Who in this country does not know their Miranda rights? I mean, seriously. I knew my Miranda rights by the time I was 12 - from watching cop shows on TV. I can recite the old version of them by heart now...
You have the right to remain silent. If you give up this right*, anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you.
From watching Live PD, they've added some more words to it, but it's basically the same gist. Right to remain silent. Right to an attorney - paid for by the state if you can't fork out the money yourself. Easy peasy.
The police used to be able to just tell you your rights, but now, I guess, they have to read them off a little card. They're the same either way.
Before the law enforcement official asks you any questions, he needs to read you your rights. If he doesn't, anything you say is probably inadmissible in court. (I'm not a lawyer, I just watch a lot of TV.) So, it benefits the law enforcers to make sure you are read your rights and understand them, so they can ask you stuff.
So, I find it funny when I'm watching COPS or Live PD and some person is squealing about not being read their rights before they're even to the interrogation phase. Officers do not need to read rights to put handcuffs on a person. They don't need to read rights to detain someone.
Then again, if these people were half as smart as they think they are, they probably wouldn't be in handcuffs. Jus' sayin'.
*That part doesn't sound right to me, but it's late and I'm tired. I'll correct it in the morning, if I remember.
Showing posts with label True Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label True Crime. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
What More Can They Do to Him?
We were watching an episode of Evil Lives Here on ID the other night. (If you haven't seen that one, it shows the events surrounding a murder or murders from the perspective of a family member of the suspect or some other person peripherally associated with the case.) In this particular instance, they were speaking with the wife of a man convicted of murdering and raping a 17 year old girl.
They got him and he's doing life without parole. Which is always good.
Anyway, after he was in prison, his wife and her friend finally opened up his locked shed and found all manner of disturbing stuff inside, including what one could assume were trophies from his other crimes. Throughout the show, they'd hinted that maybe the one girl wasn't his only kill. So, it made sense there would be other trophies.
What didn't make sense was near the end of the program when the wife said something to the effect of 'well, he's already doing life without parole, what else can they do to him?'
Derp. It's not about what they 'can do to him'. It should be about justice.
They could provide closure for the families of all the other women he might've killed. They could close out some cold cases. They could bring justice for those other victims.
I mean, the first thing we couldn't figure out was why the police never opened up that damn shed during the investigation of that man and the wife ended up opening it after the conviction. Umm, police work a little maybe? Holy shit.
They talked about all the 'gifts' this guy had given to his wife and their daughters that could've been taken from his kills. Nothing was done about that either. (I know. I used the google-fu and checked around to see if he'd ever been tried for anything else. Nope. And sure enough, they said that at the end of the program. He's NEVER been tried for other crimes.)
Argh.
And it wasn't like he only committed crimes in the state where he was originally convicted. He was a long-haul trucker. He could've committed crimes in multiple states - which, unless I miss my guess would make this federal - but no one has done anything. Yeah, they can't add more years to life, but that isn't the point. They could find a crime he committed in a death-penalty state and use the treat of that to get him to pony up the details of his other crimes, but no. Not doing that either. He's just sitting there, getting older, wrapped in the knowledge that he got away with murder(s).
This happened back in 1994. 23 years. 23 more years of people never knowing what happened to their sisters, their daughters, their loved ones. Imagine their pain.
Then imagine how, with the technological advancements of 2017 vs 1994, all of those trophies could help investigators figure out how many other women this dude raped and killed.
But nope.
I know the end of that thoroughly pissed Hubs and I off. It was a whole WTF, jaw-dropping thing.
Oh, wait a second... That's right... His victims were supposedly hookers and runaways. (The girl he was convicted of killing was a runaway.) I guess someone assumes they don't deserve justice. Umm, yah.
That's messed up.
What do you think?
They got him and he's doing life without parole. Which is always good.
Anyway, after he was in prison, his wife and her friend finally opened up his locked shed and found all manner of disturbing stuff inside, including what one could assume were trophies from his other crimes. Throughout the show, they'd hinted that maybe the one girl wasn't his only kill. So, it made sense there would be other trophies.
What didn't make sense was near the end of the program when the wife said something to the effect of 'well, he's already doing life without parole, what else can they do to him?'
Derp. It's not about what they 'can do to him'. It should be about justice.
They could provide closure for the families of all the other women he might've killed. They could close out some cold cases. They could bring justice for those other victims.
I mean, the first thing we couldn't figure out was why the police never opened up that damn shed during the investigation of that man and the wife ended up opening it after the conviction. Umm, police work a little maybe? Holy shit.
They talked about all the 'gifts' this guy had given to his wife and their daughters that could've been taken from his kills. Nothing was done about that either. (I know. I used the google-fu and checked around to see if he'd ever been tried for anything else. Nope. And sure enough, they said that at the end of the program. He's NEVER been tried for other crimes.)
Argh.
And it wasn't like he only committed crimes in the state where he was originally convicted. He was a long-haul trucker. He could've committed crimes in multiple states - which, unless I miss my guess would make this federal - but no one has done anything. Yeah, they can't add more years to life, but that isn't the point. They could find a crime he committed in a death-penalty state and use the treat of that to get him to pony up the details of his other crimes, but no. Not doing that either. He's just sitting there, getting older, wrapped in the knowledge that he got away with murder(s).
This happened back in 1994. 23 years. 23 more years of people never knowing what happened to their sisters, their daughters, their loved ones. Imagine their pain.
Then imagine how, with the technological advancements of 2017 vs 1994, all of those trophies could help investigators figure out how many other women this dude raped and killed.
But nope.
I know the end of that thoroughly pissed Hubs and I off. It was a whole WTF, jaw-dropping thing.
Oh, wait a second... That's right... His victims were supposedly hookers and runaways. (The girl he was convicted of killing was a runaway.) I guess someone assumes they don't deserve justice. Umm, yah.
That's messed up.
What do you think?
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Infamous Murder Case
Last night, Hubs and I were looking for something to watch when I hit an episode of A Crime to Remember on ID (Investigation Discovery) that we hadn't seen yet. I don't remember the title, but it detailed a killing spree in Lincoln, NE back in 1957.
The details seemed familiar, but I couldn't put my finger on it. So during a commercial break, I did some googling. Turns out it was the Starkweather murders.
Not familiar with the Starkweather murders? Billy Joel mentioned them in his song "We Didn't Start the Fire" - 'Starkweather homicides, children of Thalidomide". Or if you've ever seen the movie The Frighteners, the bad guy in that says something to the effect of 'got me one more than Starkweather'. Oh, and I guess there was a movie based on the killing spree - Badlands, starring Cissy Spacek and Martin Sheen, in 1973.
You see, 19 year old Charlie Starkweather decided he was going to do some killing one day. No one quite knows the reason. And he took his 14 year old girlfriend, Caril Ann, along for the ride. They started out with a gas station attendant and ended with the murder of a traveling salesman. Eleven people dead by the time they were through - including her mother, her stepfather, and her 2 year old baby sister.
Starkweather got the chair in June of 1959. His girlfriend got life in prison, but got out in 1976 - perhaps because she was only 14 at the time of the murders and some bleeding heart decided she'd served enough time. I dunno.
She maintains she had nothing to do with the killings, but I'm not buying it. Some of the details seemed... off... somehow. In one case, he shot two teenagers - a boy and a girl. The girl was mutilated with a knife afterwards. Later, he shoots a husband and ties up the wife and the maid. The wife and the maid were stabbed to death, but he claims they were alive when he left them. A rifle was his weapon of choice. Stabbing seems more her thing.
She claims that he was holding her captive. Of course, the fact that they spent 6 days in the house with her dead family and she did nothing to alert the authorities makes me think she wasn't quite the victim she wanted people to believe she was.
The world will never know for certain.
