If you're inclined to believe in his guilt, then the decision to go on television in an attempt to clear his name is one that only the man himself will know the reasons for.

Of course, we've seen so many 'grief-stricken' and 'emotional' press conferences where a family member bursts into tears and is later convicted of the abduction/murder in question. The phenomenon is such that, every time you watch one of these uncomfortable spectacles on TV, the question as to whether one of the family did it or not is always there, even when the grief being portrayed on screen appears to be very real (of course, we've learned that some of the most ruthless killers of their own are also brilliant actors).

The fact that McClure's performance managed to make him look a whole lot more guilty (although many would still lean towards believing in his innocence) underlines what a disaster it was. The vibe I got was that he seemed to think he was several stratospheres more intelligent than he actually was - I appreciate many of us can fall into this trap to a degree and that those inhabiting a glass house ought not throw stones. I just thought with McClure that the gap between self-perception and reality was absolutely massive. It's worth remembering that he had not been charged with anything to this point, and if I'm right this appearance actually led to the charges that were brought against him (later thrown out with prejudice, which seems a strange decsion).

For those who believe him to be innocent, this may not apply, but if you think McClure was guilty (like I do), I'd be interested in any thoughts on why he thought going on TV to clear his name was a smart move.

I tend to think McClure came off horrible on UM simply because he was a "goofy" person. There is a lack of motive, his in-laws were also there gambling with him and his wife, and he himself was the one who contaced UM to "clear his name".

Here are two older threads on Tim McClure, some of the posts are very informing.

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

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=217907&highlight=Tim+McClure

McClure is a pretty hot topic around here, so you're sure to get some bites with this post.

Truthfully, I don't get the whole TV appearance thing IF McClure was guilty. By the time McClure's story aired, the crime was six years old. I doubt the cops were still harassing/pressuring him. He really had no reason, IMO, to bring the crime up again in such a public way if he was guilty. There would be a lot more to lose if say someone did see McClure do something suspicious the night of the murder, then saw the UM story and called in that information.

It wouldn't be the first time a suspicious person has gone on UM to plead their case, but a lot of the usual suspects in that category strike me as having narcissistic qualities, so the TV appearance might feed their ego more than anything. I really don't think McClure fits the profile in that regard, but I could be wrong.

I tend to think McClure came off horrible on UM simply because he was a "goofy" person. There is a lack of motive, his in-laws were also there gambling with him and his wife, and he himself was the one who contaced UM to "clear his name".

Here are two older threads on Tim McClure, some of the posts are very informing.

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

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=217907&highlight=Tim+McClure

Thanks for those - seen the first one before, which prompted me to watch the segment and take notes.

Agreed re:- motive - the only clear one would appear to be $5000 in life insurance, which seems a paltry amount to kill for. People have killed for a lot less, but it's a bit of a leap to nail that down as the motive...

Did she approve of his new bride? Was there an issue that now Tim was married she might worry about being driven out of the picture? The answer on this one has to be - dunno.

My understanding was that in the two hours after walking his mother to her car, McClure claimed to be in the casino, gambling alone, which leaves an alibi that nobody can corroborate. Playing slot machines solo on your wedding night seems at best to be very odd - like many of the warning signs in this case, none represent 'smoking gun' material, but when they're stacked on top of each other there's a bad smell to the totality of the thing.

The cancellation of the credit cards and the 'mistake' over the date

Trawling casino car parks for her purse, the one item that was missing, but happening to search all in the locality except the one where she was found.

His wife's failure of the lie detector test, essentially flunking the question 'do you know who...' Where was she on UM by the way?

The absence of any eyewitness who saw the newlyweds in the hours after Tim's mother left the casino. This is a 6 ft 6 in guy with a biker/metal hairdo wearing a tux - I appreciate there was drink flowing and memories might be hazy, but for nobody to see him in eight hours? Either desparately unlucky or there's more to it.

Then there's the strange manner in which a dead body was left, supposedly sleeping in a car, for three days and yet it attracted nobody's attention. A perfectly reasonable explanation would be that the body was subsequently moved, and who else would know where to 'find' her?

People have gone on TV to launch appeals and seek to clear their name, even threatening to sue people who are suggesting they knew more than they were letting on. I remember a guy who went on breakfast TV all guns blazing, only to be subsequently convicted.

Presumably they think that by making the effort and putting themselves in the public domain, they'll have people saying "well if he put himself out there then they must have nothing to hide", like a reverse psychology thing.

A good watch on this theme is 'Real Crime - Crocodile Tears'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kE9GuagWZU

It wouldn't be the first time a suspicious person has gone on UM to plead their case, but a lot of the usual suspects in that category strike me as having narcissistic qualities, so the TV appearance might feed their ego more than anything. I really don't think McClure fits the profile in that regard, but I could be wrong.[/QUOTE]

If you could point us in the direction of a few of them I'd be grateful. Rekindled my relationship with UM when watching old FBI Files programmes on YouTube...

If you could point us in the direction of a few of them I'd be grateful. Rekindled my relationship with UM when watching old FBI Files programmes on YouTube...

Off the top of my head...

Franklin Delano Floyd - convicted murderer and suspect in the disappearance of his son, Michael Hughes.
Bob Hall - suspect in the death of his wife, Kay. Eventually pleaded "no contest".
Stephen Marfeo - suspect in the disappearance of his wife, Doreen. Eventually murdered his new wife, her lover and killed himself.
Paul Polis - suspect in the disappearance of his wife, Charlotte.
Jule Caylor - suspect in the disappearance of his wife, Dottie.
Chad Noe - suspect in the disappearance of his ex-wife, her daughter and her sister-in-law.
Larry Gibson - suspect in the death of his toddler son, Tommy. Eventually convicted of manslaughter relating to Tommy's disappearance and death.
Paul Ferrell - convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, Cathy Ford.
Dan Montecalvo - convicted of the murder of his wife, Carol.
Stuart Heaton - convicted of the murder of his alleged girlfriend (he denies knowing her on the broadcast), Krystal Nabb.
Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald - convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and two daughters with an icepick.

Out of all the suspects who've appeared on UM to proclaim their innocence, Tim McClure is definitely the one I've always been most unsure about. On the basis of the fact presented in the UM segment, it's very easy to assume McClure's guilty, but ultimately, I think his biggest crime might simply be poor judgment.

One thing that's always stuck out for me is Robert Stack's line that Tim's friends and family all believe he would never have done anything to hurt his mother. I'm assuming that most of the acquaintances in Tim's life assumed he was innocent and that he wasn't exactly living as a shunned outcast because he had been a suspect in the murder. However, by approaching "Unsolved Mysteries", he was putting himself in a position where millions of viewers who did not know him personally were automatically going to assume he's guilty. If Tim was guilty, he was pretty had gotten away with the crime and had was taking a big risk by going on national TV. Of course, some guilty people become incredibly narcissistic and self-destructive because they've successfully gotten away with murder and are frustrated that they can't brag about it to anyone (just look at all the self-destructive things Joran van der Sloot did after he successfully got away with a crime), but that just doesn't seem to fit Tim's profile.

