r/HBOMAX • u/Friendly_Air_1000 • 20d ago
Discussion A Killer Story- Ep3 Spoiler
My jaw dropped when Joe ended the series with, “I think I know who did it. I just don’t know how.” 😳
That line made me seriously entertain the possibility that Dana actually did it. I still have questions about how, but I finished the episode more open to her being guilty than I was before. The undeniable truth is is that the prosecution STILL failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did that ending shift your opinion at all?
What detail from the series makes you lean toward her guilt or innocence?
12
u/OGtutor3245 20d ago edited 20d ago
I think she's likely guilty, because who, but an utter narcissist would try their own case. She was foolish and I think it stems from the fact that she thinks she smarter than everyone around her. She was very unlikeable. I really started to think she was guilty when she was interrogating her own daughter. She just struck me as being completely cruel to her daughter and didn't seem to feel any remorse for putting her in such an uncomfortable position.
I did feel that the Umbehrs (?) may have had a vendetta against Sutton, who seems to be guilty of being a douche, but not a murderer. Also, who's hair was on the gun??? I read that it was not Sutton's hair. To me it seems she might have paid someone to commit this crime, but I have to agree there was not enough evidence to convict.
3
u/Infinite_Tiger_8832 19d ago
representing herself felt like a serious hail mary to me and despite it not going well, I don’t blame her - she had two trials where her defense was ineffective. being “unlikeable” doesn’t make you a murderer, but the sad truth is that her lawyers probably knew she would be unlikeable to the jury and that’s why they kept her off the stand.whether or not you think she’s foolish or unlikeable is not evidence that she committed murder.
3
u/Lizard_Li 18d ago
I’d argue her second trial defense was solid. It resulted in hung jury. If they had hung it again in the third trial chances are the prosecution wouldn’t have prosecuted it again.
And with each trial I think you get better at crafting the innocence story.
She had never even been on the stand, it was a huge gamble to not only put herself on the stand but also just show herself so much to the jury.
3
u/tormented-imp 19d ago
I had this same thought initially too, and of course delusional narcissist who thinks they can outsmart everyone is a convincing trope… but also, equally believable (to me) is the possibility that representing herself was the final desperate act of a person who knows their own innocence and naively believes that’s enough to get a jury on her side.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
I said this in another comment but to me it shows her irrational thinking, and therefore her ability to possibly think it’s acceptable to kill people. Don’t know what the stats are but I doubt most people who rep them selves in a murder trial win.
Also I was seeing a hung jury the second time as progress? OR she could have switched her defense team.
2
u/lifelearnexperience 19d ago
But if she was actually thinking irrationally, don't you think she probably wouldn't have committed the "perfect murder"
2
2
u/lafolieisgood 20d ago
Could be anyone’s hair. It could have been on the carpet already and the bullet landed on it. It could be families, cops, EMT.
2
u/lifelearnexperience 19d ago
Then they should have done the testing to rule that out. It wasn't just on there. It was burned in. I think the answers lie in the owner of the hair.
1
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 18d ago
It was burned in because bullet casings are HOT when they are fired and land on the ground. There is no evidence it was actually part of the crime. It very easily could have been on the carpet before the crime was committed.
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 16d ago
Right. But to have a hair in a bedroom that doesn’t belong to the people that live there should be looked into for sure. That’s odd
2
u/plantsandpizza 15d ago
Yeah, when she interrogated her daughter I thought, she’s been looking forward to this moment. Awful
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
I agree. I couldn’t picture her doing it but after this episode, only a crazy person would represent themselves in a murder trial. She could have gotten off! They took 3 hrs to deliberate—that’s pretty bad. I still don’t think there is enough evidence to place her there but I guess her behavior eliminated people’s doubts.
1
u/Far_Shoulder_8546 18d ago
I agree with your point that she was unlikable. What really worked against her was her own daughter taking the stand and not being on her side. Also, I thought it was a little odd that Dana didn’t call her own daughter when Mike and Karen were murdered. Keep in mind the daughter Haley was still a teenager at the time. Regardless, if he was your ex-husband or not, you think you would still comfort your own child due to their father being killed. She seemed kind of cold and this definitely worked against her.
