This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

It was, and all for what was likely a partially paved fire access road. But then again you never know with Santa Cruz.
I think I said something about the snow as well in an earlier post. I grew up in Capitola and thought while watching the episode when the hell has ever really snowed in Felton. I know it can get kind of icy in the winter but it never snowed like that.

That was a very upsetting episode! I feel that Bob pushed Walt to react that way but who really knows what truly happened. I too went online and was unable to find much in the real story, thank you for posting the additional info! Also, I was surprised the see the snow as well! After growing up in Monterey, CA and now living in San Jose, CA I have never known it to snow around here. It would be nice if the show could be s little more accurate when filming

They were both at fault.
You don't destroy a body if it's self defense.

I so agree the family for Bob hall have no grounds to defend his actions. Walter's only mistake was burning the body he should have called the cops.Neighbors like this suck. You do not usurp a person's driveway then bully them, then steal their mail. It makes you an beep and then you stand in front of a machine. That makes you a special idiot. He deserved what he got. DISGUSTING!

They always seem to, at least on this show to present the cases as one sided and they are not. I grew up near the area and sort of remember the case from when I was a kid. And I agree with the prosecutor in saying both sides are equally to blame since both acted in an incredibly juvenile manner over what was essentially a fire access road. Which is neither public or private property.
By the way since when does it ever snow in Felton? They obviously filmed it somewhere else other then the Santa Cruz Mountains.

Thank you, Geila.

Thank you for the link! I figured that was more of an objective depiction than what we saw.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.true-crime/Yy5qi6jKSRI
This was all I could find so far on the case. It's down about the middle of the page
August 15, 1999
Many rally behind suspect in property-dispute killing
By DAN WHITE
Santa Cruz Sentinel staff writer
LOMPICO - Walter Stephens' neighbors say they aren't the least bit scared of him. In fact,
they say, he could baby-sit their kids anytime.
It doesn't matter to them that the 29-year-old machinist is accused of bludgeoning his
neighbor over a property dispute, then burning the neighbor's body in a backyard trash
heap.
Nor does it matter to them that his victim, 45-year-old Bob Hall, seems to have been
hard-working and well-liked at his job with the Santa Clara County Health Department.
Several of these neighbors plan to support Stephens during his October jury trial, a court
case in which Stephens could lose his freedom and Hall his reputation.
If Stephens did kill Hall - and there is little question that he did - his strongest
supporters have said, in court papers, that there must have been a good reason for the
killing or that Stephens acted in self-defense.
Six months after the Nov. 20 slaying, some friends threw Stephens a welcome-back party.
"We celebrated Walt's release on bail!" wrote one neighbor, Salle Weber, in a letter to
Judge Samuel Stevens in April. "We had a dinner party, invited several neighbors and all
my children, who have been very distraught at Walt's predicament."
She said it would be a "waste of local resources to lock him up again."
A battle over reputations
At least five of Stephens' friends, including several in Lompico, have hailed Stephens'
sociable, helpful character in court documents while describing Hall as a mentally
unstable recluse and bully who was calm one moment and "popped" the next.
That is an assessment that angers Hall's relatives, who say the defense is trying to use
character assassination to get reduced charges for Stephens.
"I've heard these people characterize Bob in a way that I never knew him," said his
cousin, Joan Clements of Scotts Valley, who described Hall as a "family man" among his
relatives. She said the portrayals are inaccurate "but who would know that aside from us?
They'll say Walter was an Eagle Scout, so who's going to speak for Bob?"
Clements said she's gone to every court hearing. "I'm not allowed to say a single thing,"
she said. " But I am there for the satisfaction that someone is there to represent Bob."
The trial will focus on two seemingly ordinary men fighting over a sliver of property in
the isolated, redwood-lined community of Lompico, set in the hills above Felton. Both men
lived on a long, twisting street where well-kept properties stand side-by-side with
ramshackle homes.
Some details of the homicide have not surfaced publicly. The killing took place somewhere
on one of the two men's properties but not in Stephens' back yard, where the body was
found.
The coroner's report maintains Hall was killed by multiple blunt traumas to the head. Hall
's body also had a gunshot wound. According to a coroner's statement in court records, the
shot was inflicted after Hall was dead.
After his arrest, Stephens pleaded innocent to a murder charge. He has made no public
statement regarding his guilt or innocence in this case.
Stephens declined to comment about the case and his lawyer, flamboyant San Franciscan Tony
Serra, has not returned several phone calls to comment.
The defense takes shape
Court files show Stephens' previous lawyer, Benjamin Rice, had compiled a stack of letters
asserting that Stephens would never have provoked a violent altercation with Hall.
Rice said Stephens' guilt is not an issue. But he also has stated that if Hall provoked
Stephens, it would either "excuse any killing altogether through self-defense," or reduce
the offense to manslaughter.
"While we do not know the details on his case, we are absolutely sure that whatever he did
was completely justified under the circumstances," wrote H. Kirk and Marilyn Kellogg of
Los Altos in a letter compiled by Rice as part of his case.
Rice said in legal papers that Hall was on prescription medication for depression, had
liver disease, was fired from the job he had held with the state for 10 years, and had
"deteriorating relationships with his neighbors" dating as far back as 1996.
Rice successfully used a similar argument in the 1997 David Turturici case, involving a
road-rage killing in Capitola.
The unarmed shooting victim, Rick Foster, was described in neighbors' statements as
unbalanced and enraged, an assessment that angered Foster's family. In that case, like the
Stephens-Hall case, there were no witnesses, so the testimony of an accused killer weighed
heavily on the proceedings.
The jury hung in favor of a murder acquittal, and Turturici pleaded guilty to
manslaughter. He got a year in jail, and the victim's family later was awarded more than
$1 million in a wrongful death suit.
Rice said his replacement would h

I can't find anything on Google about this case. So I decided to reserve judgment until I get more info, as the support seemed 50-50 on both sides this episode.