Hi. I'm new here and I love Unsolved Mysteries. But I've always noticed a few bizarre occurances in the stories and or re-enactments. Here are few.

The Mystery of Dorothea Allen

You may recall the story of eccentric British socialite Dorothea Allen who died in 1990 and left a large inheritance and a series of unanswered questions. When the British government looked into her past, it seemed as though Dorothea Allen had never existed. In the weeks and months preceding her death, she destroyed all traces of her past. There is a scene in the re-enactment of Dorothea cutting up her old family photos and removes the pages from her passport. Notice that she simply cuts the pictures in half and rips the pages from the passport without shredding them. If she wanted to conceal her past, why didn't she just rip everything up? If you cut a picture in two, you can very easily put it back together.

Gary Grant murder

In 1984, seven-year-old Gary Grant was murdered in Atlantic City. Police believed that a mildly-******** twelve-year-old named Carl "Boo" Mason was responsible. Boo was interrogated for hours and, in a misguided attempt to get the police off his back, he confessed but later recanted. The re-enactment shows the policeman giving Boo and his grandmother a typed admission of guilt to sign. The grandmother doesn't even bother to read the statement, she just signs it. If that were my child, I would have gone over that statement with a fine-tooth comb.

Julius Patterson

This one always bothered me. A Philadelphia man named Julius Patterson and his girlfriend Collette Hoop murdered his sister Jessie. Jessie had been blind, deaf and mute since birth and Patterson and Hoop had been entrusted with her care. They killed her to cash in her social security benefits and buried her in the basement. After they moved out, Patterson called the police to tell them that her remains could be found in a shallow grave in the basement (he and his girlfriend had moved out and there was now another family living there.) When police dug into the cellar floor, they found Jessie's bones. They contacted her family and they claimed that Jessie had mysteriously disappeared in July of 1986, almost three years before her remains were discovered and they never reported her missing! The poor girl was unable to see, hear or speak and they weren't concerned enough to report her disappearance?

Can anyone else think of more bizarre moments?

I would'nt know if this is bizarre or not, but there was a case which aired on Prime TV not too long ago. It was the kidnapping of this guy named Mike's daughter Samantha by Samantha's Mother Ann, who was suffering from a mental disease that causes the Mother to harm their child. Sorry, I don't remember their last names. Anyway, in the re-enactment I thought it might've been Conan O'Brien playing Mike. It looked exactly like Conan, although I could be wrong.

Since the alleged kidnapping took place in the New York City area and Conan's show is in NYC, I thought the actor playing Mike was in fact, Conan O'Brien.

The actor as I said, also looked like Conan. I could be wrong, though.

Anyone know which case I'm talking about?

Any thoughts?

The last name of the family in question (Mike, Ann and Samantha) was Kibalo.
I believe they were from the NYC area. Was it Conan who played Mike Kibalo?

Conan's page on the IMDB does not have a listing for Unsolved Mysteries. My guess is that it was someone who looked like him.

Well I'd say the UM re-enactments are "based" on the facts so no doubt the grandmother would have gone over the statement as you say.

Gary Grant murder

In 1984, seven-year-old Gary Grant was murdered in Atlantic City. Police believed that a mildly-******** twelve-year-old named Carl "Boo" Mason was responsible. Boo was interrogated for hours and, in a misguided attempt to get the police off his back, he confessed but later recanted. The re-enactment shows the policeman giving Boo and his grandmother a typed admission of guilt to sign. The grandmother doesn't even bother to read the statement, she just signs it. If that were my child, I would have gone over that statement with a fine-tooth comb.

Can anyone else think of more bizarre moments?

Something I found a bit bizarre regarding this case is UM showed a pic of the message scribbled on the cop car reading in part "payback is a M.F". I thought this was weird in the sense that the killer or whoever did this used the initials M.F rather than the real words. I just thought it bizarre how someone could commit a horrible murder but yet abbreviate a couple of swear words.

Something I found a bit bizarre regarding this case is UM showed a pic of the message scribbled on the cop car reading in part "payback is a M.F". I thought this was weird in the sense that the killer or whoever did this used the initials M.F rather than the real words. I just thought it bizarre how someone could commit a horrible murder but yet abbreviate a couple of swear words.

Perhaps he was in a hurry.

Perhaps he was in a hurry.


I'm guessing he couldn't spell.

jeeps

Something I found a bit bizarre regarding this case is UM showed a pic of the message scribbled on the cop car reading in part "payback is a M.F". I thought this was weird in the sense that the killer or whoever did this used the initials M.F rather than the real words. I just thought it bizarre how someone could commit a horrible murder but yet abbreviate a couple of swear words.


It could be that whoever committed the murder DID write the entire profanity, but it was edited for television down to "M.F." as opposed to "Expletive deleted."

Just a theory.

It could be that whoever committed the murder DID write the entire profanity, but it was edited for television down to "M.F." as opposed to "Expletive deleted."

