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 / 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

Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of September 16, 2019)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Party of Five Reboot Coming in January; Jenna Fischer and Angela Kinsey to Reunite for Office Ladies Podcast
Fri-Yay: We're Up Schitt's Creek; Comedy Central Renews South Park for 3 More Seasons
Antenna TV Acquires That Girl for January and Perhaps More; Disney Just Rolls With It Once Again
HBO Gets 2nd Season of McBride and Goodman Comedy; HGTV and Bradys Go Digital
Katey Sagal Joins The Conners; CBS All Access Comedy No Activity Gets Guests for Season 3
Kevin James Gets Sitcom for Netflix; Grace and Frankie Gets Final Season


New on DVD/Blu-ray (July/August/September)

Life in Pieces - The Complete Fourth Season The Good Place - The Complete Third Season Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six Young Sheldon - The Complete Second Season Modern Family - The Complete Tenth Season

07/08 - Man with a Plan - Season Two
07/09 - Broad City - Season 5
07/09 - Broad City - The Complete Series
07/09 - Life in Pieces - The Complete Fourth Season
07/09 - Speechless - The Complete Third Season
07/16 - Eight Is Enough - The Complete First Season
07/17 - The Practice (1976) - The Complete Series (WBShop.com)
07/23 - Brockmire - The Complete First Season
07/23 - What I Like About You - The Complete First Season
07/30 - The Good Place - The Complete Third Season
08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Third Season
08/06 - Caroline in the City - The Fourth Season
08/13 - I Love Lucy - Colorized Collection
08/13 - Leave it to Beaver - Seasons One and Two
08/20 - Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six
08/27 - Baskets - The Complete Season Four
08/27 - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia - The Complete Thirteenth Season
09/03 - Bob's Burgers - The Complete 9th Season
09/03 - Fresh Off the Boat - The Complete Fifth Season
09/03 - The Goldbergs - The Complete Sixth Season
09/03 - Single Parents - The Complete Season One
09/03 - Young Sheldon - The Complete Second Season
09/04 - What We Do in the Shadows - The Complete First Season
09/10 - American Dad! - Volume 14
09/10 - The Jetsons - The Complete Original Series (Blu-ray) (WBShop.com)
09/11 - My Three Sons - The Fourth Season - Volume One
09/11 - My Three Sons - The Fourth Season - Volume Two
09/17 - Friends - The Complete Series (25th Anniversary)
09/17 - Modern Family - The Complete Tenth Season
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-04-2011, 12:05 PM   #76
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peachysquirt21
I thought the police officer in the segment said the water they was found in was not that deep. I could be wrong on that though. I still do not believe that this is a simple case of 2 people intoxicated falling through ice & drowning. I believe there is more to this case then we know & I think the cousin knows more then she told in the segment. Her story IMO just does not add up.
There is alot here that doesn't add up to me. I realize on the surface it looks like one of these that is no mystery but I think if we had more info such as, the depth of the water in the ditch then maybe opinions might change. I do agree it would be very odd for someone to take both bodies and keep them somewhere for a few months and then bring them back.

Here's a few reasons I don't see this as an open and shut case

> First why didnt these people go up to the road instead of running along a frozen ditch? They had lived there since birth and Im sure where well aware of the dangers. From what I got from the segment It didnt seem the accident happened very far from where they lived. Could have just walked home.

> The cousin seems to have such clear recolection of events but when it comes to why they left her she is clueless. If they went in the ice just 75 feet from here did she not hear any screams? Did she not hear the ice breaking and these large people going through? Apparantly not.

>Ruby's hair being found on the side of the road months after she is suppose to have fallen through the ice and died. I can't possibly imagine what could make her hair come out or how it would get up to the road let alone how it sat there that long. The officer flat out states that it had to have happened when her body was brought back. That is a pretty bold statement by a police officer. Normally police seem to want to go with the easiest explanation so they don't have to put much work into a case. The opposite seems true here.