What do you think?
The details seemed familiar, but I couldn't put my finger on it. So during a commercial break, I did some googling. Turns out it was the Starkweather murders.
Not familiar with the Starkweather murders? Billy Joel mentioned them in his song "We Didn't Start the Fire" - 'Starkweather homicides, children of Thalidomide". Or if you've ever seen the movie The Frighteners, the bad guy in that says something to the effect of 'got me one more than Starkweather'. Oh, and I guess there was a movie based on the killing spree - Badlands, starring Cissy Spacek and Martin Sheen, in 1973.
You see, 19 year old Charlie Starkweather decided he was going to do some killing one day. No one quite knows the reason. And he took his 14 year old girlfriend, Caril Ann, along for the ride. They started out with a gas station attendant and ended with the murder of a traveling salesman. Eleven people dead by the time they were through - including her mother, her stepfather, and her 2 year old baby sister.
Starkweather got the chair in June of 1959. His girlfriend got life in prison, but got out in 1976 - perhaps because she was only 14 at the time of the murders and some bleeding heart decided she'd served enough time. I dunno.
She maintains she had nothing to do with the killings, but I'm not buying it. Some of the details seemed... off... somehow. In one case, he shot two teenagers - a boy and a girl. The girl was mutilated with a knife afterwards. Later, he shoots a husband and ties up the wife and the maid. The wife and the maid were stabbed to death, but he claims they were alive when he left them. A rifle was his weapon of choice. Stabbing seems more her thing.
She claims that he was holding her captive. Of course, the fact that they spent 6 days in the house with her dead family and she did nothing to alert the authorities makes me think she wasn't quite the victim she wanted people to believe she was.
The world will never know for certain.
What do you think?
Monday, November 14, 2016
Crime in the Media - The Long Island Serial Killer
Recently, Investigation Discovery has been airing a show called PEOPLE Magazine Investigates: The Long Island Serial Killer. We're two episodes in (of I don't know how many installments) and I'm riveted.
I remember hearing about this a while back when the body count had risen sufficiently for it to make national news. There's a stretch of highway out there that someone or someones has made a perfect dumping ground. It's horrific. And my opinion is that there is more than one killer using that area to dump bodies.
My main point: There are two different sets with different MOs. Yes, all of the bodies seem to have been involved in 'escort' work (with the exception of one that I'll come to in a moment). But some of the bodies were strangled, wrapped in burlap, and buried, while others were dismembered and scattered. The newer bodies seem to have been the ones wrapped in burlap. There was some talk that the killer had evolved to the burlap and the burial, but that seems like a de-evolution to me. Then they added in a third set of bodies down by Atlantic City, which seems to me to be a third killer. Killed and lined up precisely above ground.
Oh, it could be one killer, but that seems improbable.
Another thing they said was that the killer had broken with his MO because he killed a child. This is where my theory gets a little unpalatable. The mother of the toddler was an escort. The little girl and her mother were both wearing similar jewelry. My theory is that the mother took the kid with her on her appointment... gross, but not outside the realm of possibility.
They also said the killer had broken with his MO because one of the victims was a male who had been beaten to death. BUT, said male was a young Asian man whose body was found dressed in women's clothing. My theory is that the killer picked up his escort thinking that he had a date with a woman, and when he discovered the truth, he beat the young man to death in a a rage.
Of course, the authorities probably already thought of all this, but they didn't put it into the series. (They tend to leave a lot out of these shows.) Still, my mind gets whirring and things start falling into place for me.
They still haven't caught any of the perpetrators. I suspect they've moved on. If it is only one killer, perhaps he died some other way - a car accident, a heart attack, a stroke, etc. Or perhaps he's incarcerated for some other crime.
What do you think? Have you watched that show?
I remember hearing about this a while back when the body count had risen sufficiently for it to make national news. There's a stretch of highway out there that someone or someones has made a perfect dumping ground. It's horrific. And my opinion is that there is more than one killer using that area to dump bodies.
My main point: There are two different sets with different MOs. Yes, all of the bodies seem to have been involved in 'escort' work (with the exception of one that I'll come to in a moment). But some of the bodies were strangled, wrapped in burlap, and buried, while others were dismembered and scattered. The newer bodies seem to have been the ones wrapped in burlap. There was some talk that the killer had evolved to the burlap and the burial, but that seems like a de-evolution to me. Then they added in a third set of bodies down by Atlantic City, which seems to me to be a third killer. Killed and lined up precisely above ground.
Oh, it could be one killer, but that seems improbable.
Another thing they said was that the killer had broken with his MO because he killed a child. This is where my theory gets a little unpalatable. The mother of the toddler was an escort. The little girl and her mother were both wearing similar jewelry. My theory is that the mother took the kid with her on her appointment... gross, but not outside the realm of possibility.
They also said the killer had broken with his MO because one of the victims was a male who had been beaten to death. BUT, said male was a young Asian man whose body was found dressed in women's clothing. My theory is that the killer picked up his escort thinking that he had a date with a woman, and when he discovered the truth, he beat the young man to death in a a rage.
Of course, the authorities probably already thought of all this, but they didn't put it into the series. (They tend to leave a lot out of these shows.) Still, my mind gets whirring and things start falling into place for me.
They still haven't caught any of the perpetrators. I suspect they've moved on. If it is only one killer, perhaps he died some other way - a car accident, a heart attack, a stroke, etc. Or perhaps he's incarcerated for some other crime.
What do you think? Have you watched that show?
Monday, October 10, 2016
Just the Facts
Hubs and I were watching a true crime show on Friday night. I think it was 48 Hours. Might've been Dateline. Anyway, the evidence seemed pretty clear cut to me. (Hubs, too.) Even though it was circumstantial. Neither of us wanted to stay up for the end, so I googled the case. And discovered that the first trial had ended in a hung jury...
Let me back up a little. This particular case was 30 years old. A woman was found by the side of the road, barely hanging onto life. She couldn't tell anyone what happened and she never would. Her head was caved in. There wasn't a great deal of physical evidence. There were no witnesses. There was only the man who found her. Or rather, the man who said at the time that he'd been driving down the road and had seen what he thought might be a body, so he whipped a u-turn, and when he realized the woman was still alive, went down the street knocking on doors, looking for help.
Then, after some further investigation, the man who 'found' her said that actually she'd been in his car with him, but she'd fallen out of his car on a turn. Except the body was 200 feet from the nearest curve. Except the woman only had the head injuries - no road rash, no messed up clothing. Even her shoes were with her and she was wearing clogs.
But they had no real evidence, so the case went cold...
Flash forward thirty years. Her daughter, who was only a baby when she died, had badgered the local authorities into opening the case again. Interviews of whoever was still around ensued. Evidence - what little there was left of it (a lot of the case file had disappeared) - was reviewed. It all boiled back around to the man who 'found' her. Turns out he was a bouncer in the bar where she was last seen. Turns out he had a new story that still didn't match the evidence - this time she'd fallen out of his car and hit her head on a mailbox pole. (There was no mailbox anywhere near where she was found.) It was all just a horrible accident.
Now, I've probably left out a bunch of stuff. The guy, for instance, had been a model human being for the past thirty years. The woman's boyfriend had been in and out of jail for the past thirty years. A butterfly was probably flapping its wings off the coast of Chili. None of that really mattered when you looked at the facts.
The facts were that the last person this woman was with had lied. Repeatedly. The evidence showed that her head was bashed in. There was no evidence of anything that would resemble a fall from a moving vehicle. And there was only one person in the vicinity who could've ended this woman's life - however you put together the pieces.
If you strip away all the unnecessaries, the equation is simple.
But, the first jury was hung. The defense introduced theories to cloud up the simple equation. The prosecution introduced theories which clouded up the simple equation. 2 + 2 = 4 turned into (6 divided by 2 -1) + (the square root of 4 plus 0) equals X.
