The thing is though, he not only claimed she got the date wrong, but messed up his words and wrote that he said she was "deceased" when she was only missing at that point. The bad thing for Tim is that Terri really was deceased, it's just that her body was undiscovered at that point. This is a huge, overlooked point. The credit card lady was correct, she was deceased. Tim can claim she's wrong all he wants, but when what she wrote turns out to be true, it makes him look incredibly guilty.

I do agree with you on the sister. If his sister, wife and in-laws all believe he's innocent, you'd think at least ONE of them would make an appearance.

I don't know that random crime was any more "popular" back then then it is now.
I'm gonna do my best to watch this and get in on this lol.

Good grief. I know I've watched this one a few times before and leaned guilty but UM really did a good job with this one.

There really is not a lot to go with either way. My question woul be how was the relationship between the mother and the wife? How did their marriage decision affect Tim's and his moms relationship. I get the sense that he and his mom were close. LE does a poor job of presenting enough evidence to get a conviction. I found the line that "people have killed for a lot less" to be weak. I also know that relying on a phone conversation is weak too. There needs to be something better like a recording or proof of a call time/date etc. This sort of reminds me of the Jeff oberholtzer case in a way and evidence later cleared him.

As far as why he seemed out UM I don't think that matters. If he were innocent sure it's possible he's trying to clear his name and put the cops on blast for zeroing in on him like they have a tendency of doing so often. If he were guilty he could gain from that for sure and a cold blooded intelligent killer could be capable of that as well. He does seem like a smart guy and is a little awkward but somewhat a smooth talker. I could not convict him for what we saw in the segment. But I would want more info for sure. Why was he looking for her purse? Why was he not with his wife right after their wedding? I find that weird. But again none of these things matter if he is indeed innocent. See the oberholtzer case......

Surely the date of the call would have been automatically recorded by either the phone system or the computer? Or both? I used to work in a call center, and we didn't have to manually enter dates when we noted accounts. The computer automatically did it. Granted, that was in 2005 and not in the 80's when this case took place. I guess it is possible that they were writing everything down by hand back then.

Surely the date of the call would have been automatically recorded by either the phone system or the computer? Or both? I used to work in a call center, and we didn't have to manually enter dates when we noted accounts. The computer automatically did it. Granted, that was in 2005 and not in the 80's when this case took place. I guess it is possible that they were writing everything down by hand back then.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. 83 was my birth year. Today there's no way he could get away with a lie if he was indeed lieing.

I also know that relying on a phone conversation is weak too. There needs to be something better like a recording or proof of a call time/date etc.

The employee wrote the date down on the memo.

He does seem like a smart guy and is a little awkward but somewhat a smooth talker.

Huh. That's a new one.

The employee wrote the date down on the memo.



Huh. That's a new one.
Writing down on a memo is unreliable compared to the modern technology that most LE use now is what I meant. I know that then they didn't have that to utilize and that may have been the only evidence to go off of. But apparently Tim's contradiction of the employees testimony was enough to raise doubt for the DA.

And I do feel that Tim is smarter than he portrays(or was portrayed). Going on national tv to defend himself or get an alibi was a brilliant idea guilty or not. Obviously a lot of people think he's innocent for that reason.

Writing down on a memo is unreliable compared to the modern technology that most LE use now is what I meant. I know that then they didn't have that to utilize and that may have been the only evidence to go off of. But apparently Tim's contradiction of the employees testimony was enough to raise doubt for the DA.

And I do feel that Tim is smarter than he portrays(or was portrayed). Going on national tv to defend himself or get an alibi was a brilliant idea guilty or not. Obviously a lot of people think he's innocent for that reason.

I'll have to disagree, I think going on national t.v. was stupid as he was arrested not long after the segment aired.

I think what's important for people to understand is that the credit card lady wrote down that Terri was deceased - WHICH WAS TRUE!! It would be a different matter entirely if she wrote down something that Tim allegedly said that turned out to be false, but Terri really was dead. And she couldn't have possibly known that. And Tim couldn't have possibly known that at the time if he was innocent.

It's important for people to look at the totality of evidence in this. You can't isolate one or two things and write them off and say he's innocent based on that, it's crucial to look at the big picture.

I'll have to disagree, I think going on national t.v. was stupid as he was arrested not long after the segment aired.

I think what's important for people to understand is that the credit card lady wrote down that Terri was deceased - WHICH WAS TRUE!! It would be a different matter entirely if she wrote down something that Tim allegedly said that turned out to be false, but Terri really was dead. And she couldn't have possibly known that. And Tim couldn't have possibly known that at the time if he was innocent.

It's important for people to look at the totality of evidence in this. You can't isolate one or two things and write them off and say he's innocent based on that, it's crucial to look at the big picture.
Then if that's the case and those aspects are 100% truth.... he's not the smartest criminal he's just lucky and brave to go on tv and tell bold face lies. I was unsure on that part (the timing of his actions as the circumstances unfolded). I think if there was more evidence that could not be disputed on his part then they would have charged him. My gut says he's guilty I just would want more evidence. Like I said this kind of reminds me of the oberholtzer case for some reason. With the lack of alibi and the way UM does a good job of presenting both guilt and innocent angles. I thought Jeff o. was guilty and I was wrong. And I feel bad for Jeff because like he said if LE focused less on charging him they could have done a better job looking for the real killer. Certainly the call tim made to the credit card company is more difficult to explain away than why someone had your business card on them at the time of their death. Basically Tim is relying on the fact that someone made a human error in this case two errors because he disputes the date and the deceased statement right?

I'd have to watch this one again but I always thought it was a weird segment and it almost seems like he is using the spotlight as a tool for his own personal gain whether he was guilty as sin or not.

Ha! I agree with you there. In fact, Tim is the only accused party that I know of that actually appeared as himself in the re-enactments! Not to mention the only segment where the accused party called in and tried to get there name cleared. I think the entire segment is unusual and you really have to wonder if Tim wanted to go on UM just to get his 15 minutes of fame. What accused person plays themselves in the re-enactments? I'm waiting for good ole Timmy boy to come out with a book called "If I did it..."

Ha! I agree with you there. In fact, Tim is the only accused party that I know of that actually appeared as himself in the re-enactments! Not to mention the only segment where the accused party called in and tried to get there name cleared. I think the entire segment is unusual and you really have to wonder if Tim wanted to go on UM just to get his 15 minutes of fame. What accused person plays themselves in the re-enactments? I'm waiting for good ole Timmy boy to come out with a book called "If I did it..."
I actually didn't take notice of that until this last time I watched it. He just needed a cigarette in his hand when he played slots and made that phone call and it would of been even more realistic.

Okay, for those interested, here's the ENTIRE transcript of this segment. I love that the person who put this up there put some phrases in capital letters (of things that suggested Tim's guilt). I also love that they describe some of Tim's mumbling as "indistinct chattering"

:lol: :rotflmao:

http://tv.ark.com/transcript/unsolved_mysteries/7140/LIFEP/Tuesday_December_21_2010/536370/

I know I'll probably sound like a broken record in this thread, but I STILL cannot get past the credit card phone call. For me, this entire thing may hinge on exactly what the customer service rep reported, and I mean exactly. Did she report McClure said his mother was deceased, or murdered? I know what was said in the segment, but it would be immensely helpful to know what her verbatim recollection is. I would have an extremely difficult time wrapping my mind around the latter in conjunction with a date mixup to Friday, as I've said previously.

Now in absence of that, I'm not sure there's a whole hell of a lot that convinces me he's guilty (besides maybe that whole strange "looking for some evidence of her purse" thing). I still lean guilty, but after some consideration and especially in light of the story cocytus relayed to justin, I'm a little less convicted than I've been before on this one.

Now in absence of that, I'm not sure there's a whole hell of a lot that convinces me he's guilty (besides maybe that whole strange "looking for some evidence of her purse" thing). I still lean guilty, but after some consideration and especially in light of the story cocytus relayed to justin, I'm a little less convicted than I've been before on this one.

No offense Meg, but I don't think cocytus is the most reliable source out there. :)

No offense Meg, but I don't think cocytus is the most reliable source out there. :)

True. :p

I know I'll probably sound like a broken record in this thread, but I STILL cannot get past the credit card phone call. For me, this entire thing may hinge on exactly what the customer service rep reported, and I mean exactly. Did she report McClure said his mother was deceased, or murdered? I know what was said in the segment, but it would be immensely helpful to know what her verbatim recollection is. I would have an extremely difficult time wrapping my mind around the latter in conjunction with a date mixup to Friday, as I've said previously.

This is one of the instances where McClure hurts his cause. The narration says that the CC company's memo says that McClure reported his mother "dead". McClure himself is the one who brings up "murdered". I really think this may have been an instance where LE were trying to trip up McClure into a confession, by telling him a half-truth in that the CC Memo says "murdered" when it in fact just said "deceased".

The biggest reason I lean towards the CC employee writing down the wrong date is the absolute lack of a motive for McClure wanting his mother dead, let along to murder her on his wedding night. Because if he did in fact call the CC company on Friday (shortly before his wedding), that would make this a premeditated murder. And McClure is banking on an awful lot with that phone call, if he's guilty. This is just an incredibly stupid thing to do, if McClure was planning on killing his mother. The segment says he cancelled "one" of her credit cards. Why?! Why cancel them at all at that point? It just doesn't make any sense to me that in this incredible planning of a murder that one of the top priorities is to cancel one credit card while his mother was still alive and well...what if she attempted to use the card that night?

Now in absence of that, I'm not sure there's a whole hell of a lot that convinces me he's guilty (besides maybe that whole strange "looking for some evidence of her purse" thing). I still lean guilty, but after some consideration and especially in light of the story cocytus relayed to justin, I'm a little less convicted than I've been before on this one.

McClure says a lot of self incriminating things in the segment, and as silly as that sounds, I think that makes him look more innocent than guilty. He openly admits to failing the polygraph, admits to his wife failing, admits to looking for her purse, etc. Another big sign in favor of his innocence, IMO, is the fact that McClure and his wife stopped by Terri's house on Saturday, and called family and friends and then called the police to report her missing. How many guilty people were featured on UM who had to be goaded into reporting someone missing?

Another big sign in favor of his innocence, IMO, is the fact that McClure and his wife stopped by Terri's house on Saturday, and called family and friends and then called the police to report her missing. How many guilty people were featured on UM who had to be goaded into reporting someone missing?

So I rewatched this one today and the stopping-by-the-house thing did give me pause not only for the reason you cited, but because it seems LE--according to the segment, anyhow--was so fixated on Tim's alibi the night of the wedding, but not from the next day from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM. Tim says he and his wife wrapped up their partying at 6:00 AM, and then stopped by Terri's house at 6:00 PM. That's an entire 12 hours no one seems terribly interested in. I suppose I don't really understand why.

It's only part of the reenactment, but the reenactments are known to have accurate details in them: Tim commenting on the fact that Terri hadn't taken in the morning paper, and apparently noticing a table lamp left switched on. Those don't seem like details you'd be remembering to fabricate were you making a story up unless you'd been meticulously crafting a story for a considerable period of time beforehand. Just an opinion.

It's worth noting that property crime rates in the immediate vicinity of casinos are astronomically high. It's not particularly uncommon for patrons to get mugged as soon as they step into the parking lot.

It's worth noting that property crime rates in the immediate vicinity of casinos are astronomically high. It's not particularly uncommon for patrons to get mugged as soon as they step into the parking lot.

Exactly.

Assuming McClure is innocent, the police questioned him the day his mother's body was found (Monday), and asked if he wanted an attorney present. It seems like police zeroed in on McClure and never wavered. Granted, being that he was the last person to have seen Terri alive would be enough to warrant him being a POI, but it doesn't seem like the police did much of anything in terms of investigating other suspects.

Not saying the police investigating are buffoons for zeroing in on McClure. The credit card memo, the failed polygraph, and the purse comment are enough to paint McClure as a suspect.

ETA: Meg highlighted another part of the story that I think helps McClure's case for innocence: the fact that he and his wife went to Terri's house on Saturday. McClure could have simply waited out the weekend until his mother's body was found...I don't think, outside of being the last person to have seen Terri, he would have been looked at as a strong suspect if he did.

For those of you that think he is innocent, may I ask why you feel that way? I know that some posters have tried to downplay some of the things that make him look guilty, but what I want to know is: why do you think he is innocent?

I think the main problem for me is that there wasn't one single point in the entire segment where I said "This guy is being railroaded." or even "I'm not sure which way I lean on this case." Because things that should have been able to clear Tim (polygraphs, alibis, etc) instead just raise more questions.

I know that some people believe he is innocent because "he just didn't seem like the type", but can we really get a strong sense of someone based on a 10 minute television segment? Do we really know that much about Tim McClure?

I also know that some people have suggested that the 5k insurance payout (Tim's portion anyways) was a flimsy motive, but it's important to consider 2 things:

1) $5,000 was a lot more money in 1983 than it is today, 31 years later. Heck, I still think's a lot of money today. It could be very valuable to, say, a newly married couple about to buy a house? It's also worth noting we don't know anything about Terri's funeral, if there was one. Maybe she was cremated? That would be cheaper.

2) While we don't know a lot about Tim McClure himself, we know that he likes to gamble. A lot, apparently. It can be very easy for someone to amass a gambling debt, which can cause people to do desperate things as the alternative is getting roughed up by loan sharks. Perhaps Tim wasn't the kind of person who would normally resort to murder, but because he didn't want to meet an uncertain fate at the hands of shady people he owed, he did this.

So, in summary, we've debated at length the things that make him look guilty, but what makes him look innocent? To the point that the majority of people on here think he is not guilty?

I think the main problem for me is that there wasn't one single point in the entire segment where I said "This guy is being railroaded." or even "I'm not sure which way I lean on this case." Because things that should have been able to clear Tim (polygraphs, alibis, etc) instead just raise more questions.

I actually agree with you here. I don't remember getting the feeling, from watching the segment, that McClure was being railroaded or unfairly treated. As a matter of fact, I've always thought McClure should have been looked at as a suspect early on.

1) $5,000 was a lot more money in 1983 than it is today, 31 years later. Heck, I still think's a lot of money today. It could be very valuable to, say, a newly married couple about to buy a house? It's also worth noting we don't know anything about Terri's funeral, if there was one. Maybe she was cremated? That would be cheaper.

True. But he was going to split that with his sister. If McClure wanted money to buy a house he could have just asked his mother for the money, right? And despite the funeral expense, there were other expenses that needed to be taken care of: car, credit card bills, Terri's house, etc. The insurance money would have disappeared quick.

So, in summary, we've debated at length the things that make him look guilty, but what makes him look innocent? To the point that the majority of people on here think he is not guilty?

If I think of more, I'll post later, but off the top of my head:

-McClure's self-incriminating remarks, and his "I have no idea why I failed the polygraph", etc. all indicate someone who is telling the truth. Usually, guilty people come up with elaborate lies or reasons as to why they failed the polygraph and other inconsistencies in their story ("I was nervous"), but McClure doesn't use any of those. He openly admits to failing the polygraph, searching for his mother's purse, AND searching lots except the one his mother was found in. This just doesn't sound like a guilty guy to me.
-McClure's remarks at the end of the segment seemed genuine to me. He talks about how his mother was his best friend and that she took care of him his whole life and all he wanted to do was to take care of her in her later years, but now he can't.
-Terri was murdered on McClure's wedding night. Makes zero sense for him to off her on that Friday night. He mentions her being off for the weekend in the UM segment. He had plenty of time to kill her over the weekend and hide her body in a better place than a casino parking lot. Plus, McClure even posed for pictures with his mother on his wedding night...if guilty, he knew he was going to blow her away hours later. Just doesn't seem like it would be possible for McClure to keep the ruse up of being happy during his wedding knowing he was going to murder his own mother later.
-McClure's wife failed the test about knowing who shot Terri. There's speculation that she knew McClure was going to do it that night. But I ask: why would she go along with it?! For women (at least my wife), their wedding is one of the most special occasions in their lives...I highly doubt one would want it tainted by knowing their hubby to be was going to off their soon to be mother-in-law in the same night.
-Where's the gun? No evidence linking McClure to a gun.
-McClure was the one who reported his mother missing the very next day.
-Friends and family talk about how close McClure was to his mother.
-Robberies and muggings at casinos are not uncommon, and Terri being elderly would be a prime target.
-If guilty, he could have came up with an easier "uncorroborated alibi" than dancing until dawn. He could have said he and his wife went home for the night after leaving the casino.
-He was the one who called UM to profile the case. Do you think Mark Nichols was the one who contacted UM to help find his wife?

For me it's not so much that he looks innocent. I agree with wiseguy... He looks more guilty than innocent. It's more that the evidence other than the phone call to the credit card company appears to be circumstantial. Failing a lie detector doesn't mean anything. We debated lie detectors on other threads as I don't know why it can be used to clear someone but not to convict them. And even the phone call is simply he said she said with an employee that wrote down notes on paper although this was the strongest evidence because he was possibly dealing with a professional that had no reason to lie. So when you add it all up and lack of an alibi he looks guilty as hell. But it still doesn't prove to everyone that he's guilty based on our justice system. They have to use other aspects to form their opinion due to the doubt that exists hence there is a debate. I think this is one that had it went to trial some of the jurors would say geez I think he did it but I'm not 100% sure so the DA never went through with it.

Good question posed by wiseguy and I admit I had to think deeply on this one.

I guess what it is for me is that McClure strikes me as somewhat inept, and I shudder to think of some of the statements that he made (such as about the Holy Spirit) and I just can't imagine someone in their right mind telling those things to a police officer and expecting to be believed.

Even though I have stated in the past that I believe McClure is innocent of this crime, I'll say this now, once and for all... I don't find McClure convincing in the least.

That being said, I think his ineptitude, demeanor, and some of this evidence would (and did) paint him negatively.

Piece by piece, however, the evidence is unconvincing, and some of it (like the purse detail, and to a certain extent the EVERY casino parking lot stuff) just seem like the cops are really reaching and trying to find something, Hell, anything to pin on the guy.

Had I been on a jury and presented with what we know (which 99% of comes from the segment since not much else is out there) I couldn't vote to convict McClure beyond a reasonable doubt. In a legal sense then, he's innocent in my book.

Even though I have stated in the past that I believe McClure is innocent of this crime, I'll say this now, once and for all... I don't find McClure convincing in the least.

When I first saw the segment, my reaction was the same. I remember rolling my eyes at the Holy spirit comment, and couldn't believe his weird explanation as to why he failed the polygraph. I guess what struck a chord with me was his remark about wanting to take care of his mother and since she was murdered, he didn't have the opportunity to do so. Aside from his remark about the insurance money, this was the one instance where McClure was composed and wasn't "jittery" or awkward in his response.

So, in summary, we've debated at length the things that make him look guilty, but what makes him look innocent? To the point that the majority of people on here think he is not guilty?

The big stickler with me has always been the DA dismissing the murder charges against him "with prejudice". On the surface, Tim has always seemed guilty to me, but that detail has always given me pause and re-evaluate the case against him. It makes me think the authorities somehow had information pointing to Tim's innocence that we don't know about. I certainly agree that there wasn't strong enough evidence for a conviction, but there's still enough suspicious evidence pointing to Tim that I don't know what compelled them to completely close the door on him and ensure he could never be charged again.

Let's put it this way, if Tim's guilty, he made so many stupid, inept mistakes while covering up the crime that I'm just surprised he wouldn't have made MORE stupid mistakes to completely incriminate himself during the past 30 years.

@RobinW: I completely agree. You almost sort of have to wonder what parts of the interview didn't make the segment. Or what other facts of the case are. I'm dying to know them.

I did take some law in college, but I'm by no means a legal expert, so I won't pretend to be an expert on the whole "dismissed with prejudice" angle, which has been cited heavily on here. But according to Wikipedia, "dismissed with prejudice" may simply mean something like the case had one overzealous prosecutor who exaggerated some evidence, and the case was considered finished with the defendant (Tim) not being able to be retried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_(legal_term)

@Justin: I'd really like to know if Tim's comment that his sister put the idea in his head that "maybe someone commandeered her vehicle and grabbed her purse." was really true or not. I'd like to hear directly from the sister. If she really did say that, it may take *some* of the suspicion of Tim.

I just can't, for the life of me, figure out why a little old woman would leave her son's wedding celebration to gamble by herself late at night (Not to mention Tim gambling by himself for two hours on his wedding night). What makes this even more strange was that Tim claimed his mother said she was going straight home. I supposed she could have lied or changed her mind, but is it common for old women to go out gambling in a major city alone at night?

@DALLASTEXAN!!: I see your point about the polygraphs, but I think the main thing was Tim completely failed his, COUPLED with his wife failing the major question on hers ("Do you know who was responsible..."). According to the police, the polygraphs STRONGLY SUGGESTED DECEPTION.

@RobinW: I completely agree. You almost sort of have to wonder what parts of the interview didn't make the segment. Or what other facts of the case are. I'm dying to know them.

I did take some law in college, but I'm by no means a legal expert, so I won't pretend to be an expert on the whole "dismissed with prejudice" angle, which has been cited heavily on here. But according to Wikipedia, "dismissed with prejudice" may simply mean something like the case had one overzealous prosecutor who exaggerated some evidence, and the case was considered finished with the defendant (Tim) not being able to be retried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_(legal_term)

@Justin: I'd really like to know if Tim's comment that his sister put the idea in his head that "maybe someone commandeered her vehicle and grabbed her purse." was really true or not. I'd like to hear directly from the sister. If she really did say that, it may take *some* of the suspicion of Tim.

I just can't, for the life of me, figure out why a little old woman would leave her son's wedding celebration to gamble by herself late at night (Not to mention Tim gambling by himself for two hours on his wedding night). What makes this even more strange was that Tim claimed his mother said she was going straight home. I supposed she could have lied or changed her mind, but is it common for old women to go out gambling in a major city alone at night?

@DALLASTEXAN!!: I see your point about the polygraphs, but I think the main thing was Tim completely failed his, COUPLED with his wife failing the major question on hers ("Do you know who was responsible..."). According to the police, the polygraphs STRONGLY SUGGESTED DECEPTION.
Certainly I thought that was bad for him about the polygraph.

I also know that some people have suggested that the 5k insurance payout (Tim's portion anyways) was a flimsy motive, but it's important to consider 2 things:

1) $5,000 was a lot more money in 1983 than it is today, 31 years later. Heck, I still think's a lot of money today. It could be very valuable to, say, a newly married couple about to buy a house? It's also worth noting we don't know anything about Terri's funeral, if there was one. Maybe she was cremated? That would be cheaper.

2) While we don't know a lot about Tim McClure himself, we know that he likes to gamble. A lot, apparently. It can be very easy for someone to amass a gambling debt, which can cause people to do desperate things as the alternative is getting roughed up by loan sharks. Perhaps Tim wasn't the kind of person who would normally resort to murder, but because he didn't want to meet an uncertain fate at the hands of shady people he owed, he did this.

I think these are very salient points. I know it's been dismissed a time or two here on the board, but the investigator is absolutely correct: People HAVE been killed for a lot less.

A gambling debt is a very logical and interesting angle given what we do know about Tim McClure (and it definitely would be a solid motive), but I suppose I feel that if there was a shred of evidence to suggest he had amassed gambling debts, the police would've been all over that like white on rice. As justin mentioned, they seemed to be exerting themselves to find anything to pin on him.

Tim completely failed his, COUPLED with his wife failing the major question on hers ("Do you know who was responsible..."). According to the police, the polygraphs STRONGLY SUGGESTED DECEPTION.

Ok, this is a sticky thing for me. On one hand, yes, I do see Cars' point re: McClure seemed awfully willing to fully admit he and his wife failed their polygraphs, even going so far as to state exactly that question upon which his wife appeared to show deception. I realize that polygraphs are not bottom-line indicators that someone is absolutely lying, and are very sensitive to exactly how test administrators conduct them (i.e., they can, inadvertently or intentionally, help produce garbage results).

On the other hand, however--provided the tests were conducted properly (and this is important)--I would find it highly suspicious that both of those individuals failed their polygraphs, and especially McClure's wife showing signs of deception on that specific question in light of her husband's failure. Additionally (and anecdotally), there have been individuals featured on UM who have openly admitted to failing polygraphs that remain extremely strong suspects (Jim Harrison), and people who have outrightly refused to take polygraphs even though there is actually rather convincing evidence to suggest they're telling the truth (Doyle Wheeler).

