3
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: A Killer Story (New HBO True Crime Documentary)
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:32 am to IAmNERD
Posted on 9/25/26 at 8:32 am to IAmNERD
quote:
Those two are straight Karens with nothing better to do than stir shite up.
I agree, but I still don't see anyway the jury should have convicted her based on the evidence presented in the show. But I know that these types of shows often times conveniently leave things out.
The thing I struggle the most with is that (at least based on what was shown in the documentary), there is absolutely no evidence that she was in the state at the time of the murders, no evidence that she had access to the type of gun used in the murders, and no physical evidence that she was at the scene of the crime. With all that said, she almost certainly did it, but the prosecution didn't prove that she did it beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 9:00 am to UpToPar
quote:
The thing I struggle the most with is that (at least based on what was shown in the documentary), there is absolutely no evidence that she was in the state at the time of the murders, no evidence that she had access to the type of gun used in the murders, and no physical evidence that she was at the scene of the crime. With all that said, she almost certainly did it, but the prosecution didn't prove that she did it beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
I wish they would’ve showed, assuming it exists in the transcript, the attorney asking the detective, how could you present a witness saying she heard gunshots at around midnight and called 911 ( which there’s no record of ) and seeing someone at the Sisco house and saying they were murdered then with time of death when they were at the casinos until 1:30 on videotape
How could they be murdered by Dana chandler ag midnight in the home when they were at the casino until 1:30am ?
That seemed like such an obvious gotcha moment that would’ve provided way more than reasonable doubt
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 9:03 am
Posted on 9/25/26 at 9:45 am to Lawyered
Honestly, it's pretty damn close to an ethics violation for the prosecutor to have put that witness on the stand.
Posted on 9/25/26 at 10:51 am to UpToPar
quote:
With all that said, she almost certainly did it, but the prosecution didn't prove that she did it beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind.
Agreed. The prosecution did a poor job, especially in the first two trials, of proving anything. I think she just made herself look bad in the third.
It is almost down to who do I believe is lying the least amount: Dana or the prosecution. Which, that is crazy in itself.
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 10:52 am
Posted on 9/25/26 at 11:27 am to AUFANATL
quote:
From what I understand, the documentary is painting her in a favorable light. They kind of glossed over the fact that she repeatedly called the victims, harassed them and threatened to kill them and that she openly talked about killing them one day in front of other witnesses, including her friends and children.
As far as the phone being turned off for 24 hours, that had only happened twice in the previous year - once during the weekend of the murder and a few months before when she allegedly broke into the home of the ex. They were able to place her in the state that weekend and she told her friend that she drove all the way there and broke in.
The gas cannisters could have helped her establish her alibi (I was camping in the wilderness and didn't want to run out of gas). But instead she lied about them - said she didn't buy them, then said she bought them for a friend, then said she bought them for someone in AA whose name she doesn't know even though every AA meeting starts with people standing up and saying "Hi, I'm Jane Doe and I'm an alcoholic".
Her alibi is also problematic. For starters, "I was camping by myself in remote areas" is always going to be a suspicious excuse. But OK, she's a flaky single person living in Colorado so maybe. But then she gave conflicting statements about where she went and the routes she took. Not surprisingly, nothing about any of her alibi statements could be verified.
The gun is more interesting. No records of her owning or attempting to purchase firearms. But the documentary is again disingenuous. They strongly implied - via crazy married couple - that the victims were killed with an Uzi (not a gun that is easy to obtain or operate for a novice). But there's no evidence it was an Uzi. They ammo was manufactured by the Israeli company that also manufactures the Uzi weapon, which fires 9mm. But that 9mm ammo can also be used in any 9mm handgun or weapon and 9mms are the most common gun.
The bottom line is this is a batshit crazy woman who almost certainly did it. The lack of a "smoking gun" or hard forensic evidence placing her at the crime scene makes prosecution more challenging, but not impossible. Plenty of convictions are secured on nothing but circumstantial evidence. But if someone wants to qualify that as reasonable doubt under the standards, I wont put up a fight. Especially considering the original investigator and prosecutor did some ethically shady stuff.
Favorable light or not, there is ZERO evidence linking her to this crime other than a flimsy motive predicated on the kids holding a grudge. This didn't happen in the 70's. 2002. For them not to have anything linking her, no way she should be guilty of Murder 1. Alibi's are moot. They can't even disprove them. If they could do that, then you have a point.
No murder weapon. No forensic evidence. No CREDIBLE eyewitnesses. Even if she is the insane criminal mastermind to not leave a single trace while gunning down 2 people in cold blood, you don't have enough to convict. There is so much Reasonable Doubt here, it's silly.
I don't think she's crazy. She's sure as hell dumb enough to try and represent herself, unless she just gave up knowing the local yokels will never stop going after you to save face and protect their crooked backwoods antics. She'd have gotten off for sure if she just ran with the same guy, or went with someone more high profile from the Innocence Project.
