Unpopular Opinions

[PracTz]

OK, I happily skip thru ghosts and UFO ones easily but I LIKED the Lost Loved ones.

However; I always thought it a bit frustrating when these stories had started out with horrific neglect/abuse and even after the reunions and being sent to more stable homes, the now-grown kids STILL resented the authorities for having 'split up their families'. Did they truly think it would have been BETTER to stay in situations where they were constantly abused and/or neglected with their lives in danger? I understand that they would have missed their siblings but why resent having a chance for a better life?

[Vronksy]

Longtime lurker, first-time poster, after becoming obsessed with UM once again after a serious Amazon binge.

The Lost Loves ones aren't my favorites, but I don't fast forward them. In most instances, I enjoy the historical reenactments.

I guess I feel the same way about the Treasure segments. But there's almost literally never any actual mystery there, and I find them kinda sad for that reason. Those naive individuals featured who spent their lives on those vain searches...

I don't like the UFO episodes and sometimes skip the entirely. I'm not into that type of "mystery" though I will grant that some of them are probably truly a mystery, and they might certainly be unidentified flying objects in the literal sense, it's just that the 'alien' rationale is boring and ridiculous.

The segments that are the worst are the Miracles. Ugh. So lame.

The aesthetic of season 7 onward is terrible compared to the early years. And as has been pointed out frequently, the fluff-to-interesting segment ratio goes down considerably in those seasons. Still, there's some good stuff there, and despite the music and the silly telecenter, it's still still Robert Stack Unsolved Mysteries and that's still damn fine television (as opposed to the Spike reboot, which I won't watch on principle).

[xxxxmattxxxx69]

1)Ferdinand Marcos Buddha is the only treasure segment worth watching.
2)"Tom Johnson" was Tom Steeples and is now dead.
3)When people post victim's real names who appear in silhouette and fake names and post their real names on the public forum suck

[amandab1234]

Originally Posted by Vronksy

Longtime lurker, first-time poster, after becoming obsessed with UM once again after a serious Amazon binge.

The Lost Loves ones aren't my favorites, but I don't fast forward them. In most instances, I enjoy the historical reenactments.

I guess I feel the same way about the Treasure segments. But there's almost literally never any actual mystery there, and I find them kinda sad for that reason. Those naive individuals featured who spent their lives on those vain searches...

I don't like the UFO episodes and sometimes skip the entirely. I'm not into that type of "mystery" though I will grant that some of them are probably truly a mystery, and they might certainly be unidentified flying objects in the literal sense, it's just that the 'alien' rationale is boring and ridiculous.

The segments that are the worst are the Miracles. Ugh. So lame.

The aesthetic of season 7 onward is terrible compared to the early years. And as has been pointed out frequently, the fluff-to-interesting segment ratio goes down considerably in those seasons. Still, there's some good stuff there, and despite the music and the silly telecenter, it's still still Robert Stack Unsolved Mysteries and that's still damn fine television (as opposed to the Spike reboot, which I won't watch on principle).

Didn't one man even kill him self because he couldn't find a treasure?

[Archangel85]

All Near death experiences are hallucinations
The Men in Black/UFO segment, the guy just wanted attention.
Robert Stack isn't scary. He was an amazing host, but not scary.

[BlueGalexy]

I have a potentially unpopular opinion regarding the Patsy Wright case. I believe that either UM left out some important info during the segment, or LE hasn't been completely forthcoming regarding the case. If Strychnine is such a rare substance that is so strictly regulated by the feds, than why weren't the authorities able to trace the sale?

I don't know...perhaps I'm oversimplifying something that's actually more complex. This just seems like a strange aspect of an already unusual case.

[yourhomiebrian]

Originally Posted by Archangel85

All Near death experiences are hallucinations
The Men in Black/UFO segment, the guy just wanted attention.
Robert Stack isn't scary. He was an amazing host, but not scary.

I agree with first 2. The music and lighting make Robert Stack scary IMO. If you met Stack in a grocery store he would not come off scary.

[Jon]

Yeah, the "eyewitness" that claimed to have an encounter with the MiB hosted a show on the paranormal and UFOs on Austin Public Access TV - which is the same network where Alex Jones got his start. To say he wanted attention is quite the understatement.

