re: A Killer Story (New HBO True Crime Documentary)

quote:

---

I think it's more likely that she hired someone to kill them than it is that she killed them herself.

---

It seems highly unlikely that she'd be able to pull off a murder for hire with absolutely no paper trail, or any kind of evidence, but it isn't impossible, especially in the days before smart phones.

Were the journalist's parting words at the end of the doc implying that he thought that she did it, but he can't imagine how? I guess it is open for interpretation.

Yeah I mean, at the end of the day, she dug her own grave in the 3rd trial doing what she did, and she fricked over the people that had spent so much time, money, and resources to help her. Resources and money that could have been used to helped others who are in similar situations, and wouldn't have sabotaged the whole thing. I read that the org that helped her had to turn down other cases because of the hit they took trying to help her. She is either unsound of mind, or just a straight up bad person, or both.

Pretty Good Documentary! I love these "crime" documentaries, and have seen better ones; but since I like them so much - I enjoyed this one and watched all 3 back to back.

Something that has always bothered me, or that I don't completely understand the rational behind it, is that you have to have ALL 12 jurors vote Not Guilty.

You often hear it said that "It's better to let 1,000 "guilty" defendants go free than to convict 1 innocent person"! In our justice system you are also "presumed innocent", which I agree with and understand.

In the second trial, which she should have won, the vote was 7 guilty - 5 innocent! 5 people who deliberated for 5 days clearly had "reasonable doubt"!! Since our justice system clearly protects the accused by making the state prove their case, rather than the accused prove they are innocent.....why do you have to have ALL 12 vote "not guilty" in order to be "win" (released, free)?! Again, is not 5 jurors being unable to convict not "reasonable doubt"!

I can more easily understand the rational of all 12 jurors having to vote guilty to convict. But something has always bothered me about it having to be unanimous to be found "fully" innocent.

Regarding the documentary, and her guilt or innocence, the supreme court should have gone further to "right the wrong" that was done in the first trial. All I can say is that I would'nt want to live in Topeka. There must be something very "odd/weird" (judgemental) about the average person who resides there that make up "a jury of your peers"! These same people are the ones who elect their District Attorney (the crooked first D.A. & Cop in the first trial). And the 2nd D.A. who I still have a hard time understanding how they wanted to try her again after the Supreme Court found NO definitive evidence linking her to the crimes! And the Topeka Kansas "mindset" (people), who includes the D.A., Court & Justice System, Detectives, etc. (they are all "people" who live there - think, believe the same general) who got destroyed in the 2nd Trial......yet wanted to re-try her for the 3rd time!

Don't know if she did it or not. Nothing was proved. However, there WAS PROOF that the prosecution, cops & witness "Did It" (abuse of power, corruption & outright lies/perjury in 1st & 2nd trials)! After the supreme court eviscerated the first DA and clearly found that her right to a fair trial was "criminally" violated........where was the outcry from the community & "good" people of Topeka!?

The fact that the kids felt so strongly she did it, and testified against her kept me from ever really believing she was innocent. That said, if I was on the jury, based purely on the lack evidence they showed in the series, I’d have a hard time voting to convict.

They have to have had more in the courtroom than what the documentary gave us.

There was really no evidence that she did it other than gas cans and her having her phone off.

That’s what I took away from the documentary too. The entire framing of the documentary led you to believe she was unquestionably innocent

My gut guess is that she hired the prosecutor who had the exotic gun collection as a hit man. I found her to be entirely too stoic and calm throughout the trial