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

Sarah Silverman Returning to HBO with Late Night Series; Craig Ferguson to Host ABC Game Show
ABC Gears Up for Halloween with Specials and Sitcom Episodes; truTV Comedy Returns for Season 5
Sitcom Stars on Talk Shows; This Week in Sitcoms (Week of October 14, 2019)
SitcomsOnline Digest: Walker, Texas Ranger Reboot in the Works; South Park Banned in China
Fri-Yay: Another Netflix Original to End as BoJack Horseman Announces Final Season; TNT Sets Halloween Supernatural Marathon
Daily Show Correspondent Gets Comedy Special; Fox Gets Jenna Dewan for Dance Show
Remembering TV Legend Diahann Carroll; Marvel and Hulu Bring New Series


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

Brooklyn Nine-Nine - Season Six Young Sheldon - The Complete Second Season My Three Sons - The Fourth Season - Volume One Modern Family - The Complete Tenth Season Life with Lucy - The Complete Series

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
09/19 - Angel from Hell - The DVD Edition
10/08 - Leave it to Beaver - The Complete Series
10/08 - Life with Lucy - The Complete Series
10/15 - The King of Queens - The Complete Series (Mill Creek)
More TV DVD Releases / DVD Reviews Archive / SitcomsOnline Digest


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-02-2011, 08:52 AM   #61
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guardian
I think in other previous posts I have leaned to the other side of this, or at least been on the fence, but yeah, I have to admit that the more I think about this one, I agree it was likely just an accident. I think some details are perhaps not being divulged by the surviving member of the accident, and this in turn might be making the case seem more enigmatic, but either way it seems that their bodies were just likely missed during the search. As far as the ice being able to support a car and not two people, only thing I can say is that they were found some distance from the car. Maybe that area just was not as strong and they broke through.
I agree.
The survivor was in an accident and was intoxicated at the time. That means, IMHO, her memories of the incident and its aftermath are probably not the most accurate,
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2011, 12:36 PM   #62
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Let's see:

1) The police officer/deputy sheriff probably didn't lie. They probably did the best search that they could in subzero weather. W/O ground penetrating radar or IR equipment, it might be very easy to miss two bodies floating under thick ice.
It seem to have been easy.

2) Supporting the vehicle would have depended on the thickness of the ice, which wouldn't have been uniform across its breadth. Some spots (like the one where the car landed) may have been many inches to a foot or more thick. Other spots may have only been a fraction of an inch thick,especially near the banks.

In fact, IMO, they were very lucky (at least at first) that the car landed where it did. If it had landed on a portion of the ice that was thinner, they would have all drowned and there wouldn't have been a "mystery."

3) The hair can explained far more easily than the bodies. It's likely that snow/ice was on and around the road. The hair may simply been overlooked during the initial search. It wasn't a large amount of hair, so it being missed isn't (to me at least) an enigma.

If it's indeed Ruby's hair, then she may have made it out the pond and then went back for Arnold or her cousin. Or maybe it was tracked up to the road by one of the searchers.
But how thick could the ice be if two large bodies had just went through it?? These people where fairly large. Would there not be some tell tale sign that that something had went through the ice in that spot?

The hair was found on the side of the road whereas the body of ruby was found in the frozen ditch. This was months later. There is no way it could have stayed there that long. The idea that one of the searchers tracked it up there is a possibilty I suppose.

I just don't get why the officer as well as ALL family members interviewed are convinced there was foul play involved here. Makes me wonder if they don't know for a fact that someone was out to get them or maybe they where tangled up in something that would have caused someone to want to get rid of them. Reservations are no immune to drug trafficking or other illegal activities.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2011, 01:06 PM   #63
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
But how thick could the ice be if two large bodies had just went through it?? These people where fairly large. Would there not be some tell tale sign that that something had went through the ice in that spot?

The hair was found on the side of the road whereas the body of ruby was found in the frozen ditch. This was months later. There is no way it could have stayed there that long. The idea that one of the searchers tracked it up there is a possibilty I suppose.