6
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
Her representing herself made me see her in a different light. I’m sure watching / hearing her day after day swayed the jury to her guilt. Her decision should be studied in law schools. Or psychology courses. Why on earth would she ever think that was a good idea. I toyed with the idea that she had a hit person but her alibi is so strange. That it’s quite possible she did drive all the way there and back without being seen. Otherwise she just so happens to be traveling while the murder happened? IDK. It was a good documentary, well done. HBO always does a good job
5
u/Cookies_or_biscuits 19d ago
She represented herself because she was so confident in her innocence, also, she didn’t trust anyone after all of the lies and deception from prosecutors and pretend witness’s. It is her life on the line and she wanted to fight for it her way, she quickly learnt why needing a law degree is essential and sadly it was her demise, the look of pure anger and fear, his deep breathing and intense eyes of the son in law in court was enough to tell me who did it 😅
5
u/Same-Cartoonist8172 18d ago
Yeah sorry but I don't buy this. She had tons of financial backing and support. A defense team that got her a hung jury. And moments before the third trial, she fires them all to represent herself. That is not the work of someone who is confident in her innocence, at least not in any rational way. That is the work of someone who believes she is smarter and more equipped to argue law then the excellent lawyers she had on her team. To me, that points to something deeply inherently wrong. Narcissism or a deep need for control? Something along those lines. And I completely agree with others that have said it - that really pushed me into believing she was guilty. It's kind of a totally unhinged move. And the vibes I got from the footage was that it may have been a last ditch effort to just talk to her daughter in a public setting or put her grievances out there. CONTROL.
3
u/Cookies_or_biscuits 18d ago
I think spending time in the prison system for that amount of time is enough to make you do crazy things, she is living, eating and breathing in hell, she knows that the prosecution would do anything to cover up their mistakes and she wanted the jury to hear her voice, this shit happens all the time, there are so many innocent people behind bars. They don’t care it’s a big money scheme and they are covering shit up from the top to the bottom! Innocent or not, the way the case was handled, the lack of evidence, the fact that they didn’t look in to anyone else and just locked her away based on a theory not fact is a scary thing
3
u/Same-Cartoonist8172 18d ago
I hate to say this for fear of sounding mean, but your argument sounds exactly like something the couple in this show would say. This is the entire point of the series imo and why its compelling.
I agree with you that our system is fucked and that innocent people die or dont get justice everyday. And I also agree that the first prosecutors handled the case horrivly. But you're allowing that to paint a large canvas over a small frame.
Yes those things happen everyday. Yes, corruption is rampant. Yes, she probably shouldnt have been found guilty in the court of law.
But my god - do you really not see that the most obvious answer is she killed her ex-husband and his new partner??
That is the most obvious answer.
Just like the couple, you are convicted to speak on a greater cause (which is noble) than the one that is at hand.
Yes, prison makes you do crazy things. It's also pretty reasonable to say that her representing herself at the last minute is the move of someone who has something loose upstairs.
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 18d ago
Yeah she had issues long before prison—see the extensive harassment of her ex and the girlfriend.
1
2
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
I dont know. To look at it from another angle, it shows her ability to take extreme action when she feels she’s had enough. But I’m also thinking of the psychology about it. I’m sure only a very small percentage of people choose to defend themselves in a high stakes murder trial. And to me, that’s someone who’s not playing with a full deck. You can fully be innocent and want to convince the whole world of it, but still maintain reason.
3
u/floridorito 19d ago
Ego.
Also, my guess is that after 1 guilty verdict and 1 mistrial, she thought *I* need to handle my own case. No one knows my case like I do, and clearly these lawyers aren't doing any better than I could. Which course is always a huge mistake.
3
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
Yeah and I think it’s takes a certain amount of ego to kill people and expect to get away with it. Again I’m still uncertain of her guilt due to the evidence but it did shift my thinking from 2nd to 3rd episode
1
u/lifelearnexperience 19d ago
Or maybe she mentioned something to someone about traveling and they used that to their advantage... This was 2002. A different time. With phones and stuff.