I have my doubts that Tim ever consulted an attorney before appearing on TV because I'm sure they would have advised him against it. As much as we love UM, their first priority is to produce compelling TV, and I'm sure they knew that Tim's awkward interview would provide just that. I have no idea what new evidence compelled the police to eventually charge him with murder, but if it came about because of an UM viewer tip, then Tim's strategy backfired horribly. However, the fact that the charges against him were dismissed with prejudice would indicate that the district attorney must have been VERY convinced of his innocence.

Of course, given that the absence of Tim's wife from the show, I've always pondered the possibility that she committed the murder and has intimidated Tim into covering for her all this time, but then I doubt she ever would have been allowed to appear on UM to begin with.

The biggest smile came across my face when I saw this thread.

I don't believe Terri was killed at the casino. I don't believe it's the murder scene. I think she was killed elsewhere and moved to the casino. I know that most people don't pay much attention to other cars in a parking lot, but I would think someone would notice a dead body with a giant blood stain on a pillow, and her car was parked very weirdly, taking up several spots and not aligned properly, if the UM segment is to be believed in that regard. There are actually several instances of a car being placed at somewhere other than the murder scene - Susan Harrison comes to mind.

My theory is this: Tim killed her elsewhere, and moved her to the casino to make it appear like a robbery gone bad. I think he figured the police would conclude she was killed during a robbery as her purse was missing and they wouldn't think much else of it. If you notice in the segment, Tim actually says "this is my mother's death, you should be investigating it, rather than looking at me as a suspect, which is what they were doing." Tim is surprised that the police are even questioning him. I wouldn't call it so much arrogant, it's more Tim being incredibly naive.

This theory actually clears several hurdles for Tim if he is guilty. It's not incredibly far-fetched that someone could be killed at a casino, given the money being won, especially if someone is deemed an easy target, like Terri may have due to her age. Additionally, Tim can drive the car to the casino and if he leaves evidence in the car, it wouldn't be totally unheard for it to be in there. He can say he recently borrowed his mother's car or they went somewhere recently together and it would seem plausible.

In essence, it's not a bad theory. I think the reason Tim doesn't have explanations for many things is because he never planned on being asked them in the first place. Remember, he is surprised he is a suspect. And that too, would be naive. After all, Tim was the last confirmed person to see her alive, and you can throw that in with all of the other signs that point to Tim being responsible.

Now as to why Tim goes on t.v. - It's safe to say that most "eyewitness accounts" tend to be way off or are totally bogus. I think Tim figured there was a good chance that, by going on the show, there might be one or a few people that would phone in a bogus story about having seen Tim on that night, and that would clear his name. But here's the thing, as I pointed out in an earlier thread: He never asks the public to find the "real" killer - he just asks to have his name cleared. For him, his mother's murder is almost an afterthought. He is solely interested in clearing himself. But that leads us to this: Given that this aired 6 years after the fact, it's alot more likely that someone would phone in with info on Terri's murder (since that's not something someone would forget easily given the severity of it) than remembering they saw Tim at such and such location at such and such date, 1983.

The biggest smile came across my face when I saw this thread.

I don't believe Terri was killed at the casino. I don't believe it's the murder scene. I think she was killed elsewhere and moved to the casino. I know that most people don't pay much attention to other cars in a parking lot, but I would think someone would notice a dead body with a giant blood stain on a pillow, and her car was parked very weirdly, taking up several spots and not aligned properly, if the UM segment is to be believed in that regard. There are actually several instances of a car being placed at somewhere other than the murder scene - Susan Harrison comes to mind.

My theory is this: Tim killed her elsewhere, and moved her to the casino to make it appear like a robbery gone bad. I think he figured the police would conclude she was killed during a robbery as her purse was missing and they wouldn't think much else of it. If you notice in the segment, Tim actually says "this is my mother's death, you should be investigating it, rather than looking at me as a suspect, which is what they were doing." Tim is surprised that the police are even questioning him. I wouldn't call it so much arrogant, it's more Tim being incredibly naive.

This theory actually clears several hurdles for Tim if he is guilty. It's not incredibly far-fetched that someone could be killed at a casino, given the money being won, especially if someone is deemed an easy target, like Terri may have due to her age. Additionally, Tim can drive the car to the casino and if he leaves evidence in the car, it wouldn't be totally unheard for it to be in there. He can say he recently borrowed his mother's car or they went somewhere recently together and it would seem plausible.

In essence, it's not a bad theory. I think the reason Tim doesn't have explanations for many things is because he never planned on being asked them in the first place. Remember, he is surprised he is a suspect. And that too, would be naive. After all, Tim was the last confirmed person to see her alive, and you can throw that in with all of the other signs that point to Tim being responsible.

Now as to why Tim goes on t.v. - It's safe to say that most "eyewitness accounts" tend to be way off or are totally bogus. I think Tim figured there was a good chance that, by going on the show, there might be one or a few people that would phone in a bogus story about having seen Tim on that night, and that would clear his name. But here's the thing, as I pointed out in an earlier thread: He never asks the public to find the "real" killer - he just asks to have his name cleared. For him, his mother's murder is almost an afterthought. He is solely interested in clearing himself. But that leads us to this: Given that this aired 6 years after the fact, it's alot more likely that someone would phone in with info on Terri's murder (since that's not something someone would forget easily given the severity of it) than remembering they saw Tim at such and such location at such and such date, 1983.

100% agree mate...

My theory is this: Tim killed her elsewhere, and moved her to the casino to make it appear like a robbery gone bad. I think he figured the police would conclude she was killed during a robbery as her purse was missing and they wouldn't think much else of it.

My question is, why? I doubt Tim's mother had any issue with his new bride, or else she wouldn't have been there for the wedding and the ensuing celebration. There's a picture of Tim and his mother on his wedding night, coincidentally the same night Terri (his mother) was murdered. Could Tim really be that cold to murder his mother (for some unknown reason, possibly for $5,000 dollars) on his wedding night? I'd say highly unlikely. There's just no reason for him to have done this on this particular night. That would seem to draw more attention to him, especially since he says he was the last person to see her alive. My pont is he just as easily could have let his mother drive back to her home, killed her there and staged a "home invasion" type angle rather than this elaborate death in a casino parking lot.

If you notice in the segment, Tim actually says "this is my mother's death, you should be investigating it, rather than looking at me as a suspect, which is what they were doing." Tim is surprised that the police are even questioning him. I wouldn't call it so much arrogant, it's more Tim being incredibly naive.

A lot of people in similar circumstances have voiced the same criticisms of LE. They know that they didn't do it and cannot believe why LE cannot see it as well. I took Tim's remark to mean that he didn't understand why LE was devoting so much time on investigating him while his mother's real killer slipped through the cracks.