I just don't get why the officer as well as ALL family members interviewed are convinced there was foul play involved here. Makes me wonder if they don't know for a fact that someone was out to get them or maybe they where tangled up in something that would have caused someone to want to get rid of them. Reservations are no immune to drug trafficking or other illegal activities.
1) The thickness of the ice wouldn't be uniform. It would probably be thinner nearer the bank. Which is where the bodies were found,although they may have drifted there.
And no, there may not have been a "sign" that someone fell through the ice; in below freezing weather any breaks in the ice would freeze over again shortly after they were made.

2) Animals don't usually eat hair by itself, so unless it blown away by wind it's possible for it to have been in the area for an extended period.

3) I can't speak for either group as to "why" they think that this was a "murder" but here are two possibilities:

a) The families - They showed a scene in the segment where the family prevented the group from picking up their children due to the fact they had been drinking. I have to imagine there was (and is) a tremendous amount of guilt because no one took the keys away from the driver and stopped them from leaving.

Guilt makes it easy for people to do and believe things that may not be true just because those things may assuage that guilt.

b) The police - The officer shown during the segment seemed to have a lot invested in the quality of the search that was performed. It seems to have gone past what was needed for the segment and seemed to completely dismiss the most logical explanation:they missed the bodies during the search.

There are numerous cases where DNA has proven the innocence of a suspect and members of LE still consider their judgment to have been correct. Once they think they are correct, LE are very difficult people to convince that they are wrong.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-02-2011, 11:37 PM   #64
VikingsGal
Member
Frequent Poster
 
VikingsGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 05, 2009
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Why is this case even considered a "mystery?"

1) Everybody involved was intoxicated.
2) In below freezing weather.
3) They were stunned after a car accident.
4) They were found in a nearby body of water after a thaw.
5) The police performed a less than thorough search in frigid weather.

The details about the unknown keys,the "changed clothing" and people "seeing" Arnold at a later time are all distractions.
The keys could have come from anywhere and Arnold may have even found them much earlier than the accident.

The clothing being changed could have either happened while they were out...or maybe it never happened,and he was just wearing something that nobody really noticed.

And people stating that they have "seen" someone is usually not a very reliable source of information.
People can conflate the details of of one more more situations or they even lie to bring attention to themselves.
W/O video or photographic evidence, eyewitness statements,IMHO,are usually worthless.

Bottom line:This was likely the case of people who got drunk,got into accident and died from exposure or drowning or both.
They then weren't found until much later after a less than thorough police search when the body of water that they were located in, thawed.

Again,not much of a "mystery" here.
I agree that there is not much of a mystery here, either. I have never been a fan of eyewitness testimony as people's memories can play tricks on them.

When I saw this episode I thought - drinking, late at night, questionable judgement and bitterly cold weather.....not good.

I don't understand why the family is so convinced of foul play. I don't know why ANYONE would be out looking for trouble in the middle of the night on a South Dakota winter night. Lifelong Minnesota gal here - stay inside where it is warm!!!
VikingsGal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 02:38 AM   #65
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
1) The thickness of the ice wouldn't be uniform. It would probably be thinner nearer the bank. Which is where the bodies were found,although they may have drifted there.
And no, there may not have been a "sign" that someone fell through the ice; in below freezing weather any breaks in the ice would freeze over again shortly after they were made.

2) Animals don't usually eat hair by itself, so unless it blown away by wind it's possible for it to have been in the area for an extended period.

3) I can't speak for either group as to "why" they think that this was a "murder" but here are two possibilities:

a) The families - They showed a scene in the segment where the family prevented the group from picking up their children due to the fact they had been drinking. I have to imagine there was (and is) a tremendous amount of guilt because no one took the keys away from the driver and stopped them from leaving.

