Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It was a story about a 31 year old man who died suddenly due to antifreeze poisoning.
His girlfriend and the mother of his 2 kids was charged with murder several years later, even though there was no evidence other than circumstantial. An expert for the defense said it was acute poisoning, and suicide -- apparently there have been high profile cases where guys committed suicide by antifreeze.
She was found guilty.
This is one case that I'm not sure the jury got right. But I have to remember that even in the 2 hour shows, Dateline and 48 Hours don't always tell the whole story.
well there's one fact that cannot be denied and this is that Mathew Podolak died from anti-freeze poisoning.
The defense said that he poisoned himself and thus committed suicide. But the evidence showed that the poison was taken over an extended period of time (weeks not a single day or days).
The only evidence that directly implicated the girlfriend was the testimony from an ex-boyfriend of hers who said that she told him she had poisoned her ex-fiance. She also collected on a life insurance policy.
There's wasn't a whole lot of evidence but I think it just came down to means, motive, and opportunity. If the girlfriend did not do it then who else could have? It just all came back to her. The ex-bf testimony, the motive (financial), the fact the victims family suspected her right away.
Really? You believed the ex-bf? I didn't believe a word he said. Partly because when he was trying to get her to confess on the phone, he said "remember you said you put something in his drink?"
That was the police's term, "drink." Most normal people I know would say "I put it in his tea". There were a couple things that made me think the police were feeding the BF info, and the BF was cooperating, trying to get a deal. Plus the testimony of BF's former lawyer/boss made me think BF was a total scumbag who couldn't be trusted with anything, including the truth.
As far as the antifreeze, there were medical experts on both sides. Some said acute poisoning, some said it happened over several weeks. The defense medical expert said there was an alternative explanation for the crystals that led the other side to say it was chronic poisoning. But unfortunately we didn't get to hear the whole testimony. So I guess it boils down to which expert you believe, also.
The life insurance was only 10K , plus the 5K in his bank account. I know people who would kill for that amount, but they're not usually responsible, sober people. lol Seems like she would have been better off financially had he lived and continued contributing to the household income. He was up for a promotion in his uncle's company. He probably made $10K in 2 or 3 months.
I used to love these true crime shows, but they did a show about a local murder recently, and I discovered that they don't necessarily tell the whole story. I'd love Ann Rule or someone to write a book about this one.
To me the fiancee didn't make sense and the emotions she showed when the ex bf came into court said enough.
The defense tried to spin it with the remarks that she was afraid and was beaten by him but why didn't she hang up when he called her from prison? When he called she started to be very friendly and almost happy to hear from him. If you get a call from prison I believe it will be a collect call, or perhaps I'm wrong on that since I never received one but that is how I have heard it will go, and if that is true then she excepted to pay to get his call. If that is not true she still was friendly until he spoke about the drinks...and that part was badly handled and since the fiancee seems to be pretty smart and most people will not fall for that and are aware that calls are taped. If it was as she stated that he beat her and she wanted a restraining order and that is how bad it was, shouldn't she freak out and say "why are you calling me, don't call me ever", or just deny the call and even report it to the police that the person is reachng out to her who ones beat her....but she seemed to be happy!
The karaokee song, together with the girl friends remark about the anti freeze in the kitchen and her dumping the fiancee after she thought she had something to do with it, then the emotions in the court room and the defense lack of proof by playing the tape of the call in which as I stated before the fiancee acted totally not upset whatsoever but even like she was happy to hear from him, made me confident that the jury was right.
The murdered man went himself for help to a doctor so suicide doesn't come across as something he would do and no evidence of anybody being jealous at work....but the fiancee was the one who brought him drinks and food and had access to feed him the poison.
The motive the defense questioned about the low life ins., doesn't change it to me since some people have murdered for less.
The convicted felon didn't change much for me either but it was the way the fiancee handled herself in court, all the testimonies, etc.
The main problem with 48 hours, Dateline, etal, is that they want to cram years of investigation into an hour show, so they really just show the highlights that they want the viewers to see. I look at them as entertainment not as real life incidents. There have been many a show that I didn't feel enough information or evidence was presented to make a 100% guilty or not guilty judgement.
The main problem with 48 hours, Dateline, etal, is that they want to cram years of investigation into an hour show, so they really just show the highlights that they want the viewers to see. I look at them as entertainment not as real life incidents. There have been many a show that I didn't feel enough information or evidence was presented to make a 100% guilty or not guilty judgement.
It's very true that you can't condense things that much without skewing the whole picture. Look at the mistaken news report that kept Sheree Beasley's killer from being caught in a timely manner. One small mistake in one TV news report, and all these witnesses thought that what they saw the day she was kidnapped had nothing to do with Sheree being missing.
i think the defense attorney should file a judiciary complaint that the residing judge didn't uphold the law and dismiss the case due to no evidence. how is it that the prosecution could enter nonevidence of the antifreeze bottles that had no value, it was made up because it wasn't actual evidence which was stated in the trial. also the issue of the convict testifying who lied on the stand about them drinking wine when it was known that she was allergic to wine. this conviction is clearly on speculation and hersey not evidence. how is it that 4 yrs later out of the blue that the medical examiner turn around and rule it a homicide without any probable cause. also that didn't make any sense is when the detectives were investigating the matter why yrs later did suspicion rise rather than at the moment. from watching this if you look at those who testified you would noticed that those who testified lied on stand according to standards about eye locations.
I found this case very disturbing. It sounded a lot like a witch hunt by his brother to blame someone for Matthews murder. As Dateline presented the case, it certainly left a lot of room for doubt. Based on doubt alone, Holly should not have been found guilty.
I think this was either a suicide or Mark killed his brother. Certainly, if he killed his brother, he would have had incentive to find someone else to blame. He was the one who literally created the case against Holly. His motive to kill, could have been sibling rivalry, after all he didn't hesitate to replace his brother at hockey. He has also eliminated any other inheritance of the family business. I found the smirk on his face when the trial was beginning absolutely nauseating. To quote him, he said, "I finally felt that WE were going to MAKE THIS HAPPEN".
If the case was presented by Dateline accurately, then the judicial system in this country really needs revamping. There is no way that not one person out of 12 jurors wouldn't have had some doubt. The case was not even circumstantial, it was all heresy. I do not believe that Holly killed Matthew, but even if she did, the case was not proven. What are these jurors basing their ruling on?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
misleading