This theory actually clears several hurdles for Tim if he is guilty. It's not incredibly far-fetched that someone could be killed at a casino, given the money being won, especially if someone is deemed an easy target, like Terri may have due to her age. Additionally, Tim can drive the car to the casino and if he leaves evidence in the car, it wouldn't be totally unheard for it to be in there. He can say he recently borrowed his mother's car or they went somewhere recently together and it would seem plausible.

As I've stated above, he could have simply let his mother go home and kill her there. Then he could have said, "I walked her out and watched her pull off." when questioned about the last time he saw her. Hell, he could have placed a phone call to a neighbor to check up on his mother so he didn't even have to be at the scene to discover her. Plus, admitting that he checked every casino but the one his mother was in does not seem like a lie to me. He could have easily said he checked every lot and just didn't see her car. The fact that he admitted that he didn't check the lot his mother was ultimately found it makes me think he was being honest in his response. He didn't even have to volunteer the fact that he was checking any casino parking lot and could have just said he checked her house and that's when he became worried.

In essence, it's not a bad theory. I think the reason Tim doesn't have explanations for many things is because he never planned on being asked them in the first place. Remember, he is surprised he is a suspect. And that too, would be naive. After all, Tim was the last confirmed person to see her alive, and you can throw that in with all of the other signs that point to Tim being responsible.

Well if he is innocent, he really would be surprised to be asked these questions. Who wouldn't?

Given that this aired 6 years after the fact, it's alot more likely that someone would phone in with info on Terri's murder (since that's not something someone would forget easily given the severity of it) than remembering they saw Tim at such and such location at such and such date, 1983.

I agree. I wonder why UM didn't try to push for someone to come forward with information regarding her death rather than if anyone remembered seeing Tim at the casino. I also seem to think his inlaws could have somewhat corraborated his story. Since his wife was gambling with her parents, and Tim was alleged to be alone, the inlaws could provide a timeframe of about when Tim's mother left and the time that Tim rejoined the group to go dancing. Then we could see what kind of a window McClure would have had to murder his mother. I wonder what he's up to these days.

My question is, why? I doubt Tim's mother had any issue with his new bride, or else she wouldn't have been there for the wedding and the ensuing celebration. There's a picture of Tim and his mother on his wedding night, coincidentally the same night Terri (his mother) was murdered. Could Tim really be that cold to murder his mother (for some unknown reason, possibly for $5,000 dollars) on his wedding night? I'd say highly unlikely. There's just no reason for him to have done this on this particular night. That would seem to draw more attention to him, especially since he says he was the last person to see her alive. My pont is he just as easily could have let his mother drive back to her home, killed her there and staged a "home invasion" type angle rather than this elaborate death in a casino parking lot..

Lack of motive and Lack of apparent motive are 2 entirely different things. Just because there isn't an apparent motive doesn't mean a motive doesn't exist. Terri and Tim could have had problems behind the scenes that nobody was aware about. Actually, I think Tim figured the wedding night was the night to do it, he probably figured the Police wouldn't suspect him since he just got married and was on good terms with his mother last he saw her.

FWIW, when I first watched this segment, I went in trying to believe Tim's innocence - if anything I was biased in his favor. And while I might be willing to write off one implausability as a coincidence, a mistake or whatever, trying to believe Tim's innocence by overloooking all of the many implausabilities, it just isn't there. Things, on the whole, just don't add up.

I'm not sure if I or anyone for that matter, has brought this up, but I'm curious to know why there wasn't any witnesses? Again, that's another reason I think she was killed elsewhere. A casino parking lot on a Friday night is going to be busy...you would figure someone would hear or see something.

The biggest smile came across my face when I saw this thread.

I don't believe Terri was killed at the casino. I don't believe it's the murder scene. I think she was killed elsewhere and moved to the casino. I know that most people don't pay much attention to other cars in a parking lot, but I would think someone would notice a dead body with a giant blood stain on a pillow, and her car was parked very weirdly, taking up several spots and not aligned properly, if the UM segment is to be believed in that regard. There are actually several instances of a car being placed at somewhere other than the murder scene - Susan Harrison comes to mind.

My theory is this: Tim killed her elsewhere, and moved her to the casino to make it appear like a robbery gone bad. I think he figured the police would conclude she was killed during a robbery as her purse was missing and they wouldn't think much else of it. If you notice in the segment, Tim actually says "this is my mother's death, you should be investigating it, rather than looking at me as a suspect, which is what they were doing." Tim is surprised that the police are even questioning him. I wouldn't call it so much arrogant, it's more Tim being incredibly naive.

This theory actually clears several hurdles for Tim if he is guilty. It's not incredibly far-fetched that someone could be killed at a casino, given the money being won, especially if someone is deemed an easy target, like Terri may have due to her age. Additionally, Tim can drive the car to the casino and if he leaves evidence in the car, it wouldn't be totally unheard for it to be in there. He can say he recently borrowed his mother's car or they went somewhere recently together and it would seem plausible.

In essence, it's not a bad theory. I think the reason Tim doesn't have explanations for many things is because he never planned on being asked them in the first place. Remember, he is surprised he is a suspect. And that too, would be naive. After all, Tim was the last confirmed person to see her alive, and you can throw that in with all of the other signs that point to Tim being responsible.

Now as to why Tim goes on t.v. - It's safe to say that most "eyewitness accounts" tend to be way off or are totally bogus. I think Tim figured there was a good chance that, by going on the show, there might be one or a few people that would phone in a bogus story about having seen Tim on that night, and that would clear his name. But here's the thing, as I pointed out in an earlier thread: He never asks the public to find the "real" killer - he just asks to have his name cleared. For him, his mother's murder is almost an afterthought. He is solely interested in clearing himself. But that leads us to this: Given that this aired 6 years after the fact, it's alot more likely that someone would phone in with info on Terri's murder (since that's not something someone would forget easily given the severity of it) than remembering they saw Tim at such and such location at such and such date, 1983.

Yep. Well said.


Lack of motive and Lack of apparent motive are 2 entirely different things. Just because there isn't an apparent motive doesn't mean a motive doesn't exist.

YES! I think people often times forget this. They also forget that it doesn't have to make sense to us to be a motive. Examples:

- $5k for the insurance doesn't seem like a lot, unless you are broke and need anything you can come up with.

- We don't know what Tim's mom thought of his wife. He seems like he was pretty devoted to his mom and maybe she didn't like his choice of wife or the fact he was getting married and maybe wouldn't see her as much.

- As far as money goes, there wasn't a lot as far as life insurance on Tim's mom, but she leaves behind an estate (house, car, furnishings, etc.) that all told probably add up to a decent amount of money. Tim stood to inherit that.

Those are just three quick examples. Remember, they don't have to make sense to us to be real. There was a murder recently not far from where I live. The guy killed was a young, popular teacher who was at his dad's farm. The old neighbor next door thought the young guy stole one of his tools so he shot him to death. Turns out the guy had just misplaced the tool. Oh well.