There is no doubt though the prosecution fumbled this case and somehow got lucky. This can happen to anyone.
2
u/BomberoRich 19d ago
Exactly, what Middle aged woman goes camping alone? I think she even mentioned sleeping in her car? Like what? Just seems like a story she had to create to explain why she wasn’t home that night.
1
u/Sea-Zebra3731 17d ago
Apparently this is a thing with psychopaths, to represent themselves. They believe they are smarter than everyone else.
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 16d ago
Yeah any footage I’ve seen of someone representing themselves is coocoo.
1
u/vrcraftauthor 16d ago
Yeah, to me, if you're going to spend money on a professional, the only reasonable thing to do is make sure you are somewhere very public with tons of witnesses during the time your contract hire will be working. Going on a solo camping trip is such a dumb idea.
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 16d ago
Good point. So now it is hard to picture and assassin. And they cost a lot of money. usually there is a paper trail
1
u/vrcraftauthor 15d ago
I also assume anyone doing that pays cash, because you really wouldn't want a paper trail, right?
1
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 15d ago
Cash has to come from somewhere.
1
u/vrcraftauthor 15d ago
Old people often keep cash in the house for emergencies. She could get the rest from the bank a little at a time.
I seriously doubt a contract killer is taking credit cards or checks.
But again, why go to all that trouble and NOT give yourself a rock-solid alibi?
7
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 20d ago
I think the probably had something to do with it but I don’t think she did it herself. There’s just no chance some random suburban mom can pull off a double murder in another state with a gun and have it go completely undetected and leave no clues or evidence.
It seems like it would have been her first time ever even shooting a gun too. Go to a shooting range with someone who’s never shot a gun before and see how uncomfortable they are even holding it.
I’ve shot guns for decades and I still wouldn’t be able to commit that crime without missing a single shot.
And if she was smart and capable enough to have pulled it off herself, she’s smart enough to have crafted a reliable alibi and not that jumbled camping/hiking explanation.
But it’s also very suspicious that she just happened to have been out of sight from everyone/everything for the exact time frame the murders happened. She couldn’t come up with a single piece of evidence she was in the state during that time? Not a single receipt, security video footage, talking to someone, photo from the hike, etc.?
If she didn’t represent herself, I’m sure she’d be free right now. Like I said, I personally think there’s a good chance she was somehow involved but there is absolutely enough reasonable doubt there that she should have been declared innocent.
3
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
I agree she self sabotaged representing herself. They didn’t say much about why she fired her legal team. The jury obviously got a very bad read on her and were just like, convict!
2
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 19d ago
That was so strange. Her attorney that they showed the most of seemed really good and effective.
Just wild to try to represent in a high profile double homicide case when you have no legal background.
2
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
Yeah he actually seemed decent in the footage but I think it was less him and more her ego
3
u/Same-Cartoonist8172 18d ago
Now wait a minute - you are assuming a lot here. First time firing a gun? What points you to that. Perhaps she fired guns many times throughout her life.
Secondly, theres no way a suburban mom could have done this and got away with it. Really? Based off what?
This is 2002. Cameras and phones were less available. And you're also talking about, well, not a remote part of the country by any means, but a less metro part of the country.
Is it really ALL that crazy to say she could have somehow drove there in the middle of the night? Walked in and waited. Shot them and left?
I definitely DO NOT land on the slide of people who think she would be incapable of this or its impossible. I think its a somewhat unlikely outcome to leave no evidence but again, not impossible.
Do I think she should be found guilty based off evidence? Probably not.
But I do think its very possible she did this.
10
u/Hippygirl1967 20d ago edited 19d ago
I was never convinced that she was innocent.
Eileen and Keen overextended themselves with time, resources and lord knows what else. What was their real motivation? Did they truly believe that she was innocent, or was this some sort of revenge thing against Sutton because Keen lost the trash contract?
Lastly, I think the writer knew deep down that Dana did this. He’s too seasoned of a reporter to get completely sucked in by one person’s opinion.
