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

truTV Gets 2nd Season of Tacoma FD; I'm Sorry Gets Season 3 on truTV
NBC Fall 2019 Premiere Dates; The CW Fall 2019 Premiere Dates
Netflix Gets Funny with Pranks with Stranger Things Star; Gabrielle Union and Jessica Alba Series Gets 2nd Season
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of June 17, 2019)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Fall Premiere Dates for CBS; CBS and Viacom in Merger Talks Yet Again
Fri-Yay: Reaction to The Good Place Ending; Antenna TV Brings Back Webster, What's Happening!! and What's Happening Now!!
New Chip 'n' Dale Coming to Disney+ in 2020; Inside the Actors Studio Moves to Ovation and Starts with Sitcom-Themed Show


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 01-26-2010, 02:25 PM   #121
Hambone2421
Member
Senior Member
 
Hambone2421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 08, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
Bumping this sucker up.
In my opinion, this is one of those cases where you think you may have a good scenario as to what happened but then there's that 1 bit of information that you cant explain. In my opinion, I believe she walked in on a burglary. Maybe she was upstairs for a while and then came back down to see the burglars. I also believe that she knew at least 1 of the burglars (that's to say that there was more than 1). I also think that she somehow escaped and fled in her car. Maybe one of the assailants jumped into the car with her while the other followed. At some point, the assailant in the car, incapacitated her in some way and eventually murdered her. Either by incapacitating her or by setting the car on fire. My question is why?
Hambone2421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 12:49 AM   #122
Apostapler
Member
Forum Regular
 
Apostapler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 06, 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 860
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone2421
In my opinion, this is one of those cases where you think you may have a good scenario as to what happened but then there's that 1 bit of information that you cant explain. In my opinion, I believe she walked in on a burglary. Maybe she was upstairs for a while and then came back down to see the burglars. I also believe that she knew at least 1 of the burglars (that's to say that there was more than 1). I also think that she somehow escaped and fled in her car. Maybe one of the assailants jumped into the car with her while the other followed. At some point, the assailant in the car, incapacitated her in some way and eventually murdered her. Either by incapacitating her or by setting the car on fire. My question is why?
Maybe she could identify them.
Apostapler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 02:25 AM   #123
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 820
Default

I'm cross-posting in this thread, to make sure this gets read:

This is my problem with all murder theories: there is only the faintest suggestion that the house was even burglarized, let alone that Ayleen herself met burglars and was murdered by them. Lest we forget: her purse was found IN THE HOUSE, apparently intact, including any money or credit cards that might have been inside (had it not been, the UM segment surely would have mentioned that her purse had been tampered with, and perhaps money taken from it). If you broke into a house to steal things, wouldn't a purse be the absolute FIRST thing you'd go for? Also, these alleged burglars must not have been very smart: Ayleen's car obviously had to be at the house since she ended up inside of it and dead; did they not see it and think that someone might be home?

At any event, all the people on here (not just Mastermind) who keep asserting this robber theory have a real evidentiary problem. Everything anybody knows about this case comes from the segment. The segment tells us two things vis-a-vis robbery:

(1) Some homes in the area had been burglarized at an unspecified time supposedly "around" the time of Ayleen's disappearance
(2) Some unspecified time after Ayleen's death, some jewelry was found to be missing from her collection.

Let's take these two one by one. The first is a total non-starter, as it could mean just about anything: how many homes had been burglarized? How close were they to Ayleen's (i.e., how is UM defining the "area" of Ayleen's home?)? And by "around the time" of her death, what are we talking about? Three months before? A week before? Six months after? The UM segment gives no information to answer any of these questions; in short, they provide only the broadest possible suggestion that some burglaries in an area somewhat close to Ayleen's house during a time somewhat close to her death may or may not have been related to her death. Well, in April of 1986, a treaty ended the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War between the Netherlands and Sicily. I think Ayleen may have been assasinated in the political shakeout that followed.

The second is soooo shaky as to be meaningless. Let's say my grandfather in an apparent one-car wreck. Then let's say, some time later (a week? a month?), when I'm going through his things and sorting out his affairs, I notice some semi-valuable cuff links appear to be missing from his collection without explanation? keeping in mind it is totally impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long they have been missing, since he isn't around to ask, what is the MOST LOGICAL conclusion to draw from this information?

a) My grandfather may have lost or sold these cuff links at any time prior to his death.
b) These cuff links may have been stolen - but apparently the robbers who stole them managed to steal NOTHING else - some time prior to his death.
c) My grandfather interrupted burglars who were in the process of robbing his home, getting nothing but some cuff links before they were caught. So, they took him hostage somehow, then drove him out away from the home, and staged a car accident, murdering him. Taking the cuff links, but NOT his wallet or car.

For real, people. There weren't any burglars.
__________________
"You can't say the words that the rock makes you feel like." - Patty Johnson
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 03:48 AM   #124
mattc
Member
Forum Regular
 
mattc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 16, 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mozartpc27
I'm cross-posting in this thread, to make sure this gets read:

This is my problem with all murder theories: there is only the faintest suggestion that the house was even burglarized, let alone that Ayleen herself met burglars and was murdered by them. Lest we forget: her purse was found IN THE HOUSE, apparently intact, including any money or credit cards that might have been inside (had it not been, the UM segment surely would have mentioned that her purse had been tampered with, and perhaps money taken from it). If you broke into a house to steal things, wouldn't a purse be the absolute FIRST thing you'd go for? Also, these alleged burglars must not have been very smart: Ayleen's car obviously had to be at the house since she ended up inside of it and dead; did they not see it and think that someone might be home?

At any event, all the people on here (not just Mastermind) who keep asserting this robber theory have a real evidentiary problem. Everything anybody knows about this case comes from the segment. The segment tells us two things vis-a-vis robbery:

(1) Some homes in the area had been burglarized at an unspecified time supposedly "around" the time of Ayleen's disappearance
(2) Some unspecified time after Ayleen's death, some jewelry was found to be missing from her collection.

