Let's play devil's advocate with interviewees' you didn't agree with

[unsolved88]

That's the best title I could come up with to make my point. Sorry.

I'm sure every once in a while we've all watched UM or some true crime show and heard an interviewee make a statement to which, despite not agreeing with or disbelieving everything else out of the person's mouth, we had to concede the point.

For example, as much as I think Noreen Renier and other psychics are full of it, her point about how people's brains work when they spell I thought had some validity. I've always had a very good memory for certain things like dates. I don't know how or why and I always just took it for granted since I don't remember not having such an ability. I've had people who have known me for years dead serious want to how I ever acquired such a skill.

I actually used a variation of Noreen's argument on a friend of mine when she asked me this for the billionth time. She was Puerto Rican and spoke fluent Spanish, so I calmly asked how her brain instinctively knew how to code switch when she spoke to her grandparents (who knew no English) and speaking perfect English with her non-Latino friends like me. It was like a the light finally came on and she understood my point. Although I don't believe Noreen had any special powers, her point about not always questioning how people got certain talents and abilities because they don't match your own instead of just accepting them and reaping the benefits can be applied to many other life situations. Not some ole psychic bull**** though. But maybe that's just me.

I also always thought Bonnie Haim's father made a fair point (although it was because he was in deep denial) about how Michael's shoeprint being in Bonnie's car in and of itself meant nothing as couples borrow each other's cars all the time.

[WishfulDreamer]

Good idea for a thread!

Here are a few that come to mind:

1) I think Stuart Heaton is guilty, but I can't disagree with his statement that a carpenter would have cuts on their hands.

2) I also believe Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, but I couldn't argue with his defense attorney who was upset that he had so little time to go through the evidence. The defense should have had way more time to go through everything.

3) I didn't think he was guilty, but the guy who Kurt McFall was staying with, as shady as he seemed, made a good point that it would have been really dumb of him to kill someone when the victim's father knew he was staying with him.

I'm sure there are so many more, but I'm drawing a blank right now.

[TheCars1986]

Even though I don't think they are guilty, I've always never thought there was malice on the part of the investigators/prosecutors in suspecting the Dowaliby's in Jaclyn Dowaliby's murder, and the same with Patty Stallings.

[unsolved88]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

2) I also believe Jeffrey MacDonald is guilty, but I couldn't argue with his defense attorney who was upset that he had so little time to go through the evidence. The defense should have had way more time to go through everything.

Although it wasn't mentioned on UM, I read a book about MacDonald which stated that one of things investigators found suspicious about the crime scene was that a magazine with Charles Manson on the cover was sitting on the coffee table (implying of course that MacDonald had studied it and used it as a guide to kill his family). The author correctly points out that the Manson murders had only happened six months prior and if anything, it would have been more unusual for most Americans to have a copy or Time, Life, etc. that DIDN'T have something about the murders on the front page since that was all everyone was talking about at the time.

Seriously. That would be like calling someone a terrorist because they had an article about 9/11 in their home in the early part of 2002.

[unsolved88]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Even though I don't think they are guilty, I've always never thought there was malice on the part of the investigators/prosecutors in suspecting the Dowaliby's in Jaclyn Dowaliby's murder, and the same with Patty Stallings.

Yes. I think there's a knee-jerk reaction when someone is found to have been wrongfully convicted that the police must have had it in for them the whole time. The immediate response when the person is released is "Well, the police never should have dared to question or investigate them in the first place.".

The truth is that random violent crime against children is much rarer than the media sometimes leads us to believe. When a child is harmed or killed in their own home, police are only practicing basic procedures and common sense by looking at the immediate family. This is different from abject corruption.

In general, I think this attitude comes from the narrative that often gets pushed in true crime shows (particularly the more modern ones) where victims and their families are always seen as right and the authorities are just big mean bullies who only want to get a conviction or antagonize the poor grieving family. There's very little gray area in such narratives.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by unsolved88

In general, I think this attitude comes from the narrative that often gets pushed in true crime shows (particularly the more modern ones) where victims and their families are always seen as right and the authorities are just big mean bullies who only want to get a conviction or antagonize the poor grieving family. There's very little gray area in such narratives.

UM was guilty of this too. The Norman Ladner case, for example, when Norman's mother made the claim that an "stranger" told her that she needed to drop looking into Norman's death because they'll never find the person who killed him...and it's presented in the segment as a factual truth.

[unsolved88]

Yeah, that’s exactly who I thought of when I wrote that. Cheryl Lombardi’s “demonstration” of the bullet hole in Tony’s headboard also falls into this category.

