Murder in Alliance /// 520 /// 521

"This episode has been edited for accuracy. Certain portions have been removed to ensure a fair depiction of all those parties involved."

24 comments

  • M Kudlacik
    M Kudlacik
    1. There's no way she could have said anything if she was almost decapitated 2. Couldn't the older kids say when they last saw their mom? That would narrow the window. How about the baby? How bad was his diaper? That tells you a lot.

    1. There's no way she could have said anything if she was almost decapitated
    2. Couldn't the older kids say when they last saw their mom? That would narrow the window. How about the baby? How bad was his diaper? That tells you a lot.

  • anthony
    anthony NY
    Very difficult case to judge. Why was Joe Wilkes at that hotel?

    Very difficult case to judge. Why was Joe Wilkes at that hotel?

  • True Crime Garage
    True Crime Garage
    @ M - Those are great questions. It does not seem that the kids. know anything or have anything to offer up. They may not know or remember what time they were put to bed. It really appears to me that she was expecting someone to come over that night. Was it Joe or was it someone else and Joe happens to show up??? Cheers Nic

    @ M - Those are great questions. It does not seem that the kids. know anything or have anything to offer up. They may not know or remember what time they were put to bed. It really appears to me that she was expecting someone to come over that night. Was it Joe or was it someone else and Joe happens to show up???
    Cheers Nic

  • True Crime Garage
    True Crime Garage
    @ Anthony - That is a huge red flag. Why is he there the night Yvonne was killed? So of the explained answers in part 2 help with that but it would be a bit of a weird coincidence if this guy who does not have extra money for things like hotel rooms is staying there the same night that Yvonne is killed. Now if you want to believe ONE of Joe's stories well then he was there because David paid for the room so Joe could walk and then kill Yvonne or he was there for a hotel party and wanted to invite Yvonne. Cheers Nic

    @ Anthony - That is a huge red flag. Why is he there the night Yvonne was killed? So of the explained answers in part 2 help with that but it would be a bit of a weird coincidence if this guy who does not have extra money for things like hotel rooms is staying there the same night that Yvonne is killed. Now if you want to believe ONE of Joe's stories well then he was there because David paid for the room so Joe could walk and then kill Yvonne or he was there for a hotel party and wanted to invite Yvonne.
    Cheers Nic

  • Kell
    Kell Arizona
    "He didn't really do drugs..."he smoked grass and drank..." Marijuana can cause severe, violent psychotic outbreaks. Honestly guys, I just can't take the dumb anymore. Unsubbing.

    "He didn't really do drugs..."he smoked grass and drank..."

    Marijuana can cause severe, violent psychotic outbreaks. Honestly guys, I just can't take the dumb anymore. Unsubbing.

  • Kate
    Kate Michigan
    I will listen to her podcast to dig deeper. But I hears something interesting! Ok. In the first episode it was said that the son named a j name. Like Jimmy. The neighbors name is Jim.... are we missing something there?

    I will listen to her podcast to dig deeper. But I hears something interesting!
    Ok. In the first episode it was said that the son named a j name. Like Jimmy. The neighbors name is Jim.... are we missing something there?

  • GIgi
    GIgi WI
    Not even at the end of part 1 and seems to me that guilty or not David had valid reasons for a retrial. Why was he denied? Anyone have time to read?

    Not even at the end of part 1 and seems to me that guilty or not David had valid reasons for a retrial. Why was he denied? Anyone have time to read?

  • Adriel
    Adriel Sayre, PA
    Joe barely knew Yvonne so if he places himself at her house that night I believe he killed her. Maybe he wanted a piece of action and got rejected, like you said. His phone calls to David were him reaching out, but it sounds like he didn't get through. That's my theory. How far was her house from the hotel? Sounds like a long walk just to invite someone you don't really know to a party. I'm not buying it. Only way it's true is if he was obsessed with her, in which case the rejection and murder would also make sense. I'm drinking beer so I hope this comment makes sense!