As for Tim himself, I have always thought he was either guilty of the murder, guilty of knowing who did the murder (if not him), or guilty of knowing more than he told the police. I agree with wiseguy182 that Tim is incredibly naive. I honestly think he thought going on UM would make him look better when it made him look worse.

As far as the polygraph tests, I know they aren't always accurate. But doesn't anyone else think it's weird that both Tim and his wife failed the test? Especially on the question of "Do you know who murdered Terri McClure"? That is by no means smoking gun proof, but it has bothered me. Maybe Tim's wife did it or had it arranged. Who knows, but I have always thought either one or both of them had more knowledge then they let on.

I found this newspaper article online from 1992:



S.D. Man Arrested in Slaying of Mother
September 04, 1992
From Associated Press

CARSON CITY, Nev. — A San Diego man has been arrested on suspicion of killing his mother nine years ago.

Timothy Michael McClure, 31, was arrested for the slaying of Terri McClure, who was found shot to death in her car in a casino parking lot nine years ago.

The arrest followed a probe into clues provided after the case was aired last year on the "Unsolved Mysteries" television show.

Carson City Sheriff Paul McGrath said Thursday that the new information supported investigators' original theory that McClure, a student, was "very much involved in the slaying of his mother."

Ironically, McClure had contacted the television show in the hope that by telling his story a viewer could back up his alibi, host Robert Stack said when the show was aired.



The part I find most curious is the quote from the sheriff, that Tim was "very much involved in the slaying of his mother." I may be reading in too much here, but it sounds like the police thought he may not have pulled the trigger but he knew who did.

Someone said it earlier, but I find it very interesting that ultimately the charges against him were dropped with prejudice, so they couldn't be brought up again. Did they find evidence that he definitely did not do it, or did they just think there would never be enough evidence to try him? It just seems odd that as a prosecuter you wouldn't at least leave the door open in case new evidence arose that showed he did do it.

No matter what, he is easily in my top three for "People On UM Who Came Off Really Bad in Their Interview." :)

Hmmmm, I don't think that article's accurate about Tim being 31 years old when he was arrested. The UM segment said he was 38, though I'm not sure if that was his age at the time of the murder or when he was interviewed. Either way, someone's way off.

It's also interesting to read he was a student at the time of the murder. While we have no idea of Tim and his mother were having any problems at the time, the combination of him going to school and getting married could have possibly created a rift in their relationship.

As far as the polygraph tests, I know they aren't always accurate. But doesn't anyone else think it's weird that both Tim and his wife failed the test? Especially on the question of "Do you know who murdered Terri McClure"? That is by no means smoking gun proof, but it has bothered me. Maybe Tim's wife did it or had it arranged. Who knows, but I have always thought either one or both of them had more knowledge then they let on.

Yes, no matter how close Tim was to his mother, he does strike me as a weak enough person that he could be frightened into silence by his wife or someone else if he knew who committed the murder. However, like I said earlier, if his wife had something to do with it, I just can't imagine her letting Tim go on Unsolved Mysteries (unless she figured he would do badly in his interview that he'd divert all the suspicion onto himself).

and her car was parked very weirdly, taking up several spots and not aligned properly, if the UM segment is to be believed in that regard.

I watched it again semi-recently, and if you look close, you'll see it's one of those parking lots where the cars park at an angle and not straight - not sure how else to explain it, but that was how it looked to me. Just an observation, not that this makes or breaks the case.


Now as to why Tim goes on t.v. - It's safe to say that most "eyewitness accounts" tend to be way off or are totally bogus. I think Tim figured there was a good chance that, by going on the show, there might be one or a few people that would phone in a bogus story about having seen Tim on that night, and that would clear his name. But here's the thing, as I pointed out in an earlier thread: He never asks the public to find the "real" killer - he just asks to have his name cleared. For him, his mother's murder is almost an afterthought. He is solely interested in clearing himself. But that leads us to this: Given that this aired 6 years after the fact, it's alot more likely that someone would phone in with info on Terri's murder (since that's not something someone would forget easily given the severity of it) than remembering they saw Tim at such and such location at such and such date, 1983.

He does say something at the end of the segment like (paraphrase) "maybe if someone saw something having to do with my mother's death, now would be a good time to come forward". RS is the only one who said Tim wanted an alibi.

Assuming he's guilty, I can't see why he would have some huge need for a shaky alibi six years after the fact. The cops hadn't arrested him at that point, and he was probably not being harassed any longer.

Also, for the sake of discussion, let's assume that he is guilty and is using UM as an outlet to fish for some sort of an alibi. If someone came forward and alibied him, at best, the identification would be mistaken. At worst, it would be a lie. My point being, I don't see how his need for some obviously incorrect/bogus unreliable alibi would trump his need to stay off the radar completely. Which brings me back to the point that he would have a heck of a lot more to lose if the strategy backfired and someone came forward with information which further implicated him in the crime.

Someone said it earlier, but I find it very interesting that ultimately the charges against him were dropped with prejudice, so they couldn't be brought up again. Did they find evidence that he definitely did not do it, or did they just think there would never be enough evidence to try him? It just seems odd that as a prosecuter you wouldn't at least leave the door open in case new evidence arose that showed he did do it.

Exactly. They could have just as easily dismissed "without prejudice". The fact that it was dismissed in this manner is pretty telling.

something I don't think I've mentioned before: if Tim is guilty, you would think, since the murder occured in 1983 and the segment aired in 1989, that 6 years would be enough time for Tim to come up with some possible explanations to things and get his story straight. Instead we get a bunch of "I'm not sure how that happened"

something I don't think I've mentioned before: if Tim is guilty, you would think, since the murder occured in 1983 and the segment aired in 1989, that 6 years would be enough time for Tim to come up with some possible explanations to things and get his story straight. Instead we get a bunch of "I'm not sure how that happened"

Retired FBI profilers John Douglas and Mark Olshaker have written a number of books that describe how the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the F.B.I. uses behavioral clues to track criminals. In one of their books, (it may have been Mindhunter, but I can't remember) they discuss this specifically with emphasis on how innocent and guilty people react to different questions.

According to them, guilty people will often "overthink" and come up with elaborate explanations to explain even the most minor inconsistencies in their stories. Innocent people will often give responses like "I don't know" simply because they don't have all the answers, especially about little nuances and details of the crime that they shouldn't be privy to in the first place.

Ergo, the fact that McClure just didn't have all the answers and more importantly, didn't try to BS his way out with elaborate explanations may be further evidence in support of his innocence.

Hmmmm, I don't think that article's accurate about Tim being 31 years old when he was arrested. The UM segment said he was 38, though I'm not sure if that was his age at the time of the murder or when he was interviewed. Either way, someone's way off.

I would guess the newspaper made a mistake. On UM, it is stated that McClure was 38 and lived with his mother off and on throughout his twenties. I would guess he was 38 when he was interviewed on UM in '88-'89 and 41 when he was arrested for the crime in late 1992. The author of the article likely typed a "3" instead of a "4".

