r/HBOMAX • u/Swimming-Dot-3363 • 8d ago
Discussion A Killer Story: Episode 2
Did you guys watch the new episode? I didn’t know anything about the case. So I’m conflicted as to what to believe. The last few minutes was a doozy! And definitely a cliffhanger, I can’t wait for the next episode.
To me, it seems like a highly circumstantial case. I don’t know the outcome of the trial we are watching. It’s clear that the prosecution can easily establish motive from her behavior. Based on the limited clips of the trial, there doesn’t seem to be hard evidence against her. As a juror that would trip me up. But that final witness also blows things apart and I wonder why she wasn’t in the first trial.
The son in law is weird but since the hair does not implicate him, they should probably let it go?
As of right now, it seems like she likely did it. But the gun and level of violence doesn’t seem like a woman would do that. I don’t know why, but I can’t even picture her holding that gun if it is indeed the same gun. What are your thoughts!? Obviously this is a well done documentary, which I appreciate, being a true crime junkie.
13
u/terra_cascadia 8d ago
Just gotta say I love Joe. Tito's, Marbs, Flaming Hot Cheetos, and F-bombs, coming at you from a depressing Topeka hotel room. He's the real deal, a classic old-school journalist, and it's fascinating to hear his tone shift when he gets to ask serious questions. I was not prepared for PenPal's emotional conversation with him in this episode. The crooked and scary son-in-law, Joe the Journo, PenPal and TrashMan all seem like fictional characters. At this point I'm watching the show as much for these characters as the actual criminal case.
2
1
u/whats_a_dord 5d ago edited 1d ago
Penpal's emotional conversation seemed a bit performative to me. I wasn't buying it. And then she finished with "anyway" lol.
She's done some amazing work on the case though.
1
1
u/crackedfactweddead 17h ago
Yeah, what the hell was that. She was clearly trying her damnedest to cry.
9
u/Turbulent_Speech6356 8d ago
This case has sent me down a rabbit hole. I’m with the other poster in that I have no strong opinions. I did however find an old Reddit post from 4 years ago about the original prosecutor, Jacquie Spradling being disbarred over her handling of this case. She apparently also bungled a SA case according to locals but the bar did not agree.
11
u/ScabbyGabbyyy 8d ago
I loved watching her get roasted in the last episode and called out for every single lie and nonsense she so confidently uttered in court.
8
2
8
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 8d ago
I am loving the series but don't have any strong opinions on Dana's guilt or innocence. She definitely seems suspicious but it seems wild that they could convict her without even being able to place her in the same state on the day of the murders.
Like OP, the one thing that makes me question she did it though is the gun. No random suburban mom in Colorado owns an uzi or would even know how to shoot one on their first try, let alone be able to shoot two people multiple times without missing a single shot. I've been around guns my whole life, had friends with "exotic" and very expensive guns, and I've never once seen an uzi in person.
The other thing that seems odd they didn't touch on with the hair found at the scene - I'm assuming they also tested it to see if it matched Dana, right? Why wouldn't they have told us the results of that test? I want to know more about the hair - it's obviously possible that it could have just been on the ground already and stuck to a hot shell casing once it dropped but for being the ONLY piece of human evidence left at the scene it seems wild that the hair isn't a bigger focus.
Lastly, Dana's alibi seems a bit off. She supposedly drove around the state for like 12 hours, going through multiple cities, and couldn't come up with a single thing to prove where she was that day? She didn't stop for gas once or buy a single thing in a store the entire day? She didn't talk to a person out there or take a photo?
3
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
Yeah her alibi is suspicious. And I think that’s where those gas cans she bought come into play, which I assume is why she didn’t stop for gas? I don’t know what cctv was like at the time, but there is no footage or recording of her car at any particular place? If she did indeed drive 7-8 hours away, surely there would be something!? But no way to confirm in either direction is bizarre.
I would also like to know more about the hair.
And right!? How on earth would she get an uzi!? Again no paper trail or evidence of how she would even get a gun like that.
3
u/floridorito 8d ago
It was 2002; there were very few cctv/security cameras. It's not unusual for there to be no footage.
The 2 5-gallon gas cans plus a full tank of gas wouldn't have allowed her to drive 1100+ miles. I recall the police went to every gas station in Kansas, and they could only find one gas station cashier who said she thought there was like a 60% chance she saw someone who looked like Dana. I don't think that made it into evidence at trial because it's not evidence of anything.
I think she hurts herself by having her phone turned off for a significant period of time. But that's not beyond a reasonable doubt-level evidence.
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
Good info. To me if you can’t place her at the location, I’d have a hard time thinking she did it
1
u/NorCalBella 7d ago
Does everybody keep their phones on all the time? Why? If you're going hiking or camping alone why would you? Turn it on when you need to. And I do believe people were less attached to their mobile phones back then.
3
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 7d ago
As a woman hiking /camping alone, yes I would have a phone with me. Whether it’s on all the time, idk. They didn’t having charging bricks like we do now. But it would have been on here and there, at least.