Let's take these two one by one. The first is a total non-starter, as it could mean just about anything: how many homes had been burglarized? How close were they to Ayleen's (i.e., how is UM defining the "area" of Ayleen's home?)? And by "around the time" of her death, what are we talking about? Three months before? A week before? Six months after? The UM segment gives no information to answer any of these questions; in short, they provide only the broadest possible suggestion that some burglaries in an area somewhat close to Ayleen's house during a time somewhat close to her death may or may not have been related to her death. Well, in April of 1986, a treaty ended the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War between the Netherlands and Sicily. I think Ayleen may have been assasinated in the political shakeout that followed.

The second is soooo shaky as to be meaningless. Let's say my grandfather in an apparent one-car wreck. Then let's say, some time later (a week? a month?), when I'm going through his things and sorting out his affairs, I notice some semi-valuable cuff links appear to be missing from his collection without explanation? keeping in mind it is totally impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long they have been missing, since he isn't around to ask, what is the MOST LOGICAL conclusion to draw from this information?

a) My grandfather may have lost or sold these cuff links at any time prior to his death.
b) These cuff links may have been stolen - but apparently the robbers who stole them managed to steal NOTHING else - some time prior to his death.
c) My grandfather interrupted burglars who were in the process of robbing his home, getting nothing but some cuff links before they were caught. So, they took him hostage somehow, then drove him out away from the home, and staged a car accident, murdering him. Taking the cuff links, but NOT his wallet or car.

For real, people. There weren't any burglars.
Very well put!!! I totally agree.
mattc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 07:29 AM   #125
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

I agree with Dark Dante when he said we are reaching too far in this case. It was simply a burglary gone bad, IMO.

There's been alot of discussion about skid marks which, according to some, is supposed to prove that Aeileen wasn't murdered. This doesn't prove that Aeileen wasn't murdered. It may prove the car was going 50-60mph at best, and that's it. I believe it's possible Aeileen was being chased by burglars and encountered a deer, and swerved to avoid it, thus explaining the skid marks and the crash. And while that could be classified as an accident, doesn't mean that the burglars are completely innocent here.

There are just too many problems with the state the house was left in, which I will list now.
1. the iron was on which runs the risk of burning the house down and killing anyone who may have come home and not realized it was on.
2. the sliding door was open, which would be an invitation to intruders.
3. her purse was left behind. As stated in the Charlotte Pollis segment, it is very unlikely a woman goes anywhere without her purse. All of her important items are in there, including driver's license and payment methods.
4. her glasses are left behind. It is not known if these are regular glasses or reading glasses, but it can be concluded she would need them at some point.
5. you leave the bathtub running and hose running, risking the flooding of your house.
6. all of above points have been rationalized by some that she left these behind while leaving the house in an emergency while seeking medical attention. However, I find it extremely unlikely that she would leave the house as opposed to calling for help/seeking a neighbor. If someone is in great pain or in need of medical assistance, they are much better off calling for help or getting someone else to assist them rather than driving themselves, explained by these subpoints.
a. you run the risk of killing yourself because you aren't in a proper state to drive.
b. you run the risk of killing other people, putting yourself in potential legal jeopardy.
c. you run the risk of your illness/affliction worsening and getting to the point where you are no longer able to drive and are forced to rely on the chance that someone driving by will help you, as critical minutes continue to tick by.
d. you decide that driving yourself somewhere is easier than picking up a phone, calling 911 and saying i need help, or going to next door where they can tell you obviously need attention and they can call for help.
e. it requires you to drive in an area of town you are not familiar with, running the risk of you being lost as precious moments tick by.
f. you run the risk of your illness distorting your sense of direction.

And when you combine all that with rash of burglaies in neighbohood, jewerly was missing and no known indications of suicide, it suggests that burlglars were involved. Now you could take any one of those points in and of itself and write it off as a coincidence or say it is unimpotant, but to write off all of those points I just mentioned as coincidence is just utterly too conveinent.

Mozart to answer some of your questions.

1. No, a purse would probably not be the first thing a burglar is going to go for in a house. Stealing checks and credit cards is not a great idea because they are pretty easily traced. There might be some cash in there, but a suburban housewife with 7 kids probably doesn't have an excess amount of money in there. Jewerly (which was stolen) would be a better bet because it
is much more valuable, not easily traced (unless it is unique) and can be easily transported.

2. you state that a car was left at home, therefore any potential burglars would conclude the house is occupied. I say that is not the case. If her car is left at home, she could have easily gotten a ride with someone to wherever she wanted to go. Additionally, families often travel together, and don't take separate cars all the time. For a burglar to conclude that a house is occupied because a car is there is not the greatest idea.

3. Granted I nor anyone else can prove things such as Aeleen's jewerly was stolen, it was related to the burglaries in the area (which were nearby both in location and date) and things like that. But on the flip side of the coin, you can't prove that they weren't. That is the thing about this case, and others. While we can't prove anything, neither can you.

4. You seem pretty confident in your beliefs, going so far as to say "I've just about solved this case." If that is the case, have you ever considered contacting the Lawton, OK police department? Because if you have solved the case, I'm sure they would like to hear about it.
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 12:43 PM   #126
Hambone2421
Member
Senior Member
 
Hambone2421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 08, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mozartpc27
I'm cross-posting in this thread, to make sure this gets read:

This is my problem with all murder theories: there is only the faintest suggestion that the house was even burglarized, let alone that Ayleen herself met burglars and was murdered by them. Lest we forget: her purse was found IN THE HOUSE, apparently intact, including any money or credit cards that might have been inside (had it not been, the UM segment surely would have mentioned that her purse had been tampered with, and perhaps money taken from it). If you broke into a house to steal things, wouldn't a purse be the absolute FIRST thing you'd go for? Also, these alleged burglars must not have been very smart: Ayleen's car obviously had to be at the house since she ended up inside of it and dead; did they not see it and think that someone might be home?