- $5k for the insurance doesn't seem like a lot, unless you are broke and need anything you can come up with.

You honestly think someone would kill their own mother for $5,000? Especially if, according to the UM segment, Tim and his mother were very close? Why not simply ask his mother for a loan? I'm sure she wouldn't have objected. The segment made no mention of Tim's financial status at the time, so we really can't assume he was scrapping for cash.

- We don't know what Tim's mom thought of his wife. He seems like he was pretty devoted to his mom and maybe she didn't like his choice of wife or the fact he was getting married and maybe wouldn't see her as much.

I think she liked her well enough to show up for his wedding and then to go out with them afterwards to the casinos. Had she not approved of her, I don't see her doing either of these things.

- As far as money goes, there wasn't a lot as far as life insurance on Tim's mom, but she leaves behind an estate (house, car, furnishings, etc.) that all told probably add up to a decent amount of money. Tim stood to inherit that.

He'd also have to split all of those with his sister. Not to mention pay for her funeral and burial expenses. I doubt he had any of the "inheritence" money left after it was all said and done.

As for Tim himself, I have always thought he was either guilty of the murder, guilty of knowing who did the murder (if not him), or guilty of knowing more than he told the police. I agree with wiseguy182 that Tim is incredibly naive. I honestly think he thought going on UM would make him look better when it made him look worse.

As far as the polygraph tests, I know they aren't always accurate. But doesn't anyone else think it's weird that both Tim and his wife failed the test? Especially on the question of "Do you know who murdered Terri McClure"? That is by no means smoking gun proof, but it has bothered me. Maybe Tim's wife did it or had it arranged. Who knows, but I have always thought either one or both of them had more knowledge then they let on.

There has to be more evidence than what was being presented on UM. The D.A. dismissed the case "with prejudice". In other words, there was little to no evidence connecting Tim to the crime. That's even more of a reason to believe his innocence, IMO.

something I don't think I've mentioned before: if Tim is guilty, you would think, since the murder occured in 1983 and the segment aired in 1989, that 6 years would be enough time for Tim to come up with some possible explanations to things and get his story straight. Instead we get a bunch of "I'm not sure how that happened"

This actually helps support his innocence, IMO. A liar would most likely have had the time to come up with plausible reasons for their actions, or alibis, etc. Instead, Tim has no alibi, and also gives some odd answers when it comes to some aspects on the case (his mother's purse, the credit card call, etc.) Something a guilty person, trying to come off innocent, would not do, IMO.

Hey, TheCars1986: you missed the point of my whole post. I wasn't saying those were the reasons Tim would have killed his mom, I was just saying there were possibilities.

As wiseguy182 was saying, there may be a lack of an apparent motive but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

All I was saying is that there could be many reasons why Tim did it (if he did do it) and I was just giving some examples. Remember, you and I don't have to agree they are "good" reasons for murder. If I'm assuming that Tim could have had money troubles, you are assuming that Tim could have gotten a loan from his mom.

I'm not starting an argument, but I agree with wiseguy182 that the fact there isn't an obvious motive doesn't mean he couldn't have done it, had something to do with it, or known about it. Again, people kill other people for all kinds of reasons, even ones that don't make sense to the average person. People have been killed for very trivial things and/or very small amounts of money. It happens all the time.

I agree with you that there has to be more evidence that what was shown on UM. I would love to know what the evidence was that got him charged in the first place, and what it was that got the charges thrown out for good.

I wonder if UM interviewed Tim's sisters, in-laws, or wife and then decided not to put those interviews into the segment. Anyone know if Tim was the only one interviewed? It seems weird that no family or friends appeared on the show and especially weird that the three people, besides Tim, who were there that night did not appear.

They said that Terri had taken out a $10,000 life insurance policy not long before her death and that Tim and ONE of his sisters were beneficiaries. Where's the other sister(s)? How many siblings did Tim have?

Why did Terri exclude at least one of her children from her life insurance? Was that other child(ren) going to inherit something else, maybe the house, car, cash, or jewelry, so she named her two other children on the life insurance policy? Or was she not on good terms with that child and decided to leave nothing to her upon her death?

And I just thought of something else....

Back when this happened, were credit cards insured like they are now. IIRC, if your credit card is used fraudulently, without your knowledge, you're only required to cover $50.

If that's the case, Tim shouldn't have cancelled his mother's credit card within hours/days of her murder. Tracing the use of the card could have led to the killer. At the time this happened, cards were still being slid through a mechanical device that imprinted the raised name and numbers onto three layers of carbon paper. Then a physical signature was required before the three pages were pulled apart, with a copy for the card user and one for the merchant. I think the third copy went to the CC company, but I can't remember. I was in 10th grade at the time and didn't have CC back then.

Anyway, why was Tim so worried that someone would rack up charges on his dead mother's card? Would her estate have been responsible for the charges?

Hey, TheCars1986: you missed the point of my whole post. I wasn't saying those were the reasons Tim would have killed his mom, I was just saying there were possibilities.

As wiseguy182 was saying, there may be a lack of an apparent motive but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

All I was saying is that there could be many reasons why Tim did it (if he did do it) and I was just giving some examples. Remember, you and I don't have to agree they are "good" reasons for murder. If I'm assuming that Tim could have had money troubles, you are assuming that Tim could have gotten a loan from his mom.

I'm not starting an argument, but I agree with wiseguy182 that the fact there isn't an obvious motive doesn't mean he couldn't have done it, had something to do with it, or known about it. Again, people kill other people for all kinds of reasons, even ones that don't make sense to the average person. People have been killed for very trivial things and/or very small amounts of money. It happens all the time.

I agree with you that there has to be more evidence that what was shown on UM. I would love to know what the evidence was that got him charged in the first place, and what it was that got the charges thrown out for good.

I'm not arguing at all with you, I just don't see where there's a motive in this case. No motive = no suspect, IMO. I'm assuming the lack of evidence is what got the case thrown out for good, or else it wouldn't have been dismissed "with prejudice".

Anyway, why was Tim so worried that someone would rack up charges on his dead mother's card? Would her estate have been responsible for the charges?

IIRC, wasn't his mother only missing at that point when he cancelled the cards?

IIRC, wasn't his mother only missing at that point when he cancelled the cards?

Yep. One of the problems with his story is that he supposedly called the CC company on Friday, the day of his wedding, before Terri even went missing, to say she was murdered, his father had predeceased her, and he needed the card to be cancelled.

He says that he called the CC company on Monday, the day Terri's body was discovered, but apparently he called before she was found because he says he told them his mother was missing.

I can see where there could be a mistake on the part of the CC rep regarding the date, since a handwritten 17 could look like a 14 (monday vs. the previous friday) but if the rep typed the info or wrote out the day rather than just the date, it looks pretty bad for Tim.

