Tonight at 9:00 EST, don't miss two WCI contributors on E! THS Investigates. Our Prosecutor-for-Hire Kelly Siegler and our Violence Expert Susan Murphy-Milano were both interviewed for the show. "Husbands Who Kill" explores cases of seemingly loving husbands driven to murder their wives. One was in fact a loving husband. Problem was, his wife loved another man. That case ended in murder-suicide. As most of our readers know, Susan's father (the decorated Chicago Violent Crimes Detective who caught the "Chicago Rippers") shot her mother to death before turning his gun on himself. Susan, then 29, found her parents' bodies. Ever since that day, she has dedicated herself to saving the lives of endangered women in domestic violence situations. She is also an author.
Susan will be providing commentary throughout the hour on tonight's program, which focuses on four women slain by their husbands. The three men who only appeared to be loving husbands had been living lies. Two had misled family and friends into believing they were pursuing advanced degrees, one in medicine, the other an MBA from Harvard. The truth was that neither had graduated from college and both were running out of money and lies. One of the wives discovered the truth, but did not live to tell. The other man gave his "ailing" wife Gatorade spiked with antifreeze and went on to become a popular radio host. (WCI's Broadcaster Michele McPhee wrote about that case and others in "Why Are Smart Women Carried Away by Fakes?")
The third husband living a lie was David Temple, a Texas football star turned hi
gh-school coach. Temple ended up being prosecuted by Kelly Siegler for firing a shotgun into the back of his wife's head. Belinda Temple was eight months pregnant with their second child. (Siegler, right, grills Temple during the trial)
Two of tonight's cases involve husbands convicted of taking the lives of their wives and unborn children. Lately, any story about a pregnant wife murdered by her husband immediately draws a Laci Peterson comparison. The Temple
case predated Laci's by a few years, but there are notable similarities. The tale is complete with an Amber Frey look-alike—a mistress with one key character difference: Scott Peterson's lover did not know she was dating a married man until he became a suspect in his wife's disappearance. When Frey realized that Peterson had been motivated to do away with his wife so he could be with Amber, she helped authorities bring him to justice. David Temple's love interest, Heather Scott, a teacher at the school where David coached, knew her lover was someone's husband and father. After David murdered his wife, Heather (above) married him and testified on his behalf.
Once the cold-case made it to trial, the courtroom heated up as Kelly Siegler clashed with renowned criminal defense attorney Dick DeGuerin, making the media's prediction of "fireworks" between the legal giants the only easily predictable aspect of the explosive trial. 
DeGuerin maintains his client's innocence, pointing out that Temple was filmed by Home Depot surveillance cameras around the time of the murder. DeGuerin (pictured right of Temple upon conviction) accused Siegler of being so effective at her job that she'd done what defense attorney Richard "Racehorse" Haynes once said was inevitable: "She's convicted an innocent man."
The victim's family saw things differently. When Temple was finally convicted nearly nine years after the murder, Belinda's brother said he'd suspected David's involvement within ten minutes of learning of her death. Following sentencing, her father said, "People have told us, 'Get over it.' You can't get over your baby—especially in these types of circumstances. . . . Put a shotgun to my baby's head and blow her brains out. It just wasn't right. And I'm so glad justice has prevailed."
For tonight, watch Susan and Kelly for what the producer of "Husbands Who Kill" promises to be a provocative hour of television. Click here to watch the trailer for this special THS Investigates: An in-depth examination of criminal behavior.
Friday, November 149:00 p.m. EST
E! Entertainment Television Network
THS Investigates
"Husbands Who Kill"
Tweet
7 comments:
When Frey realized that Scott had been motivated to do away with his wife so he could be with Amber, she helped authorities bring him to justice.
What justice? There was no evidence of his guilt and a mountain of evidence for his innocence. You'd be more honest if you said, "When Frey realized that once more she'd been having sex with a married man who would never leave his wife, she got her revenge by helping authorities to frame him for a crime he could not possibly have committed".
Is there not one of you people who can understand evidence and reason to a conclusion? Why is it so hard for you? It's blindingly obvious to me.
"a voice of sanity" said "There was no evidence of his guilt and a mountain of evidence for his innocence"
The only people who evaluated the evidence was the jury and they said he was guilty.
In the past few years, DNA has released hundreds of the convicted from prison, many from death row.
Every one of those people was convicted by judges, prosecutors and juries who 'KNEW' the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Every one of those judges, prosecutors and juries was WRONG!
To this day I have not found a single person on this planet who can point to even one piece of valid evidence of Peterson's guilt. The discussion is not about the quality of the evidence, nor its reliability, nor its fairness. The discussion is about the total lack of any valid evidence at all.
A Voice of Sanity, (OR INSANITY?) I followed that trial VERY closely in 2004. There was a ton of evidence against Scott Peterson. Where do you get your information? The Scott Peterson fan club over at CCADP(Canadian Coaliton to Abolish the Death Penalty) Are you one of his pen pals (scum pals), that send him and other scum bag death row inmates letters?
The bodies turned up in close proximty to where Scott Peterson said he was fishing. Scott Peterson had told Amber Frey before Laci went missing that his wife had died. He had a history of affairs. He fit the profile of a psychopathic scum bag who would kill their wife, to get them out of the way, so he could shack up with skanks like Amber Frey.
It was obvious to anyone that he didn't want to become a father. Anyone that can kill a small baby like that is one evil SOB.
While Laci was missing, he had told Amber Frey that his favorite movie was "The Shining" the Shining is a movie about a man who tries to murder his wife and child. Your PREGNANT WIFE IS MISSING, and you are talking to your girlfriend about a move where a man tries to murder his wife and child....
He had also been talking to Amber Frey AT VIGILS FOR LACI PETERSON.
The behavioral evidence was STRONG.
Voice of Insanity stated:
"Every one of those people was convicted by judges, prosecutors and juries who 'KNEW' the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Every one of those judges, prosecutors and juries was WRONG!"
So I guess according to you, we should just let all murderers walk because sometimes a jury can get it wrong????
BTW why don't you whine about when juries let murderers go free like O.J. Simpson? Oh wait, I guess he was innocent as well???
I don't know if the Peterson case was that cut and dry. I followed the case pretty closely too, and though there was some strong circumstantial evidence, there was nothing concrete--same thing with the Temple case. No DNA evidence or anything like that. Both cases seemed to have been decided on the idea that the husband is always the top suspect, especially if he had been having an affair. It's the "if it wasn't the husband, then who was it" argument, and that's not supposed to be sufficient in a court of law. It's not the defense's job to show who it was. That's the prosecution trying to shirk its true burden. Both of these men could be guilty as hell, but just looking at this from a legal standpoint, these cases seem pretty weak.
Slander is not circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence (i.e. non eye witness evidence) is excellent evidence, but in the Temple case there simply wasn't any. If they could tie the shotgun to David they would have a very strong case - but if they could tie it to the burglar/neighbor they would have one against him instead. That is more than reasonable doubt.
In the Peterson case, her body was found with underwear that were completely worn out. That destroys their theory that she died on the 23rd - she must have lived weeks past that and therefore Scott is not guilty.
Over recent decades laws have been altered to make it easier and easier to convict. At the same time jurors, particularly those selected from drivers' lists, have gotten less and less able to reason. DNA has shone a bright light on the quality of the legal system and shown that it is very, very broken. Heaven help the innocent who fall into its clutches.
Post a Comment