Sitcoms Online - Main Page / Message Boards - Main Page / News Blog / Photo Galleries / DVD Reviews / Buy TV Shows on DVD and Blu-ray

View Today's Active Threads / View New Posts / Mark All Boards Read / Chit Chat Board

Unsolved Mysteries Online Main Page / Message Board / Show History / Episode Guide (1987-2002) / Expanded Episode Guide #2 / Expanded Episode Guide #3 / Case Updates / Wiki / Official Site / Lifetime Site / Lifetime Schedule / Related Links / True Crime Shows Message Board / All Other Cases Message Board / Buy The Best of Unsolved Mysteries DVD / Buy Unsolved Mysteries - The Ultimate Collection DVD

Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Original Robert Stack Episodes - The Complete First Season on Amazon Instant Video
/
Season 2
/ Season 3 / Season 4 /
Season 5
/ Season 6 / Season 7 /
Season 8
/ Season 9 / Season 10 /
Season 11
/ Season 12 / Watch on YouTube

Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina Episodes

Watch or Buy Unsolved Mysteries with Dennis Farina - The Complete First Season Episodes on Amazon Instant Video
/ Season 2 / Season 3 / Season 4 / Season 5 / Season 6 / Season 7 / Season 8 / Watch on YouTube


Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: UFOs DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Ghosts DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Miracles DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Bizarre Murders DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Psychics DVD Set
Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends

Buy Unsolved Mysteries: Strange Legends DVD Set

Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums  

Go Back   Sitcoms Online Message Boards - Forums > Unsolved Mysteries

Notices

SitcomsOnline.com News Blog Headlines Twitter Facebook Instagram RSS

Fox Fall 2019 Premiere Dates; FX Sets Dates for Fall 2019 Schedule
Barney Miller Summer Fridays on Antenna TV; Tyler Perry Studios Takes Over BET with New Series
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of June 24, 2019)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Mark-Paul Gosselaar Cast in black-ish Spinoff; Urkel Makes a Return in Scooby Doo
Fri-Yay: The Amazing Superstore Season 4 Finale; Netflix Has Healing Powers
Extreme Makeover: Home Edition Returns with "Modern" Twist; Showtime Is Back to Life For New Comedy
truTV Gets 2nd Season of Tacoma FD; I'm Sorry Gets Season 3 on truTV


New on DVD/Blu-ray (April/May/June)

Evening Shade - The Complete Collection Perfect Strangers - The Complete Seventh and Eighth Seasons My Three Sons - The Third Season - Volume One The Brady Bunch - 50th Anniversary The Brady-est TV & Movie Collection Will & Grace (The Revival) - Season Two

04/02 - Archer: Danger Island - The Complete Season Nine
04/09 - You're the Worst - The Complete Fifth Season
04/12 - Evening Shade - The Complete Collection
04/16 - The Big C - The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
05/07 - Baskets - The Complete Season Three
05/13 - I'm Dying Up Here - Season 2
05/13 - My Three Sons - The Third Season - Volume One
05/13 - My Three Sons - The Third Season - Volume Two
05/14 - The Donna Reed Show - Seasons 1-5
05/14 - Petticoat Junction - Seasons 1-3
05/28 - Perfect Strangers - The Complete Seventh and Eighth Seasons (WBShop.com)
05/28 - South Park - The Complete Twenty-Second Season (Blu-ray)
06/04 - The Brady Bunch - 50th Anniversary The Brady-est Brady Bunch TV & Movie Collection
06/18 - Will & Grace (The Revival) - Season Two (Blu-ray)
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-15-2009, 02:05 PM   #76
MegtheEgg86
Member
Senior Member
 
MegtheEgg86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2008
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 4,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissFit29
I still wonder what the motive was. I don't think they were trying to rob the house if they attacked her outside and made her drive to a remote place.

Lawton is a military town (Fort Sill). I often wonder if Pat Conway was a military officer, and 2 guys with a grudge went after Aeileen as retribution for something - they were dishonorably discharged, maybe? I just think it was too violent a death to just be a robbery gone wrong.
I've wondered about a military angle as well. Lots of weird crimes go down around bases--and drug dealing and gangs are still a problem. Perhaps the intruders were DDed for some crimes along those lines (Pat being instrumental in their dismissal in some way, of course), and, in true "gang" fashion, decided to make an example of Pat by murdering Aileen in an overkill.
__________________
"Why is she lying?, it makes me wonder. What is she hiding?, it makes me wonder."