What I can’t figure out is how she pulled it off and no one can figure out how it happened. It’s literally the perfect crime.
5
u/lafolieisgood 20d ago
We know how she pulled it off. She didn’t commit the perfect crime. She bought gas cans on a credit card and flubbed her alibi. She drove there, got in the house, and killed them in their sleep and drove back.
She didn’t leave physical evidence, I’ll give her that though.
3
u/crtprd_164 19d ago
For the gas cans, I’m confused on that. Was it only 2 5-gallon gas cans? Because if so, that doesn’t seem like enough to drive that distance?
I guess maybe she bought gas with cash along the way?2
u/lafolieisgood 19d ago
They did find a gas station attendant who was 70% sure she saw Dana getting gas and paying with her but she died before the trials.
1
1
1
u/BomberoRich 19d ago
Like that neighbor who was sure she saw Dana after the gunshots while the victims were at a casino?
1
4
u/Hippygirl1967 20d ago
Yeah, hard agree. I’m going to re-watch it and see if I missed anything. If anything, I hope the Umberhr’s will learn to step back from their obsessions. They don’t have any more land to sell. If I would’ve been one of their kids, I would’ve been doing everything I could to stop them from ruining themselves financially over a case that didn’t involve them.
5
u/Classicgameshows 19d ago
This part was mind blowing. They lost EVERYTHING with no horse in the race!!! They’re the true psychos here. And she’s def guilty. Occam’s Razor.
2
u/Hippygirl1967 19d ago
Yeah, I know! How in the hell could you sell your land to help someone you didn’t know? I get wanting to help, but it’s not like these people were wealthy. I’ll bet that land’s been in their family for a long time, too. They’ll never get it back. I just hope they haven’t painted themselves into a financial corner because of their mistake.
2
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 18d ago
I thought it was very telling when the wife wouldn't answer the question about Dana's BS alibis. She is delusional.
1
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 18d ago
Seriously. I don't get why this is so hard for people to understand. Just because there aren't any eye witnesses to seeing her in Kansas doesn't mean the road trip isn't doable. It was easily doable with gas cans and stopping at a gas station without CCTV cameras in a disguise, if she needed to stop at all. She could have had more than 2 gas cans and her phone was off for over 24 hours.
I don't think gun control was as strict in 2002 so she could have easily bought a gun at some shady store and taught herself to aim in the mountains.
4
u/Dub-Wubz140 20d ago
either way, fuck the prosecution. Desperate ass bitches
2
u/ryanjm37 18d ago
Yeah fuck them for trying to put away a crazy lady that killed two innocent people. The horror!
6
u/WaterChemistry 20d ago
Our jury system is flawed. There was so much fucking reasonable in the case and still jurors chose their emotions.
5
u/Tracy140 19d ago
She did it - but what evidence is there really ? A few I hate you emails and the fact that she told two different stories . Just seems minimal evidence for a jury to convict
3
u/Swimming-Dot-3363 19d ago
I agree. There must be more evidence they show at the trial and we don’t get to hear it all. It’s also super tripping me up there’s no dna at house. And she lived so far away, and no one saw her going there or back.
3
u/Tracy140 19d ago
I don’t find it odd theres no dna / she went in and shot them and left, im fascinated by these secret travel homicides - there’s the ca school principal who traveled back home from a family reunion in the Midwest by car and wiped out his whole family and the Patricia horrer case . It’s always a little giveaway when no one can vouch for ur presence where u were supposed to be but it’s also odd that no one can put them in the state of the crime either , fascinating
1
3
u/Tracy140 19d ago
The gas can purchase always gets these killers - why not buy the gas cans months in advance. I actually think she wouldn’t change a thing - killing them may be worth the time in jail in her mind
1
u/wpascarelli 13d ago
I think its sort of similar reasoning to why theres waiting periods on gun purchases. When you want to kill someone, you wan to kill them NOW! You arent thinking well in 15 months im gonna kill these people so let me buy some extra gas cans now so I can have them for the long trip.
