Medical Examiner: Jeanmarie Geis Killed Herself

The medical examiner said today that Jeanmarie Geis committed suicide. In a post to this blog earlier today, a commenter wrote:

Now is the time to ask why the Dallas Police Department didn’t think Child Protective Services should be consulted after the series of odd police reports.

This case raises a lot of questions. I hope we’ll get them answered in the coming weeks. But how do we know that DPS didn’t consult with CPS? Let’s be careful with the speculation.

Update: Our own Josh Hixson includes in his report the salient stuff about Eric Hansen, the man romantically involved with Jeanmarie.


Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...









View All

View All


73 responses to “Medical Examiner: Jeanmarie Geis Killed Herself”

  1. SB says:

    That Josh Hixson is a hell of a reporter. Keep him on this story because he knows how to dig.

  2. yeah, right says:

    The kids are dead. Can I speculate about CPS’s ineffectiveness if they were consulted?

  3. CDD says:

    holy cow. clearly she had some serious mental issues. so sad for those kids.

  4. Tim Rogers says:

    @ yeah, right: As quickly as this situation seems to have deteriorated, and given that we’re talking about a family that was, from all appearances, upstanding and well-adjusted, it’s hard to see what CPS could have done to change the outcome. IF they were consulted.

  5. Gordon Keith says:

    Related to Dale hansen????

  6. J Paul says:

    Dale’s son.

  7. The Haughtiest says:

    That Hansen is a tool. Good ole Nebraska boy my A. Let’s call a spade a spade. He was screwing her. She was screwing her husband over. She murdered her kids.
    There is something in the wat in Texas that causes women to do this. Trying to blame the CPS is a far stretch. There was no reason for her to kill those kids other than just plan evil.

  8. yeah, right says:

    First of all, thanks for the warning about speculation. You are, of course, right about that.

    But I remember folks on this blog questioning why Jeanmarie didn’t leave town or hide from whoever she said was chasing her. I can understand that the police couldn’t force her to protect herself from the alledged attackers, but it would seem that someone could or should have forced her to protect the children.

    “a family that was, from all appearances, upstanding and well-adjusted”

    I don’t think that sticking around for repeated abuse is all that well-adjusted. If, in fact, it was an outside party that was after the family, then someone should have forced the family to leave. Or at least the kids.

  9. Gordon Keith says:

    That explains Dale’s emotions on the Xmas thing he did on WFAA, he seemed overly emotional

  10. amanda says:

    @ Gordon…the emotions that night were from regret…that’s how I took it. I don’t think it had much to do with Geis.

  11. Bill says:

    Dale Hansen Sr. uses that “Thank God For Kids” thing to take a swipe at his adult children every year. One of them took a decade to finish college, the year they graduated, he spent a solid part of the segment ripping them for it. At the time I thought it was just hardcore smack talk. Now I realize he was just being petty and mean.

    Jeanmarie Geis is nothing more than Darlie Routier with a better zip code and a little more intestinal fortitude. I know it sounds cold. But it’s true. She will be labeled as a monster child murderer. A title it looks like she deserves.

    Hope everyone involved in this can find closure some day.

  12. DM says:

    oh right… blame the DPS or the CPS. No one is responsible for their own actions anymore. I forgot.

  13. LakeWWWooder says:

    I went to SMU with Jeanmarie and she was an outstanding student. I believe she was included in Who’s Who. I will remember her in that context.

  14. H4t3 T1m's Bl0g Ed1ts says:

    Nice blog edits, T1m. Lame.

    Josh or Candy would be fine replacements as the DMag editor. At least they can break news.

    PS – Stop copying posts from Fingers of Fury.

  15. TBR says:

    Go Batfaces?

  16. URANIDIOT says:

    “Now is the time to ask why the Dallas Police Department didn’t think Child Protective Services should be consulted after the series of odd police reports.”

    Because filing odd police reports is not grounds for contacting CPS. Pretty silly thought actually. There were no signs of child abuse idiot.

  17. Daniel says:

    yeah right, What do you suggest the CPS should have done? I’m curious. They may have had grounds to investigate, I suppose — any complaint warrants an investigation, even if it’s unfounded — but they still wouldn’t have been able to prevent this tragedy. They had grossly insufficient grounds to yank the kids out of their family and place them in foster care.

    This is just the way the world is: Random horror cannot be averted.

  18. certain says:

    There’s more to this story than the public knows about her husband. About her.