He also says he told the rep his mother was "missing" and that the rep either wrote the word "murdered" or said that word to cops by mistake, "[mixing] up his words".

That's just another question I have. How did the word murdered get involved? Did the rep write it down when taking the info to cancel the card or was the rep interviewed by police and recalled that Tim said he wanted the card cancelled because his mother had been murdered.

Even though this interview was a huge mess and points to Tim being guilty, I find it kind of hard to believe that he would call and cancel his mom's credit card on his wedding day, while preparing to get married and go out for a big night on the town, before his mom went missing, then proceed to go through the ceremony and early part of the evening having a good time with Terri and even posing happily with her for photographs, knowing all along that he was going to kill her and dump her body.

http://www.unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/images/cases/mur_terri_mcclure3.jpg

Yep. One of the problems with his story is that he supposedly called the CC company on Friday, the day of his wedding, before Terri even went missing, to say she was murdered, his father had predeceased her, and he needed the card to be cancelled.

I know this is what the police alleged, but it would be a colossally stupid thing for anyone to do, and it makes no sense. Why report her dead/murdered if that hadn't happened yet? Hell, he probably wouldn't have had access to her purse at that point anyway to even know which cards she had that needed to be cancelled. I couldn't tell you off the top of my head what bank/credit cards my mother has, let alone know which entities to contact to cancel them.

He says that he called the CC company on Monday, the day Terri's body was discovered, but apparently he called before she was found because he says he told them his mother was missing.

I can see where there could be a mistake on the part of the CC rep regarding the date, since a handwritten 17 could look like a 14 (monday vs. the previous friday) but if the rep typed the info or wrote out the day rather than just the date, it looks pretty bad for Tim.

He also says he told the rep his mother was "missing" and that the rep either wrote the word "murdered" or said that word to cops by mistake, "[mixing] up his words".

That's just another question I have. How did the word murdered get involved? Did the rep write it down when taking the info to cancel the card or was the rep interviewed by police and recalled that Tim said he wanted the card cancelled because his mother had been murdered.

This is where things get confusing. What I presume is the actual credit memo is shown onscreen briefly. You can read that it says "son called, mother deceased..." etc. It has Friday's date written at the top (just the numeric date, not the actual word "Friday").

Transpose the dates and the credit memo makes sense. He could have called Monday to cancel the card because he knew she was dead.

BUT it doesn't end there... during his UM interview, McClure says he didn't understand how the credit card company operator mixed up Monday and Friday.

He also says they misinterpreted his words by saying that she was murdered, when all he told them was that she was missing.

So, I wonder what was true. Did McClure call on Monday and report her dead, or report her missing?

Even though this interview was a huge mess and points to Tim being guilty, I find it kind of hard to believe that he would call and cancel his mom's credit card on his wedding day, while preparing to get married and go out for a big night on the town, before his mom went missing, then proceed to go through the ceremony and early part of the evening having a good time with Terri and even posing happily with her for photographs, knowing all along that he was going to kill her and dump her body.

No doubt.

Even though this interview was a huge mess and points to Tim being guilty, I find it kind of hard to believe that he would call and cancel his mom's credit card on his wedding day, while preparing to get married and go out for a big night on the town, before his mom went missing, then proceed to go through the ceremony and early part of the evening having a good time with Terri and even posing happily with her for photographs, knowing all along that he was going to kill her and dump her body.

This is one reason why I tend to believe he's innocent. As for those that think Tim is guilty, I don't see how they think he's a total moron for coming forward and looking bad on UM, yet he's smart and deceptive enough to kill his mother and hide her body in a way that it still hasn't been found. I think the "McClure is guilty" crowd is giving him way too much credit in that regard.

Gah! I just looked at the credit card memo. They actually wrote down all his phone numbers and showed it on tv! It always surprises me, how naive people were about publishing all of someone else's pertinent info on TV or in the newspaper. Anyway.....

In the "customer memos" section of the note it looks like it says:

1-14-83

Son called_____mother
deceased - [two characters I can't read, maybe the word so] no
estate - no spouse
dad dec so will
send certificate
Timothy McClure
[phone numbers]

-------
If I had to guess the date, I would say 1-14 or 1-19. It doesn't look like 1-17, imo, and that's the date Tim claims he called, so it should say the 17th.

In the upper left of the memo someone wrote the cursive letters T and M, as if Tim McClure initialed it.

Right under the initials are numbers. It looks like Tim initialed the note, then wrote 1-31-83 on it. The numbers are smudgy, as if what they're showing in the segment is a fax or this version of the note came from a copy machine. The initials and numbers are not written in the same very rounded girly style as the rest of the note. I wonder who asked him to initial it and why he agreed and wrote the date, if he believed the note stated incorrect information.

Right under the initials are numbers. It looks like Tim initialed the note, then wrote 1-31-83 on it. The numbers are smudgy, as if what they're showing in the segment is a fax or this version of the note came from a copy machine. The initials and numbers are not written in the same very rounded girly style as the rest of the note. I wonder who asked him to initial it and why he agreed and wrote the date, if he believed the note stated incorrect information.

Hmmm, I never noticed that before. I wonder if the cops were trying to gather evidence against McClure and had him sign off that the memo was authentic and did pertain to his mother's death or something. They would have been pretty deep into the investigation by 1/31/83. He was polygraphed 14 days later. I really wouldn't know otherwise.

This is one reason why I tend to believe he's innocent. As for those that think Tim is guilty, I don't see how they think he's a total moron for coming forward and looking bad on UM, yet he's smart and deceptive enough to kill his mother and hide her body in a way that it still hasn't been found. I think the "McClure is guilty" crowd is giving him way too much credit in that regard.

Huh? What? Terri was found murdered 3 days after she was last seen.

Huh? What? Terri was found murdered 3 days after she was last seen.

Oopsie, wasn't thinking as I was typing. I meant to say he got away with the perfect crime. I was thinking of the Jean Moore case for some reason.

This whole case still has a ton of question marks in my mind. I really don't consider his odd affect in his UM appeal to be evidence of his guilt, nor do I consider the dismissal of the case against him with prejudice to be ironclad evidence of his innocence. (Keep in mind that judicial prejudice is usually reserved for cases that are deemed to be damaged beyond repair due to errors or misconduct, rather than a simple lack of evidence.)

The life insurance policy also doesn't really point in either direction. Even in the 80's, $5,000 was a paltry sum of money, and while I know full well that people have killed for less, usually those killings can be attributed to one or more of the following factors: error (the killer thought the victim was worth much more); an expensive habit (drugs, gambling, etc.); or mental illness. We have no evidence that any of those applied to Tim McClure; however, there may have been other undetermined motives.

I will admit, though, that I did find it strange that Tim's family members, and in particular his wife, apparently did not participate in the segment. If I remember correctly, his wife's NAME wasn't even mentioned. Again, this doesn't make her guilty, but it does seem to indicate that she didn't want to be involved with the segment in any way whatsoever, and one can't help but wonder why.