At any event, all the people on here (not just Mastermind) who keep asserting this robber theory have a real evidentiary problem. Everything anybody knows about this case comes from the segment. The segment tells us two things vis-a-vis robbery:

(1) Some homes in the area had been burglarized at an unspecified time supposedly "around" the time of Ayleen's disappearance
(2) Some unspecified time after Ayleen's death, some jewelry was found to be missing from her collection.

Let's take these two one by one. The first is a total non-starter, as it could mean just about anything: how many homes had been burglarized? How close were they to Ayleen's (i.e., how is UM defining the "area" of Ayleen's home?)? And by "around the time" of her death, what are we talking about? Three months before? A week before? Six months after? The UM segment gives no information to answer any of these questions; in short, they provide only the broadest possible suggestion that some burglaries in an area somewhat close to Ayleen's house during a time somewhat close to her death may or may not have been related to her death. Well, in April of 1986, a treaty ended the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War between the Netherlands and Sicily. I think Ayleen may have been assasinated in the political shakeout that followed.

The second is soooo shaky as to be meaningless. Let's say my grandfather in an apparent one-car wreck. Then let's say, some time later (a week? a month?), when I'm going through his things and sorting out his affairs, I notice some semi-valuable cuff links appear to be missing from his collection without explanation? keeping in mind it is totally impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long they have been missing, since he isn't around to ask, what is the MOST LOGICAL conclusion to draw from this information?

a) My grandfather may have lost or sold these cuff links at any time prior to his death.
b) These cuff links may have been stolen - but apparently the robbers who stole them managed to steal NOTHING else - some time prior to his death.
c) My grandfather interrupted burglars who were in the process of robbing his home, getting nothing but some cuff links before they were caught. So, they took him hostage somehow, then drove him out away from the home, and staged a car accident, murdering him. Taking the cuff links, but NOT his wallet or car.

For real, people. There weren't any burglars.
She could have interrupted the burglary right at the beginning before anything was stolen. She could have recognized one or both of the burglars (assuming there was more than one). If this occured, odfds are, burglarizing the house takes a back seat as they try to hush the only witness to the crime.
Hambone2421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 05:17 PM   #127
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 820
Default

A long post, wiseguy, and well-taken. Allow me to respond to the salient points, but not necessarily in order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
4. You seem pretty confident in your beliefs, going so far as to say "I've just about solved this case." If that is the case, have you ever considered contacting the Lawton, OK police department? Because if you have solved the case, I'm sure they would like to hear about it.
First, let me start by saying that I know I have at times behaved badly, particularly in this thread. I was rather pleased with myself and my theory back when I first came up with it, and I let that show, which is uncharacteristic for me if you knew me personally. For this I apologize.

It's true that, perhaps, I've become a little too-attached to my theory, and am not tolerant enough of alternative explanations of this case. Again, I apologize for this. But, let me also explain that my behavior with respect to this case is not born of contempt for others, but rather of my passion for the thing that turns me on most about UM: the possibility of being presented with a real puzzle that, if just enough logic and clear thinking is employed, can be solved. Obviously, this is an overly romanticized version of things; we are never given enough information to solve these cases on our wits alone; if we were, they wouldn't be unsolved, would they? Nevertheless, my passion for the orderly thinking through of evidence, for correctly identifying what is and, just as importantly, is not relevant or reliable, and for designing narrative that account for all the facts in a case while using as LITTLE conjecture as possible is what draws me to UM. With that in mind, let's turn to Aeileen Conway and the case for attempted robbery as the proximate cause of her death just one more time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy182
3. Granted I nor anyone else can prove things such as Aeleen's jewerly was stolen, it was related to the burglaries in the area (which were nearby both in location and date) and things like that. But on the flip side of the coin, you can't prove that they weren't. That is the thing about this case, and others. While we can't prove anything, neither can you.
Let's talk about the process of developing a theory (of anything) for the moment. The more conjectures (the polite term for "guesses") one makes about something, anything, the more one introduces the probability of error. So, if I come home and my wife isn't home and I guess that she went to the store, I have a certain probability, let's call it 1/x, where x>1, of being correct. If there is no direct evidence that she went with anyone, but I guess that she did go with a friend, I've introduced another variable, which has it's own percentage of being right or wrong. Let's call this probability 1/y, where y>1. So now, my overall probability of being right is (1/x) * (1/y). If either guess, for example, is a 50/50 chance, and I make two of them, my probability of being right on both is 1/4. The more factors you add, the higher your probability of being wrong becomes.

What I am leading toward here is the difference between proof and probability. No, I can't *prove* that Aeileen didn't interrupt a burglary, and you can't *prove* that she did. This does not mean, however, we shouldn't evaluate which is more likely. Now, first, I must call your attention to process: one can NEVER prove a negative. It isn't logically possible. For example, I can't prove that horizontally striped tigers DON'T exist. Yet we are all reasonably confident that they don't. That's because, in the collective experience of humanity, such a creature has never once been sighted. The burden of proof, then, for the existence of horizontally striped tigers is not on me. Anyone wishing to claim that they DO exist needs to be able to show it. The more evidence they provide, the greater the probability of their existence becomes. Until someone produces incontroveritable proof of the existence of such creatures - such as a living example or a recent carcass - we can never be sure. But what we can do is evaluate the probability that they DO exist versus the probability that they DON'T.

Similarly, as there is no incontriveritable evidence Aileen was ever accompanied at any time during the day of her death (say, in the form of foreign fingerprints or DNA), the burden of proof for this claim lies with those who would make it. We know there is no incontriveritable evidence anyone else was with her because, had it been in any way obvious that someone else had been inside of her home with her or inside of her car with her on the day of her death, the UM segment surely would have mentioned it, and Pat Conway certainly would have brought such evidence to the attention of the police. So, the next step is to identify what, if any, evidence there is that anyone else was there.