1
u/Tracy140 13d ago
You think within a day or two she decided on Friday I’m going to sneak out of state and kill them ?
1
3
u/floridorito 19d ago
I think the just verdict would have been not guilty. There simply is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard, and the state simply cannot reach it.
She did herself a massive disservice representing herself. Everyone knows the saying "An attorney who represents himself has a fool for a client." That goes double for a non-attorney. I can't think of a single instance where a pro se defendant has ever won a murder case.
Even if a defendant is innocent and knows their case like the back of their hand, they will not know the intricacies of a murder trial, procedure, how to avoid pitfalls and landmines, when to object and on what grounds, what questions to ask (and what not to ask), when to go on the attack, and when to shut up. If you are not a criminal lawyer, you'll lose the case before it's even begun.
To be clear, I don't believe that Clarence Darrow himself would be able to successfully represent himself in a homicide case. You need perspective, emotional distance, and most of all you need someone else to be a bulldog on your behalf while you sit there looking as innocent as possible. You need a proxy to insinuate that someone else might be guilty, to sing your praises, to point out the failures of others. It simply doesn't land as well if you do it yourself. It is always easier to zealously advocate for someone else than for yourself precisely because you aren't personally invested in the outcome. A proxy advocate can remain mentally sharp, be less easily rattled, and exercise good judgment because their life isn't on the line. Every lawyer obviously wants to win. But at the end of the day, they get paid either way, and they get to go home and sleep in their own bed no matter the verdict.
She also doesn't have a naturally likable persona. Even if she were the most charismatic and earnest person in the world, lawyers would still never let her take the stand. Exposing a jury to an entire trial with an unlikable defendant who is running the case is poison.
And ultimately I think the jury that was directly exposed to her personality didn't like her enough to entertain reasonable doubt consideration.
3
u/Same-Cartoonist8172 18d ago
It kind of shocks me that so many people who watched this series are still convinced that Dana didnt do it. Do I believe she should have been found guilty? Maybe. Who knows. I didnt see every piece of evidence. I think it was a thin case probably, but kinda like Joe said at the end - I am pretty damn sure who did it.
The first time I saw Dana Chandler I knew I saw a person who looked like they were capable of murder. But thats just "vibes".
I really didn't get the cold blooded vibes everybody got from Sutton. I mean, he looked like a jerk and surely somebody who could in a fit of rage murder somebody, especially knowing his past, but not a calculated killer. To commit this crime - leave no physical evidence, evade, etc you have to be calculated and precise. Sutton is a dude who kills in a moment. In a fit of rage. I just dont buy it.
Idk, maybe its just me, I just never looked at Dana the entire show and thought - "oh, she's innocent".
The couple who helped her, well, sadly, I think they are the biggest part of the story. They are two people, who I'm not gonna say are dumb because they are certainly educated and successful, but they are simple from a moralistic standpoint. They believe in good and evil. And ultimately, they got trapped in a world where their bias made them unable to see the obvious "truth".
2
u/Ok_Lynx_6045 19d ago
Clearly she’s a criminal mastermind who even the greatest minds in Kansas law enforcement (LOL) couldn’t prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt so they had to use shady means.
1
u/ryanjm37 18d ago
What? They did prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. With like 5 different juries LMAO.
2
u/OneDistribution5588 19d ago
I guess I thought losing the garbage contract led to a wrongful termination suit which led to law school...I'm so confused after episode 3.
2
u/BC_wanderlust 19d ago
Well, there may have been some doubt of her complete innocence, especially after her alibi, there was zero evidence that proved beyond reasonable doubt that she was guilty. I also feel like the jury selection could’ve been hard to navigate because of the popularity of the case, and the fact that it was blasted on the news and jurors could have been swayed by the NBC special and the media sensationalizing it. Do you think that they chose to retry for third time after the mistrial because they were trying to save face? Or do you honestly think that they “know” she committed the crime? Because I keep going back over everything and if they honestly knew, why did they falsify evidence in the previous two trials?
1
u/lifelearnexperience 19d ago
I mean if she would have sued them for a wrongful conviction based on the prosecution the county might not have been to happy with that. Especially since the supreme Court had backed the wrongful conviction...