The next jury got it right. Guilty. 15 to life. (Which is apparently the most you can get in the state where this occurred.)
My theory? He offered her a ride home and tried something. She said no. She tried to get away and he whacked her in the back of the head, knocking her down, then he hit her a couple more times in the side and the front of her head. Then he panicked. He got in the car to drive away, but realized she wasn't dead, so he went back and tried to make it look like he was a concerned citizen, in case she woke up and identified him as the one who beat her. I don't know for sure. It's just a theory.
No way, in any theory I could think of - and I thought about this a lot as I was trying to fall asleep that night - did 'accidental' come into the equation.
Something to think about if you're ever sitting a jury, I guess. Try to boil out all the unnecessaries and look only at the facts. Make a decision based on those. I'll probably never get to sit on a jury - not if the attorneys ask me any questions during jury selection. Which reminds me... I'm still on the jury pool here in MO until next month. I wonder if they'll call me up.
Have you ever been on a jury?
Let me back up a little. This particular case was 30 years old. A woman was found by the side of the road, barely hanging onto life. She couldn't tell anyone what happened and she never would. Her head was caved in. There wasn't a great deal of physical evidence. There were no witnesses. There was only the man who found her. Or rather, the man who said at the time that he'd been driving down the road and had seen what he thought might be a body, so he whipped a u-turn, and when he realized the woman was still alive, went down the street knocking on doors, looking for help.
Then, after some further investigation, the man who 'found' her said that actually she'd been in his car with him, but she'd fallen out of his car on a turn. Except the body was 200 feet from the nearest curve. Except the woman only had the head injuries - no road rash, no messed up clothing. Even her shoes were with her and she was wearing clogs.
But they had no real evidence, so the case went cold...
Flash forward thirty years. Her daughter, who was only a baby when she died, had badgered the local authorities into opening the case again. Interviews of whoever was still around ensued. Evidence - what little there was left of it (a lot of the case file had disappeared) - was reviewed. It all boiled back around to the man who 'found' her. Turns out he was a bouncer in the bar where she was last seen. Turns out he had a new story that still didn't match the evidence - this time she'd fallen out of his car and hit her head on a mailbox pole. (There was no mailbox anywhere near where she was found.) It was all just a horrible accident.
Now, I've probably left out a bunch of stuff. The guy, for instance, had been a model human being for the past thirty years. The woman's boyfriend had been in and out of jail for the past thirty years. A butterfly was probably flapping its wings off the coast of Chili. None of that really mattered when you looked at the facts.
The facts were that the last person this woman was with had lied. Repeatedly. The evidence showed that her head was bashed in. There was no evidence of anything that would resemble a fall from a moving vehicle. And there was only one person in the vicinity who could've ended this woman's life - however you put together the pieces.
If you strip away all the unnecessaries, the equation is simple.
But, the first jury was hung. The defense introduced theories to cloud up the simple equation. The prosecution introduced theories which clouded up the simple equation. 2 + 2 = 4 turned into (6 divided by 2 -1) + (the square root of 4 plus 0) equals X.
The next jury got it right. Guilty. 15 to life. (Which is apparently the most you can get in the state where this occurred.)
My theory? He offered her a ride home and tried something. She said no. She tried to get away and he whacked her in the back of the head, knocking her down, then he hit her a couple more times in the side and the front of her head. Then he panicked. He got in the car to drive away, but realized she wasn't dead, so he went back and tried to make it look like he was a concerned citizen, in case she woke up and identified him as the one who beat her. I don't know for sure. It's just a theory.
No way, in any theory I could think of - and I thought about this a lot as I was trying to fall asleep that night - did 'accidental' come into the equation.
Something to think about if you're ever sitting a jury, I guess. Try to boil out all the unnecessaries and look only at the facts. Make a decision based on those. I'll probably never get to sit on a jury - not if the attorneys ask me any questions during jury selection. Which reminds me... I'm still on the jury pool here in MO until next month. I wonder if they'll call me up.
Have you ever been on a jury?
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Wicked Wednesday - The End of the Con
Around the area, there's been a news story I've been following. At first, the news broke that a woman and her crippled daughter were missing from their Springfield, MO home. The woman was a 48 year old single mother who cared for her handicapped, 19 year old daughter. The poor child had muscular dystrophy and leukemia, which left her unable to walk or to take care of herself.
Over the weekend, we heard that DeeDee Blancharde and her daughter, Gypsy, disappeared from their Habitat for Humanity home. (The one they were given after they lost everything after Hurricane Katrina down in LA.) Everyone was looking for information as to their whereabouts. A picture was included of DeeDee and her poor, sickly-looking daughter, holding a puppy together. Both had big smiles like they hadn't a care in the world.
Next came the horrible, sad news that DeeDee's body had been found. She was a victim of a horrific stabbing. Poor, wheelchair-bound Gypsy remained missing. The search was on.
Next, they said they'd located Gypsy in a suburb of Milwaukee, WI. She was taken into custody with 'a person of interest'. The person of interest was a man Gypsy had supposedly met online. His location was the one from which nasty messages were left on the FB page of the victim after her death. How many times have we seen the innocent taken advantage of by internet predators? So sad.
His stepfather claims there's no way the guy could've done it. He wouldn't hurt a fly.
Except when they got him in custody, he confessed to stabbing the mother multiple times and slitting her throat - saying the whole thing was Gypsy's idea. Gypsy confessed to at least being in the house at the time of her mother's murder and doing nothing to stop it, or call for help, or anything. Not surprising since she was all crippled and unable to do for herself.
Then, in a stunning turn of events, the sheriff of Greene County, MO held a press conference. (You can read about it all here.) Gypsy isn't 19 - she's 23. She isn't sick or crippled or wheelchair bound. She's a healthy adult. Chances are they weren't even from Louisiana. Before Gypsy hightailed it for the great North, she grabbed thousands of dollars in cash from DeeDee's safe. The mother and daughter duo have been scamming people for years.
Maybe Gypsy got tired of playing the part. Maybe Gypsy wanted a bigger cut. I guess we'll find out more as the story continues to unfold. All I know is that DeeDee ran her last con job. She just never got the chance to realize she'd trained her daughter too well in the world of criminal enterprise. Here's hoping that Gypsy can't run a con on the criminal justice system and she gets the justice she deserves.
Update from last night after I typed this post: "Things are not always as they appear."
Over the weekend, we heard that DeeDee Blancharde and her daughter, Gypsy, disappeared from their Habitat for Humanity home. (The one they were given after they lost everything after Hurricane Katrina down in LA.) Everyone was looking for information as to their whereabouts. A picture was included of DeeDee and her poor, sickly-looking daughter, holding a puppy together. Both had big smiles like they hadn't a care in the world.
Next came the horrible, sad news that DeeDee's body had been found. She was a victim of a horrific stabbing. Poor, wheelchair-bound Gypsy remained missing. The search was on.
Next, they said they'd located Gypsy in a suburb of Milwaukee, WI. She was taken into custody with 'a person of interest'. The person of interest was a man Gypsy had supposedly met online. His location was the one from which nasty messages were left on the FB page of the victim after her death. How many times have we seen the innocent taken advantage of by internet predators? So sad.
His stepfather claims there's no way the guy could've done it. He wouldn't hurt a fly.
Except when they got him in custody, he confessed to stabbing the mother multiple times and slitting her throat - saying the whole thing was Gypsy's idea. Gypsy confessed to at least being in the house at the time of her mother's murder and doing nothing to stop it, or call for help, or anything. Not surprising since she was all crippled and unable to do for herself.
