It’s too bad I already have a PhD, because I could write a whole dissertation about why the husband of Patrice Endres in Vol. 1, Ep. 2 of the new Unsolved Mysteries def did it.

Alright fine—FINE—since no one asked, here’s a [v mini & incomplete, bc my dog is totally waiting to go outside] thread on why::

1. He says that on the day he met Patrice (she cut his hair at a salon), he “walked out and said ‘she is going to be my wife,’” immediately negating her agency and claiming (future) ownership of her.

2. He uses an almost mocking tone when discussing his interrogation, noting that he “[has] a degree in criminology” as if to underscore his belief that he’s smarter than the detectives. How else is the degree really relevant?

3. When asked whether he and his wife argued, he says, “We didn’t argue, there’s no point in arguing in a relationship...” before talking about some of their “issues.” It’s a classic manipulation technique, avoiding a direct response to the question by redefining the terms.

4. And this theme of re-direction continues when asked what he thinks of Patrice’s friends who say she was unhappy/that they think he killed her. Essentially, “I don’t care bc they are stupid for thinking that,” in other words, it’s the belief itself that should discredit them.

5. I’m almost not sure that I even need to address his open hatred & aggression toward *a teenager,* one who happens to be his wife’s son. It’s one thing to not get along, but another to say “I saw no future in him” & “yeah I locked him out of our house the day she disappeared.”

6. What I’m saying is, it’s hard to see how that kind of individual would have empathy. & even harder to see how someone—esp a person who, by all accounts, loved her kid fiercely—would still be head over heels for this guy.

7. He also says he “[chooses] not to think of their issues,” because they were “going to be together forever. We had our whole lives ahead of us.” Which, esp in the context of what her son and friends have to say about their relationship, just tells me he was unwilling...

8. ...to consider an alternative to them being “together.” He “chose not to” think of that. Divorce wasn’t an option for her. & then—oh boy—there’s the skeleton. God.

9. What gives me chills every time I hear it is this line, “I *was* very protective of Patrice. And now I have her. And that’s a good thing.” Surely we can all discern the rhetorical implications here... [Fin.]

10. OH! & let’s not forget his very strange “impromptu brainstorm” on what happened to Patrice/how her body got where it was found—“was she held for a while? Used as someone’s ‘toy’? Did someone have to use a wheelbarrow to get her to that location?” It’s like he’s telling us.

11. I mean, people who are genuinely grieving wouldn’t lightly run through those scenarios, let alone with that unnerving degree of specificity. I also notice that, when running through why he didn’t do it, he spends most of his time emphasizing that he “couldn’t have”...

12. ...in terms of the timeline, esp the fact that he had a receipt showing he’d stopped for gas somewhere. Who keeps a receipt for gas? His emphasis on this makes it clear to me that the receipt is intentional, and could prob crack the whole thing open if scrutinized.

13. I know, I’ve gone full-on armchair detective at this point. But rly, if your beloved spouse was kidnapped & killed, is it the fact that you’d stopped for gas & therefore had an alibi that you’d be waving in everyone’s face? & not, say, the fact that you just...didn’t do it?