If you look at most of the cases that are eventually solved on UM - the perpetrator almost always turn out to be the obvious suspect(s) or is a completely random act of violence. I've gone back and rewatched solved cases - and, generally, the disturbing facts or elements they mention on UM - while making for a more compelling story - are rarely related to the cases.

For example the Donna Baldeo arson death. The UM segment was loosely based on her having found a note outside the bank where she worked threatning violence. In fact the case turned out to be two juvenile arsonists - completely random and unrelated to anything mentioned on the show. Also, the Brook Baker campus murder - featured on the Bizarre Murders DVD - focused the case around her suspicious landlord and a fraternity she had upset with her a story she wrote. Turned out to be a rape and murder by a male student, unrelated to elements mentioned on the program.

Any cases you know of like this - or not?

The Aimee (Amy?) Willard case was similar to the cases above. They presented the two witnesses as possible suspects, but it turned out that neither of those witnesses had anything to do with her murder.

The Rachel Raver, Warren Fulton, and Veronica Jefferson murders, first linked by DNA to an unknown person, have been matched to a guy on death row in California. I don't think they've wrapped up the investigation yet, but as far as I know, he was unconnected to the victims prior to the murders. It was originally thought that Veronica might have known her killer because the old couple saw a man approach her at the grocery store the night she died. I haven't been able to find a picture of the suspect, but I would be interested to see if he matches the composite of the handsome, tall, well-dressed man seen with Veronica at the grocery store (my guess is probably not).

I guess hindsight is 20/20, but I think UM tries to give voice to both the theories of the police and theories developed by the vicitim's families.

Interesting thread. You know I always thought the newer case of Bill Rundle and Tracy Kenley was like that. UM seemed to incinuate that maybe they ran off together or met with foul play (I believe RS said police thought Bill's hat that was found later was planted). Looking back it seemed to be a somewhat blemish on their character to make people think that maybe they decided to run off together when in reality the jeep and their bodies were eventually found and it came to light that their death was the result of a traffic accident.

GREAT THREAD. I also have noticed that UM sometimes makes cases a little more interesting by presenting facts that turn out to have nothing to do with the case. My example would be the Carrie Lynn Nixon case where they presented the woman who claimed she saw a Carrie in North Carolina and when the case was solved they said she was killed the night she disappeared and was found locally of where she lived in NY.

This was also true of a case where a man claimed he saw a missing girl in a supermarket months after she disappeared being directed by people. It was obvious that this could not be the case because the girl was discovered nearby where she disappeared. I cannot remember the name of this one though.