Guilt makes it easy for people to do and believe things that may not be true just because those things may assuage that guilt.

b) The police - The officer shown during the segment seemed to have a lot invested in the quality of the search that was performed. It seems to have gone past what was needed for the segment and seemed to completely dismiss the most logical explanation:they missed the bodies during the search.

There are numerous cases where DNA has proven the innocence of a suspect and members of LE still consider their judgment to have been correct. Once they think they are correct, LE are very difficult people to convince that they are wrong.
Well Im curious as to how, if they fell through near the bank (which would be shallow) how did they drowned? Both these people where fairly tall and I cant figure out how they could drowned in a few feet of water. Consider these people had lived in this area their entire lives. They would have been well aware of the dangers of walking on a frozen over ditch. Its not like they where some out of towners who didnt realize they where walking on frozen water. Also consider that the ditch had to be pumped out before they found one of them. That would tell me they where in deeper water.

As far as the hair goes, there is no way you could take a handfull of hair and drop it on a road and have it still be there months later. Its light and would blow away. They did say that was Ruby's hair so like I said before your theory that it could have been tracked up there by one of the rescuers may make sense but I cant imagine it happening any other way unless foul play was involved.

I understand that we have people intoxicated who where just in a roll over accident and they have have been disoriented and wandered out into the water. That could be the end of it. I just think its worth looking into as the families and the police officer are convinced that something else was at work here. I understand why the officer may want to cover for himself as any of them would. He did state though that there was no way they could have been there and that makes me curious.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 02:40 AM   #66
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VikingsGal
I agree that there is not much of a mystery here, either. I have never been a fan of eyewitness testimony as people's memories can play tricks on them.

When I saw this episode I thought - drinking, late at night, questionable judgement and bitterly cold weather.....not good.

I don't understand why the family is so convinced of foul play. I don't know why ANYONE would be out looking for trouble in the middle of the night on a South Dakota winter night. Lifelong Minnesota gal here - stay inside where it is warm!!!
Ya I dont buy into the sightings of Arnold at all. I have watched enough UM to know that many times there are multiple sightings of people that turn out to have been dead all along.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 02:45 AM   #67
sdb4884
UM Meme Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 01, 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
Ya I dont buy into the sightings of Arnold at all. I have watched enough UM to know that many times there are multiple sightings of people that turn out to have been dead all along.
Yeah I just found those sightings so unbelievable. It was clearly an oversight by the police missing his body in the ditch.
sdb4884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 03:13 AM   #68
Clockworkhigh
Member
Forum Regular
 
Clockworkhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 29, 2009
Posts: 604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VikingsGal
I agree that there is not much of a mystery here, either. I have never been a fan of eyewitness testimony as people's memories can play tricks on them.

When I saw this episode I thought - drinking, late at night, questionable judgement and bitterly cold weather.....not good.

I don't understand why the family is so convinced of foul play. I don't know why ANYONE would be out looking for trouble in the middle of the night on a South Dakota winter night. Lifelong Minnesota gal here - stay inside where it is warm!!!
While it is puzzling that Ruby thought she saw them open the door and leave the car without her I really can't buy it. She was drunk. How many times do we imagine things when we are drunk? How many things do people not even remember happening because of being plastered and everything is blacked out? I imagine things in the middle of the night when I am half awake WITHOUT alcohol. I can never be sure it actually happened (ie: did my wife get up and go to the bathroom in the middle of the night?)

It was poor judgement by them and it was an oversight by the cops. Nobody will admit either of these and it really makes little sense otherwise. Someone mentioned who in their right mind would be on the prowl for a murder in the freezing cold? Not me, and I am from Canada.
Clockworkhigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 12:59 PM   #69
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh
While it is puzzling that Ruby thought she saw them open the door and leave the car without her I really can't buy it. She was drunk. How many times do we imagine things when we are drunk? How many things do people not even remember happening because of being plastered and everything is blacked out? I imagine things in the middle of the night when I am half awake WITHOUT alcohol. I can never be sure it actually happened (ie: did my wife get up and go to the bathroom in the middle of the night?)