> Both of the family members interviewed seem convinced they where murdered. Why do they think this? Do they know something we don't? Would they not have talked to the cousin that survived? Would she not have convinced them that this was a simple accident? Notice in the segment the cousin never says one way or the other as to her beilef that foul play was involved or not and she was the only witness.

>The accident itself. Again we only have to cousin's word to go on but according to her they where at a dead stop then next thing she knows they are upside down in a ditch. Something made Arnold drive in an unsafe manner in order for that car to end up in the ditch. The question is was he being chased or was he just driving like an idiot for no reason?

> The investigating officers statements. The officer states that it was impossible for their bodies to have been there all along. I realize that he may be trying to cover his ass for not conducting a complete search of the area but we still have to take into account what he is saying. He was there, he knows the depth of the ditch, he would probably know better then any of us as to whether they could have been there all along or not. If I was him I wouldn't be too worried about getting heat from the community for not finding them right off. If anyone should take blame here it is Tracy's father who made no effort to stop three teenagers from driving around drunk when he had the chance.

I dont beileve that the bodies in different states of decomposition, the keys or the sightings of Arnold tell us anything at all. I realize that what I noted above does not prove foul play was involved. Im only saying I don't think this is just a simple open and shut case.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 12:29 PM   #77
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
There is alot here that doesn't add up to me. I realize on the surface it looks like one of these that is no mystery but I think if we had more info such as, the depth of the water in the ditch then maybe opinions might change. I do agree it would be very odd for someone to take both bodies and keep them somewhere for a few months and then bring them back.

Here's a few reasons I don't see this as an open and shut case

> First why didnt these people go up to the road instead of running along a frozen ditch? They had lived there since birth and Im sure where well aware of the dangers. From what I got from the segment It didnt seem the accident happened very far from where they lived. Could have just walked home.

> The cousin seems to have such clear recolection of events but when it comes to why they left her she is clueless. If they went in the ice just 75 feet from here did she not hear any screams? Did she not hear the ice breaking and these large people going through? Apparantly not.

>Ruby's hair being found on the side of the road months after she is suppose to have fallen through the ice and died. I can't possibly imagine what could make her hair come out or how it would get up to the road let alone how it sat there that long. The officer flat out states that it had to have happened when her body was brought back. That is a pretty bold statement by a police officer. Normally police seem to want to go with the easiest explanation so they don't have to put much work into a case. The opposite seems true here.

> Both of the family members interviewed seem convinced they where murdered. Why do they think this? Do they know something we don't? Would they not have talked to the cousin that survived? Would she not have convinced them that this was a simple accident? Notice in the segment the cousin never says one way or the other as to her beilef that foul play was involved or not and she was the only witness.

>The accident itself. Again we only have to cousin's word to go on but according to her they where at a dead stop then next thing she knows they are upside down in a ditch. Something made Arnold drive in an unsafe manner in order for that car to end up in the ditch. The question is was he being chased or was he just driving like an idiot for no reason?

> The investigating officers statements. The officer states that it was impossible for their bodies to have been there all along. I realize that he may be trying to cover his ass for not conducting a complete search of the area but we still have to take into account what he is saying. He was there, he knows the depth of the ditch, he would probably know better then any of us as to whether they could have been there all along or not. If I was him I wouldn't be too worried about getting heat from the community for not finding them right off. If anyone should take blame here it is Tracy's father who made no effort to stop three teenagers from driving around drunk when he had the chance.

I dont beileve that the bodies in different states of decomposition, the keys or the sightings of Arnold tell us anything at all. I realize that what I noted above does not prove foul play was involved. Im only saying I don't think this is just a simple open and shut case.
Hmm...let's see

1) The driver (Arnold) was intoxicated, making any decisions he would have made, flawed. Also, it was cold enough for water to freeze over to a depth that could support the weight of a car. I doubt that most people would walk miles in weather that cold unless they HAD to.