This post was edited on 9/25/26 at 11:46 am
Posted on 9/26/26 at 11:15 pm to UpToPar
quote:
The thing I struggle the most with is that (at least based on what was shown in the documentary), there is absolutely no evidence that she was in the state at the time of the murders, no evidence that she had access to the type of gun used in the murders, and no physical evidence that she was at the scene of the crime.
As you said, there’s enough doubt that I don’t think I could say I think she did it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Seeing how the detective botched the investigation and potential, more formable evidence, feels like it alone provides reasonable doubt.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 3:57 am to iwyLSUiwy
Outside of prosecutorial misconduct, like in the first trial, if she had continued to be represented by an attorney, she would have continued to get, at worst, hung juries.
Posted on 9/27/26 at 11:53 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Outside of prosecutorial misconduct, like in the first trial, if she had continued to be represented by an attorney, she would have continued to get, at worst, hung juries.
Didn’t get to watch it until last night. When they said something shocking happened the day before the trial and then said she decided to defend herself, my head just dropped and knew instantly she was going to be found guilty just an awful decision.
The previous trial was hung at 7 guilty to 5 innocent. Thats not even close to her getting convicted. Sure the majority was guilty but 5 non guilty is a lot. It could have easily swung the other way in the next trial. I thought she had a good defense attorney.
I don’t know the legalities of it and I could be completely wrong but if she had another hung jury trial, that would be one misconduct trial, and two hung juries. I could see a DA deciding not to try again and a judge letting her out of of prison.
The journalist made a good point. There’s a difference between knowing your case better than anyone else and being able to defend your trial better than anyone.
Glad the husband and wife cut ties with her. I don’t think she should be in jail because there’s way too much reasonable doubt, but you can’t keep devoting all your time to someone who doesn’t look out for their own best interest or respect all the time others put into her case.
I was surprised at his final comments of the documentary though. “I think I know who did it. But for the life of me I don’t know how.” Wow. Mic drop closing comment to the show.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 8:43 am to iwyLSUiwy
Not a huge gun guy, how hard is it to get Israeli bullets and why would one have these? Might be a completely normal thing, but this is something no one in the doc spent any time on.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 8:55 am to migui8618
quote:
Not a huge gun guy, how hard is it to get Israeli bullets and why would one have these? Might be a completely normal thing, but this is something no one in the doc spent any time on.
They didn't say who manufactured the bullets outside that they were Israeli. 9mm bullets are obviously very common but I looked up Israeli 9mm and I don't recognize any of the boxes as a common bullet. That's just another thing that the investigator failed on. If it's a hard to find bullet then find out who nearby sells them. Did the pawn shop down the street from Karen sell them or maybe a store in Vegas or maybe try and match forensics with the son in laws guns. Something.
One thing that bothers me and I don't know if they brought it out in trial but aside from her not owning a gun and no proof that she had ever even shot one is that the killer fired 11 shots and hit the couple 11 times. The person that shot them was very proficient with shooting a gun. I'm sorry but this chick who was nota gun owner and didn't shoot guns was not going into a house and go 11 for 11 on hits. it just isn't happening, even at close range.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 10:06 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
She's sure as hell dumb enough to try and represent herself,
We finished the last night and when I saw that, I told my wife the exact same thing. The would probably be free not if she let them attorneys do their job.
Also, I surprised that no one mapped out the route from her house to the victims house an back. What would that that be in both time and gas with her car. Could she have filled up the day before, plus the extra tanks driven there, and back? Surely you could have then also checked bank statements for the days after to see if she filled up again? Or searched nearby gas stations to see if she was on tape filling up again.
Posted on 9/28/26 at 10:21 am to gringeaux
quote:
We finished the last night and when I saw that, I told my wife the exact same thing. The would probably be free not if she let them attorneys do their job.
Also, I surprised that no one mapped out the route from her house to the victims house an back. What would that that be in both time and gas with her car. Could she have filled up the day before, plus the extra tanks driven there, and back? Surely you could have then also checked bank statements for the days after to see if she filled up again? Or searched nearby gas stations to see if she was on tape filling up again.
I think that was the thought process of why she had gas cans to go on the trip so that she wouldn't be on any cameras filling up along the route. This was in 2002, so plenty of gas stations to make the trip, but they have always had pretty good cameras in place to catch people stealing. This all circles back around to, was this lady a criminal mastermind? That's one helluva detail to consider when planning a murder states away. I don't remember how widespread traffic cams were back then, and it's BFE Kansas, but something should have popped up.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 9:01 am to gringeaux
quote:
Also, I surprised that no one mapped out the route from her house to the victims house an back. What would that that be in both time and gas with her car. Could she have filled up the day before, plus the extra tanks driven there, and back?
