I watched this segment on UM a few days back (which I had also seen several time previously) about a man named Tim McClure who had been accused of murdering his mother on the evening of his wedding. Mr. McClure requested that UM profiled his case in order so he could clear his name. Unlike other cases in which people have given their Appeals on UM McClure was not convicted of any crime just "under suspicion" - Also at least in my opinion unlike other Appeals cases (such as the often run Pattie Stalling case) McClure IS GUILTY as sin.

Although I don't wanna believe it (as it is unfathomable that a man could kill his elderly mother for any reason) McClure's behaviour indicates otherwise. The fact that he filed papers claiming his mom was dead before she was found (credit card statements etc.) that he searched every Las Vegas parking lot except for the one she was found dead in and that he failed a lie detector test as well as nobody being able to corroborate Tim's whereabouts from the time he walked him mom out of the casino (the last time HE CLAIMS he saw her alive) to when he reported her missing the next morning.

Also McClure's behavior during the segment is very odd he seems compleatley uptight and takes a holier than thou attitude many times and just gives this viewer the impression that he is nothing more than guilty. Sadly if this is the fact the only KNOWN MOTIVE that Tim would have for killing his mom would be to collect on a $5,000 life insurance policy which McClure himself stated was such a small amount of money that he could not believe police thought he could kill his mom to aquire that sum.

Btw for those interested the case was resolved with McClure being arrested but the charges against him being dropped before he got to trial. This is really one UM case that gives me the creeps cause in my heart as McClure tells his tale I KNOW I AM LOOKING AT THE FACE OF A KILLER.

Any thoughts on this case?

Later.

I have been trying desperatly to get this segment on tape. I worked with this person for close to a year in 2000. Email privately for any questions. Would like to purchase a copy of this segment if possible. Thank you.

I thought the alibi was odd. I mean, here he was a 6'5" man with waist-length hair wearing a tux. .yet NO ONE in the casino noticed him gambling the night away?! Who gambles on their honeymoon night. .and, for that matter, why didn't we hear from his bride during the segment? Creepy!

As much as I wanted to believe this soft-spoken sweet son, evidence against him SCREAMS at me not too. The credit card thing was a major point for me. It IS odd that the wife wasnt interviewed....they both failed the lie detector test...I hope the cops are keeping this case open so that one day they come across that one schred of evidence they need to lock up this guy. Is he still married to the girl?

It was also my impression that he is guilty. The phone call to the credit card company was something that just seemed too odd. Why would the company invent a story about him calling on that date and saying that his mother had been murdered? He said that the dates were mixed up and that they misunderstood him.

I wonder . . .

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnMill
[B]I watched this segment on UM a few days back (which I had also seen several time previously) about a man named Tim McClure who had been accused of murdering his mother on the evening of his wedding. Mr. McClure requested that UM profiled his case in order so he could clear his name. Unlike other cases in which people have given their Appeals on UM McClure was not convicted of any crime just "under suspicion" - Also at least in my opinion unlike other Appeals cases (such as the often run Pattie Stalling case) McClure IS GUILTY as sin.

Ageed. I liked his response about the lie detector test. Something to the effect of "I missed the question about "do you know what happened to your mother?" but got all the others correct...which was just baffeling to me..."

He didn't sound convincing at all.

My two cents.

Justin

Well, there's a topic in this forum that asks what cases we are "on the fence" about, and this is definitely one for me.

There is the idea that this man took the time to contact UM in an effort to prove his innocence. But there is also some weird things that he did.

**Why did he go looking for his mom's purse? Why not her car? Would he really be able to see a purse driving at 65mph on the highway?

**The biggest one for me was how he searched every casino parking lot for his mom..........except for the one where she was found. Instead, we get the corny "I just had that feeling" comment, which is incredibly suspicious.

Actually, I can forgive the credit card company messing up the date that he called. Yeah, I think that's exactly it. The receptionist wrote down the wrong date. If you read the memo during the segment, all it says is that his mother was "deceased", not that she was murdered.

The lie detector test flunking I can forgive as well. I've never been a fan of those. To me, it doesn't prove anything, it just watches your heartbeat.

However, I was astonished at how many times McClure's explaination of things was basically "I am baffled at how they thought that" or, "I have no idea how that is what they heard", which makes me wonder. There's too many things that he can't really explain.

One more thing: How could his mother's dead body sit in her car in a busy casino parking lot for three days? Didn't anyone see her?

And you could tell the detective in the segment thought McClure was the guy, but just couldn't say it. The tag at the end about Tim being arrested, but the charges being dropped wasn't surprising at all. It's obvious he was going to be charged, and it was obvious most of the evidence wasn't good enough.

Nonetheless, I'm still undecided about it. Right now, I'd say I'm 60/40 that he DIDN'T do it. Seriously, why would he want to kill his own mother?

I have no idea why he would want to kill his own mother. Especially on his wedding night none the less. Well in my view if he killed her it was probably because of the insurance money. But why would a guy knock off his own mother for a puny 5,000 dollar life insurance policy? Was he that desperate for cash? I wanted to believe this guy was innocent but at the end I thought the chances were slightly better than not that he was guilty. What I found was weird was how he claimed to be gambling alone for two hours after the wedding instead of with his bride. I have never heard of someone leaving their new spouse the night of a wedding to go off and spend time alone. Tim McClure to put it nicely is a unique looking individual and would stand out. This is another red flag that no one remembers seeing him at the time he said he was gambling alone. How he went to go look for the purse and not his mother's car and how he knew it was missing before the police had released that information is another red flag. Yet another was when he canceled the credit card, although that could have been a mistake on the company's part in terms of the date he called. However there was just such odd behavior on the part of McCluer, he just acted really weird in the UM interview and his explanations and reactions to things was not typical. I am of the belief that his mom's car was not in that casino parking lot for three days. I think it was probably moved there just hours before she was found. Did McCluer do it? The chances are better than not he did although if he did it the reasons he did it are known only to him. However I dont think he would have been convicted even if this case had went to trial because even though the jury would most likely think he did it they would acquitt him because the evidence simply isnt strong enough, it is too circumstancial. That is why the district attorney refused to prosecute was because he knew that McClure would most likely be acquitted then if any new evidence came up they couldnt try him again.

I just got done watching this segment. The one thing I missed was how the mother died. Was she shot?

I tend to think that McClure was guilty. Sometimes you can just tell when someone is lying, and that's how I felt when I watched this segment. The being gone for two hours on his honeymoon thing doesn't sit well with me either. And the fact that the question that his wife failed on the polygraph test was "Do you know who killed Mrs. McClure?" is another red flag. If she had no involvement in her death, yet knew who did it, it would make sense that that was the question she missed.

It seems like there are a lot of little things that suggest McClure is guilty, but when you put them all together, it becomes one big thing that suggests he's guilty. Sad, sad case.

I may be in the minority here but I've always thought Tim McClure was innocent. It doesn't make sense that he would kill his mother (who by all accounts he was genuinely devoted to) on his wedding day in a public parking lot! It doesn't make sense. Think about where she was when she was found, shot to death in her car in a parking lot of a casino. Her purse was missing so I definitely think robbery was the motive. Her jewelry was still intact but remember it was dark and the killer probably couldn't see it. As for the few questions that showed deception on the polygraph I don't know the answer to that but as they say those tests aren't always accurate. Nonetheless I don't think he was guilty so I'm glad he was never convicted.

I'm really on the fence on this one. So much suggests that he may have been involved, yet a big part of me thinks he's innocent (probably his demeanor and like someone above said him being soft-spoken-like, plus his close relationship to his mother.) This is one of those cases where I really don't know what side to take.
Jimmy Hendricks raises some interesting questions though.
Why didn't he look in the one casino where his mother was to be found? He said it was some type of message he was getting from God, not to, right?
The purse thing was the one that confused me the most. Why would he be looking for her purse, and not her car?

I really don't know what to think...

I haven't sorted my thoughts out about this one but I'm inclined to lean towards the innocent theory. Considering their closeness and the fact that not that much money was involved, it doesn't make sense that he would murder her just like that. That also brings up the question of "If not Tim, then who?" That's an even bigger question because I can't comprehend a murder with no real motive, but stranger things have happened.

I haven't sorted my thoughts out about this one but I'm inclined to lean towards the innocent theory. Considering their closeness and the fact that not that much money was involved, it doesn't make sense that he would murder her just like that. That also brings up the question of "If not Tim, then who?" That's an even bigger question because I can't comprehend a murder with no real motive, but stranger things have happened.

Well exactly...if it was someone else, then why would they do it? What was their motive for killing her?

And then you are right, the money wasn't even all that much, but then the sherriff or someone interviewed said something like "People have killed for less.."

Now that was impressive, 40 months between posts in this thread, then a flurry. The best part is I can't be accused of bumping it. :D

Too bad CrushedVelvet stopped posting here. This is several times I've seen her posts in an old thread that was resurrected. I respected her opinion.

Anyway, obviously this case was shown this week but I missed it. I tend to lean toward innocent for the same basic reasons crystaldawn emphasized. She probably stole them from me in a different thread on this topic. :lol:

BTW, the opening post says Las Vegas. Is that right? I always thought this happened in Reno. There's the one missing wife case in Laughlin with the older couple, then this one which I always placed in Reno.

I miss CrushedVelvet too. Hopefully she'll return to the message boards one day.

I tend to lean toward innocent for the same basic reasons crystaldawn emphasized. She probably stole them from me in a different thread on this topic. :lol:



Don't flatter yourself Awsi.....:lol: I would say great minds think alike but I don't really think it applies here. :p

The motive of course would be robbery. I've never been to those casinos but I'm guessing robbery is quite common around there (maybe Awsi can enlighten us) you know people who are desperate with gambling addictions or who lost all their money and want to keep gambling. Anyway it seems logical to me if she was found shot to death in her car in a casino parking lot and her purse missing robbery is probably the reason.

Yes I wonder why Crushed Velvet hasn't posted in so long. Also mortytbusybody....something very strange is going on with her. :eek:

Many people think that it would be unbelievable to kill his mother for only $5,000. But, apparently, he might of been a gambling addict & desperate for any amount of money.

Many people think that it would be unbelievable to kill his mother for only $5,000. But, apparently, he might of been a gambling addict & desperate for any amount of money.

That is true. He did mention gambling and going to casinos a lot.

Yes it seems stupid to murder someone over this little amount. However I have heard & read stories of people getting murdered for far less then this amount so I do believe it is possible that he did murder his mother. I mean in ways this would be a great time to do something like this. I know it does sound crazy but what person whould murder there own mother on the night they got married??? Most people are not gonna believe something like that. Good cover up.

Also, did anyone notice how much Tim McClure was studdering during the interview? I have never heard someone studder do much, very apparent that he was a bundle of nerves.

I thought he was guilty as sin while watching this segment the other day. For me, there were far too many coincidences involved that have already been mentioned. The purse thing, him looking at all the casino lots EXCEPT where she was found, the credit card date...

I don't normally give much credence to lie detectors, but I thought it was telling that the one question his wife failed was if she knew who killed his mother.

I agree that some of his responses were a little off...too defensive.

Don't flatter yourself Awsi.....:lol: I would say great minds think alike but I don't really think it applies here. :p

The motive of course would be robbery. I've never been to those casinos but I'm guessing robbery is quite common around there (maybe Awsi can enlighten us) you know people who are desperate with gambling addictions or who lost all their money and want to keep gambling. Anyway it seems logical to me if she was found shot to death in her car in a casino parking lot and her purse missing robbery is probably the reason.

Actually I've been fattening myself. :( That's a natural residue of staying indoors too much during a lovely 110 degree summer.

Gambling addiction leads to theft, no doubt about it. I've mentioned my friend Larry Mathews was murdered in spring 2004, apparently with robbery as the motive. He made the mistake of bragging about his winnings and bankroll.

Crime has gone up dramatically here in recent years. In fact, it's a big topic in the current election for sheriff. Every study indicates gamblers are much more concerned with being in action than dollar amount, so $5000 could be plenty, with that psychological aspect in mind.

I don't know if it's related to the crime wave, but in the mid '90s thru maybe 2001 or 2002 it was simple to make money on slot machines if you knew what you were doing. They had bonus type machines, called Vision machines, that tourists would unknowingly abandon on the verge of the bonus. Dozens or hundreds of those machines in every major casino. People were quitting high paying jobs to play slot machines for a living. In the heyday you could average $25 an hour no problem, then with the occasional huge spin. I know people who set themselves up for life via playing those machines.

Anyway, the tapouts used them as a means to keep money in their pocket. Now those machines are all but gone and the tapouts have turned to crime. I've heard tons of related stories.

Plus, when you get the older hotels imploded to make way for modern billion dollar ones, those new hotels are not tolerant of the local bums and hustlers, so they quickly kick them out. No doubt that leads to more scams and street crime.

Yes I wonder why Crushed Velvet hasn't posted in so long. Also mortytbusybody....something very strange is going on with her. :eek:
Add Blackout805 to this list. I miss having feuds with him about who's the bigger 2pac fan.

I'm pretty sure that Tim publicly admitted that he failed the lie detector test, but said it wasn't administered properly. I have heard a few suspects in other cases say that. My only question is, how does a lie detector test not get administered properly? Don't they use only yes or no questions?

Wow. I had no idea it had been so long since this thread had been bumped. I just saw the segment the other day and came here and typed "McClure" and this was the first one that came up.

I believe this didn't happen in Vegas. Or Reno. Rather, it was Lake Tahoe, IIRC.

I've decided that Tim McClure is either innocent, or one of the dumbest murderers in American history. I think the investigation started with him, and his weird behavior raised some questions, and they zeroed in on him, and refused to let up.

Although the whole scenario surrounding his mother's murder still baffles me, regardless of who committed it. How could his mom's dead body, shot twice in the head, sit in a casino parking lot for three days? Someone must have moved her car into position right before she was found. There's no way she could spend three days out there. The only possibility I could think of was perhaps there was little blood (despite what the segment showed) and it looked like she was sleeping.

Still, the biggest "What the hell?" moment for me was Tim searching "every casino parking lot", except of course the one his mother's car was in. That makes no sense, and doesn't do him any good at all. I think he "went looking" for his mother, and well, didn't for some reason. That's just too odd of a coincidence.

Hell, screw it. I'm on the fence again. Why would he gamble by himself, and not with his new wife and her family? Perhaps it's because he was KILLING HIS MOTHER for those 2 hours?

Ugh. Even if he did kill his mom, why then? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to go shoot her in her house, rather than try and slip out on your wedding night and leave her in a parking lot?

I guess we'll never know................it's truly one of those Unsolved Mysteries that truly fit the bill of the show. And that segment was damn creepy as well, not showing his mom dead until JUST the right moment, complete with a thunderous, frightening bass note. Ah, I miss that show.

If it was Lake Tahoe that's even more bizarre. Those major casinos in south Lake Tahoe are in a very confined area along the one main road. I've been there many times including in April. Now if it's north Lake Tahoe near Incline Village you have much smaller casinos that are more spread out.

His mom lived in Reno I think but werent they at a casino in Carson City? I think it was Carson City although I could be wrong on that. He got married in Lake Tahoe but I thought they moved over to casino's in Carson City I could be wrong on that though. Carson City isnt far from Lake Tahoe so that is possible. I dont know, personally I think he killed his mom but then everytime I think he for sure did it, I get pulled back into the unsure column because it doesnt make sense why he would do it unless he was that desperate for cash that he was willing to kill his mother over 5,000 dollars.

His mom lived in Reno I think but werent they at a casino in Carson City? I think it was Carson City although I could be wrong on that. He got married in Lake Tahoe but I thought they moved over to casino's in Carson City I could be wrong on that though. Carson City isnt far from Lake Tahoe so that is possible. I dont know, personally I think he killed his mom but then everytime I think he for sure did it, I get pulled back into the unsure column because it doesnt make sense why he would do it unless he was that desperate for cash that he was willing to kill his mother over 5,000 dollars.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. Last night when I was posting in regard to the Lake Tahoe reference I was thinking it makes much more sense to miss a parking lot if it's Carson City. I was in Carson City this April also and visited those casinos. It's the state capital and much more "normal" than Reno or Las Vegas. There are casinos right there near the capital buildings but also spread out many miles including east toward Dayton. I could definitely see missing a parking lot in Carson City since the casinos kind of pop out of nowhere, no all-casino areas like Las vegas. They aren't the most modern casinos, either, so I'm wondering how sophisticated the surveillance system would have been.

Carson City isn't far from Reno or Lake Tahoe, maybe 40 miles or less from each depending what part of Tahoe you're talking about.

I still think Tim is as guilty as sin. I could perhaps write off one of the coincidences as just that: a coincidence, but when you have about a half a dozen or so of them, something smells fishy. It is possible that the mother hit a jackpot at the casino, and somebody in the casino realized this and, figuring that since she was elderly that she would be an easy target. But there are just too many unexplained things relating to Tim.

One thing I'm wondering about is how did Tim know to look at just casinos? Perhaps I missed this: maybe in the segment it had stated that the mother told Tim she was going to a casino after the wedding. But unless that happened, how would Tim have known to look at just casinos and not anywhere else.

I'm wondering if the mother lay dead in the parking lot for the three days, or if the car was moved and then brought back. If the car had been moved, I would be even more convinced that it was Tim who murdered her. Had it been a random shooter, it seems like they would have been more likely to just leave her there, but had Tim did it, he could have brought it to the casino to give the inclination that somebody else did it. (kind of like Jules Caylor supposedly dropping off Dottie at the bus station) Anything's possible though. Also, since odds would have it that Tim had rode in his mother's car before, he could have his fingerprints all over the car and it wouldn't necessarily be considered suspicious.

I believe that car she was in was placed there shortly before she was found. I am having a real hard time believing that she sat in that car for 3 days & noone noticed her. Especially in a Casino parking lot.

The weird thing about this case was that Tim McClure went on the show in an effort to clear his name, but if anything, it made him look more guilty.

I believe that car she was in was placed there shortly before she was found. I am having a real hard time believing that she sat in that car for 3 days & noone noticed her. Especially in a Casino parking lot.

It certainly couldn't happen in Las Vegas. Not long ago I parked in a lot of a small casino for the purpose of running across the street to make a sports bet. When I returned 15 minutes later there was a big warning sign on my car saying they had taken my license plate number and if it happened again I would be towed.

However, in April I was in Carson City and after touring the capital buildings I was zonked and walked back to my car which I had parked in the middle of the lot outside a midsize casino. There were maybe 20 times as many parking spaces as cars parked there. No other car was within 30 yards of mine. I snacked on some cookies and took a little nap in the great April weather. No one threatened to bother me. No hint of any security walking the lot. I agree three days is strange, but at that point Carson City was even less populated and more simple than now, so I can't discount it.

CD, I agree with you. I watched the segment on your UM Vol 5 disc. I can't quite put my finger on it, but the cop just rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed like he decided it was Tim, and was determined to go the distance w/ it.

Yes, being w/o wife to gamble for 2 hours is kind of weird, but she was w/ her parents. Lake Tahoe is a bussling town from what I"ve heard. Yeah he was distinctive w/ his mullet from hell and being 6'5", but maybe most of those dance hall people were wasted by the time they all got there.

Lie detectors tests have a roughtly 30% chance of giving off a false positive, in that I mean that one flunks instead of passes. Tim even said so himself. He had a lot swirling through his mind. The fact that he was told to keep his eyes closed was weird.

Okay, the credit card company phone call. No one on either side mentioned checking with the phone calls to and from Terri's house. The number for the credit card company would be on there for the day they were called. If you look carefully on the memo, it doesn't say a day of the week, just a date.

The purse thing. From what Tim said and the detective said, it was just a misunderstanding. The parking lot where his mother was, I totally understand. I had a similar feeling about going to a place that my father died at later in the day. It's just a sense of do not go there. Can't explain it.

He may have been fidgety, but he had to have known that if he did it, someone would have spotted him near his mother's car. To then go on UM, he would have been asking for trouble. Maybe his wife did not want to be interviewed. It is possible.

Interesting. I still can't decide which way I'm going to swing on this one....

This is kinda random, but does anyone else feel kinda strange about basically trying a person in absentia, based solely on what is discovered through research, reader comments and UM segments? It's fun to speculate, but I can't help but wonder what some of the people we've "convicted" of the crimes (Chad Noe and Paul Polis immediately spring to mind) would think if they were to read it... :offtopic:

Yeah, I know that was off-topic, but it just happened to be on my mind at the moment.

As I've mentioned before I think he's guilty. Here's a couple of additional things I haven't mentioned before.

Tim supposedly gambling alone on his wedding night seems suspicious to me. Who wouldn't want to be with their wife on their wedding night? Gambling alone would be more of a bachelor party/pre-wedding activity than it would be a wedding night activity. It's almost as if saying, we just got married. Now I want to be apart from you already.

And did anyone else think it was weird that he went on the show to clear his name as opposed to finding, who he claims anyway, is the real killer? As Robert Stack himself mentioned, that was a pretty rare occurence.

However, if there's one thing that plays to Tim's favor, it's his soft-spokenness. That, and being a mama's boy, as mentioned previousy. Those 2 things prevent him from looking 100% guilty. But still, for me, it's in the 90 percentile.

It's funny that you mentioned the in absentia thing, LooksLikeCRicci. I just saw the Wendy Camp segment for the first time on Saturday on CD's um favorites volume 5. I had read a lot about Chad Noe here on the forums and it sounded like he was very guilty. I watched the segment, and I agree with the majority.

As I've mentioned before I think he's guilty. Here's a couple of additional things I haven't mentioned before.

Tim supposedly gambling alone on his wedding night seems suspicious to me. Who wouldn't want to be with their wife on their wedding night? Gambling alone would be more of a bachelor party/pre-wedding activity than it would be a wedding night activity. It's almost as if saying, we just got married. Now I want to be apart from you already.

And did anyone else think it was weird that he went on the show to clear his name as opposed to finding, who he claims anyway, is the real killer? As Robert Stack himself mentioned, that was a pretty rare occurence.

However, if there's one thing that plays to Tim's favor, it's his soft-spokenness. That, and being a mama's boy, as mentioned previousy. Those 2 things prevent him from looking 100% guilty. But still, for me, it's in the 90 percentile.

It's funny that you mentioned the in absentia thing, LooksLikeCRicci. I just saw the Wendy Camp segment for the first time on Saturday on CD's um favorites volume 5. I had read a lot about Chad Noe here on the forums and it sounded like he was very guilty. I watched the segment, and I agree with the majority.

I dunno about that. It's those quiet ones you have to be wary of, IMO.

He just seemed WEIRD. Everything - his tone, mannerisms, looks, everything. I think he's guilty... the credit card thing really did it for me. And his comments about the lie detector tests were priceless. :lol:

And you're right about his only wanting to clear his name and nothing more. He certainly didn't seem to be eager in going after who supposedly did it - assuming he didn't do it, of course.

Well is McClure guilty? I dont know. This case is so strange and lacks an apperant motive. However at the same time McClure came off as a very odd character so anything is possible. I do agree the way McClure acts makes him seem guilty. However if he was truly guilty do you think he would act that way? McClure might be odd but he is not stupid. I dont know what to think about this. Police arrested him in 1992 I believe but he was released when the D.A. refused to press charges. I still have a hard time believing he killed his mother just for 5 thousand dollars. There must be more to the story than UM let on. As for Chad Noe, yeah the guy needs an injection but he will never get one without the bodies. Some of these cases I think these guys could get convicted without the bodies but I guess most D.A.'s dont want to charge someone then have them get acquitted on the chance that new evidence could come up later. Although I have seen some cases that seemed open and shut end up in surprising acquittals like that Donny guy that probably murdered his sisters in California.

I still have a hard time believing he killed his mother just for 5 thousand dollars.

Pizza deliveryman Morris Davis (who was profiled on UM) was killed for about $20 or so, so I definitely think that somebody could murder for $5,000. Plus, I believe she took out that insurance policy shortly before she was murdered, which probably wasn't a coincidence. I don't know the circumstances surrounding Tim's wedding, but weddings are usually expensive, and he could have used that to pay it off.

Every time I post on this case, I think of new stuff that makes me believe Tim is guilty. Like this I don't think I've mentioned before: I just find it odd that Tim's responses to questions were basically things like "I don't know" or "I'm not sure how that could have happened." I think if he could come up with some rational, plausible scenarios, I wouldn't have such a hard time believing his story.

Well Wiseguy I get it that people have killed others for way less money than 5 grand. However usually if a person kills a "loved" one like that they usually kill them for much more money. So while I believe Tim probably is guilty it is far from certain. Sorry I didnt mean to sound like a jerk there. I mean yes people have been killed for sometimes only a few dollars however most of the time those acts are random acts. Usually if someone is going to kill someone they know, especially a family member they usually kill them to get a lot more than 5 grand. Morris Davis I believe was murdered for about 200 hundred dollars and I believe Elmo Florence was paid about 125 dollars to kill T.K. Hardy.

Also Dwayne McCorkendale, possibly murdered over a lousy $25. :(

I'm probably in the minority here but as I've stated before I don't think Tim McClure killed his mother. I think his mother was robbed and murdered (remember her purse wasn't at the scene of the crime). It was outside a casino remember and maybe someone was desperate for some quick cash. Also if you planned on murdering your mother for insurance money why on earth would you choose your wedding day of all days to do it? All the family members and friends didn't seem to think Tim was capable of it either. People make mistakes and I think the lady at the credit card company was mistaken as to the date he called. The question is was Tim a murderer or was he just weird and did some things that some may view as suspicious? No doubt he seemed to dance to the beat of a different drummer. I sent a copy of this segment a few years ago to a man who used to work with Tim and he said that Tim was very nice but weird. That seems to be the consensus.

He just seemed WEIRD. Everything - his tone, mannerisms, looks, everything.
Yes, this was my opinion as well. I thought he was probably guilty, although Crystal brings up some good points. Still . . .

I basically agree with kadrmas15, a lot of you are saying that you could easily see someone being killed for five grand being that other victims profiled on UM were killed for a lot less. The problem with this logic is that all these people were killed by strangers. Killing a random stranger and killing your mother is two very different things. Being that there was no mention of bad blood between Tim and his mother I can't allow in my mind for the money being enough of a motive for Tim to murder his mother.

Unless it was a crime of passion and possibly Tim's mother may have done something to provoke or anger her son regarding the money or whatever other issue it might have been. Then I certainly can see Tim killing his mother, but murdering your own mother in cold blood over that little amount of money as the prime motive? - I just don't see it.

Sorry to bump..its only 3 yrs old...but i was just watching this segment again and i was thinking... It was his wedding night...maybe his mother had always told him or had told him that as a wedding gift she would give him so much money as a present. Well, he finally is getting married...they are all up at Tahoe, the wedding is over, then Tim asks his mother about this "money" that was supposed to be his wedding gift. She then tells him that she no longer has the money (she lost it gambling, invested it, etc...). He was relying on this money for when he got married, and became enraged at his mother. He may have already purchased things on credit or what not, expecting to get that money from his mother. He then needs to get some sort of monetary compensation, so he knows his mother has that life insurance. In a fit of rage he kills his mother over money...aka...I am your only son I have taken such good care of you and this is how you repay me? etc...

Hopefully that makes sense, just popped into my head as I was watching it..trying to think of why a "mamas boy" would kill his mother.