Then, in a stunning turn of events, the sheriff of Greene County, MO held a press conference. (You can read about it all here.) Gypsy isn't 19 - she's 23. She isn't sick or crippled or wheelchair bound. She's a healthy adult. Chances are they weren't even from Louisiana. Before Gypsy hightailed it for the great North, she grabbed thousands of dollars in cash from DeeDee's safe. The mother and daughter duo have been scamming people for years.
Maybe Gypsy got tired of playing the part. Maybe Gypsy wanted a bigger cut. I guess we'll find out more as the story continues to unfold. All I know is that DeeDee ran her last con job. She just never got the chance to realize she'd trained her daughter too well in the world of criminal enterprise. Here's hoping that Gypsy can't run a con on the criminal justice system and she gets the justice she deserves.
Update from last night after I typed this post: "Things are not always as they appear."
Friday, May 22, 2015
True Crime Has Tainted Us
I really watch too much true-crime TV. Hubs and I both do. Case in point:
I was at the nearest gas station on Wednesday, getting my lottery winnings (don't be too excited, I didn't hit the jackpot or anything) and picking out some other tickets to try my luck on. An older lady walked up next to me to turn her scratch offs in and buy some more - hey, it's a local pastime. A young guy walked up shortly thereafter to pay for gas. We were all just being amiable, as people usually are at the local gas station - when the young dude exclaims
"Oh man! That chick just messed up her new Camaro!"
We all turn to look and see a woman in a new black Camaro slowly pulling away from the red concrete poles she'd just backed into. She gets out to look. Another guy who'd recently been inside the store walks up to her and they both gaze at the damage. Then she gets into the driver's side and her guy gets into the passenger side. They pull away just slowly enough for me and another gal to get the license plate number, then they jump onto the highway and speed off - blowing the stop sign at the intersection.
The dude who originally saw the accident pays and then goes back outside to his vehicle. I and the other lady go back to choosing scratch off tickets. A couple minutes later the gas guy comes back in and says his wife saw the whole thing. The car had a red scrape down the side and she said they hit the gas pump. More kerfluffle ensues. And I head on my merry way.
When I get home, I relay the story to Hubs. And that's when the true crime speculation comes into play. Why did they speed off - blowing a stop sign in the process? Why was she backing up right there in the first place? Was the guy casing the place? Had they already committed a crime someplace else? Was it a simple case of pump and run where they didn't bother to pay for the gas they'd pumped?
Stolen car? Stolen credit card?
No insurance? No driver's license?
Wanted in another town for some heinous crime???
Simple case of 'god, I feel stupid and don't want to face anyone in the store'?
I swear, we aren't normal anymore. LOL
Yesterday, I was back at the gas station, claiming my winnings (yeah, still not a jackpot, but it bought lunch at KFC), and I asked the gals if they caught the culprits. They didn't even bother calling it in to the police. Nothing was damaged. The red concrete poles have been run into so many times, it's hard to tell if they sustained anything new and even if they had, they aren't really worth making an insurance claim over.
We'll never know exactly why the pair tore away from the scene like the sheriff was hot on their trail. But they did pay for their gas before they left, so that's something. ;o)
Do you wonder about stuff like we do? What would you have thought if you saw the same scene I did? Or am I just overly tainted by true crime television?
I was at the nearest gas station on Wednesday, getting my lottery winnings (don't be too excited, I didn't hit the jackpot or anything) and picking out some other tickets to try my luck on. An older lady walked up next to me to turn her scratch offs in and buy some more - hey, it's a local pastime. A young guy walked up shortly thereafter to pay for gas. We were all just being amiable, as people usually are at the local gas station - when the young dude exclaims
"Oh man! That chick just messed up her new Camaro!"
We all turn to look and see a woman in a new black Camaro slowly pulling away from the red concrete poles she'd just backed into. She gets out to look. Another guy who'd recently been inside the store walks up to her and they both gaze at the damage. Then she gets into the driver's side and her guy gets into the passenger side. They pull away just slowly enough for me and another gal to get the license plate number, then they jump onto the highway and speed off - blowing the stop sign at the intersection.
The dude who originally saw the accident pays and then goes back outside to his vehicle. I and the other lady go back to choosing scratch off tickets. A couple minutes later the gas guy comes back in and says his wife saw the whole thing. The car had a red scrape down the side and she said they hit the gas pump. More kerfluffle ensues. And I head on my merry way.
When I get home, I relay the story to Hubs. And that's when the true crime speculation comes into play. Why did they speed off - blowing a stop sign in the process? Why was she backing up right there in the first place? Was the guy casing the place? Had they already committed a crime someplace else? Was it a simple case of pump and run where they didn't bother to pay for the gas they'd pumped?
Stolen car? Stolen credit card?
No insurance? No driver's license?
Wanted in another town for some heinous crime???
Simple case of 'god, I feel stupid and don't want to face anyone in the store'?
I swear, we aren't normal anymore. LOL
Yesterday, I was back at the gas station, claiming my winnings (yeah, still not a jackpot, but it bought lunch at KFC), and I asked the gals if they caught the culprits. They didn't even bother calling it in to the police. Nothing was damaged. The red concrete poles have been run into so many times, it's hard to tell if they sustained anything new and even if they had, they aren't really worth making an insurance claim over.
We'll never know exactly why the pair tore away from the scene like the sheriff was hot on their trail. But they did pay for their gas before they left, so that's something. ;o)
Do you wonder about stuff like we do? What would you have thought if you saw the same scene I did? Or am I just overly tainted by true crime television?
Monday, May 11, 2015
Statute of Limitations? WTF?
As you all know, I watch a lot of true crime. I was stunned a while back during an episode of Cold Justice when the ladies were hampered because they needed to be able to prove 1st degree murder in the case or it wouldn't go anywhere. Why? Well, in New Mexico, the statute of limitations for 2nd degree murder is 6 years.
:jawdrop:
Six years.
So, if you kill someone in the state of New Mexico, if you can keep the body from being found, or keep the authorities from coming after you for the crime for more than six years, OR you can plan a murder but make it look like it was a random act and then hide it, you're home free. Congratulations. You killed another human being - but because you didn't plan it and you hide the crime well - you get a free pass.
Friday, Cold Justice did an update show. The officers and detectives in that particular cold case are working hard to get the statute changed. The House in New Mexico voted to change the statute. The Senate didn't. WTF? In what world does this even make any sense? Lobbyists for the defense attorneys? Cutting costs in the judicial system by trying fewer cases? :shrug:
So, I went online and searched for how other states handle this. I mean, surely, it's just New Mexico, right? Sadly, no. Oh, all of the states have no statute of limitations on 1st degree murder. Many others include 2nd degree murder in that. But not all. And I'm like 'someone lost their life, but after a few years, it's okay?' Seriously, WTF? And don't get me started on the SOL* for rape and child abuse.
Flash forward to last night. A woman in L.A. was murdered back in 1985. Her killer was a female officer with the LAPD. Somehow :scoff: the case wasn't investigated properly until 25 years later. They used DNA to nail the chick, but... BUT... when the family tried to sue the LAPD for not doing their jobs, they were told the SOL had expired in 2000. YEARS before the officer was even tried for the crime.
Now, in some cases, there's a loophole there. The SOL can run out, but you get a grace period for actually finding out a crime has been committed. For instance, in Michigan, the SOL for medical malpractice is 5 years (or it was), but you get 6 months from the date of discovering the doctor screwed up if you don't find out until after the initial 5 years has passed. It's not something they make widely known, but it's there. (Again, or it was.) Apparently, there was no such loophole in CA, so the family of that poor woman got screwed by the LAPD, and then screwed by the state of CA.
See, this is why I love Wyoming. There's no SOL for any crime up there. Now, if only they were warmer and wetter, I might've thought harder about living up there.