No, she lived 540 miles from the victims' home, so a 1080 mile round trip. Dana Chandler owned a Mitsubishi Eclipse at the time. A 2002 Mitsubishi Eclipse has a fuel tank capacity of 16.4 gallons and averages 26-30 mpg on the highway. So with 26.4 gallons of gas (16.4 gallon tank plus the two 5 gallon gas cans), she would have been able to travel approximately 700-800 miles. She would have come up about 300-400 miles short.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:03 am to UpToPar
quote:
No, she lived 540 miles from the victims' home, so a 1080 mile round trip. Dana Chandler owned a Mitsubishi Eclipse at the time. A 2002 Mitsubishi Eclipse has a fuel tank capacity of 16.4 gallons and averages 26-30 mpg on the highway. So with 26.4 gallons of gas (16.4 gallon tank plus the two 5 gallon gas cans), she would have been able to travel approximately 700-800 miles. She would have come up about 300-400 miles short.
This is the information I was looking for.
- No event that "set her off"
- No proof she was at the crime scene
- No proof she was even in the STATE
- DNA evidence of someone else at the crime scene
- No proof of ever having been proficient with a gun
- No proof of ownership of a gun
- Vehicle couldn't make that trip without stopping at a gas station even with the 10 extra gallons
Not guilty.
She very well may have done it, but the amount of reasonable doubt is at a crazy level.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 10:17 am to UpToPar
Theoretically she could have owned other gas cannisters before the murder and the two 5 gallon cannisters she bought the day before were just to get her the extra amount she needed to carry for the full trip.
Another possibility is that she took a circuitous route to cover her tracks and bought gas somewhere off the direct path. Once you play with the geometry and draw a 300 mile radius around Topeka, the number of gas stations becomes enormous.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:02 am to AUFANATL
quote:
Theoretically she could have owned other gas cannisters before the murder and the two 5 gallon cannisters she bought the day before were just to get her the extra amount she needed to carry for the full trip.
True, but I assume investigators would have found them. The documentary did not do a great job of explaining this, but it looked as if she still had the two gas cans she had recently purchased, so if she didn't get rid of those, I assume she didn't get rid of any others that she could have used. Who knows though. The investigators clearly didn't do a great job.
quote:
Another possibility is that she took a circuitous route to cover her tracks and bought gas somewhere off the direct path. Once you play with the geometry and draw a 300 mile radius around Topeka, the number of gas stations becomes enormous.
Also possible, but there are not a ton of alternate routes from Topeka to Denver.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 11:52 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
Didn’t get to watch it until last night. When they said something shocking happened the day before the trial and then said she decided to defend herself, my head just dropped and knew instantly she was going to be found guilty just an awful decision.
She committed trial suicide by doing this.
Even so, if I were on the jury, there is no way I could have voted guilty because there is there so much reasonable doubt. No DNA, no eye witnesses(besides the lady whose testimony could have even been possible with the timeline), no proof of her ever being in Topeka, no reasonable explanation as to how she could have pulled off an assassin-level hit when there is no proof of her ever owning a gun, or even knowing how to shoot a gun, etc.
Its kind of scary seeing jurors deliver a guilty verdict with so much reasonable doubt.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:16 pm to Funky Tide 8
quote:
Its kind of scary seeing jurors deliver a guilty verdict with so much reasonable doubt.
Defending yourself can be seen as the white flag.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:50 pm to migui8618
quote:
Defending yourself can be seen as the white flag.
I understand that, and it was an insanely idiotic move, but that in itself still isn't actual proof that she did anything.
Posted on 9/29/26 at 12:59 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
They didn't say who manufactured the bullets outside that they were Israeli. 9mm bullets are obviously very common but I looked up Israeli 9mm and I don't recognize any of the boxes as a common bullet. That's just another thing that the investigator failed on. If it's a hard to find bullet then find out who nearby sells them. Did the pawn shop down the street from Karen sell them or maybe a store in Vegas or maybe try and match forensics with the son in laws guns. Something.
We had the same question and looked locally. Two smaller shops had them but our big box gun stores didn’t. I don’t think it’s a jump to say you’d likely be a gun enthusiast to purchase them. Fiance knew of them but doesn’t have own any.
quote:
One thing that bothers me and I don't know if they brought it out in trial but aside from her not owning a gun and no proof that she had ever even shot one is that the killer fired 11 shots and hit the couple 11 times. The person that shot them was very proficient with shooting a gun. I'm sorry but this chick who was nota gun owner and didn't shoot guns was not going into a house and go 11 for 11 on hits. it just isn't happening, even at close range.
I realize documentary editing leaves out a lot of shite depending on where they want to go with it. But this was my question as well.
Now, I imagine she had experience with firearms if she camped frequently and grew up in a more rural area. But, this seemed way more calculated then this crazy lady successfully planning two murders with little to no evidence.
And if I understood it correctly the hair on the bullet didn’t match anyone’s DNA they were looking at (or who was murdered).
I couldn’t convict her as a juror given in what we saw. There’s just too much reasonable doubt.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News