  19. yeah, right. says:

    I’m no expert on the responsibilities of CPS or the Dallas Police Department, but it’s pretty clear that the environment had become dangerous when there were reports and physical evidence that there was serious violence occuring around this family. (Didn’t the father have his teeth knocked out?)

    At least one person on this site questioned why the family didn’t remove themselves from the home if they were the target of such violence. That is an excellent question. Seems to me that an outside party shouldn’t need to file a complaint when they is sufficient information to deem the environment dangerous or the parent(s) unstable (if, in fact, they believed the reports fabricated).

    And… the risk of stirring the pot even more….I wonder if the situation would have been handled differently if the reports weren’t coming from a white, affluent neighborhood. And the news reports handled differently if it didn’t involve the son of a well known journalist. I don’t think it is inappropriate to wonder such things, and perhaps the coverage has been more careful and less sensational because of this, so that is good. It hasn’t taken on a Routier-style quality of coverage. At least not yet.

  20. J Paul says:

    I know we should be careful about speculation, so I’ll throw out a “theory”.

    The (possibly abusive) husband was the original target by the wife so she could eventually be with the new boyfriend and all these previous “incidents” were set up to cover her tracks. The plot went horribly wrong, husband found out and the wife took sad and drastic measures to end it.

    It’s just a theory. I don’t know these people, so I have nothing against Mr or Mrs. Geis. There’s no proof he was abusive. There’s no proof she wanted him dead. We DO know she had a man on the side (at least that’s Eric Hansen’s story). Stranger things have happened.

  21. Gordon Keith says:

    Different Gordon Keith above. Not me. Not me.

  22. yeah, right says:

    J Paul, curious why you are introducing the “theory” that the husband was abusive when you say there is no evidence of that? Your theory holds without that allegation.

  23. JanM says:

    I have never seen a story told and retold with so much misinformation. She’s 52, she’s 49, attacked in her driveway, attacked in her parent’s driveway, she’s gay, he’s gay,
    “I dated her, I didn’t date her.”
    Geez, the news should report facts, and bloggers, well, carry on, who the heck knows. Say a prayer instead.

  24. Daniel says:

    J Paul, I think you’re on the right track, although we have no reason to believe the husband was abusive. Not sure the husband found out about the plot, either; somehow or another, though, her nefarious scheme was on the brink of exposure.

    And yes, this is rank speculation. But one thing’s for sure: The whole matters smells very, very fishy.

    Christ, is it that hard to just get a divorce?

  25. Skeptic says:

    Why the speculation? Under the Rawlins/Bethany/Amanda doctrine, nothing is ever suspect. If someone says something is true, then it’s true. [Harrumph]

  26. Dallasite says:

    What is it about Americans that we always have to look for someone else to blame other than the person who committed the act? CPS wasn’t at fault here. Jeanmarie Geis was at fault here.

  27. Bethany says:

    Skeptic, we were merely saying we knew Rawlins to be truthful.

    But again, it must be very easy to poke holes for naught when anonymous.

  28. J Paul says:

    I said “possibly abusive” in my theory based on absolutey NOTHING but a gut reaction. I do think divorce would be easier, but maybe he was the controlling/abusive type and would not cooperate (child custody issues etc. down the line).

    From what little we know, she was in a precarious position if she was having an affair, so I was just thinking the husband may have had some leverage over her and she was afraid the justice system might not side with her so she was protecting the kids from him. It’s JUST a theory.

    Hansen thinks she would not be involved with a murder/suicide because of her concern about public image. I think the opposite could be taken from that as well.

  29. The Haughtiest says:

    Skeptic–Raw/Bet/Aman a/k/a The Chipmunks are always right even when they are not.
    In addition they are one contradiction after another. They are funny. They make me laugh because they are the mini-deciders. Worried about someone being anonymous. How about
    your pals Daniel/Amanda/etc. This is your cue Daniel.

  30. Bethany says:

    I don’t know about Daniel, but Amanda I know personally.

  31. The Haughtiest says:

    Anonymous commenters who poke holes in other’s view points are cool as long as one commenter on the board knows who they are.
    That is someone who should be working on the George Bush Think Tank.

  32. amandacobra says:

    With all the people named Amanda around here, I am going to need the anons to be more specific with their abuse. Otherwise the abuse will just have to be heaped collectively on anyone named Amanda.