Go Vols!
MegtheEgg86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2009, 11:32 PM   #77
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

[QUOTE still wonder what the motive was. I don't think they were trying to rob the house if they attacked her outside and made her drive to a remote place.QUOTE]

It's possible that while Ayleen was checking on the pool, she saw the burgulars while they were attempting to enter a neighbors house or even attempting to enter her yard.

I could easily see a situation where when Ayleen went outside she noticed some strange men at a neighbors house. She may have not considered them burgulars but called out to them to ask what they were doing. The burgulars may have acted friendly at first, but when they got close enough to her they pointed a gun at her and told her to get her car keys and drive them to the next town.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2009, 10:08 AM   #78
uncleslappy38
Member
Occasional Poster
 
uncleslappy38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 04, 2008
Location: ohio
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
[QUOTE still wonder what the motive was. I don't think they were trying to rob the house if they attacked her outside and made her drive to a remote place.QUOTE]

It's possible that while Ayleen was checking on the pool, she saw the burgulars while they were attempting to enter a neighbors house or even attempting to enter her yard.

I could easily see a situation where when Ayleen went outside she noticed some strange men at a neighbors house. She may have not considered them burgulars but called out to them to ask what they were doing. The burgulars may have acted friendly at first, but when they got close enough to her they pointed a gun at her and told her to get her car keys and drive them to the next town.
MM,

Really like your last few posts.

I think the witness angle is very intriguing. The segment depicts the Conways having a fairly tall wooden fence; which would be difficult to see over from the backyard. I wonder if the fence was truly above eye level, they had a chain link fence, or perhaps no fence at all.

Yes, they had a pool, but in the early 80's not everyone who had a pool necessarily had a fence. My grandparents has a small above ground pool when my mother was a child and they didn't have a fence at first.

Anyway, my slant on MM's theory is that perhaps burglars were going around the neighborhood looking for easy opportunities, by turning knobs all around looking for unlocked ones. It was the middle of the day, the burglars tried the Conways fence gate, found it to be unlocked (just speculation) and were suprised to find Mrs. Conway there filling the pool. they quickly overwhelmed her, probably in the backyard, grabbed some jewelry, then figuring they had a lot to lose if they were connected to numerous burlaries, faked the car accident.

It's possible that in this scenario, Mrs. Conway recognized the burglars (perhaps posing as meter readers or something) and their quickly conceived cover story didn't work on her, so they killed her.
uncleslappy38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 12:45 AM   #79
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 820
Default

Nice to see this old thread back near the top again. I haven't been posting here much lately, but, to anyone interested in this case, I'd ask you to read my many posts in it, which present all the difficulties involved with saying the accident was "staged," and come up with a plausible explanation for how it was done AND accounts for all the facts that we know.

It's not enough to say she was murdered and the accident was "staged"; you have to be able to show how it was done, given the evidence we've got!
__________________
"You can't say the words that the rock makes you feel like." - Patty Johnson
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 09:36 AM   #80
youngUMfan
Member
Frequent Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 12, 2009
Posts: 81
Default

As a young fan of UM who seen this episode, how come no one paid any attention to the post I posted earlier about the reliability of the witness?
youngUMfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 09:40 AM   #81
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Quote:
It's not enough to say she was murdered and the accident was "staged"; you have to be able to show how it was done, given the evidence we've got!
1. Gas cap was missing
2. Fire was greater and more intense than the average car fire
3. She was found miles away from her home
4. There were signs of gasoline dousing on the inside of the car, much more than in the usual accidental fire.

All this points as evidence to the car being set on fire on purpose rather than accidently.


What evidence do you have of a stroke?
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 10:02 AM   #82
peachysquirt21
Member
Forum Regular
 
peachysquirt21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 454
Default

I highly doubt that the gas cap was missing prior to this incident.
peachysquirt21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:00 AM   #83
TracyLynnS
Don't Look Up
Senior Member
 
TracyLynnS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 07, 2009
Posts: 3,087
Default

As a mom, I wouldn't send my kids off to school, then be home (in the bath or otherwise) with the phone purposely off the hook, so that I wouldn't be disturbed.

I would worry that one of my kids may have forgotten their lunch, or need lunch money, or may have an accident at school, and the school would be trying to contact me while I was busy having a nice soak in the tub.

On the other hand, Ayleen had 7 kids, so maybe she really, really, needed a long quiet soak in the tub.

