Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "The Betrayal of Linda Slaten | Full Episode" video.

CeCe Moore
29
@Zorazora1234 No it couldn't, because familial DNA became a thing only in 2018, and they had no basis to suspect the coach.
20
@ThisIsJ.Nicole Not what they said here. They said that the detective dusted every inch of the place and found no fingerprints, but only a palmprint, which they said is anyway better than a fingerprint.
11
Only the unintelligent would buy that story. Want actual facts? 1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints. 2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared. 3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim. 4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors. Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
10
That's nonsense - investigations focus on the best suspects, not foolishness. Here are the facts: 1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints. 2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared. 3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim. 4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors. Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
8
@quichequiche4274 Absolutely false. Try learning about the case instead of posting utter nonsense.
7
@rayeann1974 Race played no part in this case. Pay attention.
7
@NY_Patriot_Lady BS. One cop allegedly said something terrible to him one day 42 years ago. One person, 42 years ago. Move on.
6
Utter BS. 1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints. 2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared. 3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim. 4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors. Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
5
Wait...she got married at age 15??
5
@efranklin755 Nice story, absolutely false. You really should read up on such things so that you don't reach false conclusions, as you did. Spend some time researching Malcolm Gladwell.
5
@isaiahtheeplaya I would strongly encourage you to read the writings of the eminent scholar and bestselling author Malcolm Gladwell. Do so with an open mind and you will have no choice but to realize that you are mistaken.
5
@rayeann1974 It's called "facts". I'm sorry that you can't handle the truth. Discuss with your therapist.
5
I wish they would stop beating us over the head with the race thing already. There was no reason to think it was Coach Joe. Enough already.
5
@bridgetsmith6733 You are very wrong. Here are the facts: 1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints. 2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared. 3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim. 4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors. Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
4
@maharbaband9675 One bitter old man's opinion on things does not constitute "facts". They did no journalism on that point, only virtue signaling. I'll stick with actual facts, thank you.
4
@meghanmisaliar Thank you for intelligence, honesty and integrity, something not found all that often in the YT comment section.
4
@meghanmisaliar So sad, isn't it?
4
@ReGenMed83 I'm sorry that you appear to be hopelessly mired in racism, but that's your problem, not mine. The only three serious suspects in this case until CeCe Moore came along were three white males. There was no reason whatsoever to suspect Coach Joe, who was seen by numerous people leaving after dropping off the kid. They were looking for a stranger, and at one point specifically for an unknown black man seen by neighbors that night. Investigators are supposed to follow the evidence, not follow your racial theories. They have nothing to apologize for, as even the sons of the victim acknowledge.
4
Nonsense. 1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints. 2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared. 3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim. 4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors. Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
3
@MsYBBG If you bothered to read what I wrote, where I posted - you know - actual facts, you would have the answer to your ridiculous question.
3
@leahstone9308 Why are you putting words in my mouth? You know I didn't write that at all. I was obviously talking about the part at the end, when they tried to fault detectives for not suspecting Coach Joe.
3
Absurd. Always easy to criticize after the fact, right? There was no reason at all to suspect Coach Joe, who was seen leaving after he dropped off the kids. Why him? No reason.
2
@GingerNinja1 Your comment is not written in English
2
@samanthamcdonagh7856 Yes, the race baiting is a sad sign of the times. Those of us who believe in judging by the content of one's character instead of the color of their skin are deemed racists, while those who want to split the US across racial lines - and have been successfully doing so over the last decade or so - congratulate themselves on being "woke" and "progressive". We live in bizarre and sad times.
2
@RaveByLiz Well, when you run out of facts, just attack the messenger, right? I'm into facts, so you attack me. So it goes.
2
@anthonywatford5256 I know, but getting married in 1965 at age 15 was still quite young. It wasn't 1765, it was 1965.
2
He was not the last man known to have seen her, not even close.
1
You're all full of **it. This had the markings of being done by a stranger; There was no reason to suspect Coach Joe. Hindsight is 20/20, which enables you to act as if you knew it all along.
1
@anthonyholmes1911 They got a palmprint. Why would fingerprints be any better? Are you blaming the now-94 year old detective??
1
@anthonyholmes1911 You are making no sense. The person who was responsible for picking up prints was the black detective. He found a palm print, not a fingerprint. So yes, you are blaming him, and no, it makes absolutely no sense, as the palm print was just as good as the fingerprint. Once the ex-husband and boyfriend were ruled out, this crime looked like a random act. It did not appear that she knew her killer (and in fact, she may not have known her son's football coach). At that point, looking at Coach Joe once they established that he had left after dropping off the kid didn't make sense. Neighbors reported seeing a black male that night who did not live there, so they focused on finding the mysterious black male, but only after they focused heavily on her 1)ex-husband, 2)boyfriend, and 3)15 year old son, all of whom are white. The idea that the perpetrator wasn't caught earlier because of racism is baseless nonsense.