I know cocytus was beyond insufferable, but if what he said was true, I would love to have more information on the tug-of-war between the police and the D.A. That conflict may not have even originated with the McClure case. If there were tensions before this went down, it may help explain why the police were so adamant to collar this guy. Perhaps the desire wasn't so much to lock up McClure as it was to win a pissing contest (for lack of a better term) with the D.A.

some important things I literally just noticed:

When Tim talks about the credit card memo, he says he called Monday, but then goes on to say again his theory about someone commandeering her vehicle and that 'possibly her purse was missing.' Okay, so even if what Tim said was true and he called on Monday, HE STILL DIDN"T KNOW HER PURSE WAS MISSING THEN!!!. By his own admission. So it's still suspicious that he called because he wasn't even aware then that the credit card was stolen.

Now, I want to talk about the route Terri would have taken. She lived in Reno. To the direct south of that is Lake Tahoe, where Tim's wedding was. To the east of Lake Tahoe is Carson City, where Terri was found murdered. So that means Terri would have went out of her way to go to the Carson City casino. I could *maybe* understand if Terri stopped at another casino if it was on her way home, but it wasn't. She would have traveled some distance out of her way, which means there's a good likelihood she never went there at all and her car was placed there. It would have taken some time for Tim to do to this, but there's many hours of unaccounted for time.

Meg, I did reread some of what cocytus had to say on this subject. He said he was certain that every casino in Nevada had a camera back then. I personally don't know how he would know that if it even was true. He also talked about guns and how Tim couldn't have committed the murder because he (apparently) didn't own a gun. But as we know from segments such as Morris Davis and Todd Mcafee, guns get stolen with pretty great frequency.

I know cocytus was beyond insufferable, but if what he said was true, I would love to have more information on the tug-of-war between the police and the D.A. That conflict may not have even originated with the McClure case. If there were tensions before this went down, it may help explain why the police were so adamant to collar this guy. Perhaps the desire wasn't so much to lock up McClure as it was to win a pissing contest (for lack of a better term) with the D.A.

Yes, I've tried searching online to see if I can find more info about the circumstances of McClure's arrest and the D.A.'s decision to dismiss the charges, but came up empty. I've always wondered if there was some serious misconduct in the investigation which suddenly made it impossible to build a solid case against Tim, regardless of whether or not he was guilty. It's possible the police did some unethical things while investigating Tim, who didn't even realize it because he was so naive and never bothered to consult with an attorney. Once Tim is arrested, he finally gets an defense attorney who discovers a lot of things in the case which are guaranteed to get it thrown out of court, so the D.A. drops the charges.

Now, I want to talk about the route Terri would have taken. She lived in Reno. To the direct south of that is Lake Tahoe, where Tim's wedding was. To the east of Lake Tahoe is Carson City, where Terri was found murdered. So that means Terri would have went out of her way to go to the Carson City casino. I could *maybe* understand if Terri stopped at another casino if it was on her way home, but it wasn't. She would have traveled some distance out of her way, which means there's a good likelihood she never went there at all and her car was placed there. It would have taken some time for Tim to do to this, but there's many hours of unaccounted for time.

Lake Tahoe is a state park and we're not sure of the exact location of Tim's wedding, but in some areas of the park, Carson City is actually less than 8 miles away and provides direct access to U.S. 395 (today I-580), which Terri probably used to drive north to Reno since it appears to be the main highway.

Again, we don't know exactly where Tim got married at Lake Tahoe, but if it was within the bounds of the park, I doubt there were casinos there (although I do suppose it's possible, especially in Nevada). The nearest big city is in fact Carson City, so it doesn't seem unlikely that the city Terri was found in was actually the one in which the two families hit up the casinos later that evening.

http://www.nevadadot.com/Traveler_Info/Maps/State_Map.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_580_%28Nevada%29

Meg, I did reread some of what cocytus had to say on this subject. He said he was certain that every casino in Nevada had a camera back then. I personally don't know how he would know that if it even was true. He also talked about guns and how Tim couldn't have committed the murder because he (apparently) didn't own a gun. But as we know from segments such as Morris Davis and Todd Mcafee, guns get stolen with pretty great frequency.

Yeah, I agree it would be highly unlikely that he could know about the cameras for certain.

The gun remark does seem on par with some of his "expert" analysis. ;)

Yes, I've tried searching online to see if I can find more info about the circumstances of McClure's arrest and the D.A.'s decision to dismiss the charges, but came up empty. I've always wondered if there was some serious misconduct in the investigation which suddenly made it impossible to build a solid case against Tim, regardless of whether or not he was guilty. It's possible the police did some unethical things while investigating Tim, who didn't even realize it because he was so naive and never bothered to consult with an attorney. Once Tim is arrested, he finally gets an defense attorney who discovers a lot of things in the case which are guaranteed to get it thrown out of court, so the D.A. drops the charges.

Extremely interesting thoughts! I always thought the investigator interviewed in this segment seemed somewhat chapped by the whole thing. I would love to see a D.A. interview that just didn't make the final edit, if one actually exists.

I always thought the investigator interviewed in this segment seemed somewhat chapped by the whole thing.

Oh yeah, I can only imagine how enraged the investigators must have been about the whole situation. If LE had sought assistance from UM to help solve the case, that would be one thing. Instead, their prime suspect personally contacts the show and goes on national television to insinuate that the investigators have wasted time questioning an innocent man and gone several years without finding the real killer, which makes them look very bad. I'm sure that made them extra-determined to prove that Tim McClure was responsible and if that warped their judgment when they decided to arrest him, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.

I know cocytus was beyond insufferable, but if what he said was true, I would love to have more information on the tug-of-war between the police and the D.A. That conflict may not have even originated with the McClure case. If there were tensions before this went down, it may help explain why the police were so adamant to collar this guy. Perhaps the desire wasn't so much to lock up McClure as it was to win a pissing contest (for lack of a better term) with the D.A.

Yeah, my dad told about an unsolved crime, possibly the gas station robbery in which his father was knocked unconscious, but could have been another crime, which was in the jurisdiction of the city police. They arrived to find state police were already at the scene, got miffed and left. The place was not in the state police's jurisdiction so the crime went unsolved. :mad:

I did a quick scan of the entire thread. My counts may be off by one or two in any direction, but here is what I counted:

15 guilty
19 not guilty
14 on the fence

So maybe when I said "extreme minority" that was taking it a bit far, but minority nonetheless.

Interesting. I'm glad you checked because I really didn't know the answer.

Justin: I see what you're saying, although Patty Stallings and Rick McCue may not the best examples. Nobody was guilty in Ryan Stalling's death, and I think Rick McCue was found guilty of rape and assault of an elderly woman at one point. He probably wasn't guilty of the murder of which he was accused on Final Appeal, but certainly deserves to spend the rest of his life behind bars.

Right, but what I meant was that the police and prosecution over-focused on those scenarios to the point of excluding all other possibilities. That is tunnel vision. Tunnel vision seems to be a common denominator in a lot of "final appeal" type cases regardless of the actual outcome of each.

He stated he was at a casino and dance halls. It was a major city on a Friday night/weekend. Collectively, there would have been hundreds of people that would have seen him (remember he's well over 6 feet tall with a distinctive appearance) and not one single person can recall him there?

I'm not sure if you've ever been to a casino, but these are very busy places that attract people from all walks of life and the population is transient, with a lot of people intoxicated. It isn't surprising to me that no one would remember McClure so many years after the fact.

I got married in Vegas 6 years ago, which is, ironically enough, the amount of time that had passed between McClure's mother's death and the UM report. I'm here to tell you I can't today remember much about the trip and who all we saw in the various casinos and bars we went to.

I really don't understand how some people can simply say "maybe the credit card lady got the day wrong" and be done with it. Yeah maybe, or maybe she was correct? Maybe she was an excellent employee who had been there a long time and never made mistakes?

It's pretty ambiguous either way. She could be a good employee, could not be. Hell, she could be a good employee and had an off day. Nobody is perfect. It happens. It was a Friday after all.

Coupled with everything else we know, it is pretty damning and hard to confront because here we have an uninterested party saying McClure called on Friday. I'll concede to that. What does bother me, however, is that there is really no further corroboration for this phone call/conversation aside from the credit memo. Is there a phone record of this call? I'm guessing there wasn't because I think if there was, it may have been enough to nail McClure. Instead, the best we have is this memo and the recollection that he called Friday.

Here's something else. How long after the death did the police find out about this credit memo? Say they found it a few weeks into the investigation, just the memo itself, and went back to the person who wrote it. The police have the memo. It has the date, albeit, poorly transcribed. The police go to this person and press them to know when the call came in. The call center rep probably could have felt compelled to go along with what was written on the memo rather than admit to a slip-up (assuming for the sake of argument that there was one). Hell, how the police phrased the question could have put this person on the spot (i.e., this guy is telling us he called on Monday. You wrote that he called on Friday's date. Which is it?) In that context, likely without knowing the details of the case, what is the rep going to say? Did they even remember the call? Are they going to admit they screwed up (assuming they did)?

The whole thing is too ambiguous for my taste. If there was some additional corroboration here (such as a phone record), the argument would be stronger.

Also, I have to say that I find McClure's response to the credit card business plausible. He says something along the lines of that he doesn't understand why the person got the dates mixed up and wrote down that he called on Friday as opposed to a Monday. He's had how many years to stew on this and come up with a better answer? The fact that he hasn't suggests, innocence, IMO, because a guilty person would likely try to come up with an explanation for such a screw up.

Yeah, lie detectors aren't totally reliable, but it wasn't just his, it was his wife's also. Perhaps he was nervous and that's why he failed, but how does that explain the wife's? I also don't understand his claims the tests weren't administered properly because "they made him close his eyes and the questions were a minute apart." How does that mean the test isn't administered properly? If the cops had it out for him, then why did they essentially admit his wife passed the entire thing except for one question? Did he claim his wife's test also wasn't administered properly?

I don't know enough about polygraphs to make any educated guesses here. However, they are suspect enough that they aren't admissible in court, so I don't know how much stock should be put in to them in determining guilt or innocence.

Also, as an aside, I don't think McClure ever alleged that the tests were not administered properly. He says he flunked and doesn't know why and that his wife missed one question which was "baffling."

Again, he doesn't have a better answer here? If guilty, I would think he would try harder.

He said his sister put the idea in his head that "somebody might have commandeered her vehicle and taken her purse". Perhaps, but where is the sister in the segment? Did she verify this? Where is the wife and in-laws for that matter?

Not sure. I will admit that I always found it odd that no one from McClure's family, or his wife's family participated in the segment, that we know of. On the other hand, RS said the police did say that they interviewed all of McClure's friends and family and that no one said they thought he did the deed and that he was genuinely devoted to his mother. I would think if the family was suspicious, this wouldn't have been said.

He says he went out looking at casinos to find his mother/car, but has a bad feeling about one in particular, so he avoids that one? What the hell? If the purpose was to find your mother or her car, but doesn't want to look at that one, why not summon the authorities and have them check? Or have employees check? Nope, he just avoids it and goes home.

Again, I think this is too ambiguous. How could have have possibly checked every single casino and absolutely know that he covered them all? Perhaps he missed a few, and when questioned about this after the fact, brought up spiritual guidance as an explanation/rationalization for the fact that he missed it.

In order to believe Tim's innocence, you have to believe the police are in on some sort of grand conspiracy,

Please explain. I don't understand what you mean here.

that two lie detectors are wrong, the credit card lady is wrong,

I've explained the ambiguous nature of both.

and it's not at all suspicious that Tim knew several things about his mother's case he shouldn't have known,

But how can you be sure he definitely possessed this information? This is based on the police's perceptions, no one else's, to my knowledge, right?

and it's not all suspicious that no unbiased person out of hundreds of people can't corroborate his alibi for 8 friggin' hours

See above.

Surely the date of the call would have been automatically recorded by either the phone system or the computer? Or both? I used to work in a call center, and we didn't have to manually enter dates when we noted accounts. The computer automatically did it. Granted, that was in 2005 and not in the 80's when this case took place. I guess it is possible that they were writing everything down by hand back then.

Yeah, I just think it was a sign of the times.

I wonder just where this place was that he called.

If he called an 800 number, there should a be a record of it, since the called party (the credit card company, in this case) foots the bill for those calls.

If he called a long distance number, then he should have been billed.

Maybe the company was local. It could have been something like a local bank or credit union that issued his mother's cards. Then maybe there would not have been a record of the call?

I don't know. The fact that this phone call was never really corroborated any other way aside from the memo has always bothered me.

I think these are very salient points. I know it's been dismissed a time or two here on the board, but the investigator is absolutely correct: People HAVE been killed for a lot less.

Yes, but your own mother? I would think there would have to have been some fairly severe problems in the mother son relationship for this to be true. On the contrary, this doesn't appear to be the case, as has been brought up many times before, RS said the police indicated they spoke with McClure's family and friends and that no one believed Tim did this, and he was, by all accounts devoted to his mother. If there was evidence of problems, I'm sure the police would have raised it in their discussion of motive.

A gambling debt is a very logical and interesting angle given what we do know about Tim McClure (and it definitely would be a solid motive), but I suppose I feel that if there was a shred of evidence to suggest he had amassed gambling debts, the police would've been all over that like white on rice.

Not to mention, we're assuming facts not in evidence, as the saying goes. Pretty dangerous territory to go in to...

I know cocytus was beyond insufferable, but if what he said was true, I would love to have more information on the tug-of-war between the police and the D.A. That conflict may not have even originated with the McClure case. If there were tensions before this went down, it may help explain why the police were so adamant to collar this guy. Perhaps the desire wasn't so much to lock up McClure as it was to win a pissing contest (for lack of a better term) with the D.A.

Interesting. I never really thought about the greater implications here but it does make one wonder.

On the other hand, this reminds me of something we discussed at some length in one of my classes last year that pertained to police culture:

the cops know who the guilty really are because they have such close interaction with suspects, they can infer and see things that are otherwise inadmissible in a court of law.

This partly why a lot of cops dislike the court system. They are hogtied in what they can and can't say, and prosecutorial decision making often gets down to brass tacks in determining cases that are winnable, not necessarily which cases should be brought because the defendant is guilty and deserves punishment.

I'm not sure if you've ever been to a casino, but these are very busy places that attract people from all walks of life and the population is transient, with a lot of people intoxicated. It isn't surprising to me that no one would remember McClure so many years after the fact.

I got married in Vegas 6 years ago, which is, ironically enough, the amount of time that had passed between McClure's mother's death and the UM report. I'm here to tell you I can't today remember much about the trip and who all we saw in the various casinos and bars we went to.

Exactly. Which makes Tim's desire to have his alibi confirmed 6 years after the fact all the more weird.

Here's something else. How long after the death did the police find out about this credit memo? Say they found it a few weeks into the investigation, just the memo itself, and went back to the person who wrote it. The police have the memo. It has the date, albeit, poorly transcribed. The police go to this person and press them to know when the call came in. The call center rep probably could have felt compelled to go along with what was written on the memo rather than admit to a slip-up (assuming for the sake of argument that there was one). Hell, how the police phrased the question could have put this person on the spot (i.e., this guy is telling us he called on Monday. You wrote that he called on Friday's date. Which is it?) In that context, likely without knowing the details of the case, what is the rep going to say? Did they even remember the call? Are they going to admit they screwed up (assuming they did)?

I don't think the employees had any reason to lie. The boss isn't going to reprimand the employee for something that trivial, I don't think, much less fire her. It may be important to the police and Tim, but doesn't add up to a hill of beans at the credit card company. If somebody's job was at stake, maybe, but I really don't think that's the case here.


I don't know enough about polygraphs to make any educated guesses here. However, they are suspect enough that they aren't admissible in court, so I don't know how much stock should be put in to them in determining guilt or innocence.

Also, as an aside, I don't think McClure ever alleged that the tests were not administered properly. He says he flunked and doesn't know why and that his wife missed one question which was "baffling."

Again, he doesn't have a better answer here? If guilty, I would think he would try harder.

Yeah, he did. It's in the segment. Stack says Tim claimed the tests weren't administered properly. Tim's reasons for this were that because they made him "close his eyes" and "asked the questions about a minute apart." I have no idea why he thinks the test was administered improperly based on that.

Again, I think this is too ambiguous. How could have have possibly checked every single casino and absolutely know that he covered them all? Perhaps he missed a few, and when questioned about this after the fact, brought up spiritual guidance as an explanation/rationalization for the fact that he missed it.

He knows the area better than we do, presumably. The fact that Tim himself said he checked every casino except that one is pretty damning, because it's coming from him directly. And then he talks about paranormal entities keeping him away from there?

If Tim, as he claimed, felt a bad presence there, why didn't he have someone else check it? And why is he just checking casino parking lots? She could literally be anywhere in the world!


Please explain. I don't understand what you mean here.



I've explained the ambiguous nature of both.



But how can you be sure he definitely possessed this information? This is based on the police's perceptions, no one else's, to my knowledge, right?



See above.

My points being Tim seems to know an awful lot about his mother's murder that he shouldn't have known. He looks for her purse, didn't know it was missing, but it was! He only checks casino parking lots, not knowing she was there, but she was!

I'm not sure if you saw my post about this from a few days ago: Tim admitted that he still didn't know her purse (and subsequently her credit card) was missing on Monday. So even if Tim's claim was true that he did call on Monday,*he still didn't know her purse was missing*. And on top of that, he couldn't even be certain that particular card was in there to begin with.

Also, I wanted to restate this because it's important. I know I've mentioned this before, but it's very damning: Why does Tim look for his mother's purse and not his mother? Or her car? Tim kept talking about how he feared somebody might have "commandeered her vehicle and stolen her purse." Okay, if that's the case, why wasn't he out looking for her then? Or even relaying his concerns to police? He doesn't do that, but expects to see her purse lying on the side of the road, driving by at a high speed?

I'm sorry, but nobody has offered an explanation for this.

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but Tim stated that all of his mother's jewelry was intact. If robbery was the motive, as some have alleged, don't you think they would have went for the jewelry?

Exactly. Which makes Tim's desire to have his alibi confirmed 6 years after the fact all the more weird.

Well, yeah. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks McClure is the poster boy for normalcy. But then again, if he's honestly sick and tired of the police focusing squarely on him instead of proving other leads, wouldn't this be his best bet...to appeal to a nationally televised TV show that had a telecenter and had helped solve "unsolvable" cases before? What did McClure have to lose, if he honestly were innocent?

I don't think the employees had any reason to lie. The boss isn't going to reprimand the employee for something that trivial, I don't think, much less fire her. It may be important to the police and Tim, but doesn't add up to a hill of beans at the credit card company. If somebody's job was at stake, maybe, but I really don't think that's the case here.

I think justin was saying (and it's true) that we have no way of knowing around what time the police discovered the credit card memo. Had it been weeks after Terri's body was found, assuming there was no phone record of the call, they could have went in and questioned the lady working at the CC company and showed her the note and asked something to the effect of, "are you sure he called on this date", to which she said (since a decent amount of time had elapsed), "if I wrote that date on there than it has to be the date he called". It's not 100% irrefutable because the only record of the call was someone's handwritten note. Had there been a log showing McClure placed the call on Friday...we wouldn't be having this discussion because he would have been arrested and convicted, IMO.

Yeah, he did. It's in the segment. Stack says Tim claimed the tests weren't administered properly. Tim's reasons for this were that because they made him "close his eyes" and "asked the questions about a minute apart." I have no idea why he thinks the test was administered improperly based on that.

That's not what he said. He never says they were administered improperly. He says that they made him close his eyes, and that's when his mind started to wander about how he's never taken a polygraph before, and doesn't know how to react, etc. His explaining, in his opinion, why he failed the test. He's not saying it was administered improperly.

He knows the area better than we do, presumably. The fact that Tim himself said he checked every casino except that one is pretty damning, because it's coming from him directly. And then he talks about paranormal entities keeping him away from there?

Again, McClure did not say he checked every casino lot except one...that was the UM narration. And since UM did a pretty decent job of setting McClure up to look guilty as hell, it wouldn't surprise me if this was added in for the sensational aspect of it. McClure could have easily told the cops he had checked casino lots looking for his mother's car, and the cops then said, did you check the one Terri was found in, to which he gave his holy spirit answer.

If Tim, as he claimed, felt a bad presence there, why didn't he have someone else check it? And why is he just checking casino parking lots? She could literally be anywhere in the world!

The UM segment makes it pretty clear that Terri liked to gamble. People would see McClure and Terri out and about at casinos on a regular basis. Perfectly logical for him to check casino lots. Maybe McClure didn't feel a bad presence per se, but isn't it possible that McClure was driving around aimlessly checking lots all day to no avail and simply missed a couple because in his mind at that point it seemed unlikely that he would find her car in a casino lot?

Also, I wanted to restate this because it's important. I know I've mentioned this before, but it's very damning: Why does Tim look for his mother's purse and not his mother? Or her car? Tim kept talking about how he feared somebody might have "commandeered her vehicle and stolen her purse." Okay, if that's the case, why wasn't he out looking for her then? Or even relaying his concerns to police? He doesn't do that, but expects to see her purse lying on the side of the road, driving by at a high speed?

I'm sorry, but nobody has offered an explanation for this.

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but Tim stated that all of his mother's jewelry was intact. If robbery was the motive, as some have alleged, don't you think they would have went for the jewelry?

Let's assume McClure was out driving around Nevada for an entire day (Saturday) looking for his mother's car. He can't find it anywhere, so he calls his sister who then tells him that maybe someone stole the vehicle and her purse would be inside. IMO, it would be logical at that point (since McClure was now under the assumption that the reason he couldn't find Terri's car was because someone had stolen it) for him to look for ANY sign of his mother, including remnants of her purse.

McClure doesn't say he was looking solely for her purse, he said, "They put together the fact that I said I was looking for some evidence of her purse along the side of the highway. And the only reason I said that was because my older sister had put the idea that maybe somebody had commandeered her vehicle and stolen her purse." In that context, it seems that McClure could have brought up the search he made for his mother and at one point he got so desperate that he looked for evidence of her purse. To police, this is strange. But to a guy who's mother was his best friend who was also missing, what's the harm in trying to find ANY sign of his mother?

Not to mention, if McClure was guilty, this search provided a perfect time for him to "discover" some sign of Terri's purse along the highway. All he had to do was tell the cops that he found Terri's empty purse, or wallet on some highway leading directly out of Nevada, and you've got a potential lead on a new suspect fleeing the state after stealing Terri's purse. If McClure knew all along that his mother's dead body was in a casino parking lot, knowing also that he stole her purse and discarded it to look like a robbery, why would he then knowingly tell the police he was looking for it? It just doesn't make any sense.

I would also be interested in knowing where Tim lived at that point. All Stack says is that he "moved away from Reno." It may not mean anything, but I'm curious nonetheless.

I also want to say this: Tim stated that he began to "feel like the victim" because the police were asking him too many tough questions for his liking. Erm, no, the victim was your mother who was shot twice in the head and killed.

The fact that his mother is killed and Tim says that *he* was the victim should tell you everything you need to know.

McClure says he became aware he was a suspect when the police asked him if he wanted an attorney present. To my knowledge, he never lawyered up. That's another indicator of innocence, IMO.

Bottom line: McClure's case was dismissed with prejudice. The legal definition means that the courts held that the case against McClure was "vexatious" ("denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant"), if a case is brought in bad faith, or if a defendant's right to a speedy trial has been denied. IMO, I believe the reason McClure's case was dismissed was because of the vexatious aspect. The prosecution had no case, and charged McClure because they couldn't find anyone else.

Yeah, no.

I feel as if I'm in a good position to talk about this. I have dismissed cases where I KNOW THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY. I've had to do it for several reasons: Victim's wishes, unreliable witnesses, etc. Botched police investigations are at the top of the list, in my experience, for dismissals with prejudice. It frustrates me to no end, but unfortunately, it happens. It does NOT mean that the case is vexatious or that law enforcement was just pulling at strings. When I see "with prejudice," I usually believe the case is flawed in such a way that it could not support a conviction.

It's amusing how time changes how you look at these segments. I hadn't seen the Tim McClure segment for about eight years. I watched it again just a few moments ago before reading this thread in its entirety. I found it interesting that NO ONE seemed to pick up on a sentence Mr. McClure uttered with regard to the polygraph test. It's to the effect of, "I was strapped in this hard chair and it felt like the electric chair."

I'm not an expert in linguistics and lord knows I've said some really stupid things in my day, but that was odd enough that 1) I played it back and 2) I wrote it down. Why would it feel like the electric chair unless you had a reason to believe you would be sitting in the electric chair? (Not an indicator of guilt, but MAN, that was a strange statement. Right up there with shooting silly string over a fresh grave, if you ask me.)

I was on the fence a few years ago. Now, I firmly believe Tim McClure is guilty of murdering his mother, but that local law enforcement botched the investigation to where a conviction is impossible. I know there are some on the boards that may disagree with my assessment, and I respect that. However, I also understand juries well enough to know that if there is ONE aspect of the investigation that isn't done correctly, it's enough to start a domino effect of "well, if they got THAT wrong, what else did they get wrong?" In a murder case, you want all your ducks to be in a row. I suspect that the handling of the case is where this all fell apart for the prosecution.