[DazzlerSparkler]

Originally Posted by amandab1234

Didn't one man even kill him self because he couldn't find a treasure?

Are you talking about the Buddha? IIRC, Roger Roxas was scheduled to testify before the courts about the case, but the day before the trial he died mysteriously, which is basically he got "Marilyn Monroe'd" (knew too much) so he could not testify.

[SPD Yellow]

I don't believe that Tammy Lynn Leppert was anywhere near as happy with her career or home life as her mother made it out to be. Nor were some of Tammy's modeling photos appropriate for a teenage girl. The photo of her in the black and white zebra print bathing suit is a perfect example.

I agree. Though I've always wondered how accurate the segment portrayed her behavior. Because on one hand, her behavior is textbook mental illness. Elaborate conspiracy theories and massive paranoia that doesn't really make a lot of sense. There's been speculation that maybe she witnessed a crime while working on a movie set, but I keep thinking of stuff like when she made her stepbrother taste her food because she thought it might be poisoned. If she really believed that some crime syndicate was after her and trying to poison her, why would she have him taste test it? Most people don't want a loved one to be poisoned.

But the segment also said that she had been briefly hospitalized and was released without a diagnosis, which makes me curious. If she was in a psychiatric ward, then she would have been observed and evaluated by people with more than just a layman's knowledge of mental illness. If she was that obviously mentally ill, they probably would have noticed and diagnosed her with something.

But Unsolved Mysteries has been known to leave out information in segments, so someone want to help me out?

Originally Posted by Awsi Dooger

If I invent as victim of a bizarre crime tonight in my neighborhood, with several dead relatives alongside, and a huge chunk of my story involves a band of distinct perpetrators, there will be no evidence of those perpetrators. It doesn’t matter if I describe four hippies or Three Blind Mice. Nobody will find them or sniff them. Nobody will subsequently volunteer as one of the Blind Mice and be taken seriously. It’s going to be air and blank stares, with suspicion properly directed at me.

In your hypothetical scenario, law enforcement might consider your testimony to be valid if there was actual, solid physical evidence that these people actually were in the home. Also if there isn't such a massive discrepancy in injuries where a pregnant woman and two small children are hacked up, while the six-foot army officer, who posed the greatest threat to them and had access to the drugs they were after, injuries are relatively mild in comparison. Also if you consistently stuck with your story and didn't have a clear motive for wanting your family dead.

The fact that Helena Stoeckley existed is devastating evidence of Jeffrey MacDonald’s innocence. That variable alone overwhelms all the PPS flails, with the laughable concept of crime scene reconstruction, that you can somehow decipher exactly how many were there, who they there, what they did, and it what sequence. Laughable doesn’t do justice to how preposterous that is. Innocent people suffer and will continue to suffer due to societal ignorance of the matter. Cases of that type inspire even loyal family members to become vindictive simpletons.

You realize how ridiculous the first part of your argument is. You're basically saying, "Jeff said Helena Stoeckley did it. Helena Stoeckley existed; therefore, she did it." By that logic, I can say that George Clooney and I have carried on a torrid love affair for many years. After all, George Clooney does exist, so my story must be true.

As for the second part, nice to know you don't believe in any form of forensics, which can include such things as fingerprinting, ballistics, in addition to DNA. I wonder if you even doubt autopsies. Because since, I don't know, Belle Gunness would deny her multiple murders, than those corpses found on her property that were full of poison, don't mean anything.

It really doesn’t matter if Stoeckley was later pressured or intimidated or threatened. It matters in justice system terms but not evaluation of the truth. None of those Stoeckley tapes or versions or details would exist upon MacDonald’s utter invention.

Again, Helena Stoeckley existed, which proves, in your mind, that she did it.

Though you've never answered one point I keep bringing up. You seem to believe that the justice system is made up entirely of Javerts, who don't care who actually committed the crime, so long as someone hangs for it. But if that's true, then why wouldn't they try to pin it all on Helena? Who do you think would present more of a challenge in court, a wealthy, Princeton-educated doctor with considerable resources at his disposal or an addict so addled as a result of years of drug abuse that it's a miracle she knows what color the sky is on any given day?