    Joe barely knew Yvonne so if he places himself at her house that night I believe he killed her. Maybe he wanted a piece of action and got rejected, like you said. His phone calls to David were him reaching out, but it sounds like he didn't get through. That's my theory.

    How far was her house from the hotel? Sounds like a long walk just to invite someone you don't really know to a party. I'm not buying it. Only way it's true is if he was obsessed with her, in which case the rejection and murder would also make sense.

    I'm drinking beer so I hope this comment makes sense!

  • anonymous
    anonymous parts unknown
    I was raised as a witness and left when I became an adult. Never practiced another religion and always believed them to be the best group of people around, I just couldn't live up to the standards. Which brings me to the fact that there is no way on earth any of these people you mentioned are devout Jehovah's Witnesses. If you are committing fornication unrepentently, which they define as any sexual act outside of marriage, then you will get disfellowshipped. This is the reason I was disfellowshipped actually when I was 19. That means, formally denounced as a witness and removed from the Kingdom Hall. You are allowed to go to meetings still but you cant talk to anyone and you cant comment at meetings or have talks on stage at the meetings or go out in the ministry. You are cut off and can only return when you are no longer practicing the wrongdoing. They do this because they preach to others to live a good and moral life. If they allowed that stuff in their own organizations, they would be giant hypocrites. Like any organization that is taught to be uber forgiving and peaceful and welcoming, you're going to have predators that use it as a cover. But that only lasts as long as it takes for members of the congregations to find out. For instance, I have family that was molested by someone who said they were a JW. When the elders found out, the person was disfellowshipped and the elders called my family and told them they cant tell us what to do, but they would like to suggest we call the police and file criminal charges because otherwise this person might do this to someone else. They also offered to help find counseling if my family felt they wanted to seek it. They are not people who sweep that stuff under a rug or turn a blind eye. Maybe individuals do, but as an organization, no way. So if someone is telling Maggie they are devout witnesses, I think her sources are extremely confused. Other things JW's can get disfellowshipped for: smoking, drugs, stealing, violence, brazen conduct (which includes a pattern of lying or hard partying and drunkenness), outbursts of anger, domestic violence. That kinda reads like a character assessment of Yvonne from what I can tell. I think this Joe guy did it and just implicated David Thorne.

    I was raised as a witness and left when I became an adult. Never practiced another religion and always believed them to be the best group of people around, I just couldn't live up to the standards. Which brings me to the fact that there is no way on earth any of these people you mentioned are devout Jehovah's Witnesses. If you are committing fornication unrepentently, which they define as any sexual act outside of marriage, then you will get disfellowshipped. This is the reason I was disfellowshipped actually when I was 19. That means, formally denounced as a witness and removed from the Kingdom Hall. You are allowed to go to meetings still but you cant talk to anyone and you cant comment at meetings or have talks on stage at the meetings or go out in the ministry. You are cut off and can only return when you are no longer practicing the wrongdoing. They do this because they preach to others to live a good and moral life. If they allowed that stuff in their own organizations, they would be giant hypocrites. Like any organization that is taught to be uber forgiving and peaceful and welcoming, you're going to have predators that use it as a cover. But that only lasts as long as it takes for members of the congregations to find out. For instance, I have family that was molested by someone who said they were a JW. When the elders found out, the person was disfellowshipped and the elders called my family and told them they cant tell us what to do, but they would like to suggest we call the police and file criminal charges because otherwise this person might do this to someone else. They also offered to help find counseling if my family felt they wanted to seek it. They are not people who sweep that stuff under a rug or turn a blind eye. Maybe individuals do, but as an organization, no way. So if someone is telling Maggie they are devout witnesses, I think her sources are extremely confused. Other things JW's can get disfellowshipped for: smoking, drugs, stealing, violence, brazen conduct (which includes a pattern of lying or hard partying and drunkenness), outbursts of anger, domestic violence. That kinda reads like a character assessment of Yvonne from what I can tell. I think this Joe guy did it and just implicated David Thorne.