I think the motive was hit on earlier in the thread: Perhaps Tim really DID gamble his ass off that night. Perhaps he spent a lot more money than he intended. Maybe he asked his mother for a loan and it precipitated into an argument where she was ultimately killed. OR... maybe Tim's mother was a bit domineering (like my mom) and didn't like her new daughter-in-law. I could see this very quickly becoming a point of contention between Tim and his mother.

I agree with other posters, especially wiseguy, that Tim is either guilty or has the worst luck in the history of the world. There's no way that all of this could fall into place without Tim either killing his mother or knowing that it was going to happen. Hey, maybe the new wife offed Terri. Maybe THAT'S why she elects not to be interviewed by UM.

I'm not offering this as proof of anything, but I will add: If you're planning to kill someone, killing them on your wedding night is probably one of the better ways to go, because who kill someone on their wedding night? We've been debating this VERY issue for upwards of a decade, and for good reason. No one would reasonably suspect someone of killing their mother on such a day.

I submit Tim McClure killed his mother on that day as a way to avoid being named as a suspect.

I also agree with an earlier comment-- that regardless of guilt, Tim was looking to cash in on an opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame. It's the only reason I can think he'd choose to play himself in the re-creation of the events. So then you have to ask yourself-- why would someone be looking to cash in on such a terrible chain of events? To truly find his mother's killer? To look for someone to bolster his alibi? To purge a guilty conscience? Or to potentially fund a gambling addiction?

Again-- unless Tim (or his wife) have a change of heart, I doubt we'll ever really know what happened to Ms. McClure.

McClure says he became aware he was a suspect when the police asked him if he wanted an attorney present. To my knowledge, he never lawyered up. That's another indicator of innocence, IMO.


I can think of at least three murder cases where the Defendant submitted to questioning WITHOUT an attorney present for the reasons that they were all arrogant enough to think they could fool law enforcement without the assistance of one.

When someone refuses to proceed without an attorney, I actually look at that as a possible indicator of innocence. If I didn't do a crime and I think I'm about to be accused, there's no way in hell I'm going into that room without a legal advocate. But that's just me.

Yeah, no.

I feel as if I'm in a good position to talk about this. I have dismissed cases where I KNOW THE DEFENDANT IS GUILTY. I've had to do it for several reasons: Victim's wishes, unreliable witnesses, etc. Botched police investigations are at the top of the list, in my experience, for dismissals with prejudice. It frustrates me to no end, but unfortunately, it happens. It does NOT mean that the case is vexatious or that law enforcement was just pulling at strings. When I see "with prejudice," I usually believe the case is flawed in such a way that it could not support a conviction.

You certainly know a lot more about law than I do, so I'll have to concede to this point. Just to clarify, are you saying that you've dismissed cases where you know the defendant is guilty, "with prejudice" or just dismissing it? And were they murder cases?

I'm not an expert in linguistics and lord knows I've said some really stupid things in my day, but that was odd enough that 1) I played it back and 2) I wrote it down. Why would it feel like the electric chair unless you had a reason to believe you would be sitting in the electric chair? (Not an indicator of guilt, but MAN, that was a strange statement. Right up there with shooting silly string over a fresh grave, if you ask me.)

Yes, that is very odd.

I submit Tim McClure killed his mother on that day as a way to avoid being named as a suspect.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because it certainly backfired on McClure.

I also agree with an earlier comment-- that regardless of guilt, Tim was looking to cash in on an opportunity for his 15 minutes of fame. It's the only reason I can think he'd choose to play himself in the re-creation of the events. So then you have to ask yourself-- why would someone be looking to cash in on such a terrible chain of events? To truly find his mother's killer? To look for someone to bolster his alibi? To purge a guilty conscience? Or to potentially fund a gambling addiction?

What money would have gained out of appearing on UM? Not to mention he ran the risk of someone remembering seeing him at the casino lot where his mother's body was ultimately found, driving away from the casino where his wedding took place with his mother, etc.

When someone refuses to proceed without an attorney, I actually look at that as a possible indicator of innocence. If I didn't do a crime and I think I'm about to be accused, there's no way in hell I'm going into that room without a legal advocate. But that's just me.

Not all people are aware of the possible dangers about being questioned without counsel. McClure struck me as one of these people.

You certainly know a lot more about law than I do, so I'll have to concede to this point. Just to clarify, are you saying that you've dismissed cases where you know the defendant is guilty, "with prejudice" or just dismissing it? And were they murder cases?

I've dismissed "with prejudice." I only dismiss "without prejudice" when there are typos in the charging document that I need to address. I haven't dismissed any murder cases, but I have dismissed a pretty significant embezzling case where I am 100% certain the accused is guilty. I am also aware of several murders in my jurisdiction where we're sitting on a mountain of circumstantial evidence and just need that one missing piece to put it all together so formal charges can be filed.

You are correct in your speedy trial analysis, for what it's worth. Since the case went to the preliminary hearing phase, that tells me that the speedy trial clock HAD start to run, which would have posed a problem down the road. I believe I read something about a feud between law enforcement and the DA's office-- this could have also played into it, especially if charges were pursued BEFORE the DA's office was ready to move forward. The dismissal could have been a nice "middle finger" to send the over-zealous law enforcement individuals, if that was the case. I know *I've* joked about dismissing cases where LE didn't dot every "i" and cross every "t" and I've had to go back in and clean the case up for trial...


What money would have gained out of appearing on UM? Not to mention he ran the risk of someone remembering seeing him at the casino lot where his mother's body was ultimately found, driving away from the casino where his wedding took place with his mother, etc.

I think appearing on UM would give someone some notoriety, to which financial gains may be likely. Look at Larry Gibson. (I really hate that I have to share the same Big Sky Country with him, but again, that's just me.)


Not all people are aware of the possible dangers about being questioned without counsel. McClure struck me as one of these people.

Not going to fight you on that one. McClure is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.

OT: I LOVED the comment someone made a few years ago regarding his mullet: "No one should have that much party in the back." I literally laughed out loud in my office. :lol: :lol:

I've dismissed "with prejudice." I only dismiss "without prejudice" when there are typos in the charging document that I need to address. I haven't dismissed any murder cases, but I have dismissed a pretty significant embezzling case where I am 100% certain the accused is guilty. I am also aware of several murders in my jurisdiction where we're sitting on a mountain of circumstantial evidence and just need that one missing piece to put it all together so formal charges can be filed.

I guess it's just hard for me to imagine, and granted I'm just a lay person, that a prosecutor would dismiss a murder charge, "with prejudice". It just seems implausible to me that a prosecutor would essentially let someone get off (in this case a murder) and never be prosecuted again. Had there been a feud, and all indications seem like there was at the time according to posters on here, I don't see how the DA would let a potential guilty murder suspect get away simply to say "screw you" to the law enforcement agency. That should have been the case with McClure, IMO. Some circumstantial evidence here and there that makes him a likely suspect...why not wait it out to see if anything else develops? Like his wife or in-laws confessing years later, McClure confessing, DNA, new witnesses, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me.

You are correct in your speedy trial analysis, for what it's worth. Since the case went to the preliminary hearing phase, that tells me that the speedy trial clock HAD start to run, which would have posed a problem down the road. I believe I read something about a feud between law enforcement and the DA's office-- this could have also played into it, especially if charges were pursued BEFORE the DA's office was ready to move forward. The dismissal could have been a nice "middle finger" to send the over-zealous law enforcement individuals, if that was the case. I know *I've* joked about dismissing cases where LE didn't dot every "i" and cross every "t" and I've had to go back in and clean the case up for trial...

As a prosecutor, would this be ethical to simply drop a case and dismiss it simply because you were in a pissing contest with LE? Doesn't seem likely to me. I recall the Diane Downs murder case where LE continually pressured the DA to press charges but he wouldn't budge because he thought that the case wasn't strong enough at the time. He eventually did, but not before ticking a lot of members of LE off for not charging her sooner. Since we have nothing to go on other than the UM segment and the very brief update, I'm simply making an assumption that the case against McClure was bare and that the DA really didn't think McClure was guilty. Could be wrong, but then again I don't see how dismissing a murder case with prejudice would make any sense if there was even a shred of possibility that McClure was guilty.

I think appearing on UM would give someone some notoriety, to which financial gains may be likely. Look at Larry Gibson. (I really hate that I have to share the same Big Sky Country with him, but again, that's just me.)

Let's assume McClure is innocent for a second. How would appearing on UM be any different than the parents of Chad Maurer, or the brother of Morris Davis, among many other family members who (obviously not guilty) appeared on UM in reenactments? There is zero of this case on line outside of two dated LA Times articles from 1992. Before the internet, most UM cases didn't really generate much publicity outside of the show. Back in 1989, the show was primarily an avenue to help solve cases (before they became overly sensational with ridiculous magic rock segments)...so I don't see how McClure would think this would help him in any way, especially if he truly were guilty.

Not going to fight you on that one. McClure is obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed.

This is the one problem I have with the theory that McClure is guilty. Virtually everyone on here, regardless of what they think in terms of innocence or guilt, all agree that McClure was a bit off, awkward, and not very bright in the common sense department. Yet he magically pulled off the perfect crime, leaving behind not only no paper trail but also no evidence that he was involved in his mother's murder?

OT: I LOVED the comment someone made a few years ago regarding his mullet: "No one should have that much party in the back." I literally laughed out loud in my office. :lol: :lol:

:D

This is the one problem I have with the theory that McClure is guilty. Virtually everyone on here, regardless of what they think in terms of innocence or guilt, all agree that McClure was a bit off, awkward, and not very bright in the common sense department. Yet he magically pulled off the perfect crime, leaving behind not only no paper trail but also no evidence that he was involved in his mother's murder?



I dunno - don't forget that much of the forensic evidence, so essential in many murder cases, would have been worthless - if any of Tim's fingerprints or DNA is found on or near his mother or her car, he has a perfectly innocent explanation. Given that there are no witnesses to the crime or confessions, the prosecutor's job now gets very difficult.

Which is not to say I think Tim is necessarily guilty. He is so strange and the circumstances of the crime so bizarre, I don't know what to make of the whole thing to be honest.

Some people have suggested that the police had it out for Tim, but I didn't get the vibe at all. The police officer interviewed in the segment seemed really level-headed and not overzealous in the least bit. One statement he made was "We made every attempt to verify Tim's alibi". Does that sound like someone who had it out for Tim?

I dunno - don't forget that much of the forensic evidence, so essential in many murder cases, would have been worthless - if any of Tim's fingerprints or DNA is found on or near his mother or her car, he has a perfectly innocent explanation. Given that there are no witnesses to the crime or confessions, the prosecutor's job now gets very difficult.

Which is not to say I think Tim is necessarily guilty. He is so strange and the circumstances of the crime so bizarre, I don't know what to make of the whole thing to be honest.

You're absolutely right, the prosecutor's job in getting a conviction would have been near impossible (based off of the evidence presented in the UM segment). But there still could have been a break in the case years later, but now no matter what comes out, McClure can never be charged.

ETA: I am currently watching the segment for the first time in months, and I'm noticing things I never noticed before.

-Terri, according to the reenactment, was found slumped against the window in the passenger's seat of her car, and the front driver's window was rolled down almost all the way.
-It is obvious that there is no call log confirming or denying the date that McClure called the credit card company. The detective specifically states that the lady from the CC company, "in her own mind" is positive that McClure called on a Friday.
-The detective never says that McClure told the CC company that his mother was murdered, he just says "deceased".
-McClure's full quote with regards to the polygraph: "Well I was completely cooperative, you know I had nothing to hide. I had no reason not to take one, so naturally I said, 'sure I'll take a polygraph', and my wife agreed, too. So, it was a strange situation...when they were asking the questions, they made me close my eyes, you know I'm all wired up...I felt like I was in an electric chair. A very hard wood armed chair, sitting there and as they asked the question, oh it seemed like maybe a minute between each question. With my eyes closed, just a number of things were going around my mind at the time. At that point that's when I started thinking, 'well geeze, what if they think I did it'. And I'd never taken a polygraph before, I didn't know how to react. And it was just a very awkward and uncomfortable situtation for me. I don't know why, but I flunked the test. And my wife had flunked only one question, which didn't make any sense. 'Do you know who murdered Terri McClure' was the question she was asked, and it appeared to be a lie when she said no. So it looked like she was trying to cover up. Which is unexplainable to me."
-During the initial broadcast, (1989, IIRC), the police did try to submit the case to the DA but they decided that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. It was only after the segment aired that they went ahead and arrested him and that's when the DA dismissed the case with prejudice. Definitely seems like there was some animosity between the two sides.

I hate to keep replying to this same thread over and over, but I think I may have found McClure's wife. It wasn't easy. The first thing I did was while rewatching the segment, I thought that if McClure had no problem appearing in the segment, suppose the woman who was his wife, was in fact his actual wife in the scenes together? She may not have appeared on camera for an interview, but why not appear with Tim in the reenactments? Anyway, after an exhaustive search on multiple websites, I finally think I found her name. I did a search over at genealogy.com on the date of McClure's wedding (January 14, 1983) with McClure's name and got a record (with no date) indicating that a Timothy M. McClure married a Cherie M. Duarte in Nevada from 1956-2003. I tried looking at the file but you had to pay to view it. Then I just googled "Cherie M. Duarte Timothy McClure" and found this link: http://www.peoplefinders.com/marriage-records/cherie+duarte

It not only has McClure's full name, but also the correct date of their marriage. Although her appearance in the segment is very brief, for those that have access to the segment, check out the scene where McClure and his wife pull up to Terri's house and notice the newspaper. That is the best shot I could find in the segment of McClure's wife. I think this is her: https://www.facebook.com/cheri.duarte/media_set?set=a.1173703439380.23432.1731898221&type=3

So they were divorced then.

How interesting.

I was joking when I said it originally, but I'll say it again: THE WIFE DID IT!

I've been meaning to post screenshots but I'm pretty sure Tim's not wearing a wedding ring on UM.

I think this is her: https://www.facebook.com/cheri.duarte/media_set?set=a.1173703439380.23432.1731898221&type=3

That's totally her.


I think I swing back and forth on this case every other day. LooksLikeCRicci's recent posts in particular have been extremely enlightening and helpful, and I appreciate her thoughts on the matter.

There was a poster from MANY pages back who mentioned that he actually worked with Tim McClure for about a year--did anyone share any private messages with this person?

Tim McClure is so stupid that I want to believe him. Just hearing his breathy, golly-gee voice makes me break out into hysterics.

There was a poster from MANY pages back who mentioned that he actually worked with Tim McClure for about a year--did anyone share any private messages with this person?

Oh yeah, Mottabam, I remember him. He was before my time, but I'm 99% sure I did contact him. All of his posts were related to finding a copy of the segment, which he eventually did get. Then he moved on. I'd be interesting in hearing what he would have to say about Tim, but he never divulged any of that info, privately or publically.

Discussing this case with another poster during PM's and they brought up a good point with regards to Terri's car:

Knowing how small Terri was compared to McClure, the cops would have been able to determine whether McClure drove it or not. Since Terri was found in the passenger side of the car, that would make it possible that her killer drove the car there and planted it after the fact. Kind of like the Bonnie Haim case. Pure speculation here, but since it wasn't revealed as something to be used against McClure, I think her seat was in the correct position. Not saying that McClure couldn't have adjusted the seat after the fact, but I don't think he would have been that savvy.

The other thing that irritates me to no end about the case is that UM never specified as to whether or not Terri's car was where she was killed. Because if it was determined that she was shot in her car at that casino lot, McClure would have to be innocent.

ETA: If the reenactment is accurate, and Terri's car was found parked in an odd angle, this bolsters the theory that an unknown robber murdered her as she was attempting to park the car. McClure would have no reason to haphazardly dump his mother's body and car in such a weird position, in a parking lot filled with people coming and going.

Apparently a former poster had information with regards to Terri's murder shortly after it happened, from newspaper articles at the time. McClure gave a much more reasonable answer (as opposed to his Holy spirit comment) as to why he didn't check the lot his mother was ultimately found in. He said that McClure nor Terri cared for the casino, and Terri didn't like the atmosphere, so that's why he didn't bother to check that one.

^That actually makes Tim look more guilty. How did her car end up there if she didn't like going to that casino and didn't frequent it? Tim probably planted it there in hopes to buy himself more time. What reasoning would a random perp have for putting the car there? I assume cocytus is the poster you're referring to? Again, not the most reliable source.

^That actually makes Tim look more guilty. How did her car end up there if she didn't like going to that casino and didn't frequent it? Tim probably planted it there in hopes to buy himself more time. What reasoning would a random perp have for putting the car there? I assume cocytus is the poster you're referring to? Again, not the most reliable source.

I don't necessarily think it makes him look any more or less guilty, just that it's a more acceptable answer than his "holy spirit" one. I may be misremembering the details, but McClure could have never went there with his mother and just assumed that she didn't care for it.

Assuming the UM reenactment is accurate and her car was found positioned awkwardly in the parking spot, she was probably shot or held up as she was parking the car.

Ok, I was incorrect, it was McClure that didn't like the casino his mother was found at, and just figured his mother didn't either.

The fact that McClure was/is an odd duck was underplayed in the UM segment. News stories about him in the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Nevada Appeal make it a wonder that he could even tie his own shoes w/o assistance.

The fact that the police couldn't find an obvious suspect and their opinion of guilt based solely upon their perceptions concerning his oddness seem to be the only reason that he was even a primary suspect.

McClure didn't care for The Ormsby House (the casino that his mother was found at) and wouldn't have normally gone to it. My information is from stories I read in the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Nevada Appeal that go more in-depth about the story.

It would have been nice if he could have posted the articles years ago.

I remember pointing out the positioning of the car years ago. I really don't think she was murdered as soon as she entered the parking lot. If she was murdered by someone else than Tim, I think a likelier scenario was that she had a good night at the casino and was targeted. But I don't believe that to be the case, especially since her jewelry was still intact.

Something I've never thought of before: It should be noted that there was no evidence that anyone tried to use her credit cards. Assuming robbery was the motive if she was killed by someone other than Tim, surely the killer(s) would have tried to use that credit card at some point, but since it's never stated, it likely didn't happen. Which reinforces my believe Tim tried to set it up to appear like a robbery.

Assuming robbery was the motive if she was killed by someone other than Tim, surely the killer(s) would have tried to use that credit card at some point, but since it's never stated, it likely didn't happen. Which reinforces my believe Tim tried to set it up to appear like a robbery.

McClure could have used the cards to help play up the robbery aspect, but instead cancels them. That sounds like the actions of someone concerned for their mother.

LOL! Then why wasn't he out looking for his mother? Please address this.

LOL! Then why wasn't he out looking for his mother? Please address this.

It was addressed in the segment. McClure discovered Terri was missing on Saturday evening. He called family and friends and no one had heard from her. Since the UM segment is vague, we don't know if he went driving around looking for her before or after he called police, but that's a moot point either way. He went looking for her on Saturday. The search for her car, remnants of her purse, etc. were all done on Saturday. Once the police became actively involved, why did he need to continue to look for her?

Another odd part of this story is that she was dead in the parking lot for two days before someone noticed? And if the reenactment is correct about the car parked at a weird angle, how would someone not notice that, and on top of that, a dead woman in the passenger seat? I'm sure casino security at the time was nothing like how it is today when the murder happened, it just kind of confuses me that it all went unnoticed for two days.

I wonder what Tim thinks about all this over 30 years after it happened. I'm sure he thought everyone forgot about it.

It was addressed in the segment. McClure discovered Terri was missing on Saturday evening. He called family and friends and no one had heard from her. Since the UM segment is vague, we don't know if he went driving around looking for her before or after he called police, but that's a moot point either way. He went looking for her on Saturday. The search for her car, remnants of her purse, etc. were all done on Saturday. Once the police became actively involved, why did he need to continue to look for her?

1. so that he could find her?

2. Why wouldn't he check that casino parking lot? The segment shows him driving right by it. Even if he thought she wouldn't have gone there, he was right next to it and it would have taken only a few seconds to check it out. He might as well since he's right there. But the Holy Spirit keeps him away? um-kay.

3. Terri lived in Reno, so the Reno police would have searched Reno for her. Except that she was found in Carson City, almost certainly serendipitously by the Carson City police.

4. she could literally be anywhere, so why leave it to one city's police to check that limited area for her?

5. No, Tim states that the one drive was solely that he could find her purse, which he didn't even know was missing. He wasn't looking for Terri or her car.

6. It's interesting to note that Tim apparently also doesn't call her employer. Granted the segment stated she "took time off work", but perhaps she got called in? Or perhaps she forgot something there. They could have asked around to see if any of Terri's coworkers saw her, but Tim doesn't go there.

1. so that he could find her?

He obviously couldn't find her after his Saturday search, why not let the professionals handle it?

2. Why wouldn't he check that casino parking lot? The segment shows him driving right by it. Even if he thought she wouldn't have gone there, he was right next to it and it would have taken only a few seconds to check it out. He might as well since he's right there. But the Holy Spirit keeps him away? um-kay.

Your blind hatred of everything McClure will probably cloud your judgement on this, but can you at least admit that if McClure did an exhaustive search along his mother's route (over an hour) from where he was married to her home searching casino lot after casino lot, coming up empty handed each time, that maybe he pulled up to the lot and figured since her car wasn't in any of the other lots she probably didn't go to a casino? Especially one where McClure had never gone with her before?

3. Terri lived in Reno, so the Reno police would have searched Reno for her. Except that she was found in Carson City, almost certainly serendipitously by the Carson City police.

4. she could literally be anywhere, so why leave it to one city's police to check that limited area for her?

This is off of the assumption that McClure is guilty. If he's innocent, he has no clue where his mother was at or what jurisdiction would be handling it. McClure already looked for her, couldn't find her, and if he's innocent, like you said she could literally be anywhere...so what exactly is he supposed to do? Search the entire state?

5. No, Tim states that the one drive was solely that he could find her purse, which he didn't even know was missing. He wasn't looking for Terri or her car.

This is yet another instance of UM biasing the segment towards the theory that McClure killed his mother. They first bring up his search for her purse. Then they bring up the casino lot search. Both happened on Saturday. It's obvious that he was looking for ANY sign of his mother, car, purse, or otherwise. The cops were reaching over the purse comment, and UM played that up like it was a smoking gun. The guy was out driving around on Saturday obviously looking for something other than her purse, since he drove through casino lots also looking for her car.

6. It's interesting to note that Tim apparently also doesn't call her employer. Granted the segment stated she "took time off work", but perhaps she got called in? Or perhaps she forgot something there. They could have asked around to see if any of Terri's coworkers saw her, but Tim doesn't go there.

We don't know if he called her work or not. McClure called family and friends asking if they had seen or heard from Terri. A coworker may have been one of these friends.

Your blind hatred of everything McClure will probably cloud your judgement on this

That did provide me with a laugh. Conversely, you're a die-hard supporter of his. Would you trust your life in his hands?

I still think the credit card cancellation was an attempt to stop someone from using the card that weekend. Also, the statement about the life insurance policy was that the proceeds would go to Tim and ONE of his sisters. Did he have another sister? Why wouldn't she have been on the policy? Bad relationship there? I'm leaning towards a family member committing the crime, but I don't think it's Tim, and I'm leaning away from the wife being involved. Now I'm wondering about the mystery sister.

That did provide me with a laugh. Conversely, you're a die-hard supporter of his. Would you trust your life in his hands?

Considering he hasn't murdered anyone, why not?

2. Why wouldn't he check that casino parking lot? The segment shows him driving right by it. Even if he thought she wouldn't have gone there, he was right next to it and it would have taken only a few seconds to check it out. He might as well since he's right there. But the Holy Spirit keeps him away? um-kay.



Respectfully snipped.

Judging by his last name (which reflects Irish heritage) and his comment about the Holy Spirit, I suspect Mr. McClure may have been raised Roman Catholic. If that is the case, the Holy Spirit comment, imo, means very little one way or the other. It's just one of those things you inherit from your devout grandmother or the nuns/priests/brothers that taught you catechism. It's just a slightly more esoteric and metaphysical version of "I don't know, I guess I got lucky" or "My gut told me not to"

I haven't been Catholic in over 20 years and yet some of it sticks such as:
-genuflecting in front of an altar, no matter what flavor of church I am in
-crossing myself when I pass an accident on the highway
-being RIDICULOUSLY polite to nuns (which led to a lot of ribbing when my very protestant church's women's group had a function at a convent)
-busting out the prayer to St Anthony when I've lost something
and many many more things I'm sure I don't even notice.

