Killer Cases: Web Search History Leads Investigators to Husband of Murdered Woman | A&E

| by | 24
Killer Cases: Web Search History Leads Investigators to Husband of Murdered Woman | A&E

Investigators use web search history to crack a murder case in this clip from Season 1, Episode 10, Murder in the Barnyard. #KillerCases

Subscribe for more Killer Cases and other A&E shows:
http://aetv.us/subscribe-ae

Stay up to date on all of A&E’s premieres at http://aetv.com/schedule

Subscribe for more A&E shows:
http://aetv.us/subscribe-ae

Check out exclusive A&E content:
Website – http://www.aetv.com/
Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/AETV
Twitter – https://twitter.com/AETV

Killer Cases brings all the emotion, drama, and suspense from chilling murder trials. Its a journey through the criminal justice process that gives viewers an inside look at real cases like never before.

A&E leads the cultural conversation through high-quality, thought provoking original programming with a unique point of view. Whether its the networks distinctive brand of award-winning disruptive reality, groundbreaking documentary, or premium scripted drama, A&Es brave storytelling always makes entertainment an art. Visit us at aetv.com for more info.

source

Recommended for You

24 thoughts on “Killer Cases: Web Search History Leads Investigators to Husband of Murdered Woman | A&E”

  3. Stormy Storm · Edit

    Is this the same woman as the one who was interviewed by Bryan Ross Investigates Amazon, from the FB group Todd Mullis is Innocent? How can having 300 supporters declare Todd Mullis innocent? 🤣 Doesn't sound too intelligent 🤣

  4. Lombardi Law Firm · Edit

    One should never make so many assumptions based on so few facts.

    We really have to ask ourselves a question: Was the iPad Todd Mullis’?

    That seems to imply complete control. Had Todd filed for divorce from Amy or Amy from Todd what would we expect to hear about the nature of the iPad as to who gets it or pays the other just to keep it? In Iowa it is community property of course. She would have said it was hers and shown access to it via the family known password and use. So, is it really the property of Todd Mullis? Or, is it community property?

    And what about those searches? Incriminating evidence on an electronic device seems too obvious. It seems like something someone desperate might plant on their spouses iPad at the direction of a divorce lawyer. A divorce lawyer might make such a suggestion when her client wants child custody, child support, has been cheating, her husband isn’t likely to suspect the plant, doesn’t know anything about electronics and she wants out so she can get remarried. The divorce lawyer wants evidence to leverage custody and child support payments.

    Who is cheating who in this scenario?

    If there is one thing I have learned in life, it is that cheaters cheat and liars lie. And I would not exclude from this maxim people who label themselves divorce lawyers.

    We should never get too far ahead of ourselves with the assumptions. That iPad was as much Amy’s as it was Todd’s. Amy had as much access, and probably more, to that iPad as did Todd.

    Now ask yourself. Who had motivation to plant evidence to leverage a divorce?

  5. *living *life* · Edit

    300 random supporters who don’t know a thing vs. police w/evidence and proof
    I wonder who is right

  6. l Bullets l · Edit

    With searches like that, there ain’t no convincing a jury of innocence

  9. Silvia Capell · Edit

    E o resto do julgamento, ele começou a falar e de repente CORTARAM?👎

  22. OBB FIDEL · Edit

    I’m ՏᑌᗷᗷIᑎᘜ TO EVERYOá‘Žá—´ ᗯᕼO á’ªIKá—´'Տ TᕼIՏ á‘•Oá—°á—°á—´á‘ŽT á—©á‘Žá—ª ՏᑌᗷՏ á—°á—´…….

Comments are closed.