  33. Daniel says:

    Hansen thinks she would not be involved with a murder/suicide because of her concern about public image. I think the opposite could be taken from that as well.

    Yes, classic narcissism. Excellent observation.

    And, Haughtiest (a bold claim, that), Daniel is the only name I’ve ever posted under at FB. Such consistency could easily be construed as evidence that it’s my real name. Unless you’re a skeptic.

  34. Skeptic says:

    I have a big tent, and all are welcome.


    1. You said much more than “merely” you knew Rawlins to be truthful. Go back and re-read your comments.

    2. Please tell me how anonymity affects the force of the argument.

    3. I still don’t believe Rawlins’ claims in his Glass Half Full article. He might be a nice guy and an entertaining storyteller, and I don’t see any harm to his fibs, but he’s simply not believable. Sorry.

  35. Bethany says:

    I think ownership of your words is a very salient part of any argument. If you can’t put your name to them, how much do you believe you are right?

  36. Skeptic says:

    All American presidents are men. George Bush is an American president. Therefore, George Bush is a man.

    Now what “salient” part of that argument is missing?

  37. Bethany says:

    The name attached to it. Happy New Years, darling.

  38. yeah, right says:

    Dallasite, I absolutely think that people should be held accountable and responsible for their actions, including Jeanmarie Geis. But I also think that we should hold our public agencies/institutions accountable and responsible for spending our tax dollars in a way that gets the job done. If we have an agency called Child Protective Services, then I think we should ask if they could have done more to protect two children who were murdered following more than one report of violence at the home.

  39. Kato says:

    What’s up with all of the gossip about the husband or the wife being gay? Is that just blogger speculation, or is there something to it?

    The sexual preference of a perpetrator or victim is often irrelevant, but in this case it would be pertinent to the story (for example, if the marriage was a sham).

  40. Bethany says:

    One question, yeah right: The original calls were for violence and crimes done to the Gies family – that was what the police reported to, that was what they took down for a report.

    So, just looking at this without knowing what would happen in the future, are you saying that CPS should be called each time the police respond to a home invasion, robbery, or mugging?

  41. But... says:

    there was no evidence of any attempt to harm the children. So, by your logic, every single mother or father who is stalked (or reports a stalker to the police) and refuses to move should be evaluated by CPS … who isn’t busy enough already … and possibly have his/her kids taken away?

    I know that’s stretching what you’re saying, but not by much.

  42. But... says:

    that was a response to yeah, right … not too Bethany

  43. yeah, right says:

    I read the police reports that were posted on the DMN website (kudos to them). This wasn’t just alleged stalking, it was violent and threatening and repeated (alleged). The attack on the husband was pretty severe.

    If the police believed that the attacks were from an outside individual who was after the family (as the mother suggested), then I think protecting the children would be appropriate. If the police believed that the attack might have been from domestic violence, then maybe there was little cause to fear that someone would hurt the kids, but maybe the violence was so severe and the reports so odd that it was apparent that someone was truly disturbed.

    You have to ask, why was she reporting this stuff to the police if she was so concerned about public appearances, as Hansen suggests.

  44. Little Star Pony says:

    Skeptic, Bethany’s argument is rather complex, but perhaps I can explain it to you. What Bethany says can be believed because she posts under the name Bethany which sounds like a real person’s name. Because she uses a real person’s name, she can be believed when she says she is Bethany. No, not that Bethany, the other Bethany. Also, because she uses a real person’s name, when other people claim that they know her and that she is truthful all involved can be believed, just because. That’s just the sort of power a can-do city confers on a real person sounding name.

    When you post under the name Skeptic, it’s hard to believe that is your real name, so it’s harder to believe that everything you claim is truthful just because you say it is. Don’t worry about the fact that in other circles Bethany’s argument about names being salient to arguments is known as the genetic fallacy. It actually works like this: the hotter your name sounds, the more truthful you are and the more what you say can be believed on its face, so if you’re named Bethany or Amanda or Rawlins (sort of rugged Westerny Rawhidey handsome) you can be believed. If you’re named something not real person sounding, you can’t be believed, unless of course if you’re named for the string part of a candle in which case you can be believed because your name sounds hot or close to being hot. You don’t actually have to be hot nor do you actually have to be telling the truth, you just have to have a name that sounds hot, then you are telling the truth. Get it?