  • Jen
    Jen Eugene, Or
    This case was done on Reasonable Doubt recently and they turned it down because they felt that Joe Wilkes did it and he wanted David to get away from Joe but he didn't in their interview. They didn't feel like the police did a good job but other evidence like David picking him up from the hotel and buying it for him was brought up in the show.

    This case was done on Reasonable Doubt recently and they turned it down because they felt that Joe Wilkes did it and he wanted David to get away from Joe but he didn't in their interview. They didn't feel like the police did a good job but other evidence like David picking him up from the hotel and buying it for him was brought up in the show.

  • Melissa
    Melissa Denver, CO
    Thinking about the lineup where an officer was potentially identified as being seen leaving Yvonne’s residence … what if he was part of the lineup to see IF the witness WOULD recognize him and that is why the lineup was never entered into evidence, and the witnesses was deemed not credible.

    Thinking about the lineup where an officer was potentially identified as being seen leaving Yvonne’s residence … what if he was part of the lineup to see IF the witness WOULD recognize him and that is why the lineup was never entered into evidence, and the witnesses was deemed not credible.

  • SuziBeth
    SuziBeth
    Don't let the door hit u in the ass on ur way out, Kell.

    Don't let the door hit u in the ass on ur way out, Kell.

  • Marie
    Marie London
    Terrible terrible episode. The lady joining you guys seemed to want to say anything to try to put doubt in our minds. It was painful listening to her and it seemed Nic you hadn’t done much research. 1 star out of 50 billion. Next

    Terrible terrible episode. The lady joining you guys seemed to want to say anything to try to put doubt in our minds. It was painful listening to her and it seemed Nic you hadn’t done much research. 1 star out of 50 billion. Next

  • Chris
    Chris Scotland
    Maggie seemed to be twisting every narrative to make it fit. I think the verdict is correct, the two guys are guilty of what they in prison for.

    Maggie seemed to be twisting every narrative to make it fit. I think the verdict is correct, the two guys are guilty of what they in prison for.

  • Christie
    Christie Alpine, CA
    Maybe it was her podcast, or this one that mentioned one of her older sons remembered his mom telling him to lock the door that night. If he did lock it, then she had to have unlocked it to let the person in or they had a key. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought Joe's initial story was that he just walked in and she caught him and he made up an excuse really fast. I know, we just don't know. Also, although I think it is horrifying to have a lock on the kids' bedroom door, the son also mentioned that it was unusual that it was locked. Could this have been an act of "kindness" on the killer's part to keep the boys from finding their mother?

    Maybe it was her podcast, or this one that mentioned one of her older sons remembered his mom telling him to lock the door that night. If he did lock it, then she had to have unlocked it to let the person in or they had a key. Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought Joe's initial story was that he just walked in and she caught him and he made up an excuse really fast. I know, we just don't know. Also, although I think it is horrifying to have a lock on the kids' bedroom door, the son also mentioned that it was unusual that it was locked. Could this have been an act of "kindness" on the killer's part to keep the boys from finding their mother?

  • Jay
    Jay Connersvile
    Yes everything "anonymous" said is 100% true. I haven't been a jw for 25 years but I know that it's still basically

    Yes everything "anonymous" said is 100% true. I haven't been a jw for 25 years but I know that it's still basically

  •  JC
    JC
    @anon Have you seen Leah Remini's episode on JWs? It was eye opening.

    @anon Have you seen Leah Remini's episode on JWs? It was eye opening.

  • Jason
    Jason Australia
    I would have liked to hear the evidence against David layer out clearly. The hotel paying and phone calls were strong circumstantial evidence. Anything else apart from the obvious claim by Wilkes and the couple he talked to. We don’t really know. Surely he wasn’t thrown in jail for no reason but your guest Maggie would have us believe he was. Maggie was emotional and with every single thing you brought up she tried to just explain it away. She came up with made-up alternative theories. She has a massive bee in her bonnet that David did not do this and the episode was high on pointless (bad) rhetoric and emotional pleading on her part. She doesn’t give any credence whatsoever to any evidence that may possibly point to David’s guilt. She is not a neutral observer. I expected the second ep to be better but I could Not get through to the end guys.