It's just a turn of phrase. I don't think it indicates guilt one way or the other.
-----
Why would he kill her? What was the motive? His 5k share of the life insurance hardly seems motive.

I have always wondered if the cancelled credit card issue was a miscommunication. If he told the credit card employee that his mother had been missing since his wedding day, is it possible the employee cancelled as of that date so that any charges while she was missing wouldn't count?

If the murder was committed by another family member, that could also explain why she was found in the lot of the casino Tim hated. Maybe that family member didn't want to subject Tim to finding her. And maybe Tim and his wife had suspicions who did it and that's why they failed the polygraphs.

It's just a turn of phrase. I don't think it indicates guilt one way or the other.

I agree. Plus, this is 6 years after the fact. What he said at the time makes more sense. He didn't like the casino and he and his mother never went there, so why bother checking the place?

I have always wondered if the cancelled credit card issue was a miscommunication. If he told the credit card employee that his mother had been missing since his wedding day, is it possible the employee cancelled as of that date so that any charges while she was missing wouldn't count?

Excellent point. The lady could have asked when she was missing, and wrote that date down to check and see if the card had been used since.

If the murder was committed by another family member, that could also explain why she was found in the lot of the casino Tim hated. Maybe that family member didn't want to subject Tim to finding her. And maybe Tim and his wife had suspicions who did it and that's why they failed the polygraphs.

Possible. I still lean more towards a random robbery that escalated to murder when Terri wouldn't give up her purse. I believe she was targeted by someone inside the casino who saw her win big (or under the assumption that she won big), and was accosted as she was backing her car out of the parking spot, which would explain why it was found at an odd angle.

I just really don't believe he killed his mother. I don't have a great laid out argument as to why, but I just don't think he did it. I

I wasn't aware there was a Tim McClure love-in marathon scheduled for New Year's Eve.

TheCars1986, I forgot what year did this take place? early 80s?

1983

I wasn't aware there was a Tim McClure love-in marathon scheduled for New Year's Eve.

Well come on now, wise guy, be reasonable. You can't expect to get the Tim McClure fan club memos when you don't pay the club dues.

:lol:

I don't know if he's guilty or not. My gut says no, but he knows more than he's saying. Sadly, the Holy Ghost has remained mum on this one, at least to me. :crazy:

Well come on now, wise guy, be reasonable. You can't expect to get the Tim McClure fan club memos when you don't pay the club dues.

:lol:

How true, how true. :lol:

TheCars1986, I forgot what year did this take place? early 80s?

Police speculate that Terri was murdered on January 14th, 1983. McClure says he searched for his mother's car, purse, signs of his mother on January 15th. McClure also reported her missing on the 15th. He claims he cancelled his mother's credit card on the 17th, which was the same day Terri's body was found. The UM segment wasn't filmed until 1989, I believe.

I just can't get over the lie detector tests. If Tim is guilty, it explains why he completely failed. It also explains why his wife failed the question "Do you know who murdered Terri McClure?" The wife can answer truthfully to the rest of the questions, which were presumably about her involvement or lackthereof in Terri's murder, which she apparently did. But that she failed that one question signals to me she know who did it.

Tim claims that his test wasn't administered properly. That's sort of a hard claim to make when your wife had no problem with hers except for one question. And Tim's explanation of why the test wasn't administered properly (eyes closed, questions "about a minute apart) makes absolutely no sense. None. And then he says "My wife only failed one question, which didn't make sense, do you know who killed Terri?" Except that it makes perfect sense.

I know I'm going to get the inevitable "but lie detectors are unreliable" response, but really, how do you explain why the wife aced her test except for that one question? So the test was almost entirely reliable except for that one question? I'm sorry, but that seems highly unlikely.

I do know that occasionally, administers of lie detector tests will have the subject purposefully lie to a random question, to test the effectiveness: such as have them say today is Tuesday, when it's really Saturday. I wonder if anything like that happened here.

It's intersting to note numerous posters on here feel he's innocent, but have absotuely no explanation why they feel that way, it's just a "feeling." I've read at least 3 posts attesting to that, if not more. I think that emotions and feelings are dictacting people's responses, and not facts. Because if you look at the facts, I think they SCREAM that Tim did this.

I just can't get over the lie detector tests. If Tim is guilty, it explains why he completely failed. It also explains why his wife failed the question "Do you know who murdered Terri McClure?" The wife can answer truthfully to the rest of the questions, which were presumably about her involvement or lackthereof in Terri's murder, which she apparently did. But that she failed that one question signals to me she know who did it.

We don't know what questions McClure failed, for one. He says, "I don't know why but I flunked the test". Does this mean he failed even the meaningless questions they asked as well? A quick google search will show several people who failed lie detector tests (usually they were taking them for a potential job) who were telling the truth. One of the biggest reasons is the polygrapher will become agitated and start shouting/accusing the subject of lying, which results in a heightened sense of nervousness, etc. which would produce a "deceptive" response. Remember what the Sgt. in the segment said? He said that McClure was confronted quite "adamantly" over and over about the "deceptions". Could have been an overbearing polygraph examiner who got a rise out of McClure and made him nervous, which didn't seem that hard to do.

As for his wife failing one question, I think the most reasonable explanation (if he's innocent) is that his wife genuinely had suspicions about his involvement in the murder. The missing 2 hour period, McClure being the last one to see Terri alive, AND the fact that the police seemed so focused on McClure as the prime suspect probably planted the seeds of doubt in her mind, which if she suspected McClure to be guilty but said "No" to the question of if she knew who killed Terri, that would produce a deceptive response.

Tim claims that his test wasn't administered properly. That's sort of a hard claim to make when your wife had no problem with hers except for one question. And Tim's explanation of why the test wasn't administered properly (eyes closed, questions "about a minute apart) makes absolutely no sense. None. And then he says "My wife only failed one question, which didn't make sense, do you know who killed Terri?" Except that it makes perfect sense.

He doesn't say the test wasn't done properly. Never. Not once. He's describing what he went through and how uncomfortable he was and how his mind started to wander in between questions, and that he started to worry about the cops thinking he was guilty. That's it.

I know I'm going to get the inevitable "but lie detectors are unreliable" response, but really, how do you explain why the wife aced her test except for that one question? So the test was almost entirely reliable except for that one question? I'm sorry, but that seems highly unlikely.

See above.

It's intersting to note numerous posters on here feel he's innocent, but have absotuely no explanation why they feel that way, it's just a "feeling." I've read at least 3 posts attesting to that, if not more. I think that emotions and feelings are dictacting people's responses, and not facts. Because if you look at the facts, I think they SCREAM that Tim did this.

What facts? The evidence against McClure:

-The failed polygraph.
-The he said/she said over the cancelling of the credit card.
-His mentioning of looking for Terri's purse on Saturday, when no one knew it was missing at that time.

That's it. There is no evidence tying McClure to a firearm. No evidence that McClure was lying about his alibi. No evidence suggesting motive, outside of $5,000 in life insurance. No evidence of a call log that McClure did in fact call the credit card company on Friday. They were going off of the rep's memory, weeks after the murder. No witnesses to Terri's murder. No witnesses place McClure near or at the scene of Terri's murder. McClure's family and friends all backed him up when interviewed by police. And according to cocytus there was no video evidence of McClure leaving and reentering the casino that his wife and in-laws were gambling in within the span of the 2 hours of unaccounted time after walking Terri to her car. The evidence that should have been there never surfaced. Which is why I think the DA dismissed the case against McClure with prejudice.

We don't know what questions McClure failed, for one. He says, "I don't know why but I flunked the test". Does this mean he failed even the meaningless questions they asked as well? A quick google search will show several people who failed lie detector tests (usually they were taking them for a potential job) who were telling the truth. One of the biggest reasons is the polygrapher will become agitated and start shouting/accusing the subject of lying, which results in a heightened sense of nervousness, etc. which would produce a "deceptive" response. Remember what the Sgt. in the segment said? He said that McClure was confronted quite "adamantly" over and over about the "deceptions". Could have been an overbearing polygraph examiner who got a rise out of McClure and made him nervous, which didn't seem that hard to do.

But Tim apparently failed the whole thing. So even if the Sgt. gets angry mid-way through the interview, how does that explain Tim failing the first part?

As for his wife failing one question, I think the most reasonable explanation (if he's innocent) is that his wife genuinely had suspicions about his involvement in the murder. The missing 2 hour period, McClure being the last one to see Terri alive, AND the fact that the police seemed so focused on McClure as the prime suspect probably planted the seeds of doubt in her mind, which if she suspected McClure to be guilty but said "No" to the question of if she knew who killed Terri, that would produce a deceptive response.

That pretty much should tell you what you need to know, if the wife has those suspicions.

He doesn't say the test wasn't done properly. Never. Not once. He's describing what he went through and how uncomfortable he was and how his mind started to wander in between questions, and that he started to worry about the cops thinking he was guilty. That's it.

Stack says it. Are you accusing the late, great Robert Stack of lying?


What facts? The evidence against McClure:

-The failed polygraph.
-The he said/she said over the cancelling of the credit card.
-His mentioning of looking for Terri's purse on Saturday, when no one knew it was missing at that time.

That's it. There is no evidence tying McClure to a firearm. No evidence that McClure was lying about his alibi. No evidence suggesting motive, outside of $5,000 in life insurance. No evidence of a call log that McClure did in fact call the credit card company on Friday. They were going off of the rep's memory, weeks after the murder. No witnesses to Terri's murder. No witnesses place McClure near or at the scene of Terri's murder. McClure's family and friends all backed him up when interviewed by police. And according to cocytus there was no video evidence of McClure leaving and reentering the casino that his wife and in-laws were gambling in within the span of the 2 hours of unaccounted time after walking Terri to her car. The evidence that should have been there never surfaced. Which is why I think the DA dismissed the case against McClure with prejudice.

1) just because they didn't find the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
2) Conversely, things that should prove Tim's innocence instead raise more questions. There's that, plus more facts. I've posted about them elsewhere in this thread.

But Tim apparently failed the whole thing. So even if the Sgt. gets angry mid-way through the interview, how does that explain Tim failing the first part?

Being nervous and jittery from the get go.

That pretty much should tell you what you need to know, if the wife has those suspicions.

It's not that hard to get a deceptive answer on a polygraph. Even if she thinks there's a 5% chance that McClure was involved, and she answered "no", it would still register as deceptive.

Stack says it. Are you accusing the late, great Robert Stack of lying?

Why do you keep saying this? This is not in the segment, at all. Stack says, "Carson City police asked Tim and his wife to take a polygraph", and then McClure's explanation on how nervous he was during the test.

1) just because they didn't find the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
2) Conversely, things that should prove Tim's innocence instead raise more questions. There's that, plus more facts. I've posted about them elsewhere in this thread.

1.) Flip side. Just because McClure didn't have his alibi corroborated does not make him a liar.
2.) Well, McClure is innocent...until proven guilty. Which the Carson City PD failed to do.

Being nervous and jittery from the get go.

But if he's innocent, what does he have to be nervous about?

It's not that hard to get a deceptive answer on a polygraph. Even if she thinks there's a 5% chance that McClure was involved, and she answered "no", it would still register as deceptive.

Erm, no. If she doesn't know who murdered Terri, she doesn't know and it won't be a lie if she says "no" to the question "Do you know who murdered Terri?" If they phrase the question "Do you think you know who murdered Terri, that's another thing entirely.

Why do you keep saying this? This is not in the segment, at all. Stack says, "Carson City police asked Tim and his wife to take a polygraph", and then McClure's explanation on how nervous he was during the test. .

Why do YOU keep saying this? Friend, I've seen the segment many, many times. It's in there. I'm sorry you apparently don't hear it.

But if he's innocent, what does he have to be nervous about?

I'd be nervous if I were about to take a polygraph. Most people are.

Erm, no. If she doesn't know who murdered Terri, she doesn't know and it won't be a lie if she says "no" to the question "Do you know who murdered Terri?" If they phrase the question "Do you think you know who murdered Terri, that's another thing entirely.

Polygraphs don't measure lies. They measure reactions/arousals people have to questions. If she doesn't know if McClure murdered Terri or not, or if she becomes fearful that the police either think she or McClure are guilty, this would heighten her nervousness and could make the answer appear deceptive. But anyway, without knowing the other questions that were asked to McClure's wife, it's kind of a moot point. For all we know the cops just told the McClure's this thinking one or the other would rat the other one out.

Why do YOU keep saying this? Friend, I've seen the segment many, many times. It's in there. I'm sorry you apparently don't hear it.

I'm watching it right now as I type this. Trust me, it is not in there.

Amazed that anybody still believes Lie Detectors have any validity-talk about junk science.

I'm watching it right now as I type this. Trust me, it is not in there.

No I will not trust you because I know I'm right. You must have an edited version of the segment.

No I will not trust you because I know I'm right. You must have an edited version of the segment.

It's definitely the original broadcast, because it features McClure's long answer about the polygraph, McClure's long intro about his wedding, and the line at the end about someone coming forward if they saw his mother's murder. There is not one single line about McClure saying that the test wasn't administered properly. It's not there.

Hey everybody! I recently started watching UM episodes, and I found this case to be one of the most intriguing. I’m on the fence about whether Tim is guilty or innocent. I paid real close attention to the UM segment, and, since I couldn’t find one on the internet, I made a full transcript and attached it to this post (I’m sorry for the punctuation errors: English is not my native language).
The three relevant locations in this case seem to be:
- 1 Terri’s house in Reno. I wasn’t able to find an exact address, but I did find her zip code: 89502. Nowadays, this zip code area is formed by the southeastern part of Reno.
- 2 The place where Terri’s body was found. According to Cocytus, Terri was found at the Ormsby House in Carson City. I didn’t find a second source on this, though. The local newspapers (Reno gazette and Nevada appeal) have archives dating back only to 2001/2002.
- 3 The place where Terri was last seen, at a casino around Lake Tahoe. The segment offers 4 clues to where this casino was: two ‘solid’ clues and two ‘weak’ clues. First, the solid clues: the casino is 1) an hour’s drive from Terri’s house in Reno and 2) an half hour’s drive from where her body was found (in Carson City). Using Google Maps, I found that both Crystal Bay and South Lake Tahoe/Stateline roughly fit this description. Tahoe City, however, is an hour’s drive from Carson City, so I would rule that one out. The segment also provides two weaker clues. Stack mentions that Tim searched the ‘main highway between Lake Tahoe and Reno’. I assume he means the Nevada State Route 431 (also known as Mount Rose Highway), since it’s the only direct highway between Lake Tahoe and Reno. In that case, the casino was likely in Crystal Bay. If the casino was in South Lake Tahoe, his mother would have likely taken Interstate 580/US 395 from Carson City to Reno. Like I said, this is just based on the assumption that Stack meant the Mount Rose Highway. Another clue: in the scene where Tim walks his mother to her car, you can see the big orange/red letters CASINO, preceded by two letters that look like ‘EE’, ‘EF’ or ‘ET’. I did a quick search on the internet, and found no casinos in either Crystal Bay or South Lake Tahoe with a name that would resemble that. However, it’s possible that UM decided to film the re-enactment at a completely different casino from the one where the wedding was celebrated.
Why do I think these locations are relevant? Well, if for example the wedding was celebrated in South Lake Tahoe, Terri would probably drive back to Reno via Carson City. This would make it more likely that she thought: well, I could stop by at a local casino to gamble a little more. Thus, a robbery would become more plausible. However, if the wedding was held in Crystal Bay, it would seem unlikely that she would first tell her son she would drive straight home and instead drive to Carson City to gamble.
What are your thoughts?

Hey everybody! I recently started watching UM episodes, and I found this case to be one of the most intriguing. I’m on the fence about whether Tim is guilty or innocent. I paid real close attention to the UM segment, and, since I couldn’t find one on the internet, I made a full transcript and attached it to this post (I’m sorry for the punctuation errors: English is not my native language).
The three relevant locations in this case seem to be:
- 1 Terri’s house in Reno. I wasn’t able to find an exact address, but I did find her zip code: 89502. Nowadays, this zip code area is formed by the southeastern part of Reno.
- 2 The place where Terri’s body was found. According to Cocytus, Terri was found at the Ormsby House in Carson City. I didn’t find a second source on this, though. The local newspapers (Reno gazette and Nevada appeal) have archives dating back only to 2001/2002.
- 3 The place where Terri was last seen, at a casino around Lake Tahoe. The segment offers 4 clues to where this casino was: two ‘solid’ clues and two ‘weak’ clues. First, the solid clues: the casino is 1) an hour’s drive from Terri’s house in Reno and 2) an half hour’s drive from where her body was found (in Carson City). Using Google Maps, I found that both Crystal Bay and South Lake Tahoe/Stateline roughly fit this description. Tahoe City, however, is an hour’s drive from Carson City, so I would rule that one out. The segment also provides two weaker clues. Stack mentions that Tim searched the ‘main highway between Lake Tahoe and Reno’. I assume he means the Nevada State Route 431 (also known as Mount Rose Highway), since it’s the only direct highway between Lake Tahoe and Reno. In that case, the casino was likely in Crystal Bay. If the casino was in South Lake Tahoe, his mother would have likely taken Interstate 580/US 395 from Carson City to Reno. Like I said, this is just based on the assumption that Stack meant the Mount Rose Highway. Another clue: in the scene where Tim walks his mother to her car, you can see the big orange/red letters CASINO, preceded by two letters that look like ‘EE’, ‘EF’ or ‘ET’. I did a quick search on the internet, and found no casinos in either Crystal Bay or South Lake Tahoe with a name that would resemble that. However, it’s possible that UM decided to film the re-enactment at a completely different casino from the one where the wedding was celebrated.
Why do I think these locations are relevant? Well, if for example the wedding was celebrated in South Lake Tahoe, Terri would probably drive back to Reno via Carson City. This would make it more likely that she thought: well, I could stop by at a local casino to gamble a little more. Thus, a robbery would become more plausible. However, if the wedding was held in Crystal Bay, it would seem unlikely that she would first tell her son she would drive straight home and instead drive to Carson City to gamble.
What are your thoughts?

Welcome! :wave: :wave:

I'm sure you'll find hundreds of pages on what we all think-- I think we can all agree that Tim McClure is a really strange guy. With a really awesome mullet. ;)

Me? I think he did it. But I think you raise interesting points that could support either side of the argument.

Well, if for example the wedding was celebrated in South Lake Tahoe, Terri would probably drive back to Reno via Carson City. This would make it more likely that she thought: well, I could stop by at a local casino to gamble a little more. Thus, a robbery would become more plausible. However, if the wedding was held in Crystal Bay, it would seem unlikely that she would first tell her son she would drive straight home and instead drive to Carson City to gamble.
What are your thoughts?

Welcome to the board and thank you for transcribing the segment.

To answer your question about the location of the casino where the wedding took place, an old LA Times article references the wedding taking place at a "Lake Tahoe casino". I found a marriage record for McClure and his wife and it lists "Statel" as the county in NV as the place of their marriage. Doing some thinking, the LA Times article mentions McClure living in California during the time of his arrest in 1992. Not that much of a stretch to assume he was living in California at the time of Terri's murder. "Statel" is obviously not a county in Nevada. But, there is such a place referred to as "Stateline" between Nevada and California, and it's referenced on this map:

http://www.virtualtahoe.com/Golf/images/BasinGolfMap_03.gif

As you can see on the map, Terri probably would have taken 50 to 395 to head home to Reno. Which means stopping off at Carson City to gamble more not at all unusual, since this would have been on her way home.

ETA: Here are the five casinos that are located in Stateline, NV:

-The Lakeside Inn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakeside_Inn_%28Stateline%29 (This one looks very similar to the one featured in the segment, IMO)
-The MontBleu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MontBleu
-Harrah's Lake Tahoe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrah%27s_Lake_Tahoe
-Hard Rock Hotel and Casino: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Rock_Hotel_and_Casino_%28Stateline%29
-Harvey's Lake Tahoe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harveys_Lake_Tahoe

That's interesting. It would make sense that the marriage record can't really name the county of Stateline, since it's exactly in between Douglas County (NV) and El Dorado County (CA).
I have a question for the people who think Tim is guilty. If he framed his mother's murder as a botched robbery, than why did he tell the police that as he walked his mother to her car, she had told him that she would drive STRAIGHT HOME? I would think that if he was guilty, that he would have told them that she had plans to visit another casino or two in Carson City, JMO.

I found it funny that there is a character with the last name of McVeigh in Season 5 of "The Good Wife" and when he meets his fiance's friends, they automatically ask him if he's in any way related to Timothy McVeigh.

I found it funny that there is a character with the last name of McVeigh in Season 5 of "The Good Wife" and when he meets his fiance's friends, they automatically ask him if he's in any way related to Timothy McVeigh.

We're talking about a different Tim here.

I have a question for the people who think Tim is guilty. If he framed his mother's murder as a botched robbery, than why did he tell the police that as he walked his mother to her car, she had told him that she would drive STRAIGHT HOME? I would think that if he was guilty, that he would have told them that she had plans to visit another casino or two in Carson City, JMO.

There are loads of possible explanations for that.

The main one is that he didn't want police searching for her body right away, probably so he could clean up the real crime scene, which may have been his house. It was surmised Terri was killed Friday night. Her body was not discovered until Monday. It's unlikely Terri's dead body went unnoticed for 3 days in a busy casino parking lot in the capital city of Nevada. I feel her body was placed there after being killed elsewhere.

Now if Tim was guilty and told the police right away she had plans to visit a casino, and they check the one where she would eventually be found at and find nothing, Tim's hopes of staging a botched robbery go out the window.

I also find it ironic that Tim would mention that he walked his mother to her car in the casino parking lot. It's almost as if he's suggesting that casino parking lots are a bad place to be, so that police will believe the botched robbery angle when they eventually find her in a casino parking lot.

The police questioned the last time he saw his mother alive, and he said it was when he walked his mother to the parking lot as she was leaving. McClure also says that when he returned, his wife was gambling with her parents (possibly at a crowded table game), so McClure went and played some slots.

And if Terri was killed somewhere other than the casino lot, whoever killed her, be it McClure or someone else, had plenty of time to dump her car and her body at various places around Lake Tahoe. Not to mention if McClure was the murderer, showing up at her house calling various family members and friends of Terri, while in the possession of her body and car the entire time, is a pretty stupid and brazen thing to do.

That's interesting. It would make sense that the marriage record can't really name the county of Stateline, since it's exactly in between Douglas County (NV) and El Dorado County (CA).
I have a question for the people who think Tim is guilty. If he framed his mother's murder as a botched robbery, than why did he tell the police that as he walked his mother to her car, she had told him that she would drive STRAIGHT HOME? I would think that if he was guilty, that he would have told them that she had plans to visit another casino or two in Carson City, JMO.

Or even better yet, if McClure was guilty, he could have said something like, "sometimes my mother will say she's going home but will stop off along the way to do a little more gambling." He wouldn't even need to say Carson City, it could have been any number of places that the cops would go looking for.

IMO, there is evidence that SHOULD be there that would implicate McClure, that isn't. For example, the officer interviewed points out the inconsistencies in McClure's story several times (the purse comment, the lot McClure didn't check, and the dancing until dawn alibi). But he never brings up the fact that after interviewing people at the Ornsby House, no one remembered seeing Terri at the casino that Friday night either.

Another thing that's would be interesting to know, who found Terri's body? The UM segment is pretty vague, but they don't say who discovered her body. And the other thing that I find weird is the segment mentions the day after Terri's body was found, the police questioned McClure and THEY asked him if he wanted an attorney present. Law enforcement usually doesn't bring that word up because they fear that once a suspect says they want a lawyer or attorney, the interview would be over. And McClure, to my knowledge, never hired one.

IMO, there is evidence that SHOULD be there that would implicate McClure, that isn't. For example, the officer interviewed points out the inconsistencies in McClure's story several times (the purse comment, the lot McClure didn't check, and the dancing until dawn alibi). But he never brings up the fact that after interviewing people at the Ornsby House, no one remembered seeing Terri at the casino that Friday night either.

I'm not sure quite where you're going with this, could you please elaborate? It wasn't established Terri ever went inside the Carson City casino, and if there's no proof she went inside, that may further suggest her car was planted there and driven to the location by someone else. That could have been Tim, could have been somebody else. I don't know that it makes Tim look more or less guilty.

I'm not sure quite where you're going with this, could you please elaborate? It wasn't established Terri ever went inside the Carson City casino, and if there's no proof she went inside, that may further suggest her car was planted there and driven to the location by someone else. That could have been Tim, could have been somebody else. I don't know that it makes Tim look more or less guilty.

For starters, McClure was not featured on a "Final Appeal" segment, it was "Unexplained Death". Usually, like in the case of Mark Nichols, the "Unexplained Death" segments (especially the early ones) would feature a ton of evidence used against the main suspect or POI in the segment. Whereas, the "Final Appeal" segments usually didn't elaborate on some of the more guilty aspects of the appellant's cases, to create more doubt to the viewer.