I watched this one today...and I have to say I think he's innocent(previously I thought he was guilty but...)

I think the reason why he wouldn't kill her is because it had said in the segment he had lived with his mother when in his 20's off and on...so obviously he depended on her...

If he was going to do her in, why on his wedding night?? (but why gamble with the in-laws on the wedding night? hmmmm)

A lot of evidence points towards his guilt but how many times on UM have we seen all the evidence pointing to someone, and then it turns out to be a random killing...quite a few cases seem to be like that...like that...sammy wheeler case(think that was the name) His girlfriends ex husband was accused, he blamed the wife and the twin brother...turns out it was a random killer. (But ol' Bob Bean(the ex) did look super shifty and my money was on him being the killer)

Also as someone mentioned, if you have gotten away with murder all those years, why bring it up again?

In short he looks super guilty, but I think he's innocent.

edit:hostedbyrobertstack Just read your post...if he did do it...your scenario makes a lot of sense.

Yeah, I would agree, Mysteryphile. I don't remember the exact year when the murder occurred but it was in the early eighties. I don't know why he would go to UM on his own accord and ask them to do the story if he was guilty. Best to "let sleeping dogs lie", as they say.

This case is definitely quite intriguing. I also find it strange that rather than try to locate the killer, Timothy simply wants to clear his name.

However, I'm inclined to agree with CD. After all, his mother was an elderly woman in a casino parking lot at night. Her purse was missing. If that doesn't scream scenerio for a robbery, I don't know what does. If they had found her purse in the car with her, I might be more convinced that the son did it.

Someone brought up in an earlier post that they don't mention how she died. Do we know she was shot or was she beaten? Is it possible she died accidently during a quarrel?

Someone brought up in an earlier post that they don't mention how she died. Do we know she was shot or was she beaten? Is it possible she died accidently during a quarrel?[/QUOTE]

I saw the segment this morning...I believe it said she was shot.

Edit: just re-watched segment...she was shot twice in the head.

This case is definitely quite intriguing. I also find it strange that rather than try to locate the killer, Timothy simply wants to clear his name.

However, I'm inclined to agree with CD. After all, his mother was an elderly woman in a casino parking lot at night. Her purse was missing. If that doesn't scream scenerio for a robbery, I don't know what does. If they had found her purse in the car with her, I might be more convinced that the son did it.

Someone brought up in an earlier post that they don't mention how she died. Do we know she was shot or was she beaten? Is it possible she died accidently during a quarrel?

There are too many things that point to Timothy doing this. I will never believe she was robbed.

I believe she was shot in the head. Okay, the big issue I have with Tim McClure doing this is, where did he get the murder weapon? Did Tim and his wife drive themselves to the wedding or were they driven there by someone else? Did Tim McClure own a pistol and did he have one with him that night? That is the issue I have is where would he suddenly get this murder weapon from? It just seems weird to me that he would kill his mother. Yes some parts of Tim's story do not jive and obviously the fact he flunked the lie detector test miserably does not look good although both of these facts hardly mean he is a for sure killer. Hosted by Robert Stack brought up a pretty good possible theory of why Tim McClure would kill his mother and truth be told so far it is the only theory I have heard that really makes any sense.

Basically, while this case, I guess you could try to make a circumstantial case out of this but even in that regard this case is very weak. I mean yes you can speculate about certain things but there are really no hard facts that point for sure to Tim McClure or that Tim McClure cannot explain away. So I can see why McClure was never charged by the DA in this case. The cops arrested him once for this back in 1992 but McClure was released when the DA declined to pursue an indictment.

I mean really, the only things you have in this case are this. McClure's alibi was spotty at best and could not be substantiated by anyone. So you have at least a two hour window where McClure so far has not been accounted for. McClure claimed he was gambling alone for two hours. This in itself was unusual as it was his wedding night yet he goes off gambling by himself for two hours? Like I said, his alibi is shaky at best. While it cannot be proven it cannot be disproven either. But it tends to look bad to people when you do not have a solid alibi.

McClure failing the lie detector test. This I do not think would be admissible in court. Under Nevada law, lie detector test results are only in admissible in court if BOTH the prosecution and the defense agree to allow it to be admitted. The prosecution would obviously love to have the lie detector results admitted but the defense would not. So I do not think McClure's lie detector results would be admitted into evidence, thus the jury would never hear about it. Now McClure did submit to questioning by police and all of that would come into evidence assuming they read his miranda rights to him and everything was properly done with that. I am assuming his lawyer would try to get his statements suppressed but it is not easy to accomplish this.

Basically, the case would be completely circumstantial. In this regard, the case leans in McClure's favor as there are no eyewitnesses and no physical evidence tying him to the crime. You have no murder weapon, not only can they not tie McClure to the gun, but they cannot tie anyone to the gun because the murder weapon was never found. There was no blood, fingerprints, etc on Tim McClure. Basically, I think this case would have been solved one way or another IF Terri McClure had been found dead the first night. McClure would not have had time to change his clothes, they would have been able to test them to see if there was blood on them. Plus they would have been able to get McClure on the spot and lock him into a story early.

McClure also could not be tied to his mother purse or the fact that he threw it out the window. IF McClure killed his mother, clearly he was doing something during those two or so hours that he was unaccounted for. But doing what? I say if he was the killer, during that time he disposed of the murder weapon and threw his mother's purse out the window to make it look like she was the victim of a robbery.

I still do not really have a motive for this, if Tim McClure did it. I do not think that the insurance money was the motive. I also do not think the crime was pre meditated. I think it was something that whoever did it lost control and killed Terri McClure and then went to cover it up. I also have trouble with the fact that in a busy casino parking lot, no one saw anything or heard anything. Someone also propped Terri McClure's head up against a pillow in her car to make it appear she was sleeping.

...Someone also propped Terri McClure's head up against a pillow in her car to make it appear she was sleeping.

This may sound like a silly question, but were the police able to track down where this pillow came from? Most people don't keep a pillow in their car. Assuming that most people have 2 of the same pillows for their bed, was this Terri or Tim McClure's pillow? Great post Kadrmas15, as there are so many unanswered questions in this case.

This may sound like a silly question, but were the police able to track down where this pillow came from? Most people don't keep a pillow in their car. Assuming that most people have 2 of the same pillows for their bed, was this Terri or Tim McClure's pillow? Great post Kadrmas15, as there are so many unanswered questions in this case.

You know RS never mentioned the pillow...do we know if thats actually how her head was found? I always wondered if the crew did that to make her head easier to see for filming/viewing purposes. I still think being shot and robbed in the parking lot of a casino late at night is the likely way she was killed.

I still think being shot and robbed in the parking lot of a casino late at night is the likely way she was killed.

I agree with you on that scenario. I mean, there are a lot of desparate, money hungry gamblers at casinos that would do anything for a few bucks, just so they can get that gambling fix. Yes, Tim McClure looks "guilty as sin" during his UM interview with his stuttering and nervousness, but maybe he's just a nervous type of person.

I watched this again today.

One small thing I noticed that might indicate he did it (apparently some of you already noticed) - there was a pillow placed under her head. This strikes me as the act of someone who "cares" about the victim. If it were some random perp, why would he set her up like that?

The question I have now is was the re-enactment true to life? Was she actually found that way?

Hmm, Justin, I noticed this too as I pointed out above. However it is unknown for sure whether that is how she was actually found. While your interpretation of why the pillow would be there I actually had a different interpretation of it. I always thought the killer put the pillow there and leaned her up against it to make it appear as though she was sleeping to passerby's thus it would not look suspicious. I mean I think most of us have seen a person sleeping in their car in a parking lot from time to time.

I always thought the killer put the pillow there and leaned her up against it to make it appear as though she was sleeping to passerby's thus it would not look suspicious. I mean I think most of us have seen a person sleeping in their car in a parking lot from time to time.

I think the Pillow might have been used to muffle the gunshot. Not having anywhere else to put the pillow, the killer may have just used it to prop up the body. I wonder if their were

The problem I have with Tim McClure's innocence is the credit card cancelling scenario. Anyone have any other explanation for this.

It just seems weird to me that he would kill his mother. Yes some parts of Tim's story do not jive and obviously the fact he flunked the lie detector test miserably does not look good although both of these facts hardly mean he is a for sure killer. Hosted by Robert Stack brought up a pretty good possible theory of why Tim McClure would kill his mother and truth be told so far it is the only theory I have heard that really makes any sense.

I wonder if Tim is the only beneficiary of his mother's estate? If a will was drawn up. That there is money worth killing for. Add that to the expenses of a wedding and taking care of a new wife. I could easily see Tim willing to kill his mother for money.

I also find it interesting that his wife was polygraphed and flunked the one question as "who killed Mrs. McClure".

I also find it interesting that his wife was polygraphed and flunked the one question as "who killed Mrs. McClure".

I do too, and it was strange that he would volunteer this information because it makes him look guilty. It suggests that he failed his test because he killed her, and his wife passed hers except for that question because she was not involved but knows that he did it. However, it may just mean that she suspects he may have done it or is worried that he may have.

I suspect that he did it but there is nowhere near enough evidence that 'proves' that it was him. I believe that there is a lot that we don't know about their relationship and his motivation. I would say that maybe it was just the result of a heated argument, but that wouldn't explain the fact that she was killed with a gun.

As someone else mentioned, it is REALLY odd that he would say he wants someone to come forward so he can get his name cleared, rather than that he wants someone to come forward so he can find his mother's killer.

As someone else mentioned, it is REALLY odd that he would say he wants someone to come forward so he can get his name cleared, rather than that he wants someone to come forward so he can find his mother's killer.

There is a part at the end where McClure says something like (paraphrasing):

"maybe someone who saw something pertaining to my mother's death but was afraid to say something will come forward now".

so he does sort of comment on finding the real killers. It's buried at the end of the segment, but it's there.

Along those lines, I must say I did think UM's presentation was kind of strange. They didn't even touch on alternate theories as to who could have killed Terri McClure.

Maybe Tim felt he needed to clear his name to get the police to look at other possibilities. :confused:

I feel that if he did do it, it must have been a spur of the moment thing, like an argument that escalated to violence. I just can't see the guy planning to kill his mother on his wedding night over a lousy 5k that he would ultimately have to split with his sister.

This guy just acts so guilty!

Tim says that when he realised that the police were suspicious of him, he "started to feel like the victim". Does anyone else find this a strange statement? Of course the police are going to consider him as a potential suspect, he was the last person to see the victim and he has no alibi for 2 hours after her disappearance. His mother has been murdered, and HE feels like the victim?!

Tim says his wife was still gambling with her parents, so he gambled alone for two hours. Does this mean that shortly after he says he dropped off his mother, he met with them briefly?

Two days before her body was found, he said he was looking for her purse. This was before anyone knew that her purse was missing.

He looked for his mother's car in the parking lots of all the casinos that were along his mother's route home, except for one - the one where her car was.

He called the credit company, apparently indicated that his mother was dead and cancelled the account. He did this a couple of days before his mother was murdered. I think that this is probably just an error. Maybe the person wrote down the wrong date, and assumed that the mother was dead. Nobody is stupid enough to cancel the credit cards of someone they plan to murder. He would not benefit from cancelling her cards prematurely.

There is a part at the end where McClure says something like (paraphrasing):

"maybe someone who saw something pertaining to my mother's death but was afraid to say something will come forward now".

so he does sort of comment on finding the real killers. It's buried at the end of the segment, but it's there.

Along those lines, I must say I did think UM's presentation was kind of strange. They didn't even touch on alternate theories as to who could have killed Terri McClure.

Maybe Tim felt he needed to clear his name to get the police to look at other possibilities. :confused:

I feel that if he did do it, it must have been a spur of the moment thing, like an argument that escalated to violence. I just can't see the guy planning to kill his mother on his wedding night over a lousy 5k that he would ultimately have to split with his sister.

Yep, you're right. At the end he says like 'somebody must've seen what happened to my mother'. I agree that it is strange that UM didn't say much about what else could've happened to her.

The policy was for 10k, so his share was 5k. This was in 1983, so I'm not sure what that would be in today's money.

I don't know about anyone else but to me 5K back in 1983 is a nice chunk of change.

I don't know about anyone else but to me 5K back in 1983 is a nice chunk of change.

I agree. Especially if you have no other means to make that type of cash.

What about the possibility that Tim's wife was involved? I mean, Tim seemed to be the quintessential mama's boy. That can be very annoying to a new wife. Could Tim be covering for her?

What about the possibility that Tim's wife was involved? I mean, Tim seemed to be the quintessential mama's boy. That can be very annoying to a new wife. Could Tim be covering for her?

I wonder if Tim's wife appeared as herself during the segment? Tim played himself during the whole segment (even during the part of the actual wedding ceremony!) and I wonder if an actress or his actual wife participated in the segment. I know she didn't participate in any interview on camera.

What about the possibility that Tim's wife was involved? I mean, Tim seemed to be the quintessential mama's boy. That can be very annoying to a new wife. Could Tim be covering for her?

She would almost certainly have to have known that Tim McClure was up to something shady.

I wouldn;t put her past being directly involved, as well.

This guy just acts so guilty!

Tim says that when he realised that the police were suspicious of him, he "started to feel like the victim". Does anyone else find this a strange statement? Of course the police are going to consider him as a potential suspect, he was the last person to see the victim and he has no alibi for 2 hours after her disappearance. His mother has been murdered, and HE feels like the victim?!

Just to play devil's advocate if I may...

I think it is reasonable to assume that suspects who are actually innocent believe it should be plainly obvious to the police and anyone else that they are innocent. As a society, we are indoctrinated from a young age to believe that "the system works", so the cops should be able to sort out the innocent from the guilty with relative ease. Naturally, if I know in my heart of hearts that **I** didn't commit the crime, surely the cops will see that too. Doesn't always work out that way. In fact, this is where wrongful convictions often start. Then throw in the fact that most of us are used to having our word accepted and believed one hundred percent of the time. Now we're talking about an extremely serious situation where you have not done anything, are truthfully saying you have not done anything, and yet you are still being called a liar. It's easy to see how a person thrust into a volatile situation like McClure's could come away feeling like a victim because the police didn't believe them. Hell, I probably would have lawyered up from the get-go and not even made a statement to the police at all had I been in his shoes - and that is assuming he is actually innocent!


Tim says his wife was still gambling with her parents, so he gambled alone for two hours. Does this mean that shortly after he says he dropped off his mother, he met with them briefly?

Good question. It is hard to say based on what they presented. But, this would be great to know.


Two days before her body was found, he said he was looking for her purse. This was before anyone knew that her purse was missing.

He discovered that his mother wasn't at home Friday morning, I believe. This was suspect because her car wasn't at her home either and she had apparently taken some time off work (presumably to attend Tim's wedding). If McClure truly believed his mother was missing and possibly a victim of foul play, I don't think it would be unreasonable for him to drive the route from his mother's home back to the last place he saw her and look for some sign of her along that route. He did say he was searching parking lots for her car, so why not look for other clues too? I actually think the whole thing with the purse was a miss-communication or a misunderstanding between him and the police that was blown out of proportion. Ultimately, I feel the purse issue is just too subjective to have any bearing on his guilt one way or another.


He looked for his mother's car in the parking lots of all the casinos that were along his mother's route home, except for one - the one where her car was.

Not to start the whole "is there a God?" argument, but I can actually forgive this.


He called the credit company, apparently indicated that his mother was dead and cancelled the account. He did this a couple of days before his mother was murdered. I think that this is probably just an error. Maybe the person wrote down the wrong date, and assumed that the mother was dead. Nobody is stupid enough to cancel the credit cards of someone they plan to murder. He would not benefit from cancelling her cards prematurely.

Yeah, I think it's entirely possible the credit card company receptionist got the dates wrong. Like you said, nobody is that stupid. I can't believe he would call and say his mother was murdered if he was guilty and knew full well that no one else in the world knew she had been murdered. That makes zero sense.

Personally, I would put more weight on the fact that he and his wife failed the polygraph tests. I think that's more telling than any of these other clues.

Along those lines, I must say I did think UM's presentation was kind of strange. They didn't even touch on alternate theories as to who could have killed Terri McClure.

If it wasn't Tim, than it was probably some random stranger. That could be literally anyone. I don't think it would have been someone Ms. McClure would have known.

He discovered that his mother wasn't at home Friday morning, I believe. This was suspect because her car wasn't at her home either and she had apparently taken some time off work (presumably to attend Tim's wedding). If McClure truly believed his mother was missing and possibly a victim of foul play, I don't think it would be unreasonable for him to drive the route from his mother's home back to the last place he saw her and look for some sign of her along that route. He did say he was searching parking lots for her car, so why not look for other clues too? I actually think the whole thing with the purse was a miss-communication or a misunderstanding between him and the police that was blown out of proportion. Ultimately, I feel the purse issue is just too subjective to have any bearing on his guilt one way or another.

The segment doesn't really say, but we don't know for sure if Tim knows whether or not Ms. McClure planned to stop at another casino after she left the one she was at with the family. Assuming she went there, at least that's where her body was found. Secondly, I don't recall for sure, but I think it was a considerable distance, so Tim searching for the purse is kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack.

You seem to be changing your tune on this justin, are you defecting to the other side? :lol: I seem to recall you making fun of crystaldawn because she thought Tim was innocent. :lol:

Just to play devil's advocate if I may...

If you take each of these things by themselves, they mean next to nothing. But if you put them all together, it just makes me believe that he probably did it. He purposely conducted a fruitless search for his mother's car, and accidentally let slip that he knew that his mother's purse was missing before he could've known this. If he really believed that the holy spirit told him not to go into that parking lot, wouldn't he have asked the police to search it for him? And the fact that he called himself 'the victim' is maybe just another clue that indicates how self-centred he is.

The segment doesn't really say, but we don't know for sure if Tim knows whether or not Ms. McClure planned to stop at another casino after she left the one she was at with the family.

The segment says that he walked her to her car so she could go home. It would be good to know whether anyone else can verify whether this is what the mother intended to do. Given that these people seemed to be pretty hardcore gamblers (gambling for hours after a wedding), perhaps the real plan was to continue gambling and the mother and son went to another nearby casino and that's when he shot her.

That would explain why her car was found where it was. If it were just a robbery, why would he drive the car to another parking lot and shoot her there instead of just shooting her in the original parking lot?

That would explain why her car was found where it was. If it were just a robbery, why would he drive the car to another parking lot and shoot her there instead of just shooting her in the original parking lot?

If it was Tim, I would imagine he did that because he knows he can be placed at the casino in the area he was married at, but can't necessarily be placed at the casino where his mother was found.

i'm not sure that money was necessarily the motive. That she was murdered on his wedding night makes me think that perhaps she didn't approve of his wife. Perhaps she objected to the wedding at the last minute and there was a fallout from that. It would have been helpful to hear what the wife had to say.

The segment doesn't really say, but we don't know for sure if Tim knows whether or not Ms. McClure planned to stop at another casino after she left the one she was at with the family. Assuming she went there, at least that's where her body was found. Secondly, I don't recall for sure, but I think it was a considerable distance, so Tim searching for the purse is kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack.

You seem to be changing your tune on this justin, are you defecting to the other side? :lol: I seem to recall you making fun of crystaldawn because she thought Tim was innocent. :lol:

You know, the best I can say here is that I don't know. I think a few years ago I thought McClure was guilty as sin (see an earlier post on this thread I authored back in 2003), but the more I watch the story the more doubt creeps in. The only way I could really see him pulling it off would be if it were an argument that escalated to violence and he covered it up possibly with his wife's assistance. Problem with that is a gun was used. The gun suggests pre-meditation. But to whack your mother on your wedding night for 5k? I dunno. :confused:

Since you think he is guilty, can I ask how you think he did it? Do you believe it was pre-meditated? Where do you think it occurred? If he did kill her, I doubt he did it in the parking lot, and I would assume he set up the scene the morning her car was found.

...I would assume he set up the scene the morning her car was found.

Personally, I highly doubt he did this. The guy is 6' 6" and had long hair...I don't know about you, but I would notice someone with those characteristics, especially if he was setting up a murder scene in the middle of a parking lot! If he was more average in height and had a more typical shorter hairdo for a guy, he wouldn't of stood out as much.

Personally, I highly doubt he did this. The guy is 6' 6" and had long hair...I don't know about you, but I would notice someone with those characteristics, especially if he was setting up a murder scene in the middle of a parking lot! If he was more average in height and had a more typical shorter hairdo for a guy, he wouldn't of stood out as much.

The odd thing is though that the car sat in that parking lot with her body posed in an obvious position and yet no one saw it/reported it for three days. If we assume robbery gone bad, I think it's unlikely the robber would take the car anywhere after killing Mrs. McClure - a shooting that most likely occurred inside the car, at that parking lot. If the car was moved into this position after the fact, I think it's a lot more likely that this was done by Tim.

Personally, I highly doubt he did this. The guy is 6' 6" and had long hair...I don't know about you, but I would notice someone with those characteristics, especially if he was setting up a murder scene in the middle of a parking lot! If he was more average in height and had a more typical shorter hairdo for a guy, he wouldn't of stood out as much.

There's people who have been kidnapped in broad daylight in parking lots etc. & noone has seen a thing. You would think that this could never happen but it does.

I and many other posters have already talked about certain aspects of this case that make Tim look guilty. I'm going to do my best not to rehash everything that's been said already, but after having watched this segment again, I'm going to post some new things and also expand on some of the comments previously made.

-Justin: to answer your question of where I think she was murdered, I think she did in fact make it to her house from the casino, and was killed there by Tim. I say that for different reasons. First, the segment says that she planned to "drive straight home". She had no plans to go to another casino, and it would be very strange to gamble in another casino when you can gamble with your son on his wedding day. Additionally, she has her son accompany her out to her car in one, why would she go to another casino at night in a big city with no protection? Additionally, the segment depicts that when Tim comes home, he finds signs that she's not there, and the camera focuses on and zooms in on a lamp that was left on. This indicates to me that she was interrupted at home, but it's one of those 'blink and you'll miss it' moments. And then you have to throw in those nagging, persisting questions of how does Tim seem to know which casino she will be found at or even that she'll even be found at a casino. (perhaps she stopped off for gas, a bite to eat, snacks, perhaps she was tired and checked in to a hotel. Tim seems to be psychic.) In order to believe that this was a random perpetrator, we have to believe that Terri changed her plans and met foul play, which is possible but unlikely. Personally, I don't know too many elderly women that go around in big cities at night unaccompanied.

You also made the point of that if her car was planted at the casino, then it was probably Tim, and I would have to agree with that. And I believe it was planted because I don't think anybody could miss a dead woman in a car for 3 days. But additionally, I have this point: If you watch the segment, the car is not parked normally. It is at a slant, and actually takes up the space of several parking spots. This would definitely attract attention, so I doubly believe that the car was planted there the morning her body was found.

It's been talked about before about how Tim goes looking for her purse even before he knows the purse is missing. Which is significant, but also there are other questions that nag. Why doesn't he go out looking for his MOTHER? And her car was technically missing at this point, why doesn't he go out looking for that? It would seem to me that finding his mother and her car would be more important than looking for the needle in the haystack purse, which just happens to be missing, and is a small object he's trying to find while traveling at least 55 mph.

It's been talked about before how Tim goes out looking for his mom, but the holy ghost tells him not to look at a particular casino. Okay, so what was the point of him going out again? The purpose was to find her, and when he gets an inkling that she'll be found at a particular spot, he decides not to check it out. Wasn't the purpose of Tim going out to find her?

It's been addressed that Tim not only believes that the credit card lady got the date wrong. He also says that she also "mixed up his words", which would indicate that she got something else besides the date wrong. So now, the credit card lady messes up at least 2 things, which seems unlikely to me.

We've talked about how Tim never makes a plea to find the real killer, but rather to clear his own name. To expand on that, we here on the UM forum have talked about many times how unreliable witness accounts can be. I think Tim was hoping for some unreliable "witnesses" to come forth to help clear his name, perhaps friends of his or whatever. Which is actually a pretty cunning trick.

And then Tim says about the police: "this is my mother's death, you should be investigating it on a whole 'nother level rather than looking at me." Now if Tim is innocent, he certainly won't mind answering a few questions about that night, would he?

So those are some new points and some expansions to points already addressed that, to me, make me further believe that Tim is guilty.

The thing of it is, in order to believe Tim is innocent, you have to believe that the credit card lady is wrong, both lie detector tests are wrong and that Tim has amazing psychic abilities. And then there's that elephant in the room that not one single person on Earth can recall seeing Tim, a 6'6 man with long hair, for an entire 8 hour block of time, or his wife for a 6 hour block of time, and that Tim has seemed to forget which dance halls they went to on one of the most memorable nights of his life.

EDIT: this is interesting. here is a link to an article where it says that Tim's plea for someone to come forward and clear his name not work, but also that the people that did come forward further implicated him, and that's when he was arrested.

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

I and many other posters have already talked about certain aspects of this case that make Tim look guilty. I'm going to do my best not to rehash everything that's been said already, but after having watched this segment again, I'm going to post some new things and also expand on some of the comments previously made.

-Justin: to answer your question of where I think she was murdered, I think she did in fact make it to her house from the casino, and was killed there by Tim. I say that for different reasons. First, the segment says that she planned to "drive straight home". She had no plans to go to another casino, and it would be very strange to gamble in another casino when you can gamble with your son on his wedding day. Additionally, she has her son accompany her out to her car in one, why would she go to another casino at night in a big city with no protection? Additionally, the segment depicts that when Tim comes home, he finds signs that she's not there, and the camera focuses on and zooms in on a lamp that was left on. This indicates to me that she was interrupted at home, but it's one of those 'blink and you'll miss it' moments. And then you have to throw in those nagging, persisting questions of how does Tim seem to know which casino she will be found at or even that she'll even be found at a casino. (perhaps she stopped off for gas, a bite to eat, snacks, perhaps she was tired and checked in to a hotel. Tim seems to be psychic.) In order to believe that this was a random perpetrator, we have to believe that Terri changed her plans and met foul play, which is possible but unlikely. Personally, I don't know too many elderly women that go around in big cities at night unaccompanied.

You also made the point of that if her car was planted at the casino, then it was probably Tim, and I would have to agree with that. And I believe it was planted because I don't think anybody could miss a dead woman in a car for 3 days. But additionally, I have this point: If you watch the segment, the car is not parked normally. It is at a slant, and actually takes up the space of several parking spots. This would definitely attract attention, so I doubly believe that the car was planted there the morning her body was found.

It's been talked about before about how Tim goes looking for her purse even before he knows the purse is missing. Which is significant, but also there are other questions that nag. Why doesn't he go out looking for his MOTHER? And her car was technically missing at this point, why doesn't he go out looking for that? It would seem to me that finding his mother and her car would be more important than looking for the needle in the haystack purse, which just happens to be missing, and is a small object he's trying to find while traveling at least 55 mph.

It's been talked about before how Tim goes out looking for his mom, but the holy ghost tells him not to look at a particular casino. Okay, so what was the point of him going out again? The purpose was to find her, and when he gets an inkling that she'll be found at a particular spot, he decides not to check it out. Wasn't the purpose of Tim going out to find her?

It's been addressed that Tim not only believes that the credit card lady got the date wrong. He also says that she also "mixed up his words", which would indicate that she got something else besides the date wrong. So now, the credit card lady messes up at least 2 things, which seems unlikely to me.