So, let's apply these principles of rational thought and use of evidence to Aieleen's specific case. The only thing even resembling direct evidence that anyone MIGHT have been with Aieleen that day is that some jewelry turned out to be missing; however, as this was only discovered some time after her death, it can hardly be taken as conclusive. In addition to this observation, the segment offers the vague notion that some burglaries had occurred in the same general area at the same general time as Aieleen's death as a way of bolstering the idea that the missing jewelry may have been stolen, and that it is possible there was an interrupted burglary at the center of this event. I say "vague" because the UM segment is perilously unspecific about exactly WHEN or WHERE these burglaries occurred - that's not my opinon, it's the fact of the matter.

Now let's think about this supposed burglary. As I've already mentioned, had such an attempt been in any way obvious, it presumably would have been reported that same day by Pat Conway to the police, and, even if he hadn't, he would certainly have mentioned the evidence of a break-in to UM, which in turn would have mentioned it in the segment. So, I think it's pretty safe to say that, if someone broke in, it wasn't obvious to anyone. This doesn't necessarily prove anything, of course; surely I could walk into any one of my neighbor's homes today, provided they weren't home and the door was unlocked, and take some small item or two, and it might be days before anyone noticed what was missing, and there would be no other direct evidence that I had ever been there. But, the point here is, burglars don't typically attempt to HIDE the fact that there has been a burglary - to do that, they'd need to steal un-obvious things that were kept in plain sight, or else be very careful about putting things back more or less exactly how they were found. We can't be entirely sure, but it's a good bet the burglaries that occurred near Aieleen's house - whenever and wherever it was that they happened - were not cleverly concealed. Obviously, people figured out there had been burglaries - that's how we know they happened in the first place!

So, it's much safer to assume the burglars, if they existed, came into Aieleen's home without the specific intent of attempting to hide the fact that they had in fact robbed the place. Now, let's say they get inside, but shortly after gaining access, Aieleen surprises them. Apparently, I guess, her next step is to run and get on the telephone and call the police, but the burglars prevent that from happening. They do NOT, at this point, make her hang up the phone. They DO, however, make her hand over jewelry, but in such a way that it's not obvious her things had been disturbed. Why would they be careful about this with respect to the jewelry, but not the telephone? And why would they require only her jewelry of her, and nothing else?

The point is, there simply isn't any evidence Aieleen was not alone in her house that day, just as there is no evidence that there was anyone else present when she crashed. And yet, people have built up a whole narrative about Aieleen interrupting a burglary, fleeing her own home, and then being either chased for NINETEEN MILES (!) by these burglars until she crashed, or somehow being forced to drive out to that secluded location, where she was murdered either by leaving her alone in a careening and out-of-control automobile which crashed, trapping her inside, or by killing her and then staging this accident. All this from some jewelry that turned out to be missing some time after her death, and from a vague description of some burglaries in the area that no one has any information about other than "gut feelings" that they were somehow related to her death.

This narrative adds in one unfounded guess after another; it's frustrating to me to see people who are apparently unable to grasp why these unsupported suppositions are unlikely, and only get more unliklely each time a new element is added.

I love logic and probability, probably too much I guess, and that's why I get excited. I don't mean to be rude. I just want people to acknowledge the ramifications of their theories, and the increasing unlikeliness with each new element which supposes the existence of second and third parties, the existence of which are in no way supported by the facts as we know them.
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2010, 07:32 PM   #128
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

actually I don;t think her's was the house that was the target of the burgulars.

Most likely Ayleen stumbled upon these burgulars while they were robbing a neigbors house. She was going back and forth to check on the pool, she may have noticed these men in the neighbors yard or even in her own yard.

Mozart a couple of questions

1. Would you agree that for your "stroke theory" to work, the ailment would have to be a stroke and nothing else?

2. Would you also agree that this stroke and Ayleen's actions as a result of this stroke would be unusual in terms of the ailments. Not within the norms. That your stroke requires some very specific symptoms to allow Ayleen to wind up in the burning car miles from her home.

3. Would you also agree that the only alternative to foul play would be this stroke theory? That there is no other theory that would explain accidental death.

4. Would you also agree that your stroke theory is basically unprovable since ayleen's body was burned to a crisp. There will be no autopsy or evidence to disprove your theory, nor prove it. You are holding this theory from the advantage that there is missing evidence in terms of the autopsy.

5. Would you agree that our theory is actually provable since we can still find our asailants and they can explain to us the whole murder.

6. Would you also agree that the only defense of your theory and whole in our theory is that assailants haven't been captured yet? A situation that could change any day?

7. Do you believe that your theory may be based on incomplete or missing evidence. Do you believe that all the evidence in this case is present? None of it destroyed or waiting to be found.

8. Would you agree that the basis of your stroke theory is mostly based around a need for a non-homicidal reason for Ayleen;s sudden departure and the phone being off the hook. Two things that could be explained via other methods.

Mozart, I like you and think you are a very intelligent person. And if you read my posts in regards to the Cindy James case and the Wackers I have sided that there are no attackers. So contrary to what you may think, I'm not one to jump at murder if there is no murder.

If I felt that this case was not a murder I would tell you and even defend your viewpoint. But in this case there is too much circumstantial evidence (and no phsyical evidence period in either scenario!) to point to foul play. I usually go by the rule of threes here. There are three unusual and abnormal events in this case. The odds that all these events can be explained away is highly improbable.
1. The sudden departure from the home while doing chores
2. The missing gas cap
3. The unusually large fire
4. The fact that the body and car were found so far off from the house.

What are the odds that a stroke could cause all four of these things to happen.

If she had a stroke, the following things are more likely to happen
1. Have died right on the floor as most people do.
2. She could have ran to her fence or another car in the mad dash she went to drive out.
3. The stroke could not have been serious enough to impair speech and seh waits for 911. Or actually makes the call and then drives the car and the paramedics arrive at the scene and record the call.
4. She gets caught by the police for speeding
5. Her car crashes but the fire is small or there is no fire at all and she expires.
6. Or she even makes it to the hospital and lives in the same miraculous display of human fortitude that you have her displaying in your theory.


The bugular theory is a line of investigation into foul play in this case. So far there has not been another line of investigation or supsect, but that could also change. Remember, that new evidence can always pop up in a case. Never assume that the evidence you have is all there ever will be.