2) The cousin's recollections have to tempered by the fact that she was intoxicated, injured from the accident and was probably "helped" to "remember" by people wanting answers after the accident.i can see where it would easy to conflate several memories or even create new "memories" based on what happened.

3) Did they DNA test the hair (or blood found in it) to determine that is was Ruby's? Also, there's always the fact that it could have been tracked back up to the road by a searcher.

4) The family may simply be repeating what they were told by LE or may simply want answers that haven't been forthcoming.

5) The cousin's account is explainable by her intoxication and her injuries. Does anybody know if it makes the police report of the accident scene?

6) Not knowing the officer and his motivations, it's hard to say that he was incorrect. But when you are faced w/ the logistics involved in remove two people from the scene of an accident, doing something w/ them for an extended period of time and then returning their bodies to the exact area where they disappeared months earlier, you really have to consider the logical alternatives first.

The most logical was/is that the bodies were there (under the ice) and were overlooked during the search. Anything else requires scenarios that aren't consistent w/ how the segment was presented.

Blaming the family member for not stopping them from driving does no one any good. I don't see much point in doing it.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 12:47 PM   #78
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Hmm...let's see

1) The driver (Arnold) was intoxicated, making any decisions he would have made, flawed. Also, it was cold enough for water to freeze over to a depth that could support the weight of a car. I doubt that most people would walk miles in weather that cold unless they HAD to.

2) The cousin's recollections have to tempered by the fact that she was intoxicated, injured from the accident and was probably "helped" to "remember" by people wanting answers after the accident.i can see where it would easy to conflate several memories or even create new "memories" based on what happened.

3) Did they DNA test the hair (or blood found in it) to determine that is was Ruby's? Also, there's always the fact that it could have been tracked back up to the road by a searcher.

4) The family may simply be repeating what they were told by LE or may simply want answers that haven't been forthcoming.

5) The cousin's account is explainable by her intoxication and her injuries. Does anybody know if it makes the police report of the accident scene?

6) Not knowing the officer and his motivations, it's hard to say that he was incorrect. But when you are faced w/ the logistics involved in remove two people from the scene of an accident, doing something w/ them for an extended period of time and then returning their bodies to the exact area where they disappeared months earlier, you really have to consider the logical alternatives first.

The most logical was/is that the bodies were there (under the ice) and were overlooked during the search. Anything else requires scenarios that aren't consistent w/ how the segment was presented.

Blaming the family member for not stopping them from driving does no one any good. I don't see much point in doing it.
All good points.

Wouldn't you agree though that the situation would warrant that they "had to" walk some distance to get home? I mean if its between that and dying in a frozen ditch Im gonna walk home everytime.

On the subject of Ruby's hair. The officer simply states that forensics said it was hers. I don't know anything beyond that.

I also wasnt blaming the family member. I was just saying if I was the officer I wouldnt be worried about taking heat from the family when they made no effort to stop these kids from driving around drunk. The only reason I can see the officer lying about his belief in foul play would be so they didnt think that a proper search wasnt done.

The cousin may have been "helped" to "remember" but there again we must speculate as we have no knowledge of that.

The family may also be repeating what they where told by LE but once again that calls on us to speculate to that. We simply don't know
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 01:06 PM   #79
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
All good points.

Wouldn't you agree though that the situation would warrant that they "had to" walk some distance to get home? I mean if its between that and dying in a frozen ditch Im gonna walk home everytime.

On the subject of Ruby's hair. The officer simply states that forensics said it was hers. I don't know anything beyond that.

I also wasnt blaming the family member. I was just saying if I was the officer I wouldnt be worried about taking heat from the family when they made no effort to stop these kids from driving around drunk. The only reason I can see the officer lying about his belief in foul play would be so they didnt think that a proper search wasnt done.

The cousin may have been "helped" to "remember" but there again we must speculate as we have no knowledge of that.