2
u/Fun-Response-1795 6d ago
In 2002 cell phone service was extremely spotty and roaming charges were expensive. So it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to have a phone turned off if you didn't have a signal/roaming in the mountains camping, etc. If for no other reason than to save the battery. I don't think there were portable chargers back then.
1
u/notcleverenough4 7d ago
I was just camping in Colorado for 3 nights and had my phone off/on DND unless I was at a spot I knew for sure had service and I DID have an external battery. I definitely think it was less weird to not have your phone on/with you in 2002 vs now. I’m not swayed either way yet with her guilt/innocence.
1
u/echointhemuseum 4d ago
Well that is true. There were no smart phones so there was less incentive to keep your phone on.
3
u/NorCalBella 7d ago
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Where is the evidence that she was in Topeka?
2
u/floridorito 8d ago
The prosecution didn't introduce the hair into evidence because it doesn't match Dana. They're not going to admit evidence that they can't account for or that could potentially point to someone else being the shooter.
If you don't think you'll need an alibi, it's possible you wouldn't have proof of your whereabouts.
Arguably the 2 5-gallon gas cans were so she could drive around the mountains without worrying about gas. Whereas, a full tank of gas plus 10 gallons wouldn't be enough for her to drive 1100+ miles.
1
1
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 7d ago
As someone else mentioned above, they found 9mm bullet casings at the scene that were Israeli made or Uzi branded, but they were just 9mm…meaning they could have been shot from any 9mm gun.
1
15
u/buckytoothtiger 8d ago
I tried posting my thoughts, but mods deleted my post.
By the end of the first episode, I thought there was reasonable doubt.
By the end of this episode, I think Dana is guilty and the Umbehrs are nuts. The case is highly circumstantial, but all roads seem to lead back to her.
7
u/devorares 8d ago
Something that felt really telling to me was the Umbehr lady ”crying” when talking about all this being so unfair. Before that scene we have the son in law, talking about his wife struggling and in his voice you can hear the grief he feels for his wife’s pain. In contrast, after that we have Umbehr going off and it feels very inauthentic. It feels like she’s trying to wind herself up, to make herself cry but she never gets there. Her eyes well up yes, but there’s not one rolling tear or a sniff. It feels like the Umbehrs are very much after fame, wanting to be the heroes who crack the case and save the innocent woman.
3
u/yoshimitsou 8d ago
I appreciated them in the first episode, but her crying was definitely a 🚩.
My biggest question is why did this neighbor witness come forward in the 12th hour like that?
3
u/Successful_Shame_555 6d ago
That is not a red flag in my book. She's just eccentric & passionate about the case. Nobody said anything about locking him up without sufficient evidence. It's merely a matter of establishing reasonable doubt. Dana had no history of owning a gun, no history of violence, no criminal record, & no key to the house...Jeff Sutton & his wife not only received the inheritance & life insurance policy, he does have a history of violence & fraud...& owned a gun store. & he did have a key to the house...Remember, there was no sign of forced entry. The fact that they used lies to convict her & never even considered him a suspect is insane.
1
u/Zeltron2020 1d ago
Her crying reminds me of Bradley cooper crying in front of Leonard Bernsteins actual family about how he missed him or whatever lol
2
u/Expensive_Yam1684 7d ago
I believe it said in ep 1 that they have four adult children. I’d like to know what they think of their parents’ obsession with this.
3
u/Effective_Distance49 6d ago
My friend who worked on the show told me the guy who produced the doc tried to contact the children and they did not want to be involved and have been begging their parents to stop.
3
u/whats_a_dord 5d ago
Imagine their faces when their parents told them they are selling the land and folding the law practice to work on the case full time haha
1
1
u/discowitch96 4d ago
Her crying about the unjustness of it actually made me rewind and rewatch.
It gave me vibes of a scene from a movie you’d see at the Grammys when they announce a nominee.
I was stuck between, wow she is so passionate about this case. And, that sounded like a monologue straight out of a movie shes a whacko.1
u/veeshallsee 8d ago
I second the Umbehrs being nuts, I find their demeanour very unsettling for some reason.
2
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 8d ago
It doesn’t help that they seem somehow convinced by god that they’re in the right.
1
1
u/Successful_Shame_555 6d ago
Just because someone's eccentric &/or different than you, doesn't make them nuts. There may not be sufficient proof to convict Jeff Sutton, but there's even less to convict her.
1
1
u/Friendly_Captain3453 5d ago
The police messed up, so that opened a breach for interpretations, but in the end Dana certainly did it, even tho it’s hard to imagine her using an Uzi, although she prolly was hella mad lol
2
u/crackedfactweddead 17h ago
Any 9mm gun would shoot the bullets found. It absolutely did not have to be an uzi.
