ largely because the Rodney King beating cops were acquitted and the black community was outraged and acquitted a guy most, if not all the jury agreed was a double murderer.

I'm enjoying reading this thread--you all rock!!

Mozart, I for one, enjoyed your post, the last paragraph had me LMAO!

I'm torn on this one, that's all I'll say. Both sides are convincing enough. While it's possible for his alibi to not be confirmed (I spent part of my honeymoon in a casino and probably today, couldn't ID one person I passed by), his other actions point me to thinking guilt, and the lie detector tests, although not always accurate, certainly doesn't look good.

He seems like a nice enough guy to me, I kinda like him. I've always really dug mullets. ;)

McClure just seems to laid back.

Even when he's on the phone reporting her as a missing person, he's extremely calm, saying "yes, I'd like to report a missing person." Most people would be frantic at this stage, and would have more to say, such as "My mother is missing, and the last time I saw her was at such and such place, and I called all her friends and family and no one has seen her, and..."

I dont know, this is one area that always bothers me, when people seem to think someone is more guilty because they do not show the emotion they think they should show. Like if the person doesnt sit there all frantic and ball their eyes out and other stuff that it somehow makes them guilty whereas if they are frantic and running around like a chicken with its head cut off that it somehow makes them less guilty.

I think it's possible -but not very likely IMO- but still possible the woman at the credit card company could have been mistaking a friday for a monday, but why would she claim he said his mother was dead??? :confused:

He said "she was mixing up his words" and that he told the woman that his mom was missing. Well I just find that totally unbelievable! I mean you don't mix up a thing like that! OK, so she could have gotten the days mixed up, fine. But mistaking "missing" for "dead"? - no way!

-Tim goes looking for the purse on Saturday, which means he believes it might be stolen at that point. Yet, knowing that the credit card might be stolen, waits until Monday to call up and cancel it. If you were afraid someone might be using it, wouldn't he have called on Saturday? would you let the thief have the credit card without reporting it for the whole weekend?

-Tim goes looking for the purse on Saturday, which means he believes it might be stolen at that point. Yet, knowing that the credit card might be stolen, waits until Monday to call up and cancel it. If you were afraid someone might be using it, wouldn't he have called on Saturday? would you let the thief have the credit card without reporting it for the whole weekend?

That's what I mean. There is too many odd things with his story for me anyway to think this guy is innocent of this crime. With the polygraph test, sure they can be not accurate but what I find way too much of a coincidence is out of all the questions asked to his wife, the one question she fails is "Do you know what happened to Mrs. McClure". With his explanation going to look for the purse is way to weak of an excuse IMO.

Looking for his mom in casino parking lots doesn't wash with me either. According to him his mom was going home so why go looking for her in casino parking lots & then the one that she is found in, he didnt go too & look for her cause he got this bad feeling not to look in that one. Give me a break. That is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard.

I believe that Tim & his wife know what happened to Mrs. McClure.

I wonder why Tim's wife wasn't interviewed. She may have been an accomplice, or, since she failed the question of 'do you know who murdered her', at least appears to know who did.

I wonder why Tim's wife wasn't interviewed. She may have been an accomplice, or, since she failed the question of 'do you know who murdered her', at least appears to know who did.

Maybe she's not as good at lying to cover her tracks in an interview as Mr. McClure is.

Maybe she's not as good at lying to cover her tracks in an interview as Mr. McClure is.

bwahahahaha :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

McClure just seems to laid back.

Even when he's on the phone reporting her as a missing person, he's extremely calm, saying "yes, I'd like to report a missing person." Most people would be frantic at this stage, and would have more to say, such as "My mother is missing, and the last time I saw her was at such and such place, and I called all her friends and family and no one has seen her, and..."


You have to remember you are commenting on the man's voice inflection in the recreation of events This in no way means that Tim Mclure didn't have panic or emotion in his voice when he originally made the phone call. McClure does seem laid back but you can't base judgement on the way his voice sounds in a recreation.

You have to remember you are commenting on the man's voice inflection in the recreation of events This in no way means that Tim Mclure didn't have panic or emotion in his voice when he originally made the phone call. McClure does seem laid back but you can't base judgement on the way his voice sounds in a recreation.


That's true... however, in the segment overall, Tim is much more concerned about clearing his own name than finding his mother's killer(s). I agree that you can't judge actual reactions by recreated reactions. However, I do think you can judge his demeanor about the whole thing, which seemed surprisingly less about who killed his mother than making himself look not guilty.

Of all the evidence though, that is bar far the weakest -- I'll give you that! ;)

My gut tells me McClure is innocent. I really can't explain why I feel this way but I do. In the segment, though, he does come across like he's more concerned with clearing his own name. He never once mentions that he wants someone to come forward with information on the killer. All he asks for is someone to corroborate that he was in the casino (noticeable by his long hair and his unusual height of 6 feet five inches, as so eloquently stated by Mr. Stack).

You have to remember you are commenting on the man's voice inflection in the recreation of events This in no way means that Tim Mclure didn't have panic or emotion in his voice when he originally made the phone call. McClure does seem laid back but you can't base judgement on the way his voice sounds in a recreation.