We've talked about how Tim never makes a plea to find the real killer, but rather to clear his own name. To expand on that, we here on the UM forum have talked about many times how unreliable witness accounts can be. I think Tim was hoping for some unreliable "witnesses" to come forth to help clear his name, perhaps friends of his or whatever. Which is actually a pretty cunning trick.

And then Tim says about the police: "this is my mother's death, you should be investigating it on a whole 'nother level rather than looking at me." Now if Tim is innocent, he certainly won't mind answering a few questions about that night, would he?

So those are some new points and some expansions to points already addressed that, to me, make me further believe that Tim is guilty.

The thing of it is, in order to believe Tim is innocent, you have to believe that the credit card lady is wrong, both lie detector tests are wrong and that Tim has amazing psychic abilities. And then there's that elephant in the room that not one single person on Earth can recall seeing Tim, a 6'6 man with long hair, for an entire 8 hour block of time, or his wife for a 6 hour block of time, and that Tim has seemed to forget which dance halls they went to on one of the most memorable nights of his life.

EDIT: this is interesting. here is a link to an article where it says that Tim's plea for someone to come forward and clear his name not work, but also that the people that did come forward further implicated him, and that's when he was arrested.

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

Great post wiseguy :) I been thinking about that part of him going looking for her purse & it came to me as well why would he specifically look for her purse when instead he should be looking for his mom & her car. I mean his mom is missing but we have no idea what has happened to her so there is no telling what happened to her purse.

Quite frankly Tim & his wife have no rock solid alibi. Sure he claims they were gambling separately but noone can place either at the casino. So that leads me to him being the number one suspect in her death.

His story just does't wash with me. I mean why the need for him, his new bride & his mom to eventually separate from one another on his wedding night. To me just very convenient that this happens & his mom ends up murdered. By his account him & his mom gambled at the casinos together often so why would she decide to go to another one gambling by herself on her son's wedding night? That just does not make any sense.

I can see the credit card lady getting her days mixed up but also mix up what his reason for cancelling the card just does not sit well with me & I think it is very unlikely for both to happen.

With all the speculation, this much is clear - they D.A., who had at their disposal, ALL the evidence (not just a television segment) dismissed the case against McClure WITH prejudice (i.e., forever).

This is far stronger evidence in my mind that he didn't do it then all the rank speculation in this thread. Could he have done it? Sure, I suppose he could have - but there is no EVIDENCE he did so.

Motive - the only identifiable motive is 5K in insurance money. This isn't a very strong motive, and neither the amount or timing of the insurance policy makes it very suspicious, frankly. Positing on some argument, etc. between Tim and his mother is pure speculation and contradicted by the testimony of friends and relatives as to the relationship between the two.

Means - The police could find absolutely no link between the murder weapon and McClure. None.

Opportunity - There is, perhaps, a window of opportunity for McClure to have committed the crime, although since an exact time of death isn't available, it's impossible to really pin down a timeline with much certainty.

Here's the thing, let's presume McClure did it - and for those who think he did, explain this:

1. Why make up an alibi much easier to negate (in the casino) vs. saying he was up in his room watching TV or "with" his wife?

2. Where's any link to the murder weapon? It's safe to assume, I think, that the police could find nothing to indicate McClure (1) owned a gun; (2) purchased a gun; (3) had a gun in his possession.

3. Why even make up the whole story as to the driving her route looking for her purse/car/her? He could have just as easily said he drove the highway looking to see if she broke down. How do we know he really checked "every" casino between Lake Tahoe and Reno? Did he have an exhaustive list checking them off one-by-one, or did he simply not stop at some ones (because he didn't know they were there or didn't see them) and only after-the-fact blame god for not going to that one.

While law enforcement isn't perfect; it's hard to believe they couldn't make a case against McClure if the evidence was actually there. The simple fact is, it's just not and all the speculation in the world can't change that.

egswano,

How do you explain the isse with the credit card cancellation?

Hmm, that has always been confusing to me BUT I have always thought the credit card person had her dates mixed up. The main reason I think this is well, I will say, I do not care how arrogant a killer may be, NO ONE would be that arrogant or stupid to cancel his mother's credit cards before she was even known to be missing. In fact I think the credit card person claimed Tim McClure canceled the credit cards Friday afternoon and I believe it is thought that Terri McClure was murdered sometime Friday evening?

Yes, I think this was a case that I think was screwed up. I don't know, to me, while Tim McClure certainly should have been looked at a suspect and while there are certain things there are troubling in terms of his story, none of it was actually disproven, that is the problem the cops and ultimately the DA had with this case. The case was dismissed with prejudice huh? That I did not know, so yeah, Tim McClure can never be charged in this case again at least not at the state level. I suppose the feds could try to make a case against him for 'violating the civil rights' of his mother, but I am not sure if there is a statute of limitations at the federal level for that crime or not?

Looking at the case, it appears that they were on Lake Tahoe right? That is where the wedding happened and where Tim claimed he lost saw his mother? My question though is, was Terri McClure's car and body found at a casino in Lake Tahoe or in Carson City? I thought it was Carson City but I could be mistaken. Now I am trying to remember in the segment if they said the wedding happened at the southmost point of Lake Tahoe on the Nevada side or if it was on the north most point of Lake Tahoe on the Nevada side? Carson City is just a stone's throw from the northern part of Lake Tahoe.

I think it was southern Lake Tahoe since the Douglas County, Nevada Sheriff's Department was investigating the case and there are several towns the wedding could have happened in along Lake Tahoe. Among the towns along the Lake on the Nevada side that are in Douglas County, Glenbrook, Skyland, Zephyr Cove, Elk Point, Stateline, Stateline is just across the border into Nevada so as soon as you go west of there you get into the city of South Lake Tahoe, California. While the areas right on the coast with the Lake are not forested once you get even just inland from there the area becomes very forested as on the Nevada side, a lot of that area between the lake and Carson City contains the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest. The area in the forest, a lot of it also is covered with Mountains as well.

There are a couple of ways to get into Carson City from Douglas County. The primary highway would be U.S. Highway 50 which goes along the lake in Douglas County, goes through Stateline, Skyland, goes past Cave Rock, then curves up and goes near Glenbrook before leading into Carson City. It also goes through the northern part of the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest and goes through the Spooner Summit which is over 7,000 feet above sea level.

Now the other road that could be taken from southern Douglas County and I think this road would be less traveled is Nevada State Highway 207. Now you would have to take U.S. Highway 50 through Stateline or if you were going from the north you would have to go through Elk Grove and then just north of Stateline you would turn onto Highway 207. The only town along 207 is Kingsbury which is a town of about 2,500 people. Other than that you are traveling along the southern part of the National Forest and also through the Daggett Pass which is over 7,300 feet above sea level. You would take this road until you eventually would connect with State Highway 88 which you would then go north on and that turns into U.S. Highway 395 and you would eventually get to Carson City. In between turning onto the highway and Carson City there is basically nothing except one town just outside of Carson City to the south called Indian Hills which is a town of about 4,500 people. So the latter route would be longer but would have way less traffic and way few people and towns along it than the other route along the Lake.

egswano,

How do you explain the isse with the credit card cancellation?

I have to think the credit card people got the date wrong. I have to presume (again, assuming regular police investigation) that the police did their best to verify the date of the note against any independent confirmation - call logs, etc. and were either unable to prove the call occurred on the 14th (even back in 1983, they should have been able to examine phone records) or the evidence supported McClure's statement of calling on the 17th.

Proof that he called on the 14th (before the murder) and reported his mother deceased (which is what the note clearly said) would have at least enabled the D.A. to bring the case to trial, IMO. It would also make McClure deserving of a spot on world's dumbest criminals, but I'm not going to say it's unlikely just because it's stupid.

Moreover, calling on the 17th itself isn't unusual. People in grief often do mundane things as a means of dealing with the situation. I don't find anything suspicious or unusual in his calling on that day.

Hmm, that has always been confusing to me BUT I have always thought the credit card person had her dates mixed up. The main reason I think this is well, I will say, I do not care how arrogant a killer may be, NO ONE would be that arrogant or stupid to cancel his mother's credit cards before she was even known to be missing. In fact I think the credit card person claimed Tim McClure canceled the credit cards Friday afternoon and I believe it is thought that Terri McClure was murdered sometime Friday evening?

Yes, I think this was a case that I think was screwed up. I don't know, to me, while Tim McClure certainly should have been looked at a suspect and while there are certain things there are troubling in terms of his story, none of it was actually disproven, that is the problem the cops and ultimately the DA had with this case. The case was dismissed with prejudice huh? That I did not know, so yeah, Tim McClure can never be charged in this case again at least not at the state level. I suppose the feds could try to make a case against him for 'violating the civil rights' of his mother, but I am not sure if there is a statute of limitations at the federal level for that crime or not?

Looking at the case, it appears that they were on Lake Tahoe right? That is where the wedding happened and where Tim claimed he lost saw his mother? My question though is, was Terri McClure's car and body found at a casino in Lake Tahoe or in Carson City? I thought it was Carson City but I could be mistaken. Now I am trying to remember in the segment if they said the wedding happened at the southmost point of Lake Tahoe on the Nevada side or if it was on the north most point of Lake Tahoe on the Nevada side? Carson City is just a stone's throw from the northern part of Lake Tahoe.

I think it was southern Lake Tahoe since the Douglas County, Nevada Sheriff's Department was investigating the case and there are several towns the wedding could have happened in along Lake Tahoe. Among the towns along the Lake on the Nevada side that are in Douglas County, Glenbrook, Skyland, Zephyr Cove, Elk Point, Stateline, Stateline is just across the border into Nevada so as soon as you go west of there you get into the city of South Lake Tahoe, California. While the areas right on the coast with the Lake are not forested once you get even just inland from there the area becomes very forested as on the Nevada side, a lot of that area between the lake and Carson City contains the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest. The area in the forest, a lot of it also is covered with Mountains as well.

There are a couple of ways to get into Carson City from Douglas County. The primary highway would be U.S. Highway 50 which goes along the lake in Douglas County, goes through Stateline, Skyland, goes past Cave Rock, then curves up and goes near Glenbrook before leading into Carson City. It also goes through the northern part of the Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest and goes through the Spooner Summit which is over 7,000 feet above sea level.

Now the other road that could be taken from southern Douglas County and I think this road would be less traveled is Nevada State Highway 207. Now you would have to take U.S. Highway 50 through Stateline or if you were going from the north you would have to go through Elk Grove and then just north of Stateline you would turn onto Highway 207. The only town along 207 is Kingsbury which is a town of about 2,500 people. Other than that you are traveling along the southern part of the National Forest and also through the Daggett Pass which is over 7,300 feet above sea level. You would take this road until you eventually would connect with State Highway 88 which you would then go north on and that turns into U.S. Highway 395 and you would eventually get to Carson City. In between turning onto the highway and Carson City there is basically nothing except one town just outside of Carson City to the south called Indian Hills which is a town of about 4,500 people. So the latter route would be longer but would have way less traffic and way few people and towns along it than the other route along the Lake.

Absolutely, Tim McClure should have been a suspect, as family member are (and statistically should be) in any murder. From the segment, the wedding was in Lake Tahoe, the mom was driving home to Reno, and her car and body were found in Carson City.

I don't know the area at all, so not sure what you're getting at re: the routes - are you saying it would have been easy for him to miss a casino/potential stop or that there's nothing there, so it's harder to believe he could have accidental missed a casino?

Brilliant posts egswanso!! :typing: You brought up some great points. What surprises me is that no one apparently witnessed this murder. It was in a no doubt busy casino at night. Did anyone even hear gunshots? It just seems much more plausible that she was robbed (her purse had been taken) than that her, by all accounts, loving son decided to kill his mother on his wedding day for a small life insurance policy.

In terms of the motive, I will say, IF Tim McClure did this and killed his mother the motive in my opinion was NOT to collect 5 grand. I am not sure what it would be, but I know another poster came up with a very good scenario that at least to me was the only scenario that even remotely made sense to me for why Tim McClure would kill his mother.

Now in terms of the random robbery theory, while possible, did the segment say that Terri McClure's cash and credit cards were missing out of her purse? Was the purse found? Was a murder weapon tied to Tim McClure? A gun of any kind, particularly of the kind that was used to kill Terri McClure? Not only that but what troubles me too is that she was alleged killed in a casino parking lot yet NO ONE reported hearing shots, hearing anything that sounded like a shot, nothing. While this does not mean that she could not have been killed in Lake Tahoe, I have always thought it possible that Terri McClure was actually killed elsewhere. That she was abducted as part of the robbery and at some point between Lake Tahoe and Carson City murdered and her car parked at the casino in Carson City.

The biggest problem for Tim McClure in this case was the alibi. The lie detector tests would not have come into evidence had he gone on trial for this. Under Nevada law, the only way lie detector tests are admissible in a criminal case is if BOTH the prosecutor and defense attorneys stipulate to it. I can see why the prosecutors would love to get the results in because Tim failed the test. However his defense attorney would never agree to it. So that would not come in.

The problem too is that because Terri McClure was not found for a couple of days after her death and I think it was 3 or 4 days before the cops talked to Tim McClure in person. Thus they could not test his hands for gunshot residue and he would have had time to return his tuxedo that I would presume to be a rental, thus it would have been washed. Now maybe these days they could test it and find something but back then that would have eliminated any physical evidence that Tim did the crime as with the tuxedo washed, any gunshot residue or blood spatter would have been washed away. Also, even if the car was tested for fingerprints, Tim's fingerprints on the doors would not have proved anything anyway as by his own admission he walked his mother to her car and could say that he touched the door, window or handle when closing the door for her and he could explain away other contact with the car and it could not be disproved.

Now, if Tim did murder his mother, he would need a way to get back to the Lake Tahoe area from Carson City after dumping his mothers car there. So if Tim did do it, then I think his wife was involved too, at least to the extent of driving him back from Carson City after the fact. Now you had this period of about two hours where Tim McClure's whereabouts were not substantiated by anyone including his wife. So for at least two hours he is unaccounted for. Carson City from the northern point of Lake Tahoe that is in Douglas County is probably oh, 25 to 30 miles away. From the state line with California or the southern part of Lake Tahoe in Douglas County, Carson City is 40 to 45 miles away. So, round trip this would have been anywhere from 50 to 60 miles or at longest from 80 to 90 miles. So, this probably would have taken roundtrip to drive, anywhere from around an hour give or take a few minutes to as long as an hour and a half give or take a few minutes. I am not entirely familiar with the geography so I would have to drive it myself to get the times down and measure but I imagine Tim would be careful and not speed, even though that is a deserted area, why would he risk speeding knowing the body of his dead mother is in the front seat with him?

So under this time frame, it is theoretically possible for Tim McClure to have killed his mother, driven her body and her car to Carson City abandoned it there and get back to Lake Tahoe in time to re-join his wife and his in-laws.
HOWEVER he would need to have someone to get him back to Carson City. Again, he could abandon his mother's car in Carson City, the problem is, how would he get back to Lake Tahoe without another car or someone to drive him back? His wife could have driven him back however during that two hours that he was missing however she had an alibi during the time Tim was missing as she was with her parents. So it is just weird.

This brings up another weird point. While Tim's alibi during that two hours (his wife was gambling with her parents but Tim claimed he went gambling by himself, odd on his wedding night to do such a thing) however ironically it appears after Tim rejoined his in laws and his wife, at some point his in laws retired for the evening and so Tim and his wife were alone and they claimed they drank and danced all night until 6 am or so the following morning yet no one remembers seeing either Tim or his wife in the dance hall. So there is presumably a several hour period where neither Tim or his wife's whereabouts were substantiated.

So, while this is a circumstantial case and I guess they could try to make a case off it, although they cannot now because Tim while not formally acquitted, the state is barred from charging him in this case again. But before the charges were dismissed with prejudice, I suppose they could have rolled the dice, taken a gamble and tried to get a conviction. I do not think there is enough there to prove 1st degree murder. If Tim was convicted he would probably be convicted of either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. So I can see why the DA did not charge this case.

Plus if Tim's wife was put on the stand, she would take the 5th I imagine unless the prosecutor offered her immunity. This is because on the polygraph, she failed one question and one question only, "do you know who murdered Terri McClure?" So I imagine she would want immunity although I imagine the statute of limitations long ago expired on accessory after the fact charges so who knows? But it is too late now. The cops were hell bent on going after Tim McClure and it bit them big time. They took the unusual step of arresting someone like this in a murder case with no direct evidence and no confession and they did this without probable cause and they did this without either a grand jury indictment or a prosecutor authorizing arrest which is highly unusual as I said in a murder case for someone to be arrested for murder if they have not confessed and there is no direct evidence, without a grand jury indictment or a prosecutor authorizing arrest. Plus under Nevada law, you probably can only arrest someone for first degree murder if you have a grand jury indictment, so I imagine Tim McClure was charged with 2nd degree murder when arrested.

Eswango, in terms of the routes, I was just analyzing the geography of the area. If you download a map of Douglas County and of the Carson City area you will see what I am talking about in reference to that.

Well, basically why I brought up the routes was both in terms of distance to Carson City and back, also in terms of what was in between Lake Tahoe and Carson City along the routes in terms of number of people, casinos, etc. I was mostly making this a reference in that if Tim was driving his dead mother in her car to Carson City, I would think he would want to avoid the major routes as there would be more cops there and more risk of being pulled over. But who knows?

It appears that there are way more casinos along Lake Tahoe, there are few if any in the small towns, but when you get to Carson City there is several there. So to me if someone Tim or someone else was going to dump the body, to dump it in Carson City would make perfect sense because I imagine those casinos are a lot less crowded than the ones either on Lake Tahoe or in Reno. Carson City has several casinos and is the capital of Nevada but is largely a sleepy town, around 50,000 people, I imagine back in 1983 it was way smaller than that, but now a days it has around 50,000 people, but still a sleepy town especially by Nevada standards. The Reno/Sparks area and the Las Vegas area along with Lake Tahoe are where people go, not to Carson City.

From your analysis, then, it sounds like a two hour window could have been enough time, but that doesn't really help or hurt him. The sleepiness of Carson City could explain how Mrs. McClure could have remained undiscovered for a couple days (presuming, of course, her car was there the whole time), but the isolation of the route begs the question of why McClure, again, if he was going to kill her, couldn't have just dumped the body out in the woods or in the lake. Sounds like much less of a chance to have been seen.

I google mapped the area myself; the segment noted that the drive home to Reno was "about an hour," which covers most of the north-central portion of the lake, although you'd have to get to about Glenbrook before going through Carson City would be an out-of-way detour, so I'd have to presume the wedding was around there, although I have no idea, and even South Lake Tahoe to Reno could be "about an hour," although closer to an hour and a half.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
egswano,

How do you explain the isse with the credit card cancellation?


I have to think the credit card people got the date wrong. I have to presume (again, assuming regular police investigation) that the police did their best to verify the date of the note against any independent confirmation - call logs, etc. and were either unable to prove the call occurred on the 14th (even back in 1983, they should have been able to examine phone records) or the evidence supported McClure's statement of calling on the 17th.

Proof that he called on the 14th (before the murder) and reported his mother deceased (which is what the note clearly said) would have at least enabled the D.A. to bring the case to trial, IMO. It would also make McClure deserving of a spot on world's dumbest criminals, but I'm not going to say it's

Why would you assume that they were ubable to prove that the call occured on the 14th? That evidence would not have been enough to convict him, that doesn;t mean that it weren't able to prove it.

Don;t you find it interesting that her purse is missing and Tim decides that cancelling her credit cards is of majoir importance. If Tim killed his mother and tossed her purse to the side, there's a good chance someone might find it. That person may decide to use the credit cards. This would screw Tim because the police would notice that someone is using her credit cards while she's still dead. That person may very well tell the cops where he found the purse as well as some other vital items.

How do you explain the pillow?

Why would a random robber bring a pillow with him to commit the murder? Why did the robber think he had to muffle the shot.

Why would a robber kill her in the first place? Why not steal the car?

Why shoot her in the head execution style?

It was in a no doubt busy casino at night. Did anyone even hear gunshots?
Perhaps that's what the pillow was used for. To muffle the shot.

In terms of the motive, I will say, IF Tim McClure did this and killed his mother the motive in my opinion was NOT to collect 5 grand. I am not sure what it would be, but I know another poster came up with a very good scenario that at least to me was the only scenario that even remotely made sense to me for why Tim McClure would kill his mother.

Beverly McGowan was killed for far less money.

What surprises me is that no one apparently witnessed this murder.

1. If you saw a person murder someone with a gun and you looked that person straight in the face. Would you be that willing to come forward as a witness. Especially a 6ft 6 guy with scraggily hair who looks like Kurt Rambis?

There may be no witness because one has not yet come forward or is too scared too.

2. i'm also positive that if we think about it, there are plenty of ways for a murder like this too be committed with nobody witnessing it. I'm willing to bet anyone that I could simulate a murder in which I kill someone the same way in the middle of a busy shopping mall. And I'm a 6 ft 4!

3. If Tim murdered his mother, there isn;t going to be a lot of commotion. She knows him, he knows her. The only commotion is after the shooting. If he manages to pull that off with no commotion, then the rest looks like a guy helping his drunk or sleeping mother into the car. I don;t think there wa s alot of blood in the car either, if I'm correct.

As to the credit card, not only did the woman Tim talk too got the date wrong, she also got his words mixed up on why he was canceling it. This according to Tim. There is no way someone is gonna get both of these mixed up.

Why the need to cancel the card so soon? I mean if it was my mom who had dissapeared & then turn up dead, I would not cancel the card. I would leave it active in case the person who did this tried to use the card or someone else finding it & trying to use it. It could help in solving who had done this.

When all is said & done you have to ask yourself what are the odds?

Tim & his new bride have gone there separate ways for several hours & in this time frame his mom ends up dead & they really have no alibi.

Tim cancels the credit card but the credit card lady not only gets the date wrong when he canceled, she also got it wrong on why he was canceling the card.

Tim completely fails a polygraph but his wife only fails one question & the most important question of them all- Do you know who murdered Terri McClure.

The one place he decided not to look for his mom cause of a feeling he got, she actually turns up.

That this happens on the happiest night of his life, his wedding night.

To me those are very slim odds this happening with him being innocent.

Why would you assume that they were ubable to prove that the call occured on the 14th? That evidence would not have been enough to convict him, that doesn;t mean that it weren't able to prove it.

Because that would have been beyond circumstantial evidence; you'd have the suspect having foreknowledge that the victim would die. You get that, plus the potential motive, plus the alibi questions, and you have a case that any half-competent D.A. should be at least able to the jury and/or get a plea; since that didn't happen here, I really have to question it. Obviously, I'd have to see the actual record to know exactly what happened, but this is my guess.

Don;t you find it interesting that her purse is missing and Tim decides that cancelling her credit cards is of majoir importance. If Tim killed his mother and tossed her purse to the side, there's a good chance someone might find it. That person may decide to use the credit cards. This would screw Tim because the police would notice that someone is using her credit cards while she's still dead. That person may very well tell the cops where he found the purse as well as some other vital items.

How in the world does that screw Tim? Now you have an identifiable suspect (probably with either a criminal record and/or substance abuse problem) in possession and using the stolen property of the murder victim - that's a number one suspect in my book. Moreover, reporting the cards as stolen would likely make it easier to find the perp since they'd be flagged as stolen when used (this may not have been the case in 1983, however, as I'm not sure how instant authorization was)

How do you explain the pillow?

What pillow? Yes, I know the reenactment showed a pillow (or something) behind the victim's head, but no pillow was mentioned in the segment, so I'd like to see a crime scene report before presuming there was actually a pillow there.

But even if there was, so what? It's not uncommon for people to travel with pillows in their car, especially on longer and/or overnight trips. Certainly, if there was a pillow and that pillow was linked to Tim's house or his wife's house or the hotel, that MIGHT mean something, but the fact that we heard nothing about this pillow and its provenience from the police suggests to me it's an non-issue.

Why would a random robber bring a pillow with him to commit the murder? Why did the robber think he had to muffle the shot.

This is pure speculation on your part. There's nothing said in the segment to think there even was a pillow, that, if there was, it wasn't a normal thing in the car. Moreover, nothing was said about being shot through the pillow - that would be clear from the crime scene, and again, was not mentioned AT ALL by law enforcement.

Why would a robber kill her in the first place? Why not steal the car?

Who knows? Tweaked-up, sadistic, it went "bad," etc... sometimes robbers use senseless and/or extraordinary violence. Why steal the car? Robbing people outside casinos would be someone looking for cash and/or other easy to fence items. Junky old cars aren't worth anything and are much easier to find.

Why shoot her in the head execution style?

Why not? Head's a good place to shoot someone if you want them dead. This doesn't mean anything to me.

Perhaps that's what the pillow was used for. To muffle the shot.

This would be crystal clear from the scene. The police didn't mention it and I haven't seen a crime scene report, so unless you have (and if you have, please share! :) this is just speculation upon speculation.

Beverly McGowan was killed for far less money.

5K may certainly be sufficient motive, but without extra evidence (bad relationship, money problems, etc.), it's just not a very good one.

With all the speculation, this much is clear - they D.A., who had at their disposal, ALL the evidence (not just a television segment) dismissed the case against McClure WITH prejudice (i.e., forever).

This is far stronger evidence in my mind that he didn't do it then all the rank speculation in this thread. Could he have done it? Sure, I suppose he could have - but there is no EVIDENCE he did so.

Motive - the only identifiable motive is 5K in insurance money. This isn't a very strong motive, and neither the amount or timing of the insurance policy makes it very suspicious, frankly. Positing on some argument, etc. between Tim and his mother is pure speculation and contradicted by the testimony of friends and relatives as to the relationship between the two.

Means - The police could find absolutely no link between the murder weapon and McClure. None.

Opportunity - There is, perhaps, a window of opportunity for McClure to have committed the crime, although since an exact time of death isn't available, it's impossible to really pin down a timeline with much certainty.

Here's the thing, let's presume McClure did it - and for those who think he did, explain this:

1. Why make up an alibi much easier to negate (in the casino) vs. saying he was up in his room watching TV or "with" his wife?

2. Where's any link to the murder weapon? It's safe to assume, I think, that the police could find nothing to indicate McClure (1) owned a gun; (2) purchased a gun; (3) had a gun in his possession.

3. Why even make up the whole story as to the driving her route looking for her purse/car/her? He could have just as easily said he drove the highway looking to see if she broke down. How do we know he really checked "every" casino between Lake Tahoe and Reno? Did he have an exhaustive list checking them off one-by-one, or did he simply not stop at some ones (because he didn't know they were there or didn't see them) and only after-the-fact blame god for not going to that one.

While law enforcement isn't perfect; it's hard to believe they couldn't make a case against McClure if the evidence was actually there. The simple fact is, it's just not and all the speculation in the world can't change that.

well you are right there is no evidence that he did it, but that's the same reason Jule Caylor, Donnie Hansen, Steve Marfeo, Judy Groezinger, Steve Page and Paul Pollis were never arrested for murder. No evidence, but an overwhelming circumsantial case.