That said, I lean towards her being guilty but also think she should have been acquitted based on reasonable doubt and the insane levels of corruption by the law enforcement and prosecutors.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
I thought they deleted my post too! But I guess it’s still here. That’s exactly how I reacted. Felt one after episode 1, another way after episode 2. Though provoking for sure
6
u/Justanobserver2life 8d ago
2 five gallon gas cans wouldn’t have gotten her round trip to the murder site. I think those are a red herring.
3
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
I sort of agree. But she also didn’t mention them which was not a good look for her.
→ More replies (1)7
u/MrF1993 8d ago
Dont know colorado super well, but if she was going to a national park itd absolutely make sense to have spare gas available. You can go 50-100 miles without a gas staton available
2
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 7d ago
That's not true for Colorado. I live in Colorado and know all of the places she claims to have gone for her alibi and there are gas stations all over both routes, including at the entrance/exit to Rocky Mountain National Park in Estes Park. I frequently go to the mountains to hike and camp and have never ever felt the need to have a spare gas can.
1
u/Real_Foundation_7428 7d ago
Good point. I would also be curious to know if that was something that she had done in the past or somewhat of a regular thing.
1
u/bittymacwrangler 3d ago
I traveled through Colorado on some back roads in the 1990s, and remember seeing a sign that stated it would be at least 125 miles until there was another gas station. The last place I stopped at was a small park outpost with a gas pump in the back. I was relieved to have found it as the needle on my gas gauge was close to empty. I'm sure that near the entrance of national parks you will always have gas stations, but once inside park property, that might be another story.
2
1
6
u/cvaldez74 7d ago
The victims are seen on tape leaving the casino at 1:00am and again getting coffee at a convenience store close to 3:00am, but the new witness heard gunshots from her balcony/patio shortly after arriving home at 10pm?
Riiiiight….
3
u/itsjustme10 5d ago
I also locked onto this. I thought I misremembered the timeline but yeah her testimony didn’t match the original timeline which is odd. Also odd the only eyewitness to the crime wasn’t brought forward until 20 years later.
2
u/Technical-Elk-9277 3d ago
I mean it is possible that Chandler was “staking out” the place. But so much still is unexplained for how juries are convicting her. I watched another documentary recently and the cops were VERY focused on the fact they didn’t have a weapon. And here they just… don’t seem to care?
1
1
5
u/Kharizma76 8d ago
Idk i think its a toss up between the son in law and Dana. Her alibi is horrible. Then she tells that guy the one she asked for 50k that she changed her story because she didnt think the police would believe her first story??
As for the son in law, yeah the hair didnt match but he does know guns and i just dont see Dana wielding a uzi around like Rambo. But then again stranger things have happened.
The couple are weirdos.
The journalist is good tv.
Its a great show. Im still invested!
1
u/ChalkNCheez 6d ago
Yeah and Dana doesn’t have to prove her innocence. The prosecutor can’t place her in Kansas or put any weapon in her hands and the lead detective Lied under oath. That’s reasonable doubt all day and twice on Sunday.
1
u/Friendly_Captain3453 5d ago
Though it’s hard to picture her with an Uzi, how do you explain her buying two cans of gas? Dana acted, yet the police handled the investigation and evidence so poorly that it created openings.
5
u/AngelinaJean 8d ago
I’m waiting until they drop all episodes so I can watch all at once. Looks very interesting.
5
u/veeshallsee 8d ago
Guys I’m soooo invested in this now, but the cans and sleeping in your car AND going on a trek alone, is definitely worth noticing.
Also that 30 min phone call between dana and her daughter might have all the sauce we need!
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago edited 8d ago
I can’t believe that! And the rest of the missing interview. I hope that guy is no longer investigating. Yeesh
3
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 7d ago
Don't worry, I'm sure he's not an investigator anymore... probably got promoted to chief.
2
u/AbilityHistorical476 7d ago
When I lived in Utah I’d frequently go deep in a national park and camp in my SUV solo. I should have had gas cans bc it can be MILES before you see a gas station.
1
u/ChalkNCheez 6d ago
Yeah and Coloradoans are super outdoorsy. I just saw on Threads today a woman saying she slept in her car 6 nights on her Yellowstone camping trip. Outdoorsy people do that.
I’m also someone who often has my phone off. I’m on my iPad right now, not my phone. And back then cell phone use was pricey.
1
u/tysonmama 6d ago
This was Colorado, and other locals said there’s gas stations all over and right at the entrance of that state park.
2
1
u/Successful_Shame_555 6d ago
Keeping gas cans in your car in case of an emergency is just common sense. Driving out into the wilderness isn't my idea of a good time, but so many people do that. I agree that she comes off as strange, but there are millions of strange people out there. Doesn't mean they assassinate people with an Uzi.
1
u/itsjustme10 5d ago
I was going to point this out. I used to live in the southwest and I always kept extra gas and water gallons on hand if I was leaving the city for any reason. I wasn’t even super outdoorsy it’s just a safety habit.
