E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWhen a "dog trainer to the stars" disappears, his friends and co-workers fear the worst. Keith Morrison follows all the twists and turns in the case as investigators track down the suspect with the help of two witnesses who were in the right place at the right time. The two-hour report The Man Who Talked to Dogs airs Friday, Jan. 21 at 9pm/8c.
Watch a preview below:
Keith Morrison reports from Kiket Island, a serene location just north of Seattle, Washington, where a "dog whisperer" for the rich and famous suddenly disappears. 'The Man Who Talked to Dogs' is a two-hour report, airing Friday, Jan. 21, at 9pm/8c.
Leave a Comment:
Very interesting story...
hey--i watched this for 1 1/2 hours--then the station went off. not knowing what the verdict was. i couldn't sleep--thinking this fabulous con-cocked story might be believed! it was definitely concocked by the famous attorney and the blonde b----. and this stupid a-- was definitely just used by these wretched people--rich people who think they can get away with anything! all three of them, oakes, father and daughter should be sentenced to life!
i bet the opdycke's are paying for oakes' children's college. i hope both oakes and the opdycke's burn in hell. yet another example of the rich getting off. nice try oake's, way to ruin your family and kill a man over some woman who care's nothing about you. another man thinking with the wrong head. idiot!!!
Interesting segment. Not convinced it warranted two hours. At an hour I jumped online to find the outcome of the trial. I encourage producers to rethink viewers willingness to invest two hours.
I was fully invested for the whole two hours. The best part of the story was Keith Morrison's delivery. I couldn't believe Oakes tried to sell that cock and bull version of events. "Uhh yeah your Honor, I bought supplies at Wal-Mart, went to his house and shot him, cleaned up as best I could, changed into the victim's clothes, stole his car and hid his body, but it was all in self defense." GTFOHWTBS!
How do I find out how it ended? MIssed LAST 10 MINUTES!
I held my breath until the end, but I did have faith that a jury couldn't be dumb enough to buy the obvious lies of the defendant. Doing the pre trial interview sunk him in my view, I could shoot cannonball size holes in his story with that interview, and when he took the stand it was almost laughable. Some sociopaths think they can outsmart anyone, and Oates probably had. I'm guessing most of his life he'd talked people into things and in the end was a fraud. When I saw his credentials that were actually supported by exactly nothing I could tell he was one of those guys I'd met throughout my life... a guy with little man's disease that had to prove how bad he was, but really never had the guts to put it on the line. Never a police officer, never in the military, just an empty shirt. I could smell it from a mile away because I've met so many of his kind in his line of work. In the end 26.5 years is about 100 too few for this murdering sociopath. As for being a 'great dad'. I'm guessing the children of many killers have said the same and it goes to show that many people have many faces.
This appears to be another sad case of a man who wants to be a hero to some woman when there is no villain. I believe Oake's and Ms. Opdycke invented one who unfortunately happened to be her ex-husband. The best friend she had an affair with was probably someone who wanted to believe he was rescuing her.
I agree with Jason. There's money behind Oakes but I don't know if he's done a hit before. If he had, he's done it with other people that knew what they were doing, as he obviously smart enough to pull off a one man show. I believe he did try to set up the evidence to go in his way, but as with many that think 'they are smarter than the room', he forgot an awful lot and created a story not even a child could swallow. I hope the Detective one day can link the Opdycke duo, but I would believe that their money may spare them. Scumbags.
Did I miss the part that explained how both cars ended up behind the Grange Hall?
I was wondering about the cars, also. When he drove to Mark Stovers' house, what happened to his car when he drove away in Marks' car? Then he had Marks' car and his own car there at Grange Hall. And when he abandoned Marks' car in the parking lot, he had to have a ride from there. All those places, how did he drive 2 cars? He had to have someone else involved. Ya can't drive 2 cars at the same time. It bugged me that they didn't say anything about that.