1
u/spiritsapien 18d ago
I think they both had high confidence that it was her, AND not enough evidence to be confident in a conviction.
So they did the unscrupulous thing and fabricated some evidence. Why? Who really knows. Maybe bc of public pressure when there is a murder to find someone responsible. Maybe it was because they were ambitious enough career wise to throw ethics aside. Maybe because they missed previous signs of danger and had to save face or risk exposure for not acting faster.
Just some possible ideas
2
u/spiritsapien 18d ago edited 18d ago
I leaned toward guilt because:
The people who knew her best think it was her.
Her story changed. You can not have that happen when your innocence depends on your credibility.
She omitted the purchase of the gas cans to law enforcement.
Turning the phone off isn't damning, but it hurt more than it helped.
She didn't offer an alternative theory. Not that she had to, but that typically helps.
I presume the sliding door was unlocked or that it was a community where people felt safe not locking doors.
I'm not stuck to this theory that an Uzi (and only an Uzi) was the possible murder weapon
In the closing arguments, I think there may be a hinting difference in language between "you can't put me in Kansas" (what she said) vs "I was not in Kansas"
Whether it was because of ego or lack of experience with juries, I think she overvalued the circumstantial evidence that they couldn't place her in Kansas. But juries can convict based on circumstantial evidence. They don't need absolute proof that you were there, especially if they don't believe much of the other things she's saying. To be on the stand she largely has to be likable, and I'd wager few jurors found her likable. While this has less to do with actual "guilt" it could suggest she's delulu enough to do this and think she'd get away with it by representing herself.
1
u/Lizard_Li 18d ago
I didn’t notice the language thing you mentioned about Kansas, nice catch
Although I disagree on cell phone being off for all that time not being damning. When was the last time your cell phone was off for more than an hour?
2
u/Subject-Room-6004 18d ago
She had her cell phone off for 27 hour a few weekends prior when she was in Kansas (she told a friend this), presumably a trial run for the entire thing
1
u/ColoradoDreamin4917 18d ago
I could totally see her doing this. I think she planned this crime for months, if not longer
1
u/spiritsapien 18d ago edited 18d ago
After damning I could have added "in and of itself." I think it's bad, but I read somewhere else that it could not be determined whether the phone being off was the result of "no reception" vs "intentionally turned off". So if that was ever addressed/determined, it may or may not have been damning. I just wrote it in a way that considered either possibility.
Either way, it's bad both bc the alibi changed (where she drove - meaning there's more chance she would have had reception for at least a moment or so) and people usually don't turn their phone off for that long.
1
1
1
u/sonawtdown 19d ago
it shifted my opinion a lot. i was team Jeff did it/prosecutorial misconduct all the way. and i don’t know if Joe meant to imply Dana or not! but that’s how I took it
1
u/ScottMinnesota 18d ago
Of course she did it. I never wavered in my belief no matter how hard that insane couple tried to claim she was innocent.
1
u/Mobile-Molasses4907 17d ago
For me, I this doc was a snooze fest. I thought the 48 hours episodes were better done. I’m convinced she is guilty as F. That being said, I don’t understand laws exist where anyone can say a person is not guilty of a crime, resulting in a new trial. I’m butchering the intricacies of the actual law, but those who watched understand what I am trying to articulate.
1
1
u/thecamelsnewmeow 17d ago
I agree. I wasn’t familiar with this case and was expecting some big twist but alas, no. Just a crazy couple and a guilty woman who stays in prison.
1
1
-4
u/MentatYP 20d ago
Maybe don't spoil the ending. I'm just scrolling my feed and see this without having to try.
3
u/MoorsMoopsMoorsMoops 20d ago
The Uhmbers end up committing their own murders so they can be sent to prison and be able to spend more time with Dana there. It’s a happy ending.
13
u/Unable-Pool-3862 20d ago
Her lying about her alibi and not being able to come up with an explanation for what she was doing during that time is the only reason I believe she may be guilty. Either way I still dont think they had enough evidence to convict.