1
@anthonyholmes1911 1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints. 2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared. 3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim. 4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors. Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
1
@sariat2307 They did not get the fingerprints of "random black men". That's ridiculous. The first few weeks they focused overwhelmingly on three people - her ex-husband, her boyfriend, and her 15 year old son. And they are all...wait for it...white! (Go figure.) At that point, all signs pointed to a random stranger attack, not someone who knew her. Neighbors reported seeing an unknown black man walking around the area that night. As such, they began to focus on black men who fit the description provided by the neighbors, not just color but age, height and weight, who would also have had a sketchy history. That's what you do if you're trying to solve a crime, as opposed to trying to establish your woke bona fides.
1
Baseless accusation on your part. But does it make you feel good to write it anyway?
1
@wordplay6665 And my mom at 19. 15 is young, and yes, notably younger than 16. What year did your grandma get married?
1
Who?
1
@missKushite The detectives never made it about race. Why were the only suspects the first few weeks white? Only after multiple neighbors said they had seen an unknown black male that night, and only after it appeared that the crime was committed by a stranger, did the investigation change course.
1
@sarat6723 You have no understanding of basic criminology.
1
@orbitmouf That is absolutely false: Do yourself a favor and start reading Malcolm Gladwell. As he has probably done a better job of explaining more than anyone else, it always seems real easy in hindsight, right? But there was no reason whatsoever to suspect Coach Joe. There were only three big time suspects at the beginning: Her 1)ex-husband, 2)boyfriend, and 3)oldest son. All white. (Amazing, huh?) They focused like a laser on all three for weeks...and then all three were cleared. At that point, every indication was that this had been committed by a stranger. (And numerous witnesses had seen the coach leave after he'd dropped off the kid after practice. Why would he come back later, any more than anyone else might have done it?) With multiple neighbors reporting sightings of an unknown black man in the area that night, the next focus was obviously on finding a black man who would have been the right height and weight of the person seen by neighbors. Which is precisely why investigators went that route after clearing the first three suspects.
1
@orbitmouf As to the second paragraph which you edited in later, it is not remotely a question that in current USA blacks are given a huge systemic advantage in almost every measurable way, and that has been the case for three decades now. I don't doubt for a moment that the elderly former detective shown here faced some serious discrimination in his day, but anti-black discrimination did not have anything to do with this case being solved or not solved. That was just a red herring thrown in by CBS, either as virtue signaling or to fill out a 42 minute episode.
1
@orbitmouf The evidence is overwhelming that being black is a massive advantage these days when applying for work, applying for college, dealing with law enforcement, and just about every other method of measurement. Brilliant folks such as Thomas Sowell, Heather Mac Donald, Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Ben Shapiro and others have done all the research needed, and explained this 100 times over. Spend a little time reading up on (or watching) the evidence, which backs up what all thinking people know. There is a reason that people fake being of color these days, the opposite of how things were 50 years ago.
1
@auntiemeemaw3885 There was no reason whatsoever to suspect him. In every case a decision is made pretty early on whether or not the crime was likely committed by someone known to the victim, or by a stranger. This case had all the hallmarks of having been done by a stranger. Nonetheless they still spent the first few weeks on three males (all white) who were close to her, because that is still standard operating procedure. Afterward, with all the evidence pointing to an outsider, including the numerous neighbors who saw an unknown black man running nearby at that time, the focus obviously turned in that direction, as it should have. Fact is, if there had been no signs of forced entry, as opposed to the screen being cut out, the investigation would have gone in a very different direction, obviously. That's just basic criminology.
1
@auntiemeemaw3885 I wrote facts, which apparently is more than you can handle. Sorry, but facts don't care about your feelings.
1
Nice story, but way off base. 1. They said that the detective did an exhaustive search of the scene, and found a handprint, no fingerprints. But a handprint means you don't need fingerprints. 2. For the first few weeks the investigation focused on three people, all of them white: The victim's A.ex-husband, B. boyfriend, and C.teenage son. All were eventually cleared. 3. At that point, it appeared very likely that this was a crime committed by a stranger, and not by someone known to the victim. 4. Several neighbors reported seeing an unknown black male nearby on the night she was murdered, so the investigation next turned to finding a black male who fit the description (height, weight, etc.) of the person described by neighbors. Every step along the way, that is exactly how an investigation is normally run. There was more reason at that point to suspect a random attacker seen in the neighborhood then there was to look elsewhere (once the first three were cleared).
1