This defendent deserves two life sentences stacked back to back. First for the great bedtime story and the later for murder one. WHuuuuuuzzzzzUP with the blonde bimbo and her pappy walking scot free?
my sentiments exactly. and i believe opdycke knew exactly what he was doing too. i hope they get her eventually.
this was really the most absurd, concocted story i've heard a defense attorney make up since the robert durst trial, and that's saying a lot!
I recorded this segment and took a break right after Oakes conversation with Keith. This is so unbelieveable....the story that Oakes told Keith about the threats against his children. OMG obviously that is the only defense they could come up with. I hope daddy and daughter rot in hell for their involvement in Mark Stover's murder!! So sad.
Another sad case of a man who wants to be a hero to impress a woman when there is no villain. I think Ms. Opdycke was looking for a hero when she had the affair with her ex-husbands best friend. How horribly sad for the children and everyone concerned.
All I really want to know is, what happened to his dog? His best friend?
me too
Exactly - what happened to Ding? Did she survive the shooting? Who took custody of her if she did? And this guy expects us to believe that Mark Stover would leave his highly trained guard dog outside if he invited this guy over to talk?? Please. Gee, if Mark had done so much "research" and stalking on the ex wife and Michael O., wouldn't he know that the guy was this martial arts expert and firearms expert?? And he what, brought out this little dingy 22?? What about the 22 Michael bought and stated he could attach a silencer to it?? Why need a silencer if you are not planning a murder? Hmmm. Quite hincky.
Michael O. also said that Mark Stover stated he had deep connections with the police, but wasn't it MICHAEL who trained many officers of the law??? I am really glad to see the postings here show that most people were able to see through this guy, that he was/is a sociopathic type of individual. He was so able to contain his emotions, easily and quickly stated his expert abilities and how very fast he is, etc. Typically sociopathic.
What's really scary to me is that Michael Oaks was able to concoct this story - that is how his mind works. The scenario is something HE would think of , something HE would do.
Mark's dog Ding did survive the shooting and died of unrelated causes a few months later.
a most interesting story indead. if Linda Updyke was being stalked as she claimed, why didn't she report these incidents to the police? Michael Oakes with all his training should have been able to jump John and tackle him to the ground before a shot was fired, and what about the security dog that was always at John's side?
Personally I cannot beleive it took the jury several days to come to a deliberation of guilty of murder! This is part of the problem with our justice system, we have allowed our courts to tied up with unbeleivable and ridiculous stories.
Obviously guilty!! Agree, proof of of the rich getting off, again. Oakes should have gotten life and the Opdycke's should now be on trail. I have a feeling this all has to do with money (the murder).
Lastly, I can't believe the prosecutors didn't bring up the facts that (1) this highly trained guard dog was supposedly shot after the fact and (2) Oakes apparently didn't have a scratch on him.
Fascinating story with many twists and turns. Premeditaed murder is what went through my head as I watched the Karate /gun expert share his unbelievable story! He must be a sociopath as he apparently believes his own lies. When I saw him put the bullet proof vest on and act out this "hoax" I thought wow, this man demonstrated how he committed cold blooded murder. I feel sad for his children and pray that they can rise above it all.
I agree with the Deputy, there is more to the story that has yet to be told. Two other people need to be behind bars... do you think?
I do hope and pray that some day the man behind the mask ( in jail) will tell the whole truth. He has 26 yrs to think about it.
I think the man behind the mask will eventually talk. As you say, he has 26 yrs to think about it, but right now he's still believing she's going to be waiting for him...at some point it's going to dawn on him how he got suckered.
According to the trial Court Judge, you're no longer free to "slay a dragon" in Skagit County. By the judge's own closing statement Mark Stover is that dragon and, as such, should be permitted his personal rein of terror!
You are full of bull!
Oh am I? The truth is way too much for you to comprehend, what other intelligent words do you have? The administrator of this page should edit more carefully and delete your rude insult.
