Did A CSI Commit The Perfect Murder 

Like your friendly neighbors. John Wayne Casey- appeared to be a model citizen Ted Bundy- Law student & loving boyfriend Susan Smith - killed her kids B. T. K. - had a family lived a life that appeared mostly normal. Jasmiyah and Tasmiyah Whitehead- twin teenagers that killed their mother . Robert Thompson and Jon Venables- 10 year old boys they kidnapped & killed a 3 year old boy. It's terrifying that it's impossible to know who could be a killer. There's absolutely no way to know

Face tats

@Gregor Samsa ...kinda missing the point. A murderer can look like anyone.

@@cctomcat321 I know. It was just a joke

Charming and scheming like Ted Bundy Lol. One would have never known! Murders have no face!

Probably had great "head game"

Good kitty

Pathetic

Open relationship/marriage. McArthur was married, so the boyfriend is her side piece. 🙄 He was merely enjoying all the gifts and freebies she was giving him.

Amazing head is the only answer.

Well, some people are auto-suspects. You can’t always avoid it

Ain't it lol.

That is so true! How often you hear a crime is a perfect murder during a trial!

it's a perfect murder if you murder someone and never face consequences for it. most people wind up being suspects even for a short time based solely on their adjacency to the victim, regardless of their innocence.

Yeah, this was the furthest thing from the perfect murder. There was documentation of a motive (the bank statements), and she let herself be seen with Taylor right before Taylor "disappeared."

This is my favorite comment. It wouldn’t have KILLED her to have to swallow her pride and admit that she didn’t have the money. I don’t think she could even have gone to jail, because the money was a loan. My mom lent someone her car once, who didn’t bring it back, and the police said if she allowed him to use it, there was nothing they could do. I called him a bunch of times, bluffing about how much trouble he could be in and he brought it back after like 4 days. But if he hadn’t, nothing would have happened because he could just say that she gave it to him and it would be his word against hers. No one could have actually made McArthur pay it back. If the loan agreement was in writing, there may have been a case in small claims court, but they don’t jail you for noncompliance. You can’t squeeze money out of a rock. You’d think she would have known that, with any career involved in the CJS. Did she not want to lose face with her friends that bad? Or did she hate her? Because her motive was useless. She ended a life, for nothing. She wouldn’t have been in trouble, but she’s in trouble now! Your moral argument is far stronger than any stupidity argument, though. We have to be able to love and forgive ourselves to avoid taking out our insecurities and self-hate on someone else.

@@heidiho5179 so true. Exactly why Jesus gave us love your neighbor as you love yourselves as the second commandment and He also says to forgive others and do good to those who hurt you and pray for your enemies..it is for spiritual reasons but also for emotional and peaceful reasons. So many of these crimes are out of unforgiveness or jealousy.since i gave my life to Jesus Christ years ago He healed so much in me that i dont feel overwhelming emotions like i used to that are negative like jealousy and never hate. It is so freeing to actually feel love for people even when they hurt you. God is amazing!! I think she needed some Jesus! ❤

@@elsablue3646 It really is freeing to know that you’re not alone and, no matter what you did wrong, even if everyone you know on earth hates you, you are still loved. I do have mercy, even for people like this woman, because without faith, the world is a scary place. Blessings to you!

Exactly, I don't get it either, the worst would have been, you go to court and you pay the money back, if you can't you go bankrupt and after 7 years it's over, no killing no jail time. 🤔🤷🏽‍♂️

A humans Killer Instinct can't be stopped.

Yes she is a real betrayal

she probably ran off to south america

I don’t think she thought much, she was shot in the head.

@@Eclipse1369 yeah but we have no idea what that conversation was like on their ride to the farm when she was still alive.

@@priceandpride You are not in the least bit funny. Go watch cartoons.

That’s exactly why I don’t trust anyone!

Good points 🤔

@@catherinesyme901 0

Well said

The most important one for me was watch a person's actions, not their words.

👍🏾

Actually, CSIs never get involved with bank records, cell phone tracking, and stuff like that. CSIs do the crime scene and they're done. Other than depositing the body on land her family owned, she did a pretty good job of not connecting herself physically to the murder -- which is what CSIs are looking for, physical evidence.

@@LeeBv9983 but they would know about it all tho. That makes no sense. Clearly she was a very stupid person.

@@chrissymeri4957 Nope. CSIs collect evidence at the scene and then give it to the crime lab. The lab does the testing and writes the report to the detectives. A CSI may see the detective at the crime scene, but that's it. The TV portrayals of CSIs are just fiction to create drama.