Good point.

Oh, man! I'm not sure if I've weighed in on this one yet, but I JUST got done watching this segment... and I don't know what to think.

On one side, it totally looks like McClure is guilty. I will admit that he didn't come off so well in the segment. It does kind of look like he's being deceptive and lying. There's the fact that he searched EVERY parking lot except for the one his mom was found in. There's the fact that he was the only one who went looking for her purse and that his mom had recently taken out a life insurance policy...

But on the other hand... I *do* buy into his comment that sometimes there are forces looking out for us, telling us not to go certain places. If McClure did NOT kill his mother, I agree that finding her body would have been absolutely devastating for him. There's the investigation that concluded that Tim was devoted to his mother... and there's the fact that McClure went on national TV and admitted to being the prime suspect in his mother's murder.

My main question is this: McClure's mother was found in a parking lot. This partking lot was in one of Lake Tahoe's casinos, I assumed from watching the segment. I want to know HOW a dead body can sit in a car for two days with two gunshot wounds to the dead and how NOBODY reported it? This makes me think that while her body, perhaps, never left the car, but the car was planted in the parking lot on the day it was discovered. Just a theory, I'm more than likely wrong, but I find it so strange that NOBODY noticed a dead woman in her car for more than two days.

But on the other hand... I *do* buy into his comment that sometimes there are forces looking out for us, telling us not to go certain places.


So... have you had a lot of success with the "Holy Spirit defense" in Montana? :lol:

LOL. All right, smart @$$.... :)

No, I've never tried the "Holy Spirit" defense here in Montana. I'm just saying that in my own personal experience, I've had intuition tell me not to do things that later turned out to be a bad scene. (For example, I was supposed to leave to go to town one morning... and had a bad feeling so I ended up dragging my heels... only to miss a gruesome accident by minutes.) That's the sort of thing I was referring to.

I'm not saying it exonerates McClure... obviously it doesn't. But I do think it's interesting.

LOL. All right, smart @$$.... :)

No, I've never tried the "Holy Spirit" defense here in Montana. I'm just saying that in my own personal experience, I've had intuition tell me not to do things that later turned out to be a bad scene. (For example, I was supposed to leave to go to town one morning... and had a bad feeling so I ended up dragging my heels... only to miss a gruesome accident by minutes.) That's the sort of thing I was referring to.

I'm not saying it exonerates McClure... obviously it doesn't. But I do think it's interesting.


I know, I know... I was just giving you crap. :D

I also actually do believe sometimes we get a little "help." Be it the Holy Spirit, dead relatives, etc., I think there are influences that we can't explain.

I just couldn't resist since I know you are a lawyer. :lol:

And for the record, I would very much like to know how her body went that long without being noticed. Maybe someone (even Tim) killed her within the next two days and moved the body there.

Tim seems like a nice enough guy, I just think he is full of it because even if he did have a devine influence, the rest of his story is full of holes.

In all seriousness, as a lawyer, do you think Tim's story sounded legit? If he testified that way (like about the credit card, no alibi, looking for purse) don't you think he would do himself in? I know there wasn't the physical evidence but he had to come across as one of the worst "witnesses" I've ever seen.

Wow CRicci, you being a defense lawyer has really helped you see the light and come over to my side more! :)

Oh, man! I'm not sure if I've weighed in on this one yet, but I JUST got done watching this segment... and I don't know what to think.

On one side, it totally looks like McClure is guilty. I will admit that he didn't come off so well in the segment. It does kind of look like he's being deceptive and lying. There's the fact that he searched EVERY parking lot except for the one his mom was found in. There's the fact that he was the only one who went looking for her purse and that his mom had recently taken out a life insurance policy...

But on the other hand... I *do* buy into his comment that sometimes there are forces looking out for us, telling us not to go certain places. If McClure did NOT kill his mother, I agree that finding her body would have been absolutely devastating for him. There's the investigation that concluded that Tim was devoted to his mother... and there's the fact that McClure went on national TV and admitted to being the prime suspect in his mother's murder.

My main question is this: McClure's mother was found in a parking lot. This partking lot was in one of Lake Tahoe's casinos, I assumed from watching the segment. I want to know HOW a dead body can sit in a car for two days with two gunshot wounds to the dead and how NOBODY reported it? This makes me think that while her body, perhaps, never left the car, but the car was planted in the parking lot on the day it was discovered. Just a theory, I'm more than likely wrong, but I find it so strange that NOBODY noticed a dead woman in her car for more than two days.

I'm with you on this one. This case baffles me.

I remember when I watched this segment when it first aired. Must have been 15 or 16 at the time. Back then, I remembered thinking, man, this guy sure has a lot of bad luck. But watching it again, now (technically) an adult, I am bit more suspicious, perhaps I'm just more cynical.

His story is full of holes, on one hand.
So why would he go on national TV and expose himself like that?
I'm stumped.

