One thing that blows my mind is how many people who have been accused of a serious crimes, such as murdering their spouses, have willingly cooperated with UM and sat for an interview in an attempt to tell their side of things.

I'm not talking about "Final Appeal" so much, more like cases where someone has yet to be charged, but is considered a suspect. Examples include Jule Caylor, Mark Nichols, Paul Pollis, Judy Groezinger, Stephen Geri, Stephen Marfeo - basically anyone who has had a spouse turn up missing or dead and is now the prime suspect. There have been many such cases presented on UM over the years.

I can't imagine that any attorney would give an "okay" to a murder suspect who would want to go public in such a fashion. Yet, this seemed to happen with regularity, and hearing Stack or Farina say "so and so declined our request for an interview" seems more the exception than the rule.

I just see a lot more bad than good coming from these interviews. Although, the only example I can think of where it obviously backfired was in the Bob Hall case - he was arrested after the UM broadcast due to viewer tips that further implicated him in the murder of his wife!

Any legal minds care to comment on the potential dangers of this? Where is our resident criminal defense expert - CRicci, are you out there? :)

Maybe they think that if they decline the interview, it would make them look more guilty? Like they had something to hide, so they couldn't go on TV. Or maybe they are afraid that the show's editors will edit what they say to make them look bad. (Could be any show, I mean, not just UM).

And some people are just psychopaths who are cocky and think they will never be convicted, so they go on the show willingly to flaunt it, I guess.

I'd be really curious to know how many of these suspects had their attorneys in the room with them while they were being interviewed. The only ones I know of for sure are Jule Caylor and Leonard Rizzo, and apparently, Jule's attorney even yelled "cut!" at one point because his client was saying a lot of stuff that didn't exactly put himself in a positive light. Some of these suspects must have pretty lousy counsel if they were actually present in the room and allowed their clients to incriminate themselves so badly. Someone should have told Larry Gibson "You're son's missing. At least TRY to look upset!" or advised Paul Pollis that "I like a clean house" is not a satisfactory answer. In Tim McClure's case, he actually called UM and wanted to be on the show to proclaim his innocence, but any decent attorney should have advised him that, innocent or not, he would be the proverbial deer in the headlights if he allowed himself to be interviewed on TV.

Of course, so many of these guilty-looking suspects we mention have still never been charged with murder after all these years, so I'm sure some of them went on TV with the arrogant feeling that they were going to get away with it, no matter what. In fact, some of the lower-class, less intelligent ones were probably just excited about the opportunity to be on national TV to begin with. Hell, I've always assumed that the only reason Crystal Spencer's idiot neighbours had the nerve to admit they didn't call the police when they heard screaming is because they relished the chance to be on TV.

I have to wonder if some of them even had attorneys at the time.

I would wager that McClure did not have an attorney. I believe he made a comment that he couldn't understand why the police were asking him if he wanted an attorney present during questioning. He and his wife also voluntarily took polygraph tests. I can't see any competent criminal defense attorney allowing their client to do that. The whole "contacting UM to prove my innocence" claim doesn't sound like something an attorney would advise either.

Good point on Caylor, I too remember that story. I could have sworn I read that Caylor's attorney objected to his "things are really pretty good" comment, but it was left in the episode anyway. If that was not the comment that Caylor's attorney objected to, it kinda makes you wonder what else ole' Jule said.

Another case that comes to mind is the Sammy Wheeler debacle. I think it's safe to assume the parties involved were looking forward to being on TV, to say the least. A poster on here (I can't remember who, unfortunately) even threw out the humorous notion that Bob Bean may have accused Wheeler and Sneed in jest just to see their reaction.

The first person who came to mind when I read this thread was Bob Hall. He sits there all nonchalant talking about his wife Kay's murder. It was so obvious to me he killed her and then at the end RS tells he plead guilty to it (not sure exactly what he plead to). I don't know what his intent was in being interviewed for this segment. I guess he thought so highly of himself he figured he could convince the public he was innocent.

I would wager that McClure did not have an attorney. I believe he made a comment that he couldn't understand why the police were asking him if he wanted an attorney present during questioning. He and his wife also voluntarily took polygraph tests. I can't see any competent criminal defense attorney allowing their client to do that. The whole "contacting UM to prove my innocence" claim doesn't sound like something an attorney would advise either.

And I also remember RS saying that most of the people who knew Tim McClure personally felt there was no way he could have killed his mother. By delivering a nervous and awkward interview on national TV like he did, he was ensuring that millions of people who didn't know him personally would assume he was guilty.