I don’t think she worked much

The most high😂😂😂

I heard on another coverage of this case it was over 100k total.... but you're right this chick was only holding 34k Shortly before she went missing, Wright took $100,000 out of her and her ex-husband’s joint bank account. When she got the money, she ended up splitting it and giving it to some different friends to hold for her until she needed it. One of the friends Wright gave part of the money to was a woman by the name of Ashley McArthur,

sounds worth it to me

@@wazaagbreak-head6039 Walk a mile in Ashley's shoes now :)

A dead friend & life in prison for only 34K . Not worth it

Are you talking about the title? It’s a question not a statement

@@laure26 there shouldnt be any question about it its nowhere near perfect

Absolutely not. I replied to the question in the title. She was so sloppy. Horrible at her job!

Thats what I was thinking. They should of stuck up a question mark cause obviously not we are here to talk about it lol

Lol yes it sounds like it's written in sarcasm or it's written as a question without the question mark lol 😂

A CSI does the crime scene only, police / FBI investigators do the actual investigation as a whole. They would get evidence from a CSI to build their case. But yes, for a CSI she doesn't seem to even have the scene 100% fool proof, she may have even inadvertently put a target on her if the CSI on this case had said, "this crime scene seems too perfect, checks all the boxes on what I'm looking for is missing here".

CSI's are civiliian's and NOT Police

No you’re wrong. ALL CSI’s are not civilians. It depends on the department actually

@@kentmaggio2581 I am not wrong. Go do some real research

@@gavincrouch if you work in law enforcement, you should know the basics of investigations. If you're CSI, you definitely should know what police look for, because you're the one to deliver that to them. There's no excuse for a CSI not to know that police track suspects via cellphone towers. Most civilians know that

When people have to keep up with so many lies and are hide so much they often overlook some obvious evidence that can take them down. Any half decent criminal would account for not using a personal phone or even having it with them. She knows the forensic evidence that leads to arrests and interrogation tactics so well she was probably confident/cocky walking into that room. Right until the detective asked for the phone records, how can she go from fully cooperating to not allowing fellow law enforcement access to her phone. That would b a huge red flag. People should never talked without legal counsel but I’m sure idiots who murder she do.

*@elstungunn* - it’s always so easy to figure things out when they’re figured out for us, right??? Many people who’ve never murdered anyone seem to have a hard time understanding how much fear, adrenaline, maybe lack of sleep, definitely terror of mixing up her lies while being interrogated by police....all of these factors make guilty people prone to making mistakes. There can be many points during a murder investigation when the murderer is being questioned and has presented herself as an innocent party....the major points in this case were McArthur’s bank records and her cell phone records, as well as Taylor’s.....where, if she refused to give detectives her phone on the spot, she would look guilty, and if she DID turn the phone over, all she could hope for was that the detectives might not scrutinize the records too closely, or that they might not figure out what she was doing. If you watched the trial, you’ll remember how crazy-making it was listening to the asst prosecutor as she went through those records point by point by confusion point, bc they were extremely complicated. The assistant prosecutor actually apologized for this testimony during her closing argument. Anyway, it may have seemed easy for you to figure out, but you totally have the benefit of hindsight.

​@@voraciousreader3341 We’ll have to agree to disagree. This was a carefully planned murder and she managed to get rid of a lot of other forensic evidence, right? If she was a regular citizen not aware of investigative techniques, I might agree with you. However, she was a Crime Scene Investigator familiar (I would hope/think) of forensic evidence collection protocol which includes cell phones. I would assume part of her training would include that cell phones found at the scene of a crime are to be collected not only for organic evidence: i.e. prints and fluids, but also digital information to track where that cell phone has been during the period in question. No, I did not watch the trial; only this upload. And no, I’ve never had enough sympathy for murderers to wonder if they were terrified, not sleeping well, fearful of police during or after they murdered. But history is full of cold-blooded murderers who felt none of that. I wouldn’t be surprised if this wasn’t her only crime as she seemed to so readily and easily steal from “her friend.” That’s very cold-blooded, in my opinion. Good for people to know: If detectives bring you in for questioning, you need to get a lawyer and not talk to the police. Forget what other people might think. CLUE: if detectives ask you to “come downtown to answer some quick questions,” that is a HUGE RED FLAG. And if they ask to have your phone for “forensic examination,” do not give them permission and make them get a warrant. That is your right, who cares what they might think because guess what: if you are called in not only once, but twice “for detectives to clarify a couple of things,” you are in their crosshairs and they are closing in. So no, this is not a case of “20/20 Hindsight,” or “armchair quarterbacking” or whatever you are suggesting. It is very basic knowledge.