After reading through this thread, I see that her glasses were left behind, but no one knows if they were just reading glasses, or if she would actually need them to be able to see well enough to drive. Were any photos of her shown on the segment where she was wearing glasses? That would make it obvious that she needed them for every day use, rather than just reading.

What kind of car was she driving? Does anyone recall the case (somewhere in the south, I think) where a woman was convicted of killing her mother in a car accident just like this one? It was a ford (cougar, maybe?) and the way the car burned, and the materials that the interior of the car was made of, made it look like "pour patterns" and an intentional arson.

She finally got out of prison when a auto pro proved that there was a known defective part on that certain car that would ignite. He also proved how everything in the car would melt in a fire, since it was all basically plastic (even the foam in the car seats), and that melted plastic would then act like a liquid, pooling up in certain areas as it burned, and give the impression of accellerant pour patterns.

And the gas cap on Ayleen's car was missing. Was it found nearby? Did they search the area for it like they did with the church bulletin that was found 200 yards (or whatever) away? Was the cap just off the vehicle but still with the vehicle?

It seems like the same thing happened in the other case. The gas cap blew off in the fire, but the cops thought the woman had placed a rag in the spout and ignited it while also pouring gas inside and lighting that on fire.

What kind of investigators are we dealing with in Ayleen's case? Were they living in a good sized city with professional investigators, or did all this happen in a small town with just regular cops making educated guesses?
TracyLynnS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 11:08 AM   #84
crystaldawn
Member
Senior Member
 
crystaldawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 17, 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngUMfan
As a young fan of UM who seen this episode, how come no one paid any attention to the post I posted earlier about the reliability of the witness?
I noticed just wasn't sure what to say. I had never thought of questioning the farmer's eyewitness account. According to the reenactment he was on his tractor in the middle of his field when he saw the fire so I guess they figured he wasn't involved. I wonder if he saw any suspicious vehicles leaving the area or heard anything before he saw the fire.
crystaldawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 01:12 PM   #85
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 820
Default

To Mastermind - unfortunately, none of your response answers the question I am asking. By asking "how was it done?", I'm NOT referring to how the car was burned, but how the accident was staged. IF it was burned, I'm sure gasoline was involved. That's not what people in the "she was murdered" theory camp need to explain. I think I've shown in earlier posts that:

1. Authorities were able to determine that she hit the guard rail at a speed between 50-60 MPH using what the segment terms "skid marks" aong with the physical damage done to the rail and the car independent of the fire, and

2. Based on the presence of skid marks, there was apparently some attempt to STOP the vehicle by the driver before it hit the guard rail.

Let's take the second one first. Since an attempt to stop the car was apparently made BEFORE the moment of the crash, the ONLY way in which this could be a set up is if Aileen was placed in the car, unconscious but NOT dead, the accelerator rigged, and then, just seconds before impact (i.e., not in any way near enough time ot stop the car), she wakes up and hits the break in an attempt to stop the car. She would have to be alone in the car and unconscious for the initial set up because I think it's safe to assume no one attempting to intentionally murder her would get into a car with her while she drove it 50-60MPH into an obstruction - there'd be too much risk of injury to the killer himself. At the same time, Aileen would have to be unconscious BUT NOT ALREADY DEAD for any scenario in which the accelerator was rigged and the killer remained outside the car, because otherwise why wouldn't she hit the break before hitting anything? So there is only one very narrow circumstance under which this accident COULD have been staged.

Now let's take the first one. For the car to reach a speed of 50-60MPH BEFORE hitting the guard rail, it would have to be rigged some distance away from where it actually crashed, because to rig the car to accelerate down the road from outside the car, so he doesn't have to be in it when it crashes, the killer would have to start with the car at a dead stop. In 2009, in an era of MUCH more efficient cars with much greater average horsepower than in years past, it takes 8.4 seconds for the average automobile to get from 0 to 60 mph. So-called "performance" cars take between 4 and 6 seconds. Aileen's clearly wasn't a performance car, but let's assume that it was an above average car for its era and it could get from 0 to 60mph in 8 seconds (a rare figure today among regular cars). To go from 0 to 60 MPH in 8 seconds, assuming constant acceleration (which is a VERY poor assumption with an automobile), her acceleration would be:

a=(v(f)-v(o))/t
a=(88 ft/sec-0 ft/sec)/8 sec
a=11 ft/sec^2

where 88 ft/sec is 60 mph rendered in feet per second. At that rate of acceleration, to get from 0 to 50 MPH, it would take:

t=[v(f)-v(o)]/a
t=[73.3-0]/11
t=6.66 sec

where 73.3 ft/sec is 50 mph rendered in feet per second. This, in turn, would mean that, in order to get to at least 50 MPH from a full stop, the car would have to cover a distance of about 75 yards:

d=v(o)*t + 0.5 * a * t^2
d=(0 * 6.66 sec) + (0.5 * 11 ft/sec^2 * [6.66 sec]^2)
d=0 + (0.5 * 11 ft/sec^2 * 44.4 sec^2)
d= 244 ft.

