Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "The Doctor's Daughter | Full Episode" video.

  1. Brilliant observation 🤦‍♂️
    35
  2.  @terrorsquadlith  Dude, either you're related to this doctor, or else you're losing your mind. No, no medical professional with 30 years experience would drag a patient all over the damn place for no reason. Ask yourself a question - we heard his 23 year old daughter on the phone. She was overwrought, wildly out of sorts, and even she twice asked her dad why in the world he kept bringing mom to new and exciting locations. Did you hear doc screaming and losing it? Nope. Calm as can be. So why would he do something so utterly inexplicable? It's not as if there is any reason that would make him think that repeatedly moving her would be beneficial. Even if he was freaking out - silently, apparently - then that might explain a non-thought-out move which made sense to him in the moment, such as working on the patient without first lying her flat. But dragging her around? Sorry, makes no sense no matter how you look at it.
    22
  3. ​ @terrorsquadlith  I don't buy it. A 35 year medical veteran doesn't take a patient on a sightseeing tour of the house because she's his (estranged) wife. That makes no sense. I'm not even saying that I'm convinced of guilt, although I do lean that way. But people who've dealt with medical situations for most of their lives don't suddenly turn wildly irrational at home. Not in that way, they don't.
    17
  4.  @terrorsquadlith  As was pointed out by a commenter in a different thread, those sheets are ugly AF, and way out of place on an expensive bed in a mansion. Far more likely that Doc replaced the sheets with whatever he found lying around somewhere than the maid putting those on.
    14
  5.  @a.s.3676  Only one person comes across as disturbed, and that would be you, based upon your comments.
    11
  6. I'm with you both, but with the enormous caveat that we didn't see all the evidence, not even close. 24 jurors out of 24 did, let's respect that.
    10
  7. ​ @terrorsquadlith  You're getting crazy here. The cops hid the shirt...when exactly? It didn't turn into evidence for a couple of years.
    10
  8. Because they love him and believe he's innocent. Why is this complicated?
    9
  9. They should. It originally aired Oct 3, 2015, and was rerun multiple times in subsequent years.
    9
  10.  @Control-Alt-Delete619  Intentionally or not, you are incredibly annoying. You persist in making an obviously false claim. Ignorance or trolling? I can't say. But just give it up with your nonsense already.
    8
  11.  @terrorsquadlith  But it wasn't considered a crime scene at first. Seems the did not remove any evidence at all.
    8
  12. That was weird, but people misspeak all the time. No big deal.
    8
  13. Sensible comment
    8
  14. ​ @Ann-sj4pt  Outrageous accusation, based upon zero evidence. Don't slander.
    5
  15. 24 jurors saw all the evidence, and all of them disagree with your assessment. Neither you nor I know the case all that well.
    5
  16. At 4:am on the other end of a mansion? Nah.
    4
  17.  @ronthompson95  Your comment represents a nasty and baseless accusation against the doctor's defenders, contrary to all the evidence. 1. Just because your neighbor did something, that is hardly applicable to the rest of the world. A colleague of mine at a prior job knifed his parents to death. Can I therefore assume you've done the same? 2. The decedent's brother and sister also believed in him. They're not inheritors. Apparently those who know him best love and believe in him. 3. Doc is broke anyway. They referenced that in this story. He even had to sell his home to pay for his defense. There is no money there. Don't go through life assuming the worst about people. It is a lousy attitude to have.
    4
  18.  @madrush24  Interesting.
    4
  19. 20 to life
    4
  20. 24 jurors saw all the evidence, and all of them disagree with your assessment. Neither you nor I know the case all that well.
    3
  21. Why would he?
    3
  22.  @Memg007  I'd rather them than you. They haven't seen much of the evidence, so while they lean towards guilt they still fall short, but would be open to a conviction with more evidence at hand. You, however, are so sure of guilt based off of a short video that you're ready to disqualify anyone who disagrees with you. Meanwhile, the actual jurors spent three days deliberating. For the sake of humanity, please never be on a jury.
    3
  23. Yeah, as she was saying: No one would have heard it. No chance.
    3
  24.  @KittyKat-4  Nope, I just notice these things. I only know that it's "we" and not "us" because I was corrected by someone else, which is how one learns. I'm quite happy that my friend Jacquie corrected my misuse of the language in an email, because otherwise how would I have ever found out?
    3
  25.  @SidewaysInTraffic  The Fugitive is based upon Sam Sheppard, and he was guilty AF.