I will admit, though, that I did find it strange that Tim's family members, and in particular his wife, apparently did not participate in the segment. If I remember correctly, his wife's NAME wasn't even mentioned. Again, this doesn't make her guilty, but it does seem to indicate that she didn't want to be involved with the segment in any way whatsoever, and one can't help but wonder why.

This never occurred to me before, but do we know for sure that Tim was even still together with his wife at the time the UM segment was filmed? If they were divorced, then I'm sure she'd want to distance herself from this as much possible.

Even if the murder had never occurred, I don't see much longevity in a marriage where the husband decides to take off to gamble by himself on their wedding night :lol: .

This never occurred to me before, but do we know for sure that Tim was even still together with his wife at the time the UM segment was filmed? If they were divorced, then I'm sure she'd want to distance herself from this as much possible.

Even if the murder had never occurred, I don't see much longevity in a marriage where the husband decides to take off to gamble by himself on their wedding night :lol: .

Good point--that's certainly possible. I keep forgetting that there was a six-year gap between the murder and the UM segment.

I don't remember seeing a wedding ring on McClure's finger during the segment, maybe they were divorced or separated at the time of the filming.

I used to think that the one thing Tim had going for him was his soft-spokenness/statements from people that said he was close to his mom. But after thinking about Tim's actual actions, I don't even think he has that.

1. During the weekend that Terri is missing, Tim goes out looking for her purse. Okay, so your elderly mom is missing and instead of looking for her, Tim thinks that he is going to drive 60 mph on the road, turn his head one second and hope that her purse magically turns up on the side of the road? OMG, who does that? Tim could also look for her car, since that's bigger and easier to spot. And he knows that Terri and her car are missing. But instead he looks for the needle-in-a-haystack purse, which he doesn't know is even missing.

2. Uses UM as a tool not to help solve the murder of his mother, but to clear his name

Of course, nothing that Tim says makes any degree of sense whatsoever. According to Tim's version of events, not only am I supposed to believe that he gambled for 2 hours alone on his wedding night, but that his mother also dissolved from the group and went to another casino and gambled alone. Is a little old lady really going to go to a casino at night alone in a big city? Perhaps if we had some evidence that Terri actually went into the casino where she was found dead at (i.e., someone saw her, said she won a jackpot there or something) then I'd be more apt to believe a robber theory, but there's nothing to back that up.

What nags me is that nobody recalls seeing the tall, distinctive looking Tim during an 8 hour window of time. He was at the casino. He was at dance halls. Several of them. And subsequently, nobody apparently has come forward to say they saw Terri at the casino she was at.

Feh. The whole thing just doesn't add up.

1. During the weekend that Terri is missing, Tim goes out looking for her purse. Okay, so your elderly mom is missing and instead of looking for her, Tim thinks that he is going to drive 60 mph on the road, turn his head one second and hope that her purse magically turns up on the side of the road? OMG, who does that? Tim could also look for her car, since that's bigger and easier to spot. And he knows that Terri and her car are missing. But instead he looks for the needle-in-a-haystack purse, which he doesn't know is even missing.

I really think the cops were grasping at straws with the whole purse comment.

As you point out, it makes no logical sense for one to expect they would be able to spot a purse when they're driving down the highway at 60mph.

I think Tim was driving the route and checking parking lots for his mother's car as he said on UM. Realistically, he was probably looking for any trace of his mother, be it her car OR her purse.

He may have mentioned to the police after the fact that he was out looking for his mother, her car AND her purse; The cops zeroed in on the purse part.

2. Uses UM as a tool not to help solve the murder of his mother, but to clear his name

He did say that if anyone had any information about his mother's death, it would be a good time to come forward.

Of course, nothing that Tim says makes any degree of sense whatsoever. According to Tim's version of events, not only am I supposed to believe that he gambled for 2 hours alone on his wedding night,

Casinos are large and intentionally built to be confusing to navigate so you'll stick around and gamble rather than easily find your way back to your room. I think it's possible that he may have walked his mother to her car and been unable to find his in-laws upon returning to the casino. He may have figured they were off gambling so he plopped himself down at a machine until he spotted them or they spotted him. You can play a single machine for an hour or more and not realize the time has gone by. I've spent a lot of time in casinos and trust me, it's easier than you might think to lose track of the time.

but that his mother also dissolved from the group and went to another casino and gambled alone. Is a little old lady really going to go to a casino at night alone in a big city?

She was local to the area, so she may have felt comfortable doing so.

What nags me is that nobody recalls seeing the tall, distinctive looking Tim during an 8 hour window of time. He was at the casino. He was at dance halls. Several of them. And subsequently, nobody apparently has come forward to say they saw Terri at the casino she was at.

People in casinos generally don't pay attention to what is going on outside their own game. Like I've said before, I've spent a lot of time in various casinos over the years and I honestly can't recall anyone I saw, especially years after the fact. Even if you told me that a murder had occurred at a casino I was at while I was there I probably wouldn't be able to remember anything. Add to the fact that casinos are active, sensory overload, party type atmospheres with people drinking, celebrating, etc. Casinos also cater to a lot of out-of-towners and tourists. That type of environment likely wouldn't be conducive to finding witnesses, especially for something mundane like a guy and his wife drinking and dancing or a lone little old lady playing a slot machine.

I'm not starting an argument, but I agree with the fact there isn't an obvious motive doesn't mean he couldn't have done it, had something to do with it, or known about it. I watched it on my best internet tv (http://www.livetvportal.com/best-internet-tv/). Again, people kill other people for all kinds of reasons, even ones that don't make sense to the average person. People have been killed for very trivial things and/or very small amounts of money. It happens all the time.

I understand that people are murdered everyday over trivial matters, but this case is an exception. It's involving a son accused of murdering his mother (with no apparent bad blood between them and by all accounts very close) on his wedding night (that his mother attended). I don't see it as cut and dried as others do, but maybe that's just me.

I don't see it as cut and dried as others do, but maybe that's just me.

Yep, it's just you. :lol: j/k

Did anyone ever explore mental illness? I'm no expert, but there are certain forms of mental illness that might make one kill another for little or no reason.

But I would think the cops would have beat down that angle.

I'm curious where the hell this guy is today.

I'm curious where the hell this guy is today.

I wonder if he still has that rockin' mullet...:lol:

Anyone know if Tim or his wife were winning or losing that night in the casino? I'm sort of thinking out loud, trying to come up with a possible motive that would cause someone to murder their own parent during their wedding celebration.

Other children have killed their parents for various reasons, mental illness, rotten kid, drugs, greedy, etc. The only reason I can think of for Tim to have murdered his mother on his own wedding night would be desperation from losing big while gambling. He could have walked her out to her car, asking for a loan to cover his losses, that she denied, which might anger him.