Hmm, I have gone back and forth on this case. I actually thought McClure was probably innocent at first. However after re-watching this case, McClure made a huge slip up. At some point in the segment, they were talking about Tim's actions BEFORE his mother was discovered. He was already talking about her in the past tense and already acting like she was dead when as far as anyone knew no crime had been committed. He admitted going through all the casino parking lots in Carson City looking for his mother's car, except one. This just happened to be the parking lot where his mother's car and her body would be found. Tim's alabi for the night in question cant be substantiated despite being in a crowded casino on Lake Tahoe? Also, who goes gambling alone on their wedding night for over 2 hours? I will admit McClure seemed like an eccentric fellow, but still. None of this proves murder, but McClure's own actions make him look guilty and he should be a suspect. But why would he do the murder? Just for a life insurance policy that was super small? I think if McClure did it, there was more to it than just 5 thousand dollars.

new schtuff:

Tim goes off looking for her purse less than 24 hours before he belives she is missing. Does this bother anyone else? Shouldn't he be off looking for his mom and not her purse? of course his claim that he was looking for her purse is bizarre to begin with, mainly because he doesn't know it's missing yet, and he's looking for a needle in a haystack, and the supposed criminal is more likely to hide it then leave it in plain view, which is where Tim was looking.

Also, if the purpose of him searching casino parking lots is to find his mom, and he believes she is at a certain one, and then decides against checking it out, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of even trying to find her? And why couldn't he have at least have someone else check it out if he was afraid of finding her.

I have never watched this segment believing McClure is guilty. His mother was killed in a rather seedy part of Nevada where crimes like this a re very high (relatively speaking). As fo rthe credit card statement, etc, I have always felt that Tim may hve been screwed by someone at the card company who didn't meet a Friday quota and fudged stats too show that McClure called Friday instead of a Monday Morning (Mondays are generally the busiest days for any call-in service, whether its credit card companies, student loan organizations, utility companies, etc). I have the theory of the lying credit card employee because I wa sonce screwed by an incompetent spaz from JC Penney credit services who claimed I made a call to pay a bill on a Monday morning (when I was at work and I never make calls of that nature from work), when in all actuality I paid the previous Friday afternoon. The employee at the credit company has nothing to gain by lying about when McClure called except to save his/her own butt for padding their performance stats prior to a weekend. I think it's quite possible the credit card employee is wrong and lied. Just my two cents.........

If McClure is guilty (now I sound like the prosecutor in th Michael Scott Martin case), he was very sloppy by not cancelling the credit card until AFTER his mother was done in.

BTW, I still get a kick out of seeing McClure's El Camino in the reenactment of this case. Still, I have always believed that McClure i sguilty of nothing more than having a pair the size of grapefruits to call UM to show a case where he is the prime suspect.

something I've never noticed before:

Tim says he doesn't recall which dance clubs he went to. How could he not know this? Even if he didn't remember the names, it would seem that he could at least drive around and figure which ones he'd been to.

Bump. Big time.

Just something I noticed reading the threads here, nobody seems to have brought this up. What is it that even casinos in 1983 had that would likely corroborate Tim's story? I will give you a hint, its the same thing that cause most on this board to damn Al Henderson as a murderer in a similar segment. CAMERAS!

I haven't decided on this one, although I will concede that the evidence does not look good for him. But why wasn't any camera evidence ever addressed? It could back up his story if he was seen gambling during the time he would had to have committed the murder if he is guilty.

Regardless of what anyone thinks though, there obviously was not a strong enough case to make it stick or they would have taken him to trial.

Bump. Big time.

Just something I noticed reading the threads here, nobody seems to have brought this up. What is it that even casinos in 1983 had that would likely corroborate Tim's story? I will give you a hint, its the same thing that cause most on this board to damn Al Henderson as a murderer in a similar segment. CAMERAS!

I haven't decided on this one, although I will concede that the evidence does not look good for him. But why wasn't any camera evidence ever addressed? It could back up his story if he was seen gambling during the time he would had to have committed the murder if he is guilty.

Regardless of what anyone thinks though, there obviously was not a strong enough case to make it stick or they would have taken him to trial.

actually, cameras were addressed recently in another thread on this topic. It is not known if the casinos in question had cameras. But if they did, which areas did they cover and were they in working order?

Well I think the reason it didn't go to trial was that there was little to no phsyical evidence. But the circumstanial evidence is pretty overwhelming.

actually, cameras were addressed recently in another thread on this topic. It is not known if the casinos in question had cameras. But if they did, which areas did they cover and were they in working order?

Well I think the reason it didn't go to trial was that there was little to no phsyical evidence. But the circumstanial evidence is pretty overwhelming.

Not only did they not take this to trial, it was dismissed w/ prejudice by the Carson DA's office (not the court), meaning that even if additional evidence was found or McClure confessed, he couldn't be charged w/ murder in this case.

That tells me that the prosecutors looked at this case and either saw LE malfeasance or a significant paucity of evidence pointing towards McClure's guilt. Or both.

Yeah, the evidence that is public knowledge, is definitely quite damning for McClure. I could see a good lawyer ripping it to shreds in court though.