The family may also be repeating what they where told by LE but once again that calls on us to speculate to that. We simply don't know
1) I agree. I would much rather walk home than stand around in below freezing weather waiting for someone to come along.

2) I'm not sure if the officer was lying or was unsure how to respond to a situation that potentially reflects poorly on him and his department.

3) I just thought about this: The most simple ways to tell how long Arnold and Ruby were in the ditch would be to see if they had injuries consistent w/ being in a vehicle accident and checking their stomach contents.If they had gone anywhere other than the pond where they were found, they would have likely had to seek medical treatment and almost certainly would have had to eaten within a few days or so.

If they had accident injuries and their stomach contents either matched what they last were reported to have eaten, then they were probably the victims of the accident.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 02:21 PM   #80
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
1) I agree. I would much rather walk home than stand around in below freezing weather waiting for someone to come along.

2) I'm not sure if the officer was lying or was unsure how to respond to a situation that potentially reflects poorly on him and his department.

3) I just thought about this: The most simple ways to tell how long Arnold and Ruby were in the ditch would be to see if they had injuries consistent w/ being in a vehicle accident and checking their stomach contents.If they had gone anywhere other than the pond where they were found, they would have likely had to seek medical treatment and almost certainly would have had to eaten within a few days or so.

If they had accident injuries and their stomach contents either matched what they last were reported to have eaten, then they were probably the victims of the accident.
Well kind of on that note I thought about the cause of death given by the coroner. It was listed as death by exposure and not drowning. The officer states that they froze to death but they couldn't have froze to death at that spot. That makes sense because even in the bitter cold they couldnt have just been sitting there freezing to death in front of all the people looking for them. I could see "death by exposure" if they where wandering around lost in the wilderness but they where 75 ft away from the crash and people where on the scene not long after it happened.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 02:39 PM   #81
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
Well kind of on that note I thought about the cause of death given by the coroner. It was listed as death by exposure and not drowning. The officer states that they froze to death but they couldn't have froze to death at that spot. That makes sense because even in the bitter cold they couldnt have just been sitting there freezing to death in front of all the people looking for them. I could see "death by exposure" if they where wandering around lost in the wilderness but they where 75 ft away from the crash and people where on the scene not long after it happened.
There are just too many variables in this case. I would have to believe that the coroner was correct about the cause of death he determined. However, I wonder if exposure came from their clothes being wet and the levels of alcohol in their bodies in addition to prolonged exposure to frigid temperatures.

Also, you have to wonder how soon the search for them really started. I'd have no problems w/ believing that a serious search didn't get underway for several hours after the accident and I also wouldn't be surprised that a more "thorough" search wasn't conducted until the next day given the frigid weather and the uncertainty about what happened.

Finally, I've never been certain what the police and the family are claiming. Are they claiming that at least Arnold was alive, left scene and then returned and died? Are they claiming that both Arnold and Ruby were taken away and then returned dead? And, if so, by whom and for what purpose?

Or are they claiming that this was a two vehicle accident and that the driver and/or passengers in the other vehicle (which,BTW would have been damaged in the accident and left traces of that damage on the scene) did something to Arnold and Ruby? And not the third passenger in the car?
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 04:50 PM   #82
Hambone2421
Member
Senior Member
 
Hambone2421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 08, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,823
Default

I think is an example of a clear cut case but with a twist. The autopsy reports say that both Arnold and Ruby died of exposure. That eliminates them from being murdered. Who kills someone by exposure??