I'm actually okay with SOL for some misdemeanors. I mean, a kid steals a pack of gum and thirty years later, they get punished for it? That seems silly. Still, the store was out money, so maybe even after thirty years, restitution should be paid. I don't know about the little shtuff. I do know that murder - first, second, manslaughter, vehicular, involuntary - is murder. Someone lost their life and there should be some punishment for that at some point along the way.
Of course, I also think 'attempted murder' punishments are totally bogus - especially when the only reason it wasn't MURDER was because the person they tried to kill was too tough to die. So they get a lighter sentence? Feh. I've seen too many true crime shows where the victim only survived through sheer will, but their attacker benefited. That's bull. But that's me.
What do you think?
*Funny, the acronym for statute of limitations is the same as the acronym for shit outta luck. Which is what the victims of these untried crimes are.
:jawdrop:
Six years.
So, if you kill someone in the state of New Mexico, if you can keep the body from being found, or keep the authorities from coming after you for the crime for more than six years, OR you can plan a murder but make it look like it was a random act and then hide it, you're home free. Congratulations. You killed another human being - but because you didn't plan it and you hide the crime well - you get a free pass.
Friday, Cold Justice did an update show. The officers and detectives in that particular cold case are working hard to get the statute changed. The House in New Mexico voted to change the statute. The Senate didn't. WTF? In what world does this even make any sense? Lobbyists for the defense attorneys? Cutting costs in the judicial system by trying fewer cases? :shrug:
So, I went online and searched for how other states handle this. I mean, surely, it's just New Mexico, right? Sadly, no. Oh, all of the states have no statute of limitations on 1st degree murder. Many others include 2nd degree murder in that. But not all. And I'm like 'someone lost their life, but after a few years, it's okay?' Seriously, WTF? And don't get me started on the SOL* for rape and child abuse.
Flash forward to last night. A woman in L.A. was murdered back in 1985. Her killer was a female officer with the LAPD. Somehow :scoff: the case wasn't investigated properly until 25 years later. They used DNA to nail the chick, but... BUT... when the family tried to sue the LAPD for not doing their jobs, they were told the SOL had expired in 2000. YEARS before the officer was even tried for the crime.
Now, in some cases, there's a loophole there. The SOL can run out, but you get a grace period for actually finding out a crime has been committed. For instance, in Michigan, the SOL for medical malpractice is 5 years (or it was), but you get 6 months from the date of discovering the doctor screwed up if you don't find out until after the initial 5 years has passed. It's not something they make widely known, but it's there. (Again, or it was.) Apparently, there was no such loophole in CA, so the family of that poor woman got screwed by the LAPD, and then screwed by the state of CA.
See, this is why I love Wyoming. There's no SOL for any crime up there. Now, if only they were warmer and wetter, I might've thought harder about living up there.
I'm actually okay with SOL for some misdemeanors. I mean, a kid steals a pack of gum and thirty years later, they get punished for it? That seems silly. Still, the store was out money, so maybe even after thirty years, restitution should be paid. I don't know about the little shtuff. I do know that murder - first, second, manslaughter, vehicular, involuntary - is murder. Someone lost their life and there should be some punishment for that at some point along the way.
Of course, I also think 'attempted murder' punishments are totally bogus - especially when the only reason it wasn't MURDER was because the person they tried to kill was too tough to die. So they get a lighter sentence? Feh. I've seen too many true crime shows where the victim only survived through sheer will, but their attacker benefited. That's bull. But that's me.
What do you think?
*Funny, the acronym for statute of limitations is the same as the acronym for shit outta luck. Which is what the victims of these untried crimes are.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Crime Fighter Friday - Yolanda McClary
I don't know if any of you watch Cold Justice on TNT, but I've got a girl crush on these two women who go around the country trying close cold cases and bring murderers to justice. This week, I'll focus on one and next week, I'll focus on the other. I love them both equally, but someone had to come first.
Yolanda McClary. She's the law enforcement side of the duo. (Kelly Siegler is the prosecutorial side.) She's a former crime scene investigator from Las Vegas. Yes, she is the real CSI - and is the basis for the red-headed gal on that show. She totally rocks the red hair. And she investigated over 7000 crimes in her 26 years with LVPD.
She's gritty and tough - the way a cop ought to be - but she's sensitive to the victims' families and while she does have a heart of gold, it's clad in steel. And she's smart as a whip. Naturally.
Heaven forbid anything should ever happen to me or mine, but if it did, I know I'd want her investigating the crime.
She kicks ass.
If you're interested in more about Yolanda, follow her on Facebook. I do, and I love her posts. She kinda makes me feel better about all the crime in the world because I know she's out there trying to solve it.
Yolanda McClary. She's the law enforcement side of the duo. (Kelly Siegler is the prosecutorial side.) She's a former crime scene investigator from Las Vegas. Yes, she is the real CSI - and is the basis for the red-headed gal on that show. She totally rocks the red hair. And she investigated over 7000 crimes in her 26 years with LVPD.
She's gritty and tough - the way a cop ought to be - but she's sensitive to the victims' families and while she does have a heart of gold, it's clad in steel. And she's smart as a whip. Naturally.
Heaven forbid anything should ever happen to me or mine, but if it did, I know I'd want her investigating the crime.
She kicks ass.
If you're interested in more about Yolanda, follow her on Facebook. I do, and I love her posts. She kinda makes me feel better about all the crime in the world because I know she's out there trying to solve it.
Friday, February 6, 2015
True Crime Friday - Beyond Conviction
Truth be told, I stumbled across the documentary, Beyond Conviction, the other day, but I didn't watch all of it.
Basically, it's a movie wherein victims of crimes confront the people who made them victims. The stories themselves seemed like they'd be interesting, but the commentary from 'noted psychologists' turned me off. If only the criminals could see the way victims lives were impacted, and if only the victims could see... and if only people stopped thinking of these criminals as criminals... yada, yada, yada.
Okay, so I watched the first of three such cases - which I suspect were cherry-picked to prove the documentarian's theories - was presented originally as a rapist who attacked a girl who was living in the house where he stayed while going through some personal crap. Partway into the segment, low and behold, the rapist was the victim's brother. Pure shock value presenting it that way, and I was a little pissed for the rape survivor at their tactics. And yes, in this particular instance, the only way she could heal was by confronting her brother and letting go of the anger she'd been holding for 13 years.
I skipped the next one when it turned out to be a mother whose son was killed in prison by another inmate. Yes, she was hurting, but I couldn't see how confronting the other criminal who killed her son would do anyone any good.
I didn't go back for the third instance, but according to what I could find online, it centered around a daughter seeking answers from her father - who had killed her mother.
They call this 'restorative justice'. The first and the third cases here, I could see how confronting the person who basically ruined your life could help with closure. Not so sure how that mother in the second case is ever going to find closure. But that's just me. Personally, I'd just want to be alone with the man who killed my child so I could beat him to death with a brick.
Have you ever watched Beyond Conviction? If you have, should I have stuck around through the other two cases? If you haven't, what do you think of the concept of restorative justice? Would you want to talk to the person who wronged you and get answers? Or would you rather they just rot in jail?
Basically, it's a movie wherein victims of crimes confront the people who made them victims. The stories themselves seemed like they'd be interesting, but the commentary from 'noted psychologists' turned me off. If only the criminals could see the way victims lives were impacted, and if only the victims could see... and if only people stopped thinking of these criminals as criminals... yada, yada, yada.
Okay, so I watched the first of three such cases - which I suspect were cherry-picked to prove the documentarian's theories - was presented originally as a rapist who attacked a girl who was living in the house where he stayed while going through some personal crap. Partway into the segment, low and behold, the rapist was the victim's brother. Pure shock value presenting it that way, and I was a little pissed for the rape survivor at their tactics. And yes, in this particular instance, the only way she could heal was by confronting her brother and letting go of the anger she'd been holding for 13 years.