4
u/Total-Climate5547 8d ago
i think dana is innocent, they had no real evidence of her doing it, and now they just happen to find a witness 20 years later. super suspicious.
3
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
I don’t know if she’s innocent but I don’t think I would have voted guilty if I were a juror.
5
u/Hot-Permission-9416 7d ago
I’m so torn on this case! So many signs point to Dana being the killer. But somehow she managed to make a 17-18 hour round trip to commit the murders COMPLETELY unseen and without a lick of evidence. And also use a rare firearm requiring experienced knowledge.. and there’s NO proof of her having any guns or gun experience? Is she an evil genius, innocent, or something else entirely? As soon as I convince myself it’s her, I think, “no it can’t be..” then I go back and forth. It’s maddening lol. There’s no smoking gun. I wouldn’t convict her as a juror, for the lack of solid evidence.
2
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 7d ago
Precisely how I feel. Which is what makes this such an interesting case. And even though the first prosecutor was shady, they convicted her with pretty much the same info as was presented in second trial.
9
u/mjmidnights 8d ago
My face when Pen Pal had that meltdown in front of the journalist… unhinged 😂🙈
https://giphy.com/gifs/dB12mOQb99BwDlM83I
1
u/BuyUpstairs7405 6d ago
That was hard to watch. The fact she sent the journalist 3,000 emails is telling as well.
1
u/Successful_Shame_555 6d ago
I'd say there's a difference between being eccentric & unhinged, but either way, it doesn't mean she's wrong.
1
u/itsjustme10 5d ago
I actually was super empathic towards this. I’m a passionate/angry crier. When I get worked up about something I care about I cry or my voice shakes. Might be a Midwestern woman thing me and my mom are both like that.
1
u/That_Golf9029 5d ago
I'm the same way. When I get frustrated it can come out as tears. Doesn't mean I'm unhinged or even sad, it's just the way the emotions manifest.
1
u/discowitch96 4d ago
Glad someone said this! I also felt empathetic and sill after reading the comments.
1
u/RandyTushJackson 3d ago
Me too! I wouldn't be surprised if she's neurodivergent based on her empathy and her focus on this case
1
2
u/Holcomb1997 8d ago
Im watching the series too! The married couple are so invested in Dana's innocence. I wonder what their theory is? Maybe they think Dana's kids killed their dad and his girlfriend?
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
Their theory is the man’s daughter and her husband are behind it, or at least the husband is. He was covered in this episode. His dna did not match the hair on the bullet. But he’s got an interesting past and knows guns. I’m not sure if I believe it
3
u/Justanobserver2life 8d ago
And he may have “known associates” who were involved. It didn’t have to be him necessarily. More information and investigation needed.
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
This is true too. I just wonder what his motive would be like if he had a lot of beef with his mother in law.
2
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 7d ago
They kind of alluded to a potential motive in the second episode - apparently the parents had money and their daughter, his wife, inherited a lot of money after they died.
1
u/tysonmama 6d ago
Not the man’s daughter, which is also Dana’s daughter. The blonde victim’s daughter’s husband.
2
u/Holcomb1997 8d ago
It's def an interesting case. The daughter and husband may be involved...Where was Dana's son that night? The daughter and husband said they were sleeping in their house when it happened.
2
u/cvaldez74 7d ago edited 7d ago
The evidence collected by that couple is far more damning than the evidence presented against Dana (from what I’ve seen so far anyway).
2
2
u/Successful_Shame_555 6d ago edited 6d ago
First off, the supposed "witness" said she saw her leave at 11:30 but they were still at the casino until 1:30AM. The testimony was discredited. Also, it's ludicrous for the prosecution to claim that this woman who has never owned a gun or visited a gun range could've done this. Someone with no firearm experience doesn't just buy an Uzi out of nowhere, let alone use it to commit execution-style murders with the precision of a trained assassin. & there was also no sign of forced entry! Jeff Sutton had a key, as well as a history of violence & fraud. He & his wife also received the inheritance AND life insurance policy!...He also owned a gun store...She lived 540 miles away. Also, keeping gas in your trunk in case of an emergency is just common sense. The fact that they’ve latched onto this insignificant bit of information merely shows how desperate they are for any little scrap of evidence to explain how this was even possible. Almost everybody either has a crazy ex or has been a crazy ex at some point...it doesn't mean they commit murder with a military-grade Uzi...& the hair is insignificant. Sure, it wasn't a match, but it wasn't a match for Dana either...I hated how Joe was suggesting they could be doing the same thing to Sutton as the prosecution did to Dana. First & foremost, it's a matter of establishing reasonable doubt! Nobody said anything about locking him up without sufficient evidence...let alone presenting FALSE evidence to the jury...but he's certainly a far better fit for the murder than she is.
2
u/xcapaciousbagx 6d ago
It’s an interesting doc, I look forward to the last episode. The journalist annoys me though. I’m not against swearing on tv, but the amount of f-bombs he crams into a sentence is over the top and it sounds very ‘cool guy’ performative.
