Tim McClure: Motive?

[Guardian]

I know Tim McClure has been debated back and forth over the years. Personally, I agree with most that based on evidence, he is guilty. But as it has been mention in some other threads recently, I'm more curious as to what others feel is his motive so I thought starting a fresh thread would be a good idea.

As I said, the evidence, even if circumstantial, points to him being guilty. But to be honest, I can't understand that motive.

-He reportedly had an excellent releationship with her.
-The insurance was a very small amount to, not only kill someone, but to risk prison time over.
-So far as we know from the segment, he had no serious debt.

To add to this, his actions after she went missing, but before being found don't add up.

-If he cancelled her credit cards, okay. I can understand if they are hoping to track someone, it can help to cancel their cards. But I think most if not all places taking credit cards at the time would not yet have been computerized, so tracking in this manner would be extremely slow. So the question remains, if he did kill her, why not wait until she is found? And how do you say she is dead to the card company like that? Almost makes me believe him in that the company was mistaken.

-Why search casinos specifically and then tell police he went to all but that one? Surely he was smart enough to know that would look guilty.

-Why even mention the purse so specifically? Again that just looks guilty.

-Why agree to take the polygraph? Lots of innocent people refuse to take these as they aren't always reliable.

-Lastly, why call Unsolved Mysteries to bring even more attention to the case?

With the fact that so many of his actions just don't add up to begin with. And that he and his wife failed polygraphs in the specific questions of "Did you kill your mother?" And "Do you know who killed her?" respectively, this can really leave your head spinning.

On one hand, he seems very guilty. On the other, if he is guilty, how and why would somebody do some extremely incriminating things that anyone with common sense could figure make you look guilty, after the fact?

But if we go with him being guilty, I go back to my original question? What is the real motive?

[TheCars1986]

The only real motive that I've seen presented that makes any sense involves Tim's wife and her possibly wanting the mother out of the way. But even that is flimsy. Would Tim happily off his mother because his soon to be wife wanted her out of the picture? Terri lived in Reno and Tim lived in San Diego. How much interference was Terri causing in this relationship? There are far more questions than answers with regards to motive.

[soilentgreen]

-He reportedly had an excellent releationship with her.
-The insurance was a very small amount to, not only kill someone, but to risk prison time over.
-So far as we know from the segment, he had no serious debt.

It's been discussed before on this site, but it's worth repeating: $5,000 was not an insignificant sum in 1983, especially to someone from a poor background. It would have been a considerable down payment on many cars and a decent down payment on a house. Most working class Americans during the Reagan era didn't have that kind of money in their bank accounts, and it would have made a great nest egg for a newly married couple, especially a couple who liked to gamble.

I think the motive might have been more complicated and inscrutable than just the money - weddings can bring out the worst in people's relationships - but the insurance payout is a valid motive in itself. Plenty of criminals are both sloppy and stupid.

[LakeForestPI]

Originally Posted by soilentgreen

It's been discussed before on this site, but it's worth repeating: $5,000 was not an insignificant sum in 1983, especially to someone from a poor background. It would have been a considerable down payment on many cars and a decent down payment on a house. Most working class Americans during the Reagan era didn't have that kind of money in their bank accounts, and it would have made a great nest egg for a newly married couple, especially a couple who liked to gamble.

If most working class Americans didn't have that kind of money during the Reagan era, none had it during the Carter era. Leave politics out of it, especially when making such a factually incorrect statement.

[Zorzman]

His mom did own a house, a car, and jewelry. Not to mention what she might have had in her bank accounts at the time of her death. She was worth more than $5,000. I know Tim had at least one sister but still, if he got half of her assists, he would make out pretty well. He just got married and could now buy a house and start a new life with that money. That being said, still not 100% of his motive either. His flunking the lie detector does bother me a lot.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Zorzman

His mom did own a house, a car, and jewelry. She was worth more than $5,000. I know Tim had at least one sister but still, if he got half of her assists, he would make out pretty well. He just got married and could now buy a house and start a new life with that money. That being said, still not 100% of his motive either. His flunking the lie detector does bother me a lot.

This is a good point. The UM segment narrows in on the $5,000 insurance policy as a potential motive, but doesn't explore any of the other assets, which could be more valuable.