It was poor judgement by them and it was an oversight by the cops. Nobody will admit either of these and it really makes little sense otherwise. Someone mentioned who in their right mind would be on the prowl for a murder in the freezing cold? Not me, and I am from Canada.
Well Im not saying that anyone was simply out on the prowl looking to kill someone in the freezing cold. However they could have been getting chased by someone. The cousin could be keeping her mouth shut about what happened out of fear of the same happening to her. This would explain her odd recolection of events and why she doesnt seem to know anything.

The investigating officer flat out says that there is no way possible they could have been there all along. He goes so far as to state that Ruby's hair had to have been left on the road when her body was brought back and dumped. Both Ruby's father and Arnolds aunt said they knew foul play was involved. The cousin's father that didnt stop them from driving drunk is never interviewed so we dont know what he thinks. Now when these relatives claim these kids where killed we have to wonder why? If this is some peacefull indian reservation where violence is rare, why would they be so convinced that someone murdered these kids?

I also find it odd that Ruby's shoes where missing as well as her glasses. If these items where never found I would think that would show that she possibly died somewhere else. Surely she wasnt going around barefoot in the freezing cold.

In the segment it is stated that they where at the cousin's place at 6 am. So the accident was shortly after that. In the re-enactment we see a motorist stopping to help before daylight. Which seems to indicate they couldnt have been there very long before help arrived. It is also stated that police where searching for them at daybreak which again indicates the search was no long after they went missing. I would think that if there where weak spots in the ice for these to large people to go through that there would be some indication that the ice had been distured. Especially when you consider they where found 75 ft from the accident site.
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 03:12 PM   #70
cocytus
Member
Forum Regular
 
cocytus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 15, 2010
Location: NE Indiana
Posts: 779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
Well Im not saying that anyone was simply out on the prowl looking to kill someone in the freezing cold. However they could have been getting chased by someone. The cousin could be keeping her mouth shut about what happened out of fear of the same happening to her. This would explain her odd recolection of events and why she doesnt seem to know anything.

The investigating officer flat out says that there is no way possible they could have been there all along. He goes so far as to state that Ruby's hair had to have been left on the road when her body was brought back and dumped. Both Ruby's father and Arnolds aunt said they knew foul play was involved. The cousin's father that didnt stop them from driving drunk is never interviewed so we dont know what he thinks. Now when these relatives claim these kids where killed we have to wonder why? If this is some peacefull indian reservation where violence is rare, why would they be so convinced that someone murdered these kids?

I also find it odd that Ruby's shoes where missing as well as her glasses. If these items where never found I would think that would show that she possibly died somewhere else. Surely she wasnt going around barefoot in the freezing cold.

In the segment it is stated that they where at the cousin's place at 6 am. So the accident was shortly after that. In the re-enactment we see a motorist stopping to help before daylight. Which seems to indicate they couldnt have been there very long before help arrived. It is also stated that police where searching for them at daybreak which again indicates the search was no long after they went missing. I would think that if there where weak spots in the ice for these to large people to go through that there would be some indication that the ice had been distured. Especially when you consider they where found 75 ft from the accident site.

Hmm...

1) It's possible that they were chased or attacked by someone. But if that was the case, why not kill all three of them? It was more than a few minutes before somebody came along and rescued the survivor. That left ample time to take care of all the witnesses to a crime.

Her "recollections" can easily be explained by the fact that she'd been drinking and that she was injured in a car accident. Her memories of the incident would have had to been affected by those two incidents. In fact, I'm actually surprised that she remembered what happened just before and after the accident, as most people do not.

2) The investigating officer is almost certainly wrong. The evidence doesn't lend itself to the bodies being anywhere but in the pond where they were found after the accident. If it did, then I'm certain that the officer could have pressed to have the investigation reopened. But since this hasn't occurred,it's obvious that even he believed at some point that this wasn't really a "mystery."