  45. Daniel says:

    Bethany, it’s preposterous to insist that everybody use his or her real name. If you’re interested — and I’m not egotistical enough to think you should be — I’ll meet you, or any FBvian, in any tavern in this city and happily reveal my name. I have my reasons for not doing so here, or on any website, and I suspect others have their reasons as well.

    The notion of owning up to your words is noble, but it’s not always tenable or prudent in this here web-o-sphere. You seem to think anonymity is a breach of good faith, when in fact it’s well within the bounds of standard web etiquette. I salute you the same way I salute people who bake their own bread: I appreciate their doing that precisely because they didn’t have to.

    As for people who employ sock-puppets, well, that’s another matter.

    Ever your humble servant, I remain,

  46. yeah, right says:

    “The notion of owning up to your words is noble, but it’s not always tenable or prudent in this here web-o-sphere”

    Well said, Daniel.

  47. Marty Cortland says:

    What? What’s all the fuss about?

  48. amanda says:

    Daniel, will you pucker up to me, the spawn, and the exchange students at midnight? We’ll be there…

  49. Sid Nancy says:

    Bethany, Sid Nancy is my Alter- Bloggo. I bask in his anonymity He says mean spirited things sometimes and tries to be funny. He’s a smart ass. I am not. I will never reveal his true identity…for free. Have a fine Oh Nine.

  50. amanda says:

    TH, it’s not the stories that are weak. It’s the editing as Skeptic so eagerly pointed out…

    If you will excuse me, I have a trophy to dust.

  51. Jenny the Elephant Burgers says:

    Only a damn fool or an egomaniac would post under their real name here.

  52. Dallas Taylor says:

    I think this woman knew that the police weren’t buying what she was trying to sell them and knew it was only a matter of time before she would be arrested for felony assault of her husband. With her being known as a prominent woman, she could not take the embarrassment that it would bring for her in that town. So she ended it, and like an idiot, took her kids with her, so that her husband would be left with nothing but a broken heart forever.

  53. yeah, right says:

    She killed the kids because she couldn’t bear them knowing the truth about her. It was all about her. (sorry for the speculation, Tim)

  54. Lil F says:

    It’s sad she had to kill the kids, I knew it was a murder suicide, she probably paid someone to beat up her husband, she was a fake

  55. Bethany Albright says:

    The family finances are revealed on Dallas Dirt — check it out:

  56. Rawlins Gilliland says:

    One, I thought this very sad thread was about an agonizing event; grotesque. The death of woman many liked and respected. And her poor children. This story made me very very sad.

    I just revisited it and realized that here too the thread became for no small time hijacked by the same crew who insist that there is a conspiracy to dump fake memories upon the anonymous scrooges and then blame very honorable participants like Bethany et al. Why? As my lifelong friend Bill said, “Rawlins, how dull can some people be to think it strange that you lived in three cities in 10 years at the height of the counter-culture era and took more chance than a drunk in Vegas?” Good question.

    Look kids; my piece ‘A Glass Half Full’ was the SCRIPT to an ON-AIR recording. Meaning it would 1) mean the world to me if you actually clicked the triangle beneath the title and heard it…in my voice. It was written in the spirit of a dispirited season. And I was very very proud of its message and especially the delivery which was an unedited one take-from-memory recording.

    That said, my sister and friends who know my history are laughing their asses off at debate whether my tales (of which this was not even seen to be in my eyes) are suspect. My sister Ann…who lives in Canton ROARED reading FB. She said she got gray hair listening to me when I would call home in those days. She told me: “I used to think no one would read your book. But when I see people actually wonder IF you danced at the Stonewall, hardly worth mentioning really…I thought, ‘Hit it, brother! Thar’s gold in them thar journals’.

    Now why not return to 1) Responding to positive thought as the New Year begins. 2) Praying for the poor family and friends of this family tragedy. Good God.

  57. Andy Cleareyes says:

    But it’s okay for you to hijack this thread to justify — and continue to celebrate — yourself? Why not post this comment to your Glass Half Full thread? Is it perhaps because this thread is getting more traffic? A Happy Hypocritical New Year!

  58. Rawlins says:

    Andy, in answer to you question; why post my comment here? Because look above and you’ll see that in this thread I am 3-4 times I am named-called a liar despite the subject being unrelated to me. That’s why. Silly me.

  59. Rawlins Gilliland says:

    Andy, if you want to ‘win’ be my guest. I was simply being honest; this thread is not about me so why was I being called a liar and even discussed/introduced repeatedly (yes in addition to ‘my’ thread by the same people )in a thread about murder/suicide?