As far as the camera thing goes, I am 30 years old, so I wasn't exactly requesting casinos around the time this crime occurred, but it is hard for me to conceive of a time that recent where either casinos or banks did not have at the least, cameras covering the doors. Maybe I'm wrong but that just seems odd.

I just watched this segment and I wonder if Tim and his wife are still together. I do not believe that they mentioned the first name of his wife.
I also wonder what Tim Mcclure's sister thought. Did she think that her brother was guilty? Is that why she did not participate in the broadcast? $5000 is not a lot of money, but I guess it is a good start to a new marriage. As close as Tim was supposed to be with his mother, he sure did not show a lot of emotion when speaking about her.

I just watched this segment and I wonder if Tim and his wife are still together. I do not believe that they mentioned the first name of his wife.
I also wonder what Tim Mcclure's sister thought. Did she think that her brother was guilty? Is that why she did not participate in the broadcast? $5000 is not a lot of money, but I guess it is a good start to a new marriage. As close as Tim was supposed to be with his mother, he sure did not show a lot of emotion when speaking about her.

I believe it's been mentioned that Tim McClure actually petitioned UM to profile his case due to the fact that some of his relatives believed that Tim murdered his mother.

I can see that for sure.
I was just thinking, you know how it said he and his mother lived together, went out to eat, casino trips, etc...? Well, I wonder if the mother funded all of the trips and dinners, and maybe became "jealous" of his new wife and cut him off financially. That would have been some good honeymoon money, or heck if he was innocent, great money to use as reward for a tip. *Cough*

I can see that for sure.
I was just thinking, you know how it said he and his mother lived together, went out to eat, casino trips, etc...? Well, I wonder if the mother funded all of the trips and dinners, and maybe became "jealous" of his new wife and cut him off financially. That would have been some good honeymoon money, or heck if he was innocent, great money to use as reward for a tip. *Cough*

You know I'm not as entirely convinced of Tim McClure's guilt as other people on this site seem to be. The one thing that I am convinced of however, is that McClure's brainwave to go on UM was a mistake. He's is quite possibly the most nervous, uncomfortable and awkward interview in the history of the entire show.

Now some people have chalked this up as proof of Tim's guilt. However the very nature of the crime Tim was being accused of could have elicited a reaction similar to the one we saw on UM from any number of people. I can't begin to imagine how I would react if someone had accused me of murdering one of my parents. I would guess that I would be as uncomfortable with that notion as Tim seemed to be.

Now that being said Tim obviously didn't do himself any favors during the segment as he was unable to refute any of the evidence brought against him by the authorities. In particular I find the whole mess with his mother's credit card and declaring her dead either on the Friday or the Monday is particularly disturbing. On one hand you have third party verification in the credit card company saying that McClure declared his mother dead before he knew she was in fact dead which is pretty damaging evidence.

So from there I'm trying to think of a logical explanation as to why Tim would declare his mother dead when he wasn't yet sure that she was? Now Tim mentioned he didn't want anyone using his mother's credit cards while she was missing. Is it possible that Tim then told the credit card company that his mother was deceased just to make sure they canceled her card? I just don't know?

The other thing is that pops out is that troublesome life insurance policy of which Tim's take would've been five grand. I have to call a degree of BS on the officer's comments that "I've seen people killed for a lot less than five grand" because he fails to take into account the relationship between the alleged killer and his victim. While someone could conceivably murder a stranger for a lot less than five grand, murdering your own mother for that amount of money to me is a bit of a stretch. Then again we don't know Tim's financial situation except for the fact that he lived with his mother off and on prior to getting married.

That being said my feeling is that if McClure did murder his mother, I don't think the life insurance policy was the motive. In fact I'd be surprised to learn that Teri McClure's murder was at all pre-meditated.

You know I'm not as entirely convinced of Tim McClure's guilt as other people on this site seem to be. The one thing that I am convinced of however, is that McClure's brainwave to go on UM was a mistake. He's is quite possibly the most nervous, uncomfortable and awkward interview in the history of the entire show.

Now some people have chalked this up as proof of Tim's guilt.

I don't recall anyone saying Tim was guilty based solely on how he came across on his interview. Do you have names?

The other thing is that pops out is that troublesome life insurance policy of which Tim's take would've been five grand. I have to call a degree of BS on the officer's comments that "I've seen people killed for a lot less than five grand" because he fails to take into account the relationship between the alleged killer and his victim. While someone could conceivably murder a stranger for a lot less than five grand, murdering your own mother for that amount of money to me is a bit of a stretch.

disagree. Julius Patterson offed his sister, who was deaf, blind and mute, for her social security checks.

I don't recall anyone saying Tim was guilty based solely on how he came across on his interview. Do you have names?

I don't believe anyone has decided upon his guilt based solely on his interview but there have been comments both here and on other sites about how guilty Tim sounds in his interview. It could've easily have been nerves but then again maybe not.

I don't know if I can personally draw a clear line between Patterson and McClure. I haven't seen the Patterson case in awhile but wasn't he wanted for several murders? I'm not sure that McClure had that much of a criminal mindset, if he is guilty of the murder I feel at least it was a crime of passion.