With that being said, nothing was said in favor of McClure in the segment, outside of Stack's final narration about friends and family saying he was devoted to Terri and that they didn't believe he would do something like this. My point is simple: if McClure is such a shoe in for a suspect in this case, why didn't the segment feature or elaborate on better and more concrete details? Even if the case is largely circumstantial, there should still be something better than a he said/she said credit memo, a comment taken completely out of context with the search for the purse, and McClure's holy spirit comment that for all we know wasn't his full answer on UM, they just edited it to that because it sounded better for TV. As I've said before, prior to UM, McClure gave a much more reasonable answer as to why he didn't search the lot his mother wasn't found in and it was because he didn't care for the casino, and that he and his mother had never been there together.

The segment is ambiguous on various things. For example, we have no idea whether or not the crime scene occurred in the car or the parking lot, or elsewhere. But, logic would seem to indicate that if the police determined that Terri was killed somewhere other than the car (missing shell casings, evidence of staging, etc.), this would have been brought up in the segment as another knock on McClure. Because what random assailant would drive around with Terri's body and her car if all he wanted to do was rob her? Then you have a lack of any specifics about the gun used in Terri's homicide. No mention of type or caliber at all. Again, logic would dictate that the cops could not tie McClure to any gun, and if he did own one, it was probably of a different type than the one used in Terri's murder. That too, would have been brought up in the segment.

There was also no evidence that McClure ever left the casino in Stateline, until his story about partying from midnight to 6 a.m. with his wife came into play. Not to mention the officer interviewed in the segment says that they weren't able to substantiate McClure's "dancing until dawn" alibi, but then again, just how far did they look into it? Stateline is right in the middle of two counties that crosses two states, just how far did these guys go into looking into McClure's alibi? Not to mention that if both he and his wife were completely intoxicated, that would also hinder the credibility of their alibis. Also, the segment mentions McClure and his wife going over to Terri's house at 6 p.m. on the evening following their wedding. They noticed Terri's car was not there, among other oddities that McClure assumed meant his mother never made it home the prior night. What about neighbors of Terri? Did they see her car ever arrive at all? Did McClure talk to the neighbors with regards to the whereabouts of his mother? Granted, UM couldn't have covered all of these miniature details within the case, however one would assume that there was something more damning with regards to McClure looking guilty that raised the suspicions of law enforcement. I think the reason this case was dismissed not once, but twice (2nd time occurring almost ten years after Terri's murder) was because what you saw on UM was the entire case against McClure.

There are loads of possible explanations for that.

The main one is that he didn't want police searching for her body right away, probably so he could clean up the real crime scene, which may have been his house. It was surmised Terri was killed Friday night. Her body was not discovered until Monday. It's unlikely Terri's dead body went unnoticed for 3 days in a busy casino parking lot in the capital city of Nevada. I feel her body was placed there after being killed elsewhere.

Interesting theory. I wonder if the police has certain techniques to find out how long a car hasn’t been used. Unfortunately, there were no major rain storms in Carson City between January 14th and January 17th, which would have helped. . I’m not a car expert, but I can imagine that the police would look at the power level of the car batteries, or at the temperature of the oil or something. There must be some difference between a car that has been stationary for 12 hours and one that has been for nearly 3 days.

With that being said, nothing was said in favor of McClure in the segment, outside of Stack's final narration about friends and family saying he was devoted to Terri and that they didn't believe he would do something like this. My point is simple: if McClure is such a shoe in for a suspect in this case, why didn't the segment feature or elaborate on better and more concrete details? Even if the case is largely circumstantial, there should still be something better than a he said/she said credit memo, a comment taken completely out of context with the search for the purse, and McClure's holy spirit comment that for all we know wasn't his full answer on UM, they just edited it to that because it sounded better for TV. As I've said before, prior to UM, McClure gave a much more reasonable answer as to why he didn't search the lot his mother wasn't found in and it was because he didn't care for the casino, and that he and his mother had never been there together.

The segment is ambiguous on various things. For example, we have no idea whether or not the crime scene occurred in the car or the parking lot, or elsewhere. But, logic would seem to indicate that if the police determined that Terri was killed somewhere other than the car (missing shell casings, evidence of staging, etc.), this would have been brought up in the segment as another knock on McClure. Because what random assailant would drive around with Terri's body and her car if all he wanted to do was rob her? Then you have a lack of any specifics about the gun used in Terri's homicide. No mention of type or caliber at all. Again, logic would dictate that the cops could not tie McClure to any gun, and if he did own one, it was probably of a different type than the one used in Terri's murder. That too, would have been brought up in the segment.

There was also no evidence that McClure ever left the casino in Stateline, until his story about partying from midnight to 6 a.m. with his wife came into play. Not to mention the officer interviewed in the segment says that they weren't able to substantiate McClure's "dancing until dawn" alibi, but then again, just how far did they look into it? Stateline is right in the middle of two counties that crosses two states, just how far did these guys go into looking into McClure's alibi? Not to mention that if both he and his wife were completely intoxicated, that would also hinder the credibility of their alibis. Also, the segment mentions McClure and his wife going over to Terri's house at 6 p.m. on the evening following their wedding. They noticed Terri's car was not there, among other oddities that McClure assumed meant his mother never made it home the prior night. What about neighbors of Terri? Did they see her car ever arrive at all? Did McClure talk to the neighbors with regards to the whereabouts of his mother? Granted, UM couldn't have covered all of these miniature details within the case, however one would assume that there was something more damning with regards to McClure looking guilty that raised the suspicions of law enforcement. I think the reason this case was dismissed not once, but twice (2nd time occurring almost ten years after Terri's murder) was because what you saw on UM was the entire case against McClure.


I agree that the Carson City detectives seemed to have very little concrete evidence in this case. That’s probably the reason that they mentioned the ‘purse-comment’ of Tim, which was totally ridiculous. Tim’s theory (and his sister’s apparently) was that his mother’s car had been stolen, along with his mother’s purse. So he went looking for those items, what’s so suspicious about that? I would have found it more suspicious if he had mentioned that he was looking for a very specific thing that hadn’t been found at the crime scene (for instance, her jacket. Not that that was missing, but you get the point). IMO, it was obvious that the Carson City PD was grasping at straws. And apparently, that’s what the DA thought as well, since they dismissed the case twice as you mentioned.

I agree that the Carson City detectives seemed to have very little concrete evidence in this case. That’s probably the reason that they mentioned the ‘purse-comment’ of Tim, which was totally ridiculous. Tim’s theory (and his sister’s apparently) was that his mother’s car had been stolen, along with his mother’s purse. So he went looking for those items, what’s so suspicious about that? I would have found it more suspicious if he had mentioned that he was looking for a very specific thing that hadn’t been found at the crime scene (for instance, her jacket. Not that that was missing, but you get the point). IMO, it was obvious that the Carson City PD was grasping at straws. And apparently, that’s what the DA thought as well, since they dismissed the case twice as you mentioned.

I'm not surprised that the Carson City PD had McClure as their #1 suspect. He was the last person to see Terri alive, and also made some odd statements to them that would make them suspicious. I think McClure's downfall was that he was too cooperative and too revealing with the Carson City PD. If he had retained an attorney from the beginning, when the cops suggested it to him, he may not have been as scrutinized as he was.

The credit memo thing is the biggest piece of evidence against McClure, but it's not some smoking gun that proves his guilt. It just makes so much more sense, IMO, for McClure to have called to cancel the card on Monday, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Calling on a Friday while Terri was still alive, as noted before, has got to be the most idiotic thing a potential criminal could do, not to mention McClure, if guilty, was planning on offing his mother on the night he's getting married. If he's innocent, McClure calling on Monday makes the most sense. He didn't get to his mother's house until Saturday evening, and then he called various family members and friends and filed a missing persons report, and then went out and searched for her. Assuming the CC company was closed for Sunday, it would make the most sense for him to have called to cancel on Monday. And it makes sense. Terri and her car were missing. Terri's purse would have been with her. If, as McClure's sister suggested, someone stole her car with the purse, they could have tried to use the CC at some point. McClure cancelling would help track where the card would have attempted to have been used.

I agree that the Carson City detectives seemed to have very little concrete evidence in this case. That’s probably the reason that they mentioned the ‘purse-comment’ of Tim, which was totally ridiculous. Tim’s theory (and his sister’s apparently) was that his mother’s car had been stolen, along with his mother’s purse. So he went looking for those items, what’s so suspicious about that? I would have found it more suspicious if he had mentioned that he was looking for a very specific thing that hadn’t been found at the crime scene (for instance, her jacket. Not that that was missing, but you get the point). IMO, it was obvious that the Carson City PD was grasping at straws. And apparently, that’s what the DA thought as well, since they dismissed the case twice as you mentioned.

He did mention he was looking for something that wasn't at the crime scene. The purse.

For starters, McClure was not featured on a "Final Appeal" segment, it was "Unexplained Death". Usually, like in the case of Mark Nichols, the "Unexplained Death" segments (especially the early ones) would feature a ton of evidence used against the main suspect or POI in the segment. Whereas, the "Final Appeal" segments usually didn't elaborate on some of the more guilty aspects of the appellant's cases, to create more doubt to the viewer.

That doesn't mean anything to me. You also didn't answer my question.

With that being said, nothing was said in favor of McClure in the segment, outside of Stack's final narration about friends and family saying he was devoted to Terri and that they didn't believe he would do something like this.

That's not my fault frankly. It's Tim's own doing he interviewed so poorly.

My point is simple: if McClure is such a shoe in for a suspect in this case, why didn't the segment feature or elaborate on better and more concrete details? Even if the case is largely circumstantial, there should still be something better than a he said/she said credit memo, a comment taken completely out of context with the search for the purse, and McClure's holy spirit comment that for all we know wasn't his full answer on UM, they just edited it to that because it sounded better for TV. As I've said before, prior to UM, McClure gave a much more reasonable answer as to why he didn't search the lot his mother wasn't found in and it was because he didn't care for the casino, and that he and his mother had never been there together.

Editing? Meh, speculation. Don't forget the lie detectors (note the plural). It's entirely possible UM left out things that made him seem more guilty, keeping in mind some unknown viewers phoned in tips that led to his arrest, that seems likely.

The segment is ambiguous on various things. For example, we have no idea whether or not the crime scene occurred in the car or the parking lot, or elsewhere. But, logic would seem to indicate that if the police determined that Terri was killed somewhere other than the car (missing shell casings, evidence of staging, etc.), this would have been brought up in the segment as another knock on McClure. Because what random assailant would drive around with Terri's body and her car if all he wanted to do was rob her?

Ever see the Grethen Buford segment?

Then you have a lack of any specifics about the gun used in Terri's homicide. No mention of type or caliber at all. Again, logic would dictate that the cops could not tie McClure to any gun, and if he did own one, it was probably of a different type than the one used in Terri's murder. That too, would have been brought up in the segment.

He could have stolen a gun. It's not uncommon for them to be stolen. Think Todd Mcafee, Morris Davis, etc.

There was also no evidence that McClure ever left the casino in Stateline, until his story about partying from midnight to 6 a.m. with his wife came into play. Not to mention the officer interviewed in the segment says that they weren't able to substantiate McClure's "dancing until dawn" alibi, but then again, just how far did they look into it? Stateline is right in the middle of two counties that crosses two states, just how far did these guys go into looking into McClure's alibi? Not to mention that if both he and his wife were completely intoxicated, that would also hinder the credibility of their alibis. Also, the segment mentions McClure and his wife going over to Terri's house at 6 p.m. on the evening following their wedding. They noticed Terri's car was not there, among other oddities that McClure assumed meant his mother never made it home the prior night. What about neighbors of Terri? Did they see her car ever arrive at all? Did McClure talk to the neighbors with regards to the whereabouts of his mother? Granted, UM couldn't have covered all of these miniature details within the case, however one would assume that there was something more damning with regards to McClure looking guilty that raised the suspicions of law enforcement. I think the reason this case was dismissed not once, but twice (2nd time occurring almost ten years after Terri's murder) was because what you saw on UM was the entire case against McClure.

Again, considering that viewers phoned in tips that led to McClure getting arrested, I would venture to say the unknown facts point to Tim's guilt, not innocence.

Tim said he couldn't recall which dance halls they went to, which sounds wholly unbelievable.

There's also no evidence he was there.

That's not my fault frankly. It's Tim's own doing he interviewed so poorly.

Well, I can't speak for TheCars, but I don't think he was implying anything was your fault. Of course, I'm sure he'll chime in and set things straight.

Regarding the interview, yes, Tim came off poorly. However, Tim didn't edit, produce, or have any control over the segment's content otherwise, so far as we know. The producers did. And we know that on UM sometimes they slant things to lead the viewer to a specific conclusion. I think that is what TheCars was getting at, but again, he can clarify.

Editing? Meh, speculation. Don't forget the lie detectors (note the plural). It's entirely possible UM left out things that made him seem more guilty, keeping in mind some unknown viewers phoned in tips that led to his arrest, that seems likely.

and

Again, considering that viewers phoned in tips that led to McClure getting arrested, I would venture to say the unknown facts point to Tim's guilt, not innocence.

Speculating about whether UM left out evidence in favor of or against culpability is just that: speculation. I should point out that we don't know whether someone called in information that implicated McClure. Stack doesn't mention this in the update, nor does it say anything specific in the news articles about this.

Ever see the Grethen Buford segment?

Good point in favor of the robbery scenario.

Tim said he couldn't recall which dance halls they went to, which sounds wholly unbelievable.

There's also no evidence he was there.

We really don't know what Tim did or did not tell investigators, and he didn't say on UM whether he remembered where he went or not. In fact, Tim McClure does not say anything about this part of the story on UM. The investigator is the only one who comments on it, and we know what his stance on the matter is, just saying.

Well, I can't speak for TheCars, but I don't think he was implying anything was your fault. Of course, I'm sure he'll chime in and set things straight.

I wasn't suggesting Cars said it was my fault. What I meant was the segment was Tim's opportunity to prove his innocence, and he bombed quite frankly. That's Tim's fault.

Regarding the interview, yes, Tim came off poorly. However, Tim didn't edit, produce, or have any control over the segment's content otherwise, so far as we know. The producers did. And we know that on UM sometimes they slant things to lead the viewer to a specific conclusion. I think that is what TheCars was getting at, but again, he can clarify.

The problem though is that Tim contacted the producers and asked to have his story aired. It's not like UM went out of their way to paint him in a bad light. Additionally, they mentioned that Tim was looking to have his alibi substantiated, I think that's doing him a pretty huge favor. UM granted Tim's various requests.

We really don't know what Tim did or did not tell investigators, and he didn't say on UM whether he remembered where he went or not. In fact, Tim McClure does not say anything about this part of the story on UM. The investigator is the only one who comments on it, and we know what his stance on the matter is, just saying.

I didn't get a bad vibe off the investigator. He says they made every effort to have his alibi corroborated and came up empty. He didn't cast off a "Let's get Tim" vibe to me.

He did mention he was looking for something that wasn't at the crime scene. The purse.

My point was, that a missing purse would totally fit in with Tim’s and his sister’s theory of a robbery/carjacking. It’s not farfetched that, after a robbery, the purse is missing.
I’m pretty curious as to what the new clues were. Apparently they weren’t solid enough to convince the DA to bring the case to a trial.

The credit memo thing is the biggest piece of evidence against McClure, but it's not some smoking gun that proves his guilt. It just makes so much more sense, IMO, for McClure to have called to cancel the card on Monday, regardless of his guilt or innocence. Calling on a Friday while Terri was still alive, as noted before, has got to be the most idiotic thing a potential criminal could do, not to mention McClure, if guilty, was planning on offing his mother on the night he's getting married. If he's innocent, McClure calling on Monday makes the most sense. He didn't get to his mother's house until Saturday evening, and then he called various family members and friends and filed a missing persons report, and then went out and searched for her. Assuming the CC company was closed for Sunday, it would make the most sense for him to have called to cancel on Monday. And it makes sense. Terri and her car were missing. Terri's purse would have been with her. If, as McClure's sister suggested, someone stole her car with the purse, they could have tried to use the CC at some point. McClure cancelling would help track where the card would have attempted to have been used.


The credit card memo has left me very puzzled. There are two conflicting reports from the Carson City PD: in the segment, det. sgt. Scott Burau says that the credit card memo was dated 01/14. However, the LA Times article states: ‘Detectives dispute McClure's alibi and say that he canceled his mother's credit cards two days after her death and before her body was discovered.’ Sloppy journalism? Probably, since the article also got Tim’s age wrong (31 should have been 41 or 47).
So I guess this is roughly the summary of what Tim said in the interview and what the credit card memo apparently states:
Tim said he called on Monday January 17th, to report his mother as 'missing' and to cancel her credit card.
The memo showed he called on Friday January 14th, to report his mother had 'deceased' and to cancel her credit card.

I’m not sure how a CC employee writes her memo, but is it possible (like someone had mentioned in this thread) that she wrote the date down of the mother’s disappearance and that in the CC guidelines there is no such category as ‘missing’, so she just wrote down ‘deceased’? If the PD interviewed the woman a week or so after the murder, it’s possible that she had forgotten all about the memo. I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility that the PD has tried to steer her in the interview with her, into saying that he had called indeed on January 14th. After all, this was the closest the PD came to direct evidence that Tim had advanced knowledge of his mother’s murder. But this is just speculation on my part.

The credit card memo has left me very puzzled. There are two conflicting reports from the Carson City PD: in the segment, det. sgt. Scott Burau says that the credit card memo was dated 01/14. However, the LA Times article states: ‘Detectives dispute McClure's alibi and say that he canceled his mother's credit cards two days after her death and before her body was discovered.’ Sloppy journalism? Probably, since the article also got Tim’s age wrong (31 should have been 41 or 47).
So I guess this is roughly the summary of what Tim said in the interview and what the credit card memo apparently states:
Tim said he called on Monday January 17th, to report his mother as 'missing' and to cancel her credit card.
The memo showed he called on Friday January 14th, to report his mother had 'deceased' and to cancel her credit card.

I’m not sure how a CC employee writes her memo, but is it possible (like someone had mentioned in this thread) that she wrote the date down of the mother’s disappearance and that in the CC guidelines there is no such category as ‘missing’, so she just wrote down ‘deceased’? If the PD interviewed the woman a week or so after the murder, it’s possible that she had forgotten all about the memo. I wouldn’t even rule out the possibility that the PD has tried to steer her in the interview with her, into saying that he had called indeed on January 14th. After all, this was the closest the PD came to direct evidence that Tim had advanced knowledge of his mother’s murder. But this is just speculation on my part.

I think what the newspaper may have been getting at was Tim's age at the time of the murder. If the article was from 1992, and let's say Tim was born in 1951, then you're correct, he would have been 41 at that time of the article. But 9 years previous, when Terri's murder happened in 1983, he would have been around 31 at that time.

I think what the newspaper may have been getting at was Tim's age at the time of the murder. If the article was from 1992, and let's say Tim was born in 1951, then you're correct, he would have been 41 at that time of the article. But 9 years previous, when Terri's murder happened in 1983, he would have been around 31 at that time.

That's definitely possible. Stack states that Tim McClure was 38 years old, but he doesn't say whether that was at the time of the murder or at the time of the interview. He may very well have been 31 at the time of the murder, going on 32, and then 6 years later, in the spring of 1989 when UM made this segment, he had just turned 38.

That doesn't mean anything to me. You also didn't answer my question.

Excuse me.

That's not my fault frankly. It's Tim's own doing he interviewed so poorly.

There was nothing to suggest an alternate theory of the crime. The detectives never once say something like, "even though a robbery outside of a casino is not uncommon", or SOMETHING along those lines to suggest Terri may have been the victim of an unknown assailant. There is no re-enactment of Terri being accosted by a robber, nothing is mentioned with regards to the crime scene, etc. That's not McClure's fault based off of his interview alone.

Editing? Meh, speculation. Don't forget the lie detectors (note the plural). It's entirely possible UM left out things that made him seem more guilty, keeping in mind some unknown viewers phoned in tips that led to his arrest, that seems likely.

That's speculation. There was nothing stated in the update that McClure's arrest came after clues to the telecenter. And they did edit things out of the segment to make McClure look more guilty for the Lifetime reruns. They took the line out at the end of the original segment with McClure's pleas for someone to come forward with information if they saw what happened to Terri.

Ever see the Grethen Buford segment?

The guy immediately fled the vehicle after stabbing her to death. He didn't drive around with her body and dump the vehicle elsewhere. This also supports the robbery theory with regards to Terri's murder.

He could have stolen a gun. It's not uncommon for them to be stolen. Think Todd Mcafee, Morris Davis, etc.

The cops could not uncover any evidence linking him to a gun.

Tim said he couldn't recall which dance halls they went to, which sounds wholly unbelievable.

Not if your intoxicated partying all night long. Especially on your wedding night. And McClure never gave his answer on camera, we don't know if he did mention names and the police couldn't find anyone that remembered seeing them there that night.

There's also no evidence he was there.

His wife and his in-laws would have been able to say he was there. And we have no way of knowing whether or not the cops found any evidence that shows him leaving the casino.

Not if your intoxicated partying all night long. Especially on your wedding night. And McClure never gave his answer on camera, we don't know if he did mention names and the police couldn't find anyone that remembered seeing them there that night.

So he's coherent enough to stand and dance for 6 hours, but can't remember ANY of the dance halls he was in? Again, unbelievable.

So he's coherent enough to stand and dance for 6 hours, but can't remember ANY of the dance halls he was in? Again, unbelievable.

Assuming he was drunk, it's not that big of a stretch to think that if he and his wife left Stateline and partied in another city or town that they were unfamiliar with, their memory would be fuzzy due to being intoxicated.

Plus there is no proof that McClure didn't provide the names of bars and halls he went to. The Sgt. interviewed in the segment just says they couldn't substantiate their claims one way or the other.

Assuming he was drunk, it's not that big of a stretch to think that if he and his wife left Stateline and partied in another city or town that they were unfamiliar with, their memory would be fuzzy due to being intoxicated.

Plus there is no proof that McClure didn't provide the names of bars and halls he went to. The Sgt. interviewed in the segment just says they couldn't substantiate their claims one way or the other.

To be fair, the Sgt. did state this: 'Although they couldn’t provide, you know, specific locations where they went, we made every attempt to determine which bar or which dance hall they’d gone to that night, and we were unsuccessful. ' So I guess that Tim and his wife weren't able to provide specific locations, but I personally don't think that would be very odd. I assume that they visited a few dance halls in the area, and just forgot the names and exact locations.

To be fair, the Sgt. did state this: 'Although they couldn’t provide, you know, specific locations where they went, we made every attempt to determine which bar or which dance hall they’d gone to that night, and we were unsuccessful. ' So I guess that Tim and his wife weren't able to provide specific locations, but I personally don't think that would be very odd. I assume that they visited a few dance halls in the area, and just forgot the names and exact locations.

Yes, but as justins5256 pointed out, we never got McClure's explanation on camera. He could have forgot the specific name of a place, but gave a general description and city where they went, and when the detectives went there and questioned anyone remembering seeing McClure or his wife they came back with nothing.

I cant believe I've never commented on this case! This thread is super long so I cant go back and read every page, however, I lean towards thinking he is guilty. A lot of coincidence involved in this case if Tim McClure is innocent.

- Gambles by himself ON HIS WEDDING NIGHT while he wife and parents gamble together. Why not just all gamble together?

- Comments made about her purse.

- Conveniently saying he and his wife partied from midnight - 6am on his wedding night/day his mother was murdered. Giving himself a 6 hour window for his alibi.

- His phone call to the credit card company and what was said.

- Life insurance policy. Obviously 5k isn't a TON of money, but 30 years ago, it was certainly a decent amount and as the investigator said "people have been killed for a lot less".

- Checking every motel/casino along the route except the one where his mothers body was found.

There is so much coincidence with Tim McClure should you believe he is innocent.

- Gambles by himself ON HIS WEDDING NIGHT while he wife and parents gamble together. Why not just all gamble together?

There are many reasons why McClure wouldn't have gambled with his wife for two hours. Perhaps his wife and her parents were playing a table game and McClure only liked slots? Or maybe the particular table and or slot machines were crowded, so McClure went to another one? And if someone is winning on a machine, they won't leave for nothing. My wife and I got separated for nearly an hour and a half one time because I kept hitting on this one particular machine.

- Comments made about her purse.

I think the cops were reaching with this comment, and it was taken out of context. He obviously was looking for signs of his mother, be it her car, her purse, anything along the route she would have driven home.

- Conveniently saying he and his wife partied from midnight - 6am on his wedding night/day his mother was murdered. Giving himself a 6 hour window for his alibi.