I skipped the next one when it turned out to be a mother whose son was killed in prison by another inmate. Yes, she was hurting, but I couldn't see how confronting the other criminal who killed her son would do anyone any good.
I didn't go back for the third instance, but according to what I could find online, it centered around a daughter seeking answers from her father - who had killed her mother.
They call this 'restorative justice'. The first and the third cases here, I could see how confronting the person who basically ruined your life could help with closure. Not so sure how that mother in the second case is ever going to find closure. But that's just me. Personally, I'd just want to be alone with the man who killed my child so I could beat him to death with a brick.
Have you ever watched Beyond Conviction? If you have, should I have stuck around through the other two cases? If you haven't, what do you think of the concept of restorative justice? Would you want to talk to the person who wronged you and get answers? Or would you rather they just rot in jail?
Friday, January 30, 2015
True Crime Friday - This Just In
Yesterday, police in San Francisco responded to a report of a supposedly suspicious package left on the sidewalk. Okay, I'm not sure what exactly was suspicious about a suitcase left next to the garbage, but that's the world we live in. (I left a suitcase next to my garbage before we moved because it was broken and covered in cat hair.)
Anyway, when responders opened the suitcase, it was filled with people parts.
A search of the nearby area found more body parts.
Medical examiners determined they were all human, but they're unclear whether the parts all belong to one person. They aren't releasing further details of race, age or gender at this time.
Since this is 'just in', there really aren't many more details. I did find it interesting that while every other news source reported the pertinent facts, USA Today felt the need to add to the headline that the discovery was 'near' the headquarters of Twitter (although it was nearer to a pharmacy than Twitter, so I don't know what that means), and they juxtaposed themselves by saying not only that it was in an 'up and coming area' but also that it was a troubled area with lots of homeless people.
This is why I try to read multiple sources - because you never know who's putting a slant on something and whether that slant is actually germane to the news.
Anyway, if you live in the San Francisco area and saw someone pulling a large, I assume heavy, suitcase down the sidewalk only to leave it buy a pile of trash, call the SFPD or something.
What do you think of slanted news? Do you even notice it, or do you have one news source you trust above all others? Personally, I've become untrusting and cynical in my advancing years, so I see something one place and I have to go check to see what other places have to say on the subject.
Anyway, when responders opened the suitcase, it was filled with people parts.
A search of the nearby area found more body parts.
Medical examiners determined they were all human, but they're unclear whether the parts all belong to one person. They aren't releasing further details of race, age or gender at this time.
Since this is 'just in', there really aren't many more details. I did find it interesting that while every other news source reported the pertinent facts, USA Today felt the need to add to the headline that the discovery was 'near' the headquarters of Twitter (although it was nearer to a pharmacy than Twitter, so I don't know what that means), and they juxtaposed themselves by saying not only that it was in an 'up and coming area' but also that it was a troubled area with lots of homeless people.
This is why I try to read multiple sources - because you never know who's putting a slant on something and whether that slant is actually germane to the news.
Anyway, if you live in the San Francisco area and saw someone pulling a large, I assume heavy, suitcase down the sidewalk only to leave it buy a pile of trash, call the SFPD or something.
What do you think of slanted news? Do you even notice it, or do you have one news source you trust above all others? Personally, I've become untrusting and cynical in my advancing years, so I see something one place and I have to go check to see what other places have to say on the subject.
Friday, January 23, 2015
True Crime Friday - Fictional Crime
As you all know, or certainly suspect, I am a fan of true crime shows. I like figuring out who committed the crime. I love seeing them face justice. I really love all the forensics and the investigation and the personalities involved in catching a killer.
But does this translate to fictional crime dramas?
Well, yes and no. Certain shows I love, and others I can't tolerate. It's a personal preference thing, so I'm not going to get into which shows are which. I do love the ones that tend to stick closer to the reality of crime fighting. And I'll drop a show if they stray too far from that, or the ones that smush the investigation into a tiny part of the show so they can focus on the drama going on in the lives of the characters.
I don't watch shows like that for the interpersonal drama. I used to watch soap operas for that, and I'm over it.
There were a couple shows I really loved that went off the air years ago: Homicide: Life on the Street and Under Suspicion. The latter didn't last long, but I thought it was the best thing on TV. And despite the write up at IMDB there, I didn't get the whole "...the unending prejudice faced by the only female detective in a male-dominated police squad..." She was just a tough chick doing her damnedest to catch criminals. The former was just gritty and felt 'real' to me.
After all the true crime I've watched, though, I don't know if either show would hold the same appeal. It seems true crime has kind of ruined fictional crime show for me. (Not fictional crime books, though. If that makes any sense. Maybe the fictional crime writers try harder to get it right. Or maybe I get sucked into the story and don't pay as much attention to whether all the procedures are as correct as they should be. :shrug:)
How about you? Do you watch both fictional and true crime television? Can you separate the two? And finally, how do you feel if a writer doesn't get it exactly right?
But does this translate to fictional crime dramas?
Well, yes and no. Certain shows I love, and others I can't tolerate. It's a personal preference thing, so I'm not going to get into which shows are which. I do love the ones that tend to stick closer to the reality of crime fighting. And I'll drop a show if they stray too far from that, or the ones that smush the investigation into a tiny part of the show so they can focus on the drama going on in the lives of the characters.
I don't watch shows like that for the interpersonal drama. I used to watch soap operas for that, and I'm over it.
There were a couple shows I really loved that went off the air years ago: Homicide: Life on the Street and Under Suspicion. The latter didn't last long, but I thought it was the best thing on TV. And despite the write up at IMDB there, I didn't get the whole "...the unending prejudice faced by the only female detective in a male-dominated police squad..." She was just a tough chick doing her damnedest to catch criminals. The former was just gritty and felt 'real' to me.
After all the true crime I've watched, though, I don't know if either show would hold the same appeal. It seems true crime has kind of ruined fictional crime show for me. (Not fictional crime books, though. If that makes any sense. Maybe the fictional crime writers try harder to get it right. Or maybe I get sucked into the story and don't pay as much attention to whether all the procedures are as correct as they should be. :shrug:)
How about you? Do you watch both fictional and true crime television? Can you separate the two? And finally, how do you feel if a writer doesn't get it exactly right?
Friday, January 16, 2015
True Crime Friday - Crime Library
While I was doing research this week for my Wicked Wednesday posts, Google offered up a wonderful resource I hadn't seen before: Crime Library. (Warning: There's some pretty nasty stuff on the front page there, so watch where you click. I'd stick to the main page links, if I were you.)
The place doesn't seem to have an About page, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Everything you could ever want to know about grisly and gruesome crimes.
It's cool if you're into that stuff, or if you're doing research to get into the mindset of the totally warped, or if you're merely looking for inspiration so you can write a suspense. (Although, some of that stuff is too weird for fiction, if you know what I mean.)
Speaking of too weird, I noticed a link on the site to a video of some French dudes authorities are now looking for. It seems they were at the Grand Canyon, lured one of the friendly, tourist-loving squirrels near the edge, and then kicked the poor thing off. The squirrel did not survive the encounter and even though it was done in full view of other tourists, the sickos weren't caught. I hope they catch them and kick them off the canyon rim.
The place doesn't seem to have an About page, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory. Everything you could ever want to know about grisly and gruesome crimes.
It's cool if you're into that stuff, or if you're doing research to get into the mindset of the totally warped, or if you're merely looking for inspiration so you can write a suspense. (Although, some of that stuff is too weird for fiction, if you know what I mean.)