I don't believe anyone has decided upon his guilt based solely on his interview but there have been comments both here and on other sites about how guilty Tim sounds in his interview. It could've easily have been nerves but then again maybe not.

I don't know if I can personally draw a clear line between Patterson and McClure. I haven't seen the Patterson case in awhile but wasn't he wanted for several murders? I'm not sure that McClure had that much of a criminal mindset, if he is guilty of the murder I feel at least it was a crime of passion.

Julius Patterson they believe was involved in one other murder.

There is a difference of 6 years between the murder and when the segment aired. I find it weird that Tim would think that someone, anyone, could remember seeing him 6 years ago. Okay, so maybe, because of his distinctive appearance, they could remember if they saw him last week, but 6 years? who is going to remember that? I don't really know what Tim was hoping to accomplish, but I don't think this was it.

If even there was one tiny little thing that might point to Tim's innocence, I might think differently on this case, but there is nothing. What we do have is alot of things that point to Tim being guilty. the only thing Tim has in his corner are people saying he was close to his mother, but being that Tim doesn't go looking for her when she's missing and doesn't plead for her killer to be apprehended on a national program, I don't think they were as close as he would like people to believe.

Now at times on UM, you get these really overzealous prosecutors or biased, corrupt police officers, but that just doesn't seem to be going on here. In fact, the police officer interviewed in this segment said he went to some pretty great lengths to try and substantiate Tim's alibi, and found nothing. He doesn't seem to be out to get Tim, I just don't see any evidence of that.

There is a difference of 6 years between the murder and when the segment aired. I find it weird that Tim would think that someone, anyone, could remember seeing him 6 years ago. Okay, so maybe, because of his distinctive appearance, they could remember if they saw him last week, but 6 years? who is going to remember that? I don't really know what Tim was hoping to accomplish, but I don't think this was it.

If even there was one tiny little thing that might point to Tim's innocence, I might think differently on this case, but there is nothing. What we do have is alot of things that point to Tim being guilty. the only thing Tim has in his corner are people saying he was close to his mother, but being that Tim doesn't go looking for her when she's missing and doesn't plead for her killer to be apprehended on a national program, I don't think they were as close as he would like people to believe.


Yeah a lot of Tim's efforts to refute evidence presented by the authorities on UM didn't help his case much. The stuff about why he didn't want to enter the parking lot where his mother was eventually found, why there was no record of him gambling in the casino after he allegedly walked his mother to her car and saw her off and even his explanation about why he and his wife failed their polygraph seemed off to me.

The only thing I have an issue with in regards to this case is the question of motive. Personally I don't believe the life insurance policy was enough motive for Tim to have murdered his mother although others may feel differently. However as I've stated if you take the situation from being a pre-meditated crime to a crime of passion then it opens up a lot more possibilities as to what could have happened in my opinion.

I'm intrigued by this article Wiseguy found, as it seems to imply that the UM report led to more evidence of McClure's involvement and he was arrested as a result of it.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-09-04/local/me-6296_1_arrest-slaying-mother

How might we find out what this information was? Does anyone feel like contacting the sheriff's department? Might they tell us something?

http://www.carson.org/Index.aspx?page=652

here's another little blurb from the L.A. Times

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-11-10/local/me-55_1_court-hears-mother-killing-case

I also had to laugh at this I found on another site, that gives a play-by-play of the segment

- [Indistinct chattering] - I started to feel like a victim, " and I mean, "this is-- this is my mother's death.

With regard to McClure's decision to go on UM, I agree with the poster who commented that they didn't think McClure had received legal advice. It is hard to imagine any competent criminal defense attorney advocating a sensational tabloid show such as UM as an appropriate venue in which to plead one's case. For what it's worth, I don't think this applies necessarily to "Final Appeal" as those folks have already been convicted and have nothing to lose by petitioning UM to present their case.

I just don't see how the UM appearance would benefit McClure in any way if he was guilty. McClure doesn't strike me as a narcissist or being arrogant enough to believe that he can fool the cops with his UM appearance.

I suppose he might be fishing for an alibi, but what would happen then? There is a possibility that someone would come forward, perhaps an attention seeker, or someone who "thinks" they saw McClure at a bar or dance hall to provide an alibi, but such testimony would be a lie or mistaken at best. Not a great foundation to build a solid alibi on. There is also the possibility that someone might come forward with information that further implicates McClure in the crime, and that would obviously not be to his benefit. Assuming he is guilty, it's hard to imagine that his perceived need for some bogus alibi witness would outweigh his need to stay off the radar completely.

I feel like your innocent until proven guilty, however 90% of me feels like Tim did it, or had something to do with it. I think it was very damning for Tim during the entire interview on UM. Perhaps if he would have someone supporting him, proclaiming his innocence, such as his wife, or a family member, the segment would have been more helpful and fair for Tim. It felt like Tim was on the end of a rope, trying to explain himself before he was pushed or spared.
Questions: Did the Police find any finger prints in the car, anything missing from the purse, or did they release info on the type of gun that was used?