On the ID show Reasonable Doubt, the hosts (a former homicide detective and a defense attorney; not exactly laypeople) will sit down with the relatives of the person who may have been wrongfully convicted at the top of the show to discuss the case and evidence used to convict. A host might say something like “So-and-so’s fingerprints were found on the murder weapon” and the family will smugly shoot back with “Well, the police mishandled evidence to frame him/her”. You know it has to be on the tip of the hosts’ tongue to ask “Sorry, but you got your forensic and law degrees from where that you can just make that type of determination.

[unsolved88]

I never thought of Mary Helen Carr’s (Mac MacDonald’s girlfriend) mother as evil for not simply looking the other way and allowing her underage daughter to date a 20-year-old.

She should have probably been more understanding, but I always felt like the segment’s portrayal of her racing out of the house and snarling at Mac because he made small talk with her daughter about his motorcycle was an exaggeration colored by Mac’s perception of her at the time.

I don’t think Mac was a bad person at all, but I would be curious to know what Mary Helen’s recollections were, particularly since she actually lived with her mother.

[schmave]

Something always rubbed me the wrong way about the interview with Mac's daughter. I thought it was pretty clear that his intentions were good and he acknowledged what he did was wrong, but she sounded skeptical of him the entire time. I am sure at least part of that came from what she heard about him growing up, probably from her grandmother and maybe even from her own mother.

[xxxxmattxxxx69]

I don't believe Danny Wheeler was Michael Jordan and that he played for the Chicago Bulls.

In all seriousness I didn't believe "Rick" who was the owner of the gun they said was used to kill Morris Davis. Guns don't just get up and walk away.

I also don't believe Donnie Hansen didn't setup his sisters but that ones an obvious one

[DALLASTEXAN!!]

Originally Posted by schmave

Something always rubbed me the wrong way about the interview with Mac's daughter. I thought it was pretty clear that his intentions were good and he acknowledged what he did was wrong, but she sounded skeptical of him the entire time. I am sure at least part of that came from what she heard about him growing up, probably from her grandmother and maybe even from her own mother.

Unsolved88, good idea for a thread.

Schmave, I agree. I also think that was one of the most realistic lost loves segments where the ending didn't feel like "happily ever after"

For me one person that I have come around on is Steve Horning from the Patsy Wright segment. I first thought he was suspect and comes off as not sincere in his UM interview (because there was negative tension between him and patsy) but in hindsight it must have been very difficult for him to be in that position.

[Clockwork]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

UM was guilty of this too. The Norman Ladner case, for example, when Norman's mother made the claim that an "stranger" told her that she needed to drop looking into Norman's death because they'll never find the person who killed him...and it's presented in the segment as a factual truth.

I guess I missed this one. Norman's mother was not approached by a man telling her to drop the idea of looking into his death? If I recall didn't she say it herself on the segment that this happened?



Anyway, for this thread, I guess mine would be, if I were playing defense lawyer I would suggest that Steve Page would be an idiot to leave his wife's body a football field away from where he was the entire night. And you know, it actually has some teeth to it too.

[MediaHoarder]

Originally Posted by schmave

Something always rubbed me the wrong way about the interview with Mac's daughter. I thought it was pretty clear that his intentions were good and he acknowledged what he did was wrong, but she sounded skeptical of him the entire time. I am sure at least part of that came from what she heard about him growing up, probably from her grandmother and maybe even from her own mother.

I have no problem with her interview or reaction, frankly the fact that she was even willing to meet him is more than I would expect. If he did not have money there was no way she would have ever wanted contact.
What is telling was that her mother, who was "in love" with him and ran off with the guy clearly came to realize her own mother had been right from the start.

[schmave]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

I guess I missed this one. Norman's mother was not approached by a man telling her to drop the idea of looking into his death? If I recall didn't she say it herself on the segment that this happened?
...

For some reason that claim has been doubted around here from time to time. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. Mrs. Ladner takes a lot of criticism she doesn't deserve IMO. To me there is zero reason to doubt this happened, especially when multiple people were present at the time. It would have been debunked years ago for that reason alone if she was lying.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Clockwork

I guess I missed this one. Norman's mother was not approached by a man telling her to drop the idea of looking into his death? If I recall didn't she say it herself on the segment that this happened?

We are given her version of events that this man approached the Ladner's while in the middle of a conversation and told them "they'll never find the man who killed your son". And then he left. They didn't bother to stop the man or try to find out who he was, or ask the coroner. Forgive me if I'm suspicious of this story. IMO, she exaggerated someone telling her to take care of her other children into something sinister.