I think that you may want to re-watch the segment. Unless they used an actor, the person that talked w/ them about not picking up the children after they were drinking was the same person that they interviewed for the segment. The guilt of them not doing more to prevent this from occurring may be overwhelming and that may be the reason they believe that foul play is involved.

3) Actually the glasses and the shoes are explained quite easily. The glasses came off during or after the accident and were lost in the pond (perhaps when the car was towed). Her shoes would have come off when her body decomposed after the thaw. Not knowing what type of shoes they were, it's hard to say how difficult that would have been.


4) You probably don't live in an area where water freezes over in the winter. When you break through ice in below freezing weather, the ice slowly begins to refreeze. Any openings will freeze over shortly after they are made and within an hour there will not be a hole where one may have existed before.

Also, it takes several hours or longer to start a search and even then, in such a rural area and in well below freezing weather any initial search is probably going to be half-hearted at best.In fact, I'd be surprised if it wasn't until the next day that they seriously began searching for the two.

The fact that they were more than a few feet from the accident can be explained by where Arnold landed after the accident and where Ruby fell through the ice. The bodies almost certainly floated and drifted under the ice, especially during the thaw.


Let's say that this wasn't the accident that it appears to be. Why would a killer:

a) Remove two victims from a car accident that he/she didn't know was going to happen?
b) Leave a potential witness alive?
c) Hide the victims in a manner that wouldn't cause them to found if alive and would prevent decomposition if they were not.
d) Return the bodies to a location near where they would be found if they were the victims of an accident?

If they had found Mr. Archambeau and Ms. Bruguier on the ground around the pond or a significant distance from the pond, this might seem more suspicious. However, they found them in the area where the accident occurred.

That tells me that they were there all of the time and simply overlooked during a less than thorough search of the area.
cocytus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 04:38 PM   #71
TheCars1986
Proud Daddy
Senior Member
 
TheCars1986's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 22, 2008
Location: Maryland
Posts: 6,639
Default

I agree that this really isn't a mystery. Everyone in the car was intoxicated, so the survivor's testimony of what happened can be challenged based on that fact alone. People do some very strange things when their drunk, this could account for Ruby's shoes being off of her (or maybe she was suffering from hypothermia). As for Arnold having someone elses keys, couldn't this have been a mistake made by a drunk man who thought he was picking up his keys, when they were someone elses? They may have been at a party and he inadvertently picked up the wrong keys. Why would a unknown killer spare Arnold's cousin, and kill both Arnold and Ruby without the cousin hearing or seeing anything? I don't really buy the foul play angle at all.
TheCars1986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 04:42 PM   #72
mozartpc27
Vigilante Logician
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 09, 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 821
Default

I've expressed the opinion many times before in other threads that there is no mystery here, but I reiterate it again.
__________________
"You can't say the words that the rock makes you feel like." - Patty Johnson
mozartpc27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2011, 11:04 PM   #73
ScaryFog
Member
Frequent Poster
 
ScaryFog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 25, 2009
Posts: 165
Default

I too am on the side that there is no mystery here. Their bodies were there all along. The cops, for whatever reason, didn't see them.
ScaryFog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 04:14 AM   #74
kane7474
Member
Forum Regular
 
kane7474's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 758
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cocytus
Hmm...

1) It's possible that they were chased or attacked by someone. But if that was the case, why not kill all three of them? It was more than a few minutes before somebody came along and rescued the survivor. That left ample time to take care of all the witnesses to a crime.

Her "recollections" can easily be explained by the fact that she'd been drinking and that she was injured in a car accident. Her memories of the incident would have had to been affected by those two incidents. In fact, I'm actually surprised that she remembered what happened just before and after the accident, as most people do not.

2) The investigating officer is almost certainly wrong. The evidence doesn't lend itself to the bodies being anywhere but in the pond where they were found after the accident. If it did, then I'm certain that the officer could have pressed to have the investigation reopened. But since this hasn't occurred,it's obvious that even he believed at some point that this wasn't really a "mystery."