The statement "slay a dragon" is a metaphor, dragons are monsters that do not exist. Mark Stover was no monster, Opdyke made up the story that he was a monster, (the fable) Oakes believed it, and premeditated Stovers death. Figure it out.
Was Mark Stover's ex wife lying about his sadistic behavior in court too? Mark Stover was all about control, control of dogs, of animals, sadistic control of his wife, control of his family and sadistic control of Oakes too. Mark Stover was killed with his own gun! How do you Premeditate that!
How do you know he was killed by his own gun? The murder weapon and body have never been found. Pretty convenient I must say. You are just another case of an idiot who refuses to look at the facts and instead sympathizes with a murderer. Blondie herself admitted on the stand that she had not been contacted or stalked by Stover in a year and a half prior to his premeditated cold blooded murder. Stover must of just taken a break from being a sadistic, abusive stalker.
@ Ken & Mike - You both have to know that Dateline show was 2 hours. Actual trial was nearly 4 weeks. On the stand Prosecutors did a great job showing Linda only made these "stalking claims" after the garbage incident. Even produced an email she sent a friend saying how Mark had been staying with her in Winthrop and what a great help he was..Gotcha ya Linda!! Jury was not fooled by her, not one bit. It was Oakes that said Mark produced a gun, there was a struggle and Mark was shot with his own gun only after shooting Oakes. Funny how no evidence of a gun, bullets or anything related to guns was found in Marks home. Why did Oakes throw Marks gun away, why did he keep the bullet proof vest, but threw away the shirt and coat he was wearing that would of had matching bullet holes. WHY?? Because it didn't happen this way. Oakes shot Mark Stover in cold blood. Mark NEVER stalked Linda. She is one very messed up woman and couldn't stand that Mark had moved on, happy, in love, business thriving and all she had was this pee wee Oakes. He was played big time. Let's hope he wakes up and realizes it soon and turns the table on Linda and all involved.
I agree. What was Michael Stover doing on Linda's property if not stalking her. What about all his threatening phone calls? Maybe Michael Stover was a threat to Linda's life and Mark Oates deservedly took him out. If that happened more often maybe we wouldn't have such a stalking problem.
Riveting story to be sure. Like the judge, I felt this poor schmuck got dragged into doing this woman's dirty work for her. He goes to jail and problem solved for her although I'm baffled as to why she wanted her ex dead. That was never explained...why so much animosity? My husband I chuckled at the the ridiculous explanation Oakes gave as to why he felt the need to confront this man. And did anyone else think it odd that if Oakes was merely going to this man's home to try and reason with him, why wasn't his own car in the driveway? I'd like to think the prosecution picked up on that but it wasn't included in the courtroom clips they showed. No, it's clear this was premeditated and what really did Oakes in was being caught by the 2 "biddies" as he called them. Was also hoping there'd be an update on whether or not Linda is standing by her man and his now 4 fatherless children? Betcha she isn't!
Another sad case of a man wanting to play hero to impress a woman. However, there was no villain so they made one up and probably convinced themselves that Mark Stover was one when he was not. How horribly sad for the children and everyone involved.
makes me think twice about people who claim to have an affiliation with the police force when it's verified that they don't. there was no proof that he was a part of some police force or military? i didn't catch the last 5-10 mins. to think that it could have been a contract kill is a bit difficult; not so difficult when considering the arsenal of weapons oakes had and the plan that got foiled by two witnesses. There is still the possibility that it was a lust/love induced fury fest. the defense was poor but created enough doubt to keep some questioning. this case might come back to trial. i'm sure opdycke's are afraid of that.
I do think 2 hours was warranted. At the end of this I am truly stumped as to who I think did what. I really can't establish true motive other than what the ex-wife said about Oakes being hired. Linda divorced him. So he truly had to be harrassing her. That would have been the only motive. But if Linda's father hired Oakes why would the daughter want to be in a relationship at all with a hired killer? Those are great lengths to go to, to get away with murder. I just don't see motive proved here. Also, if Linda's ex was indeed stalking her and threatening her life like that well I don't have too much pity for him. He should have gotten on with his life he would still be alive. Not that what he did justified the murder, but when people feel threatened they do desperate things.