Another case that comes to mind is the Sammy Wheeler debacle. I think it's safe to assume the parties involved were looking forward to being on TV, to say the least. A poster on here (I can't remember who, unfortunately) even threw out the humorous notion that Bob Bean may have accused Wheeler and Sneed in jest just to see their reaction.

Oh God, yes! Correct me if I'm wrong, but hadn't LE officially cleared all three of them as suspects by the time the interviews were taped? Talk about bringing needless suspicion onto people. I'm sure UM knew that none of them did it, but just knew their interviews would still make for very entertaining television.

The first person who came to mind when I read this thread was Bob Hall. He sits there all nonchalant talking about his wife Kay's murder. It was so obvious to me he killed her and then at the end RS tells he plead guilty to it (not sure exactly what he plead to). I don't know what his intent was in being interviewed for this segment. I guess he thought so highly of himself he figured he could convince the public he was innocent.

What's ironic is that just strictly looking at the facts of the case, I'm still inclined to believe that Bob Hall was innocent and could not have found and killed his wife on that road and made it back home in such a small time period. However, the guy probably did a lot damage to himself with his nonchalant demeanor in his interview as, innocent or not, he really didn't seem too upset about Kay's death.

The first person who came to mind when I read this thread was Bob Hall. He sits there all nonchalant talking about his wife Kay's murder. It was so obvious to me he killed her and then at the end RS tells he plead guilty to it (not sure exactly what he plead to). I don't know what his intent was in being interviewed for this segment. I guess he thought so highly of himself he figured he could convince the public he was innocent.

I don't think Bob Hall had enough time to murder his wife Kay. As I remember it The Halls lived in a fairly rural area of Virginia and having grown up in a rural area of the country myself, you have to be very careful how you drive at night. This would've obviously factored into the speed Bob Hall was able to maintain driving his vehicle around rushing back and forth from killing his wife to creating an alibi etc.

I just think it would've been very difficult for him to pull off given the amount of time he had to do it in and also the driving conditions in a rural area at night.

I don't think Bob Hall had enough time to murder his wife Kay. As I remember it The Halls lived in a fairly rural area of Virginia and having grown up in a rural area of the country myself, you have to be very careful how you drive at night. This would've obviously factored into the speed Bob Hall was able to maintain driving his vehicle around rushing back and forth from killing his wife to creating an alibi etc.

I just think it would've been very difficult for him to pull off given the amount of time he had to do it in and also the driving conditions in a rural area at night.

I just rewatched part of it to refresh my memory. It did say that there is a 1 hour time frame (around the same time Kay was murdered) when Bob had no alibi. Granted he didn't have a lot of time but he was only 15 miles away so it was possible in my opinion in that one hour. Also he was convicted of 2nd degree murder, appealed and was granted a new trial and then pled guilty to 2nd degree murder. I find it surprising that he would go ahead and plead guilty to her murder if he was innocent.

A couple things about Bob Hall...

I watched the NBC version of the segment recently and was surprised that there was some additional explanation by RS that Kay's death could have been an accident. I believe these comments were edited out on the Lifetime version, which makes the segment a bit hard to follow since there really is no other theory offered to explain how Kay could have ended up dead.

Also, a map was shown onscreen indicating where Kay's truck was found in relation to the Hall residence and the country club where they spent the evening. What struck me was that the truck was located on a road nowhere near the Hall residence, and in the opposite direction, if I remember correctly. It was mentioned that Kay left the party before Bob and Bob's friends dropped him off at home. I wonder how Bob would have known where to find Kay, and also where Kay would have been headed in the truck, if not directly home.

If I remember the sequence of events correctly, Hall was convicted by a jury of the murder and sent to prison (exact charges he was convicted of and the sentence escape me). However, he appealed the conviction(s) and was granted a new trial. In lieu of going to trail, he opted to plead "no contest" to manslaughter and was sentenced to 14 years probation.

I don't know if Hall was guilty or not, but I can certainly understand him taking that plea - even if he didn't kill his wife. Whose to say he wouldn't get convicted again if he rolled the proverbial dice and went to trial a second time?

Is there undisputed proof that Bob Hall was the one that made the phone call from his house? Either way, he knew that he had to establish some sort of alibi.

I've always felt that Bob knew where Kay would go when she left the party. Maybe she had a friend/lover that lived in close proximity to the murder site. She did say that Bob would abuse her, so my guess is she wouldn't always spend the night at her own house. Or she could have just a place she would go when she was upset. I think Bob deliberately ticked her off, then went and found her to kill her.

Is there undisputed proof that Bob Hall was the one that made the phone call from his house? Either way, he knew that he had to establish some sort of alibi.