[soilentgreen]

Originally Posted by LakeForestPI

If most working class Americans didn't have that kind of money during the Reagan era, none had it during the Carter era. Leave politics out of it, especially when making such a factually incorrect statement.

<Shrugs> Quit trying so hard. I didn't make any factually incorrect statements; last time I checked 1983 was the Reagan era. I was well acquainted with poverty in the seventies and eighties, thanks!

I know Tim had at least one sister but still, if he got half of her assists, he would make out pretty well. He just got married and could now buy a house and start a new life with that money. That being said, still not 100% of his motive either. His flunking the lie detector does bother me a lot.

I think that the call McClure made to the credit card company was just one link in a chain of highly questionable behaviors. What information his ex wife has is another matter.

[Awsi Dooger]

Who knows? Maybe bedwetting or a magazine either weren't available, or the quota for those was already used up.

It's anything but a sophisticated process. I know I press this all the time but it's still 1000x less than warranted. The public has been duped. They'll continue to be duped. When stumped the authorities will go to any lengths to pinpoint family members as the perpetrator, using that wonderful approach of piece by piece analysis and all the glorious plausibility. Logic is out the window once they have fixated on someone. Yesterday I watched an old episode on Walt Waldhauser. I've seen it multiple times but it always makes me cringe. Waldhauser arranged and participated in two sets of murders in the '70s. They weren't intended to look like anything but murders. Yet somehow the authorities brainstormed their way to conclude they were a suicide in the first case and a murder/suicide in the second. In the murder/suicide a gun was not found at the scene, even though bullets caused the deaths. Let that sink it. The wife was posthumously asserted to have killed her husband and one-year old baby before taking her own life. Maybe she shoved the bullets into everyone, or the gun vaporized. Heck, if you had a Kelly Siegler-caliber prosecutor she would have no shame arguing that a friend or family member agreed to retrieve the gun. Maybe a neighbor toddler.

$5000 was nothing in 1983 or that range. I remember very well from first hand experience. Don't anachronistically sucker younger members of this site who wouldn't know. I was new out of college and moved to Las Vegas in 1984. I had frequent contact with college friends who were taking wildly different paths and with vastly different early results. Likewise my parents openly spoke about finances. After I saved and spent quite a bit of money at the Los Angeles Olympic Games in August 1984, I returned to Las Vegas with not much of a bankroll. I swept the board on the first NFL weekend and eventually reached a $5000 bankroll in December, courtesy of non-conference college basketball. I distinctly remember hitting that mark, since it was a goal. But it was a personal goal. The sum was so comparatively insignificant there was no way I was going to mention it or brag about it to any of my college buddies, let alone my parents. Nobody would have been impressed. I remember quietly mentioning it to one new Las Vegas friend. He was not impressed.

Here's one aspect that is seldom understood about gambling: The dollar amounts are not meaningful. Compulsive gamblers need to be in action. But it doesn't matter to them whether that action is high limit or the absolute minimum. That is revealed in one psychological study after another. I've seen it first hand countless times. There was one prominent sports bettor who was sweating out $22 dollar bets after a lifetime of wagering thousands. You could never tell the difference, based on body language or decibel level.

If Tim McClure was indeed gambling on his wedding night, then he was in action. He was probably happy. I'll take it far beyond probably. But once authorities suspect something then anything on your resume or timeline becomes potentially diabolical.

[alistaircranium]

I just watched this one last night and also have no idea why he would've done it. If he did it, I suppose narcissism could've been the reason why he contacted Unsolved Mysteries. Still, I am not sure what to make of this case.

Too much emphasis was put on the lie detector test. These tests are inadmissible in court, so I don't trust their veracity. I think anyone who's not guilty but nervous could fail one.

What does it mean that his case was dismissed "with prejudice"? I'm not familiar with law terms.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by alistaircranium

I just watched this one last night and also have no idea why he would've done it. If he did it, I suppose narcissism could've been the reason why he contacted Unsolved Mysteries. Still, I am not sure what to make of this case.

Too much emphasis was put on the lie detector test. These tests are inadmissible in court, so I don't trust their veracity. I think anyone who's not guilty but nervous could fail one.

What does it mean that his case was dismissed "with prejudice"? I'm not familiar with law terms.