Considering that the burgulary case was already open at the time, there was already an investigation there.

BTW doesn;t everyone find it strange that the burgularies have not been solved?

Makes you wonder if they went into hiding...I wonder why?
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2010, 02:35 AM   #129
wiseguy182
Member
Senior Member
 
wiseguy182's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 11, 2006
Location: Wendy's salad bar
Posts: 6,907
Default

Mozart,

to answer all of your questions about the possible burglary (why wasn't it an obvious burglary?, why did they just take jewelry?, isn't it far-fetched they chased her 19 miles) can all be explained by one thing several of us have said from the start: the burglary was interrupted by Aileen, it went bad. The burglary was not finished.

1. this explains why just jewelry was taken and why it may not have been an obvious burglary, they didn't have time for anything else, especially since they may have chased her for 19 miles. That's 38 miles round-trip. Her vehicle was found around 10:45 I believe, and Pat Conway returned home in the 12:00 hour (IIRC), so they wouldn't have had excess time to hang around in there.

2. Some have speculated that Aeileen may have attempted to call for help first, then ran out. I don't know, I think I would get the heck out of dodge rather than call for help in the same house some intruders are in. I've never been in that situation, but I think I would flee, or at the very least, go for a neighbor's house. So I'm not actually surprised that Aeileen left, I think she made the smart decision there. And the burglars knew if she could identify them, they could possible be tied to all of the other burglaries in the area, they had alot gambling on this one, and I think they decided to get rid of Aeileen (tragically).

3. they speculated the car was going 50-60 when it crashed, which is about speed limit in a lot of areas. It was mentioned awhile back that a chase would have had witnesses, but I don't believe this one would have been. they both would have been going about speed limit, so it probably wasn't suspicious to any passersby.

4. One possible explanation for why she was found in a place she never traveled before was because she was trying to throw the burglars off by taking alot of turns.

5. you talked about how unlikely it was for the burglars to chase Aeileen for 19 miles. on the flip side, I think it's unlikely that Aeileen, in need of desperate medical attention, would drive at least 19 miles, + whatever the distance was from where she was found to the hospital. This is where it starts getting into Larry Race territory where you have someone going to superhuman efforts according to your story.
wiseguy182 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 09:13 AM   #130
CeeAlicia
Member
Occasional Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8
Default

Hi all--brand new, but I've read this whole thread and watched the segment this morning, and had some thoughts.

If you're a burgular and you get caught, and you don't have any weapon on your person with which to easily eliminate an eyewitness, why the heck would you go to the ridiculous amount of trouble these burgulars would have had to go to to kill Aeileen?

Why wouldn't you just flee and take the chance of going to jail for a short term for burgulary instead of attempting some VERY risky staged accident/homicide for which you could be caught and imprisoned for a MUCH longer period?

Also, as Mozart has pointed out numerous times, there was no physical evidence at the scene of the accident that would indicate anyone else's presence. No footprints, no other tire tracks, nothing that we have been made aware of. I'm sorry but a church bulletin that could have been dropped there at any time by anyone is not enough to indicate foul play.

If you don't want to accept the medical emergency theory (and I do agree with the person that pointed out that she could easily have gone to a neighbor for help instead of risking driving on her own) and are dead set that a burgulary was interrupted--a burgulary in which the assailant managed to get in the house and go straight for the jewelry box before being noticed--then perhaps this assailant did immediately flee, and for whatever reason (perhaps Aeileen DID know the person), she decides to give chase. Maybe the burgular was on foot and Aeileen got in her car thinking she would overtake him, followed him all the way out to this area and then lost control of the car? I don't know, but that also seems incredibly farfetched and requires a lot of extra thinking about why she didn't catch up to the guy much sooner.

The whole rigged accelerator theory seems extremely complicated, if not impossible based on the skid marks and the lack of any rigging device being found, AND the lack of evidence of any other persons or cars at the scene.

I could agree that she may have seen the burgular/s attempting to enter someone else's home, but that begs the same question I first asked--WHY wouldn't that burgular (if he didn't have a gun or knife on him) just flee instead of attempting some strange rigged accident, which WOULD require him having quick access to a rigging device for the accelerator AND an accelerant with which to set the interior of the car on fire? Why would he have these things, but not a gun or knife?

I think the idea of some sort of emergency drawing Aeileen from the house is the simplest. It would be interesting to see what, if anything, was found in their phone records that day. Maybe Aeileen took the phone off the hook so as not to be interrupted in her bath (which is kind of a weird thing to do, but apparently people have done that), then suffered her emergency or disorientation in another room, and forgetting that the phone was off the hook attempted to dial 911 but could not get a dial tone?

Did the police secure the house and search it for physical evidence of any outside persons? If so, they must not have found any or they must have withheld it from the public.

There are definitely a lot of wild scenarios that COULD be applied to this case, but the physical evidence that we have been made privy to only seems to support Aeileen alone being the cause of her demise. There is some strange and questionable circumstancial evidence that could point to lots of different things, but circumstancial evidence is not enough to go on, which is why it isn't acceptable for a court of law. Also, as mozart pointed out, it is impossible to prove a negative--this is why our court system places the burden of proof on the prosecution and not the defense. No, I can't prove with 100% certainty that outside assailants were NOT involved, but those who feel foul play occurred should be able to prove conclusively that there WERE before you cry homicide.

The only way this works as a homicide is if it was planned far in advance with lots of time for setting up the incident. And if this were the case, what was the motive? Why target Aeileen? We have no information that she or her husband had any enemies, but for me that is the only way this could work as a murder, and even then--why were there skid marks? As far as a gas cap being missing, someone pointed out that it could have blown off as the car went up in flames. Or it could have been lost at an earlier point in time--I can assure you that a missing gas cap wouldn't cause me that much grief if it had only been lost for a couple of days or so. I just don't care about stuff like that when compared to my other daily responsibilities. Maybe Aeileen was the same way?