As I've said, assuming a constant acceleration for a car is a TERRIBLE assumption, because as cars shift gears from first to second, etc. they accelerate more and more quickly. The acceleration in first gear, which would cover the first part of a trip starting at 0 mph, would not approach the 9.162 ft./sec^2 assumed for the whole of the trip here. In other words, 244 feet is the absolute minimum distance it would take for the car to get to at least 50 mph, but it would almost certainly take considerably more than than that. The Church bulletin that the segment mentions which was supposedly from Aileen's car and that was found 200 yards away, or more than twice that distance, might perhaps be closer to reality (but whether that Church bulletin really ame from Aileen's car or not I think is very much open to question). It's worth noting here, I might add, that we don't know what kind of transmission Aileen's car had. If it was a stick, not necessarily likely but certainly not impossible, it would have been basically impossible for the car to get from 0 to 60 with a rigged accelerator, because there would have been no one to take it out of first gear.

The problem with the distance is that, assuming the segment shows us the actual site of the accident, there doesn't appear to be a very long guard rail or bridge at the location of the accident. How could the killer know for sure Aileen's car would hit this guard rail from a distance of 120 yards or more away? That's excellent aim for someone who I'm sure wouldn't be practicing sending unmanned cars into small targets from healthy distances every day. It could just as easily have drifted into the cornfield that lined the road, hitting nothing and driving off indefinitely through corn. The probabilities are not in any way in favor of the killer in this circumstance. And, lest we forget, this still doesn't explain the skid marks indicating an attempted stop.

And let's not overlook a final bit of suggestive evidence which is conspicuous by its absence. UM, of course, was invested in making this seem as mysterious as possible; had there been any evidence, at the home or at the scene, that someone else was with Aileen, it would have been mentioned. To rig an accident scene, the killer would obviously have had to be present at the scene, and he would have had to rig the accelerator. Rigging an accelerator takes a not-insiginficant amount of pressure, to keep a spring-loaded pedal down to the floor. Easy enough to achieve with a length of pipe or something similar wedged between the bottom of the driver's seat and the pedal, but not so easy with just a piece of rope or something easily flammable. And, in any event, the killer would probably want to REMOVE whatever instrument or instruments he used to rig the accelerator from the car, because he could never be sure that they would be burned up totally in the fire, and any indication of their presence would make the killer's intended deception all too obvious. Given that the segment makes no mention of any indication of a rigged accelerator, it's safe to assume there was no evidence left that this had been done. So, it's likely the killer would have retrieved whatever he used AFTER the car had crashed: this would require him getting very close to the car's driver's side, so he could get down to the floor and remove whatever was rigging the car. Now, the road shown in the segment, if not exatly a dirt road, certainly had enough dust, etc., that you could reasonably expect there to be footprints or tire marks from another person or car had there been one. And yet, there was, evidently, no indication of footprints in the dirt outside the vehicle that might indicate the presence of someone else, trying to extricate whatever he had used to rig the accelerator. Nor is there any evidence that the accelerator had in fact been rigged. Further, there is apparently no indication anywhere of footprints leading away from the scene. It's possible that the killer came to the scene with an accomplice who drove them both away, but I think I've shown that rigging an accident scene would still involve a substantial amount of time spent outside for at least one person, and yet there is no indication of that mentioned, probably because it wasn't there.

This is what I mean about the HOW of the murder. I understand that IF the accident was rigged, arson was involved. The question is, can you come up with a specific scenario that accounts for the evidence at the scene in which the accident was rigged. The only way I can see it happening is this:

The killer (or killers), having accidentally attempted to burgle a home that was in fact occupied, is surprised but comes up with a new plan on the fly. First, he (or they) forces Aileen to tell him where certain types of valuables are kept, so this is explains how he is able to steal what he steals without ransacking the home in any obvious way, and without, evidently, disturbing the contents of her purse, which, one would think, would be where her money and credit cards would be. Either our single killer heards Aileen into her car with her and drives off, or one of our two killer does this while the other gets in another car and follows him. By doing this, mind you, they risk being seen outside her home. Somewhere in this time period the lone killer decides he will fake an accident to dispose of Aileen (even though he has apparently stolen everything he wants), or discusses it with his partner and they decide on the same.

