I'm aware of this case, because I'm into true crime, but never delved deeply into it. I've seen interviews with the real murderer and she just isn't credible.
She talks in this quiet, modulated voice that I've seen other female murderers use, as if to say, see I'm so sweet and gentle and feminine I could never commit murder. Yeah, right.
Right off, the movie paints the husband as a bad guy, but on the other hand (if it is true or near the truth), she knew what she was getting into, but ignored all the signs. I mean he cheated on someone to be with her and she saw he was a philanderer, so cry me a river.
But people (especially women) always think they'll either change a man or that she's so wonderful a cheater won't cheat on them. I'm a woman, so I know.
Anyway, we see here in the movie and in real life, she had no problem with cheating herself and for years.
Hey, if things aren't working out, get a divorce! Don't marry a guy you know is a cheater, a drinker, and a gambler - it's not going to go well, A hammer to the head would be more subtle.
Lifetime assumed most of its viewers are women, so they need to give a background reason for the premeditated plotting of murdering and dismembering you spouse, by a woman, instead of opting for separation and divorce.
What this didn't show and maybe can't is that there are plenty of people who for a variety of reasons decide that murder is a good and the only option. And apparently she did.
Some people claiming to know (really you don't) insist she's innocent. But DNA and a lot of circumstanial evidence and motivation points to her. I'm not buying her claims of innocence.
He may have been a cad, but she had options and chose murder instead.
Despite, the obvious bias by Lifetime, this was watchable and the actors did decent jobs.
For people claiming she's innocent or are in doubt, including the actor playing the victim - Oh come on! -The guy was found in suitcases he owned and she admitted to, human "sawdust" (a term coined in an earlier gruesome murder case involving a frozen spouse and a woodchipper), the fact that her brother and she drove to AC to the man's car and used the victim's phone to make it appear he was still alive, a medical drug was found in his blood, a substance similar to that used in household furniture was found in the body, medical grade towels she had access to were found with the body, the missing gun she purchased, the cost of bullets on the receipt and the price from the gun dealer, the Internet searches, the trip to where the body was dumped and then trying to get .90 cents removed twice, the matching of the plastic bags containing the body to ones at the house, etc., that's not a Mafia hit; That's not someone annoyed with his gambling debts, that's someone with motive no matter how weird, means, and opportunity, who worked in a medical facility and had access to those things.
Circumstantial doesn't mean I could have done it or you, it means the circumstances surrounding the likeliest person - and that's her. The fact that fragments of his body were in the car is enough. That means she was in close proximity. No wonder the jury convicted.
The fact that she's sticking to her story means nothing. Why would she confess to her lover? She has no regard for human life, so swearing on her children's lives means nothing either. I've seen cases of females who murdered using them to play to the public as though being a mom means you can't murder. I can think of two cases right off the top of my head.
They got the right person and the movie was fairly decent.
1 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