She (Linda) admitted on the stand that she hadn't seen Stover for a year and a half before his murder.
Kasechrist: doesn't the fact that there was testimony by a sales clerk that Oakes bought the gun, and that he commented he wanted that model so he could fit a silencer to it, and finally that he parked his car over behind the Grange ... and took the time to return the bolt cutter after buying it, OMG! -- doesn't all that do enough to shed light on how truthful his story is, even with all the denial about cleaning up with bleach, etc, and the comments to his ex wife about a "job" and how he "failed" it and didnt' get paid when he tried to do it a week earlier? Really, it doesn't? There is rarely a murdered who is so blundering in his crime that he gives us THAT many clues.
Thought this was a most intriguing case and the best told of all this series. I do think it merited the two hours.
The people are quite interesting, especially Linda Opdycke. Was she just using Oakes, as the prosecutor implied? If so, she is a cold, heartless person, a femme fatale, like Brigid O'Shaugnessy in _The Maltese Falcon.— The story does make sense that way. That makes Oakes into a heroic fool. Heroic because he was willing to do these awful acts for love and put his trust (unless he is lying) in his mistress--and a fool for the same reason. The judge's comparison to medieval gallants is not wrong.
Yet a cool headed fool--to talk to the policeman with the body of Stover in the back of his car like that requires a presence of mind--a pluckiness he also manifested when arguing adamantly, however implausibly, with Morrison in the interview about being in the grip of Stover. Oakes seemed unflappable.
It's impossible to believe Oakes's story at face value. The jury had no choice but to convict. All this over wedding pictures? That is simply incredible. They were no longer together, for heaven's sake. Also unbelievable is the idea that Oakes obligingly followed the orders of Stover to meet at the cabin. More than likely he went to the cabin to confront Stover. There was no pre-arranged meeting. His actions afterward were not those of an innocent man. However, there is more to the story.
If the above is true, Linda Opdycke and probably her father were complicit. It was never clear to me who did all the cleaning with the bleach. It's also strange that the body of Michael Stover was never recovered; Oakes identified the spot where he dumped it. Perhaps, of course, he was lying. But another possibility is that someone performed the disagreeable task of finding that body and getting rid of it elsewhere where no one would know.
Who would have the motive to do this? If the Opdykes were just using Oakes, they seemingly wouldn't care what evidence was found further convicting him when the corpse was found. However, by making the body unfindable they might buy themselves insurance, for if by chance Oakes were exonerated, they would then have something to hold over him to keep him in their control. That they know how to play a deep game is evident from the way in which they were careful to protect themselves with lawyers even before the police were on to them. It also suggests guilt.
There was plenty of time for Linda Oakes or her father to find that body and take it somewhere.
Linda Opdycke plays off nicely against Michael Oakes's first wife--the sweet innocent true woman vs. the manipulator.
Some of the pictures in the segment seem to belie these sentiments. The shot of Linda Opdycke and Oakes and kids seemed warm and friendly. Yet this was a man who had committed or would commit murder. On the stand she was an extremely self-possessed and narrow witness, only coming out grudgingly to say that she loved Oakes and careful to say that she had no "liability" in the case. I even wonder the extent to which the love might have been real; it's hard to conceal feeling over a sustained period of time.
Unlike Jason above, I have some sympathy for Oakes. If you've ever been head over heels in love, you'll do anything.
Thought this was a most intriguing case and the best told of all this series. I do think it merited the two hours.