Speaking of too weird, I noticed a link on the site to a video of some French dudes authorities are now looking for. It seems they were at the Grand Canyon, lured one of the friendly, tourist-loving squirrels near the edge, and then kicked the poor thing off. The squirrel did not survive the encounter and even though it was done in full view of other tourists, the sickos weren't caught. I hope they catch them and kick them off the canyon rim.
Friday, January 9, 2015
True Crime Friday - Cold Justice
Cold Justice is a show that's making headlines and doing some good in the world of unsolved murders. It follows two investigators - Kelly Siegler and Yolanda MClary - as they go around the country trying to help local police departments solve murders that have long gone cold.
I love these gals. They're unflinching in their pursuit of justice. They're unafraid of the criminals they encounter. And they're sympathetic to the victims' families. Kelly used to be a prosecutor. In fact, I've seen her once on another true crime show where she played an integral part in investigating the crime. Yolanda was a police investigator. Together they make one hell of a kick ass team.
But they aren't alone in their efforts. They bring in various top investigators to assist. One in particular, Johnny Bonds, stands out. That man seems to know just the right things to say to get information out of people. Hell, if he questioned me, I'd probably tell him my whole life story without blinking. (Lucky for me, he'd be totally bored by my non-criminal past.)
One site referred to the show as a mix of Rizzoli and Isles with CSI and Cold Case, but true. I can agree with that.
Sure, I don't always agree with some of their determinations. If you were here, you would hear me telling the gals how to do their jobs. But I'm an armchair quarterback when it comes to this stuff. They're the real thing.
And tonight is the beginning of new shows! So, check your local listings. Here it's on TNT at 8pm (9 eastern). I can't wait.
Plus, I follow their Facebook page - which is neat because they post updates to the crimes they've been investigating. The sad thing is that oftentimes, people will post about unsolved murders in their own towns - even in their own lives - and unfortunately, they're only two people doing the best the can. I think there should be more people out there like Kelly and Yolanda - digging deeper to see what the truth really is.
Are there any unsolved murders that you know about? Would you contact the Cold Justice team to have them investigate?
Do you armchair quarterback shows like this, too, or is that just me?
I love these gals. They're unflinching in their pursuit of justice. They're unafraid of the criminals they encounter. And they're sympathetic to the victims' families. Kelly used to be a prosecutor. In fact, I've seen her once on another true crime show where she played an integral part in investigating the crime. Yolanda was a police investigator. Together they make one hell of a kick ass team.
But they aren't alone in their efforts. They bring in various top investigators to assist. One in particular, Johnny Bonds, stands out. That man seems to know just the right things to say to get information out of people. Hell, if he questioned me, I'd probably tell him my whole life story without blinking. (Lucky for me, he'd be totally bored by my non-criminal past.)
One site referred to the show as a mix of Rizzoli and Isles with CSI and Cold Case, but true. I can agree with that.
Sure, I don't always agree with some of their determinations. If you were here, you would hear me telling the gals how to do their jobs. But I'm an armchair quarterback when it comes to this stuff. They're the real thing.
And tonight is the beginning of new shows! So, check your local listings. Here it's on TNT at 8pm (9 eastern). I can't wait.
Plus, I follow their Facebook page - which is neat because they post updates to the crimes they've been investigating. The sad thing is that oftentimes, people will post about unsolved murders in their own towns - even in their own lives - and unfortunately, they're only two people doing the best the can. I think there should be more people out there like Kelly and Yolanda - digging deeper to see what the truth really is.
Are there any unsolved murders that you know about? Would you contact the Cold Justice team to have them investigate?
Do you armchair quarterback shows like this, too, or is that just me?
Friday, December 19, 2014
True Crime Friday - The Shift
Today I'd like to talk about the show The Shift. I only just found this show earlier this year on REELZ and then they took it off the afternoon crime show lineup. Now I find out it's not on anywhere anymore, and hasn't been in production for years. Crap.
Anyway, it's a show following the work of a team of homicide detectives in Indianapolis, as they try to solve the murders that come their way. Each show usually does one crime - from the call through the investigation and interviewing. Sometimes they get their man, sometimes they don't. Always it shows their dedication and commitment.
I find the show fascinating because it provides a glimpse into real police work.
I'm a little bummed they stopped making it. I'm definitely bummed they stopped showing it because I know I haven't seen every episode yet. And I got my mom hooked on this show in June. I know she hasn't seen all the episodes yet. Lucky for you - if you haven't seen it yet - snippets of the episodes are available at the above link.
I wish I'd found it sooner.
Anyway, if you stumble across it in your TV surfing, give it a whirl. If you're into true crime, like me, you'll enjoy watching.
Anyway, it's a show following the work of a team of homicide detectives in Indianapolis, as they try to solve the murders that come their way. Each show usually does one crime - from the call through the investigation and interviewing. Sometimes they get their man, sometimes they don't. Always it shows their dedication and commitment.
I find the show fascinating because it provides a glimpse into real police work.
I'm a little bummed they stopped making it. I'm definitely bummed they stopped showing it because I know I haven't seen every episode yet. And I got my mom hooked on this show in June. I know she hasn't seen all the episodes yet. Lucky for you - if you haven't seen it yet - snippets of the episodes are available at the above link.
I wish I'd found it sooner.
Anyway, if you stumble across it in your TV surfing, give it a whirl. If you're into true crime, like me, you'll enjoy watching.
Friday, December 12, 2014
True Crime Friday - Ripped from The Headlines
Last Saturday in Mississippi, someone called to report a car on fire. When responders arrived, they found a woman burning alive. Someone had knocked her on the head, doused her with lighter fluid - including spraying it down her throat and up her nose - and lit her on fire. She lived long enough to supposedly give information to the responders that may help catch her killers.
One report I read said she had burns over 98% of her body. There was little chance of her surviving, but she hung on long enough to say something to the people who were helping her. I hope it was enough.
See now, this is something a writer cooks up in their head to make their killer extra vicious. It's not something normal human beings do.
In fact, it's something this writer did to make her villain extra vicious.
And the fact that someone out there thought this was a thing to do to someone for real makes me sick. And it's creeping me out that a plot point I dreamed up for the book I'm working so hard on editing has a mirror in reality. I never dreamed anyone would actually do something like this.
In my story, the villain gets what's coming to them. I hope the animals who did this get what's coming to them, too.
Anyone with information on the murder is urged to contact the Panola County Sheriff's Office at 662-563-6230.
One report I read said she had burns over 98% of her body. There was little chance of her surviving, but she hung on long enough to say something to the people who were helping her. I hope it was enough.
See now, this is something a writer cooks up in their head to make their killer extra vicious. It's not something normal human beings do.
In fact, it's something this writer did to make her villain extra vicious.
And the fact that someone out there thought this was a thing to do to someone for real makes me sick. And it's creeping me out that a plot point I dreamed up for the book I'm working so hard on editing has a mirror in reality. I never dreamed anyone would actually do something like this.
In my story, the villain gets what's coming to them. I hope the animals who did this get what's coming to them, too.
Anyone with information on the murder is urged to contact the Panola County Sheriff's Office at 662-563-6230.
Friday, December 5, 2014
True Crime Friday - Murderpedia
The other day as I was researching a murderer for Wicked Wednesday, I stumbled across a website I'd never seen before:
Murderpedia - The Encyclopedia of Murderers
From the site: "Murderpedia is a free online encyclopedic dictionary of murderers and the largest database about serial killers and mass murderers around the world."
Looks like it separates killers by gender and then either alphabetically by last name or by country. And when you scroll down to the United States, it has them by state. Pretty cool stuff - if you're into that (which I am).
BTW, not everyone in there is a mass murderer or serial killer. Some of its just single homicides. Still, a neat resource for writers and true crime buffs alike.
Murderpedia - The Encyclopedia of Murderers
From the site: "Murderpedia is a free online encyclopedic dictionary of murderers and the largest database about serial killers and mass murderers around the world."