    I would have liked to hear the evidence against David layer out clearly. The hotel paying and phone calls were strong circumstantial evidence. Anything else apart from the obvious claim by Wilkes and the couple he talked to. We don’t really know. Surely he wasn’t thrown in jail for no reason but your guest Maggie would have us believe he was.

    Maggie was emotional and with every single thing you brought up she tried to just explain it away. She came up with made-up alternative theories. She has a massive bee in her bonnet that David did not do this and the episode was high on pointless (bad) rhetoric and emotional pleading on her part. She doesn’t give any credence whatsoever to any evidence that may possibly point to David’s guilt. She is not a neutral observer. I expected the second ep to be better but I could Not get through to the end guys.

  • AshMC1117
    AshMC1117
    One thing that kept being brought up-even in Maggie Frelang’s episodes of Murder In Alliance-was how the crime scene looked to be staged, ex: the tv “thrown” on her, the dresser knocked over, etc… I don’t see that at all. I see that she was dragged from the area directly in front of the sliding glass door to the final resting place. The baby walker was in front of the dresser, and while she was being dragged, her body rubbed up against the baby walker which could have rolled a small distance with the body which pinned it in between her and the dresser. When that happened, it could have shaken the dresser enough to throw the tv off balance, amongst the other things that looked to be “thrown” off the dresser (cable box, another box that’s possibly a DVD player, a plant, a picture, etc). When the tv fell forward, it slid off the top of the dresser, hit the top of the baby walker which slightly broke the fall, the screen landed on her butt, and slid down her hip, and that’s how it ended up landing so far away from the dresser. The perpetrator could have put his/her hand on the dresser to balance himself/herself after dragging her body, which then made it off balance. There are also a ton of cords, and one outlet, so could have tripped on a cord. A lamp is on the floor in front of the vase on the side of the dresser. That could have gotten in the way when the body was being dragged and the baby walker rolling along with it, and therefore the lamp being knocked over and cord behind the dresser knocking the dresser over. There is no mention of blood being on TV. In fact, I think I read specifically that there was no blood found on the tv (except maybe the screen that was in contact with her body). Wouldn’t there be blood transfer from the perpetrator’s hands if they picked the tv up and threw it?! That whole thing is just nonsense. ANOTHER THING: the blood spatter on the glass door keeps being referred to as arterial spurting. I’m no expert by any means… but could it be something else? I think it’s up for debate. The pattern is in such a diagonal straight line leading straight up to the handle. It almost looks like she could have been sitting in the spot on the floor where the void is (left glass door) with her back facing the glass door and then tried to reach up for the handle in like the last second or 2 that she was still alive. When she reached up, the blood from her hand spattered on the door in an upwards motion and then dripped down. It even looks like a backwards hand print, or some blood transfer from fingers right near the handle, like she just couldn’t reach it far enough. I know these aren’t the most important pieces of the puzzle. However, when trying to determine who this was that did this, it is all the small pieces put together that matter. If Joe did this for David then there must have been some planning, like he said. Part of the plan would have HAD to include how to kill her without the kids seeing it unless there was a plan to kill the kids also if they saw anything (And why would David want his own kid dead if the possible motive was to get custody of Brandon instead of paying child support?). Therefore, he would have 1) planned a night when he thought the kids weren’t home (how likely is it that none would be home?), or 2)knew that there were locks on the outside of the doors. David could have very likely known about the locks, but then there would need to be some reason for Yvonne to lock the doors before she knew this was a bad situation, as I think I remember one of the kids saying she didn’t always lock the outside lock. Maybe she locked the kids’ doors when she was planning on having sex that night, or doing drugs and didn’t want her kids to see, but why would she have locked them just for Joe showing up? I’m just trying to point out that if this was in fact planned by David who was well aware of the kids being there then it would be awfully risky to have someone go in and kill her, unless he also had a plan for joe to give Yvonne a reason to lock their doors (as mentioned above). Just weird. Sorry, might not make sense as I was in rush to get this off my chest lol Thanks guys