The people are quite interesting, especially Linda Opdycke. Was she just using Oakes, as the prosecutor implied? If so, she is a cold, heartless person, a femme fatale, like Brigid O'Shaugnessy in _The Maltese Falcon.— The story does make sense that way. That makes Oakes into a heroic fool. Heroic because he was willing to do these awful acts for love and put his trust (unless he is lying) in his mistress--and a fool for the same reason. The judge's comparison to medieval gallants is not wrong.
Yet a cool headed fool--to talk to the policeman with the body of Stover in the back of his car like that requires a presence of mind--a pluckiness he also manifested when arguing adamantly, however implausibly, with Morrison in the interview about being in the grip of Stover. Oakes seemed unflappable.
It's impossible to believe Oakes's story at face value. The jury had no choice but to convict. All this over wedding pictures? That is simply incredible. They were no longer together, for heaven's sake. Also unbelievable is the idea that Oakes obligingly followed the orders of Stover to meet at the cabin. More than likely he went to the cabin to confront Stover. There was no pre-arranged meeting. His actions afterward were not those of an innocent man. However, there is more to the story.
If the above is true, Linda Opdycke and probably her father were complicit. It was never clear to me who did all the cleaning with the bleach. It's also strange that the body of Michael Stover was never recovered; Oakes identified the spot where he dumped it. Perhaps, of course, he was lying. But another possibility is that someone performed the disagreeable task of finding that body and getting rid of it elsewhere where no one would know.
Who would have the motive to do this? If the Opdykes were just using Oakes, they seemingly wouldn't care what evidence was found further convicting him when the corpse was found. However, by making the body unfindable they might buy themselves insurance, for if by chance Oakes were exonerated, they would then have something to hold over him to keep him in their control. That they know how to play a deep game is evident from the way in which they were careful to protect themselves with lawyers even before the police were on to them. It also suggests guilt.
There was plenty of time for Linda Oakes or her father to find that body and take it somewhere.
Linda Opdycke plays off nicely against Michael Oakes's first wife--the sweet innocent true woman vs. the manipulator.
Some of the pictures in the segment seem to belie these sentiments. The shot of Linda Opdycke and Oakes and kids seemed warm and friendly. Yet this was a man who had committed or would commit murder. On the stand she was an extremely self-possessed and narrow witness, only coming out grudgingly to say that she loved Oakes and careful to say that she had no "liability" in the case. I even wonder the extent to which the love might have been real; it's hard to conceal feeling over a sustained period of time.
Unlike Jason above, I have some sympathy for Oakes. If you've ever been head over heels in love, you'll do anything.
i have the same questions as sharon about the cars and jaki about the dog and mimi. i think that what sally said about a hero role could be possible but unlikely. the motive is still questionable. it is possible that stover was disfunctional, abusive, and very threatening. that could be the motive?! i think it's a great possibility that a hit was put on.
the safe assumption would be that that it was a territorial fury feud. it's still murder, and on stover's home territory. if it was just self defense, i could see why oates considered the cover-up. i can't see why he carried it out. and what about the denial of the bleach and everything.
it's all wrong.
more than one person could definitely been involved. it is definitely possible that it was a big organized deal. it's also possible that it was just a lust/love induced hero thing. i doubt the later. if it is an organized thing i'd like it to get exposed and crushed asap. that stuffed gets me very mad.
At first I was so disappointed that my favorite wine Chateau Ste. Michelle was stilled owned by the big daddy, Opdycke but then I searched the web and found an article in foster .washington.edu on Mr Opdycke and part of it stated:
"In 1974 Opdycke and team sold Chateau Ste. Michelle to U.S. Tobacco Company, which still owns the winery today." Thank goodness as I was about to boycott the wine and send them nasty emails. :-) But the winery is off the hook! I guess he lives in Hawaii.
The article ends with the following statement.
"Will he ever really retire? Not likely. For now Opdycke, who will be honored for his business leadership in late October at the Business School's annual Leadership Banquet, is satisfied with his hobbies. Golf, flying, fishing and hiking and, of course, new ventures.