Questions: Did the Police find any finger prints in the car, anything missing from the purse, or did they release info on the type of gun that was used?

The UM segment didn't mention anything about fingerprints. McClure said he walked his mother to her car so if his prints were found, it may not necessarily mean a whole lot.

I thought they said she was shot twice with a .22 but I could be mistaken.

The purse was never found, to my knowledge. One of the questionable claims McClure made was that he was searching up and down the highways for his mother's purse - he made this statement before anyone knew the purse was missing. This was one of the points raised by detectives as proof that McClure had knowledge of the crime.

I think everyone on here can agree that McClure wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed. That being said, it seems like the two biggest pieces of evidence that point to McClure being guilty are the fact that he went looking for his mother's purse (instead of his mother), and that no one could corraborate his story that he was in the casino the night his mother was murdered. Tim gave an explanation as to why he went looking for her purse, he said his sister suggested maybe someone stole her vehicle (remember this was before she was found), and rifled through her purse before discarding it. This actually makes sense to me. McClure (if innocent) had no way of knowing how far someone would have gone driving his mother's car, if in fact it was stolen. Logically someone could have driven it for thousands of miles before abandoning it, and I'm sure since her car wasn't found at the time, that that theory was running through the minds of law enforcement officials. IMO, Tim's explanation makes sense. Obviously he's also going to be keeping an eye out for her car as well, and I think the police read too far into his statement about also looking for her purse. Also, if Tim is in fact guilty, why did he dump her purse, yet foolishly tell police he went looking for it? And why did he take a great effort in getting rid of her purse, but so brazenly prop his mother up in a casino parking lot?

As to the fact that no one has come forward to corraborate his story about being in the casino, this one I take with a grain of salt. Casinos are very busy places, and people are focused on either slot machines or table games hoping to hit it big. Tim was a very distinguishable looking man, but it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to me that no one has came forward claiming to have seen him at the casino. Anyone who's ever been to a casino would know how crazy those places can be.

I wonder if Tim's going on UM was his confession of sorts. Perhaps he didn't have it in him to confess to the crime, but his unconvincing interview was his way of confessing. Because his entire interview is filled with holes, unlikelihoods and improbabilities.

The purse thing did not scream guilt in my opinion. Often if women are abducted, or have an accident, a purse is lost. He may have thought his mother was robbed and someone stole her purse and tossed it on the road after emptying it. I have found an empty wallet on the road before. Cleaned out.
Also, calling the credit card company, well I understood that. Maybe by calling he thought activity would be flagged and his mother found. Perhaps he did not have all the info for the company to qualify her as missing, so they went the deceased route instead.
The lie detector test questions that he and his wife failed, kind of threw me off, as did that no one was supporting his plea.

well guys, maybe we should tthank tim for having the guts to put his story on air- afterall, its very ineresting and entertaining to say the least. Do any of you find it weird that his mother was found in the passanger side of her car? Did she let someone she knew drive it for her? Old people generally have poor night vision so this might help explain that maybe a family member killed her under the guise of taking her home.

I never could tell if he was guilty or not. I mean, was this a Norman Bates type of relationship? Did she smother him? Mad he was getting married?

I always watch these shows differently. People often say things like, "Only the purse was missing" Yeah, so? I was robbed and beat and the idiot didn't take my $9000 engagement ring or $150 watch, he took my purse lol. I remember the detectives asking the same damn questions!!! "Why did he leave your ring?" **** if I know :O He took the purse with $500 and 3 credit cards...guess it was enough?? lol We were in a parking lot. Maybe he was busy trying to catch the bus? :/

Also, do they now allow lie detector results in court? There used to be a time they were considered unreliable. If your nervous, etc. it alters the results.

$5000 isn't a lot, but maybe that is all he needed. Hmmm.....

Just FYI, there is another thread on this board with more recent discussions about this case:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=62315&highlight=McClure

thanks

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this episode? All you tube videos have been deleted and I don't know how to contact the show. Terri was my grandmother.

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this episode? All you tube videos have been deleted and I don't know how to contact the show. Terri was my grandmother.

Thank you for posting. Unfortunately, the segments are only available on Lifetime reruns now. I'm sorry for your loss of your grandmother. Do you have any additional information about the case or your own personal feelings/thoughts about what happened?

Hell, if anything he should get locked up for felony abuse of good taste and fashion.



I just watched this on Amazon Prime. His wardrobe of pink sweaters and puffy jackets definitely jumped out at me!

Not only did they not take this to trial, it was dismissed w/ prejudice by the Carson DA's office (not the court), meaning that even if additional evidence was found or McClure confessed, he couldn't be charged w/ murder in this case.

That tells me that the prosecutors looked at this case and either saw LE malfeasance or a significant paucity of evidence pointing towards McClure's guilt. Or both.

Extremely interesting. This is like a junior varsity version of the other Timothy McClure thread. I'm not sure I had ever sampled it at length.

Plenty of nice bickering years ago. Too bad kadrmas is not active currently.