That still wouldn't explain the level of premeditation though. To fit the timeline, he would have had to call and cancel her credit card before the wedding ceremony, telling the clerk his mother and father were both deceased, before his mom was even missing. He couldn't have known if he'd win or lose at the casino that night for that to be a motive. Any other ideas?

I wonder if he still has that rockin' mullet...:lol:

And for some reason, in my memory, Tim got married in a baby blue tuxedo while sporting that awesome mullet!

I had to actually go back and look at the photo on the unsolved website to see that wasn't what really happened. What a weird thing for me to get confused about...

Well, minus the mullet, I always thought that Mike Goergen (the first mate from the Leibling/Red Dickson case) looked a lot like Tim McClure. And in Mike's wedding photo, he is wearing a light blue tuxedo.

Perhaps I just helped solve a mystery... :cool:

Well, minus the mullet, I always thought that Mike Goergen (the first mate from the Leibling/Red Dickson case) looked a lot like Tim McClure. And in Mike's wedding photo, he is wearing a light blue tuxedo.

Perhaps I just helped solve a mystery... :cool:


lol I think you just did!

I'm probably confusing the two photos.

Has anyone ever been able to locate anything regarding Tim's whereabouts today or anything other possible "updates" to this case? Seems like someone should have been able to dig up something by now, unless he changed his name.

I've always wondered if Tim had a gambling problem and got himself into trouble with a bookie for not being able to pay his debts? Could be a motive right there...

Has anyone ever been able to locate anything regarding Tim's whereabouts today or anything other possible "updates" to this case? Seems like someone should have been able to dig up something by now, unless he changed his name.

Great question. I'd love to know what he's doing these days, if he's even alive or isn't in prison for something else.

I've always wondered if Tim had a gambling problem and got himself into trouble with a bookie for not being able to pay his debts? Could be a motive right there...

Like the detective in the segment said, five grand isn't a lot, but people have been killed for less. Especially for drug or gambling related debts.

Watching this segment as much as I have, gambling debts/addiction is also pretty much the only conclusion I could come to. I mean, Tim himself said he, his wife, and in-laws were gambling all night long after the wedding, and not together. Tim himself said he was alone. To me that just screams gambling problem. On your wedding night? You can't take the night off from the slot machines and spend some alone time with your new wife? It just makes no sense to me. I guess to each his own, but that's a very strange thing to be doing in celebration of your nuptials.

Two other details that bothered me about this case:
1. Where was Tim's wife? Why didn't they interview her? Or the sister who was the co-beneficiary of Terri's life insurance policy? Without any other relatives to back up any of Tim's claims, it just makes him look more guilty. To me it just seems like no one, not even his wife or family, believes his story, or just didn't want to implicate themselves if they were too involved in Terri's death. Well, duh. I wonder if his wife had left him by the time he went on UM, as it was filmed and aired several years after the murder. Heck, as his wife I'd be afraid of him taking out any kind of life insurance policy on me...
2. The fact that he "couldn't imagine why" his mother would have a life insurance policy. He acted like he didn't know she had the policy, but she had just recently taken it out. Wasn't she in her 60's? Most people that age have life insurance. It's not that far fetched.

Overall, Tim McClure just creeped me the heck out with his "explanations" as to what he thinks happened to his mother. He never once mentioned doing anything about finding the person responsible for his mother's murder. All he cared about was making people believe that he wasn't the murderer. If anything, just contacting UM and wanting to make his appeal public just makes him look guilty as hell and actually really backfired on him. I think he is totally guilty and it bothers me a lot that he has gotten away with it as long as he has.

I could see McClure being guilty had his mother not been murdered on his wedding night. McClure could have lured his mother to a remote location somewhere and shot her and concealed the body in a much better way than killing her in a casino lot on the night of his wedding. Plus to believe the credit card lady, that would make Terri's murder premeditated, and that Tim planned on killing his mother on the night he got married. It just makes no sense. The DA dismissed the charges against him "with prejudice" meaning he cannot be arrested or charged with the crime.

What's very frustrating about this case is there's NOTHING about it online. There is no website seeking information about the murder of Terri McClure on any website or anything. You would think being that Tim had the charges against him dismissed, the Carson City PD would want to still actively pursue leads since the murder was never solved.

Is this Tim McClure? There was only a few that would be his age on Facebook. if he was 31 in 1992 the graduation date from high school of 79 would be accurate. It also looks like him to me only obviously about 25 years older . It doesn't say anything about San Diego or Carson City but it still looks a lot like him.

https://www.facebook.com/timmcclure08/

Is this Tim McClure? There was only a few that would be his age on Facebook. if he was 31 in 1992 the graduation date from high school of 79 would be accurate. It also looks like him to me only obviously about 25 years older . It doesn't say anything about San Diego or Carson City but it still looks a lot like him.

https://www.facebook.com/timmcclure08/

Good God I think it is

When I looked at that FB page and noticed the graduation from Simon Kenton High School, all I could hear was RS's voice saying, "Permon crossed the Simon Kenton Bridge into Maysville, Kentucky..."

Is this Tim McClure? There was only a few that would be his age on Facebook. if he was 31 in 1992 the graduation date from high school of 79 would be accurate. It also looks like him to me only obviously about 25 years older . It doesn't say anything about San Diego or Carson City but it still looks a lot like him.

https://www.facebook.com/timmcclure08/

I noticed he liked guns on his facebook page.

hmmm...

Is this Tim McClure? There was only a few that would be his age on Facebook. if he was 31 in 1992 the graduation date from high school of 79 would be accurate. It also looks like him to me only obviously about 25 years older . It doesn't say anything about San Diego or Carson City but it still looks a lot like him.

https://www.facebook.com/timmcclure08/

If this is the same Tim McClure, he's no longer hitched to the woman he married when his mother was murdered, since his page says he's only been with his current wife since 2011. Hopefully, he didn't go gambling alone on their wedding night too.

I also noticed there wasn't a plea to find his mother's killer on his facebook page.

That link was posted in the other Tim McClure thread. Looks an awful lot like him, but his page says he graduated from 1979, which wouldn't match McClure's age. It also says he was born and from Kentucky and currently residing in Kentucky. Does look an awful lot like our Tim McClure though.

I hate Tim McClure and felt that I haven't mentioned it enough.

That link was posted in the other Tim McClure thread. Looks an awful lot like him, but his page says he graduated from 1979, which wouldn't match McClure's age. It also says he was born and from Kentucky and currently residing in Kentucky. Does look an awful lot like our Tim McClure though.

How old is Tim McClure?

There was an article in 1992 that stated he was 31. My dad graduated from High School in 1979 and he was born in 1961. My Dad was 31 in 1992 so I figured it matched up

There was an article in 1992 that stated he was 31. My dad graduated from High School in 1979 and he was born in 1961. My Dad was 31 in 1992 so I figured it matched up

UM said he was 38 at the time of the segment, which was roughly 88-89 when it was filmed.

This is the LA times article in 1992 that stated he was 31. It could be wrong but that's where I got the age from.


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