    3
  26. 24 jurors saw all the evidence, and all of them disagree with your assessment. Neither you nor I know the case all that well.
    3
  27. Really not. Do you want to prosecute everyone who makes a mistake? How about an ump who misses a call at home plate? The original coroner didn't cause any harm, you know. Even the DA said that openly.
    3
  28. @dantanna3161 Based upon what?
    2
  29. Sorry to ruin the surprise, but you can set your clock to it: Tuesdays and Fridays, 7:am eastern.
    2
  30. Watch the show first
    2
  31. * We
    2
  32.  @dranchd6571  You have no heart, apparently. They love him and believe him innocent. Why would you prefer to believe the worst about people?
    2
  33.  @boskee  Thank you! 👍
    2
  34. ​ @swallowedinthesea11  Really, really not.
    2
  35. 👍
    2
  36. ​ @HKim0072  I don't. If you leave that kind of mess around the room, then you're using a heavy duty cement mixer.
    2
  37.  @EllaBella-76  Ouch. I'm sorry. Permanent damage, or on the way to recovery?
    2
  38. You're both shameless. Is that why the decedent's brother and sister - who wouldn't inherit anything - support him?? Why can't it just be that the family loves and believes in him? Furthermore, he has no more money. He had to sell his house to pay for his defense. Don't slander people.
    2
  39. Nasty comment. They love him, they believe in him. Leave it at that.
    2
  40.  @cochip__5897  24 jurors saw all the evidence, and all of them disagree with your assessment. Neither you nor I know the case all that well. And let's say it was 23? Are they all idiots? YOU DON'T KNOW THE FACTS OF THE CASE! You can question, but reaching conclusions based upon a 42 minute video is senseless. At least read the trial transcripts first.
    2
  41. I have no idea what that means. Want to explain?
    2
  42. 48 Hours is up here.... Dateline is down here at the bottom
    2
  43. All of them? Just stop. I'd like to see a shred of evidence that rich men's wives disproportionately die under suspicious circumstances. Obviously those cases get disproportionate media attention. Or do you think 48 Hours covers every time some welfare mom dies in a drug den? PS - Not to be too technical about it, but the guy was out of money by then anyway. He had to sell his house to hire a lawyer.
    1
  44. Is that statistically true? I would like to see some evidence.
    1
  45. 24 jurors saw all the evidence, and all of them disagree with your assessment. None of us know the case all that well.
    1
  46.  @Ladybird.21  Are you saying that your grandmother had four husbands and four sons die in war? Statistically speaking, that is virtually impossible. I'd like to see some evidence of that claim. After all, the media would certainly have reported such a story somewhere along the way.
    1
  47. I was wondering about that. Not totally clear. We need to see the Zapruder film.
    1
  48. 24 jurors saw all the evidence, and all of them disagree with your assessment. Neither you nor I know the case all that well.
    1
  49.  @cocofluff  Seriously? Read through this (rather short) thread, will you?
    1
  50.  @swallowedinthesea11  Looked that way, but it wasn't clear. I'm waiting for the game film.
    1
  51. 24 jurors saw all the evidence, and all of them disagree with your assessment. Neither you nor I know the case all that well.
    1
  52. @DuaneTanTC Why?
    1
  53.  @EllaBella-76  Huh?
    1
  54.  @EllaBella-76  Thank you for some sense, and some humanity.
    1
  55.  @georgkoenig4459  I notice that commenters who make no sense resort to calling people "trolls". In short, you've been proven wrong. Goodbye 👋
    1
  56.  @earthrooster1969  So powerful that he sold his home to pay for his defense, and is now dying in prison. Hello? Why the need to assume the worst about others?
    1
  57. Your conclusion is flawed. Perhaps the numbers demonstrate that innocent people are rarely indicted?
    1
  58.  @Denise_Suzanne  Thank you for that. I appreciate your taking the time to explain it to me.
    1
  59.  @backwaterbounty  They couldn't possibly be more different. 48 Hours has excellent correspondents, along with top-notch production values. Dateline mostly uses the worst host in true crime history, the execrable Keith Morrison, is made on the cheap with poor production, and repeatedly interrupts the story with Lester Holt wasting our time by adding nothing from the studio.
    1
  60.  @TheCandiceWang  They're not bad, not as strong as 48 Hours, but certainly better than Dateline.
    1
  61. Ya think?
    1