Tim McClure's Bizarre TV Appeal

[Dazinho]

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

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

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

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

[TheCars1986]

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

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

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...ht=Tim+McClure

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...ht=Tim+McClure

[justins5256]

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

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

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

[Dazinho]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...ht=Tim+McClure

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...ht=Tim+McClure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dazinho]

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

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

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Dazinho

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

Off the top of my head...

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

[RobinW]

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

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

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

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

[wiseguy182]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dazinho]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

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

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

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

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

100% agree mate...

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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

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

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

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

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yep. Well said.

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Todd Mueller]

I found this newspaper article online from 1992:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RobinW]

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

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

Originally Posted by Todd Mueller

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

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

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

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

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

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

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