I bumped it because of this post by cocytus. He was years and years ahead of the curve in isolating that "dismissed with prejudice" aspect of the McClure case. Notice that nobody else in the thread commented on that aspect at all. Then it wasn't until a year or so ago -- perhaps less -- that it became a feature point of the longer thread. It may have been mentioned earlier but nobody really seized on it.

I wondered why cocytus hadn't pressed the matter in that longer thread. I didn't remember anything recent from him on any matter. So I checked his posting history. Roughly a month after this post he had an unrelated spat with a moderator, and decided to leave the board.

Unlike others who have made similar announcements, cocytus didn't return. Too bad because I suspect the board would have handled the McClure case quite differently from 2011-2016 with cocytus' influence. He certainly wasn't reluctant to voice opinion.

Extremely interesting. This is like a junior varsity version of the other Timothy McClure thread. I'm not sure I had ever sampled it at length.

Plenty of nice bickering years ago. Too bad kadrmas is not active currently.

I bumped it because of this post by cocytus. He was years and years ahead of the curve in isolating that "dismissed with prejudice" aspect of the McClure case. Notice that nobody else in the thread commented on that aspect at all. Then it wasn't until a year or so ago -- perhaps less -- that it became a feature point of the longer thread. It may have been mentioned earlier but nobody really seized on it.

I wondered why cocytus hadn't pressed the matter in that longer thread. I didn't remember anything recent from him on any matter. So I checked his posting history. Roughly a month after this post he had an unrelated spat with a moderator, and decided to leave the board.

Unlike others who have made similar announcements, cocytus didn't return. Too bad because I suspect the board would have handled the McClure case quite differently from 2011-2016 with cocytus' influence. He certainly wasn't reluctant to voice opinion.

This information about the case being dismissed has been out there for quite some time. It has also been discussed on the larger thread. It is typically glossed over by folks who fixate on what they saw on television and develop their theories based solely on that or on unprovable assumptions. For instance, there has been speculation, again, about the wife being behind it even though we know next to nothing about the wife and she didn't even appear on the segment.

Extremely interesting. This is like a junior varsity version of the other Timothy McClure thread. I'm not sure I had ever sampled it at length.

Plenty of nice bickering years ago. Too bad kadrmas is not active currently.

I bumped it because of this post by cocytus. He was years and years ahead of the curve in isolating that "dismissed with prejudice" aspect of the McClure case. Notice that nobody else in the thread commented on that aspect at all. Then it wasn't until a year or so ago -- perhaps less -- that it became a feature point of the longer thread. It may have been mentioned earlier but nobody really seized on it.

I wondered why cocytus hadn't pressed the matter in that longer thread. I didn't remember anything recent from him on any matter. So I checked his posting history. Roughly a month after this post he had an unrelated spat with a moderator, and decided to leave the board.

Unlike others who have made similar announcements, cocytus didn't return. Too bad because I suspect the board would have handled the McClure case quite differently from 2011-2016 with cocytus' influence. He certainly wasn't reluctant to voice opinion.

People have talked about it, but we don't know why it was dismissed so we continue to speculate. For all we know it could've been dismissed because he was arrested without evidence and his lawyer threatened to sue, but Tim was still guilty. We don't know why it was dismissed, but it doesn't mean that he's innocent.

Good day, Awsi Booger.

This seems pretty straightforward to me. Tim McClure's behavior before and after the murder was extremely suspicious. That includes all of the points mentioned on this thread (the prematurely cancelled credit card, the polygraphs, etc.)

Prosecuting him is a whole other matter entirely.

-They never recovered the murder weapon (I think)
-Apparently no one saw anyone around the car where Terri was found, and the body wasn't found until three days after the murder.
-The wife (now ex) refused to implicate Tim
-No physical evidence connecting Tim with the murder
-No one saw Tim the night of the murder in Carson City where the body was found

It all boils down to burden of proof. I think Tim did kill her. But I can see why the D.A. "didn't want to touch it" (as someone else in the other Tim McClure thread aptly put it).

Something I mentioned about a year ago that unfortunately never got much traction.

In the credit memo, which is shown, it says "Deceased, so will send certificate." The only thing that would mean certificate is Death Certificate. Since Tim, under normal circumstances, would not be able to cancel the card since he is not the card owner, sending a death certificate would be required to cancel the card. So that makes sense. So to believe that Tim is innocent, one would have to believe that not only did the credit card representative get the date wrong (by three days) AND write deceased when Tim claims he only said she was missing, BUT ALSO that she wrongfully wrote that he stated he was sending a certificate when he wasn't.

It would also be highly suspicious of Tim to outright cancel the card while she is still missing and he is unaware of what her fate was. What if she was still alive and needed the credit card for a tow truck or gas or food or lodging? She wouldn't have been able to use it since Tim cancelled it.

First time watching this case; I had previously read about it on here and I went to watch the episode on Amazon.

I don't think Tim is guilty. A little weird? Extremely. Guilty of killing his mother? I honestly don't think so.