It means that the prosecution is legally prohibited from charging Tim with the crime again. It's a dismissal that is not done very often, so it's led a lot of us to believe that there were some major flaws with the investigation or the DA's know that Tim is actually innocent but have not disclosed why.

In essence, Tim could pop out of the woodwork tomorrow, in all his mullet-glory, scream from the rooftops that he killed his mother, and there is nothing we can do about it.

[freakbook]

As guilty as I think Tim is, there's a little small place in my heart that thinks he could be a Charles Holden Jr. His sister was always suspicious to me as she told Tim to scour the highways for their mother's purse. "It was my sister's idea" I'd really wish she was interviewed.

If Tim is guilty, then he would've needed an accomplice to get back to the casino with his wife. He drove his mother to the casino where her body was found at, and killed her en route. But after abandoning her at the casino where she was found, how did he get back to the casino with his wife?

I wonder if his sister had an alibi for that time?

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

In essence, Tim could pop out of the woodwork tomorrow, in all his mullet-glory, scream from the rooftops that he killed his mother, and there is nothing we can do about it.

[alistaircranium]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

It means that the prosecution is legally prohibited from charging Tim with the crime again. It's a dismissal that is not done very often, so it's led a lot of us to believe that there were some major flaws with the investigation or the DA's know that Tim is actually innocent but have not disclosed why.

In essence, Tim could pop out of the woodwork tomorrow, in all his mullet-glory, scream from the rooftops that he killed his mother, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Thank you. That's very interesting and adds to the mystery.

[TheCars1986]

He wanted to kill his mother to frame Rob Shafer. Duh

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

He wanted to kill his mother to frame Rob Shafer. Duh

Totes obvs.

Tim went to Missouri after the wedding to kidnap Rob, but after winning at the casino all night he was blinded by the money signs in his eyes. He thought he saw Rob at the payphones, but due to the money signs blocking his view he kidnapped Angela instead.

On the way back to Vegas, he kept getting distracted by his beautiful mullet in the mirror. While Tim was distracted by the business that was going in front of his beautiful flowing mane, Angela escaped. Tim looked back as she escaped, but he was then distracted by the party in the back of his beautiful flowing mane and kept driving. While stuck on the side of the road, the same UFO that abducted Dale Kerstetter abducted Angela.

[Far Off Promise]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Totes obvs.

Tim went to Missouri after the wedding to kidnap Rob, but after winning at the casino all night he was blinded by the money signs in his eyes. He thought he saw Rob at the payphones, but due to the money signs blocking his view he kidnapped Angela instead.

On the way back to Vegas, he kept getting distracted by his beautiful mullet in the mirror. While Tim was distracted by the business that was going in front of his beautiful flowing mane, Angela escaped. Tim looked back as she escaped, but he was then distracted by the party in the back of his beautiful flowing mane and kept driving. While stuck on the side of the road, the same UFO that abducted Dale Kerstetter abducted Angela.

Meanwhile, Tim's mother catches a late flight to Canada. The next day she gets bored of the international jet set lifestyle and begins hitchhiking back to Lake Tahoe. She winds up in a remote café when a young man agrees to give her a ride. She realizes that her trip would be much easier if she had his car, so she kills him and takes his car. Along the way back, she gets lost, and winds up pulling over at the Blind River Rest Stop to take a nap. The car is small and uncomfortable so she knocks on the door of a nearby parked RV. The couple let her in and an argument ensues about whether or not the Maples were justified in kidnapping their grandchildren. She kills the woman, and thinks she kills the man, before fleeing in her stolen car. She drives back to Washington state, where she begins to feel the heat and decides to burn the car at a car wash. Shortly after, a young, euphoric woman comes driving by and picks up her. Tim's mother felt that this young woman was completely out of it, and borderline obsessed with a married man. Paranoia sets in and she begins to think the married man this young girl is obsessed with is Tim. Upon arriving in Lake Tahoe, she tells the young woman that Tim has just gotten married and she should give up her fantasy. She then exits the car. Enraged, the young woman forces herself into Tim's mother's car, kills her, and then flees off to the woods of California. Her abandoned vehicle is found there later.

Tim is innocent and UM is simply part of a giant conspiracy to make multiple segments out of one crime spree.