I've always felt that Bob knew where Kay would go when she left the party. Maybe she had a friend/lover that lived in close proximity to the murder site. She did say that Bob would abuse her, so my guess is she wouldn't always spend the night at her own house. Or she could have just a place she would go when she was upset. I think Bob deliberately ticked her off, then went and found her to kill her.

Not to mention Bob Hall had a huge incentive to want her dead. She had just received an inheritance and probably knew she ready to divorce him so if she wound up dead before that could happen the money would be his. With a history of violence and a shaky or non-existent alibi it seems much more plausible it was him than a random act of violence on a country road.

One thing that blows my mind is how many people who have been accused of a serious crimes, such as murdering their spouses, have willingly cooperated with UM and sat for an interview in an attempt to tell their side of things.

I can't imagine that any attorney would give an "okay" to a murder suspect who would want to go public in such a fashion. Yet, this seemed to happen with regularity, and hearing Stack or Farina say "so and so declined our request for an interview" seems more the exception than the rule.

Any legal minds care to comment on the potential dangers of this? Where is our resident criminal defense expert - CRicci, are you out there? :)

What an interesting question, Justin! I love it...and have dealt with this exact issue very recently!

Maybe some other legal-ish people will feel differently, but to me, the most terrifying thing a client can say to me is NOT "I did it. I'm not sorry. I enjoyed it and I'd do it again," but "I want to make a statement."

If I had a client who was the prime suspect in a crime and wanted to make a statement to either the news media or to the police, you can sure as hell bet that I'm going to tell them I don't think it's in their best interests to do the interview. I OFTEN tell my clients that they can use me as the bad guy and say, "Oh, my attorney told me that I'm not allowed to speak to anyone about this case." It's not uncommon for me to advise my clients not to talk to ANYONE about their case. The client chooses to follow your advice in the manner they wish, unfortunately. When they wish to go forward, I sometimes ask my clients to sign papers which state they are specifically acting AGAINST my legal advice in case something MAJOR results from the interview (like Bob Hall, for example.)

In the few instances where the client has INSISTED on giving their interview or statement, I always go with them. It's quite a rollercoaster, to say the least, ESPECIALLY if the clients don't tell you what they're going to say. That happens sometimes, too. Some people are real control freaks, to say the least. They won't let anyone (even their attorney) in on what's going on.

In most of these cases, though, I think that there is a simple reason that people who probably shouldn't give a statement are more than happy to jump in front of the camera to do it: They are narcissists who think that they can "convince" Joe Public of their innocence. I've dealt with quite a few of these individuals who seem to think that they're one step ahead of everyone else. Like in trial where the Defendants insist on testifying even though their attorney begs them to invoke their right to remain silent and make the State meet their burden of proof, it usually backfires. Why? Because they're usually guilty.

Jaded post for the normally optimistic CRicci, I know. Feel free to disagree. I've just had this happen on WAY more than one occasion. It's both a personal and professional sore spot. What's the point in retaining an attorney if you're not going to follow their advice? So you can throw them under the bus when you don't follow their advice and get convicted? Just sayin'.

Thanks a lot for the insight, CRicci. That was an interesting read.

Semi-OT, but do you think these guys have any legitimate grounds for recourse against UM if something negative were to happen as a result of the interview? Like Bob Hall, for instance?

I'm also thinking of Donovan Jacobs - another suspect who was not only interviewed on UM, but then ATTEMPTED TO SUE Cosgrove-Meurer because he didn't like the way they edited the interview to make him look guilty!

I'm sure there are numerous releases that would have to be in place indicating that CM can use the footage however they want. Jacobs must have had a lot of brass to try something like that. Unfortunately, I do not know the outcome of the suit.

They are narcissists who think that they can "convince" Joe Public of their innocence.

I can't think of a better example than OJ Simpson. Even though he was acquitted in the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, he has done a horrendous job in trying to convince the public of his innocence. Perhaps the dumbest thing he did on the matter was write a book called "If I Did It", in which he gave a hypothetical account of how he would have committed the murders. Although I have never read the book, one has to wonder what innocent person being falsely accused of murder would write a book like that.

I can't think of a better example than OJ Simpson. Even though he was acquitted in the murders of his ex-wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman, he has done a horrendous job in trying to convince the public of his innocence. Perhaps the dumbest thing he did on the matter was write a book called "If I Did It", in which he gave a hypothetical account of how he would have committed the murders. Although I have never read the book, one has to wonder what innocent person being falsely accused of murder would write a book like that.


I read "If I Did It." After I read it, I was CONVINCED that O.J. did it.

Just sayin'. :)

And that was exactly my point, Kane. Very astute, as always. :)