    One thing that kept being brought up-even in Maggie Frelang’s episodes of Murder In Alliance-was how the crime scene looked to be staged, ex: the tv “thrown” on her, the dresser knocked over, etc… I don’t see that at all. I see that she was dragged from the area directly in front of the sliding glass door to the final resting place. The baby walker was in front of the dresser, and while she was being dragged, her body rubbed up against the baby walker which could have rolled a small distance with the body which pinned it in between her and the dresser. When that happened, it could have shaken the dresser enough to throw the tv off balance, amongst the other things that looked to be “thrown” off the dresser (cable box, another box that’s possibly a DVD player, a plant, a picture, etc). When the tv fell forward, it slid off the top of the dresser, hit the top of the baby walker which slightly broke the fall, the screen landed on her butt, and slid down her hip, and that’s how it ended up landing so far away from the dresser. The perpetrator could have put his/her hand on the dresser to balance himself/herself after dragging her body, which then made it off balance. There are also a ton of cords, and one outlet, so could have tripped on a cord. A lamp is on the floor in front of the vase on the side of the dresser. That could have gotten in the way when the body was being dragged and the baby walker rolling along with it, and therefore the lamp being knocked over and cord behind the dresser knocking the dresser over. There is no mention of blood being on TV. In fact, I think I read specifically that there was no blood found on the tv (except maybe the screen that was in contact with her body). Wouldn’t there be blood transfer from the perpetrator’s hands if they picked the tv up and threw it?! That whole thing is just nonsense.
    ANOTHER THING: the blood spatter on the glass door keeps being referred to as arterial spurting. I’m no expert by any means… but could it be something else? I think it’s up for debate. The pattern is in such a diagonal straight line leading straight up to the handle. It almost looks like she could have been sitting in the spot on the floor where the void is (left glass door) with her back facing the glass door and then tried to reach up for the handle in like the last second or 2 that she was still alive. When she reached up, the blood from her hand spattered on the door in an upwards motion and then dripped down. It even looks like a backwards hand print, or some blood transfer from fingers right near the handle, like she just couldn’t reach it far enough.
    I know these aren’t the most important pieces of the puzzle. However, when trying to determine who this was that did this, it is all the small pieces put together that matter.
    If Joe did this for David then there must have been some planning, like he said. Part of the plan would have HAD to include how to kill her without the kids seeing it unless there was a plan to kill the kids also if they saw anything (And why would David want his own kid dead if the possible motive was to get custody of Brandon instead of paying child support?). Therefore, he would have 1) planned a night when he thought the kids weren’t home (how likely is it that none would be home?), or 2)knew that there were locks on the outside of the doors. David could have very likely known about the locks, but then there would need to be some reason for Yvonne to lock the doors before she knew this was a bad situation, as I think I remember one of the kids saying she didn’t always lock the outside lock. Maybe she locked the kids’ doors when she was planning on having sex that night, or doing drugs and didn’t want her kids to see, but why would she have locked them just for Joe showing up? I’m just trying to point out that if this was in fact planned by David who was well aware of the kids being there then it would be awfully risky to have someone go in and kill her, unless he also had a plan for joe to give Yvonne a reason to lock their doors (as mentioned above). Just weird. Sorry, might not make sense as I was in rush to get this off my chest lol
    Thanks guys

  • anonymous
    anonymous parts unknown
    Leah Remini has never been a JW though. She relied on info from people that have a bone to pick. I can only speak from my experience. I was raised with a lutheran dad and a witness mom. In the end, my dad left his faith to become a witness. People who really know witnesses know they are not freaks or criminals like some people would have you think. Its like that meme that says "oh you heard stuff about me from someone that hates me? it must all be true!" I think of my time as a witness every time I see that meme.