Regarding motive, I think it's possible that Terri didn't approve of Tim's wife and there was an argument over that. Or perhaps one of them had a gambling addiction and there was an argument over that. I'll have to disagree with you strongly about the timing. The insurance policy had just been taken out months before, and it was on Tim's wedding night and he may have had some hefty expenses out of that. And why do you say that the insurance motive isn't a very strong motive? Seems like a strong one to me.

And I'll have to strongly disagree with you that there was no opportunity. Remember, there is an entire 8 hour block of time that Tim can't be accounted for, and his wife has a 6 hour block of time.

Regarding your questions, I can't answer those because I don't know what was going through Tim's mind. I think it's something that Tim not only can't remember which dance halls they visited. But assuming he can't remember them, it would seem like he could just drive around town and figure out which ones if he can't remember the names, but he couldn't even do that.

This is all just speculation. I would hope speculation can never overcome reasonable doubt. Remember, the state must show, through clear and convincing evidence, someone is guilty, not use speculation, conjecture and assumption.

As to the credit card, not only did the woman Tim talk too got the date wrong, she also got his words mixed up on why he was canceling it. This according to Tim. There is no way someone is gonna get both of these mixed up.

The note says the mother was deceased, not murdered. It's the date of the call that would be important and there's no apparent corroboration of the 14th. If there was, that would certainly be important.

Why the need to cancel the card so soon? I mean if it was my mom who had dissapeared & then turn up dead, I would not cancel the card. I would leave it active in case the person who did this tried to use the card or someone else finding it & trying to use it. It could help in solving who had done this.

See my previous post. Putting a cancel and/or stolen flag on the card may mark it just as well. If you left the card active w/i no flags, it could just be used w/o worry by the killer.

When all is said & done you have to ask yourself what are the odds? Tim & his new bride have gone there separate ways for several hours & in this time frame his mom ends up dead & they really have no alibi.

No question that there was a window of opportunity. Having "no alibi" isn't really accurate though, he has an alibi, it just can't be corroborated. This, in itself, isn't that unusual; most of us have multiple hours every day where we can't prove (beyond our own statements) where we are.

Tim cancels the credit card but the credit card lady not only gets the date wrong when he canceled, she also got it wrong on why he was canceling the card.

Not really, she gets the date wrong. Change the date from the 14th to the 17th and her note is completely accurate.

Tim completely fails a polygraph but his wife only fails one question & the most important question of them all- Do you know who murdered Terri McClure.

Polygraphs are next to worthless and the description of the test that Tim gives suggests it was not administered properly anyway.

The one place he decided not to look for his mom cause of a feeling he got, she actually turns up.

After the fact rationalization. There's no real proof he checked "every place" and he could have just has easily have missed that casino and then, realizing it was where she was found, thanks god for making him miss it, so he doesn't find her.

Besides, the whole action of checking the casinos, etc. makes much less sense if he's the killer; all he's doing/did is draw suspicion to himself.

That this happens on the happiest night of his life, his wedding night. To me those are very slim odds this happening with him being innocent.

There's no doubt there is some circumstantial evidence that could support McClure being guilty; the problem with circumstantial evidence is that it's equally supportive of innocent, which, of course, must be presumed. Given the actions of the D.A., there was no actual evidence supporting a case against McClure. That is much more damning then circumstantial assumptions and speculation.

Hmm, I actually disagree, this case is highly different from any of those in terms of who was killed (in all the above instances it was the man's wife) in this case it was the man's mother. Again, this case is so strange. However in some of the other cases, like in Jule Caylor's case, there was blood found, Mark Nichols, there was blood found. Donnie Hansen, do not even get me started on that, I am not a fan of prosecutors at all but I will say they had a solid case there and I am surprised they lost it. The only thing I can really think of is the prosecutor in that case got arrogant and thought he had a slum dunk case so he did not try as hard and little things slip by.

However in the Tim McClure case, while I am not saying the guy is for sure innocent, (when I say innocent I mean he did not kill his mother and not just innocent in the eyes of the law as in not guilty) but there were problems here in this case. Regardless of Tim not being around for X amount of hours and yes it looks bizarre to say the least, but how many times have we all been alone for hours out of contact and out of sight? I am sure it has happened to all of us.

Now granted the above comparison is not totally fair because this was Tim's wedding night. I have never heard of someone going alone gambling for two hours right after they get married. But that said this case while circumstantial is just that, circumstantial. In fact it is so circumstantial the prosecutor would not go for it without more and in this instance I have to applaud the prosecutor. Failing a polygraph, I am a bit weary about polygraphs. There is a reason why they are mostly inadmissible as evidence and it is because they are not accurate enough. Polygraphs do not detect lies, they detect physical responses to questions such as perspiration rate, blood pressure, pulse rate, etc. The common theory being people's heart rate and blood pressure go up when they lie, especially about something serious and their perspiration rate goes up. However that is not always the case and there are some people that do not have a conscience thus they can lie constantly and they would pass a polygraph because it does not bother them to lie. Now granted a majority of people that pass polygraphs are telling the truth and a majority of people that fail the polygraphs are actually lying. But that stands more to reason than it does to the accuracy of the machine.

I will say, wiseguy presents an interesting theory. A fight between Tim McClure and his mother over Tim's wife and Terri McClure possibly not be approving of his new mother in law. This could be possible. It could also be that Terri McClure maybe did not want Tim to move away at all and certainly did not want him to get married fearing he would forget about her? Sounds sappy but you never know, people have been known to feel weird things and do weird things. Just a very strange case that was pretty much bungled from the start hence why Tim will never be charged with it again.

I will say, I think you could get convictions on a lot of the guys above, but on Tim McClure I am not so sure. Basically though when a prosecutor does not charge in a case like this, it is either because they are highly ethical or it is they are afraid the chances are too great that there will be an acquittal.

Eswango, overall I agree with your opinion. I too am weary of circumstantial evidence because it is too easy to twist, fabricate or manipulate to fit a prosecutors 'theory' of what happened in a given case. Look at all the innocent people proven innocent over the years, practically all were convicted originally based purely on circumstantial evidence or they were convicted on physical evidence that was misinterpreted or contaminated, or they were convicted because of lying or mistaken witnesses or they were convicted because of a false confession. In fact 25 percent of the men proven innocent as it turns out had originally confessed to the crime they were ultimately convicted of. Think of Juan Rivera in Illinois, he made a false confession and last year was convicted again and sentenced to life in prison for the third time because the jury could not get past the confession even though he was excluded as being the donor of the DNA found inside the 11 year old girl he was accused of murdering.

well you are right there is no evidence that he did it, but that's the same reason Jule Caylor, Donnie Hansen, Steve Marfeo, Judy Groezinger, Steve Page and Paul Pollis were never arrested for murder. No evidence, but an overwhelming circumsantial case.

The circumstances and facts of most of those cases are very different and it's a false analogy to really compare them. The biggest problem with most (not all) of those cases is lack of a body, which makes proving murder very difficult.

Regarding motive, I think it's possible that Terri didn't approve of Tim's wife and there was an argument over that. Or perhaps one of them had a gambling addiction and there was an argument over that. I'll have to disagree with you strongly about the timing. The insurance policy had just been taken out months before, and it was on Tim's wedding night and he may have had some hefty expenses out of that. And why do you say that the insurance motive isn't a very strong motive? Seems like a strong one to me.

Sure, it's possible. Anything's possible, but there's just no evidence of it. If she really didn't approve of the wedding, why would she go in the first place? Nor is it unusual for elderly people to have life insurance. If the policy was large, or taken out a week before the murder, that would be suspicious, but a lower-middle-income elderly lady taking out a small life insurance policy just isn't that uncommon or unusual.

The amount of the policy combined with no apparent evidence of financial problems makes it a weak motive. For insurance to be a strong motive for murder, I'd want to see: (1) a policy amount disproportionate to the person's worth - a million dollar policy on a poor homemaker, for instance; (2) it was purchased right before the murder; (3) some element of fraud and/or financial malfeasance. None of that appears here, despite, no doubt, the police searching for it.

And I'll have to strongly disagree with you that there was no opportunity. Remember, there is an entire 8 hour block of time that Tim can't be accounted for, and his wife has a 6 hour block of time.

I never said there was no opportunity. McClure could have had opportunity. The segment doesn't say no-one saw that "dancing until dawn," so I might disagree as to the timeframe unaccounted for, but even a couple hours could, conceivably, been enough time to commit the murder.

Regarding your questions, I can't answer those because I don't know what was going through Tim's mind. I think it's something that Tim not only can't remember which dance halls they visited. But assuming he can't remember them, it would seem like he could just drive around town and figure out which ones if he can't remember the names, but he couldn't even do that.

Nor can I, and, of course, criminals often do stupid things and make up needlessly complex stories. Regardless, there's just no actual evidence McClure did it.

No question that there was a window of opportunity. Having "no alibi" isn't really accurate though, he has an alibi, it just can't be corroborated. This, in itself, isn't that unusual; most of us have multiple hours every day where we can't prove (beyond our own statements) where we are.

Not really, she gets the date wrong. Change the date from the 14th to the 17th and her note is completely accurate.

you can't prove that, that's speculation, like you were talking about earlier. You can't prove that the credit card lady is wrong any more than I can prove Tim is wrong

The alibi is just so strange. He's at dance halls and casinos in one of the biggest cities in the state, and yet nobody can account for his alibi for an entire 8 hours, or his wife for 6. they must have ran into dozens upon dozens if not hundreds of people that night. And with Tim's distinctive appearance, it just seems unlikely.

It's very easy to say "credit card lady got the wrong date" and just leave it at that. I think the issue is a lot more complex than that. For starters, the credit card lady is certain she got the date right. Not maybe or perhaps, but certain. And if this is a person that has been on the job for decades, I'm especially inclined to believe she's right, she has no horse in this race. I don't know the details of her job, but perhaps people at that job are required to put all of their day's work in a packet (like I am), and if that memo was in the packet for the 14th, I believe Tim called on the 14th.

you can't prove that, that's speculation, like you were talking about earlier. You can't prove that the credit card lady is wrong any more than I can prove Tim is wrong

The alibi is just so strange. He's at dance halls and casinos in one of the biggest cities in the state, and yet nobody can account for his alibi for an entire 8 hours, or his wife for 6. they must have ran into dozens upon dozens if not hundreds of people that night. And with Tim's distinctive appearance, it just seems unlikely.

That's absolutely correct. The proof would be the phone records, which should have existed on one, if not both, ends. I am only assuming the date of the 14th can't be corroborated based largely upon the D.A. dismissing the case and the otherwise damning nature of such evidence, if corroborated.

Yes, it is unusual, although not necessarily damning, since you have to figure his appearance wasn't as unusual in the day (big hair!) as it would be now, other patrons were likely to have been drunk and/or not paying attention to other folks and gamblers tend to focus on their machine, not who's around them. It's also not clear how quickly (if at all) the crime and search for witnesses was publicized; this would certainly make a difference in finding witnesses, especially given what would presumable be a fairly transient crowd. I know personally, I might remember someone I saw at a busy bar or club the night before, MAYBE even a few days if there was something odd about them, but longer than that? I'd be as skeptical of anyone coming forward years later claiming to have seen them as to the lack of anyone.

I am surprised there were no surveillance tapes in the casino, but if, as others have discussed, these were older casinos and it was 25+ years ago, I guess it's not shocking.

It's very easy to say "credit card lady got the wrong date" and just leave it at that. I think the issue is a lot more complex than that. For starters, the credit card lady is certain she got the date right. Not maybe or perhaps, but certain. And if this is a person that has been on the job for decades, I'm especially inclined to believe she's right, she has no horse in this race. I don't know the details of her job, but perhaps people at that job are required to put all of their day's work in a packet (like I am), and if that memo was in the packet for the 14th, I believe Tim called on the 14th.

Her certainty is irrelevant, frankly. I've dealt with many, many people who were "certain" of facts and testified as such, but they were proven clearly and absolutely wrong. It doesn't imply any malice on her part, just normal human failings.

Evidence of office procedures could have been used to corroborate the date; I am assuming police investigated this fully and found no corroboration, given the dismissal of the case.

I think we all have gotten days mixed up at one point. But to be off 3 whole days? Someone would really have to be out of it to be off 3 days.

For the record, when I first watched this case many years ago, I started off thinking Tim was innocent, because that's what the segment wants you to believe. It's not a "is Tim guilty or innocent" case, but rather a "Tim's looking for someone to clear his name" case, and they mention his relationship with his mother. Those are basically the 2 first things you hear about this case, so that seems to be the direction they're going for. But once the facts of the case presented themselves, my opnion swung so wildly in the other direction I'm surprised I didn't suffer from whiplash

But once the facts of the case presented themselves, my opnion swung so wildly in the other direction I'm surprised I didn't suffer from whiplash

:lol: LMAO couldn't help but laugh at that...

I think we all have gotten days mixed up at one point. But to be off 3 whole days? Someone would really have to be out of it to be off 3 days.

For the record, when I first watched this case many years ago, I started off thinking Tim was innocent, because that's what the segment wants you to believe. It's not a "is Tim guilty or innocent" case, but rather a "Tim's looking for someone to clear his name" case, and they mention his relationship with his mother. Those are basically the 2 first things you hear about this case, so that seems to be the direction they're going for. But once the facts of the case presented themselves, my opnion swung so wildly in the other direction I'm surprised I didn't suffer from whiplash

It was a Friday to a Monday, though. I know I've been more likely to put the wrong date in after a weekend.

For me, at least, the segment didn't really lead to me one conclusion or the other; McClure doesn't come across as a total scumbag, but much of what he said is the same trite that every "innocent" person cries about, regardless of their actual innocence, and the story told by the segment gives rise to the circumstantial questions that many have focused upon. I certainly wouldn't say it's a pro-McClure whitewash many "final appeals" are.

The strongest reason I don't think he was the murderer has nothing to do with the segment directly, but is because the D.A., with all the evidence at his/her disposal, came to that conclusion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Essentially, you have the police focusing in on one suspect, gathering all the evidence they can to make their case against him, and the case and evidence is still so deficient the D.A. doesn't even bother taking it to a jury. I suppose it's possible the police and/or D.A. are totally incompetent, but that's not something I usually presume without good cause.

For the record, when I first watched this case many years ago, I started off thinking Tim was innocent, because that's what the segment wants you to believe. It's not a "is Tim guilty or innocent" case, but rather a "Tim's looking for someone to clear his name" case, and they mention his relationship with his mother. Those are basically the 2 first things you hear about this case, so that seems to be the direction they're going for. But once the facts of the case presented themselves, my opnion swung so wildly in the other direction I'm surprised I didn't suffer from whiplash

Woah, I'm going to have to disagree there. Personally, I think the segment makes Tim look guilty and I don't feel UM did him a lot of favors. I really have to wonder what the producers thought going into this. Did they think he was guilty and figure they would let him dig his own grave? Usually on "Final Appeal", and the like we get some alternate theories to mull around. In this, we don't get so much as a re-enactment of a robbery type scenario that could leave the viewer with some inkling as to what else may have occurred.

The strongest reason I don't think he was the murderer has nothing to do with the segment directly, but is because the D.A., with all the evidence at his/her disposal, came to that conclusion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Essentially, you have the police focusing in on one suspect, gathering all the evidence they can to make their case against him, and the case and evidence is still so deficient the D.A. doesn't even bother taking it to a jury. I suppose it's possible the police and/or D.A. are totally incompetent, but that's not something I usually presume without good cause.


That just means they don;t have any evidence to convict. That doesn;t mean there couldn't be evidence found later to convict Tim McClure.

There is a big difference between being a detective and lawyer.

The detective doesn;t really care who did it, as long a someone is arrested for the crime.

Ultimately the defense lawyer could care less who did the crime...just as long their side wins in court. Defense Lawyers could care less if someone got away with murder and killed several people later on. The defense lawyer just wants to make sure his client is out of jail or serving the least amount of time possible.

Well yeah Mastermind, prosecutors want to do the same in convicting someone regardless of who it is all they care about is the conviction. Mind you it is not unethical for a defense attorney to get a person who thinks he/she thinks is guilty 'off the hook' however it is unethical for a prosecutor to pursue a conviction against a person they are not sure is guilty. That is because the prosecutor has the burden of proof not the defense attorney.

That just means they don;t have any evidence to convict. That doesn;t mean there couldn't be evidence found later to convict Tim McClure.

No, not if the charges were dismissed with prejudice (which is what the segment indicated); that means they can never be brought again. It may be possible to bring other charges against McClure depending on what exactly he was charged with, however.

There is a big difference between being a detective and lawyer.

Well, sure, they have different jobs to do. Any good detective knows constitutional criminal law and the laws of evidence down cold, though.

The detective doesn't really care who did it, as long a someone is arrested for the crime.

Yes, in theory, although it's not uncommon for detectives to become fixated on a particular suspect, sometimes, but not always, to the detriment of the investigation. I don't think they want just "someone" arrested either, but the right someone.

Ultimately the defense lawyer could care less who did the crime... just as long their side wins in court. Defense Lawyers could care less if someone got away with murder and killed several people later on. The defense lawyer just wants to make sure his client is out of jail or serving the least amount of time possible.

I think that's unfair. Defense attorneys have a duty to represent their clients, and yes, this duty means ensuring the police and prosecutor do their jobs properly and pursuant to the law. If someone guilty as sin "gets off" because the police screwed up, blame them, not the defense attorney.

Most cases plea out anyway, so both sides cut deals. For most murderers, the "deal" might be as simple as sparing their client the electric chair or getting life with no chance of parole vs. a remote chance of parole.

Yes Eswango I agree and very good points. I will say as a future defense attorney I find it a bit disturbing that people have this tendency to hate on the defense attorney. Why? I mean have people forgotten that our whole legal system is actually set up under the premise that it is better to let 9 guilty men go free than send 1 innocent man to prison? Have we forgotten this?

Yes in a lot of cases of an 'obviously guilty' suspect take OJ Simpson for instance, if an acquittal happens that is not his defense attorneys fault that happened, that is the cops and prosecutors fault that happened. This is usually due either to corruption or cops and prosecutors thinking they have a slam dunk case thus they let a bunch of things go by or it is due to just good old fashioned incompetence. Or it could be just too the person acquitted was actually innocent.

In terms of the plea bargaining, yes, the vast majority of cases even murder cases are pled out. In fact about 95 percent of cases charged that are not dropped are pled out. But I think people tend to assume these trials happen a lot more often than they really do because the media has a tendency to cover them so much more as that is what sells newspapers and gets TV ratings. However I think people would be amazed at the type of cases pled out on an everyday basis and how you NEVER hear about them.

Guilty.

Guilty.

No, he's is innocent till proven guilty. Hence he is technically innocent.

That doesn't mean he shouldn't be the prime suspect in this case, though.

IMHO, until someone comes up with another suspect, Timothy McClure is the prime (and only) suspect in the murder of his mother.

Mastermind, I do not disagree with those opinions that you posted in your last message, you are correct in them. I do not really take issue so much with your opinions on McClure as I did your opinions on defense attorney's. Being a defense attorney is not exactly easy from what I have seen, yes most people think of defense attorneys like F. Lee Bailey, the late Johnny Cochran, Mark Geragos, Robert Shapiro, Bruce Cutler, etc.

However your average defense attorney is not some millionaire rolling in the dough, they are court appointed. In fact even a lot of the big name guys have been court appointed to cases because they agreed to stay on even after their clients money either ran out or more often when their clients assets are frozen by the court as a result of a civil suit being filed. But like I said, your average defense attorney whether a public defender that works for the county or state or a private attorney that gets appointed by the court, a lot of these guys do not make that much money for all the work that is required to go into a criminal case. Plus the public hates not only the client of the defense attorney but a lot of the time they actually hate the defense attorney just as much if not more then the client themselves.

The defense usually only has one investigator and the court usually curtails funding so that it is hard to hire experts and the like. Whereas the prosecutor has all the resources at his/her disposal. The prosecutor not only has a team of investigators that work for the District Attorney's Office at their disposal, they also have the cops themselves on their side, they have the public on their side, they have the county medical examiner on their side, because especially if it is a county case, the prosecutor often works for the same county or same city as the cops and medical examiner so they are all in cahoots with each other.

Plus a majority of judges are actually former prosecutors so there is a bias there. Like I said, being a defense attorney, while you see certain examples of folks who get the glory for the most part being a defense attorney is a thankless job. Victims hate you, sometimes your own clients hate you, the public hates you. Now granted defense attorneys do get appointed judges and elected to other offices but the chances are far better of being appointed a judge or being elected to statewide office or to congress or something like that if you are a prosecutor.

Kardamas,

I'm not questioning the validity or competence of attorneys...just pointing out the motives and role in the process of a crime.

Your job as a defense attorney is to serve your client, not the people, or morality. Your loyalty is to the client not to justice.

If your a defense lawyer and you defending a murderer and you succeed...you did your job, but a murderer is still on the loose who could kill again. It is not your problem, nor should it be. But you didn;t exactly solve any case or prevent crime.

If your a prosecutor and you have been given a murder case by the district attorney to prosecute. If during the trial you come accross a piece of evidence that might point to guilt, your job is to prosecute the defendant and find ways around that defense. If you succeed in your case, you potentially have prosecuted an innocent man and let a killer loose. No the only difference here is that technically you should of picked it up or you should asked the detectives more questions. But if you believe in the case or you detectives and the DA believe in the case, your more inclined to go guns blazing and prosecute the case and let the dust settle afterwards. Can you imagine how many prosecutors prosecuted cases simply because they were pressured to do so? If you boss the DA says prosecute, your essentially a foot soldier in an army!


The whole court process is pretty much a refereed debate between two debators trying to convince 12 people that their right. Has nothing to do with morality or justice. Just a mental boxing match.
A lawyer can win cases for several things other than being correct.
a. The judge may be incompetent, biased, senile (insane-don't laugh! I've heard plenty of cases of this being true) apathetic.
b. One lawyer might just be more flamboyant, sexier or funnier than the other.
c. The jury consists or bored, biased or incompetent people that can't be that skilled since they couldn't come up with a good excuse to get out of jury duty.
d. Some archaic, indecipherable or ambiguous law torpedoes your case.
e. Witnesses or one side were awful public speakers, liars, time wasters or just couldn;t articulate what was rehearsed hours ago.
f. You detectives did not suceed in getting the correct evidence or finding the right witnesses needed to prove this point

Someone once said to me, if your interested in crime prevention become a police officer. If your interesting in the legal process, corporate america, politics or being a great debator become a lawyer.

All that being said, I have great faith in the legal system and would change only one thing about it. The jury selection process. There's something wrong about having 12 bored, apathetic people make the ultimate decision.

My experience being a juror for a murder trial was a real eye opener to me on the legal system. So much so, that I have though about writing a book or a screenplay about it.

Personally I think everyone should be a juror at some point (and a cop for a day) just to see what the court system really is.

Kardamas,

I'm not questioning the validity or competence of attorneys...just pointing out the motives and role in the process of a crime.

Your job as a defense attorney is to serve your client, not the people, or morality. Your loyalty is to the client not to justice.

If your a defense lawyer and you defending a murderer and you succeed...you did your job, but a murderer is still on the loose who could kill again. It is not your problem, nor should it be. But you didn;t exactly solve any case or prevent crime.

If your a prosecutor and you have been given a murder case by the district attorney to prosecute. If during the trial you come accross a piece of evidence that might point to guilt, your job is to prosecute the defendant and find ways around that defense. If you succeed in your case, you potentially have prosecuted an innocent man and let a killer loose. No the only difference here is that technically you should of picked it up or you should asked the detectives more questions. But if you believe in the case or you detectives and the DA believe in the case, your more inclined to go guns blazing and prosecute the case and let the dust settle afterwards. Can you imagine how many prosecutors prosecuted cases simply because they were pressured to do so? If you boss the DA says prosecute, your essentially a foot soldier in an army!


The whole court process is pretty much a refereed debate between two debators trying to convince 12 people that their right. Has nothing to do with morality or justice. Just a mental boxing match.
A lawyer can win cases for several things other than being correct.
a. The judge may be incompetent, biased, senile (insane-don't laugh! I've heard plenty of cases of this being true) apathetic.
b. One lawyer might just be more flamboyant, sexier or funnier than the other.
c. The jury consists or bored, biased or incompetent people that can't be that skilled since they couldn't come up with a good excuse to get out of jury duty.
d. Some archaic, indecipherable or ambiguous law torpedoes your case.
e. Witnesses or one side were awful public speakers, liars, time wasters or just couldn;t articulate what was rehearsed hours ago.
f. You detectives did not suceed in getting the correct evidence or finding the right witnesses needed to prove this point
g. Whether your client looks like Jamie Gumb from silence of the lambs. Or looks like your sweet old grandma baking cookies on a Sunday.

Someone once said to me, if your interested in crime prevention become a police officer. If your interesting in the legal process, corporate america, politics or being a great debator become a lawyer.

All that being said, I have great faith in the legal system and would change only one thing about it. The jury selection process. There's something wrong about having 12 bored, apathetic people make the ultimate decision.

My experience being a juror for a murder trial was a real eye opener to me on the legal system. So much so, that I have though about writing a book or a screenplay about it.

Personally I think everyone should be a juror at some point (and a cop for a day) just to see what the court system really is.

Well to be honest Mastermind, I would actually like to hear your story on being a juror. Especially in a murder trial. Yes that is something that has long been a concern to me too is the jury selection process. Nothing like having a jury full of bored people who do not want to be there and who just want to get home. 12 angry men is one of my favorite movies and the way that jury acted in the beginning, I imagine that is more often the norm than the exception to the rule but I have seen rampant examples of jury misconduct, I could go on and on about it.

Kardamas,

I'm not questioning the validity or competence of attorneys...just pointing out the motives and role in the process of a crime.

Your job as a defense attorney is to serve your client, not the people, or morality. Your loyalty is to the client not to justice.

If your a defense lawyer and you defending a murderer and you succeed...you did your job, but a murderer is still on the loose who could kill again. It is not your problem, nor should it be. But you didn;t exactly solve any case or prevent crime.

Which is why it takes a special kind to do it. It's very easy to give lip service to the maxim that it's better to let 1000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent people go to jail, but it's much harder to do it on a day-to-day basis.

If your a prosecutor and you have been given a murder case by the district attorney to prosecute. If during the trial you come accross a piece of evidence that might point to guilt, your job is to prosecute the defendant and find ways around that defense. If you succeed in your case, you potentially have prosecuted an innocent man and let a killer loose. No the only difference here is that technically you should of picked it up or you should asked the detectives more questions. But if you believe in the case or you detectives and the DA believe in the case, your more inclined to go guns blazing and prosecute the case and let the dust settle afterwards. Can you imagine how many prosecutors prosecuted cases simply because they were pressured to do so? If you boss the DA says prosecute, your essentially a foot soldier in an army!

Yes and no. Prosecutors, like all attorneys, are officers of the court, and cannot pursue cases they know are frivolous or not well-founded. Prosecutors have the additional duty to disclose all potentially exonerating evidence to the defense. Prosecutors can be and are disbarred and sanctioned for failure to do so.