    It might also be honest on your part to note that in Wick’s thread posted of mine (the publisher of ‘D’ posted that link, not me) there were many people who were honorable and responded to my piece’s intent in ways that made me enormously happy initially the night it ran before New Years. Then the 3-4 masked pit bulls came home from the holidays and there began the gladiatorial sport. All behind the curtain of anonymous cyberspace. Isn’t that a jr. high bully’s wet dream? To call someone names invisibly.

    You’re better than that. I’d be willing to bet. I know i’m better than that. And so is FrontBurner.

    I have no problem with someone not liking my work (I prefer they do of course) but I was amazed that anyone would really decide to attempt discrediting it as a phantom adversary in a way one might liken to libel. What the heck? It’s just a game. Right?

  60. Andy Cleareyes says:

    Mr. Gilliland:

    My comment that you responded to was deleted. You certainly have every reason to be proud of your essay and the favorable comments that people posted for you. For people to question whether you were entirely truthful does not make them “pit bulls.” (Pit bulls are the people who call George Bush a war criminal on the FB posts regarding his move to Dallas.)

    Keep doing what you’re doing. You’ll have your supporters and detractors. At least you’re doing something.

    And if you tend to get carried away from time to time — well, what’s a little exaggeration among friends, right? A baked potato is far more satisfying loaded up with cheese, chives, and bacon bits than just plain old butter.

    So, yes, I’m better than my deleted post. And you’re probably capable of much better writing if you really put your mind to it (and I’m being sincere here).

    Good night.

  61. Rawlins Gilliland says:

    Andy, you’re a good man. But FYI, I really have never played it safe. Ever. To this day. So having to invent stories is like a produce manager at Central Market shopping at Krogers. But yes I did live the counter-culture years to the hilt. I know what’s true and what’s a half-‘baked (even a twice-baked) potato’.

    It’s a true romantic’s take on this episode that my past (and present) feels validated because it sounds improbable to strangers. What better compliment can a actual adventurer receive?

    Sleep well. (At home of even in the Parthenon if possible. I reccommend it). And thanks.

  62. Curious says:

    Has anyone asked the husband what happened to him? His injuries were legit (having seen medical personnel at Baylor), so what’s the story there?

  63. 13AL says:

    I posted on another blog about this before the medical findings with my .02 that she did it. On that blog, someone had posted claiming to have known Jeanmarie Geis and how she was such a good person and went on to chide the other posters for suggesting that she could have killed her children and herself. I called that person’s comment irresponsible. I’ll say it again, good people do bad things. I want to inject a little more – I think Eric Hansen had something to do with Frank Geis’ assault. Since his father is the “famous” sportscaster (and on a side-note, a total tool), he would have almost certainly met quite a few people in the sports world – physically strong people capable of knocking Frank Geis into next week, if you know what I mean. And since everyone is so easily offended, I will take it a step further. Threre’s a lot of athletes who have cousins, brothers, friends, et cetera that are mixed up in gangs and crime. Is it so hard to believe that Jeanmarie Geis and Eric Hanson planned this out? Perhaps something went wrong, or who knows? But, Occam’s Razor (dumbed down) states the most obvious explanation is usually the explanation. Wake up, people! Eric Hansen knows something. I’ll leave it with this – If Eric Hansen really thought that Jeanmarie Geis was leaving her husband, or already had left, then he is utterly stupid and naive. Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Or maybe Eric Hansen had nothing to do with Frank’s assault, and he was just exploring the Cougar Country, if you get my drift. Now go ahead and tear me apart, bloggers.

  64. Bobby says:

    I knew Jean Marie, both through professional association and personal, for a long time, but after she married she seemed to disappear from her old acquaintances. When I first read about the bizarre change of events that happened at her home prior to her death, I immediately thought “this is all staged”. I believe someone orchestrated the whole series of events leading up to the deaths of Jean Marie and her children. I have faith that the DPS will not let this case be closed. Jean Marie was not a saint but neither is Frank……..

  65. 13AL says:

    Bobby … did you know she was a lesbian (or at least had a girlfriend, also in real estate sales, but not from virginia cook) before marrying Frank Geis? My point is that she had some identity issues, which may have been an ingredient in her delusional mind. Frank Geis may not have been a saint, but does that make it Ok for what she allegedly did? The medical examiner concluded her death a suicide. The ME’s are not necessariy infallible, but they know their business pretty well, and there are ways to test whether or not she killed herself (ie, gun powder residue on her hand, entrance of the bullet, and so on).