Sorry for the long first post, but this case is driving me nuts!
CeeAlicia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 12:43 PM   #131
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 820
Default

So, I've been out of commission for awhile, for no real reason except that I've been busy. Actually, I've been re-watching some old segments and had thoughts on several, but just didn't have the time or inclination to get involved in posting long narratives concerning them. I still have more to say on Tommy Ziegler, and am intrigued by Russell Evans, for example. There are others I've watched recently that I wanted to say some things about, but I can't think of them off-hand at the moment, and I'm going to be pretty busy for the next several days, so I doubt I will get to them.

But I needed to respond to this, because - *sniff* - CeeAlicia at least understood where I was coming from. That makes me happy.

But I also wanted to respond to Mastermind and wiseguy by thanking them for the kind words, and assuring them both that I LIKE YOU TOO!!!! I just get carried away sometimes by my own frustration.

I'll admit that the question "Why didn't Aieleen go to a neighbor if she was feeling ill?" question, which I had somehow missed before, is a good one. Still, I think that can be readily explained by suggesting either confusion on her part or perhaps positing that no immediate neighbors were home, and she didn't feel she had the time to go knocking door to door until she found somebody.

I just don't see evidence of other parties, either at her home or at the accident scene, and to assume that to be true without any evidence just seems to me to be an unreasonable leap of faith.
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 01:15 PM   #132
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Quote:
I think the idea of some sort of emergency drawing Aeileen from the house is the simplest. It would be interesting to see what, if anything, was found in their phone records that day. Maybe Aeileen took the phone off the hook so as not to be interrupted in her bath (which is kind of a weird thing to do, but apparently people have done that), then suffered her emergency or disorientation in another room, and forgetting that the phone was off the hook attempted to dial 911 but could not get a dial tone?

And she drove normally through her driveway for hours and everything just falls apart the moment she's miles away from any hospital or any place she knows????

What kind of ailment would allow someone to operate like that? Why was she not found closer to the hospital? Why did poilice or nobody else see someone speeding and weaving like a madman?


If you ask me the emergency situation is the theory that's farfetched.

Quote:
Why wouldn't you just flee and take the chance of going to jail for a short term for burgulary instead of attempting some VERY risky staged accident/homicide for which you could be caught and imprisoned for a MUCH longer period?

1. Because they weren't wearing masks. Contrary to movies, Most burgulars do not wear masks when committing robberies. Especially in the day, when wearing a mask causes more suspicion. They also didn;t wear masks because they didn;t expect anybody to be home.

2. It also shouldn't be ruled out that these people could be locals that ayleen recognized. Making the need to kill her even more important.

3. Keep in mind that these were a series of robberies. It's not just this one they could get caught for but several others. If the criminals have priors or are even wanted fugutives, the jail time could be extremely long and could warrant a murder been done to get out of jail.

4. It may have not been their intention to kill Ayleen. They may have just wanted to hold her hostage for a while until they come up with a plan. Ayleen may have changed things by struggling in the car. Hence they had no choice but to kill her and burn the car.

5. The more likely scenario is that they took her hostage and one robber drobve in the car with her while another was in a follow car(the one the arrived with at the burgulary scene). Either Ayleen got into a struggle and the car crashed or they killed her and decided to burn the car at the spot.

Quote:
Also, as Mozart has pointed out numerous times, there was no physical evidence at the scene of the accident that would indicate anyone else's presence. No footprints, no other tire tracks, nothing that we have been made aware of. I'm sorry but a church bulletin that could have been dropped there at any time by anyone is not enough to indicate foul play.
They most likely were not robbing Ayleen's house but a house nearby. Ayleen most likely came across them when she was filling the pool. Or even through the window while she was filling the bath. Ayleen may have walked over to them to investigate. The conversation was probably civil, but became dire once ayleen put two and two together. Hence the criminals saw the need to take Ayleen as a hostage.

2. If they have a gun there really is no need to struggle. The criminals can enter into ayleens house like any other person that would be invited. In fact you could make an argument that the criminals don;t have to enter the hous at all. Only one guy needs to enter in to watch Ayleen as she gets her car keys. No real evidence would be left in the house. Any struggle probably happened outside.

3. There is absolutely no evidence that Ayleen suffered a serious medical ailments.

Quote:
If you're a burgular and you get caught, and you don't have any weapon on your person with which to easily eliminate an eyewitness, why the heck would you go to the ridiculous amount of trouble these burgulars would have had to go to to kill Aeileen?
Because if you shoot Ayleen on the spot, it definitely is a murder and you have a homicide charge. If you drive ayleen in her car all the way out in the sticks and set the car on fire, you have an accident. No homicide charge. A simple easy plan that criminals have done all the time. It also seems to have worked since apparently several people on this board believe it was an accident.

Quote:
The whole rigged accelerator theory seems extremely complicated, if not impossible based on the skid marks and the lack of any rigging device being found, AND the lack of evidence of any other persons or cars at the scene.
Wouln;t the fire have destroyed most of that evidence. Wouldn;t the firetrucks and first responders also destroy a lot of that evidence.

Don't you also run into the problem of why Ayleen didn;t leave skid marks speeding out of her driveway to save herself.

It is not unusual to not find skid marks or evidence of another car. A lot of it depends on the terrain, whether temperature and whether the evidence is damaged by other vehicles.

Quote:
I could agree that she may have seen the burgular/s attempting to enter someone else's home, but that begs the same question I first asked--WHY wouldn't that burgular (if he didn't have a gun or knife on him) just flee instead of attempting some strange rigged accident, which WOULD require him having quick access to a rigging device for the accelerator AND an accelerant with which to set the interior of the car on fire? Why would he have these things, but not a gun or knife?
How do you know he doesn;t have a gun or a knife. At the very least he does have a "burglars" kit which may have a device or tools that can be used for rigging. The burgular may also very well be a mechanic, electrician, or plumber (as a quite a lot of them are).


We also don;t know what other tools are in the other car that followed Ayleen. The other car may havew tools, gas funnel, etc.

