Regardless of whatever his relationship was like with Pistol, its no excuse to lock him out of the house when he just lost his mother and then refusing to even give him his clothes, he was a freaking kid not some troubled 25 year old drug addict with a gun.
Can't believe some of you are actually trying to justify what that scumbag did, how or why would Pistol be dangerous exactly?
Rob was a scumbag, he clearly had resentment towards Pistol and hated that he even existed, why would Pistol make up him always putting him down around his friends and about how his mother planning to divorce him?
And i don't see how anyone wouldn't think he killed her, he was jealous as fuck, very over protective and didn't wanna share her with anyone the way it seemed, and he hated that she had a relationship with her son. And she was planning to divorce him, lol thats alot of things pointing to him killing her. I mean maybe he himself didn't do it, maybe he had some psycho friend go and do it, who knows.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8290)
4 years ago
You're taking Pistol's word for it that he was a supremely jealous person. That's one side of the story. The fact of the matter is that you're not going to untangle the nuances of a years-long saga by watching an hour-long documentary. You never know what it is you aren't being told, and I've been burned too many times by true crime documentaries that have conveniently left out information that didn't fit their narrative (i.e. Making a Murderer or anything to do with the West Memphis 3) to think that a film is going to give me a full understanding of a story like this.
We also don't know what Pistol's behavioral problems were like. Rob indicates that he resented the fact that Patrice "refused to discipline" Pistol, which indicates that Pistol may have needed to be disciplined. And Pistol later says that when he was called into the principal's office it was no surprise because this apparently was a common occurrence for him at that time, indicating that at least to some extent his behavior was out of control.
In any case, Rob may be an asshole, and he may be a strange individual, but neither of those things is a crime or makes one guilty of murder. It's not insignificant that the police investigated him thoroughly and make a point to say that they found no reason to suspect his involvement. You can trust that they have sifted through far more evidence than has been presented to viewers by some filmmakers making some shit for Netflix.
reply
share
Mister Babadook (2623)
4 years ago
Whether he did it or not, who knows, but what is clear and what we do know is Rob is an asshole, he admitted to locking a young boy out of his house and not giving him his clothes the day his mother disappeared. I don't care if Pistol was a problem child, if he was disobedient, theres no excuse for locking him out of the house and giving him nowhere to sleep.
Pistol may have been called into the principals office alot, doesn't mean he was a danger to Rob's life, like he was trying to stab kids or something.
Rob had no problem showing how big of an asshole he was in the documentary, so sorry but its not hard for to believe Pistol when he talked about how much of an asshole Rob was to him growing up. And perhaps Pistol lashed out at school because of how he was being treated at home by his asshole stepdad.
And when Rob talked about Pistol never getting disciplined it just sounded to me like a jealous old bastard trying to make excuses for how he treated him.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8290)
4 years ago
I don't really mind the allegations that Rob is a dick. Or that he's a weirdo. You can support either one pretty well.
But I got into this same conversation over on Reddit, and what I have an issue with is anyone feeling certain that Rob is a murderer because of a bit of circumstantial evidence that is presented in a Netflix film.
Now, you did say that you don't KNOW if he killed Patrice or not, you only said it seemed very likely that he probably did. I still think there's nowhere near enough evidence to even arrive at that conclusion, but fair enough if you feel that way. A lot of other people however are acting like it's undeniable that he's a murderer, and we as a society should simply not think that way. There's a reason that defendants are supposed to be afforded the presumption of innocence.
reply
share
Mister Babadook (2623)
4 years ago
I mean with the son saying how controlling and jealous he was and that his mom was planning to divorce him, then she turned up missing and later found dead, to me that sounds like motive enough for him to have done it.
I don't know if he did it or not, but it seems more likely than some random guy coming to her shop and killing her for no reason, and yeah i know that could've been what happened, i just don't think thats what happened.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8290)
4 years ago
Sure. And I'm not saying he definitely DIDN'T do it.
But we have inconsistencies with this idea as well. What about the car that was seen at the salon? It doesn't seem like it matched any vehicle registered to Rob. Did he secretly buy a car, use it only this one time, and then somehow get rid of it without a trace?
Or what about the witness who said they saw Patrice with someone in the parking lot during the critical window when Patrice disappeared. That person didn't match Rob's description.
It seems to me that, if Rob IS responsible, he hired someone else to do it. But then we have the police saying they looked into that angle and found no evidence of Rob being connected to any murder-for-hire plot.
reply
share
Wuchak (8100)
4 years ago
In Rob's defense, he knew Pistol's dad would take him in the same day, so it wasn't like he was leaving the kid out in the cold. Plus it's clear that Pistol was undisciplined and a bit of a problem child by his own admission, although it seems like he turned out to be a respectable adult.
On the other hand, Pistol and two of Patrice's close friends were willing to say on camera that they feel Rob had something to do with the murder. This doesn't make him guilty, but it's not a good sign. Also, Pistol and a couple of Patrice's friends said there were signs of marital troubles and that Rob had issues with jealousy. Then there's Pistol's statement that his mom curiously asked him what he'd do if she were gone just a couple of weeks before the disappearance. This isn't likely something he'd make up.
While the detective said they had no evidence linking Rob to the crime he also said they didn't rule out Rob hiring someone to nab/kill her at the perfect time when her shop would be empty and he'd be 45 minutes away (with proof to that effect). Rob's changing the locks on his house the day of the disappearance seems pretty premeditated, not to mention utterly cold toward her son. How about at least allowing him to pick up his clothes? Then there's Rob's convenient time-stamped gas station receipt. Add to this the fact that it's common with these kinds of murders that they were committed by a family member, typically the husband. His being 20 years her senior and known for jealousy by three of the interviewees doesn't help.
I realize you can't make decisive conclusions based on a 40-minute show but, to its credit, the documentary focused on the actual persons involved and their own testimonies rather than a commentary and the spin thereof. Bottom line: There's a reasonable possibility that Rob hired someone to murder his wife because they were having serious marital problems and he was jealous enough to do something radical.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8290)
4 years ago
First, regarding Pistol and other family members saying they thought Rob had something to do with it, I'll agree that it's not a good sign but we also have to keep in mind that these are people who don't like Rob and seem to have a grudge against him that existed long before Patrice's disappearance. So their testimony has to be listened to with caution.
Second, while it's true that the police have said they can't definitively rule out the murder-for-hire idea, they also said that they investigated and found no evidence for Rob being connected to such a plot either.
The only real evidence that I can see for Rob's potential guilt would be Rob being Johnny-on-the-spot with the locks. That part IS weird.
reply
share
Wuchak (8100)
4 years ago
I was just reflecting on the data at hand; it's an unsolved mystery.
I do remember in one of the West Memphis 3 documentaries (I think the second one) that it seemed like that weird, hulking bumpkin guy was the culprit -- Roger Ebert basically incriminated him in his review -- then, years later, he ended up being a false lead and someone else was considered the most likely culprit.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8290)
4 years ago
Yeah, I remember that as well. The Paradise Lost series was very interesting and was certainly well-made, but they did Mark Byers wrong in Part II and it helped lead me to the opinion that it's probably irresponsible for true crime writers, filmmakers and podcasters to ever name potential suspects like that. You can ruin a person's life who doesn't deserve it.
reply
share
Geiri (844)
4 years ago
Perhaps she was too soft on him but as a stepparent you really need to accept what type of family you are joining or just walk away. It almost always just ends with rebellion for a stepparent to change the rules. More discipline needs to come from the actual parent, not the strange man who just moved in.
reply
share