@@elstongunn4277 Crime-scene investigators aren't detectives. I could be wrong, but I think McCarthy was a technician. There's a lot more involved in detective work than just the evidence collected at the scene. If she did it, which seems likely, she saw the phone records as part of her plan, including texting from the victim's phone. It's entirely possible that a CSI would overlook the fact that the victim's phone would ping off a cell tower if it weren't in use. It's an easy thing to overlook. Maybe she thought she turned it off. Maybe she forgot to turn it off. Maybe it didn't occur to her that leaving it on would leave a footprint. When you're trying to commit a perfect crime, there's any number of ways you can get tripped up. I imagine you probably can't possibly foresee all the different ways you might be exposed. Murder for money or revenge is pretty hard to cover up. Serial killers who kill strangers are the toughest to track down, because there's no clear connection between victim and murderer. I'd keep in mind too, that your average sociopath thinks everybody else is stupid, because they're CONSTANTLY lying and gaslighting others, sometimes just for their own amusement, and they rarely, if ever, get caught if they keep their misbehavior below a certain threshold. Honest people assume others around them are honest, because living in truth is just a much better way to live your life. Surrounding yourself with trustworthy people and TRUSTING them is a good way to live.

Here is my point: The problem with so called knowledgeable or intelligent criminals is they over do things, because of this their brain are overcompensating and over thinking things, that common normal people unconsciously do without thinking too much or even not remembering most details they do daily. That is why psychopath and sociopath is the authorities worst type of criminals. In this case the accused over compensate how things happen.

Greed is evil. Money is benign.

The LOVE of money is the root of all evil..

Money that wasn’t even hers too

I agree, but the quote is the "love of money" is the root of evil. Not the money itself but the love of it. She saw dollar signs! Such a betrayal.

Same.

Right

For real! LoL

I thought that same thing 🤔

I agree!

Ya confident in that room she’s getting off and showing hardly any emotion aside from nervous giggles. This woman’s demeanor changes a lot in the second interview. Once her phone got taken during the first interrogation an excuse/story was needed to explain the towers her cell pinged. That nervous giggle is so infuriating when she agrees to hand the phone over willingly. Though it’s satisfying that in those few seconds she lost all confidence of getting away with killing someone who trusted and loved her. She most likely started to think of lies to spin her way out of whatever the phone proved. The truth is humans often think they’re smarter than they are. That’s why I’m a murder case a team of law enforcement and forensic experts all work together. It’s easy for one person to over look something, but not when it’s a team who is all open with each other against one or a few guilty liars who usually burry themselves.

Yes !!

Amen to that !!!!!

It will be. That's protocol.

Would have to be linked to motive though, her motive here was money, I think the only motivation to botch any case would be by bribe only.

@@UnderTheMillkyWay right. But considering her propensity to throw money around, according to her boyfriend. It would make one wonder if there had been bribes in her cases

She was a tech, not an investigator.

"The devil is in the details".... What does that even mean ?

@@adambane1719 it means that from the perspective of the suspect, her own words will ultimately be her demise. All it takes is a vigilant officer to see clues buried deep in a sea of lies.

But she didn’t say she went to Britt farm

@@ronedgington2179 she said they went to her family’s property to ride horses. The very same property where her body was found.

@@adambane1719 it’s a VERY, VERY old saying, Adam. Almost as old as your name.

Total waste of tax payers money, I believe the case cost over US$7ml

I disagree. She is a scientist. Logic should have prevailed because this was premeditated. She could have promised to make a payment plan not a murder plan.

@@sunrae7680 She's not a scientist. A CSI takes photos of crime scenes. They have a background in photography.

CSIs do not only take photographs at a scene. They have a background in forensics.

I know…disappointed.

@Ano Nymous Sarcaustic ! I agree, though

Lol

Stop the cap!

No she is dead serious. I can back that statement up because I was the BARTENDER at the time!! So wierd how all this turned out!

That's why you can't trust ANYONE!

It stands to reason that someone w/a personal connection to any given story will share their experiences. There aren't many people who don't. When people don't believe them I wonder how they go through life telling people who they may not know personally and who share a connection w/any given story/event that they're either lying or laugh at them in disbelief. They must be suspicious by nature, afraid of being duped over nothing, lol!

So you are the authority on when murder is justifiable? 🤡

@@lacymacdougall9660 Since when does sharing an opinion on when they think murder is justifiable mean she's claiming to be an authority on the matter?

isabel lind I didn't say she said she was. If you read my comment again, you will see that I asked her a question. I didn't make a statement.

She is specialised in forensics maybe,because she look like she was more focused on not leaving trails of DNA, instead of skills of profiling and investigation real police work

🤣🤣🤣

Everybody wants friends.