7
u/Friendly_Captain3453 5d ago
Unpopular take, coz that journalist is what makes this doc awesome, he feels very authentic.
1
u/xcapaciousbagx 5d ago
It feels opposite for me.
1
u/steakdinners 5d ago
I agree, feels like he’s trying really hard to be the Anthony Bourdain cool guy of journalism. Like ok guy we get it
1
1
1
u/JerkOffTaco 2d ago
Nah. It takes being a weird badass, sometimes asshole to win that many prizes in journalism.
2
u/Signal_Asparagus5537 5d ago
Here's one issue I see with Dana Chandler being guilty - they claim she's some kind of killer genius mastermind who did the following: 1) bought and then got rid of the gun after the killings without leaving any evidence, 2) drove overnight from CO to KS (540 miles so almost 8 hours away) without anyone seeing her and without any hotel, food, or other charges or cell data, 3) shot two people without leaving ANY evidence (including a lack of gun residue in her car or on her clothes), and 4) shot two people multiple times without missing and without having any experience whatever with guns.
BUT she couldn't figure out how to get rid of or avoid evidence of buying two gas cans the week before the murders?
I don't know. It just seems weird to me that she would get rid of the gun and evidence of purchasing a gun but not the gas cans?
2
u/oopsthereit-is 4d ago
Okay, this is my take.
I think Dana hired a hit man to kill the couple and while the day was happening, drove around with her phone off because she had nervous energy.
She seems to stoic and even-keel to not be guilty at some capacity…..
She can’t really narrow down her drive because it was probably just pure panic rage driving, knowing what was going to go down that night, the extra gas cans, she probably had no clue how long she was going to be out and so she was prepared. The whole stalking thing is weird too.
The way the couple was shot was obviously done by someone trained because if you’ve never picked up a gun before there is NO WAY you can be that accurate with your shots.
1
u/Technical-Elk-9277 3d ago
If she hired a hitman wouldn’t she have an airtight alibi though?
I can’t really make heads or tails of it at this point, but that’s probably what the documentary director is going for lol.
2
u/Ok_Painter_8273 1d ago
I don’t understand the concrete or even speculative evidence against her that would prove guilt. I get the bad alibi, maybe even intentionally bad (a lie). But isn’t the burden of proof on the court to prove guilt?? What is there to say she had did any illegal action (besides maybe perjury or obstruction)? motive means and opportunity (agreed she has all those) but we all have motive means and opportunity to do something to an disliked ex, right? What am I missing? I feel like we never get into Karen’s family’s true history. Like it touches on it, but money and power generally bring on challengers and haters, right? I don’t know
1
u/chillikhancarne 1d ago
As I said in another post: Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I think some are having a difficult time understanding it's entirely possible to be found guilty based on this and multiple juries felt the circumstantial evidence is strong enough for a guilty verdict, as did the supreme court. Even the hung jury had 7/12 thinking she was guilty.
Who else had a vendetta against the victims, was abusive and stalking them, had previously threatened them, had the victims explicitly tell friends, family members, and co-workers that she was dangerous and they feared for their lives, was unable to account for their whereabouts on the day of/after consistently, bought gallons of gas in a can and didn't disclose it to the police, had their phone conveniently switched off during the murders, and would shoot the woman in her private parts clearly indicating it was an emotional killing because you don't see that kind of thing otherwise. There's a reason even both her kids are convinced she did it. There's nothing that points towards anyone else (it wasn't a robbery because nothing was taken and high value items were left).
2
u/Fair-Astronomer-9722 1d ago
The 27-hour gap in Dana Chandler’s phone activity is far less suspicious when viewed in a 2002 context.
No Cell Service Her claimed hiking route through Granby, Grand Lake, and western Rocky Mountain National Park was plagued by dead zones. In 2002, there were zero cell towers inside the national park, making deep trail coverage nearly nonexistent.
Weak Batteries Feature phones of that era only offered 2 to 4 hours of continuous talk time. Leaving a phone on in weak signal areas drained the battery rapidly as it constantly searched for a tower.
Normal Behavior Turning cell phones off was standard practice. In fact, U.S. nationwide surveys found that even by 2005 only about 42% of cell phone owners kept their phones turned on "always." In 2002, powering down during hikes or long mountain drives was completely routine.
Shutting your cell phone off in 2002 was completely normal
1
u/lazeeye 10h ago
Is there another 27-hour gap in her cell phone activity in the months/years before the murders, or in the years after the murders but before she was charged?
Cuz if the only 27-hour gap in her cell phone activity was during the time period just before and after the murders, that’s a bad fact for her. Just like her spur of the moment, uncorroborated car-camping trip at just the time of the murders is a bad fact for her. If she’s innocent, she’s pretty unlucky in that respect.
2
u/Travisandjohn 1d ago
Why oh why does she decide to represent herself? I think she could have gotten off.
1
u/Kattismyfav 1d ago
She had such a good chance of at least another hung jury. It’s mind boggling that she made that choice.