    Of course, there is always the possibility that Frank found out about her relationship with Eric Hansen and he paid someone to beat the snot out of him so that he would have an alibi while she and the kids were being murdered at home. But I don’t believe that for a second. It doesn’t make any sense – why would he also have the kids killed?

  66. Bobby says:

    Was she a lesbian or was she bi-sexual? That doesn’t mean she has identity issues. In our crazy world men seem to like that sort of thing. Suicides have been staged since the beginning of time. There are all kinds of scenarios where this could have happened….and yes, all of the players in this situation need to be looked at just as closely as Jean Marie was. In a fit of rage and jealousy humans are capable of doing anything….even killing their children. I think the “lifestyles” of all the “players” in ths drama are suspect. Only my opinion, as is yours 13AL, and we are both sitting on them!!!!

  67. 13AL says:

    Yes, your opinion counts too, and you’re right about people being capable of doing terrible things in fits of rage/jealousy. Good people can do bad things. I dunno if she was bi or gay, but I’m 100% sure she had an exclusive girlfriend – or at least her girlfriend thought so. It’s pretty wierd, but there’s just too much evidence pointing toward the more obvious, which is that she killed herself. But, I cannot discount what you are saying. It’s in the realm of possibility that it was staged, and she didn’t do it. I think that this one will be solved, though. I don’t think it will be a mystery for ever.

  68. 13AL says:

    Oops … also, my mention of her being gay was only another dimension in the tale … I do not at all want to imply that her sexuality had anything to do with the crime. Gay people are just fine and dandy in my book, and it’s one small part of a whole person – it has no bearing on whether or not the person is “good” or not.

    I just meant to say that it’s not normal to bounce back and forth between straight and gay. That just tells me that there are some issues there. Most people could agree with that, I think.

  69. close says:

    Everything that has been reported and commented about this murder is completely false.

    The Geis family was as normal as normal could be, extremely loving, and strong.

    The Dallas police department are covering their butts for letting these incidents go on all month. The Dallas police department thinks it’s easier to believe in a crazy neighbor than to have people think there are killers on the lose.

    The people commenting on this article do not know where the children were during the month so they should stop speculating. Jeanmarie’s beauty attracted a LOT of freaks into her life who love to pretend they were close to her.

    I really hope the truth comes out. The family is in a lot of pain.

  70. Bobby says:

    Close,I too do not believe she committed suicide, or murdered her children. I do however know that the Geis’ were in a transition….be it whatever….which doesn’t matter except that it could explain all “3” of these murders…….or not, but the underlying issue is: There were “3” murders that day, not 2……

  71. Bill says:

    I knew Jeanmarie back when she worked at the Cafe Society Coffee Company. No matter what happened, I will remember Jeanmarie Tolle as I knew her: beautiful, smart and funny. I am very skeptical of the idea she would kill her own children – I’d be more apt to believe she reacted to discovering their deaths by killing herself.

    By the way, lesbianism and bisexuality don’t kill people – but, people who hate lesbians and bisexuals occasionally kill people. I’d look there for some motivc.

  72. Jordan says:

    Let’s see… couple w/ two children are in business together; third man claims to have had a “relationship” with the wife, and that the marriage was “dissolving”; dissolution of marriage would necessitate dissolution, sale or other break-up of high-profile real estate business with resultant losses, close examination of books, etc.; there are several reports of attacks on wife, at least one of which involves documented but non-life-threatening injury to husband (who appears to have let intruders in); wife and children then die tragically while husband has iron-clad alibi, and death scene shows signs of another possible intrusion; husband claims to have no memory of attack in which he was injured, and further claims that marriage was fine and healthy; husband retains high-profile real estate business (without necessity of an audit) and reaps benefits of publicity and public sympathy.

    Hmmm… I think “suicide” can be staged – especially when there are children present to be used to compel cooperation of victim – and that murder can be hired. And if the murder-for-hire fails the first time because the intended victim escapes, you can always try, try again. Something seems just a little too convenient about this “suicide”, all in all.

    I wonder how long before the bereaved husband and father turns up with a new girlfriend – or perhaps boyfriend.

    I hope SOMEBODY keeps digging.