The twist is that their bodies were found in the same place they disappeared some time later. Even if the police did screw up and not investigate that area thoroughly, I have to assume the family and maybe some friends did their own snooping around int hat area and came up with nothing. Therefore, how the hell did their bodies show up there after it had already been searched. Add in that the detective said that the water in which their bodies were found was not deep and that makes it even more weird.
Hambone2421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 07:37 PM   #83
nohwheregirl
THE Mystery Machine
Senior Member
 
nohwheregirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 1,043
Default

There was a case of a woman in Illinois who was found deceased yesterday. She and her husband went to a Christmas party a few weeks ago. He drove them home drunk and hit a tree. The husband died in the crash, but the wife walked away (there were footprints in the snow leading to the road) but never turned up. There was a massive search for her. She was wearing a red evening gown, so you'd think it would be easy to find her even in the snow. The were unable to find her until the snow thawed this past weekend and she was found near the crash site. It just made me think of Arnold and Ruby. Even with a thorough search, in winter it has to be very very difficult.
nohwheregirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 07:50 PM   #84
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nohwheregirl
There was a case of a woman in Illinois who was found deceased yesterday. She and her husband went to a Christmas party a few weeks ago. He drove them home drunk and hit a tree. The husband died in the crash, but the wife walked away (there were footprints in the snow leading to the road) but never turned up. There was a massive search for her. She was wearing a red evening gown, so you'd think it would be easy to find her even in the snow. The were unable to find her until the snow thawed this past weekend and she was found near the crash site. It just made me think of Arnold and Ruby. Even with a thorough search, in winter it has to be very very difficult.
Actually the husband was NOT drunk; he was the designated driver. Everything else that you stated is correct.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 04:31 AM   #85
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone2421
I think is an example of a clear cut case but with a twist. The autopsy reports say that both Arnold and Ruby died of exposure. That eliminates them from being murdered. Who kills someone by exposure??

The twist is that their bodies were found in the same place they disappeared some time later. Even if the police did screw up and not investigate that area thoroughly, I have to assume the family and maybe some friends did their own snooping around int hat area and came up with nothing. Therefore, how the hell did their bodies show up there after it had already been searched. Add in that the detective said that the water in which their bodies were found was not deep and that makes it even more weird.
You say that you think the family and friends did their own snoping. Well its the family and the lead investigator that are convinced they where murdered.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 10:09 AM   #86
Hambone2421
Member
Senior Member
 
Hambone2421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 08, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
You say that you think the family and friends did their own snoping. Well its the family and the lead investigator that are convinced they where murdered.
I know and that's what puzzles me. Why are they so convinced of murder when the bodies showed no signs of murder? No gunshots, stab wounds, strangulation marks. At least, none were mentioned in the segment and if there were signs of murder, I have to think it would have been mentioned.
Hambone2421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 10:44 AM   #87
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Senior Member
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hambone2421
I know and that's what puzzles me. Why are they so convinced of murder when the bodies showed no signs of murder? No gunshots, stab wounds, strangulation marks. At least, none were mentioned in the segment and if there were signs of murder, I have to think it would have been mentioned.
And they never presented a clear cut motive anyone would have in killing Arnold and Ruby.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 11:24 AM   #88
nohwheregirl
THE Mystery Machine
Senior Member
 
nohwheregirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 23, 2004
Posts: 1,043
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Actually the husband was NOT drunk; he was the designated driver. Everything else that you stated is correct.
Unfortunately, I am correct about the husband being drunk:
Quote:
The car had spun out, hit a telephone pole and veered about 20 feet off the road. Dale Shannon died of a broken neck. His blood-alcohol content was 0.266, more than three times the legal threshold for drunken driving, according to the LaSalle County coroner's office.
nohwheregirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 12:36 PM   #89
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nohwheregirl
I stand corrected. I was reading an earlier statement from a family member that said the husband was the designated driver.
When I'm wrong, I have no problems w/ admitting it.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 02:40 PM   #90
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCars1986
And they never presented a clear cut motive anyone would have in killing Arnold and Ruby.
Well like I have said many times here, there are illegal activities that go on with Indian reservations like meth manufacturing and drug trafficking. If there was more behind this then these people are not going to get on national tv and talk about it. They have to live with the people they may feel where behind this.
kane7474 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 10:32 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?

Unsolved Mysteries is available for streaming on Amazon Instant Video, YouTube and Hulu.


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.

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