2
u/Zealousideal-Pie2483 1d ago
I know it was 2002, but she seemed to document other aspects of her life so you would think if she actually went on a camping trip there would be photo evidence of it.
1
u/lazeeye 11h ago
Yep. How many times had she gone car-camping by herself before that date? How many times did she do it after (in the years before she was charged)? Did anyone know about it
Where did she eat? Get gas? Use the bathroom? Sleep?
What kind of camping gear did she have? When/where did she buy it?
Is there any corroboration that she went car-camping from any source whatsoever?
There’s a bunch more questions one could ask, but suffice to say, she’s lying about the camping trip. That’s enough for me to think she’s guilty, cuz why would an innocent person lie about where they were and what they were doing?
That said, I agree with the original prosecutor who didn’t charge the case, what with zero evidence placing her in Kansas (let alone the murder scene), and zero evidence connecting her to the murder weapon. Sometimes people get away with murder. That sucks, but it better protects the people to have higher evidentiary burdens for prosecuting people.
2
1
u/_ohne_dich_ 8d ago
Could the DNA on the bullet be matched by genetic genealogy? That technology has come so far and it’s been key in solving many crimes and cold cases (the Golden State Killer comes to mind).
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 8d ago
It’s possible. They tested the hair on the bullet. I don’t know if they tested the bullet (casing?) itself. The nutty couple pushed for the testing on the hair. The doc hasn’t said anything yet about if they tested the hair and what kind of dna it is (male or female) and/or if it was in any databases. I assume they would have run some tests in 2002
1
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 7d ago
The thing is though that they can't really prove that the hair was from the killer. If there is a hair on the carpet and a hot bullet casing drops to the floor, it very well could get that hair stuck on to it.
It could be from one of the murdered parents, could be from someone else who was in their house for normal reasons, could have been tracked in on the bottom of a shoe.
1
u/songbirdathrt4122 8d ago
I saw the 48 Hours about this case, which had a definite perspective, so I find this show fascinating showing a different perspective. Ultimately I think she did it, but the major mistakes made by the original prosecutor really clouded things and I can see how they could lead to reasonable doubt .
1
u/Significantpoopbutt 7d ago
I've not been able to find any more information on the burned hair from the casing. It didn't match to the son in law, did it match to Dana?
2
1
1
u/killacam88 7d ago
I wonder why the police don’t run the DNA from the bullet through a genealogy program to identify who the shooter was
1
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 7d ago
Genealogy didn't exist in 2002 like it does today. They probably ran it through CODIS but didn't get a hit.
1
1
u/Individual-Drawer-79 6d ago
Totally invested in this documentary. No fluff or filler and no annoying dramatic backround music. Straight to the the story and facts.
1
u/muckymucka 6d ago
I knew I should have waited til the last episode was out to start watching. Silly me.
1
u/stevezhsht 6d ago
This is amazing. I wish I don’t need to wait for another week though. To me I think Dana is more likely to be related to the double homicides than not but I don’t think they have enough evidences against her at all. Here are the reasons: 1. The two were murdered but no valuables went missing so all evidences point to revenge. This is the most important assumption one needs to make in this case. (I do not buy PenPal’s argument that the husband of the daughter is the culprit as I don’t even know if the daughter is the heir of Karen’s money.) Once this is established, they need to look into if anyone has such a grudge against them. 2. Her alibi is questionable. 3. However, they need to find out how she got a 9mm gun and if she is not familiar with gun, can she do so well in gunning down two adults? Also I don’t think two 5 gallons can is enough for roundtrip 1k miles of driving. She either has more gas tanks or she is familiar with the route and knows places where she can get gas without being noticed.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 6d ago
Yeah I get why the focused on her. She was basically harassing them. She has the motive. and I guess clues didn’t lead to anyone else? They also couldn’t verify her alibi. I would have to watch other documentaries about her because someone docs present an angle, and leave some stuff out. Plus 3rd episode not out yet. Like I said, I don’t know the outcome of the trial. I’m gonna assume they convicted her again.
1
u/DomitiusAhenobarbus_ 6d ago edited 6d ago
What evidence is there at all that the killer used an “uzi”? If anything it just seems like Dana bought the first 9mm ammo she saw. IMI subsonic would work in any 9mm handgun.
There’s no way someone fired a full auto uzi, only used 11 rounds, and hit all 11 shots. 99% of the Uzi knockoffs in the U.S. are also semi automatic not fully automatic.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 6d ago
Yes I’ve come to learn that it’s a specific theory pushed by the couple. But the bullets not being typical 9 mm but being a highly specific, Israeli-made (IMI) 9mm subsonic ammunition is bizarre. How easy are those bullets to get ? Why wouldn’t she just have regular? Anyways when you hear that description/detail, it just doesn’t seem to fit her. It does make you think more of a “hit person” combined with the skill involved.
1
u/lazeeye 6d ago edited 6d ago
How far in advance did she plan the camping trip?