The whole court process is pretty much a refereed debate between two debators trying to convince 12 people that their right. Has nothing to do with morality or justice. Just a mental boxing match.
A lawyer can win cases for several things other than being correct.
a. The judge may be incompetent, biased, senile (insane-don't laugh! I've heard plenty of cases of this being true) apathetic.
b. One lawyer might just be more flamboyant, sexier or funnier than the other.
c. The jury consists or bored, biased or incompetent people that can't be that skilled since they couldn't come up with a good excuse to get out of jury duty.
d. Some archaic, indecipherable or ambiguous law torpedoes your case.
e. Witnesses or one side were awful public speakers, liars, time wasters or just couldn;t articulate what was rehearsed hours ago.
f. You detectives did not suceed in getting the correct evidence or finding the right witnesses needed to prove this point
g. Whether your client looks like Jamie Gumb from silence of the lambs. Or looks like your sweet old grandma baking cookies on a Sunday.

The Constitutional gives you the right a fair trial and counsel in criminal matters; it doesn't give you the right to good counsel or a perfect trial. Some states do have bars of experienced practitioners for serious offenses (especially capital crimes)

Someone once said to me, if your interested in crime prevention become a police officer. If your interesting in the legal process, corporate america, politics or being a great debator become a lawyer.

Social worker, community organizer, and pastor are good for crime prevention as well.

All that being said, I have great faith in the legal system and would change only one thing about it. The jury selection process. There's something wrong about having 12 bored, apathetic people make the ultimate decision.

My experience being a juror for a murder trial was a real eye opener to me on the legal system. So much so, that I have though about writing a book or a screenplay about it.

Personally I think everyone should be a juror at some point (and a cop for a day) just to see what the court system really is.

Although attorneys have some blame too, from picking bad ones (the purpose of voir dire is to dump the bad ones) to poor presentation of a case that puts jurors to sleep.

Which is why it takes a special kind to do it. It's very easy to give lip service to the maxim that it's better to let 1000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent people go to jail, but it's much harder to do it on a day-to-day basis.

I'm sure the potential high salary doesn;t hurt either.;)


Yes and no. Prosecutors, like all attorneys, are officers of the court, and cannot pursue cases they know are frivolous or not well-founded.

You would think so...but like any institution... politics, emotions, careers and statistics destroy that concept.

Quote:
Someone once said to me, if your interested in crime prevention become a police officer. If your interesting in the legal process, corporate america, politics or being a great debator become a lawyer.


Social worker, community organizer, and pastor are good for crime prevention as well.


....In conjuction with proper law enforcement technique.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
Kardamas,

I'm not questioning the validity or competence of attorneys...just pointing out the motives and role in the process of a crime.

Your job as a defense attorney is to serve your client, not the people, or morality. Your loyalty is to the client not to justice.

If your a defense lawyer and you defending a murderer and you succeed...you did your job, but a murderer is still on the loose who could kill again. It is not your problem, nor should it be. But you didn;t exactly solve any case or prevent crime.


Which is why it takes a special kind to do it. It's very easy to give lip service to the maxim that it's better to let 1000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent people go to jail, but it's much harder to do it on a day-to-day basis.


Quote:
If your a prosecutor and you have been given a murder case by the district attorney to prosecute. If during the trial you come accross a piece of evidence that might point to guilt, your job is to prosecute the defendant and find ways around that defense. If you succeed in your case, you potentially have prosecuted an innocent man and let a killer loose. No the only difference here is that technically you should of picked it up or you should asked the detectives more questions. But if you believe in the case or you detectives and the DA believe in the case, your more inclined to go guns blazing and prosecute the case and let the dust settle afterwards. Can you imagine how many prosecutors prosecuted cases simply because they were pressured to do so? If you boss the DA says prosecute, your essentially a foot soldier in an army!


Yes and no. Prosecutors, like all attorneys, are officers of the court, and cannot pursue cases they know are frivolous or not well-founded. Prosecutors have the additional duty to disclose all potentially exonerating evidence to the defense. Prosecutors can be and are disbarred and sanctioned for failure to do so.


Quote:
The whole court process is pretty much a refereed debate between two debators trying to convince 12 people that their right. Has nothing to do with morality or justice. Just a mental boxing match.
A lawyer can win cases for several things other than being correct.
a. The judge may be incompetent, biased, senile (insane-don't laugh! I've heard plenty of cases of this being true) apathetic.
b. One lawyer might just be more flamboyant, sexier or funnier than the other.
c. The jury consists or bored, biased or incompetent people that can't be that skilled since they couldn't come up with a good excuse to get out of jury duty.
d. Some archaic, indecipherable or ambiguous law torpedoes your case.
e. Witnesses or one side were awful public speakers, liars, time wasters or just couldn;t articulate what was rehearsed hours ago.
f. You detectives did not suceed in getting the correct evidence or finding the right witnesses needed to prove this point
g. Whether your client looks like Jamie Gumb from silence of the lambs. Or looks like your sweet old grandma baking cookies on a Sunday.


The Constitutional gives you the right a fair trial and counsel in criminal matters; it doesn't give you the right to good counsel or a perfect trial.

Then the constitution doesn;t give yoy the right to a fair trial or counsel, just the potential for one. Hence, unfair trials can and will happen.

Although attorneys have some blame too, from picking bad ones (the purpose of voir dire is to dump the bad ones) to poor presentation of a case that puts jurors to sleep.

1. There are only so many ways you can make forensic DNA analysis interesting. ultimately it requires some basic human listening techniques and comprehension. Apparently high school students are expected to know molecular biology....but somehow jurors are exonnerated from getting a basic concept of forensics down that my 12 year old can understand.:rolleyes:

2. It's not like they have crust of society that is available to choose from in juries. Any competent guy that you would want has probably come up with an excuse on how to get out of jury duty. Most lawyers just cross their fingers and prey that they find an okay mix.

The prerils and unpredictablity of the court process are why so many criminal procesutors and defenders opt not to go to courts and settle.

That's also why getting confessions and gathering damning evidence is so important for police detectives.

Law enforcement has all the advantages in the investigation.
In the trial process it becomes a crap shoot.






2.

Actually mastermind, I do agree with you on voir dire in that it is not always possible to dump the bad ones. It depends on where the trial is being held, how high profile the trial is, etc. I mean there are some instances where it simply is not possible to get all bad people off a jury. Yes voir dire gets rid of some of them but not always all of them. Almost always there are bad people that will make it to the final pool and slip through the challenges both sides get. Believe me I have seen more than a few instances of juror misconduct. There are some instances to where a change of venue is not granted when it should be granted. There are just some instances where the case is so high profile and so polarizing there is no way the majority of people in a given area could judge a person impartially.

Getting excused from jury duty is harder in many jurisdictions, at least here in Illinois, but yes, it is impossible to get all the bad jurors off, despite what the very expensive jury consultants will tell you.

And just FYI, Mastermind, criminal defense attorneys don't, as a whole, make very much money. A public defender starts at maybe $30-40K, and court-appointments pay maybe $50/hr, which is far below market rates. Getting paid by most criminal defendants is hit and miss. Big-shot white collar criminal defense attorneys at BigLaw can make a ton, but there's really no more than a handful of them around.

Guilty

I wanted so badly to believe that Timmy was innocent. The he was just a "loveable loser" type whose biggest crime was coming across indescribably poorly on television. But alas, no. It just doesn't add up.

Awsi Dooger had a great way of breaking down odds on events happening and I believe his approach on this segment is apt and applicable. The circumstantial evidence against Tim McClure, as well as his own admissions of erratic and bizarre behavior, his bombing the lie detector tests, and…yes…the way he paints himself into a corner when he speaks, I think they all add up to him being guilty of the murder of his mom.

A few questions/concerns:
1. Is the dated memo from the credit card company employee circumstantial evidence? If he were to go to trial is it admissible as evidence at all?
2. The whole “it makes no sense for him to do it, therefore he’s innocent” rationalization doesn’t wash with me. It relies too much on semiotics and reliance on predictability.
3. Was the murder weapon ever located?
4. For anyone born before 1985: aren’t you amazed at the things people could get away with before cell phones, DNA, & video cameras everywhere??

4. For anyone born before 1985: aren’t you amazed at the things people could get away with before cell phones, DNA, & video cameras everywhere??

What are you talking about? People still are getting away with crimes. Homicide departments clearance rates are worse today than they were pre-1985.

1. Cell phones? Your killer is not going to sit idly and just let you make call to the police. It also hasn;t stopped people from getting killed in their homes, where they have a phone more than readily available.

2. DNA. It will shock you how many murder scenes have no DNA present. Gun murders from a distance especially don;t leave DNA.

3. Video Cameras- just went through the projects in DC and Balto and saw a bunch of kids throwing stones at the security cameras laid out in the streets. Plus why should criminals worry about cameras, when they always had to worry about eyeball witnesses all the time in pre-1985.:rolleyes:

Hmm, I disagree with you on this one Mastermind. While it is true that homicide 'clearance' rates have dropped since 1985 you seem to assume all charged were guilty when as we all know that is not the case. While DNA certainly is not present at all scenes it is present more than cops and prosecutors want you to believe as DNA can prove innocence one way or another. I think the point that Corky was trying to make in regards to cell phones was NOT the offender letting the victim make a phone call via cell phone. Rather Corky was trying to make the point offenders even now seem to be oblivious to the fact that the towers can track in a relative distance where their cell phone is in relation to a crime scene at the time of a given crime. While this is not necessarily proof of guilt as phones can be stolen, picked up, etc, it certainly does not help a defendants cause.

To be honest, I feel Corky underestimates how much people get away with these days. That said, I will say prosecutors seem a lot more willing to try cases on nothing but conjecture which is disturbing and unconstitutional in my opinion as it does not even come close to meeting the burden of proof. However again that is just an opinion.

Hmm, I disagree with you on this one Mastermind. While it is true that homicide 'clearance' rates have dropped since 1985 you seem to assume all charged were guilty when as we all know that is not the case

That is offset by the number of homicides that are missing persons cases, and faked suicides, and jursidictional issues. Jurisdictional issues alone might make the homiced clearance rate even lower. How many murders that happened in the DC area got pushed to Prince Georges County and Northern Virginia by fudging the jurisdictional and border issues? How many murders and crimes in in the city of New York were not acreddited to the NYPD because they barely fit in New Jersey or NY state jursidictions.


Rather Corky was trying to make the point offenders even now seem to be oblivious to the fact that the towers can track in a relative distance where their cell phone is in relation to a crime scene at the time of a given crime

Aren't disposable cell phones destroying that capability?

Most "for-profit /for cause criminals" are using stolen and disposable cell phones.

To be honest, I feel Corky underestimates how much people get away with these days. That said, I will say prosecutors seem a lot more willing to try cases on nothing

All that being said, the majority of criminals are caught.
You committ a crime, your more likely to get caught that go free. That's been the case regardless of what time period you live in.

Just think about how easy it was too catch criminals in Victorian London. No miranda, looser court system, more empowered cops. :lol: The downside is that they probably arrested a lot of innocent people.:(

Hey Mastermind, yes the victorian London cops, kind of like an old fashioned version of the Chicago PD. You know, just go on a massive arrest sweep and hope the guilty person is among those arrested and if he does not confess just beat him until he does. Sadly this still goes on too often, particularly in Chicago which is so corrupt, well the state of Illinois in general is highly corrupt but Chicago is the worst of the worst. I could put a few other jurisdictions on my own personal crap list.

What are you talking about? People still are getting away with crimes.

No ****, Mastermind. That's not what I was getting at.

1. Cell phones? Your killer is not going to sit idly and just let you make call to the police. It also hasn;t stopped people from getting killed in their homes, where they have a phone more than readily available.



Yes cell phones. Especially in relation to the Tim McClure case. I know if I had been hanging out in Reno, perhaps a little tipsy while gambling, and I saw a 6'6" dude walking around with a mullet in a tux...I'M SNAPPING A PHOTO. Then...later...when the cops are trying to verify his alibi of is he where he says he is...or was he with his mom somehwere he says he wasn't...


2. DNA. It will shock you how many murder scenes have no DNA present. Gun murders from a distance especially don;t leave DNA.

And....your point is?? Is it really your contention that DNA has not helped the police and the prosecutors find, and exclude, criminals to an extent almost unimagineable just 25 years ago?



3. Video Cameras- just went through the projects in DC and Balto and saw a bunch of kids throwing stones at the security cameras laid out in the streets. Plus why should criminals worry about cameras, when they always had to worry about eyeball witnesses all the time in pre-1985.:rolleyes:

Yes...why would anyone worry about ATM cameras, traffic cameras, or video store cameras? Why would any criminal ever worry about a taped record of where they were at a particular time that their defense couldn't dispute, discredit, or intimidate? Do you ever watch First 48 or Forensic Files? So many times they not only can confirm or refute alibis, they can find suspects and have witnesses ID them when no mug shot exists in their records.



Jesus man. I was just making an offhand comment on how much technology has leapfrogged in the past 25 years. enabling prosecution of the guilty, and you took at as some sort of challenge. Why I don't know.


@kadrmas15: I probably do underestimate just how much people get away with, you're probably right about that. I will admit to being amazed sometimes when NONE of the above technology has been able to nab a bad guy. For example: I am floored that the EAR/ONS is still unidentified, or that that Drew Peterson guy was able to get rid of so many wives.

Also, since you usually explain things in an intelligent and well-supported mannor, support this opinion please: ...prosecutors seem a lot more willing to try cases on nothing but conjecture which is disturbing and unconstitutional in my opinion as it does not even come close to meeting the burden of proof.

Homicide departments clearance rates are worse today than they were pre-1985

Please cite your source. The murder rate has steadily declined in the past decade and in fact 2009 saw it plummet to a 36 year low so I hope whatever source you have isn't skewing the numbers.

Well, it is not that difficult to explain Corky. I mean, they (prosecutors) often try cases on nothing but conjecture. It is not supposed to be enough to suspect that a person did something or to even think that a person did something in order to convict them if you are on a jury. Not only that but at least in theory, a prosecutor if they are going file charges against a person they honestly have to believe that the person is responsible for what they are accused of.

Now granted, maybe a majority of the time the prosecutor really does believe they have the right person. I do not doubt this. However prosecutors more and more are trying weak, circumstantial cases that are not just a little circumstantial, they are ENTIRELY circumstantial. The problem with this approach and with circumstantial cases in general but particularly when the case is entirely circumstantial is that it is just too easy to twist and manipulate things to fit a prosecutor's 'theory' of what happened in a given case.

Now in terms of Drew Peterson, do I personally think he killed at least one of his wives? Yes. The difference there though, at least in the case of Wife no. 3 the one who 'drowned' in an empty bath tub was there evidence to prove that his wife did not drown. There was no water in her lungs, the bath tub was empty, she was beaten severely and I believe strangled to death. You have to remember too, Stacy was Drew's alibi, Drew the 49 year old cop at that time, was having an affair with Stacy who then was 17, going on 18 years old. You have to remember, Drew and his 3rd wife Kathleen while separated were not formally divorced. Her death was ruled an accidental drowning by a coroner's jury, one of the members of that jury was a retired cop who knew Drew Peterson and felt Drew was a 'good guy'. So basically Drew got full custody of he and wife no. 3's two sons being that his wife was dead, plus Drew collected on the life insurance because the death was ruled an accident. Now I believe the boys were officially the beneficiaries of the insurance money, not Drew, but because they were minor children, Drew got to oversee the money.

Now, to get more into this case briefly. Drew's alibi for why he could not have been present when wife no. 3 died, the woman who was his mistress at the time and went on to be wife no. 4 disappeared in 2008. Anyway, I think Stacy was going to divorce Drew, so I think that was part of his motive for getting rid of her, but another reason was that I think Drew was afraid Stacy would change her story and implicate him in his 3rd wife's death. So he decided to take the chance and get rid of her, figuring if he disposed of the body he would not be charged. I do not expect Drew to ever be charged with Stacy's death unless her body is found because there is no physical evidence to point towards a homicide.

But anyway, the one thing Drew did not count on was that Stacy had told her Pastor things in private counseling that while under old law it could not have been admitted but under a hearsay law passed in Illinois in 2007, hearsay from a dead person could be admitted as evidence if a person killed another person to prevent that person from testifying. I do think if Drew Peterson is convicted in this case that it will be overturned on appeal later as the Supreme Court reached a decision a couple years ago in Giles v. California that ruled that that kind of hearsay should not be admitted because it does not allow the person who said the hearsay to be cross examined by defense attorney's because the person is either dead or cannot be found.

I will get more into my opinions on this later. But if you have a specific question or questions Corky just ask and I will be happy to sure. What about my specific opinion do you want to know more about?

Corky I have seen those numbers too. Mastermind is actually right in the regard that homicide clearance rates are at the lowest levels ever. Or certainly the lowest they have been in decades. While it is true homicide fell to their lowest level since the mid 1980's, that does not mean that the total number of homicides and the number of cleared homicides are intertwined. They are in fact two very different things. Two very different statistics.

Corky I have seen those numbers too. Mastermind is actually right in the regard that homicide clearance rates are at the lowest levels ever. Or certainly the lowest they have been in decades. While it is true homicide fell to their lowest level since the mid 1980's, that does not mean that the total number of homicides and the number of cleared homicides are intertwined. They are in fact two very different things. Two very different statistics.


No doubt. However unscrupulous folks could base one statistic off of the other just to skew figures to fit their particular viewpoint.

Thanks for explaining what you meant.

Hey Corky sorry, I hope I did not come off as cocky because that is not how I meant to be. But I will get more into my prosecutor theories later if you are interested? I always like your questions and opinions.

Jesus man. I was just making an offhand comment on how much technology has leapfrogged in the past 25 years. enabling prosecution of the guilty, and you took at as some sort of challenge. Why I don't know

I think you need to read your own posts, more.

ease cite your source. The murder rate has steadily declined in the past decade and in fact 2009 saw it plummet to a 36 year low so I hope whatever source you have isn't skewing the numbers.

And yet, Camden, NJ, East St. Louis and Philadelphia have become blood baths.

National murder rates mean nothing,. You have to track the murder rate of a city from year to year to get an idea of how crime prevention is working.

No doubt. However unscrupulous folks could base one statistic off of the other just to skew figures to fit their particular viewpoint.

Thanks for explaining what you meant.

Sadly, the unscrupulous folks, tend to to be the police. When jobs are on the line and results matter, there are a myriad of ways you can make murders or violent crime not show up on the stats.

I should also point out that one of the things that makes crimes statistics so misleading is that if crime is high one year, it is naturally going to tend to be lower the next year.

1. The criminls that committed the crimes are usually caught and hence no longer able to do next years crimes.

2. Higher crime rates usually resolve in police being more active and potentially more succesfull. Hence also reducing the crime rate.

3. A person who killed his gilfriend and got away with it, is already satisified in doing the murder and may not feel the need to kill anyone else the next year. The drug lord that killed his competition this year, may have no need (or competition:lol: ) to deal with the next year.

4. Higher crime rates also lead to more vigilant civilians. People less likely to go visit ATMS, more likely to stay in, etc.

5. If a criminal sees a lot of police on the street a year later, he may just decide to wait it out a while (like the year after) for the police to die down and then resume his activities.

I would like to know on what basis McClure's case was dismissed WITH PREJUDICE despite the lack of even an attempt at a trial. Whose decision was it to dismiss it with prejudice? I don't know enough about what determines whether a case, pre-trial, is dismissed with or without prejudice.

I think the single biggest thing - among several - that is a problem for McClure is that credit card cancellation note. Presumably, notes kept by someone sitting at a call center are roughly in date order - i.e., notes are taken in the order in which calls are received. Therefore, I would imagine the note was found with a bunch of other stuff dated Friday, and had probably been kept in that order since it was taken. McClure can say it was Monday, but I'd give the odds on his telling the truth on that point at about 100 to 1.

I think the single biggest thing - among several - that is a problem for McClure is that credit card cancellation note. Presumably, notes kept by someone sitting at a call center are roughly in date order - i.e., notes are taken in the order in which calls are received. Therefore, I would imagine the note was found with a bunch of other stuff dated Friday, and had probably been kept in that order since it was taken.

1. Shouldn;t there be a phone record of when the call took place? Why hasn;t that record been found and used?

2. I'm assuming this was done before calls were recorded for quality assurance?

1. Shouldn;t there be a phone record of when the call took place? Why hasn;t that record been found and used?

2. I'm assuming this was done before calls were recorded for quality assurance?

Considering that this took place back in 1983, I'm pretty sure phone systems back then were a lot simpler compared to now. I highly doubt all phone calls were recorded back then.

Just weird that the wife wasn't talking here. Also another point is that Tim and his wife gambled after their wedding with their PARENTS. Would his wife's parents be able to verify that he was there all night and that he sent his mother off?

A lot of weird things here. Hard to pinpoint to be honest

Just weird that the wife wasn't talking here.

now that's an excellent point I haven't thought of. Really, why *didn't* we hear from the wife? Being that Tim claimed he was with her most of the night, she is a crucial part to his alibi. Perhaps she didn't interview quite as well as Tim, ROFL! I could only imagine what her interview would have been like.

The wife may be the extremely shy sort that didn't want to appear on camera. Generally, Stack would mention that someone wouldn't appear on camera during a certain segment. However, they usually reserved that (not always, but most of the time) when it was a law enforcement person or someone in authority who refused to appear.

The wife may be the extremely shy sort that didn't want to appear on camera. Generally, Stack would mention that someone wouldn't appear on camera during a certain segment. However, they usually reserved that (not always, but most of the time) when it was a law enforcement person or someone in authority who refused to appear.

Perhaps. But what about HER parents who were with her? Interview them.

Another thing and this makes me think Tim is either naive or guilty and I can't decide. He checks the parking lots of the Casinos for his mother's car. All but the one she was found in! If this is true, and he is guilty why even admit that to the cops? See what I mean? Either naive and innocent, or guilty and just gave the cops more ammunition.

But $5000 for a mother that you love? Man oh man is that a weak motive for murder. $5000 in 1983 was still not a lot of money.

I'd like to examine the relationship with Tim's wife and mother. Let's face it, a mother in-law/wife relationship is the worst possible one in the world. No relationship is worse off in general. A man has killed for his wife before. But his mother? Worth looking into

Perhaps. But what about HER parents who were with her? Interview them.

Another thing and this makes me think Tim is either naive or guilty and I can't decide. He checks the parking lots of the Casinos for his mother's car. All but the one she was found in! If this is true, and he is guilty why even admit that to the cops? See what I mean? Either naive and innocent, or guilty and just gave the cops more ammunition.

But $5000 for a mother that you love? Man oh man is that a weak motive for murder. $5000 in 1983 was still not a lot of money.

I'd like to examine the relationship with Tim's wife and mother. Let's face it, a mother in-law/wife relationship is the worst possible one in the world. No relationship is worse off in general. A man has killed for his wife before. But his mother? Worth looking into

Some might think it is a lot of money. There have been cases where people have been killed for a lot less then this. Yes he loved his mother & was close to her but people can surprise ya.

Some interesting comments about the wife not being interviewed. That left me scratching my head too. I always wondered if McClure's bride in the re-enactment was his actual wife, or an actress. I would guess the latter.

In the end, would it really matter though? I mean, is there anything the wife could have said that would have changed matters? I would imagine her statements would be extremely similar to McClure's. And that includes all the bad stuff about the failing the lie detector test and what not.

I mean, is there anything the wife could have said that would have changed matters?

yes. who knows what she would have said.

I think the single biggest thing - among several - that is a problem for McClure is that credit card cancellation note. Presumably, notes kept by someone sitting at a call center are roughly in date order - i.e., notes are taken in the order in which calls are received. Therefore, I would imagine the note was found with a bunch of other stuff dated Friday, and had probably been kept in that order since it was taken. McClure can say it was Monday, but I'd give the odds on his telling the truth on that point at about 100 to 1.

I am also on the fence, but also believe that he may have been innocent.

[Credit card]

I can very easily believe the Credit Card issue.

There could easily be reasons why it was noted as Friday as a genuine mistake or on the other hand on purpose.

Back in 1983 Credit cards weren't as big business as they are now, it could simply be that someone made a note about it and bundled it with a bunch of other notes, for all we know the credit card people could also have been doing other jobs which were more important such as bank accounts or loans - then when they were doing their timekeeping or filling timesheets (or whatever they did) filled said call in on that day to pad out their timesheets.

It's not unusual for that to happen even today, except we have recordings and logs today but we wouldnt have had then. If managers don't (need to) check back on the logs for any reason no-one knows any different.

I mean, the employee said thats exactly how they remembered it "to the best of their recollection", but we never see that employee on camera and for all we know they could have been saying this to save their own butt from a frying and save their job.


[Lie detector test]

Strangely, the officer told him to sit back and close his eyes and had long pauses, maybe up to a minute between each question.

The suspect said he had never taken a test before and this was his first. No doubt you would be nervous at that.

To make it worse, you're considered a suspect.

And to add to that, you have your eyes closed, sitting back in a semi-relaxed state - almost instantly placing you in the realms of imagination and illusion - you can make a fantasy of whatever you want. Get asked a lot of questions about murder and with your eyes closed if someone feeds you enough details you can almost fantasize that you were the one who did it even if you weren't.

[Murder Weapon]

I'm pretty sure that Unsolved Mysteries mentioned the mother had been shot, but never mentioned anything about ballistics tests or checking to see anything about the weapon. I think it may have said it was "small caliber" - but nothing more. Did they even bother making any check if Tim owned the gun that was used or even had any access to a weapon or had a license? Was it a personal weapon of the mothers? Why did they not investigate or make any mention of this angle?

Also, after another watching of the segment I looked more closely at the note the credit card controller had made.

The date is at the top, am guessing it's supposed to be 1-14-83.

But the number 4 is transcribed in such a poor manner you could easily mistake it for a 7 or even a 9.

So the date could easily be 1-17-83 or 1-19-83.

And if it's 1-17-83, it very easily fits with the correct version of events.


Another note, again it may be a mistake on UM's part - when they found the body of the mother and her car, they said that the keys were in the ignition and the car was locked. But the driver side window was rolled down. Could someone have fired shots in from outside the car?

I mean, the employee said thats exactly how they remembered it "to the best of their recollection", but we never see that employee on camera and for all we know they could have been saying this to save their own butt from a frying and save their job.

not actually. the employee said they were positive that it was Friday. I

not actually. the employee said they were positive that it was Friday. I


I agree with unidentified, wiseguy< and have posted those sentiments before in other threads. The person at the credit card company may have had certain quotas to meet (or anything) that would make them change a simple credit memo from the 17th to the 14th (or whatever the acse was). Calsl were not recorded then. Caller ID did not exist (at least not to the general public and most businesses) so checking phone logs would be fruitless. If the person at the credit card company misplaced the memo then went on vacation a few days and returned to (gasp!) suddenly find he/she forgot to process it, they could easily either mistake the date or intentionally put a fals date down to cover themselves. I understand the person at the credit card company said he/she was convinced the call was on Friday but if that person is covering up their mistake, they may lie (knowing the lie would never be detected). This case troubles me (not in a literal sense but it is one that makes me question more than most cases). I really can;t explain why I feel this way but something keep me from immediately blaming Tim McClure. I honestly don't think he killed his mother. As far as polygraphs, they are the best that police have to work with but they are far from being an exact science. Some friend in law enforcement (one is a former Maryland state policeman who toldd me the Frederick Police screwed themselves on the Tracy Kirkpatrick case by not immediately contacting the state police for help), said that person who is generally nervous by nature (as Tim McClure seems to be) would have ahard time passing a polygraph, no matter what questions are asked. Remember, too, that Tim realizes he is being questioned as a suspect. In the middle of the test, he could let his mind wander and worry how his answers will show up even if he is telling the truth. the same goes for his wife on the one infamous question she failed (she may panic and think "Oh no! They think Tim did it".

i think alot of people are conveniently writing off the failure of the lie detector test and the credit card thing too easily. But even if you can get past those, consider each other thing that makes Tim look guilty, you can put them in one of two categories.