His wife would have been with him, and McClure would have had to have been able to locate his mother, kill her, and then stage the scene and make a clean exit without anyone noticing him. His mother was found right across the street from the capital building in Carson City, IIRC.

- His phone call to the credit card company and what was said.

This was a he said/she said type of argument. I don't think there was an actual log of the call, or else McClure would have been arrested immediately. The lady from the company was going off of her memory days or weeks after the actual call was placed.

- Life insurance policy. Obviously 5k isn't a TON of money, but 30 years ago, it was certainly a decent amount and as the investigator said "people have been killed for a lot less".

But he would have had to have split the money with his sister.

- Checking every motel/casino along the route except the one where his mothers body was found.

This wasn't mentioned on UM, but McClure stated in newspaper articles at the time of Terri's murder that he wasn't fond of the casino she was found at, and that he and his mother had never gone there together, so he assumed that she wouldn't have went to that particular lot.

My wife and I got separated for nearly an hour and a half one time because I kept hitting on this one particular machine.

Sounds kind of suspicious to me...

He obviously was looking for signs of his mother, be it her car, her purse, anything along the route she would have driven home.

no it's not obvious.

His wife would have been with him, and McClure would have had to have been able to locate his mother, kill her, and then stage the scene and make a clean exit without anyone noticing him. His mother was found right across the street from the capital building in Carson City, IIRC.

Who said he would have had to locate his mother? Nobody can corroborate his story of him walking her to her car and everything else he said followed.

This was a he said/she said type of argument. I don't think there was an actual log of the call, or else McClure would have been arrested immediately. The lady from the company was going off of her memory days or weeks after the actual call was placed.

You know, this is one of the things I don't understand about you, you try to dispute facts. The actual log was shown RIGHT IN THE SEGMENT!!

This wasn't mentioned on UM, but McClure stated in newspaper articles at the time of Terri's murder that he wasn't fond of the casino she was found at, and that he and his mother had never gone there together, so he assumed that she wouldn't have went to that particular lot.

And you think *I* have an obsession with Tim McClure? Hilarious, since every time someone makes a post on here you feel obligated to respond to every single point they make.

You know, this is one of the things I don't understand about you, you try to dispute facts. The actual log was shown RIGHT IN THE SEGMENT!!




No that's not a fact. Only a memo with the date and a short description of the reasons for the call was shown in the segment. A memo is not proof that a phone call really was made on that date, while a log of the call would have been.

No that's not a fact. Only a memo with the date and a short description of the reasons for the call was shown in the segment. A memo is not proof that a phone call really was made on that date, while a log of the call would have been.

Memo, log, same thing.

Sounds kind of suspicious to me...

And I didn't have an alibi for probably 8-12 hours after that because we had to drive back to our hotel, where we went straight back to the room and slept. :eek:

There are many reasons why McClure wouldn't have gambled with his wife for two hours. Perhaps his wife and her parents were playing a table game and McClure only liked slots? Or maybe the particular table and or slot machines were crowded, so McClure went to another one? And if someone is winning on a machine, they won't leave for nothing. My wife and I got separated for nearly an hour and a half one time because I kept hitting on this one particular machine.


I get that, but it's your wedding night. Spend your wedding night with the person you just married. Then again, maybe Tim and his wife were hardcore gamblers.



I think the cops were reaching with this comment, and it was taken out of context. He obviously was looking for signs of his mother, be it her car, her purse, anything along the route she would have driven home.

Could be, but it's not just this one thing. There are so many things he did or said that look suspicious. When things start adding to a pile, like this does, it leads me to believe it.



His wife would have been with him, and McClure would have had to have been able to locate his mother, kill her, and then stage the scene and make a clean exit without anyone noticing him. His mother was found right across the street from the capital building in Carson City, IIRC.

I've always acted under the assumption that if he murdered his mother, he did it within the time frame that he was gambling apart from his wife and in laws or his wife was in on it with him.



This was a he said/she said type of argument. I don't think there was an actual log of the call, or else McClure would have been arrested immediately. The lady from the company was going off of her memory days or weeks after the actual call was placed.

I believe they showed a piece of paper or log on the broadcast but I'm not sure if it was the actual one or not.



But he would have had to have split the money with his sister.

The 5k I mention was his share.



This wasn't mentioned on UM, but McClure stated in newspaper articles at the time of Terri's murder that he wasn't fond of the casino she was found at, and that he and his mother had never gone there together, so he assumed that she wouldn't have went to that particular lot.

Definitely interesting but who knows if that's true. He is speaking on behalf of himself and his mother's feelings toward that casino. Sadly, his mother can not back that up.


Is Tim McClure still alive? This segment was shown 25 years ago and he looked older back then.

And I didn't have an alibi for probably 8-12 hours after that because we had to drive back to our hotel, where we went straight back to the room and slept. :eek:


"slept", huh? :lol:

I get that, but it's your wedding night. Spend your wedding night with the person you just married. Then again, maybe Tim and his wife were hardcore gamblers.

I tend to think McClure was a hardcore gambler, because the segment says that he would be seen out frequenting the casinos with his mother.


Could be, but it's not just this one thing. There are so many things he did or said that look suspicious. When things start adding to a pile, like this does, it leads me to believe it.

I get why McClure was a suspect. I understand he said some suspicious things. But what gets me the most is the evidence that should have been there, never was. This is a very weak circumstantial case against him.

I've always acted under the assumption that if he murdered his mother, he did it within the time frame that he was gambling apart from his wife and in laws or his wife was in on it with him.

Terri was found a half hour or so away from where McClure got married to his wife. He would have had to have followed his mom home (or killed her in the parking lot where he and his wife got married and were gambling), either got her to stop along the way or driven her car to the casino where she was found in, and then somehow managed to get back to the casino to meet up with his wife and in-laws in a two hour time frame. Not impossible, but it just doesn't seem likely. Especially since this was his wedding night.

I believe they showed a piece of paper or log on the broadcast but I'm not sure if it was the actual one or not.

Yes it was a handwritten note with the date written down. But there should have been a call log indicating that he did in fact call on this particular date, and if there was, McClure would have been arrested immediately. Because that would have proven that this was premeditated and that he had called saying his mother was dead while she was still alive.

The 5k I mention was his share.

Correct, my mistake. But he still would have had to take care of any property she owed money on, burial expenses, etc. I just don't think that 5k, even in 1983, was enough money to warrant someone to murder their own mother.

Definitely interesting but who knows if that's true. He is speaking on behalf of himself and his mother's feelings toward that casino. Sadly, his mother can not back that up.

I just thought that answer was more acceptable than the "holy spirit" comment he made on UM.

This was a he said/she said type of argument. I don't think there was an actual log of the call, or else McClure would have been arrested immediately. The lady from the company was going off of her memory days or weeks after the actual call was placed.

That's a great point. But it's also made another question pop into my head: were Tim McClure's phone records ever checked?

Granted, this was 1983, so I'm not sure how thoroughly phone records were kept back then, but even if the credit card company didn't have a log of the call, couldn't authorities have checked Tim's home phone records to see if he made any calls to the credit card company that weekend? If Tim's phone bill showed him calling the company on Friday before Terri was found dead, but zero record of him calling them on Monday, then, yes, I'm sure that might have been strong enough evidence to make an arrest at the time. The fact that they've found no hard evidence of him making a call on Friday makes me still lean towards the possibility that it might be a misunderstanding.

That's a great point. But it's also made another question pop into my head: were Tim McClure's phone records ever checked?

Granted, this was 1983, so I'm not sure how thoroughly phone records were kept back then, but even if the credit card company didn't have a log of the call, couldn't authorities have checked Tim's home phone records to see if he made any calls to the credit card company that weekend? If Tim's phone bill showed him calling the company on Friday before Terri was found dead, but zero record of him calling them on Monday, then, yes, I'm sure that might have been strong enough evidence to make an arrest at the time. The fact that they've found no hard evidence of him making a call on Friday makes me still lean towards the possibility that it might be a misunderstanding.

Great point. If you take away the CC memo, there is nothing that points to Tim's guilt. Yes Tim failed a polygraph and made some unusual remarks, but I think Tim is a rather nervous person of himself. It does pain me that the real perpetrator will never be caught :(

The fact that Tim was a hardcore gambler is one of the reasons I believe him to be guilty. In a moment of nonsensical thinking, his mother was worth more to him dead than alive, because if she were dead, he could collect her insurance and presumably use it for gambling.

The fact that Tim was a hardcore gambler is one of the reasons I believe him to be guilty. In a moment of nonsensical thinking, his mother was worth more to him dead than alive, because if she were dead, he could collect her insurance and presumably use it for gambling.

But do we know for sure that he was a hardcore gambler or are we all just assuming that because he gambled a ton on the weekend he was married?

But do we know for sure that he was a hardcore gambler or are we all just assuming that because he gambled a ton on the weekend he was married?

Not for certain, but the segment does say that he was often seen out gambling with his mother in the casinos.

Which would make no sense for him to kill her, IMO. If she's out gambling with him while she's alive, why go through the trouble of killing her? Seems counterproductive.

Not for certain, but the segment does say that he was often seen out gambling with his mother in the casinos.

Which would make no sense for him to kill her, IMO. If she's out gambling with him while she's alive, why go through the trouble of killing her? Seems counterproductive.

You should contact him on FB. He's on there. Still looking Joe Dirt-ish. :D

You should contact him on FB. He's on there. Still looking Joe Dirt-ish. :D

I'm not entirely convinced that it's him.

The guy who looks a lot like him looks to have been in the midwest his whole life, and I think is younger than McClure would be now.

Great point. If you take away the CC memo, there is nothing that points to Tim's guilt. Yes Tim failed a polygraph and made some unusual remarks, but I think Tim is a rather nervous person of himself. It does pain me that the real perpetrator will never be caught :(

oh, LOL!

Yes, it bothers me Tim will never be caught.

But do we know for sure that he was a hardcore gambler or are we all just assuming that because he gambled a ton on the weekend he was married?

the segment mentioned Tim frequently gambled. He has also personally stated that as well.

I'm not entirely convinced that it's him.

The guy who looks a lot like him looks to have been in the midwest his whole life, and I think is younger than McClure would be now.
Well send him a pm and ask if he likes dancing til dawn. Then we'll know the answer.

That guy does look a lot like him on FB which would be odd having the same name and looking so much alike.However, the age is off

That guy does look a lot like him on FB which would be odd having the same name and looking so much alike.However, the age is off

Do we know for sure how old Tim McClure (on UM) is? I believe on the segment RS says something about Tim being 38, but I never understood if that was at the time the interview was taped (1989) or at the time of his wedding and his mother's death (1983).

The segment is 26 years old. If McClure was 38 in 1989, he would 64 years old today. If he was 38 in 1983 he would be 70 today.

ETA: I always thought he was 38 in 1989, thus 64 today.

That Facebook profile HAS to be Tim McClure's. The resemblance is too similar for it not to be. Plus if its not him, that means someone else with the same name is out there and looks exactly like him, just aged 25 years.

Do we know for sure how old Tim McClure (on UM) is? I believe on the segment RS says something about Tim being 38, but I never understood if that was at the time the interview was taped (1989) or at the time of his wedding and his mother's death (1983).

The segment is 26 years old. If McClure was 38 in 1989, he would 64 years old today. If he was 38 in 1983 he would be 70 today.

ETA: I always thought he was 38 in 1989, thus 64 today.

I believe one of those LA Times articles mentioned that he was 31 when he got married in 83, so he was 38 at the time the segment was filmed.

I might just PM him, cant hurt to see if he responds.

I might just PM him, cant hurt to see if he responds.

Let us know if he responds!

I might just PM him, cant hurt to see if he responds.

I can just imagine THAT message if I were the author:

"Yo, Tim. Settle a bet. You kill your mom or not?" :) :)

Are we talking about this Tim McClure? https://www.facebook.com/timmcclure08
I'd be really surprised if that's him. He came from Kentucky, went to school in Kentucky and currently lives in Kentucky. Terri McClure lived in Reno, Nevada and probably raised her children there, as well. But anything is possible, I guess.

Okay I can confirm its not him and I didn't even message him yet. His friend list isn't available but I scanned his page and found a Carol McClure on his page, clicked on her page and there is a picture of "Mom and her 5 kids" which is pretty recent and it has that Tim McClure in the picture so since his Mom is alive and well, it cant be him.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=819152654819813&set=a.508619675873114.1073741825.100001752582254&type=1&theater

So it can be put to rest, its definitely not him. Its kind of crazy the resemblance and the name but it cant be.

Did somebody say they found UMs Tims ex-wife on FB though?

I have searched the internet but cant pinpoint a Timothy Michael McClure that could be him 64-70 years old. I found Terri info on locate ancestors though...http://www.locateancestors.com/mcclure-nevada/

Are we talking about this Tim McClure? https://www.facebook.com/timmcclure08
I'd be really surprised if that's him. He came from Kentucky, went to school in Kentucky and currently lives in Kentucky. Terri McClure lived in Reno, Nevada and probably raised her children there, as well. But anything is possible, I guess.

Man, that header photo looks exactly like him! Oh well.

I can just imagine THAT message if I were the author:

"Yo, Tim. Settle a bet. You kill your mom or not?" :) :)

LMAO:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: love it. Im not sure what I would say but Im thinking just a little more nice guy lol

I am bound and determined to find Tim McClure now though!

I am bound and determined to find Tim McClure now though!

I tried to search him a while back, and the best hit that I got was a 64-year old Timothy M McClure living in San Diego. Here is he on pipl.com:https://pipl.com/search/?t=ZmVjMmMxZWI5Nzk4NmY4OGI5OGYyZTNmMTYwZGI1YjBiZmQ4NzZlNmNkZGYyNmFl&in=8&q=Timothy+McClure&sloc=&l=San+Diego&avatar=avatar-5
The 1992 LA Times article mentions that his full name is Timothy Michael McClure and that he is living in San Diego. Could this be him?

YOU GUYS! This was just posted this past Sunday night!

So, while I was searching I came across the Unsolved.com website and it had the McClure case, no big deal ...but this was a comment posted below it (just the other day 4/26/15!)

I am Terri McClure's

Submitted by Toni Kells (not verified) on Sun, 04/26/2015 - 10:28

I am Terri McClure's granddaughter and everyone in my family believes Tim killed her. I don't know where Tim's ex wife is, but she knows the truth and chooses to be silent.

http://unsolved.com/archives/terri-mcclure

Now obviously, it could be anyone but if that really is Terri's granddaughter(I'm guessing a niece, since she refers to him as Tim and not her Dad) She would most likely be around my parents age since Tim is close to 70 and that's my grandparents ages. So I'll try to see if I can find this person whos probably in their 40s or 50s. (Toni kells)?

Just a few days ago to, if she googles his name I assume she'll find a link to this thread.

Well, the segment said Tim had a sister (whom he split the $5000 life insurance policy with), so if that commenter is legitimate, I'm sure it would be his niece. I know Stack stated that none of Tim's family or friends believe he ever would have done anything to harm his mother, but it's certainly possible they could have changed their tune after he was arrested for murder.

Wow this escalated quickly

I tried to search him a while back, and the best hit that I got was a 64-year old Timothy M McClure living in San Diego. Here is he on pipl.com:https://pipl.com/search/?t=ZmVjMmMxZWI5Nzk4NmY4OGI5OGYyZTNmMTYwZGI1YjBiZmQ4NzZlNmNkZGYyNmFl&in=8&q=Timothy+McClure&sloc=&l=San+Diego&avatar=avatar-5
The 1992 LA Times article mentions that his full name is Timothy Michael McClure and that he is living in San Diego. Could this be him?


I checked the soundcloud and twitter related to that Tim McClure on that page, and it appears to be an older African american rapper/artist or is that just other suggestions for Tim McClures?

I just watched the McClure UM and I could have sworn Tims Sister was briefly on camera and interviewed but it wasnt on there. Am I right or am I just imagining things? If so, what was her first name?

Also, I googled that name Toni Kells and only one person came up. She is in her 50s living in California. I mean it could be a nickname the person used on the unsolved site but it could fit if it was her

I am going to contact and see if she is one in the same.

I am going to contact and see if she is one in the same.

awesome! let us know what she says!

Well I wonder what the Tim McClure fan club will have to say about this.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tim has at least 2 sisters. Neither of them appeared on UM.

I checked the soundcloud and twitter related to that Tim McClure on that page, and it appears to be an older African american rapper/artist or is that just other suggestions for Tim McClures?

I think that's a different Timothy McClure. It's a shame that it's such a common name :(
I hope that Toni Kells will join this discussion. Perhaps she might be able to shed some light on things. At this moment, I lean towards Tim being innocent, but I'll keep an open mind.

I found a Toni Kells living in California on FB, but none of her friends have "McClure" in their names. Not that it's a deal breaker, but it's somewhat unusual.

I just watched the McClure UM and I could have sworn Tims Sister was briefly on camera and interviewed but it wasnt on there. Am I right or am I just imagining things? If so, what was her first name?

Tim mentions the sister in the interview because she allegedly gave him the idea of looking for the purse and because she was co-beneficiary on the life insurance policy. However, the sister is not interviewed on the program, nor is any other McClure family member for that matter. There is a re-enactment of Tim's wedding that shows him with his wife. I think its up for grabs if that is her or an actress.

I'm not going to assume Tim is guilty because of a post on the UM website that has yet to be confirmed as truly a family member. Also, we know how some family members can get over a tragic event. Im not saying he couldn't be guilty especially if the family member did shed light on that situation, I'm just saying we also don't know what has happened between the siblings in the last 30 years.

Well this is definitely an interesting turn, but this could also just be some random moron throwing stuff against a wall. We all know how reputable "eyewitness accounts" are and this is very similar.

Now I *may* have sent someone related to Tim a copy of his segment (I really can't remember as I've sent more than a handful of segments to relatives over the years), but I've had to dig through a ton of PM's to match up the names.

Now I *may* have sent someone related to Tim a copy of his segment (I really can't remember as I've sent more than a handful of segments to relatives over the years), but I've had to dig through a ton of PM's to match up the names.

I scrolled through the threads and saw a poster who claimed to have been an old coworker of Tim's who worked with him around 2000. He had been persistent and posted quite a few times about getting a copy of Tims episode. Could it possibly be him?

I scrolled through the threads and saw a poster who claimed to have been an old coworker of Tim's who worked with him around 2000. He had been persistent and posted quite a few times about getting a copy of Tims episode. Could it possibly be him?

Possible, but I doubt it. I remember the guy you speak of. I remember him referring to Tim as an "odd duck".

After going through my PM's, I find I did send someone stating that they were Tim's niece a copy of the segment 2 years ago. For privacy purposes, I won't reveal their full name or address, but I'll just simply say it was a Cassie from Oregon.

I don't believe that it's a hoax. If it were some "random moron" wouldn't they use the last name McClure to suggest they were for sure a relative of Tim's?

I agree, it very well could be an actual niece. I just meant that until more light is shed on the situation as in if the family member wanted to provide more info left out of the Unsolved episode that we aren't aware of (of course they don't have to) It doesn't sway me just yet.

As I explained in another thread, I myself had a murder in my family (by another family member when I was young) and half the family believes she's guilty and the other half doesn't. I also meant we just don't know what happened between Tim and his sister (sisters) over the past 30 years. If more info is given that I am currently unaware of it could definitely influence my opinion but as of right now I'm still not convinced of his guilt.

The more I think about this case the more I think he's guilty.

I'm from the Reno area (grew up there and lived there as an adult) and I remember this case well.Tim McClure is an odd duck (and was a mama's boy) but he never struck me as being a killer.

Since the case was dismissed w/ prejudice, it's unlikely that he will ever be tried for this even if he DID do it, which I don't believe that he did.

Here's why I don't think that he did it:

1) Casinos have security cameras on their parking lots and yet there was no image of McClure entering or leaving the lot.
2) While it used to be VERY easy in Nevada to buy a handgun, there was no proof that McClure ever owned ( or even fired) a weapon.
3) There was no forensic evidence linking McClure to the killing.
4) There were no witnesses that saw McClure at the casino where his mother was found.
5) There was no video evidence showing McClure leaving the Stateline casino (Lake Tahoe) or returning.
6) The police never developed a solid motive as to WHY McClure would have killed his mother.
7) The police never developed a solid motive as to McClure's wife would have committed the murder.
8) The credit card company transcript is worthless,IMHO unless McClure's and the company's phone records are in "sync." The card company would be billed for an 800 number call and there should be a record of the call as a result.
9) Assuming that McClure would know the area, he would also have known that there are DOZENS of areas in and around Carson City to abandon a vehicle that it would be less likely to be quickly found as a casino parking lot.

And

10) The Carson City PD are not known for their competence. They are far better at handing out speeding and traffic tickets than they are at solving serious felonies , including murder. If this case was investigated by them, then you can be assured that multiple mistakes were made and that crucial evidence was ignored or incorrectly gathered.

IMHO, this was probably a robbery or a random act of violence.

Two more things:

1) The scene were the showed what was supposed to be Tim's mother's house wasn't filmed in Reno. The palm trees peeking over the roof of the house determine that.

2) The casino where the body was found was called The Ormsby House. It was closed about two years after the segment aired and w/ the exception of the several brief "re-openings" to keep the gaming license, it never reopened again.

It's also across the street from the Nevada state capitol building.

I think this is the "odd duck" comment wiseguy was referring to. I couldnt find anything the coworker said anything about Tim McClure good or bad.

Wiseguy, did Tims niece just randomly privately DM you? or did she converse on the message board first?

I think this is the "odd duck" comment wiseguy was referring to. I couldnt find anything the coworker said anything about Tim McClure good or bad.

Wiseguy, did Tims niece just randomly privately DM you? or did she converse on the message board first?

I have no idea what a DM is. There are PM's (private messages) and we did exchange a few. She also posted twice on the forum.

The coworker post was from a long time ago (before I even joined the board I believe) and I don't care to dig through to try and find it.

My mistake, Its called direct message on Instagram as opposed to Private Message on here. Thats fine, I was just wondering

My mistake, Its called direct message on Instagram as opposed to Private Message on here. Thats fine, I was just wondering

99.9% of this forum knew what you meant.

these are the posts by the co-worker, although they're all just asking for the same thing pretty much (a copy of the show). Somehow, I doubt his webtv.com email address is still valid, but you never know :-) Also Kryssy K you can DM me anytime, hottie.

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/search.php?searchid=2527085

It's hard not to notice The Tim McClure fan club has been remarkably silent on this latest find. What was once a vocal and heavily populated crowd has now become mostly mute. :D

I cant speak for anyone else but like I said unless I hear more information that isn't currently known, I still think hes innocent.

I cant speak for anyone else but like I said unless I hear more information that isn't currently known, I still think hes innocent.

I agree. We don't know if Mrs Kells has some extra information that makes her think he's guilty or that it's just a hunch.

I cant speak for anyone else but like I said unless I hear more information that isn't currently known, I still think hes innocent.


I agree.

But I highly doubt that after all of these years there is going to be more information come to light that implicates McClure. I firmly believe that what you saw on UM was the case they had against him.

There was certainly not enough evidence for him to be convicted probably not even not enough to get charged...although he did no and later they were dropped? But he does seem strange to me. Very strange. Now that doesn't make you guilty of a crime. I just have a gut feeling on this one.

Toni Kells responded back and replied she is in fact Terry McClure's granddaughter and posted the message to unsolved.com. I've provided this forum's URL.

Thanks RightonDude. I hope she decides to come on the forum. I think she could provide some great insight. Hope to hear from her!

Tim seemed like a genuine mamas boy (if that is the proper term) to, I still think he's innocent based on what was presented in the segment.

IMO, this isn't much of a huge revelation.

Unless of course she comes on here and posts some information not contained in the UM segment, just because it's her belief that he's guilty, doesn't necessarily make it so. I'm sure some family members and friends became suspicious after McClure was arrested. Most people honestly believe that the cops only arrest guilty people, so maybe that was the turning point that made some of his family members believe in his guilt.

IMO, this isn't much of a huge revelation.

Unless of course she comes on here and posts some information not contained in the UM segment, just because it's her belief that he's guilty, doesn't necessarily make it so. I'm sure some family members and friends became suspicious after McClure was arrested. Most people honestly believe that the cops only arrest guilty people, so maybe that was the turning point that made some of his family members believe in his guilt.
I would love to hear a family perspective. I agree that it may not change anything. I also feel hearing this individual's ensight would be interesting and relevant to people like myself who are really unsure about this one.

If any of Tim McClure's relatives stopped by this board, my main question would be: what compelled police to suddenly decide to arrest him after nine years? Did any incriminating new evidence surface to make that happen?