I continue to believe that if Jeff wasn't such an attractive, charismatic person, he wouldn't have anywhere near the amount of defenders he does. Though I should also add wealthy and white to the list as well. There's a general profile of people who wind up being convicted of crimes they didn't commit. They tend to be Black or Hispanic, impoverished, the extent of their education being a high school diploma or a GED. Little, if any, of that describes Jeff, unless you believe that rich, white dudes are disproportionately targeted above all other groups in society.

It's really irritating especially in light of cases like Cameron Todd Willingham and Carlos Deluna. Both were of a blue-collar, low-income background, and both were executed for crimes they likely didn't commit. Yet they don't have anywhere near as many cheerleaders as Jeff.

[LooksLikeCRicci]

Originally Posted by Awsi Dooger

The O.J. jury got it wrong. Brutally wrong. Disgracefully wrong. But as that verdict was read, F. Lee Bailey understood like nobody else a properly weighted variable. Bailey knew that upon a guilty verdict in a case of that magnitude it would require extensive paperwork and planning, something that would require considerably more time than had passed since jury deliberations had concluded. I remember watching that verdict live and being struck at how Bailey’s reaction was completely unlike anyone else on the defense side. Robert Kardashian was in shock. Johnny Cochran was jubilant. Simpson was almost giddy. As my Las Vegas friends alongside that Monday morning were loudly discussing what had transpired, I was mostly silent and wondering what F. Lee Bailey knew. Plainly he knew something. I awaited Bailey’s summary more than anything else in the aftermath.

And it was terrific later that day when Bailey indeed volunteered that he knew it had to be not guilty, based on duration alone. He wasn’t asked. He provided. Bailey in that court room setting knew that one particular variable was worth exponentially more than anything else attached, even if that variable was mostly ignored or confidently downplayed by others.

The O.J. verdict was troubling on so many levels. I re-watched the verdict not that long ago and was stuck by a lot of the things you pointed out. Robert Kardashian DOES, indeed, look shocked. And sick to his stomach. O.J. was giddy. But it's Cochran's response that I find the most appalling. His reaction was not one of, "Excellent, an innocent man was found not guilty," but one that you see someone do when they win a game. The trial was nothing more than a game to Cochran-- it was never about justice. It was never about finding the truth. It was about winning. Disgusting.

[Mysteryphile]

Originally Posted by cdr369

My unpopular opinion would be that Tim McClure did not have anything to do with his mother's murder.

I think the exact same thing!

[drew790]

Anyone who could wear a bright pink sweater with a mullet is at the very least unhinged.

[James T]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

The O.J. verdict was troubling on so many levels. I re-watched the verdict not that long ago and was stuck by a lot of the things you pointed out. Robert Kardashian DOES, indeed, look shocked. And sick to his stomach. O.J. was giddy. But it's Cochran's response that I find the most appalling. His reaction was not one of, "Excellent, an innocent man was found not guilty," but one that you see someone do when they win a game. The trial was nothing more than a game to Cochran-- it was never about justice. It was never about finding the truth. It was about winning. Disgusting.

Well that is the legal system for you-not about the truth but who can present the best & the defence automatically have the advantage because they don't have to prove anything, just throw enough doubt out there. The prosecution already had enough problems with the forensics handling & some of their witnesses, getting OJ to stop taking his arthritis medicine so that his hands swelled up was a masterstroke.

[dynoguy88]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeCRicci

The O.J. verdict was troubling on so many levels. I re-watched the verdict not that long ago and was stuck by a lot of the things you pointed out. Robert Kardashian DOES, indeed, look shocked. And sick to his stomach. O.J. was giddy. But it's Cochran's response that I find the most appalling. His reaction was not one of, "Excellent, an innocent man was found not guilty," but one that you see someone do when they win a game. The trial was nothing more than a game to Cochran-- it was never about justice. It was never about finding the truth. It was about winning. Disgusting.

I was in high school when the verdict came down. My math teacher ended his lecture 15 minutes early and then turned on his portable radio so we could all listen to the verdict.

I couldn't agree more with your post. I always thought Cochran's reaction was a joke. But Robert Kardashian's reaction was always the most telling. He looks in complete shock and disbelief. Not the kind of reaction you'd expect from a member of your defense and close friend.