Looks like it separates killers by gender and then either alphabetically by last name or by country. And when you scroll down to the United States, it has them by state. Pretty cool stuff - if you're into that (which I am).
BTW, not everyone in there is a mass murderer or serial killer. Some of its just single homicides. Still, a neat resource for writers and true crime buffs alike.
Friday, November 21, 2014
True Crime Friday - Homicide Hunter
I'll get into the swing of this blogging schedule. Promise.
Anyway, today let's talk about what has to be my favorite true crime show: Lt. Joe Kenda - Homicide Hunter.
First off, I love Joe Kenda. He's smart and witty and gritty, plus he's a silver fox, and the kid who plays the younger him is easy on the eyes.
Second, I love the in-depth look into the various cases he's solved. I love trying to figure out the whodunnit along with Joe. I love seeing Joe get the bad guys. And I especially loved Joe's little witticisms throughout.
If you're not familiar with the show, it's on Investigation Discovery. It's details the various cases of a homicide detective with the Colorado Springs, CO police department. He's solved almost 400, so there's a lot of cases to cover. And they span Kenda's tenure with the department, so from the late 70s on. Last week they showed his first homicide case - in 1977 - so he's been at this a while.
Unfortunately for me, I hate written a mystery based in CO long before I ever saw this show, and re-reading it a couple months ago, I discovered one of my secondary characters was exactly like Joe. Needless to say, I'll fix that in edits. I love Joe, but I need to differentiate my characters - so people don't think I'm a big ol' copycat.
Have you ever seen the show? What do you think about a true crime show that follows just one person and his cases?
Anyway, today let's talk about what has to be my favorite true crime show: Lt. Joe Kenda - Homicide Hunter.
First off, I love Joe Kenda. He's smart and witty and gritty, plus he's a silver fox, and the kid who plays the younger him is easy on the eyes.
Second, I love the in-depth look into the various cases he's solved. I love trying to figure out the whodunnit along with Joe. I love seeing Joe get the bad guys. And I especially loved Joe's little witticisms throughout.
If you're not familiar with the show, it's on Investigation Discovery. It's details the various cases of a homicide detective with the Colorado Springs, CO police department. He's solved almost 400, so there's a lot of cases to cover. And they span Kenda's tenure with the department, so from the late 70s on. Last week they showed his first homicide case - in 1977 - so he's been at this a while.
Unfortunately for me, I hate written a mystery based in CO long before I ever saw this show, and re-reading it a couple months ago, I discovered one of my secondary characters was exactly like Joe. Needless to say, I'll fix that in edits. I love Joe, but I need to differentiate my characters - so people don't think I'm a big ol' copycat.
Have you ever seen the show? What do you think about a true crime show that follows just one person and his cases?
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Wicked Wednesday - Kilgore, TX KFC Murders
Okay, I admit, I saw this case on TV last night and wrote this post then. But something struck me about the case that made it perfect for today.
In 1983, three men pushed their way into a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Kilgore, TX - after they overheard one of the employees telling someone on the phone how much money they had and how they needed to make a bank deposit that night. They made off with like $3000 or some such amount. But they didn't just take the money.
For some reason that will never be known, they kidnapped the five people inside the store, too. They loaded these poor people inside a van, drove them out to the middle of nowhere, and executed them. But not until after one of them raped a middle-aged mother of 3.
These murders remained unsolved for 22 years. It wasn't until DNA evidence from spilled blood at the scene connected two men to the crime that anything was done. The technology just wasn't there. Those two assholes are spending their remaining days in prison. The third guy - the rapist who didn't spill blood and whose DNA wasn't in CODIS - is still at large.
According to one report, one of the accused claims the 'real killer' is still out there. Maybe the rapist and the one who murdered that poor woman did all the killing. In my book, it doesn't make his accomplices any less guilty. In fact, in Texas, they're lucky they didn't get the death penalty. They probably plead out.
From all accounts, this probably doesn't fit in with the typical definition of a serial killing. It was a mass murder, then. The distinction is kinda academic. Either way, five people died - which is more than the standard three for serial killing classification, so I'm counting it for this blog. That this doesn't meet the other criteria for 'serial murder' doesn't make it any less heinous.
What do you think?
In 1983, three men pushed their way into a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Kilgore, TX - after they overheard one of the employees telling someone on the phone how much money they had and how they needed to make a bank deposit that night. They made off with like $3000 or some such amount. But they didn't just take the money.
For some reason that will never be known, they kidnapped the five people inside the store, too. They loaded these poor people inside a van, drove them out to the middle of nowhere, and executed them. But not until after one of them raped a middle-aged mother of 3.
These murders remained unsolved for 22 years. It wasn't until DNA evidence from spilled blood at the scene connected two men to the crime that anything was done. The technology just wasn't there. Those two assholes are spending their remaining days in prison. The third guy - the rapist who didn't spill blood and whose DNA wasn't in CODIS - is still at large.
According to one report, one of the accused claims the 'real killer' is still out there. Maybe the rapist and the one who murdered that poor woman did all the killing. In my book, it doesn't make his accomplices any less guilty. In fact, in Texas, they're lucky they didn't get the death penalty. They probably plead out.
From all accounts, this probably doesn't fit in with the typical definition of a serial killing. It was a mass murder, then. The distinction is kinda academic. Either way, five people died - which is more than the standard three for serial killing classification, so I'm counting it for this blog. That this doesn't meet the other criteria for 'serial murder' doesn't make it any less heinous.
What do you think?
Friday, November 14, 2014
True Crime TV Friday
As I'm testing out new things for this blog, I'm thinking about discussing various True Crime shows here on Fridays.
First out of the gate is a show I just recently started watching called The Killer Speaks on A&E. They start out with a murder, and then they shift to talking with the murderer. It shifts back and forth between the crimes and the question/answer part. To me, it's very insightful. I mean, sure, these people make my skin crawl, but what better way to get a glimpse into the mind of a real killer? You know, without actually meeting a real killer.
It gives you a real chance to see the dead eyes and the cold, expressionless faces. To witness the hint of glee behind it all when they think you aren't paying attention. To hear the words they use to describe their crimes.
Sometimes they try to convince the viewers that they're remorseful, but you can tell they're lying. Sometimes they make excuses for why they're just wrong inside. Sometimes, it's even true - as in the case of the man who is schizophrenic. That guy knows what he did is wrong and he never wants to be let out because in prison, they make him take his medicine and he doesn't want to kill people anymore.
But the psychology of it all is fascinating. Especially if you're writing crime fiction.
Have you ever caught the show? If you're a writer, do shows like this help you build your characters? If you're a reader, what do you think of learning about the psychology behind a killer?
First out of the gate is a show I just recently started watching called The Killer Speaks on A&E. They start out with a murder, and then they shift to talking with the murderer. It shifts back and forth between the crimes and the question/answer part. To me, it's very insightful. I mean, sure, these people make my skin crawl, but what better way to get a glimpse into the mind of a real killer? You know, without actually meeting a real killer.
It gives you a real chance to see the dead eyes and the cold, expressionless faces. To witness the hint of glee behind it all when they think you aren't paying attention. To hear the words they use to describe their crimes.
Sometimes they try to convince the viewers that they're remorseful, but you can tell they're lying. Sometimes they make excuses for why they're just wrong inside. Sometimes, it's even true - as in the case of the man who is schizophrenic. That guy knows what he did is wrong and he never wants to be let out because in prison, they make him take his medicine and he doesn't want to kill people anymore.
But the psychology of it all is fascinating. Especially if you're writing crime fiction.
Have you ever caught the show? If you're a writer, do shows like this help you build your characters? If you're a reader, what do you think of learning about the psychology behind a killer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)