The gas in Ayleens own car would make do as an accelerant. That is apparently what the police thought themselves.

Quote:
The only way this works as a homicide is if it was planned far in advance with lots of time for setting up the incident. And if this were the case, what was the motive? Why target Aeileen? We have no information that she or her husband had any enemies, but for me that is the only way this could work as a murder, and even then--why were there skid marks? As far as a gas cap being missing, someone pointed out that it could have blown off as the car went up in flames. Or it could have been lost at an earlier point in time--I can assure you that a missing gas cap wouldn't cause me that much grief if it had only been lost for a couple of days or so. I just don't care about stuff like that when compared to my other daily responsibilities. Maybe Aeileen was the same way?
To set up the fire and kill Ayleen takes no time at all. It's a lot easier than you think. You or I coulod do it if we killed someone by accident. Rigging an accelerator is also very easy. Several people have done this on the spot to fake insurance claims and hide DUIs.

If you ask every arson investigator or police detective a missing gas cap is a huge pointer in fires being set. It practically guarantees that a criminal investigation must be initiated.

I can;t stress enough that an experienced arson investigator has said that this fire was set intentionally. Someone with much more know how that any of us, including myself. Listening to his reasoning, I have to concur with his views.

It is not out of the realm that Ayleen was killed premeditatedly by someone. There has been no evidence of a person that would have it

Since the burgulars that commited the robbers have not been found or arrested yet. It makes more sense to follow that line of homicide since those cases at the time where open.

Should there be some other lead involving a potential suspect, that lead can be investigated concurrently with the burgular theory. There's no rule in investigations saying you can't investigate more than one possibility, you know? It's merely a manpower issue.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 01:34 PM   #133
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 820
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
Keep in mind that these were a series of robberies. It's not just this one they could get caught for but several others. If the criminals have priors or are even wanted fugutives, the jail time could be extremely long and could warrant a murder been done to get out of jail.
The segment said there had been some burglaries "in the weeks and months" (that's a direct quote from the segment) leading up to this incident with Aieleen. The segment offers no further information about where these burglaries occurred in relation to Aieleen's home - we're given the general impression that they were "in the neighborhood," but that's it - nor are we given any other information to suggest that all these other burglaries were necessarily related to each other, let alone to this case. In short, you have stated, as fact, that "these were a series of robberies." In actual point of fact, you don't know that to be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
I can;t stress enough that an experienced arson investigator has said that this fire was set intentionally. Someone with much more know how that any of us, including myself. Listening to his reasoning, I have to concur with his views.
I cannot stress enough that the arson investigator does NOT say "this fire was set intentionally." He says that there are certain elements of the scene that are more consistent with arson than not, but he does not say the fire was definitely set intentionally. He simply cannot prove that it was. He suspects it is quite possible, but that's as far as he goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
Should there be some other lead involving a potential suspect, that lead can be investigated concurrently with the burgular theory. There's no rule in investigations saying you can't investigate more than one possibility, you know? It's merely a manpower issue.
We should all keep an open mind, granted. But let me give you an example of how keeping an open mind to the point of assuming facts not in evidence can open up pretty much ANY possibility:

We only "know" that the house was found the way it was because, presumably, that's what Pat Conway says he (or his children, it's kind of unclear) found when he/they got home. What if he's lying? What if the children were lying? What if one kid got home first, and started filling the pool, but didn't know what had happened to his Mom yet? Maybe the pool-filling was unrelated to the rest of it. Maybe there are perfectly boring explanations for every one of these things. I could go on like this. If I'm willing to assume anything, anything becomes possible. Maybe Pat Conway set this whole thing up. Maybe he murdered her after the kids left for school, set up the accident scene, then went to work.

And maybe there were burglars there. Or crack-assassins. Or aliens. Or ghosts. Maybe Aieleen knew something about the Kennedy assassination.
And on and on and on.

All we KNOW is that Aieleen was in the house, and Aieleen died in that car alone, and that car hit the guard rail going 50-60MPH.
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 02:30 PM   #134
Mastermind
Member
Senior Member
 
Mastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 16, 2008
Posts: 1,842
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
I can;t stress enough that an experienced arson investigator has said that this fire was set intentionally. Someone with much more know how that any of us, including myself. Listening to his reasoning, I have to concur with his views.

I cannot stress enough that the arson investigator does NOT say "this fire was set intentionally." He says that there are certain elements of the scene that are more consistent with arson than not, but he does not say the fire was definitely set intentionally. He simply cannot prove that it was. He suspects it is quite possible, but that's as far as he goes.
That's how investigators say they suspect something, mozart. He's saying he suspects arson. That is the opinion. If he didn;t suspect arson he would have said "I see no evidence to suggest arson or any crimninal activity". The fact that he didn;t say that means that it is his opinion that the fire was set via arson.


Quote:
The segment said there had been some burglaries "in the weeks and months" (that's a direct quote from the segment) leading up to this incident with Aieleen. The segment offers no further information about where these burglaries occurred in relation to Aieleen's home - we're given the general impression that they were "in the neighborhood," but that's it - nor are we given any other information to suggest that all these other burglaries were necessarily related to each other, let alone to this case. In short, you have stated, as fact, that "these were a series of robberies." In actual point of fact, you don't know that to be true.
Are you saying there were no burgularies investigated by the department of record?

I don't see how it matters whether the burgularies are are all done by the same crew or person. If there are 10 different. we just need one of these guys to be the one that gets interrupted by Ayleen.

I also seriously doubt that all these burgularies are first offenses by the perpetrators.

Weeks and months in between and in different jurisdictions is actually how most robbers operate...they space out there attempts and try to do them in different jurisdictions.

More than likely these bugularies are connected and most of them if not all are done by the same people.

Quote:
We should all keep an open mind, granted. But let me give you an example of how keeping an open mind to the point of assuming facts not in evidence can open up pretty much ANY possibility:
I'm not opening up to any possibility in this case. I've already considered the "mysterious ailment theory" as invalid and improbable. Unless someone can provide phsyical evidence that Ayleen suffered some attack, I consider that to be an example of opening your mind to ANY possibility despite it being farfetched.