1. Tim seems to know an awful lot about a crime he supposedly should know absolutely nothing about.

2. his alibi has lots of problems, everything from a HUGE gap to things that just don't make any sense.

pretty much everything else falls into one of those two categories. those are some pretty huge hurdles to overcome to believe Tim is innocent.

in order to believe Tim is innocent, you have to believe all of the following.

1. the lie detector was wrong.
2. the credit card person was wrong.
3. the police were wrong.
4. Tim has ESP or psychic abilities (knows where his mother would be found, knows her purse was stolen even before it was mentioned to him, knows she'll be found at a casino)
5. That nobody can recall seeing the 6'6 man with a mullet in a 8 hour block of time, or his wife for a 6 hour block of time is just a coincidence
6. Tim gambling by himself on his wedding night is not out of the ordinary.
7. Tim not being able to recall which dance halls they went to doesn't make him look suspicious

that's alot to overcome.

I think somebody phrased it accurately: Either Tim is guilty or he suffers from the worst luck of anyone on the planet.

Maybe i am drinking the Tim McClure koolaid but I believe this guy as ridiculous as his stories sound.

Maybe i am drinking the Tim McClure koolaid but I believe this guy as ridiculous as his stories sound.

He isn't a bright guy, I think we can all agree on this unanimously. Maybe a well intentioned man, but does not appear to be an overly bright man. There is also no motive and nothing that I remember would give him any reason to murder his mother other than the $5000 left to him for life insurance. In 1983, that wouldn't have even bought a new car. And to off your mother for that? Especially when by all accounts you had an unusually close relationship with her?

She could have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don't know why but this case is always what I thought of first hand. Like a random robbery or such.

I don't know about anyone else but to me 5K back in 1983 is a nice chunk of change.

Hell, 5k would be a nice chunk of change now!!! ;)

Not that I'm sure he did it, but one possible motive could be that they were TOO close. Perhaps it wasn't for the money, or because the mom disapproved of his new wife, maybe it was that Tim felt smothered by his mom, and that she was too needy. Maybe he felt that he wouldn't be able to truly move on with this new chapter in his life if his mom was still in the picture.

At first, I took he and his mom being close to be a sign of his innocence, but now I'm starting to wonder.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peachysquirt21
I don't know about anyone else but to me 5K back in 1983 is a nice chunk of change.

Hell, 5k would be a nice chunk of change now!!!

Mos def.

I don't know why so many people feel that 5K is not enough money to kill for.

We've seen people killed for much less money on UM.

If Tim had debts or needed cash right away, I could definitely see him rationalize murdering his mother as a necessary action.

in order to believe Tim is innocent, you have to believe all of the following.

1. the lie detector was wrong.
2. the credit card person was wrong.
3. the police were wrong.
4. Tim has ESP or psychic abilities (knows where his mother would be found, knows her purse was stolen even before it was mentioned to him, knows she'll be found at a casino)
5. That nobody can recall seeing the 6'6 man with a mullet in a 8 hour block of time, or his wife for a 6 hour block of time is just a coincidence
6. Tim gambling by himself on his wedding night is not out of the ordinary.
7. Tim not being able to recall which dance halls they went to doesn't make him look suspicious

that's alot to overcome.

I think somebody phrased it accurately: Either Tim is guilty or he suffers from the worst luck of anyone on the planet.

I concur. In order to believe Tim is innocent you have to believe there is some mass conspiracy to frame him for the murder. I mean how else could a credit card person lie intentionally.:rolleyes:

I'm in the minority that thinks Tim McClure did not kill his mother. I just don't think, given his close relationship with his mother, he would kill her for $5000. Lets also remember that Tim is the one who contacted UM and wanted them to profile her case. If he killed her and did that it wouldn't make much sense as the police at the time didn't have any evidence against him and he knew UM would undoubtedly research the case and if they found out any new info it could possibly land him in jail. I think he called UM because he was genuinely grief stricken at his mother's death and wanted her killer found.

. Lets also remember that Tim is the one who contacted UM and wanted them to profile her case.

I think the reason Tim did this was to see if they could find someone that saw him and could provide an alibi.

I think UM was being used to fish for an alibi. They could easily find

1.some attention grabber who will lie outright or someone that
2. A faulty witness who is easily influenced by the defense.
3. A person who let's the segment influence him and make them believe they witnessed someone they really didn;t
4. A witness that saw someone who vaguely looked like Tim and know thinks he saw Tim.

I think this case is an example of how UM could be used to aid criminals rather than hunt them.

mastermind the evidence on paper makes this guy seem guilty as hell but how do you feel once watching him speak? Maybe he can fool crystal and me I dont know, but he was one of the few main suspects i actually believed on this show.

hell but how do you feel once watching him speak?

I'd be lying to you if I felt he didn't seem and act guilty.

But it really means nothing. I feel there is much more circumstantial evidence to point to Tim McClure being the primary suspect.

I don't know why so many people feel that 5K is not enough money to kill for.

We've seen people killed for much less money on UM.



Of course it is. But $5,000 is what someone would kill for if you were Matthew Chase and killed by (presumably) a stranger. Heck, a stranger might kill you for $50. But your own mother? The guy just screams to me to not be a bright guy, perhaps a little naive. Smart people who are innocent don't set themselves up to be wrongfully accused. Tim is not a bright bulb. He seems like he would be a clumsy murderer who would leave a trail right behind him.

He seems like he would be a clumsy murderer who would leave a trail right behind him.

??? IMO he did just that.

Take out Tim McClure the goofy hard-luck guy…imagine all of the following, and what would you think, about a case in which:

The suspect has no verifiable alibi and said alibi takes place in a crowded building over an extended period of time
The suspect makes a point to say he stayed away from the actual place the victim was found in the period of time after the murder yet before the body was found
The suspect allegedly referred to the victims murder before it happened
The suspect allegedly goes out to look for the victims purse when no one had yet known there was a missing victim
The suspect stands to gain financially from the victim’s death
The suspect and the suspect’s wife both bomb their lie detector test
The suspect insinuates himself into the investigation

Any other case I would see all of that circumstantial evidence and IMMEDIATELY assume guilt. So even though I think Tim McClure was probably a good person 99.9% of his life, I do think there is enough circumstantial evidence to assume for .1% of his life he committed a horrible crime.

As for his motivations….no matter how little of an amount people think $5K is, it’s still a valid motive. I think he contacted UM out of guilt, that he is a good person and there’s a part of him deep down that needs to be caught and punished. But that’s all conjecture.

To me he went out of his way to prove he had nothing to do with this & have a rock solid alibi. IMO he failed. In the segment all that was important was having an alibi when his mother was murdered. He did not seem to concerned in finding who done this to his mother.

Yeah who could murder there own mother over anything but it does happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
I don't know why so many people feel that 5K is not enough money to kill for.

We've seen people killed for much less money on UM.


Of course it is. But $5,000 is what someone would kill for if you were Matthew Chase and killed by (presumably) a stranger. Heck, a stranger might kill you for $50. But your own mother?

1. Desperation is a powerful motive. If your desparate enough you could probably rationalize killing your own child.

2. Maybe Tim had an addiction that needed feeding.

3. Why not kill your mother? It's not like she's a young lady? she's old and probably would die of some horrible ailment at some point. Plus she would now be with her loved ones that passed away in heaven? Plus I'm sure she would understand why she needs to be killed. In fact she may have agreed with it. Besides Tim might not be all that sold on the "god"-thing, so it' not like he's going to hell for killing his mother.
(the above is how a killer in his mind rationalizes why to committ premeditated murder.)

4. Lastly, Tim may not be the brightest guy in the world.

To me he went out of his way to prove he had nothing to do with this & have a rock solid alibi. IMO he failed. In the segment all that was important was having an alibi when his mother was murdered. He did not seem to concerned in finding who done this to his mother.

My point exactly. He was more interested in clearing himself than finding his mother's killer.

Speaking of addiction, Tim mentioned that he went gambling with his mother. He could very well been addicted to gambling & needed money. It does sound crazy to murder your own mother over something like this but I have seen addicts that will do whatever means necessary to feed there addiction.

I am very much on the fence on this one. I can see both sides. That being said here's another theory. What if Tim did not kill his mother but knows who did but is too afraid or feels to much guilt to come forward. What if Tim did have a gamblig problem. What if becuase of this gambling problem he became involved with some not so nice people to whom he owed a lot of money. Maybe they killed his mother as a message to him. This would explain why he knows she is already dead. It may also explain why he is acting like he does during the segement. Maybe he he was acting scared and or feeling guilty that his actions lead to his mothers death. This would also explain why he appears more interested in clearing his name then finding out who in fact killed her. This just a thought. I may be way of base here but I just thought I'd share.

What if Tim did not kill his mother but knows who did but is too afraid or feels to much guilt to come forward.What if becuase of this gambling problem he became involved with some not so nice people to whom he owed a lot of money

1. I would think the possibility of facing life in prison would override any fear or guilt..but maybe that's just me.

2. I don;t think threatening to kill someone's elderly mother is very effective terror tactic for a shyster or dealer. Wouldn't threatening his wife be more effective?

3. He;s already gone on TV...these guys can;t be too happy about that.

4. Why would he not be an accessory to murder?

5. Why didn;t they steal the car? The car would provide some payment and they would still charge interest on Tim.

5. More importantly...if he owes someone money....wouldn't that be motive enough for Tim to murder his mother for that insurance money. Insurance money that could pay said debt?

I am very much on the fence on this one. I can see both sides. That being said here's another theory. What if Tim did not kill his mother but knows who did but is too afraid or feels to much guilt to come forward. What if Tim did have a gamblig problem. What if becuase of this gambling problem he became involved with some not so nice people to whom he owed a lot of money. Maybe they killed his mother as a message to him. This would explain why he knows she is already dead. It may also explain why he is acting like he does during the segement. Maybe he he was acting scared and or feeling guilty that his actions lead to his mothers death. This would also explain why he appears more interested in clearing his name then finding out who in fact killed her. This just a thought. I may be way of base here but I just thought I'd share.

Hmmm, could be. Nice theory. A possibility for sure, food for thought.

By the way Mastermind you were questioning it. I can understand why you mentioned why the killers wouldn't target his wife over his mother. Well, in the UM segment it was common knowledge he was close to his mother. The thugs might know that. A lot of this theory makes sense as to why he knows what he does yet still seems innocent to some degree

By the way Mastermind you were questioning it. I can understand why you mentioned why the killers wouldn't target his wife over his mother. Well, in the UM segment it was common knowledge he was close to his mother. The thugs might know that. A lot of this theory makes sense as to why he knows what he does yet still seems innocent to some degree

By killing the mother it assumes that final collection has passed due. That's usually when shysters decide that murder is necessary. They figure they aren't getting there money back and it's time to have a visable sign of what happens if you don;t pay in a timely manner.

But before that point...the thing that usually happens is they attack the person with the debt. Physical retribution in the manner of beating up Tim McClure constantly.

If Tim McClure was passed due. Why was there no physical signs of assault on Tim. No sories of a bunch of guys threatening or destroying his property?

being that Tim was supposedly such a mama's boy, you think he would make some plea to find the "real killers", yet we never get that from him. Instead, he just wants his name cleared.

Was just thinking about Tim McClure this morning.

His mother was murdered on Friday, January 14, 1983.

His story aired on UM on April 5, 1989, and Stack mentioned that McClure contacted UM "six months ago". So, McClure was trying to get on the show as early as October 1988.

The show didn't air until six years after Terri McClure's death.

It's obvious the police believed that McClure was guilty. What I'm wondering is...would the police have badgered McClure for all those years?

If anyone in law enforcement or with a similar background (Mastermind, perhaps?) could comment, I would appreciate it.

I'm just trying to get a sense of what his life was like for those years, living "under suspicion". Would the police have hounded him non-stop in an attempt to get him to come in, voluntarily, for further interrogation?

I would imagine he lawyered up eventually, but who knows?

Take out Tim McClure the goofy hard-luck guy…imagine all of the following, and what would you think, about a case in which:

The suspect has no verifiable alibi and said alibi takes place in a crowded building over an extended period of time
The suspect makes a point to say he stayed away from the actual place the victim was found in the period of time after the murder yet before the body was found
The suspect allegedly referred to the victims murder before it happened
The suspect allegedly goes out to look for the victims purse when no one had yet known there was a missing victim
The suspect stands to gain financially from the victim’s death
The suspect and the suspect’s wife both bomb their lie detector test
The suspect insinuates himself into the investigation

Any other case I would see all of that circumstantial evidence and IMMEDIATELY assume guilt. So even though I think Tim McClure was probably a good person 99.9% of his life, I do think there is enough circumstantial evidence to assume for .1% of his life he committed a horrible crime.

As for his motivations….no matter how little of an amount people think $5K is, it’s still a valid motive. I think he contacted UM out of guilt, that he is a good person and there’s a part of him deep down that needs to be caught and punished. But that’s all conjecture.

This.


There have been a number of cases on UM in which the main party appears to be the responsible one, yet he/she expresses his/her desire (whether feigned or actual) to find "the real" guilty party. As it's been said, not once did Tim McClure do this in the segment. His only interest was in finding someone to substantiate his alibi.

I remember this case, but not the details. Was the guy just so naive that he thought going on a popular tv show would be the proper way to clear his name?

Five years of being suspected would have been extremely difficult. Maybe he felt that after all that time had gone by the chances of finding the real killer would be nearly impossible, and that at least if he went on TV, he could tell his side of the story, which he hoped would convince the police to no longer treat him like a suspect.

Maybe he was stressed out and desperate and had accepted that the murder may go unpunished forever so his focus was on getting the police to leave him alone rather than an appeal to find the real killer.

Did the police call him in for interviews repeatedly, over the years, or was he just questioned during the initial investigation? I wonder if he was desperate to get on with his life, didn't have any idea how to do that, and thought UM would be the way to get his life back to normal.

Of course, if he's guilty, he may have been arrogant enough to think that he could con the police *and* the public by appearing on TV.

Did he come across as sincere during in his UM interview? Did it seem like he was trying to clear his name with the police or was he just trying to change public opinion so his neighbors would quit whispering? I can't recall what it seemed like his motivation was.

If there was one word in the English language I would use to describe Tim McClure...


Of course, if he's guilty, he may have been arrogant enough to think that he could con the police *and* the public by appearing on TV.



...arrogant would most definitely NOT be that word.

lol Maybe whimpy would be the one word?

The one word would be...befuddled.

Timmy seems perpetually confused. When he describes himself failing the lie detetctor test. Him reenacting his look through the parking lot. I may have mentioned it before but I absolutely love his big pink sweater he's wearing because I just know in my heart of hearts that was a white sweater before he washed it with the red turtleneck he's wearing underneath it...but my main man Timmy wore it anyway.

Since seeing the original broadcast, I've always thought Tim was innocent. The fact that he was arrested 10 years later (or so), with the DA dismissing the case "with prejudice" is pretty damning against him possibly having anything to do with his mother's murder. In order for a DA to dismiss a vicious murder case "with prejudice" (therefore barring them from ever presenting the case again) against a suspect where a body is accounted for, they (probably) conclude that no substantial evidence against the suspect will ever be found. Otherwise, they would just dismiss it "without prejudice".

In my opinion, this indicates to me that, even after 10 years, all the sheriff's office had on Tim was a weak circumstancial case, and went ahead and arrested him anyway as they had no other suspects. The district attorney probably considered the case brought against Tim to be in bad faith or out of desperation, and also felt it to be extremely weak, and therefore felt the need to add the prejudice caveat.

I personally didn't find any compelling circumstantial evidence presented in the segment, nor did it make sense to me that he would have committed the murder from a logistics or motive standpoint.

P.S. I'm glad that he shaved that mullet off before appearing on the segment. Nobody needs that much party in the back. Nobody.

In my opinion, this indicates to me that, even after 10 years, all the sheriff's office had on Tim was a weak circumstancial case, and went ahead and arrested him anyway as they had no other suspects.

Some time ago, Wiseguy found a couple of articles online indicating that McClure was arrested after a repeat of the Unsolved Mysteries story generated some new leads. Unfortunately, the available articles don't say what the new information was...

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

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

Some time ago, Wiseguy found a couple of articles online indicating that McClure was arrested after a repeat of the Unsolved Mysteries story generated some new leads. Unfortunately, the available articles don't say what the new information was...

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

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

Cool. I'll check those out. Whatever the new leads were, they were still (presumably) considered not worthy enough to bring him to trial over (or ever). Of course, my summation was just based on what was in the segment. However, I gotta think, if new solid circumstantial or physical evidence had been found, the case would not have been thrown out "with prejudice", assuming basic competency. Also...awesome Cash avatar!

Cool. I'll check those out. Whatever the new leads were, they were still (presumably) considered not worthy enough to bring him to trial over (or ever). Of course, my summation was just based on what was in the segment. However, I gotta think, if new solid circumstantial or physical evidence had been found, the case would not have been thrown out "with prejudice", assuming basic competency. Also...awesome Cash avatar!

I noticed that Stack mentioned that the case was sent to the DA back in 1983 and they decided not to prosecute McClure.

As we all know, McClure was arrested in late '92 and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Could it be that the DA decided to dismiss with prejudice the second time because this case had already come into their office once before and was deemed insufficient?

I suppose my question is...how many times can a case be sent to the DA for review and be dismissed or not prosecuted before they finally dismiss with prejudice? Is there even a cap?

Thanks for the compliment on the new avatar, btw. :)

I noticed that Stack mentioned that the case was sent to the DA back in 1983 and they decided not to prosecute McClure.

As we all know, McClure was arrested in late '92 and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Could it be that the DA decided to dismiss with prejudice the second time because this case had already come into their office once before and was deemed insufficient?

I suppose my question is...how many times can a case be sent to the DA for review and be dismissed or not prosecuted before they finally dismiss with prejudice? Is there even a cap?

Thanks for the compliment on the new avatar, btw. :)

I don't think there's technically a cap (I could be wrong), but if a case was already dismissed by the DA and brought again, the new evidence better be substantial. I'm sure the prior dismissal from 1983 played a big part in the decision of the DA to eventually dismiss with prejudice, but it wasn't the only factor.

OK, if one refuses to believe that Tim McClure or his wife had anything to do with her murder, who else could have done it and what might their motives have been? Has law enforcement even considered other suspects?

OK, if one refuses to believe that Tim McClure or his wife had anything to do with her murder, who else could have done it and what might their motives have been? Has law enforcement even considered other suspects?

It has been proposed that it could have been a robbery gone bad. Her purse was missing.

If we assume this scenario is correct, the killer would be pretty difficult to find, as there is no relationship with the victim.

Since most murders are committed by someone close to the victim, it's not surprising that the cops focused on Tim McClure from the start.

It has been proposed that it could have been a robbery gone bad. Her purse was missing.

If we assume this scenario is correct, the killer would be pretty difficult to find, as there is no relationship with the victim.

Since most murders are committed by someone close to the victim, it's not surprising that the cops focused on Tim McClure from the start.

I suppose a botched robbery by a random stranger would be a sufficient motive - if one didn't think it was possible for Tim McClure and/or his wife to have had anything to do with it. However; I've posted earlier in this thread why their alibis didn't make sense to me. Regardless, I do hope that whoever did this heinous crime DOES get brought to justice in this world.

I suppose a botched robbery by a random stranger would be a sufficient motive - if one didn't think it was possible for Tim McClure and/or his wife to have had anything to do with it. However; I've posted earlier in this thread why their alibis didn't make sense to me. Regardless, I do hope that whoever did this heinous crime DOES get brought to justice in this world.

The alibi (or lack thereof) is certainly bizarre. On the other hand, I tend to think that if they can't remember the specific clubs/bars they went to, it is because they were probably intoxicated. For what it's worth, I got married in Vegas (kinda like McClure) and that whole week was one giant party with my family, her family and all of our friends.

Also, I think it's strange that their alibi is basically "we went bar/club hopping but can't remember where".

At first glance, that seems extremely suspicious. However, considering it was their wedding night (and assuming for the sake of argument that he's guilty) he could have just as easily said they retired early to their hotel, which would not have been suspicious under the circumstances. No need for him to elaborate further on that, and there would have been no witnesses.

Why then would McClure invent an alibi that involves being seen in public, when it would be so easy for the cops to shoot holes in that story?

Why then would McClure invent an alibi that involves being seen in public, when it would be so easy for the cops to shoot holes in that story?

I tend to think it's because he thinks--in some strange way--it will lend to his credibility. I could see his logic following the lines of "I have nothing to hide and/or wasn't engaged in shady business at the time, so of course I was out in public. There can be no question, as I'm so ready to admit someone probably remembers seeing me."

As for not being able to recall what establishments he and his wife patronized I have no ready answer, except that McClure, to this individual, doesn't appear to be particularly clever or thorough at concocting stories.

Why then would McClure invent an alibi that involves being seen in public, when it would be so easy for the cops to shoot holes in that story?

But that's just it though. Tim is surprised that he is even considered a suspect. I think his words were something to the effect of "you should be investigating other people instead of looking at me as a suspect, which is what I found out they were doing." That's pretty remarkable on Tim's part. He doesn't even think the police should be investigating him at all. He finds it totally incomprehensible that he even is forced to answer questions about what happened. And even if the police didn't think Tim did it, they are still likely to ask him questions about it to get an idea of Terri's life, routine, etc. I think that Tim thought he would just park his mother's car by a casino to make it look like she was killed during a robbery (and even stole and got rid of her purse), that the police would figure that, and that would be that.

I have been extremely busy with work and trades and haven't been able to post much lately, but I will always make time for Tim McClure. :lol:

Seemed like a nice guy to me.

did anyone else think it was weird that Tim would publicly acknowledge that he failed the lie detector tests? That seems really odd to me (not that anything Tim did made sense, LOL!) The only people that really now for sure whether he failed or not would be the person who issued it, and I'm sure law enforcement was informed about it. Why would Tim acknowledge he failed when he didn't see the results? It's almost as if he admitted that he lied during the test.

did anyone else think it was weird that Tim would publicly acknowledge that he failed the lie detector tests? That seems really odd to me (not that anything Tim did made sense, LOL!) The only people that really now for sure whether he failed or not would be the person who issued it, and I'm sure law enforcement was informed about it. Why would Tim acknowledge he failed when he didn't see the results? It's almost as if he admitted that he lied during the test.

Because if he hadn't, then UM's researchers would have asked law enforcement officials, who would have confirmed that McClure failed? And he would look worse either NOT mentioning that he had taken the test at all - like he had something to hide - or lying about the test itself and claiming he had passed when he hadn't?

Why would you assume Tim hadn't seen or heard about the results?

Why would you assume Tim hadn't seen or heard about the results?

well, the segment said his eyes were closed during the test. I'm guessing that's why?

well, the segment said his eyes were closed during the test. I'm guessing that's why?

I'm sure they told him if he passed or not once it was over...

well, I guess I should clarify what I'm getting at.

most people when they fail a lie detector test, will usually say that it was wrong or the test was not an accurate measure of truth, or something like that. But Tim doesn't do that, instead he claims that the test wasn't administered properly, because they made him close his eyes, and the questions were a minute apart. Admittedly, that does seem a little unusual, but I'm not sure any nefarious conclusions could be drawn from it. In other words, I'm not sure how making him close his eyes and asking him questions a minute apart could be linked together with the test not being administered properly, or forcing him to fail the test.

well, I guess I should clarify what I'm getting at.

most people when they fail a lie detector test, will usually say that it was wrong or the test was not an accurate measure of truth, or something like that. But Tim doesn't do that, instead he claims that the test wasn't administered properly, because they made him close his eyes, and the questions were a minute apart. Admittedly, that does seem a little unusual, but I'm not sure any nefarious conclusions could be drawn from it. In other words, I'm not sure how making him close his eyes and asking him questions a minute apart could be linked together with the test not being administered properly, or forcing him to fail the test.

Just like any other test, if it's not done or administered properly, then the results are garbage. McClure's point was simply that 'yeah i failed, anyone would, because they didn't give me the test right' He's saying the exact same thing you claim "most people" would say.

Just like any other test, if it's not done or administered properly, then the results are garbage. McClure's point was simply that 'yeah i failed, anyone would, because they didn't give me the test right' He's saying the exact same thing you claim "most people" would say.

I wonder what he would've said had the test been administered properly (assuming it wasn't) and he'd received the same results. His golly-gee explanation of "yeah, strangely enough, I flunked the test" wouldn't have had any hard basis.

Are any of us even sure that the closing of one's eyes or the administrator waiting a minute between questions isn't a deviation from the standard? I've never had to take a polygraph.

I wonder what he would've said had the test been administered properly (assuming it wasn't) and he'd received the same results. His golly-gee explanation of "yeah, strangely enough, I flunked the test" wouldn't have had any hard basis.

Are any of us even sure that the closing of one's eyes or the administrator waiting a minute between questions isn't a deviation from the standard? I've never had to take a polygraph.

I suspect it would be, given the stress reactions the test claims to measure, however, I am not an expert on such matters.

Regardless, polygraphs are unreliable enough that his failing (or passing) really isn't determinative of anything.

Regardless, polygraphs are unreliable enough that his failing (or passing) really isn't determinative of anything.

Exactly.

RE: Polygraphs

Aren't they completely subjective? I thought that the machine's results are always "read" by the examiner who then determines if deception is indicated.

I don't know anything more than what I've read about them. I thought that the proper way to conduct it is to tell the subject all the questions beforehand so there are no surprises, ask ordinary questions like is your name TracyLynnS to determine a baseline of truth, and to ask only questions with a Yes or No answer.

RE: Polygraphs

Aren't they completely subjective? I thought that the machine's results are always "read" by the examiner who then determines if deception is indicated.

I don't know anything more than what I've read about them. I thought that the proper way to conduct it is to tell the subject all the questions beforehand so there are no surprises, ask ordinary questions like is your name TracyLynnS to determine a baseline of truth, and to ask only questions with a Yes or No answer.

Interpretation is somewhat subjective, yes, but there are standard procedures for administering the test.

Just like any other test, if it's not done or administered properly, then the results are garbage. McClure's point was simply that 'yeah i failed, anyone would, because they didn't give me the test right' He's saying the exact same thing you claim "most people" would say.

that's not what I was saying.

So egswanso, do you have any explanation as to how making the subject close his eyes and asking questions a minute apart can be classified as the test not being administered properly?

that's not what I was saying.

So egswanso, do you have any explanation as to how making the subject close his eyes and asking questions a minute apart can be classified as the test not being administered properly?

Sure. Like I said, I'm no expert, but the polygraph measures a few things: breathing patterns, pulse and heart rate, sweating. Making a subject close their eyes is going to effect these: maybe closing their eyes make them relax, maybe it freaks them out because they can't see: either would mess up the baseline and thus mess up results.

Even more so if the time between questions isn't consistent - you're giving the subject time to worry, time to think, time to meditate, time to panic, etc. It's all going to effect the reactions the test measures.