I've said it many times before, but ultimately, my opinion about Tim's innocence or guilt rests on the details about why his case was dismissed with prejudice. Was it because the evidence showed he was innocent? Or did the police just botch up the investigation so badly that any case against him was unwinnable?

I've said it many times before, but ultimately, my opinion about Tim's innocence or guilt rests on the details about why his case was dismissed with prejudice. Was it because the evidence showed he was innocent? Or did the police just botch up the investigation so badly that any case against him was unwinnable?

My guess is, it was the latter. Especially since it was with prejudice.

If any of Tim McClure's relatives stopped by this board, my main question would be: what compelled police to suddenly decide to arrest him after nine years? Did any incriminating new evidence surface to make that happen?

I've said it many times before, but ultimately, my opinion about Tim's innocence or guilt rests on the details about why his case was dismissed with prejudice. Was it because the evidence showed he was innocent? Or did the police just botch up the investigation so badly that any case against him was unwinnable?

I just can't fathom a DA dismissing a case that can never be tried again if there was some shred of evidence (or hope for lack of a better word) that McClure was possibly guilty, but not enough to warrant an arrest at the time. If the cops were deadest on McClure being their prime suspect, it appears that the DA obviously felt otherwise. I could see the DA dismissing the charges at that time if he believed there was not enough to win a case, but doing it to where he could never be tried again? I'm leaning more towards the evidence against McClure was minimal and the DA thought it was ridiculous that the cops were focusing on McClure for all of those years.

The fact that it took the police almost a decade to arrest him then I believe it was said there was new evidence based on a re airing of UM, but that "evidence" was never made public which to me speaks volumes as well. It does say a lot that the DA dismissed the case with prejudice. Murder cases have been solved decades after the crime occurred so for the DA to dismiss with prejudice is huge. If the DA just believed the case was to circumstantial at the time and more evidence was needed he would have just dismissed the case without prejudice as more evidence could be found at a later date. Something went down that made the DA dismiss with prejudge because It is so rare to have a DA dismiss the prejudge in an unsolved murder. Honestly, aside from Tim being odd in his nature and the supposed call to cancel his mothers credit card on Friday I cant think of any evidence that has come forward to implicate him. The credit card rep's assertion that he cancelled his mothers card on Friday is the entire case. Just because you cant confirm someone's whereabouts in the early morning hours in a casino where many patrons are drinking and out partying at that
hour isn't evidence of murder.

I would definitely respect and find it very intriguing any new information any member of Tim's family wanted to give, however, at this point just because a family member says "we think he's guilty." doesn't sway me. We have no idea the relationship or what transpired between Tim and his sister (sisters?) over the last 30 years and would therefore effect their views on him. I personally had my great grandmother murdered by my mothers first cousin (my grandmother niece) and it divided the family. Until I know (if we ever will) the circumstances of why they think he is guilty and what happened in that relationship of the siblings, I cant base my opinion of the case on that some family members think.

I've said it many times before, but ultimately, my opinion about Tim's innocence or guilt rests on the details about why his case was dismissed with prejudice. Was it because the evidence showed he was innocent? Or did the police just botch up the investigation so badly that any case against him was unwinnable?

I've put in my own prosecutorial opinion on this one. I vote for option 2. As I said before, I've sandbagged cases where I KNOW the accused is guilty, but the investigation was so bungled that it would be embarrassing for the community to have knowledge of it. I jokingly refer to it as "running PR for the police department." I want our citizens to trust our officers, not look at them like Barney Fife-ish characters.

I think even those on this forum that believe Tim is guilty would not be able to say that they could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

I think even those on this forum that believe Tim is guilty would not be able to say that they could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

It KILLS me to type it because I am firm in my beliefs about this case, but I agree. I think he did it but I can't prove it. Not to the standard that the law requires.

Honestly, this case, IMO, boils down to where Terri McClure was murdered. If it was established either way, UM left this information out. Which, IMO, leads more credence to the theory that Terri was in fact murdered in her car, and not placed at the casino lot later. Because if that were true, there's no way that the UM segment wouldn't have mentioned this as a knock on McClure. I tend to think that if there was evidence that Terri was murdered elsewhere than the lot and her car, McClure is the most likely suspect. But if there was evidence that Terri was murdered in the parking lot she was found in, McClure is most likely innocent.

Honestly, this case, IMO, boils down to where Terri McClure was murdered. If it was established either way, UM left this information out. Which, IMO, leads more credence to the theory that Terri was in fact murdered in her car, and not placed at the casino lot later. Because if that were true, there's no way that the UM segment wouldn't have mentioned this as a knock on McClure. I tend to think that if there was evidence that Terri was murdered elsewhere than the lot and her car, McClure is the most likely suspect. But if there was evidence that Terri was murdered in the parking lot she was found in, McClure is most likely innocent.

I never thought of it that way but that's pretty interesting and actually very true. If she was murdered in her house only someone very close to the victim would take the trouble to stage the shooting in the car. However, given the DA dismissing with prejudice and the "new evidence" never becoming public (I believe it was said it came from a re airing of UM anyways), and the UM episode never mentioning it...there was no evidence any violent crime happened in Terri's home.

I wish Ms. Kells would post here with some inside info, but I'm not going to hound her. I gave her the forum URL and let her know we'd all love to talk and if somehow possible aid in closure. Which I know probably isn't possible.

I think even those on this forum that believe Tim is guilty would not be able to say that they could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

No.

It really boggles my mind that so many people stick hard to their beliefs of Tim's innocence.

A little while ago, I posed the question of "What makes you think Tim is innocent?" and I didn't get a satisfactory answer to that. Or even much reply to it. Most of you people can try to downplay certain aspects of the case, cast doubt on things that make Tim look guilty, etcetera. But where is the proof of Tim's innocence? There is none! Things that should prove Tim's innocence and clear his name off completely and for all time instead just raise more questions and suspicion.

I honestly think if Tim confessed to the crime and the murder weapon was found on his property, the Tim McClure fan club would have explanations for that. Nothing will change their opinion on ole Timmy boy.

It's pretty damn huge that a member of his family said the ENTIRE family believes he is guilty. That speaks volumes. But people are downplaying it and casting doubt on it, and at the same time, keep overplaying the "dismissed with prejudice" angle, trying to pretend they know certain facts of the case they don't and trying to pretend they are legal experts when they are not.

(Throws hands up in the air.)

Since we're just pretending to be legal experts, can you explain what dismiss with prejudge means?

This entire forum is just putting forth theories and "pretending" to be detectives (arm chair detectives) and questioning aspects of the case whether it be the suspect, crime, victim, or the legal process involved. Not one person played pretend lawyer. It is unusual for any murder case to be dismissed with prejudge. I didn't say I knew why and I dont believe anyone else did. We put theories as to why to would be which is exactly the purpose of this forum. Nobody is "pretending" to know.

Since we're just pretending to be legal experts, can you explain what dismiss with prejudge means?

I assume you mean prejudice. CRicci, who is a legal expert, clarified that awhile back.

It's just too bad this didn't happen in Texas. A jury would have convicted him in 15 minutes flat and not given a second thought to it.

Since we're just pretending to be legal experts, can you explain what dismiss with prejudge means?

This entire forum is just putting forth theories and "pretending" to be detectives (arm chair detectives) and questioning aspects of the case whether it be the suspect, crime, victim, or the legal process involved. Not one person played pretend lawyer. It is unusual for any murder case to be dismissed with prejudge. I didn't say I knew why and I dont believe anyone else did. We put theories as to why to would be which is exactly the purpose of this forum. Nobody is "pretending" to know.

It basically means that the government can not prosecute the accused again on the same charges.

A little while ago, I posed the question of "What makes you think Tim is innocent?" and I didn't get a satisfactory answer to that. Or even much reply to it. Most of you people can try to downplay certain aspects of the case, cast doubt on things that make Tim look guilty, etcetera. But where is the proof of Tim's innocence? There is none! Things that should prove Tim's innocence and clear his name off completely and for all time instead just raise more questions and suspicion.



There is no such thing as 'proof of innocence'. That's why the prosecution has the burden of proof: they have to prove someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense can't 'prove' that the defendant is innocent, but they can question the evidence. When I look at this case, all I see is (weak) circumstantial evidence. Some odd remarks, a failed polygraph and a handwritten memo. Tim had no motive (except money, but that's not a motive unless we knew for sure that he had some major debt at that time that he quickly had to pay or something) and hardly any oppurtunity. Tim's wife would have spilled the beans by now, if she was in on Terri's murder. So he had to have acted alone. He had two hours between 22:00 and 00:00 to kill his mother, hide her body somewhere (or drive her to the parking lot of the casino) AND return to the casino. Where did he kill her? At her home? It was an hour's drive to Reno, so he couldn't have returned to the casino on time. No, I just don't think he had the opportunity.

It really boggles my mind that so many people stick hard to their beliefs of Tim's innocence.

A little while ago, I posed the question of "What makes you think Tim is innocent?" and I didn't get a satisfactory answer to that. Or even much reply to it. Most of you people can try to downplay certain aspects of the case, cast doubt on things that make Tim look guilty, etcetera. But where is the proof of Tim's innocence? There is none! Things that should prove Tim's innocence and clear his name off completely and for all time instead just raise more questions and suspicion.

It seems like your mind is made up and has been for some time. What do you really expect someone to say here that is going to change your mind? It's no different than your repeated attempts to point out the various pieces of evidence that prove his guilt. You see and interpret them one way, those who believe in McClure's innocence see them another. At the end of the day, we're all working with the same set of facts. Interpretation of those facts to draw a conclusion is a very subjective and personal thing.

I honestly think if Tim confessed to the crime and the murder weapon was found on his property, the Tim McClure fan club would have explanations for that. Nothing will change their opinion on ole Timmy boy.

Well, I can't speak for the "Tim McClure fan club" but I would welcome the opportunity to know more about this case. Frankly, I think we all would. If there was some new evidence revealed that more firmly established his guilt, I would be more comfortable leaning in that direction.

It's pretty damn huge that a member of his family said the ENTIRE family believes he is guilty. That speaks volumes.

Yes, but on the UM segment Robert Stack said that the police spoke to the family and friends and that no one thought Tim did it. Granted that was in 1989, so who knows what transpired between then and now, but it does seem kind of suspect that the family would change their opinion. Like much of the evidence in this case, it can be interpreted differently.

But people are downplaying it and casting doubt on it,

And if the shoe were on the other foot? If someone posted and said the family thought he was innocent, would you not be calling that person out or otherwise finding reason to doubt such claims? While I can't say for 100 percent certain, I kinda get the vibe that you would. Though that's just my subjective interpretation.

I am terribly sorry about that in my hurry this morning that I did not check my spelling such as that I typed prejudge instead of prejudice . I will try very hard to make sure that doesn't happen again so you wont have to correct me.

I know what it means legally. The reason I asked that question is because we were going off how rare it is to dismiss a case with prejudice in an unsolved murder. So unless there is another meaning I was not sure how we were pretending to be legal experts by just speculating as to the circumstances why that would be done.(which is what many do on this forum).

I am no legal expert by any means and don't pretend to be. No more than anyone on here pretends to play detective on their favorite Unsolved Mysteries cases which is what we all love and do on this forum. I did major in international relations in college, lived abroad and do consider myself a fairly intelligent human being. So, although I would never pretend to be a legal expert, I believe I have enough intelligence to speculate as to why a DA would dismiss a case with prejudice on an Unsolved Mysteries message board. However, it is great that LookslikeCRicci is a legal expert as law has always fascinated me to no end and its great to have that on this board. I'm also glad to see a woman in the field as its still so dominated by men. :)

I am terribly sorry about that in my hurry this morning that I did not check my spelling such as that I typed prejudge instead of prejudice . I will try very hard to make sure that doesn't happen again so you wont have to correct me.

I know what it means legally. The reason I asked that question is because we were going off how rare it is to dismiss a case with prejudice in an unsolved murder. So unless there is another meaning I was not sure how we were pretending to be legal experts by just speculating as to the circumstances why that would be done.(which is what many do on this forum).

I am no legal expert by any means and don't pretend to be. No more than anyone on here pretends to play detective on their favorite Unsolved Mysteries cases which is what we all love and do on this forum. I did major in international relations in college, lived abroad and do consider myself a fairly intelligent human being. So, although I would never pretend to be a legal expert, I believe I have enough intelligence to speculate as to why a DA would dismiss a case with prejudice on an Unsolved Mysteries message board. However, it is great that LookslikeCRicci is a legal expert as law has always fascinated me to no end and its great to have that on this board. I'm also glad to see a woman in the field as its still so dominated by men. :)

Hey, thanks. :)

Like I said, it's my speculation at work here-- but I think they dumped it with prejudice (meaning they cannot re-charge him with the crime again) because the investigation was incredibly flawed.

But I still think he did it. :)

It seems like your mind is made up and has been for some time. What do you really expect someone to say here that is going to change your mind? It's no different than your repeated attempts to point out the various pieces of evidence that prove his guilt. You see and interpret them one way, those who believe in McClure's innocence see them another. At the end of the day, we're all working with the same set of facts. Interpretation of those facts to draw a conclusion is a very subjective and personal thing.



Well, I can't speak for the "Tim McClure fan club" but I would welcome the opportunity to know more about this case. Frankly, I think we all would. If there was some new evidence revealed that more firmly established his guilt, I would be more comfortable leaning in that direction.



Yes, but on the UM segment Robert Stack said that the police spoke to the family and friends and that no one thought Tim did it. Granted that was in 1989, so who knows what transpired between then and now, but it does seem kind of suspect that the family would change their opinion. Like much of the evidence in this case, it can be interpreted differently.



And if the shoe were on the other foot? If someone posted and said the family thought he was innocent, would you not be calling that person out or otherwise finding reason to doubt such claims? While I can't say for 100 percent certain, I kinda get the vibe that you would. Though that's just my subjective interpretation.

As president of the "Tim McClure Fan Club", I approve this message.

He had two hours between 22:00 and 00:00 to kill his mother, hide her body somewhere (or drive her to the parking lot of the casino) AND return to the casino. Where did he kill her? At her home? It was an hour's drive to Reno, so he couldn't have returned to the casino on time. No, I just don't think he had the opportunity.

You should keep in mind that his alibi after he supposedly rejoined his wife cannot be corroborated by anyone that's not related to him. Which means the window of opportunity is a lot longer than 2 hours. He says he went to the casino, gambled alone for 2 hours, then went dancing until dawn. Not a single employee or patron of any of those places remember seeing the distinctive looking Tim McClure.

And if the shoe were on the other foot? If someone posted and said the family thought he was innocent, would you not be calling that person out or otherwise finding reason to doubt such claims? While I can't say for 100 percent certain, I kinda get the vibe that you would. Though that's just my subjective interpretation.

It would be bigger to me that they think he's guilty than innocent. There are a lot of family members of known murderers who will still believe in their loved one's innocence even when the facts scream they did it. That they think he is *guilty* sends up huge red flags. An entire family just does not presumably sever ties with one family member if he's wrongfully accused of murder. It wouldn't surprise me for the family of any murderer to believe in his/her innocence. Guilty is a horse of another color.

And to answer your question, no, I would not be calling out a relative of Terri. That would be incredibly tacky. For the most part, family members of victims are treated in the highest regard here, and I agree with that. I'm not sure why you predict that I would.

It would be bigger to me that they think he's guilty than innocent. There are a lot of family members of known murderers who will still believe in their loved one's innocence even when the facts scream they did it. That they think he is *guilty* sends up huge red flags. An entire family just does not presumably sever ties with one family member if he's wrongfully accused of murder. It wouldn't surprise me for the family of any murderer to believe in his/her innocence. Guilty is a horse of another color.

But why did the family and friends stick up for him at the time of the original investigation? On UM, Stack said the police questioned family and friends and no one said they thought Tim did it.

And to answer your question, no, I would not be calling out a relative of Terri. That would be incredibly tacky. For the most part, family members of victims are treated in the highest regard here, and I agree with that. I'm not sure why you predict that I would.

Maybe "calling out" was a poor choice of words. But you are accepting this poster's words as gospel when we have no clue who they really are or if they are who they claim to be. A part of me wonders if you would be so adamant if they were claiming the reverse.

But why did the family and friends stick up for him at the time of the original investigation? On UM, Stack said the police questioned family and friends and no one said they thought Tim did it.

Perhaps their opinions changed as they learned more as time went on?

Maybe "calling out" was a poor choice of words. But you are accepting this poster's words as gospel when we have no clue who they really are or if they are who they claim to be. A part of me wonders if you would be so adamant if they were claiming the reverse.

RightOnDude says that she confirmed she was a relative. Granted, I don't know anything more about it than that.

What seems to be common on this forum nowadays is that if something doesn't fit with a person's way of thinking, they question it. Things like "perhaps that comment was taken out of context", or "We didn't get the full interview." or whatever. I suppose things like that are possible, but how likely? Maybe things didn't happen the way that was suggested on UM. Or maybe they did? What then?

I just don't understand why so many people think he is innocent. Okay, you've cast doubt on the many things that make him look guilty. Perhaps the lie detector was wrong, and perhaps the credit card lady was wrong, and perhaps the interview was edited. But what makes him innocent?

If you ever want to rejoin the winning team, we will always have a spot for you. :)

http://makeameme.org/media/created/guilty-until-proven-cdupyy.jpg

How many times have members on this forum pointed out certain UM segments leaving out or omitting details in various segments? Look at the Sammy Wheeler murder segment for example. How much exculpatory evidence was presented in favor of the three "suspects" (outside of Bob Bean's alibi mention)? Or the murder of Eric Tamiyasu? In both the Wheeler and Tamiyasu murders, UM made it clear that there were only three "suspects" in each murder, when it turns out that was not even remotely true. There were some suspicious things mentioned about each in the segment, but not enough to grant the treatment they got with the sensationalizing by UM. Look at what they did with the Wheeler segment: not one single mention of a possible random act of violence. Which turned out to be exactly what happened. UM also left out the "jealous boyfriend" angle hinted at in the Tamiyasu segment.

Why do you think the McClure segment is any different? What's more appealing to a show like UM? A son who murdered his mother on his wedding night, or a woman being accosted outside of a casino and murdered by a mugger/robber? I think people tend to rely too much on the UM segments and their presentation. They need to realize that UM was just like any other television show trying to not only help solve crimes, but also get ratings.

It KILLS me to type it because I am firm in my beliefs about this case, but I agree. I think he did it but I can't prove it. Not to the standard that the law requires.

Co-sign. This is basically what I've come to about it.

You should keep in mind that his alibi after he supposedly rejoined his wife cannot be corroborated by anyone that's not related to him. Which means the window of opportunity is a lot longer than 2 hours. He says he went to the casino, gambled alone for 2 hours, then went dancing until dawn. Not a single employee or patron of any of those places remember seeing the distinctive looking Tim McClure.

But that would mean that his wife is an accomplice. I guess that leaves us with two scenarios:
- the wife was the mastermind and the two of them carried out the murder. Problem: the wife had no motive to kill Terri
- Tim was the mastermind and the two of them carried out the murder. Problems: 1) why would the wife participate in such a heinous crime? And 2) why didnt the wife spill the beans when Tim was arrested in 1992? I'm sure that the DA wouldnt have prosecuted her if she was just an accomplice, and if she testified against Tim, it would have been a slam dunk for the prosecution.
So that's why I have trouble believing that both of them were involved.

Perhaps their opinions changed as they learned more as time went on?

Maybe, but it would be nice to know why and if there are specific things that made them change their opinion so radically, assuming they did.

We're getting into the realm of family dynamics and keeping in mind we know virtually nothing about Tim or his family, I don't feel comfortable speculating on what they may or may not feel and why.

I will say I think it's more telling that they supported him in the beginning though. If the family thought McClure had a hand in what happened to his own mother, there would be little reason to withhold that fact from investigators.

What seems to be common on this forum nowadays is that if something doesn't fit with a person's way of thinking, they question it. Things like "perhaps that comment was taken out of context", or "We didn't get the full interview." or whatever. I suppose things like that are possible, but how likely? Maybe things didn't happen the way that was suggested on UM. Or maybe they did? What then?

I'm just guessing here, but I think the ease of access to online newspaper archives, court opinions, and perhaps even comments from family members who have posted here and elsewhere, have made people see/realize that the UM presentation wasn't always entirely accurate as a narrator of fact, nor should it be taken as such. I can think of any number of situations where UM changed, slanted, downplayed, or distorted things to suggest a conclusion that fit whatever agenda was on tap at that time.

Knowing such things and having access to such resources has made me more critical at least. I think like most things in life, moderation is key and finding a balance is crucial. I wouldn't want to be overly critical of UM's presentation, but I'm not going to necessarily take everything at face value either.

Maybe it's just me, but I've seen more people sticking to the "UM interpretation" more often than not.

I just don't understand why so many people think he is innocent.

I say this with all due respect and I do not intend it to be insulting in any way, but I honestly don't think you ever will "get it" in terms of the McClure innocence argument.

I and others have tried to explain it to you numerous times over the years and you're either not understanding what we are saying, or you're disregarding it. While I can't get inside your head, a lot of your comments over the years have led me to believe that you've simply made up your mind on the matter and you're firm in your belief. And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. :)

But that would mean that his wife is an accomplice. I guess that leaves us with two scenarios:
- the wife was the mastermind and the two of them carried out the murder. Problem: the wife had no motive to kill Terri
- Tim was the mastermind and the two of them carried out the murder. Problems: 1) why would the wife participate in such a heinous crime? And 2) why didnt the wife spill the beans when Tim was arrested in 1992? I'm sure that the DA wouldnt have prosecuted her if she was just an accomplice, and if she testified against Tim, it would have been a slam dunk for the prosecution.
So that's why I have trouble believing that both of them were involved.

No motive that we know of. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's difficult to say she's incapable of such a thing since we know next to nothing about her.

I and others have tried to explain it to you numerous times over the years and you're either not understanding what we are saying, or you're disregarding it. While I can't get inside your head, a lot of your comments over the years have led me to believe that you've simply made up your mind on the matter and you're firm in your belief. And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. :)

You're right, I don't get it. When I asked you why you thought he was innocent, your response was essentially that you didn't find Tim convincing in the least (which says something), but that you thought the evidence against him was explainable, or whatever. Okay, fine. As I said, let's shove aside the credit card memo, the lie detector and Tim's statements. But where is the proof of innocence? You are just as firm in your beliefs despite the fact there isn't any proof he is innocent outside of an alibi "corroborated" by his relatives. Considering how many witnesses come forth in various cases that are mistaken, it seems suspicious that not one person (customer or employee) remembers seeing a very tall man with a distinctive look in any of the places he was in that night (and he was in at least 3 separate places). And we're talking about 8 hours here.

I also find it very strange the newly married couple wasn't "getting it on". Seriously, what married couple doesn't have sex on their wedding night?

But you know what? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say Tim really did call on Monday. (which I don't believe he did, but for the sake of this argument, let's say he did). While we don't know a) what the time of the call was, b) the time Terri was discovered, c) when Tim was informed Terri's purse was missing, isn't it still damn strange that Tim is so quick to call and cancel the card? Typically, if a card is stolen, they don't make you pay anything past the first 50 or 75 bucks anyways, so what was the hurry? It would seem like during this time Tim would be grieving and/or notifying friends, relatives, her place of employment, etc. Things like that. Plus, it would take some time for him to go to her house, go through her papers, figure out which cards she has, etc.

The reason I believe Tim called on Friday is because he was so gung ho about the credit card to begin with (looking for her purse before he even knew it was missing). Therefore, it isn't a stretch to assume he would call before getting the confirmation her purse was stolen.

McClure calling on Monday to cancel the credit card while his mother was still missing makes all the sense in the world. She was still missing at that point, McClure cancelling the card would track where it was attempted to be used, thereby increasing the chances of finding Terri, or whoever stole her purse.

Just thought I'd mention this is the 8th most active thread in the entire history of this forum.

Some of the comments over at Unsolved.com have a lot of people criticizing the investigation saying there were cameras all over the place at the casinos, and that they should have checked them. Granted, we have no way of knowing if these people truly are from the area or not, but they seem pretty adamant that there was surveillance tapes at the time of Terri's murder. Couple that with what cocytus had posted earlier, and I think it does make sense that they were installed in at least some of the casinos within the area.

Which works in favor of McClure, IMO. If there were indeed cameras, there should be footage of him leaving the casino with his mother (or following her), or entering and leaving the casino lot Terri's body was found in.

Just thought I'd mention this is the 8th most active thread in the entire history of this forum.

What's THE most active thread? Angela Hammond?

What's THE most active thread? Angela Hammond?
If not, it's got to be the main Wackers thread.

It's just too bad this didn't happen in Texas. A jury would have convicted him in 15 minutes flat and not given a second thought to it.
I see what you did there.