    Leah Remini has never been a JW though. She relied on info from people that have a bone to pick. I can only speak from my experience. I was raised with a lutheran dad and a witness mom. In the end, my dad left his faith to become a witness. People who really know witnesses know they are not freaks or criminals like some people would have you think. Its like that meme that says "oh you heard stuff about me from someone that hates me? it must all be true!" I think of my time as a witness every time I see that meme.

  • True Crime Garage
    True Crime Garage
    @ AshMC - I love this post very thought provoking and you bring up a lot of intriguing questions in regards to the crime scene. I don't fully remember the crime scene details as we recorded this weeks ago but I do remember seeing statements that made me believe either there was some kind of hanky panky going on that night maybe something scheduled maybe something not. I believe that they didn't do a rape kit as well all very weird to me. In regards to the locked bedroom doors that sounds like it very well could be premeditated on her part but I do know of parents that do that when they have children who sleepwalk or even leave their room and maybe the house in the middle of the night. Its dangerous should there be a fire but its dangerous for them to leave the home in the middle of the night. Thanks for the post - cheers Nic

    @ AshMC - I love this post very thought provoking and you bring up a lot of intriguing questions in regards to the crime scene. I don't fully remember the crime scene details as we recorded this weeks ago but I do remember seeing statements that made me believe either there was some kind of hanky panky going on that night maybe something scheduled maybe something not. I believe that they didn't do a rape kit as well all very weird to me. In regards to the locked bedroom doors that sounds like it very well could be premeditated on her part but I do know of parents that do that when they have children who sleepwalk or even leave their room and maybe the house in the middle of the night. Its dangerous should there be a fire but its dangerous for them to leave the home in the middle of the night.
    Thanks for the post - cheers Nic

  • Michelle Walters
    Michelle Walters New Orleans
    Tardy to the party here...But I am catching up on the show "Reasonable Doubt" on Discovery. Season 4 episode 5 "The Cult of David" is actually delving into this very case. It gives an totally different perspective of the crime. The minute the narrator starting going into the details of the show, I immediately knew it was a case that TCG had recently covered. I enjoyed hearing about this case from you guys :)

    Tardy to the party here...But I am catching up on the show "Reasonable Doubt" on Discovery. Season 4 episode 5 "The Cult of David" is actually delving into this very case. It gives an totally different perspective of the crime. The minute the narrator starting going into the details of the show, I immediately knew it was a case that TCG had recently covered. I enjoyed hearing about this case from you guys smile

  • Kseniya Zudava
    Kseniya Zudava Massachusetts
    I love TCG. I also love Generation Why. My favorite part of GW is when the guys bash innocent project behind an obviously guilty person. It seems every convicted murderer has an advocacy group behind them, down to the most heinous and clearly guilty of them. Maggie strikes me like one of those irrational advocates. I wanted to scream at my stereo when Nic asked her about the phone call Joe made to David the morning after the murder - and she went on a rant about the trial. And later she said that David might not have answered the call with no evidence to back up that claim because there’s evidence that he did answer. She made no sense most of the time. This was the most egregious example to me.

    I love TCG. I also love Generation Why. My favorite part of GW is when the guys bash innocent project behind an obviously guilty person. It seems every convicted murderer has an advocacy group behind them, down to the most heinous and clearly guilty of them. Maggie strikes me like one of those irrational advocates.
    I wanted to scream at my stereo when Nic asked her about the phone call Joe made to David the morning after the murder - and she went on a rant about the trial. And later she said that David might not have answered the call with no evidence to back up that claim because there’s evidence that he did answer. She made no sense most of the time. This was the most egregious example to me.

  • E
    E Philly
    Whoever said marijuana causes violent outbreaks is just...I don't think that's ever been demonstrated? Correct me if I'm wrong

    Whoever said marijuana causes violent outbreaks is just...I don't think that's ever been demonstrated? Correct me if I'm wrong

Add comment