The only possible motive I see is money, but would Tim really kill his mother for $5,000? He claimed he didn't know his mother had taken out an insurance policy. Another poster mentioned they found it weird that Tim would find it strange that she took out a life insurance policy... I don't. Tim and his mother were apparently very close and it makes sense to me that he would be surprised that she didn't tell him about it.

I know the detective in the segment said that he had seen people killed for less, but it was confirmed by family and friends that Tim and his mother were extremely close, they spent time together and he had lived with her on and off. He came off looking like a real mama's boy. Nothing was mentioned about Tim having a bad relationship with his mother or there being any bad blood there... I don't think he was prone to violent outbursts or anything of that nature. They were all out that night partying at a casino and apparently that was something they did quite often... so if not for money or in a violent outburst, why would Tim murder his mother? And if he did do it, why on his wedding night?

On the subject of the purse, I don't think it's that odd that he would go looking for it. I see that the general opinion is that it's suspicious because Tim "didn't know his mother was missing yet" Uh, he kind of did. He couldn't find her, she wasn't at home, and she was a senior woman in her 60s. Maybe she wasn't the type to not make it home, or would have at least called Tim if she made the choice to stop at a hotel for the night. I can see Tim driving around and thinking that hey, maybe my mother was robbed or maybe her car broke down and she dropped her purse somewhere and so he starts driving around looking for it. I don't find that unusual because detectives look for evidence all the time of missing people; purses, wallets, articles of clothing etc. So that didn't appear to be all that suspicious to me. In any case, I don't think it proves that Tim is guilty. If my friends or relatives went missing, I'd be looking for all signs of them anywhere, including a cell phone, keys, purse etc. Anything that they could have dropped or someone might have taken from them and thrown out somewhere.

Regarding Tim and his wife's alibi: my issue with no one seeing Tim (despite how distinctive his looks are/were) is that they were at a casino on a FRIDAY NIGHT. Yes, people gamble at casinos but they also go to party and get drunk. I know this happened in the 80's, but I'm guessing that even back then, people liked to get hammered as they gambled, and I'm sure the casinos encouraged that behavior and catered the atmosphere to be as such. I'm a person that has partied at casinos as well as at bars and clubs. People drink and forget a lot. It's possible that no one remembers Tim or his wife because no one ever talked to them. I'm guessing that a Friday night at a casino was a busy one. If Tim played slots by himself for two hours, it's not that strange to think that no one noticed him. People were drunk, gambling, and probably not paying any attention. If someone asked me if I recognized someone on a night out drinking, I honestly don't know if I'd be able to identify someone unless I had a lengthy encounter with them. So, to me, it's not suspicious that Tim McClure wouldn't be noticed if he kept to himself on a crowded Friday night surrounded by drunks and people absorbed in gambling and their own crowd of people.

As for Tim not being able to fully recollect on his whereabouts, if he had been drinking and partying into the early hours of the morning, that's not that strange. He and his wife might have been drunk and casino/bar hopping at one place after another, not staying anywhere for too long. Perhaps his memory was cloudy and he could only remember that he partied but not anywhere specific.

I'm not sure I really put much emphasis on the fact that nobody came forward saying they saw him that night. Regardless of how distinctive his appearance may have been, a casino has a ton of people at them on any given night, it's not really that crazy that nobody would remember seeing a random stranger on an arbitrary night 5 years after the fact. Anecdotally, I was at a casino about a year ago and sat next to this guy at the bar and probably chatted with him in depth for about an hour. A year later, it would be a stretch for me to pick his physical appearance out of a lineup as a lot of time has passed and my memory of him has faded. Now with this case we're talking about 5 years going by and being that it seemed like he was probably playing slots he probably had minimal interaction with other people, so it really is not surprising that nobody recalls seeing him on a specific night that had no real significance. Of all the things brought against him in this case, that bothered me the least.

For the case as a whole I lean towards him either not doing it or there just being way too little real evidence to charge him. Ya the purse search is weird, the canceling the credit card was weird, among some other things. But cases aren't often dismissed with prejudice unless there is a feeling like there's a snowballs chance in hell of making a case against the defendant. This isn't an insignificant fact to me. No matter how weird he came across in the segment, I don't think it would have been dismissed like that unless there really was nothing there

Okay I know I'm in the minority here but I have never thought Tim McClure was guilty. Just because the guy came across as a bit strange doesn't mean he killed his mother. I even sent a copy of this segment to someone who used to work with him. They did say he was a strange guy but also said he was a nice guy and didn't seem to think he killed his mother. Was there any proof that he did it? The lady at the credit card company could have definitely been mistaken so that comment by her really does nothing for me. Everyone said he was genuinely devoted to his mother and her life insurance policy was quite small and Tim was even to share it with his sister. I think the most logical explanation was that she was robbed and murdered. She was in a casino parking lot and was shot at night in her car. Her purse was even missing from the crime scene, correct? Which is another point in the favor of it being a robbery. I'm glad he was never tried because I don't think there's enough evidence against him and think he's innocent.

I've never thought he was guilty either. I'm not sure why, but something just...seems too easy to make him guilty. Polygraphs are notorious for being inaccurate, especially if your emotions are on full alert. It's why they are not admissible in court.