Of course, like I said before, I'm certainly no expert on the tests, and they are inaccurate enough to meaningless anyway. Even if the test was properly administered, it neither confirms or denies his story.

did anyone else think it was weird that Tim and his wife didn't, you know, have sex on their wedding night. What couple doesn't do it on their wedding night?

did anyone else think it was weird that Tim and his wife didn't, you know, have sex on their wedding night. What couple doesn't do it on their wedding night?

I've known couples that didn't have sex on their wedding night because they were too intoxicated/tired. And I don't think that was ever acknowledged that they didn't have sex. As for Tim and his wife splitting up for two hours I can honestly see how this is plausible in a casino atmosphere. My wife and I went to a casino for a day on our honeymoon and she got up to play a specific machine but I stayed on mine because I was "winning" (that is not losing everything in a matter of seconds)...then when I finally blew the twenty I put in the machine I got up to find her and couldn't...so I plopped down at another machine and the same thing happened, the twenty I put in lasted about 35 minutes and then after that I got up and found her and didn't know that the whole time she was looking for me! So it is very easy to be separated from one another in a casino. I'm assuming closing ones eyes during a polygraph isn't standard procedure or else they wouldn't have mentioned it during the segment. There's also the bit about Tim saying he felt "victimized"...I could see how someone who wants police to go find their mother's killer feels victimized after they start looking in their direction (if they're truely innocent of course). If McClure is innocent and police zeroed in on him then that would surely leave a bitter taste in his mouth knowing that the odds of finding the real killer are slowly dropping.

The credit card call could be considered suspect, but its hardly enough evidence to convict a man for the murder of his mother. It's just as likely that the clerk wrote the wrong date down as it is that Tim did in fact call that Friday. And as mentioned before where did Tim get the murder weapon? I'm sure law enforcement checked into his background to see if he owned a gun and if Tim didn't own one how did he come up with one on his wedding night? And why would he seek a gun on his wedding night? To kill his mother when at least three other people (his wife and her parents) knew he was the last person seen alive with her? This throws out the whole "heat of the moment" in an argument with his mother scenario as well. If that were true, police surely would have found that he owned a gun and would have ran ballistics, etc. to see if said gun was the one used in his mothers murder. So it's safe to say that McClure didn't own a gun which IMO is the biggest factor in establishing his innocence. He did come across as a bit off-kilter in the segment but the missing purse kind of makes me think this was a robbery gone bad. If it were a setup to look like a robbery I think whoever did it would have removed her jewelery as well.

I'm leaning towards him being Innocent as well. A big part of that for me is that HE HIMSELF called Unsolved Mysteries. Why would he want to draw more attention to the case if he is the killer? That just seems dumb to me. For all he knew, assuming he was the killer, someone watching could've seen him do it, and then he would've ended up screwing himself by getting the case on the show.

Simply put, it would've been way too risky to call Unsolved Mysteries if he was guilty. However, it could still end up doing him a world of good if he is innocent. You never know, someone who watches it on youtube or something may just have seen something.

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 just thought about another good point in supporting McClure's innocence. If he did in fact kill his mother, be it a planned murder or a heat of the moment type murder, he still would have had plenty of time to move her car/dispose of her body. And we have three people that know for certain that the last person seen alive with his mother was Tim, so it seems like a no brainer that if he killed his mom in the parking lot, common sense would be to hide the car and her body. Leaving it out in the open to be found just doesn't make any sense. And I know it's possible that maybe his wife would be hiding something to try and protect him, but do you think his in-laws would have kept quiet all these years if his story wasn't true? They seem like they would be the first to come out and dispute his story out of fear for their daughter.

I just thought about another good point in supporting McClure's innocence. If he did in fact kill his mother, be it a planned murder or a heat of the moment type murder, he still would have had plenty of time to move her car/dispose of her body. And we have three people that know for certain that the last person seen alive with his mother was Tim, so it seems like a no brainer that if he killed his mom in the parking lot, common sense would be to hide the car and her body. Leaving it out in the open to be found just doesn't make any sense. And I know it's possible that maybe his wife would be hiding something to try and protect him, but do you think his in-laws would have kept quiet all these years if his story wasn't true? They seem like they would be the first to come out and dispute his story out of fear for their daughter.

I always thought that Tim drove the car to the casino to make it look like a robbery that culminated in murder. He probably figured the police would just chalk it up as a random perpetrator killed her during a robbery, and that would be the end of it. I think alot of his inability to sufficinetly explain his actions stems from that he figured the police would just think it was a robbery and wouldn't even look in his direction.

perhaps his wife's parents were deceased when they were married? segment doesn't mention.

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.

1-5. segment doesn't mention these things, but that's not to say these things don't exist. we don't know one way or another. You can't prove that the witnesses, videotape footage, evidence doesn't exist any more than I can prove they do exist.

6-7. yeah they did, insurance money.

8. not worthless.

9. you're assuming Tim didn't want the vehicle to be found quickly.

10. subjective.

1-5. segment doesn't mention these things, but that's not to say these things don't exist. we don't know one way or another. You can't prove that the witnesses, videotape footage, evidence doesn't exist any more than I can prove they do exist.

6-7. yeah they did, insurance money.

8. not worthless.

9. you're assuming Tim didn't want the vehicle to be found quickly.

10. subjective.

Let's see:

1-5 - As I stated, I'm from the Reno-area and I followed the case in both Reno Gazette-Journal and the Carson Appeal, two local papers as well as on KOLO and KRNV, two local TV channels.

The reason that this case was so difficult for the police to solve and the DA's office to prosecute, is that the evidence that they SHOULD have had (videos, witnesses,etc) didn't exist.

6-7 - $10,000 in insurance money? Really? He killed his mother for about the same amount money that it would take to bury her?

8) Why "not worthless?"

9) It wouldn't have benefited him for the vehicle to found sooner. In fact, had it been found later, his role in the murder would have been seen as even more tenuous than it was.

10) Possibly subjective, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Like I said, I followed the case when I lived in the local area. Since it was dismissed w/ prejudice against McClure, that means the DA's office (which didn't have to do it) can't seek to prosecute him again, even if evidence arises that he actually DID commit the crime.

It's rare that prosecutors do this as it may let a murderer go free. It usually reserved for cases that have been fouled up beyond repair or cases of actual innocence.Take your pick as to which this one is.

I always thought that Tim drove the car to the casino to make it look like a robbery that culminated in murder. He probably figured the police would just chalk it up as a random perpetrator killed her during a robbery, and that would be the end of it. I think alot of his inability to sufficinetly explain his actions stems from that he figured the police would just think it was a robbery and wouldn't even look in his direction.

perhaps his wife's parents were deceased when they were married? segment doesn't mention.

I'm pretty sure the segment mentioned his wife gambling with her parents while Tim was gambling by himself.

Let's see:

1-5 - As I stated, I'm from the Reno-area and I followed the case in both Reno Gazette-Journal and the Carson Appeal, two local papers as well as on KOLO and KRNV, two local TV channels.

The reason that this case was so difficult for the police to solve and the DA's office to prosecute, is that the evidence that they SHOULD have had (videos, witnesses,etc) didn't exist.

6-7 - $10,000 in insurance money? Really? He killed his mother for about the same amount money that it would take to bury her?

8) Why "not worthless?"

9) It wouldn't have benefited him for the vehicle to found sooner. In fact, had it been found later, his role in the murder would have been seen as even more tenuous than it was.

10) Possibly subjective, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Like I said, I followed the case when I lived in the local area. Since it was dismissed w/ prejudice against McClure, that means the DA's office (which didn't have to do it) can't seek to prosecute him again, even if evidence arises that he actually DID commit the crime.

It's rare that prosecutors do this as it may let a murderer go free. It usually reserved for cases that have been fouled up beyond repair or cases of actual innocence.Take your pick as to which this one is.

1-5. On the flip side of the coin, evidence that SHOULD exist to clear Tim McClure's name doesn't exist. He should have passed the lie detector tests, as should his wife. The credit memo should have said Monday. He was a 6'5 man with long hair and must have seen hundreds of people that night, yet NOBODY has come forward claiminig to have seen him.

6-7. You can do a funeral for 6k or less, that would leave him with at least 4k. Duane McCorkendale was killed for $25. Certainly plausible.

8. Why is the credit memo worthless? because you say it is? not sufficient. You have to give some proof, otherwise your statement is worthless. Somebody would really have to coked out their skull to write down the wrong day by not just one day, but 3 days!!!

9. As I said above, I think Tim's plan was to park the car at a casino and make it look like a robbery. Her purse was not in the car, so he probably did something with it to further that theory. I think he just figured they would find the car at a casino, conclude it was robbery, and leave it that.

10. still subjective.

1-5. On the flip side of the coin, evidence that SHOULD exist to clear Tim McClure's name doesn't exist. He should have passed the lie detector tests, as should his wife. The credit memo should have said Monday. He was a 6'5 man with long hair and must have seen hundreds of people that night, yet NOBODY has come forward claiminig to have seen him.

6-7. You can do a funeral for 6k or less, that would leave him with at least 4k. Duane McCorkendale was killed for $25. Certainly plausible.

8. Why is the credit memo worthless? because you say it is? not sufficient. You have to give some proof, otherwise your statement is worthless. Somebody would really have to coked out their skull to write down the wrong day by not just one day, but 3 days!!!

9. As I said above, I think Tim's plan was to park the car at a casino and make it look like a robbery. Her purse was not in the car, so he probably did something with it to further that theory. I think he just figured they would find the car at a casino, conclude it was robbery, and leave it that.

10. still subjective.

Sigh...

The DA's office of Carson City dismissed the case w/ prejudice, meaning that McClure can never be tried for it again, even if evidence arises confirming his "guilt" in this matter.That means that they either felt the entire case was mishandled to the point where a conviction was impossible or they realized that evidence pointed away from McClure being the killer.

Since they have far more information than was either a 10 minutes UM segment or that was printed in the newspaper, I have to say that they are the final arbiters of McClure's guilt or innocence. He's not in jail....so I guess we know what that means.

Sigh...

The DA's office of Carson City dismissed the case w/ prejudice, meaning that McClure can never be tried for it again, even if evidence arises confirming his "guilt" in this matter.That means that they either felt the entire case was mishandled to the point where a conviction was impossible or they realized that evidence pointed away from McClure being the killer.

Since they have far more information than was either a 10 minutes UM segment or that was printed in the newspaper, I have to say that they are the final arbiters of McClure's guilt or innocence. He's not in jail....so I guess we know what that means.

groans. i have read alot of your posts and most of them come across as confrontational.

in order for Tim McClure to be innocent, all of the following must be true.

1. the lie detector tests (both of them) must be wrong.
2. the lady at the credit card agency must be wrong.
3. Tim apparently has accurate psychic visions and can correctly predict where his mother's car will be found and that her purse is missing.
4. It's not suspicious that not a single person in the time block of EIGHT HOURS!!! out of literally hundreds of people that would have seen him can remember doing such.

not just one of those has to be true, but ALL OF THEM!!! How long are those odds? I would say astronomical.

Additionally, I can see being off by one day. But not 3. But that should have been easy to check out. If she were to write the wrong day, she would have been very likely to do the same with other documents, instead of just being wrong on this one particular document.

I also find it very strange that Tim cannot recall which dance halls he visited. Surely he could walk into a place and remember if he had been there or not.

Meh, his whole story just doesn't wash.

groans. i have read alot of your posts and most of them come across as confrontational.

in order for Tim McClure to be innocent, all of the following must be true.

1. the lie detector tests (both of them) must be wrong.
2. the lady at the credit card agency must be wrong.
3. Tim apparently has accurate psychic visions and can correctly predict where his mother's car will be found and that her purse is missing.
4. It's not suspicious that not a single person in the time block of EIGHT HOURS!!! out of literally hundreds of people that would have seen him can remember doing such.

not just one of those has to be true, but ALL OF THEM!!! How long are those odds? I would say astronomical.

Additionally, I can see being off by one day. But not 3. But that should have been easy to check out. If she were to write the wrong day, she would have been very likely to do the same with other documents, instead of just being wrong on this one particular document.

I also find it very strange that Tim cannot recall which dance halls he visited. Surely he could walk into a place and remember if he had been there or not.

Meh, his whole story just doesn't wash.

They aren't confrontational. They are well-thought out and researched. You may not recognize the difference.

And...again...this case is closed as far as McClure is concerned. You can speculate endlessly over the aspects of the case that "bug" you...but..again...the Carson DA's office (who doesn't make judgments based on watching UM segments) has reviewed the evidence presented to them.
They dropped the charges and made it impossible for him to be tried for this crime (and, I repeat) EVEN IF EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED SHOWING THAT HE DID COMMIT THE CRIME.

Now, they could have made a mistake doing this but I'm inclined to believe that they got this one right. Why? Because they looked at the evidence and either found a paucity of it or found that it didn't lead to McClure being the suspect. Instead of dismissing W/O prejudice and being able to bring charges against him if/when new evidence developed, they chose to completely end the case as far as McClure was concerned.

That's not speculation nor my subjective opinion;that's a legal fact.

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..

those are some pretty sweeping statements.

1. are you positive that:

a.) this particular casino had cameras.
b.) they had cameras in the area McClure would have been.
c.) the cameras were functioning properly

2. could have borrowed it or stole it. Just because he doesn't own a handgun doesn't mean he couldn't have used one.

3. If his fingerprints, or something else was discovered on the car, it doesn't automatically prove his guilt. He did walk her to her car, so it's likely he touched the car. I would imagine his fingerprints were on the car, but it wouldn't be unheard of for them to be there. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that he recently borrowed the car, or was riding in the car as a passenger, so it's likely there were fingerprints, DNA evidence that was his in the car, they just can't equate that with guilt.

4. So you are willing to conveniently gloss over the fact that nobody accounts for seeing the very distinctive looking McClure for an 8 hour block of time and his wife for a 6 hour block of time in busy well-lit places, yet you are quick to point out that there were no witnesses that came forward to seeing the murder, which would have been very brief, probably no more than a few minutes in a dark parking lot? AMAZING! Who is to say there would have even been witnesses? Whoever did this, be it McClure or whoever, most likely would have done the deed as quickly as possible and get out, not hanging around for more than a few minutes at most, and probably would have ensure there were no witnesses around.

5. see #1 above.

those are some pretty sweeping statements.

1. are you positive that:

a.) this particular casino had cameras.
b.) they had cameras in the area McClure would have been.
c.) the cameras were functioning properly

2. could have borrowed it or stole it. Just because he doesn't own a handgun doesn't mean he couldn't have used one.

3. If his fingerprints, or something else was discovered on the car, it doesn't automatically prove his guilt. He did walk her to her car, so it's likely he touched the car. I would imagine his fingerprints were on the car, but it wouldn't be unheard of for them to be there. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that he recently borrowed the car, or was riding in the car as a passenger, so it's likely there were fingerprints, DNA evidence that was his in the car, they just can't equate that with guilt.

4. So you are willing to conveniently gloss over the fact that nobody accounts for seeing the very distinctive looking McClure for an 8 hour block of time and his wife for a 6 hour block of time in busy well-lit places, yet you are quick to point out that there were no witnesses that came forward to seeing the murder, which would have been very brief, probably no more than a few minutes in a dark parking lot? AMAZING! Who is to say there would have even been witnesses? Whoever did this, be it McClure or whoever, most likely would have done the deed as quickly as possible and get out, not hanging around for more than a few minutes at most, and probably would have ensure there were no witnesses around.

5. see #1 above.

Let's see:

1) All Nevada casinos have have had video surveillance since the mid-1980's. It prevents cheating, fraudulent lawsuits by patrons and documents any attempts to rob the casino.

I have been to Ormsby House when it was open (where Mrs. McClure was found) so I know for a fact that they had video surveillance when they were open.

2-5) Irrelevant, McClure has been legally absolved of this crime. Endless speculation on how and why he "did it" end up where we are at now: That he has been legally cleared of involvement in this crime in a manner that proscribes future prosecution.

2-5) Irrelevant, McClure has been legally absolved of this crime. Endless speculation on how and why he "did it" end up where we are at now: That he has been legally cleared of involvement in this crime in a manner that proscribes future prosecution.

Well he may be legally cleared, but it's still interesting to debate as to whether or not he's morally/actually guilty. I still feel he's innocent, but the polygraph and the fact that he suggested looking for her purse cast some doubt on Tim's story. I forgot all about the purse part in the UM segment.

Well he may be legally cleared, but it's still interesting to debate as to whether or not he's morally/actually guilty. I still feel he's innocent, but the polygraph and the fact that he suggested looking for her purse cast some doubt on Tim's story. I forgot all about the purse part in the UM segment.

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.

As I have stated on here before, I think polygraph tests are useless. They can be defeated by a pathological liar, taking beta blockers and ultimately only can potentially "indicate" elements of what may be deception. It can't tell WHY someone is lying and would be worthless in a situation where the person is lying but believes what he/she is saying is the truth.

McClure was/is an odd man whose mother was killed. There's no telling how someone in his position would react to the situation. 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.

And given the amount time that has passed and the transient nature of life in Nevada, it's doubtful that the killer (if not McClure) will ever be caught.

I'm not saying he did or didn't do it, but i would never trust a guy with McClures haircut. That thing is ridiculous.

Has anyone thought of the idea that his mother was killed just randomly because she came out of a Casino? I would have to think that an elderly woman who would be defenseless would be a prime target in a parking lot for someone who may or may not have watched her win some money. If you believe that story then...................

......you could easily say McClure had a gut feeling - and only a gut feeling - not to check the one Casino parking lot and the credit card company made a legit error on the date of when Tim called to cancel the credit cards. To me Tim is a simpleton. He never seemed bright enough to pull off a murder. It really isn't that crazy to assume Tim is innocent.

Has anyone thought of the idea that his mother was killed just randomly because she came out of a Casino? I would have to think that an elderly woman who would be defenseless would be a prime target in a parking lot for someone who may or may not have watched her win some money. If you believe that story then...................

......you could easily say McClure had a gut feeling - and only a gut feeling - not to check the one Casino parking lot and the credit card company made a legit error on the date of when Tim called to cancel the credit cards. To me Tim is a simpleton. He never seemed bright enough to pull off a murder. It really isn't that crazy to assume Tim is innocent.

I never believed she was actually killed at the casino for these reasons.

1. why on Earth would she go to another casino when she could have continued gambling at the casino where her son and new daughter in law were at? Makes no sense. Wouldn't she want to be with her son on his wedding night?

2. I have a tough time believing nobody saw her dead in the car for the 3 days she was there. Additionally, and you have to pay close attention to this in the segment, but her car was not parked perfectly. In fact, it was rather askew and taking up several spots in the parking lot. Surely, somebody would have noticed that.

I believe she was killed elsewhere, and dropped off at the casino to make it look like a robbery gone bad. And if she was killed elsewhere, IMO, that makes Tim look guilty because how would he have known she was there?

3. How does Tim know she will be found at THIS casino? Did he get some psychic visions or divine act from God that told him she would be at this casino?

doesn't add up.

I never believed she was actually killed at the casino for these reasons.

1. why on Earth would she go to another casino when she could have continued gambling at the casino where her son and new daughter in law were at? Makes no sense. Wouldn't she want to be with her son on his wedding night?

2. I have a tough time believing nobody saw her dead in the car for the 3 days she was there. Additionally, and you have to pay close attention to this in the segment, but her car was not parked perfectly. In fact, it was rather askew and taking up several spots in the parking lot. Surely, somebody would have noticed that.

I believe she was killed elsewhere, and dropped off at the casino to make it look like a robbery gone bad. And if she was killed elsewhere, IMO, that makes Tim look guilty because how would he have known she was there?

3. How does Tim know she will be found at THIS casino? Did he get some psychic visions or divine act from God that told him she would be at this casino?

doesn't add up.

Good points. Now why would she leave the casino and go to another one? Maybe she didn't. Maybe she drove off and got followed and then killed. If you've ever been to a Casino you would know that for some ungodly reason the elderly seem to always win the big bucks. Maybe someone thought she had money and followed her and then killed her then put her body back.

The other thing would be that she wanted to leave her son alone on his wedding night. Okay, Tim isn't exactly Mr. Romance by spending it at a Casino but maybe his mother still thought they needed time alone.

I just don't think Tim is smart enough. I stand by the statement that he seemed like a simpleton. He wasn't very bright and was NOT cocky in the segment. To me that's a combination of a person who doesn't realize his innocent ramblings can actually make him look worse. And the motive? By all accounts he was close to his mother. He talked about her with warmth during the segment. Larry Gibson didn't have any warmth about Tommy. The Noe's? Let's not got there.

I never believed she was actually killed at the casino for these reasons.

1. why on Earth would she go to another casino when she could have continued gambling at the casino where her son and new daughter in law were at? Makes no sense. Wouldn't she want to be with her son on his wedding night?

2. I have a tough time believing nobody saw her dead in the car for the 3 days she was there. Additionally, and you have to pay close attention to this in the segment, but her car was not parked perfectly. In fact, it was rather askew and taking up several spots in the parking lot. Surely, somebody would have noticed that.

I believe she was killed elsewhere, and dropped off at the casino to make it look like a robbery gone bad. And if she was killed elsewhere, IMO, that makes Tim look guilty because how would he have known she was there?

3. How does Tim know she will be found at THIS casino? Did he get some psychic visions or divine act from God that told him she would be at this casino?

doesn't add up.


1) I grew up in Nevada and lived there for many until came to the paradise that is NE Indiana. I know people that drive an hour (or more) to get to a specific casino to play a SPECIFIC machine. So his mother drive down from Tahoe wasn't that unusual.

Also she supposedly stated that she wanted to go home. Try to stop an elderly person that wants to leave from leaving. Not going to happen and if it does, then you'll wish that they had left (not trying to make light of a serious event)

2) I have personally seen a number of very odd things in and around a casino. While I never saw a body, I have seen a number of passed out people outside casinos or people getting sick. Usually casino security would be nearby or on the way and that's why I wonder why no one called casino when they saw her in the car for a long period time.

However, most people going into casinos usually aren't thinking about anything other than the gambling or drinking that they are going to do, so it is odd but not surprising.

3) That part has always been strange to me. But then again, I believe that 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.

I just don't see a motive for McClure to off his mother, the insurance money was split between him and his sister, and if I'm remembering correctly I think it was only $10,000. Hardly enough money to kill your own mother on your wedding night, IMO.

I just don't see a motive for McClure to off his mother, the insurance money was split between him and his sister, and if I'm remembering correctly I think it was only $10,000. Hardly enough money to kill your own mother on your wedding night, IMO.

As I have said before, people have been killed for allot less. There could have been another reason to have killed her.

I believe she was propped up with a pillow when she was found. I thought I saw that in the segment, could be wrong on that. However if she was propped up with a pillow, I would like to know if she normally stored a pillow in her car.

As I have said before, people have been killed for allot less. There could have been another reason to have killed her.

I believe she was propped up with a pillow when she was found. I thought I saw that in the segment, could be wrong on that. However if she was propped up with a pillow, I would like to know if she normally stored a pillow in her car.

But during LE's investigation into the case if there was another motive I'm sure it would have been brought up. At the time of the UM segment the only motive they had against Tim was the insurance money that he would collect.

But during LE's investigation into the case if there was another motive I'm sure it would have been brought up. At the time of the UM segment the only motive they had against Tim was the insurance money that he would collect.

Although it's true that was the only motive brought up in the segment, it doesn't necessarily mean that LE wasn't investigating others at the time, and UM's producers simply A) didn't feel there was enough time in the segment to elaborate on others, especially if deemed "weak", or B) didn't feel others could be woven "cleanly" into their presentation. As has been mentioned before, sometimes UM has been guilty of dramatization for the sake of entertainment value.

Although I don't put much credence into polygraphs, I do find it interesting that McClure's wife's results also "indicated deception." I wonder if she figures in at all, especially in light of the fact that McClure was allegedly very close to his mother.

Even if you can get past Tim's failing the lie detector, and even if you believe the credit card lady was wrong (and those are pretty big if's), what POSSIBLE explanation could there be for Tim knowing the EXACT location his mother will be found and that her purse was missing? Unless Tim has psychic visions, he would have had to be involved.

Even if you can get past Tim's failing the lie detector, and even if you believe the credit card lady was wrong (and those are pretty big if's), what POSSIBLE explanation could there be for Tim knowing the EXACT location his mother will be found and that her purse was missing? Unless Tim has psychic visions, he would have had to be involved.

1) Polygraphs are worthless. Their primary use is to get guilty people to confess by telling them that they failed the test. They cannot indicate "deception" and they aren't admissible in court.

2) The credit card company has a list of calls using their 800 number, which is what I assume that McClure called. They have to, as they are billed for 800 number calls. If there's no record of McClure calling on Friday other than the CSR's memo, then he didn't call on that day. A CSR that handles possibly hundreds of calls daily could easily make a mistake, especially since the record seems to have been written rather than data entry.

3) Carson City (where McClure's mother was found) had about 10 casinos at the time that she was murdered. The only thing about this surprises me is that McClure didn't check the one where she was found. But there may be a reasonable explanation for that.

4) Tim McClure is obviously an odd duck. That being said, there was no motive presented as to why he would have killed his mother. The insurance policy is laughable as the majority of the money would have been used to bury his mother and to pay off her bills.

While McClure's new bride may have potentially been involved, there's no evidence that points towards that being the case. And, if she was, how did she locate and kill (or have someone else do it) McClure's mother at night?

To the east and south of Carson City, there are many remote areas and desert that a body would easily disappear into. To the west and southwest are the Sierra Nevada mountains w/ numerous logging roads and trails where it could take months to find a body. Northeast of Carson, is Virginia City where thanks to the Comstock Lode there are about 500 or so empty mines shafts.

Since McClure was from Reno and knew the area, I find it very hard to believe that he didn't simply dump his mother's remains into a mineshaft or leave her out in the Tahoe National Forest. Either way, she wouldn't have been easily found and there would have been little (if any) evidence left to link him to the crime.

1) Polygraphs are worthless. Their primary use is to get guilty people to confess by telling them that they failed the test. They cannot indicate "deception" and they aren't admissible in court.

2) The credit card company has a list of calls using their 800 number, which is what I assume that McClure called. They have to, as they are billed for 800 number calls. If there's no record of McClure calling on Friday other than the CSR's memo, then he didn't call on that day. A CSR that handles possibly hundreds of calls daily could easily make a mistake, especially since the record seems to have been written rather than data entry.

3) Carson City (where McClure's mother was found) had about 10 casinos at the time that she was murdered. The only thing about this surprises me is that McClure didn't check the one where she was found. But there may be a reasonable explanation for that.

4) Tim McClure is obviously an odd duck. That being said, there was no motive presented as to why he would have killed his mother. The insurance policy is laughable as the majority of the money would have been used to bury his mother and to pay off her bills.

While McClure's new bride may have potentially been involved, there's no evidence that points towards that being the case. And, if she was, how did she locate and kill (or have someone else do it) McClure's mother at night?

To the east and south of Carson City, there are many remote areas and desert that a body would easily disappear into. To the west and southwest are the Sierra Nevada mountains w/ numerous logging roads and trails where it could take months to find a body. Northeast of Carson, is Virginia City where thanks to the Comstock Lode there are about 500 or so empty mines shafts.