At the scene, and this is what I mean when I say that it's not enough to just assert the accident was rigged, any theory that wants to contend that a crime has been committed must account for ALL the evidence available, not just those pieces cherry-picked. In order to explain the skid marks, which indicate an attempt to stop the car, and the lack of any evidence of the accelerator having been rigged or one or more parties having been present in the immediate vicinity of the car, you have to do some pretty significant mental gymnastics:

Our killer (or killers) arrive with Aileen and either knock her unconscious now, or had previously knocked her out. Perhaps he believes he has already killed her, but he has not. He then moves Aileen behind the driver's seat, rigs the accelerator and sends the car hurtling towards a relatively short guard rail some 100-200 yards away, hoping the car will crash into it or go over the bridge of which it is a part. Perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere between her house and the eventual murder scene, the killer or killer have also stopped to purchase some gasoline that can be poured around the inside of the car and used to start a fire, and that, just before the car is send accelerating down the road, the killer removes the gas cap and starts the car ablaze (I still think that it is MORE likely, even in this scenario, that the fire is an unintended consequence of the crash - would you really stop to buy gas in the middle of an unplanned kidnapping?). Before it crashes, Aileen awakes from her stupor, and, in a final desperate attempt to save her life, slams the brakes on, but it is too late. The killer or killers then either leave the scene and hope the evidence that they have rigged the accelrator will burn up completely before the car is discovered, or, if they are smart (and, from what we've seen so far, they must be pretty damn smart and able to think very coolly and very visciously under pressure), remove the materials used to rig the accelerator. Perhaps, IF the car is indeed intentionally set on fire at all, they have not set the car on fire to this point, but do it now. And they do all this without managing to leave any obvious signs that there was one (or more) parties at the scene of the accident.

Oh, and they do all this to someone who they didn't even think they would see. These burglars, by everyone's admission so far (because this is what the segment indicates), normally went into homes where no one was home. So, they got surprised, but managed to keep their heads and not only leave precious little indication that they were ever in the home to begin with, they also come up with this ELABORATE murder plot that perfectly hides that there was a murder at all. They do all this on the fly.

The point is, to say, as I have repeatedly said, this was an accident, all you need to explain is why she was where she was and why she left the house abruptly. To say it was murder, you have to explain HOW it was done in such a way that no direct evidence of murder is present, and how a live person ended up in an automobile that was rigged to accelerate but made no attempt to stop it until the last seconds, when it was far too late. But the attempt WAS made, so you need to explain it.

Mastermind, here is what you offered:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
1. Gas cap was missing
Suggestive, perhaps, but not really proof of anything. It could have been missing for weeks. She was a housewife who probably didn't drive all that far on any given day, and thus probably didn't buy gasoline all that often. Perhaps it had been stolen since the last time she had gotten gas. Why would she even notice it before she got gas again? And perhaps she did notice it, but hadn't gotten around to replacing it yet. Or maybe she didn't care.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
2. Fire was greater and more intense than the average car fire
Because there was no gas cap on the car. WHY there was no gas cap is open to interpretation, but, since we know there wasn't one, this is hardly all that mysterious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
3. She was found miles away from her home.
Again, open to interpretation. Not really evidence of murder by itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
4. There were signs of gasoline dousing on the inside of the car, much more than in the usual accidental fire.
I believe the segment suggests that, since the interior was made of a flame-retardant material and that in lab tests it had to be doused in gasoline in order to light, the interior must have been doused with gasoline. The thing is, that is only a supposition on their part, and anyway I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in the course of the accident, the fuel line in the car burst in one or more places, dousing the engine and undercarriage in gasoline. Whatever could burn there did, and started a fire so intense that, combined with the open gas tank, allowed the fire to burn through to the interior of the car and eventually light it as well. The point is, it isn't nearly as implausible that the car could have caught fire after an accident as the whole "rigging the accident" scenario is, once you make that scenario square with the evidence at the scene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
What evidence do you have of a stroke?
Admittedly, I have none. I am going on likeliest explanation here. I'll say this one more time: people who want to argue murder have to come up with HOW, step by step, the murder was done in a way that accounts for ALL the evidence at the scene. I've offered such an explanation, but it seems highly improbable to me, and seems to go out of its way to envision a murder where a simple accident explains everything so much more easily.