A couple of things to consider. One is this case happened a long time ago. The justice system in texas has changed over the years. Another thing is you can't always go with stereotypes. Every case is different. And just to contrast that opinion of texas in the past don't forget it was the state of Texas that let Kenneth mcduff walk out of prison so that he could kill again. In the usa we have a justice system to protect people from being wrongfully convicted(no matter the state) and that is in play here.

Don't get me wrong though I think he was not very trustworthy in the segment.

Actually, the Wackers is #2 and Angela Hammond is #3. The Baskins are #1.

RightOnDude says that she confirmed she was a relative. Granted, I don't know anything more about it than that.



I confirmed it as far as the "Toni Kells" who posted on unsolved.com is the same Toni Kells as who is on twitter under that name. I think it's safe to say a person posting on unsolved.com about a 20+ year old case, stating they're a relative, and then confirm they did so using a relatively long established twitter account under that name, is believable in that regard. I wish she'd post here but I'm not going to bug her further.

Question to the legal eagles, does "dismissed with prejudice" mean you can't be charged with a "lesser" version of a crime? I don't know if Tim McClure was charged with murder 1 (was he charged at all?), but could he be charged with murder 2 or manslaughter should new evidence arise?

Question to the legal eagles, does "dismissed with prejudice" mean you can't be charged with a "lesser" version of a crime? I don't know if Tim McClure was charged with murder 1 (was he charged at all?), but could he be charged with murder 2 or manslaughter should new evidence arise?

Sorry-- just saw this post!

To my understanding, he can NOT be charged with a lesser version of the crime after a dismissal with prejudice. Should he be charged with manslaughter, the defense would argue it's double jeopardy, as he's being charged with a new crime based on the same fact pattern.

As soon as the judge stamped off on the "with prejudice" dismissal, the case was done. It's over. (In my opinion) Tim McClure got away with murder.

According to our old friend cocytus, the DA believed that there was next to nothing in terms of evidence against McClure, and that there would be a likelihood of an acquittal if the case went to trial. The Carson City PD went ahead and arrested him to force the DA's hand, and that's when the DA dismissed the case with prejudice.

So if McClure is guilty (and I don't believe him to be) he's the luckiest SOB on the planet to essentially get away with murder over a squabble between a PD and a DA.

cocytus also made a reference to "technicalities" the police didn't notice, I wonder what he meant by that.

So if McClure is guilty (and I don't believe him to be) he's the luckiest SOB on the planet to essentially get away with murder over a squabble between a PD and a DA. .

He's also the luckiest SOB on the planet to search EVERY casino parking lot, just happening to miss the one his mother was dead in.:angel:

According to our old friend cocytus, the DA believed that there was next to nothing in terms of evidence against McClure, and that there would be a likelihood of an acquittal if the case went to trial. The Carson City PD went ahead and arrested him to force the DA's hand, and that's when the DA dismissed the case with prejudice.

So if McClure is guilty (and I don't believe him to be) he's the luckiest SOB on the planet to essentially get away with murder over a squabble between a PD and a DA.

cocytus also made a reference to "technicalities" the police didn't notice, I wonder what he meant by that.

PM him and find out. He'll still get an email saying someone contacted him. :D

He's also the luckiest SOB on the planet to search EVERY casino parking lot, just happening to miss the one his mother was dead in.:angel:

Post of the Year.

I also wanted to elaborate on that. I had mentioned this before, but I think it got lost in the shuffle (this is a large thread). Tim's absurd comment about not checking the casino doesn't hold water. If the purpose of checking the casinos was to find his mother, then gets a vibe she might be at a certain one so he avoids it, what sense does that make? It thus renders his entire search of every casino pointless.

But to further expand on that, if for some reason he got a bad vibe off the one casino and let's say, his mind told him something bad happened there, why not just have a friend or relative or somebody else check it? Nope, instead he goes home and forgets the whole thing.

And there's one poster on here who offers up some hogwash about the supposed real reason Tim avoided it (unconfirmed claims Tim and/or his mother never went or liked that casino), with said comment originating from a disgraced former poster on here. But that's baloney because Tim says right in the segment that the "Holy Spirit" guided him away from there. Uh-huh.

And can somebody please explain to me why some are trusting cocytus for all of his unproven claims about this case? This was the same guy that frequently trashed loved ones of victims on here, and interjected wild and unproven scenarios in numerous cases (usually a gay sex angle). This is another poster that wasn't banned per se, but let's just say he's persona non grata.

I'd like to discuss something that has rarely gotten discussion before, the state of Terri's car when they found her.

According to Stack, the keys were in the ignition, the doors were locked, and Terri was found "sitting upright in the front seat". The reenactment also shows the driver side window being rolled down roughly halfway. The reenactment also shows the car parked at such an odd angle.

If the car was where Terri was murdered, I'd say that ups the odds of an unknown assailant killing her. Obviously, if Terri was killed elsewhere besides her car, McClure is most certainly guilty.

While his phrasing is a bit odd, I think I understand what Tim meant. Yes, he tried to find his missing mother, but he was probably also very afraid of finding her dead. Who wouldn't be? Maybe he knew that that particular casino was one that Terri frequented, or that it was on the route from Stateline to Reno (and thus a possible location where his mother would be). So he stayed away from that casino.

I'd like to discuss something that has rarely gotten discussion before, the state of Terri's car when they found her.

According to Stack, the keys were in the ignition, the doors were locked, and Terri was found "sitting upright in the front seat". The reenactment also shows the driver side window being rolled down roughly halfway. The reenactment also shows the car parked at such an odd angle.

If the car was where Terri was murdered, I'd say that ups the odds of an unknown assailant killing her. Obviously, if Terri was killed elsewhere besides her car, McClure is most certainly guilty.

I find it very odd that UM showed several things about the crime scene, but didn't mention them: the pillow behind Terri's head, the rolled down window and the way the car was parked. Can we assume that the crime scene was similar to what they showed on UM? If so, then I think the pillow and the way the car was parked might actually point to Tim's guilt. Why would a robber move the car and put a pillow behind Terri's head?

Why would a robber move the car and put a pillow behind Terri's head?

If the pillow was a prop, I could see Terri either pulling into the lot or leaving the lot and being accosted by someone (possibly under the ruse of asking her for directions), she rolls the windows down, the guy demands her purse at gunpoint, she freaks and moves over to the passenger side and he plugs her twice and takes off.

Here's a wild theory. What if on Tim's wedding night, while the "party" was in full effect, Terri wanted to leave. Maybe she wanted Tim to follow her home. Maybe the "Momma's boy" agreed begrudgingly. Maybe his new wife laid down the law. Terri gets tired halfway through the drive. She pulls into the parking lot of a familiar casino and says she's going to take a nap (thus the pillow). Tim makes his choice, then and there.

As I think about it more, the credit card story almost doesn't seem to benefit either innocence or guilt if he made the call on Friday. Why would anyone make sure to cancel the credit cards of someone before murdering them? Tim thought he'd be stuck with the charges and it would cut into his $5000 inheritence? Or maybe they paid for part of the party with said credit card? Remember, back in `83, they had those paper carbon copy scanners and may have been able to get a few bucks out of it before the cancellation "took" ... hmmm.....maybe I've just uncovered another possible motive. He couldn't bear for Mom to find out she had unknowingly funded the night of the party....surely that would have come up in the investigation though.

Here's a wild theory. What if on Tim's wedding night, while the "party" was in full effect, Terri wanted to leave. Maybe she wanted Tim to follow her home. Maybe the "Momma's boy" agreed begrudgingly. Maybe his new wife laid down the law. Terri gets tired halfway through the drive. She pulls into the parking lot of a familiar casino and says she's going to take a nap (thus the pillow). Tim makes his choice, then and there.

Sometimes murderers who have a close relationship with their victim will do little things to show they "care" for the victim. If Tim did kill his mother, I could see him placing the pillow there because he cared for her and possibly out of remorseful feelings.

As I think about it more, the credit card story almost doesn't seem to benefit either innocence or guilt if he made the call on Friday. Why would anyone make sure to cancel the credit cards of someone before murdering them? Tim thought he'd be stuck with the charges and it would cut into his $5000 inheritence?

The credit card business doesn't make sense either way, IMO. Stack said Tim allegedly called the credit card company and cancelled the card on Friday before his mother disappeared. If true, and he killed her, I imagine this move would suggest some sort of pre-meditation, but for what reason would he cancel it then? Not to mention if his motive was financial, as the police allege, he could have possibly used the card to obtain more money.

Sometimes murderers who have a close relationship with their victim will do little things to show they "care" for the victim. If Tim did kill his mother, I could see him placing the pillow there because he cared for her and possibly out of remorseful feelings.

This.

I firmly believe the same thing. You will see men kill their wives and cover them up with a pillow or blanket. It's a messed up way to express feelings, but it happens. I could totally see McClure killing his mother and then putting a pillow under her head to make sure she was "comfortable."

The credit card business doesn't make sense either way, IMO. Stack said Tim allegedly called the credit card company and cancelled the card on Friday before his mother disappeared. If true, and he killed her, I imagine this move would suggest some sort of pre-meditation, but for what reason would he cancel it then? Not to mention if his motive was financial, as the police allege, he could have possibly used the card to obtain more money.

It would have been foolish for Tim to use the card since that could easily be traced back to him.

When Tim is confronted with the question of 'Did you kill your mother for the insurance payout?', Tim's response is something on the order of 'They suggested I killed my mother for the insurance, which is ludicrous, because my share was only $5,000". A truly innocent person would have said "I wouldn't have killed my mother for any reason or any amount of money." But what Tim says suggests he would have killed his mother if the price was right, but 5k was a low amount so he didn't. Truth be told, I think he sort of confessed right there.

What I'd be real interested in knowing is if the life insurance company ever paid out and if so, was there reluctance? If they felt Tim was responsible, there would have been hesitation and/or outright refusal to pay out the money to Tim. That could be the key to the mystery right there.

When Tim is confronted with the question of 'Did you kill your mother for the insurance payout?', Tim's response is something on the order of 'They suggested I killed my mother for the insurance, which is ludicrous, because my share was only $5,000". A truly innocent person would have said "I wouldn't have killed my mother for any reason or any amount of money." But what Tim says suggests he would have killed his mother if the price was right, but 5k was a low amount so he didn't. Truth be told, I think he sort of confessed right there.

What I'd be real interested in knowing is if the life insurance company ever paid out and if so, was there reluctance? If they felt Tim was responsible, there would have been hesitation and/or outright refusal to pay out the money to Tim. That could be the key to the mystery right there.
Good point. So I just watched this again for you wiseguy. I'm with you now. 100% guilty IMO although it is a circumstancial case. He's way too calm in every way and is reaching for a alibi. Someone would have recognized him yet no one did. Who gambles alone on their wedding night for 2 hours(during the murder window). Who visits their mother on their honeymoon? Then the purse combined with canceling the credit card before she died which is a fact. Why did he do that?

Good point. So I just watched this again for you wiseguy. I'm with you now. 100% guilty IMO

Thanks -- I'm honored!!

I think there might be a chance we can get LethalMatthew to join our side too! Certainly has been a productive night.

I think there might be a chance we can get LethalMatthew to join our side too! Certainly has been a productive night.

:lol: :lol:


I firmly believe the same thing. You will see men kill their wives and cover them up with a pillow or blanket. It's a messed up way to express feelings, but it happens. I could totally see McClure killing his mother and then putting a pillow under her head to make sure she was "comfortable."


The pillow does bug me. If it's not a prop and it was actually there at the crime scene, then my opinion about who did this might change. But why wouldn't this be brought forward in the UM segment? The UM segment obviously tried to paint Tim as the culprit, so why didn't they mention this possibly damning piece of evidence? They could have interviewed some behavioral analyst like John Douglas who would say that such a pillow placed behind the victim's head points to a family member as the perpetrator who, like you said, tries to make the victim 'comfortable'.

The pillow does bug me. If it's not a prop and it was actually there at the crime scene, then my opinion about who did this might change. But why wouldn't this be brought forward in the UM segment? The UM segment obviously tried to paint Tim as the culprit, so why didn't they mention this possibly damning piece of evidence? They could have interviewed some behavioral analyst like John Douglas who would say that such a pillow placed behind the victim's head points to a family member as the perpetrator who, like you said, tries to make the victim 'comfortable'.

This is precisely why I don't believe the pillow to have been an actual part of the crime scene. Had it been there, UM would have mentioned this as another knock on McClure.

:lol: :lol:

The pillow does bug me. If it's not a prop and it was actually there at the crime scene, then my opinion about who did this might change. But why wouldn't this be brought forward in the UM segment? The UM segment obviously tried to paint Tim as the culprit, so why didn't they mention this possibly damning piece of evidence? They could have interviewed some behavioral analyst like John Douglas who would say that such a pillow placed behind the victim's head points to a family member as the perpetrator who, like you said, tries to make the victim 'comfortable'.

I don't know how commonplace behavioral analysis was at the time though. For example, I am reminded of the segment about the murder of Father Rivera and the disappearance and presumed murder of Father Kerrigan (incidentally both crimes occurred around the same time as Terri McClure's murder). The detective interviewed in the Rivera/Kerrigan segment seemed convinced that the two crimes were connected. However, the information about the MOs and behavioral evidence that has been released to the public just SCREAMS (IMO) that both crimes were committed by different offenders.

In regards to McClure, I don't think the FBI would have been called in unless the department investigating the homicide requested this kind of help. I've never seen anything that would suggest the FBI became involved in the case. Unfortunately, the information about the McClure case that exists outside the segment is extremely scarce.

It would have been foolish for Tim to use the card since that could easily be traced back to him.

Right, but it was also foolish for him to have allegedly canceled it when he did.

Since you think he's guilty, I'm assuming you think he called on Friday to cancel it. Why do you think he did this?

Good point. So I just watched this again for you wiseguy. I'm with you now. 100% guilty IMO although it is a circumstancial case. He's way too calm in every way and is reaching for a alibi. Someone would have recognized him yet no one did.

It's Reno, Nevada though. Casino crowds are very transient. There are lots of folks drinking and partying and gambling, and tons of tourists. Trying to track down folks who may have been there and remembered this event might not be so easy.

Who gambles alone on their wedding night for 2 hours(during the murder window).

Yeah, but if you follow the account it sounds as though he was separated from the group. He says he walked his mother to her car and returned alone. Suppose he came back to the casino and couldn't find anyone from his party. He could have planted himself in front of a slot machine and lost a couple hours.

Who visits their mother on their honeymoon?

I don't see what this has to do with determining his guilt or innocence. It sounds as though she lived in the area and they promised to stop by the next day. I don't see the issue here.

Then the purse combined with canceling the credit card before she died which is a fact. Why did he do that?

Well, it doesn't (IMO) make sense for him to have cancelled the card on Friday if he was guilty.

In actuality, the receptionist mixing up the dates makes more sense to me because it is understandable that he would want to cancel the card when she missing so as to prevent it from being used and to possibly flag any transactions. And he likely would have made that call on Monday after he knew she was missing.

It's Reno, Nevada though. Casino crowds are very transient. There are lots of folks drinking and partying and gambling, and tons of tourists. Trying to track down folks who may have been there and remembered this event might not be so easy.



Yeah, but if you follow the account it sounds as though he was separated from the group. He says he walked his mother to her car and returned alone. Suppose he came back to the casino and couldn't find anyone from his party. He could have planted himself in front of a slot machine and lost a couple hours.



I don't see what this has to do with determining his guilt or innocence. It sounds as though she lived in the area and they promised to stop by the next day. I don't see the issue here.



Well, it doesn't (IMO) make sense for him to have cancelled the card on Friday if he was guilty.

In actuality, the receptionist mixing up the dates makes more sense to me because it is understandable that he would want to cancel the card when she missing so as to prevent it from being used and to possibly flag any transactions. And he likely would have made that call on Monday after he knew she was missing.
I've never been to reno so I wouldn't know for sure how the crowds are there. I guess it is possible that no one there would have been capable of remembering him...and the ones that were may not have viewed UM. Going from my point of view from the places I've been I just thought I would remember him as he points out cleverly he has distinct features. cannot speak for everyone there though.

As far as being seperated from the group on his wedding night. Again going by my point of view. Maybe at someone elses wedding party at a casino I may get seperated from my spouse and be down to do some quick slots, but not at my own. and if I got left behind I would have searched for my bride to see that she was ok then I might say hey I want to play some slots...

The honeymoon issue...I'm not so clear with that. Assuming that they were going on a traditional honeymoon was what I was thinking. I picture a honeymoon being a long romantic get away for a newly wed couple. but not everyone does that so it could be completely irrelevant. It just seems to me like he went out of his way to show that he was searching for his mom.

As far as the credit card...nothing makes sense there. that's where we agree for sure. It makes more sense that she got the date wrong, but even that is a stretch. that's a four day mistake made by a person that I'm assuming deals with a lot of calls and would have known what day it was. again possible she made a mistake, but very possible mcclure is lying too. Could he have planned ahead to cancel the card so that it was one less thing he had to do after he finished the job and not thought about the fact that his call would be time stamped?

I just don't buy his story....it doesn't add up and there is a lot of deception and very strange excuses on his part. and where was his wife to defend him? did he lose her on the set?

and where was his wife to defend him? did he lose her on the set?

OMG, that is hilarious! Thank you.

Since you think he's guilty, I'm assuming you think he called on Friday to cancel it. Why do you think he did this?

In all honesty, everything Tim does suggests to me he didn't expect to be even so much as interviewed about Terri's murder. Especially his comment of "this is my mother's murder, you should be investigating it on another level, instead of looking at me." Now, most people that commit a murder against a loved one will at least be smart enough to realize they will be a suspect. But Tim is so stupid, he thinks he can murder and get away with it. Remember, he thinks not only should he not be a suspect, but he shouldn't even be questioned or interviewed about it. Because that's the way Tim McClure rolls.

My belief is that Tim planted the car at the casino, tried to make it look like a botched robbery, and didn't think the authorities would even look into the credit card issue. The issue is not "Whether or not Tim thinks they would have found his canceling the card suspicious or not", it's a matter of "He doesn't think they will even look into it."

It's Reno, Nevada though. Casino crowds are very transient. There are lots of folks drinking and partying and gambling, and tons of tourists. Trying to track down folks who may have been there and remembered this event might not be so easy.

I seem to recall the wedding was at Lake Tahoe, and Terri was murdered in Carson City.

I don't see what this has to do with determining his guilt or innocence. It sounds as though she lived in the area and they promised to stop by the next day. I don't see the issue here.

I can see both sides of the issue here. Without knowing Tim's routine or plans, it's impossible to say they didn't intend to visit Terri's house. But it does seem odd, much like everything he does and says. I've often said in this case it's important to view the totality of things, rather than isolate individual issues.

In actuality, the receptionist mixing up the dates makes more sense to me because it is understandable that he would want to cancel the card when she missing so as to prevent it from being used and to possibly flag any transactions. And he likely would have made that call on Monday after he knew she was missing.

But the problem for Tim is that he went looking for the purse with the credit card before he even knew they were missing. Therefore, it's not a huge leap to assume he would have cancelled it on Friday.

But the problem for Tim is that he went looking for the purse with the credit card before he even knew they were missing.

What do you mean by this? When Tim and his wife arrived at his mother's house on Saturday, there were three things missing: Terri, her car and her purse. Tim looking for his mother's purse (and his mother and her car) is not suspicious and doesn't indicate any prior knowledge or whatever.

I've never been to reno so I wouldn't know for sure how the crowds are there. I guess it is possible that no one there would have been capable of remembering him...and the ones that were may not have viewed UM. Going from my point of view from the places I've been I just thought I would remember him as he points out cleverly he has distinct features. cannot speak for everyone there though.

As far as being seperated from the group on his wedding night. Again going by my point of view. Maybe at someone elses wedding party at a casino I may get seperated from my spouse and be down to do some quick slots, but not at my own. and if I got left behind I would have searched for my bride to see that she was ok then I might say hey I want to play some slots...

I really dislike bringing my own personal experiences to the table when analyzing a case because what I see and experience should have no bearing on my assessment if I truly want to come at this from an unbiased standpoint.

In this case, however, I can tell you that having been married in Vegas myself, and having traveled to Vegas probably 8 or 9 times in the last decade, some of the points raised by McClure actually do make sense to me.

It's difficult to describe to someone who has never been there and experienced it, but casinos are very loud, boisterous, and busy places. The casinos themselves are intentionally designed to be almost like mazes that trap you inside so you'll want to continue playing as opposed to finding your way outside or to your room in the hotel. The inside of a casino is complete sensory overload. There are the constant flashing lights of all the gaming machines, the sounds of the games themselves and occasionally sirens. You'll see TONS of people of all walks of life, of all different nationalities/ethnicities, dressed in all sorts of ways. There will be yelling, screaming, laughing, cursing, people talking loudly, the sound of sirens going off when people win games, the constant smell of smoke from cigarettes and cigars of all kinds, occasionally the smell of marijuana, the smell of beer, sober people, drunk people, stoned people, people acting crazy. I've seen it all.

That being said, it is very difficult to remember details about specific people that you see out and about because there are just SO MANY people. The odd thing too is that most people on the strip and in the casinos seem to be into their own thing. If someone is playing a slot or a poker machine, that is what they are fixated on.

Not to mention that you're also talking about a transient population that is probably 95 percent tourist with many people coming from other countries just to visit the strip.

A lot of people are partying and are drunk or stoned.

With all those things in mind, it is not really that surprising to me that no one remembered McClure, as odd looking as he may have been, and failed to remember him six years after the fact when that UM story aired.

Lastly, I'll just say that it is VERY EASY to get separated from a group when you are with a large group of people inside a casino - which I'm assuming this was because he got married there. And you know what? When you lose your party, you plop yourself in front of a machine and play games, it's just what happens.

The honeymoon issue...I'm not so clear with that. Assuming that they were going on a traditional honeymoon was what I was thinking. I picture a honeymoon being a long romantic get away for a newly wed couple. but not everyone does that so it could be completely irrelevant. It just seems to me like he went out of his way to show that he was searching for his mom.

We don't know where Tim McClure and his wife were from but I thought it was implied they lived somewhere in Nevada, possibly the Carson City area and his mother I'm pretty sure definitely lived in the area. If he said he was going to stop by and see her the next morning, which is something he probably discussed with his wife or possibly the other family members, I don't see it being that unusual that he would go to her house the next morning.

Further, how do we even know that was his honeymoon? Maybe he and his wife were having one at a later time, somewhere else? I've known couple who have done this. It might also make sense if they did in fact live in Reno and wanted to go somewhere exotic for a honeymoon later on.

I don't know, but I just don't see this being issue if he said he was going to visit her. And, if innocent, this would be the first time that he noticed something was up in terms of her being missing which prompted him to begin searching and the rest is history.

Also, working off that, if he killed her, why even go back to her house at all? He could have just "partied" with his wife that whole weekend. Then, after Terri's body is found on Monday, he can plausibly deny having any knowledge of her movements that weekend.

And that's another interesting point I just now thought of...it was Tim's efforts that jump-started the investigation into his mother's disappearance on Saturday morning. Why would he do this? If guilty, it would make little sense, IMO, to call attention to the fact that anything was a miss so soon after he committed the crime. Like I said above, he could have just done nothing that entire weekend and waited for someone to find her body.

and where was his wife to defend him? did he lose her on the set?

I think a poster came across some information that they had since divorced, though I'm not sure when that would have been in the time frame in terms of the murder, the airing of the segment, and so forth. I never was sure if the woman in the segment was McClure's actual wife or an actress.

What do you mean by this? When Tim and his wife arrived at his mother's house on Saturday, there were three things missing: Terri, her car and her purse. Tim looking for his mother's purse (and his mother and her car) is not suspicious and doesn't indicate any prior knowledge or whatever.
Is that not what tim himself said? I don't recall....the strange thing is that the credit card was cancelled on friday and the authorities locked in on the fact that her purse was not with her yet he was looking for it as if he knew that. I could be wrong but thats what i remember?

Is that not what tim himself said? I don't recall....the strange thing is that the credit card was cancelled on friday and the authorities locked in on the fact that her purse was not with her yet he was looking for it as if he knew that. I could be wrong but thats what i remember?

This is where I think UM did McClure a disservice.

On UM, they make it seem as though McClure said he was going to go look for Terri's purse. Then, they get into the whole driving the highway and going to every single casino parking lot business.

In reality, I think that McClure drove the highways looking for the purse AND the car simultaneously.

This would make a lot more sense. It is also congruent with his explanation of why he would need to look for the purse. Within that context, he wouldn't need to possess any prior knowledge of the purse being missing. I really think the cops were reaching too far in over-analyzing that particular statement about the purse and drawing conclusions about his culpability based on that statement.