I think that you may want to re-watch the segment. Unless they used an actor, the person that talked w/ them about not picking up the children after they were drinking was the same person that they interviewed for the segment. The guilt of them not doing more to prevent this from occurring may be overwhelming and that may be the reason they believe that foul play is involved.

3) Actually the glasses and the shoes are explained quite easily. The glasses came off during or after the accident and were lost in the pond (perhaps when the car was towed). Her shoes would have come off when her body decomposed after the thaw. Not knowing what type of shoes they were, it's hard to say how difficult that would have been.


4) You probably don't live in an area where water freezes over in the winter. When you break through ice in below freezing weather, the ice slowly begins to refreeze. Any openings will freeze over shortly after they are made and within an hour there will not be a hole where one may have existed before.

Also, it takes several hours or longer to start a search and even then, in such a rural area and in well below freezing weather any initial search is probably going to be half-hearted at best.In fact, I'd be surprised if it wasn't until the next day that they seriously began searching for the two.

The fact that they were more than a few feet from the accident can be explained by where Arnold landed after the accident and where Ruby fell through the ice. The bodies almost certainly floated and drifted under the ice, especially during the thaw.


Let's say that this wasn't the accident that it appears to be. Why would a killer:

a) Remove two victims from a car accident that he/she didn't know was going to happen?
b) Leave a potential witness alive?
c) Hide the victims in a manner that wouldn't cause them to found if alive and would prevent decomposition if they were not.
d) Return the bodies to a location near where they would be found if they were the victims of an accident?

If they had found Mr. Archambeau and Ms. Bruguier on the ground around the pond or a significant distance from the pond, this might seem more suspicious. However, they found them in the area where the accident occurred.

That tells me that they were there all of the time and simply overlooked during a less than thorough search of the area.
Ok I did watch the segment again and the guy that had their daughter was Tracy's father. They never interviewed him in the segment that I watched. They only interviewed Tracy, Arnold's Aunt and Ruby's father.

As for why someone didnt off all three of them? Well if this is what happened then it could be that they didnt know she was in the car. The other two bailed out and ran so whoever was after them may have given chase and never thought to go back to the car and look for someone else. Could this possibly explain why theY seemed to be running away from the road instead of up to it?? I mean I don't care how messed up you are you would surely know how to get up to the road and go for help or walk back home. Instead they both run into a frozen ditch?

Id really like to know how deep that water was. They call it a frozen ditch which implies to me its not a very deep body of water. In the re-enactment its shown the Ruby's body is just laying out basically in a very shallow pool of water. Again this indicates the water wasn't that deep to begin with. So if the water isnt that deep then how could they drowned in it and how could the searchers not see them when if they where just 75 ft from the crash site?
kane7474 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2011, 04:25 AM   #75
peachysquirt21
Member
Forum Regular
 
peachysquirt21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 454
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kane7474
Ok I did watch the segment again and the guy that had their daughter was Tracy's father. They never interviewed him in the segment that I watched. They only interviewed Tracy, Arnold's Aunt and Ruby's father.

As for why someone didnt off all three of them? Well if this is what happened then it could be that they didnt know she was in the car. The other two bailed out and ran so whoever was after them may have given chase and never thought to go back to the car and look for someone else. Could this possibly explain why theY seemed to be running away from the road instead of up to it?? I mean I don't care how messed up you are you would surely know how to get up to the road and go for help or walk back home. Instead they both run into a frozen ditch?

Id really like to know how deep that water was. They call it a frozen ditch which implies to me its not a very deep body of water. In the re-enactment its shown the Ruby's body is just laying out basically in a very shallow pool of water. Again this indicates the water wasn't that deep to begin with. So if the water isnt that deep then how could they drowned in it and how could the searchers not see them when if they where just 75 ft from the crash site?
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.
peachysquirt21 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 06:04 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.