Since McClure was from Reno and knew the area, I find it very hard to believe that he didn't simply dump his mother's remains into a mineshaft or leave her out in the Tahoe National Forest. Either way, she wouldn't have been easily found and there would have been little (if any) evidence left to link him to the crime.

1) Polygraphs are not worthless. While they aren't admissable in court, they still have helped exonerated several people who were suspects in cases. Although I do think its possible for someone to fail even when they're telling the truth (in this case McClure).

2) I agree. This point should have never even been brought up. Did this lady that worked at the credit card company sign a sworn affidavit saying that Tim called on Friday? I think not, and it's very easy to get the days mixed up considering the volume of phone calls they get.

3) I think it's possible that McClure's mother may not have cared for the casino in which her body was found which is why Tim didn't feel the need to search there. Or maybe his mother just never went to that casino before and he didn't see a reason why she would. It still kind of bugs me as to why he would check nine different casinos but then not feel the need to check the last one in the area.

4) McClure obviously had no ties to a murder weapon. And I'm sure law enforcement would have been able to look into his financial background to see if he took out a large sum of money to pay someone to murder his mother. Since McClure had no motive, means, or weapon it's safe to say that he is innocent of this crime.

You'd think it would have been a relatively simple task to determine whether or not McClure's mother was in that car in that parking lot in the hot Nevada sun for three days.

If she had been, one can safely presume that the level of decomposition would have been... indicative.

You'd think it would have been a relatively simple task to determine whether or not McClure's mother was in that car in that parking lot in the hot Nevada sun for three days.

If she had been, one can safely presume that the level of decomposition would have been... indicative.

Actually, it was pretty cool when she was found. The temperature would have been in 30's or lower at night and in the 40-50's in the day time.

Here's the temp for the day she was last seen:
http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/NV/Carson%20City/1983-01-14


And here's the temp for the day she was found murdered:
http://www.almanac.com/weather/history/NV/Carson%20City/1983-01-17

It rarely gets warm in Carson City in the winter time and even the summer temperatures rarely go above the lower 90's.

One thing about the polygraph. Look, I like them. I think they serve a purpose. But..........

Larry Gibson passed one. I have almost never seen someone claim he is innocent on here

David Dowaliby failed miserably on his. I have my reservations on this case and of David's involvement, but there is greater than 50% of the people on here who believe he is innocent.

I forget the name of that kid, but he passed a polygraph twice I believe and he claimed he saw two guys take that girl whom she apparently knew (can't remember the case) at a gas station. Later he admits to killing her. Does anyone know the name of that case?

So my point is, let's not always have a polygraph be the be all and end all but just rather a supplementary part of the equation.

I know that it is odd that McClure claims to have checked every parking lot other than where his mother was found but here is my question.

Why, oh why, oh why admit that if you are guilty? This is why I think Tim is a simpleton. He doesn't realize the consequence of what he says.

Remember also in the segment how he had a feeling and that he felt the "Holy spirit" was telling him not to check that parking lot? Okay look, people have misused God's name and done bad things in God's name since the beginning of time. But nobody who claims to be innocent that I have seen on UM ever expresses some religious beliefs behind it. In other words, either Tim is going to have a very ticked off God at the gates when he dies wondering why he brought his name into all of this, or he really did feel that intuition genuinely. I just don't know which one it is. I just found it rather unusual and can't figure out if he truly believes that or is just using God's name in...................well, vain I guess.

I've heard some talk that there is a reasonable explanation why Tim doesn't check that particular casino, yet no possibilities as to what that reasonable explanation could be.

I might have mentioned this once before, but does anyone else find this odd. Terri was missing for 3 days before her body was discovered. Now Tim, upon hearing this, decides that the best thing he can do in this circumstance was to...look for her purse. HUH?! How about looking for YOUR MOTHER!!!! Or maybe her car, since that is huge and would probably give some indication as to where she is at (which it did as she was found in it). Instead, Tim goes off looking for the purse, which is not only a needle in a haystack, but he doesn't even know that it has been stolen.

Also, it was mentioned that surely there would be camera evidence of Tim being in casinos, etc. If that is the case, then the following must also be true: there is evidence of Terri having been in the casino where she was found dead at. That is to say, camera evidence of her being in there, winning a large sum of money, not to mention, evidence of someone other than Tim shooting her. I say that using that same argument.

I wonder why Tim's sister was also not interviewed for this segment. There's alot more info about this case I want to know. notice Tim tries to deflect suspicion off himself by saying his sister put the notion in his head that somebody tried to commandeer her vehicle and steal her purse. Uh-huh.

One thing about the polygraph. Look, I like them. I think they serve a purpose. But..........

Larry Gibson passed one. I have almost never seen someone claim he is innocent on here

David Dowaliby failed miserably on his. I have my reservations on this case and of David's involvement, but there is greater than 50% of the people on here who believe he is innocent.

I forget the name of that kid, but he passed a polygraph twice I believe and he claimed he saw two guys take that girl whom she apparently knew (can't remember the case) at a gas station. Later he admits to killing her. Does anyone know the name of that case?

So my point is, let's not always have a polygraph be the be all and end all but just rather a supplementary part of the equation.

You have just pointed out several cases where a polygraph was no better than guessing. Since that's the case, why bother using it?

You have just pointed out several cases where a polygraph was no better than guessing. Since that's the case, why bother using it?

I think it can help paint a picture in some cases.

I think it can help paint a picture in some cases.

I agree, although my belief is that a polygraph can be used to trip up a suspect that is presumed guilty rather than actually discovering the "truth" of a matter.

Another thing with the credit card bothers me. If Tim was really after money, and killed his mother for that reason, wouldn't he have tried to get money from or simply use the credit card, rather than cancelling it?

What does the history of that particular credit card show? Occasional use, cash advances, or was the card dormant?

I'm kind of leaning towards a different scenario now. Perhaps Terri's gambling increased, and Tim was trying to stop her from spending so much. Maybe he had bailed HER out of a few binds recently. So, on Friday when he doesn't find her at home, he knows she is out gambling. He cancels her card on Friday to cut off her access to the money. Then he has to go look for her to bring her home. Perhaps he enlists the help of his wife or sister. And how do we KNOW that Tim never drove through the lot of the casino where Terri was found? Do we just have his word, or is there evidence to prove it?

Any of the three could be responsible for the murder. Just as likely, Terri could have tried to obtain money from another source and was killed for that reason. But I think Tim has enough knowledge of what really happened, and doesn't want the "real" killer found because he may be protecting them.

I still think the wife is somehow involved.

Another thing with the credit card bothers me. If Tim was really after money, and killed his mother for that reason, wouldn't he have tried to get money from or simply use the credit card, rather than cancelling it?.

well, the thing about credit cards, is that it creates more of a paper trail than with cash. if Tim had killed his mother, then went on a shopping spree with the card, that could be found out by the police. Cash purchases are much harder to trace, though I wouldn't say it's impossible.

With regards to Tim's wife having some sort of involvement, it was stated in the UM segment that she was gambling with her parents while Tim walked his mother out of the casino. Unless her parents and Tim are lying, I don't see how she could have been involved. Although I do find it odd that they both failed the polygraph tests.

This is one of my favorite cases because its the first time I can easily say I know who did it when watching UM.

Sorry to bump..its only 3 yrs old...but i was just watching this segment again and i was thinking... It was his wedding night...maybe his mother had always told him or had told him that as a wedding gift she would give him so much money as a present. Well, he finally is getting married...they are all up at Tahoe, the wedding is over, then Tim asks his mother about this "money" that was supposed to be his wedding gift. She then tells him that she no longer has the money (she lost it gambling, invested it, etc...). He was relying on this money for when he got married, and became enraged at his mother. He may have already purchased things on credit or what not, expecting to get that money from his mother. He then needs to get some sort of monetary compensation, so he knows his mother has that life insurance. In a fit of rage he kills his mother over money...aka...I am your only son I have taken such good care of you and this is how you repay me? etc...

Hopefully that makes sense, just popped into my head as I was watching it..trying to think of why a "mamas boy" would kill his mother.



This is probably the most plausible theory, and the one I'm in support of. I know none of us would ever believe that a son would kill his own mother, but I think Tim just got tired of bending backwards for her and taking care of her all the time. All those trips to the casino together just took his toll on him, and he might've been pissed that his mom was stupid or something and losing too much of her money, so he just did away with her. $5,000 to a gambling addict is like $5,000,000. Not only is it a considerable amount, but most importantly, its a lifeline to their addiction. I think Tim felt that his mom had nothing else to give to him (and I'm sure he'd been feeling that way for years). Perhaps he did it on his wedding night so he could have another thing to celebrate about, and so people wouldn't suspect him of it.


I want to believe he's innocent, but the fact that ZERO eyewitnesses could substantiate his claims of having danced and gambled throughout the night and morning is not something that can be swept under the rug. And why would a credit card company ever life about the date a call was made on? Tim McClure is guilty, although I do think its funny that he would bring up a case where all the evidence points towards him. Maybe he's just really desperate to clear his name.

For the people that think he's innocent, how can you explain that no one saw a 6'6 man with a mullet in a 8 hour block of time in the casino and dancehall where he claimed to be? Last time I checked, that's a pretty distinctive look.

I keep going back & forth on this one.

On one hand, it seems obvious that he did it, but part of me thinks the guy is just REALLY stupid and just bad at presenting himself.

I love how he called Unsolved Mysteries to profile the case in order to clear his name and I think it just made him look worse. I can't think of too many guys that came off looking as bad as him after being on UM.

For the people that think he's innocent, how can you explain that no one saw a 6'6 man with a mullet in a 8 hour block of time in the casino and dancehall where he claimed to be? Last time I checked, that's a pretty distinctive look.

There is no way of knowing if anyone saw Tim or not. Just because no one came forward to substaniate his claim does not make him a liar.

I keep going back & forth on this one.

On one hand, it seems obvious that he did it, but part of me thinks the guy is just REALLY stupid and just bad at presenting himself.

I love how he called Unsolved Mysteries to profile the case in order to clear his name and I think it just made him look worse. I can't think of too many guys that came off looking as bad as him after being on UM.

Yes, I can't help but think that Tim McClure's only crime may simply be his inability to convincingly present and defend himself in a television interview. I've always believed that the guy never consulted with an attorney before he contacted UM and never had one present while he was being interviewed because any decent lawyer should have advised him that he was digging himself into a deep hole.

From watching the segment, I would generally assume the guy's guilty, but the two things I just can't shake are: 1) Robert Stack's statement that Tim's friends and family have always believed he was innocent and feel there's no way he could have killed his mother, and 2) The fact that his charges against him were dismissed by the D.A. "with prejudice", which I believe is practically the same thing as "double jeopardy" and that he can't be tried again even if some pretty clear-cut evidence actually surfaced.

It is very easy for those who don't know Tim McClure personally to assume he's guilty just on the basis of watching the segment, but those who are close to the situation must know a LOT more than we do if they are so willing believe his innocence and dismiss the case so definitively in spite of all that circumstantial evidence. I wonder if the police would have even attempted to charge Tim if he hadn't brought more attention to the case through the UM appearance.

Well, what can I say? McClure's been on my mind...

I remember the Tim McClure case well and I think it was one of the earlier cases I watched back in the early Lifetime days but I have seen it numerous times since in repeats. I think that when I first saw it, I thought McClure was guilty because that's more or less the picture the segment portrays and he was the only suspect in his mother's murder. However, after watching it more recently, I was a lot more skeptical of the police/prosecution's case.

That being said, there is some strange stuff he did that made him look guilty.

I think the most damning evidence against McClure is the fact that he failed the lie detector test. Then his wife passed, but missed one question which just happened to be "do you know who murdered Mrs. McClure". On UM, McClure says that he was nervous and awkward while taking the test but he doesn't offer any other explanation as to why he failed. This never sat right with me, to say the least.

Then there was the whole issue with the credit card company saying that McClure called on Friday to cancel his mother's credit cards and he told them she was dead. Of course, his mother wasn't found dead until Monday and McClure says he called on Monday and that the credit card company was wrong about the days. I think this is sketchy because the credit card company is an unrelated independent party and has no reason to lie about this, but McClure would if he was guilty and slipped up by saying she was dead before anyone should have known. So, it's another independent factor working against him.

Also, McClure's behavior/demeanor in the UM segment is just odd. He has this over the top, nervous, twitchy, for lack of a better word, "awkwardness" about him as he discusses the case. He comes off like he just downed six cups of coffee before he sat for the UM interview. While I hate to base any conclusions about the truthfulness of a person's statements on UM based on the interview/body language alone, the best I can say here is that McClure is just not convincing. I also thought it was very unusual that there was no interview with McClure's wife - whom he married on the night of the murder. There was no mention if they were still together or not. Even if they weren't still together, UM could have interviewed her and maybe her comments would have shed some light on things. Even if she simply reiterated what he said and noting more, it still would have been another viewpoint to consider. So not hearing from the wife was strange and I think it definitely could have had some bearing the guilt vs. innocence issue, but we don't have it.

All that being said, there are some major problems with the case against him.

I always thought the motive was weak. If I remember correctly, McClure wasn't the sole beneficiary on his mother's life insurance, as it was shared with other family members and his share was only about 5K. That's a ridiculously small amount of money, even in 1983 dollars. I know the detective interviewed on UM said that people have been killed for less, but TO KILL YOUR OWN MOTHER FOR 5K. That's just insane. For this to be true, I would think there would have to be some very serious problems in the mother/son relationship. Even the police conceded though that they interviewed friends and family members of the McClures and by all accounts he had a good relationship with his mother. So, it's really hard to take the 5K being the motive seriously without a prior history of problems.

Another point in his favor is the fact that McClure himself contacted Unsolved Mysteries and asked them to do the story on his mother's death. If he killed her, I think that's an incredibly risky thing to do. Surely he must have known that UM would investigate the case, contact the police for their take, etc. You've got to figure that if McClure was guilty, he had gotten away with the crime for all those years, so why bring it back into the public eye for scrutiny?

Perhaps the biggest and most crucial point of all - after McClure was finally arrested for the crime in 1992, the district attorney decided to dismiss the case with prejudice. This is pretty major because the fact that they added the "with prejudice" means he can never be charged with the crime again. I think this just goes to show that the DA must have thought McClure was innocent, or at the very least that the case against him was extremely weak and there would never be stronger more convincing admissible evidence uncovered. Otherwise, they could have dismissed the case "without prejudice" and then McClure could still be charged if the cops ever did find anything else.

Something else that bothers me is the lack of hard evidence linking McClure to the crime. I'm sure if he bought or owned a gun there would have been a record of it somewhere and I'm sure the police would have been all over that. The whole thing is strange because as the story unfolds on UM, we hear about all these little bits and pieces of evidence that don't seem to mean much, then McClure's goofy explanations for those pieces of evidence, then the detective's take on the information. It seems like there are some pieces that fall in to place rather nicely and as a whole point toward McClure as the killer. That being said, it's strange to think that, in the end, the police couldn't produce anything more solid, like the gun, to really nail him. The fact that the police failed to produce more and the dismissal with prejudice makes me think that in spite of the damning facts presented on UM, the cops were grasping for straws and there just wasn't anything substantial there to begin with.

In the end, my gut feeling is that Tim McClure was a very odd man whose elderly mother was killed, either in a robbery or similar random act of violence. Through his own oddball actions, behavior and perhaps even stupidity he made himself a suspect in the case. He should have never talked to the police. He should have retained an attorney from day one. If he did say anything to the police, it should have been through that attorney. He should not have consented to take the polygraph test. His wife should not have consented to take the polygraph. Hell, he probably shouldn't have done the Unsolved Mysteries episode.

But I really think that's the extent of it. He's an odd guy who the police zeroed in on because of his behavior and the fact that there were no other suspects. There is no way to determine how someone like McClure would react in a situation like that. As to who really did murder Mrs. McClure I can't say. The best I can figure here is that she stopped off at a casino to gamble or perhaps stopped somewhere else (like for gas) and was approached, probably at gunpoint, by a robber. The robber could have been a junkie looking a fix. Since her purse was never recovered (to my knowledge) I tend to think the crime was financially motivated at least in that regard. Since the crime occurred in 1983 and there has been no progress since McClure's arrest and the dismissal in 92-93 I doubt this will ever be solved - assuming McClure is innocent.

In the end, my gut feeling is that Tim McClure was a very odd man whose elderly mother was killed, either in a robbery or similar random act of violence. Through his own oddball actions, behavior and perhaps even stupidity he made himself a suspect in the case. He should have never talked to the police. He should have retained an attorney from day one. If he did say anything to the police, it should have been through that attorney. He should not have consented to take the polygraph test. His wife should not have consented to take the polygraph. Hell, he probably shouldn't have done the Unsolved Mysteries episode.

This is precisely why I think McClure is innocent. He voluntarily cooperated with police (without an attorney which in some people's eyes is a pretty stupid thing to do), took a polygraph, and even reached out to UM to help clear his name and find his mother's killer. The single most damning evidence against McClure is the credit card company phone call. There really is no other evidence (physical or circumstantial) that would link him to the killing. I don't think the credit card company would have any reason to lie, but they easily could have gotten their dates mixed up. One time I went to a hospital, and the administrator switched two numbers in my zip code, so they were sending a bill to an address that was nonexistent over 60 miles away. Point being, clerical errors happen all the time.

I also thought it was very unusual that there was no interview with McClure's wife - whom he married on the night of the murder. There was no mention if they were still together or not. Even if they weren't still together, UM could have interviewed her and maybe her comments would have shed some light on things. Even if she simply reiterated what he said and noting more, it still would have been another viewpoint to consider. So not hearing from the wife was strange and I think it definitely could have had some bearing the guilt vs. innocence issue, but we don't have it.

Yes, Tim's wife is the real wild card in this case and if we ever learned anything about her or what kind of person she is, it might answer some of the questions we have. I've always pondered the theory that the wife might have killed Terri McClure and that Tim was covering for him. I've never really gotten the vibe from Tim that he was capable of murdering his mother, but he does strike me as being a weak enough person that he could be easily threatened and intimidated enough by his wife into helping cover up her crime all these years. This would almost be a reverse-gender situation, like the numerous cases where an abusive husband or boyfriend kills a child and is able to scare the mother into helping him cover it up, in spite of the fact that he just murdered her own flesh and blood. Some of Tim's odd actions, such as driving around to find his mother's purse, would fit with the idea that he was trying to clean up his wife's mess.

However, the major hole with this theory is that Tim's wife could scare him enough to keep quiet about his mother's murder for a decade, then she would probably NEVER would have allowed him to contact UM and get the case back into the spotlight again. Unless, of course, she knew that Tim would do such an awkward job of defending himself that he would cast all the suspicion on himself, but admittedly, that rationale is pretty thin.

It's most likely I'm way off on that theory and that Tim McClure is innocent, but I do find it weird that in spite of Robert Stack's statement that Tim's family and friends thought he was innocent, no one else appeared on the show on his behalf to defend him. Hell, even though most of us believe Steven Marfeo was guilty as sin, he was somehow able to convince the family of his missing wife to appear on camera and proclaim his innocence!

First off I'm truly amazed that you guys have kept this thread going for 8 years. One of you probably solved the case in that time :lol: Also I wonder if Tim McClure has ever seen this thread? I mean it comes up in Google.

My one and only thought on all the craziness/odd behavior of this case: If he was guilty why the hell would he go on TV? I mean sure he comes off as looking very guilty in the episode, but unless he has some serious brass balls (I kind of doubt this :lol: ) and wanted to taunt all of America I would say he's innocent. And the fact that none of his family or wife's family has said anything in the decades since the murder pretty much says he's innocent.

All I can really say on this case is you guys are amazing for keeping it going this long and: Life is certainly strange.

as for Tim having the brass balls to go on UM, I consider the following: During his legendary interview, Tim talks about the police and says something to the effect of "This is my mother's death, you should be investigating in on another level rather than looking at me as a suspect." Which means that Tim doesn't believe the police have any business asking him questions about that night, which an innocent person would have no problem doing. Let me repeat that, because it's important: Tim doesn't believe the police have any business asking him a few simple questions about what happened that night. I would imagine Tim killed his mother, dropped the car and body off at the casino to give the impression that it was a robbery gone bad, figure the police would think that and that a random perpetrator was responsiblle, and that would be that. I don't think he any idea that the police would question him and that's why we got some hilariously bad answers.

Now for somebody that supposedly has no involvment in the murder, Tim knows an awful lot about it. He knows where his mother and her car will turn up, and also that her purse was stolen, all things somebody with no involvment should not have known. And then Tim says "My sister got the idea that somebody might have comandeered her vehicle and stolen her purse." Okay, well it's interesting he goes off looking for the purse, which was the only thing that was stolen that we know off, and doesn't spend looking time for the car, which may not have been stolen, and more importantly than that, doesn't go looking for HIS MOTHER!!! His mother is missing as well as her car, which should be alot easier to find than the purse because it's alot bigger, but Tim goes off looking for her purse. And even if you can past the lie detectors and the credit cards and the lack of anybody substiating his alibi, all of which are pretty big if's, you still have these giant, unexplained questions that nag and persist.

And Tim, who has this grand opportunity to get some well-needed exposure on this case, never takes the opportunity to plead to the wide viewing audience to find the "real killer", but instead, is solely interested in attempting to get his name cleared. I think his goal was to drum up sympathy by passing off the mama's boy act, and there be this flood of people who called in and were outraged that he would be accused, but that didn't appear to happen. And while apparently none of Tim's friends and family members think they did it, none of them, as another poster pointed out, rushed to his defense either. Nobody was willing to come on the program him and defend him, not his wife, not his sister, nobody. Which has me believe that Tim's support is soft. Perhaps alot of people that know Tim think he is innocent, but aren't positive enough to appear on camera.

Now the alibi has a huge, gaping hole in it. it's like EIGHT HOURS!!! Nobody can substantiate his alibi for 1/3 of a whole day, when he was supposedly out in busy casinos and dance halls. It's a big enough hole to drive a mack truck through. And being that I don't believe Terri was killed at the casino due to the odd way the car was parked and the unlikelihood that a dead woman would go unnoticed for 3 days in a busy parking lot, I believe Tim murdered her elsewhere, say her home, and drove to the parking lot, which would have required a large amount of time.

If his mother was shot at her home, there would be some sort of evidence of such since she was shot to death. Not to mention the fact that I doubt Tim would be clever enough to clean up after himself and be smart enough to stage the crime scene.

The fact that the case against McClure was dismissed by the district attorney's office with prejudice means it is over forever. They have given up their only chance to prosecute him for this crime. I think we have to assume that the DA has access to a lot of information we don't have.

To those who think McClure is guilty, why do you feel the case was dismissed, and also done so in such a manner that it can never be raised again?

If the evidence of McClure's guilt was so overwhelming, wouldn't it have been better to leave the matter open so he could be charged if/when more convincing evidence surfaced?

First off I should say that I do think Tim McClure is guilty and that belief is based upon what I feel to me a bevy of circumstantial evidence. I'd like to amend that belief though and say that I can totally see him being innocent. I should also say that he's probably the only person I've ever felt murdered his own mother and still...kinda felt bad for.**

To those who think McClure is guilty, why do you feel the case was dismissed, and also done so in such a manner that it can never be raised again?

My initial question to you is: who do you think dismissed the case "With prejudice"? Below you seem to assert that the DA did so. You also assert that because they did so they must know something we don't. I don't believe that to be the case. As I understand it, in criminal proceedings having a case dismissed "with prejudice" is done by the court and is done so at the request of the defendant (McClure). Judging by the discrepency in time between the murder happening and the case going to trial, McClure's lawyer probably filed a motion that Timmy's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. Whether that would happen before after the charges are dropped (if that is how it played out) is beyond my legal knowledge. The DA knew they had a weak case going in which is why it took 10 years to bring it to trial with nothing more than "circlestantive evidence". Once they get their collective patooties whipped in court, McClure's lawyer files the motion, and the judge, seeing how crappy the DAs case was, rules in his favor.

Where's the yuppielawyer or kadrmas15? They are usually good at this stuff.

The fact that the case against McClure was dismissed by the district attorney's office with prejudice means it is over forever. They have given up their only chance to prosecute him for this crime. I think we have to assume that the DA has access to a lot of information we don't have.

Well obviously the DA has access to things we'll never even imagine but I disagree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of what you wrote. We don't have to assume that they discovered some great alibi or that there was other prime suspects or anythign of the sort. It could very well be that the entire sum of evidence against Mr. McClure was what we saw on UM and they just could never get anything better than that. Hence why it took so long, hence why it got tossed out quick fast, hence a dismissal with prejudice.

On a side note here I'd like to add that "Dismissal With Prejudice" sounds like a *****ty Steven Segal movie. One where he's a lawyer who gets disbarred by some crooked pot-headed judge on the take by the Hippie Mafia. The baddies then collaborate to kidnap Segal's gorgeous 17 year old niece (who he's been raising since her folks died in that hot air balloon accident) and then its...DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Segal just gets all legalistic on their asses, hitting fools with his legal briefs, choking the judge with his robe, and beating a man to death with the scales of justice. Do I smell Oscars?!?

If the evidence of McClure's guilt was so overwhelming, wouldn't it have been better to leave the matter open so he could be charged if/when more convincing evidence surfaced?

What? I don't understand.


** = like i've said I think Tim McClure was probably good for 99.9% of his life but for whatever reason 0.1% he did an awful thing. Too awful for him to admit openly but he subconsciously asks for more attention to it hoping he'll get punished. Why? Lord only knows. I've often thought that maybe, since everyone labeled hims uch a loving and doting son, he felt like there wasn't going to be room in his life for both his wife and his mom and in some weird way he felt this was an appropriate way to handle it. Maybe mom and wifey didn't like each other (or mom just didn't like wifey) and she says "You're out of the will if you marry her...oh I'll go to your farce of a wedding you mulleted freak...but you're cut off after that!" and Tim freaks. I do have a problem with the gun though. I think its was justins5256 who said above that if Tim had agun there must be a record of it somewhere. While I think that's nto necessarilry true I do wonder about the murder weapon and where it is. Or where the police ever able to trace any handguns to the McClure family, Tim's friends, or Tim himself.

While technically the judge dismisses the case, I do believe that the district attorney can request a dismissal on their own accord and of their own case (any legal minds feel free to correct)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_dismissal

It is implied that happened here. Just to be sure, I re-watched the update portion of the segment and here is what RS says on the subject:

"In 1992, the sheriffs arrested Tim McClure. The case was dismissed with prejudice in January of 1993 after the district attorney decided the evidence did not warrant a trial..."

I didn't mean to imply the DA had some "smoking gun" in their file that exonerated McClure. All I meant was that they had the entire case at their disposal, all evidence, for and against, yet still decided that it was legally insufficient. Not only was it insufficient to the point that they decided to dismiss, but they did so in such a manner that the charges are disposed of permanently and can never be brought again.

You have to question that action because the district attorney could have just as easily asked for a dismissal "without prejudice". Then, when/if the police find more, the district attorney can re-file charges.

Excellent points, justins5256. If the DA was convinced McClure was his man (but had little to no evidence to get a conviction), he certainly would have tried to keep the case open for prosecution just in case a smoking gun was revealed years later. Anyone know what became of McClure?