As a final note, I'd like to add that, if you want to argue that Aileen was coereced into being where she was and that in this sense foul play was involved, the SIMPLEST explanation that would account for all the evidence at the scene is that someone for some reason managed to enter her home and abducted her, forcing her to drive him somewhere for some purpose (I'm only speculating, but in this case I would suspect it would not be simple burglary). As they drive along with Aileen behind the wheel, Aileen, perhaps realizing as they get further and further out into nowhere that she's not coming back alive unless she does something to try to escape, tries to crash the car intentionally, only she ends up either killing herself instantly or trapping herself, as a result of the crash, inside the car, and she burns to death when it burns. Or perhaps just by total accident born of her panicked state she crashes the car. In either event, while Aileen is trapped, unconscious, or already dead, the killer, relatively unharmed, espcaes on foot. This would explain the skid marks and makes the accident scene a REAL car crash, not something staged. But it still leaves the question of why there were no fotprints in a dirt road leading away from an accident scene, since the second person (who would not, in this case, have killed her intentionally) in this case would have had to get out of the car and proceed on foot.

Last edited by mozartpc27; 06-25-2009 at 01:50 PM.
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 02:24 PM   #86
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
What evidence do you have of a stroke?

Admittedly, I have none.
That was all I really wanted to know.

Mozart can I ask you something?

Can you list all the evidence in this case?
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 02:58 PM   #87
peachysquirt21
Member
Forum Regular
 
peachysquirt21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Suggestive, perhaps, but not really proof of anything. It could have been missing for weeks. She was a housewife who probably didn't drive all that far on any given day, and thus probably didn't buy gasoline all that often. Perhaps it had been stolen since the last time she had gotten gas. Why would she even notice it before she got gas again? And perhaps she did notice it, but hadn't gotten around to replacing it yet. Or maybe she didn't care.
Just because she is a housewife doesn't mean she did not drive much. It missing for weeks, well I think most people would notice something like this. Just did not care- yeah ok. Sorry but your theories on the gas cap are bit of a stretch IMO.
peachysquirt21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:01 PM   #88
MegtheEgg86
Member
Senior Member
 
MegtheEgg86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 19, 2008
Location: The Volunteer State
Posts: 4,781
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngUMfan
As a young fan of UM who seen this episode, how come no one paid any attention to the post I posted earlier about the reliability of the witness?
I'm sure he was routinely checked out, provided an alibi, and had his story corroborated, as do most individuals who report crime-related incidents. If the farmer was in any way suspicious, I would assume he would figure into the segment far more than the first ten seconds.
MegtheEgg86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:14 PM   #89
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
Mozart can I ask you something?

Can you list all the evidence in this case?
Aileen Conway left her home, apparently abruptly, leaving a drawn bath, a hot iron, the telephone off the hook in her house, the back porch door open, and water running into her pool.

She was found in her car, several miles away from her home on a lonely country road that she had no readily apparent reason for being on. from eveidence at the scene, she was apparently traveling between 50 and 60 mph hour when she hit the guard rail, which can be estimated from skid marks, which themselves indicate there was an attempt to stop the car before it hit the obstruction. The car was found ablaze. The gas cap was missing. A Church bulletin matching the decription of one Aileen's husband claims was in her car was found about 200 yards away from the accident scene. I don't remember if the segment specifies in which direction.

That's about it I think.

Why do you ask?
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2009, 03:17 PM   #90
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Mozart,

Why a stroke?

Why not a heart attack or diabetic shock?

Why did you choose a stroke?

it didn't have anything to do with the fact that it conveniently prevented her from making a 911 did it or speaking into the phone?

You sure you didn't choose a stroke cause it fit the theory? You sure your not cherrypicking?
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 AM.


Frequently Asked Questions

1) How do I contact Unsolved Mysteries with information on segments?

If you any information on cases, you can contact them via:

Website: www.unsolved.com

Contact form on official Unsolved Mysteries site

Please note that their old mailing address and 1-800 phone number no longer work.


2) Where can I watch Unsolved Mysteries?

Lifetime

Lifetime Schedule / Lifetime Site

Escape Schedule / Escape Site


Although the administrators and moderators of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards, nor vBulletin Solutions Inc. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message. The owners of the Sitcoms Online Message Boards reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

VigLink badge

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.