Just a theory.

Or maybe the author just didn't have the heart to write out an entire profane word where it can be publicly seen (especially by kids who are too young to understand profanity).

Sounds silly, but not entirely implausible.

I agree with Dislimb that they may have just been in a hurry and didn't take the time to write it out. The person was spray painting on a cop car, right? No doubt he would want to hurry up and get it done before he was spotted.

I agree with Dislimb that they may have just been in a hurry and didn't take the time to write it out. The person was spray painting on a cop car, right? No doubt he would want to hurry up and get it done before he was spotted.

The MF reference was found on a sidewalk.

I don't buy into this no time theory or the author didn't have the heart and surely UM would have just fuzzed out the words and not actually edited the pic...it's really weird.

It's anybodies guess as to whether of not M.F. was abbreviated or not.

Sometimes the re-enactments can be vague when it comes to swear words.
Or sometimes the interviewies provide a detail themselves instead of having it re-created. Like the haunted house in Fish Springs, Nevada - where the mother was trying to get to sleep and she heard a ghostly voice behind her pillow call her a b*tch.

If there is any really obscene language involved, the segment sometimes tries to avoid it all together. For example, the Cindy James segment - I remember when I first saw the scene where her private investigator, Ozzie Kaban looked through her front window and saw her lying on the floor in her living room. He broke inside and found her unconscience on the floor - there was a note that was pinned with a paring knife through her hand. I remember yelling at the T.V., "why aren't you telling us what the note says???" The segment never said. Later, when I got the book "The Deaths of Cindy James," I would find out what the note said. ("Time to die, c*nt.") I guess I can see why they didn't mention it.

If there is any really obscene language involved, the segment sometimes tries to avoid it all together. For example, the Cindy James segment - I remember when I first saw the scene where her private investigator, Ozzie Kaban looked through her front window and saw her lying on the floor in her living room. He broke inside and found her unconscience on the floor - there was a note that was pinned with a paring knife through her hand. I remember yelling at the T.V., "why aren't you telling us what the note says???" The segment never said. Later, when I got the book "The Deaths of Cindy James," I would find out what the note said. ("Time to die, c*nt.") I guess I can see why they didn't mention it.

The presence of obscene language isn't the only reason. Another factor is any information that may be deemed sensitive.

For example, if you recall the segment about the 1979 disappearance of Micki Jo West, they showed actual letters with a suspect's name obscured. (These were letters that were found at a shopping mall and movie theater years after Micki vanished; in the letters, the author accused a particular man of killing Micki.) The segment made mention of the the fact that the cops had a suspect. But at the time, there was no proof that the man in question was involved in Micki's disappearance, so the cops could not justify disclosing the man's name to the public. Therefore, the man's name was disguised in the segment.

What I find consistenly odd about the reenactments is that the actors are rarely credited in the shows final credits. Sometimes there are one or two actors listed, but they always seem so random. A show can be packed with reenactments with 2 to perhaps five (or more) actors in them, but list only two or three actors total in the credits.

I know some segments feature "family members and police officials," but take a segment about something that happened during WWII, for instance, where none of the participants are the real folks - why aren't they listed in the credits? Perhaps is an actor's union thing? I have always boggled over this. Any thoughts?

I have five words to sum up this thread:

"That man he's got Johnathan":eek:

What is that Jonathan quote from? I can't quite remember...

The 'Jonathan' quote came from the Gilbert Ortiz case where the wife was accused of poisoning Gilbert by putting something in his milkshake. Gilbert's wife claimed there was a man outside the hospital Gilbert was staying at who kidnapped their son Jonathan. It turned out that was just a fabrication she fixed up.

Gilbert Ortiz worked at a toy store in Redwood City, California.

Hope that helps.

What I find consistenly odd about the reenactments is that the actors are rarely credited in the shows final credits. Sometimes there are one or two actors listed, but they always seem so random. A show can be packed with reenactments with 2 to perhaps five (or more) actors in them, but list only two or three actors total in the credits.

I know some segments feature "family members and police officials," but take a segment about something that happened during WWII, for instance, where none of the participants are the real folks - why aren't they listed in the credits? Perhaps is an actor's union thing? I have always boggled over this. Any thoughts?

You are right on. If you are in the Screen Actors Guild they have to credit you at the end. 90% of the actors on UM weren't in SAG.

greatgarret - thanks for jogging my memory. I've seen that segment a million times, but somehow had forgotten that priceless dialogue.

RightOnDue - aha! I knew someone, somewhere held the key to this mystery!

I just thought of another. The case of "Debby". They seemed to go out of their way to protect her identity by giving her a false name and showing her in silhouette, yet they showed her sister on camera. Chances are if you know Debby's sister, you probably know Debby also.

I have five words to sum up this thread:

"That man he's got Johnathan":eek:

LOL...don't remind me of that segment....

Glad they caught that witch, though.