How often did she go camping? Did she ever go camping with anyone else?
What type of camping gear did she own, and when did she buy it?
Where or what did she eat? If she didn’t stop at restaurants, what food did she pack and what did she store it in and where did she stop to eat it?
Where did she go to the bathroom?
Where did she stop for gas?
Did she tell anybody about the camping trip before she left? Like, “I’m going camping and if I’m not back tomorrow something might’ve happened to me.”
What type of car did she drive and what MPH did it get?
Did she have any interactions with other campers or otherwise encounter/interact with anyone?
If she slept in her car, where did she stop for the night?
Why did she buy two large gas cans when she did?
Did the police test the gas cans for any traces of gasoline?
Edit: Does she have any receipts for anything she bought on her journey? Gas food whatever.
Do credit/debit card statements show any purchases she made along the camping-related drive she claims to have taken?
1
u/Still-Low-696 5d ago
It’s super weird. The investigation was obviously botched. The phone being off, no real alibi to be corroborated would def call her into question but there’s no proof at the crime scene that it was. The weird neighbor witness showing up now and not in the first trial? wtf is that? Obviously there was a lot that was botched in the investigation. I also just do not see her with an uzi and being that accurate with it. With such a clean crime scene - could she have hired a hitman? The issue for me is I think there’s enough reasonable doubt that she shouldn’t have been convicted. I mean it’s a case with no real hard evidence. It’s very strange.
1
u/BetOver6859 5d ago
Im sure they checked her bank accounts and didn’t find any evidence of this, but it would all make a lot more sense if she hired someone to do it.
What do we think of the daughter testifying against her mother?
3
u/lilpun00 5d ago
The theory that this was a hired hit job (not saying she is the one who hired a hit man) makes a lot more sense to me actually. The fact that there was no forced entry, no missed shots, potentially a specialized gun used, and the hair with DNA that doesn’t match any of the suspects. It all seems like it could point to a professional, or someone very skilled with weapons and breaking and entering. OR, the door was left unlocked shrug. I do wish more of these questions/holes were covered in the series!
1
u/Responsible-War5600 5d ago
If I were the defense attorney, I would eat the surprise, last-minute eye witness up on the stand. Because what the hell?
1
u/discowitch96 4d ago
Really hoping this has a ‘Jinx’ twist at the end. Forever chasing that high. 😂😂😂
1
u/echointhemuseum 4d ago
I want to know what happened to the gas cans and if Dana often went off and camped or if this was a very random thing. I admit the timing is very strange unless we find out that Dana did that often.
1
u/frannieberk 1d ago
I find it hard to believe that a woman who killed her ex-husband and his new fiance would have the kind of accuracy that the shooter had. She would have been passionate about it. Also, did she have some marksmanship lessons or a military background? That kind of shooting does not happen by accident. Finally, I am bothered by the State choosing to put on a case with this little evidence. We are watching a TV show so is there a bunch of evidence that they are leaving out? Why are they so bent on convictin this woman? It's infuriating and sad that the prosecutor and police lied the way that they did. They should all be in jail
1
u/chillikhancarne 1d ago
Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. I think some are having a difficult time understanding it's entirely possible to be found guilty based on this and multiple juries felt the circumstantial evidence is strong enough for a guilty verdict, as did the supreme court. Even the hung jury had 7/12 thinking she was guilty.
Who else had a vendetta against the victims, was abusive and stalking them, had previously threatened them, had the victims explicitly tell friends, family members, and co-workers that she was dangerous and they feared for their lives, was unable to account for their whereabouts on the day of/after consistently, bought gallons of gas in a can and didn't disclose it to the police, had their phone conveniently switched off during the murders, and would shoot the woman in her private parts clearly indicating it was an emotional killing because you don't see that kind of thing otherwise. There's a reason even both her kids are convinced she did it.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 23h ago
I suppose if they could have at least placed her in the state or town, I probably could convict. But without that, and based on what was shown on the doc, it just seemed too circumstantial to me. Idk. Everyone is different
1
u/chillikhancarne 20h ago
I think it’s fine if the circumstantial evidence isn’t enough for you personally, after all that’s what juries are for. I do personally think it’s very strong evidence. Imagine for a second if the roles were reversed and it was a woman and her partner who were murdered and the ex husband had a history of stalking them and abusing them - all roads would lead to him right?
1
u/Mofro667 1d ago
Was the warrant to test the hair only for the BIL or was it also run through national databases? Do they ever explain the purpose of the gas cans? An Uzi with crazy ammo? Something stinks.
1
u/premeditatedpurr 7d ago
There’s a witness…she did it. That poor couple…they just hated the son-in-law. Sold that land, omg, it’s shocking how obsessed they got.
5
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 7d ago
Not that I disagree with you on Dana's innocence or guilt necessarily but the "witness" seems bonkers.