I consider there enough evidence to suggest that the fire was intentionally set. As to whom killed Ayleen, that is open to debate.

Considering the police have brought up the possibility of burgulary...this seems like a good line of which to investigate and determine if more leads and evidence develop.

Quote:
And maybe there were burglars there. Or crack-assassins. Or aliens. Or ghosts. Maybe Aieleen knew something about the Kennedy assassination.
And on and on and on.
Actually Ayleen seing a ghost or an alien would explain your accident theory better. Maybe Ayleen saw Mothman, decided that she had to leave and escape this creature flying over head. In the heat of escape she hit the accelarator and died in the fire.

Makes a lot more sense than her having a stroke.

Quote:
All we KNOW is that Aieleen was in the house, and Aieleen died in that car alone, and that car hit the guard rail going 50-60MPH.
1. We don;t know that she was alone in the car when it hit the rail. Most of the evidence was destroyed in the massive fire.
2. we don't know that she died in the car. The fire destroyed the evidence.

A better way to describe the evidence in this case is this
1. We have a middle aged woman who suddenly vanished from her home with only her car keys and the rest of the house left with appliances and water running in the pool (indicating that she was moving back and forth from the outside)
2. the phone was off the hook and no attempt at calling 911.
3. Ayleens car was found miles away in a part of the country that she had never been to.
4. Ayleens body was consumed in a fire that was so intense that it fused the car to the guard rail. The gas cap was also missing. Arson investigator believes there is evidence of gasoline being doused on the inside.
5. Friends and family recieved no calls from Ayleen prior to the departure. No explanation has been found for the departure.
6. House was found left open. No physical evidence of intruders. Husband claims some items missing from the house.
7. No autopsy was able to be performed due to the fire. Cause of death is unknown.
9. No signs of illness were found inside the house. No vomiting, blood from Ayleen.

As cases go, we are missing two vital pieces of evidence.
1. The cause of death
2. The evidence inside the car. Which would actually techincally the murder scene, not the house.

With those examples of evidence missing, any theory made would be based on incomplete evidence. The decision that needs to be made is whether there is enough evidence to overrule homicide. And the answer to that question is that there is none. In fact the fire evidence lends itself to criminal activity. Hence a criminal investigation must be initiated If later evidence is found to prove accidental death, the investigation can always be suspended and closed.

If the decision is made to proceed with a murderd investigation. These possibilities must be followed in this order
1. The husband, friends and immediate family members must be looked at and cleared.
2. Stranger or intruder murder must be looked at. Rape, bugulary, home invasion. Are there repeat incidents of rape, home invasion or bugulary withing the county limits? Answer, yes bugularies reported within the radius and within the time frame of a year. Possible connection must be investiigated. Coordinate activities and evidence with any existing robbery investigations.
3. Pscyhotic attack. Serial killer. Are there any similar murders prior or after Ayleen;'s death?


Considering that 1 & 3 have provided no leads. #2 remains the best lead and most likely lead on a possible homicide investigation.

IMHO, this is actually one of the better examples of police work and dediuction done by police on UM. Granted a suspect hasn;t been found yet, but they followed a logical process in this case and arrived at the best line of investigation.
Mastermind is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 07:46 PM   #135
CeeAlicia
Member
Occasional Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 09, 2010
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 8
Default

That must be one boy scout of a burgular! He comes PREPARED! I'm sorry, Mastermind, I've read your posts in the Wacker thread and I can see that you're very smart and you really think things through, but I'm going to have to go with mozart on this one.

How come there were no signs of a struggle in the house? How did the burgular get in? Through the open backdoor? If you saw an open back door wouldn't you assume that someone was at home? Why would a burgular take that risk? If you were Aeileen and you saw someone breaking and entering another home, wouldn't you run inside and lock that door immediately before calling the cops? So why was the back door still open, and no evidence of a struggle inside?

I also never suggested anyone was wearing a mask. I discussed the possibility that she knew this assailant. What I suggested is that a burgular would be more likely to have a gun or a knife and use it in a straightforward manner than go to some elaborate trouble to set up an accident that may or may not work out as planned. Car accidents are definitely not the simplest way to commit homicide, although I do agree, people do stage them and get away with it. This just doesn't seem like one of those cases to me.

I also think that if the arson investigator were certain that it was arson, he wouldn't have minced words and said what he did--he would have come out and said he felt it was arson.

You also said something about Aeileen driving normally through her driveway for hours? I'm not sure what you're referring to there, if you're saying she drove normally up until she all of a sudden had the accident, well, that's how accidents happen sometimes. Maybe an animal jumped out in the road ahead of her and she braked and swerved? Or maybe she was disoriented and confused by whatever caused her to leave the house and get in the car in the first place, and then had another episode that caused her to crash. We don't know her medical history, you are right, but sometimes people do have "episodes" that could be chemical or could be mental, with no previous problems on record.

I guess these sound just as outlandish to you as your theories about a roving band of burgulars who have kits that would allow them to set up elaborate car accidents sounds to me.

I did say at the end of my post that if it was pre-planned then I could accept the murder theory. But I don't see a spontaneous event like getting caught in the act of robbing a house as setting off what you suggest followed. It's just too complicated. And what caused the skid marks if she was already unconscious or dead in the car?

Maybe the emergency response did contaminate the scene and destory evidence, but the officer who was the first responder said he could see right away that she was beyond help, so I'm thinking the emergency response would have focused on putting out the fire, and investigating the scene before bringing in whoever would need to remove the vehicle and body.

I agree, if we knew the cause of death then we would be a lot closer to understanding this. I'm not saying these things never happen, I'm just not convinced in this case. There is too much uncertainty. The police didn't even call it murder or arson, they just called it "unexplained." So if they had some evidence which they felt was strong enought to bump it up to a criminal offense, I feel they would have done so.
CeeAlicia 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 07:08 PM.


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.