No friends like this

How stupid!!!?😏

Arrogance, she tought nobody would suspect her.

for me it was the resoluteness of the boyfriend :D "nope, wouldn't trust her ever."

This what I think too.

He was telling the truth

Those are the facts.

To Laura Marie Helena: Not sure what your point is here, or why you seem so bothered. It really is irrelevant. You see, most people have enough logic and common sense about them, that they'd be quite aware of the existance of CCTV in stores and practically everywhere (indoors and out) these days, and as far as cellphones pinging off different cell towers as you move about through time and space, is old news. Your average 12 yr old would be able to be mindful of that. So simply put, the "fact" that she has had training in the CSI field, no matter how long ago, only shows how stupity reigns in her mind. That became quite obvious when she spent $34,000 that she was to hold for a friend. So, the way most of us see it, they are not referring to CSI as her prfession, but that she has had training here, that most have not, and even with that, she still has no logic and common sense. Could this be why she held the CSI job less than a year, as you tell it Laura?...... These are "THE FACTS"..........

@@trly3074 Being that your, um, wall of text, er, I mean your *post* is approximately thrice the length of my own, I dare say you seem much more "bothered" than I. Contained within the brevity of my post is the fact that Ms. MacArthur worked long ago, and quite briefly, as a Crime Scene Technician. I stated this because her *former* and *very brief* stint as such was made so much more central in the video than warranted. Nowhere did I refer to the layperson's awareness of cameras, DNA, or any other forensic tool utilized in Crime investigation. That wasn't the point. Rather, I was simply pointing out something reported in the content of the video that could have been misleading. That is all.

Wow, well this is interesting 😳

She still has some kind of training and would or should be well aware of what was gonna happen. It doesn't matter how brief or long it was still stupidity as she knew they were going to find out she did it.

Good point about the behavioural psychologist. I do think there are things that are expected from innocent and guilty people though particularly in terms of language used. For example this woman showed concern for herself and not for her missing friend. If the police told an innocent person that they believe something bad had happened to a friend it would be appropriate to expect them to show concern. And clearly the police were correct about her behaviour being off because her “friend” was found dead on land belonging to her family etc. Are you aware of the channel JCS? You might enjoy it as it analyses interrogations and suspects behaviour. It’s really interesting.

Wrong!!! Normal people don’t talk crap about someone who’s missing!!! They are showing empathy and concern. You need to get a clue ! You don’t need to be a psychologist to see if someone is being genuine: it’s obvious! And she’s guilty!!! She shot her because she spent her $:

Oh Please! it was obvious she did the deed, find the remains on her family property you don't need no behavioral psychologist to tell you that. The evidence speaks for itself.😁

@@alanmoore2897 You completely missed the point of what I was saying.

@@gabrielamartiniuc6322 You missed the point of the comment...

Strangely I watched that scene right after reading your comment, she's tripping

In this case she was already currently in Prison for the embezzling and arson of her family's business, so she will not start serving the 25yrs to life until after that sentence factor in her age she was 41yrs old at the time...she will be over 70yrs old IF she gets out. The possibility of parole and getting granted parole are two VERY different things.

I think the judge said concurrently, though, not consecutively. I think.

😆😆😆😆😂😂😂

This is why I believe Nicole Kessinger is more involved In Shananns Watts murder. Her behaviour was similar.

@@mistymac9345 I was going to say she reminded me of NK.

Yea, it should be $100,000 minimum, to be good people.

We’re im from ppl get killed for a pair of jordans or bag of weed

Ridiculous

That's a huge amount of money to trust someone with. Huge!

You forgot the narcissist who thinks they're smarter than everyone else

🥴🤪 goofies

Right

I agree with the need for counseling and more time off( I did the job and I chose to not watch the new on tv), I figured I’d seen the worst things already. That is still no excuse for cold blooded murder of anyone.

Yes! Beautiful and Smart!

All FACTS!@!

Lawyers have to defend ALL their clients with the same tenacity and devotion regardless whether or not they believe they are innocent or guilty. It’s what makes a good attorney. Plus if he doesn’t defend his client to the best of his/her abilities.. it brings up cause for appeals and for the right conviction to be thrown out, and a retrial set.

@@NORTAH85 actually nobody has to defend anyone guilty or innocent....get another job perhaps if your job requires you to try every evil trick in the book to get murderer's off free to kill again

@@craighall689 refer to the previous comment. Yes they do. Inadequate defense is grounds for an appeal and a mistrial. You’re an idiot!

Yes there are lots murders where the murderer is never caught like zodiac and he killed a more than a few I think