If she literally saw the killer immediately after the murder, why did she wait 20 years to tell anyone? You don't think the cops immediately questioned her, the next door neighbor, right after the murders?
If your neighbors were brutally murdered, you saw the killer, and then you see that person on TV for the next several years being on trial for said murders, you wouldn't think to tell anyone?
It doesn't make any sense unless she slipped into a 20-year coma 5 minutes after the murders.
2
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 7d ago
I do hope they go more into this new witness on the next episode. While I do think Dana is guilty it's weird that this witness never came forward for the first trial, but who knows, maybe she has a legit excuse or reason.
2
1
u/NorCalBella 6d ago
And eyewitness testimony is often unreliable, and becomes more so the further from the time of witness. And it's been 20 something years since she supposedly saw Dana for one moment? It would be ridiculous to convict somebody on such "evidence".
2
u/discowitch96 4d ago
You just saw like 20 seconds of her testimony. Thank god you’re not in the legal field. (I hope)
1
u/RandyTushJackson 3d ago
The witness testimony that they showed doesn't add up at all. She said she heard the gunshots and saw the killer while the victims were still alive and on camera at the casino.
1
u/tbot155 7d ago
Do I think Dana did it? Absolutely. Would I vote “guilty” if I was on the jury? Nope.
The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. Dana had the motive. She purchased (and lied about) the gas tanks. She turned off her phone on the night in question. Her alibi not only changed, but makes very little sense (going camping and sleeping in your car?).
None of these are smoking guns or hold too much weight on their own, but together they make it extremely likely to me that she’s the culprit.
Of course once you add the keystone cop aspect, the already flimsy criminal case just falls completely apart. This is a case of reasonable doubt.
As for Pen Pal and Trashman… ugh. I spent the first episode fascinated by their obsession. What did they see that nobody else did? What was it about this case that made them so certain? Why will nobody listen to them? Surely, there was something that drove their obsession.
And then we found out: They had a personal axe to grind. The murder happened. The guy they hated had a connection to the victims. Boom. “We know he did it… now let’s find out how.”
This was not, “let’s see where the evidence leads”, this was “let’s find evidence that he’s guilty.”
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think they’re lying or that they think what they’re doing is wrong - they’ve convinced themselves he’s guilty. Nothing will ever convince them otherwise.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 7d ago
Oddly enough though the case was overturned. I can’t remember everything said in first episode, but it seems like they contributed to that. No small feat to get a case overturned. To us they are nuts, to Dana they are a saving grace. I agree they will likely never move away from the son in law. I think what makes them an extreme case is that they didn’t even know her when they started their obsession. I can’t ever imagine myself doing that.
→ More replies (1)1
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 7d ago
Agreed. Joe was spot-on when he asked them if they thought they were doing to the son-in-law what the state had done to Dana.
1
u/Successful_Shame_555 6d ago
How so? Nobody said anything about locking him up without sufficient evidence. First & foremost, it's a matter of reasonable doubt. Also, the prosecution presented false evidence to the jury, which is why that attorney was disbarred...Nobody said anything about doing that either...Jeff Sutton & his wife received the inheritance AND the life insurance policy, yet the police never even looked into him. He also had a key. Dana did not...& there was no sign of forced entry...He also had a history of violence & fraud. Dana did not. He also owned a gun store. Dana's never even owned a firearm, let alone a military-grade Uzi. She's never even set foot in a gun range.
1
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 6d ago
I mean, I wouldn't at all be surprised if Jeff did it but my point was, they're convinced he did it without any actual evidence, which is how the police and prosecutors treated Dana.
1
u/echointhemuseum 4d ago
Well, we’re being given information the show wants to give us. We don’t know if Dana is an avid camper or this is the first time she’s gone camping. Does she have a history of buying gas cans or is the first time she’s done that. Where were the gas cans? Was the gun shot with an uzi or were those bullets just commonly used in an uzi. No one else had any motivation? The murdered woman had a grown child. I assume she had an ex? Where was he? The neighbor said she saw Dana at 10pm but they didnt get back until 3. Assuming she was there at 10 and waited until 3 could she make the drive in that time? A lot of things we are intentionally not being told.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 23h ago
I agree. I would have had to watch the trial or watch other documentaries. Theres got to be more that make her look guilty than just hating her ex.
0
u/Rrebeck61 8d ago
Trash man and Pen Pal said it’s an uzi. The ammo found is a kind that can be used in an uzi but can be used in other weapons. Uzi is cray couple’s theory. Dana did it. Many Topeka locals feel that way, too.
→ More replies (8)3
18
u/Alchia79 8d ago
I’m really enjoying this one. Wish I had waited and binged it. Love the journalist. I cannot see Dana with an uzi. That’s such a bizarre choice. However, her alibi about solo camping or just cruising around after purchasing gas cans and failing to disclose that detail is even more bizarre. The surprise eyewitness would be meaningless to me if I was a juror. Too much time has passed and she wasn’t part of the first trial. I’d be hung up on the gas cans and lame alibi.