This story originally aired in 1987.

On 26 April 1986 at 10:40am, A farmer in rural Oklahoma notices a plume of smoke from the road. A body was found in the car but the body was burned beyond recognition. The car was found to belong to Pat Conway. Not long after, the body in the car was found to be that of Ayleen Conway, Pat's wife.

Initially, the cause of death was said to be an accidental death, however some facts point to another cause.

On the day of the accident, Pat returned home to find the patio door was open, his wife's handbag was still there despite never leaving the house without it, the iron board was setup with the iron on, the garden hose was running into the swimming pool, and upstairs, the bathtub was full with the phone next to the bathtub off the hook.

Pat went to investigate at the crash site, which according to Pat, was on a lonely country road which they had never travelled before. Around 200 metres from the crash site, they found a church bulletin from their church, suggesting the bulletin was thrown out of the car.



I'm starting to think that this could also be a possible suicide. Ayleen could have planned the whole thing. Why would you be doing the ironing, filling the swimming pool, and running a bath all at the same time?? She could have also poured petrol inside the car at a remote location and crashed the car deliberately.

Any updates?

No updates but since we are lacking any information that Aileen may have been suicidal at the time of her death, I think Pat Conway's scenerio of an interupted robbery turned into a murder seems like the most plausible explanation of what happened, given some of the inconsistencies brought out in the segment.

Maybe she was subtle and kept her problems to herself. Eventualyl she just had enough. But I still find it odd that she could be doing all of those things prior to being "abducted".

I read an article once indicating that jewlry was missing from the home - a detail not mentioned on UM to my knowledge.

This was a burglary gone bad.

Maybe she was subtle and kept her problems to herself. Eventualyl she just had enough. But I still find it odd that she could be doing all of those things prior to being "abducted".

Well, speaking as someone who grew up with a pool in the backyard, filling the pool like so even if just topping it off is something that is almost never supervised. You turn on the hose and either remember to go turn it off after a half hour or so, or you set a timer to remind yourself. It could have been that she was preparing to run errands and needed to bathe and also needed a single article of clothing ironed so she decided to iron while the bath was running. When someone broke in she ran for the bathroom to make the call for help and the assailant broke into the bathroom while she was on the phone.

One of my all time favorite UM segments. I agree that it was a robbery gone bad. I knew there were burglaries in the area and maybe they didn't realize anyone was home. I'm curious as to why they went to such links to kill her away from the scene though and I wonder if she was killed because she recognized the robber. As far as the strange things going on in the house she could have just been finishing up the ironing (maybe even forgot to unplug it) and knew filling up the pool would still take a while and decided to go start the bath water when she was suprised. I also remembered that her phone was off the hook which makes you wonder if she did that before anyone broke it so she wouldn't be interrupted during her bath or if the people that took her did that so she couldn't call for help. I also think its possible that Aileen was killed or knocked out at the house and then transported to the scene in her car by the robber and the crash was set up. Very strange case and nothing about it online. Maybe a relative will post on here one day and give us some more details.

I understand that filling up a pool takes time since I ALSO have a pool. If I remember correctly, the bath tap was turned off and the iron was left on. I guess this could mean she had finished the bath and thought she would do some ironing while the water cooled down. But then what was Ayleen doing driving in an area where she didn't usually drive? Where was she going? Was she alone? Where were the other people afterwards?

I'm curious as to why they went to such links to kill her away from the scene though...

My gut feeling is that they didn't want to kill her and leave her body in the house because they knew full well that doing so would lead to a homicide investigation. However, if her death could be made to look like an accident, it wouldn't be questioned, and this did work, at least initially.

I don't know about anyone else, but Ithink that this may be one unsolved mystery that will never be explain. Something just tells me that we'll never truly know why Aileen was out on that deserted country road or who killed her.

I don't know about anyone else, but Ithink that this may be one unsolved mystery that will never be explain. Something just tells me that we'll never truly know why Aileen was out on that deserted country road or who killed her.

Yes thats why its one of my favorite segments. Its so eerie the scenes of her empty house and its just so baffling how she was killed and the fact it was such a deserted road that she had never even been on before. I totally agree unsolved88 that we'll probaby never know what happened to her. I can't imagine what it must be like for her husband and all her children still not having any idea about the circumstances surrounding her death to this day.

I had never seen this case before I saw it on You Tube awhile back, and it is one of the most mysterious I have ever seen. On the one hand, the general state of disarray found in the house suggests that Ayleen had, indeed, left under duress (if we can take her family at their word for what was left behind: an iron still plugged in, her purse, water running into a pool, a waiting bath, and the telephone off the hook). I just re-watched this segment, and this time I, like AVERMAN, was initially struck by how much was evidently going on here: she was planning on bathing, ironing, and filling the pool all at more or less the same time? However, as others have pointed out, this really doesn't seem all that onerous when you think about it: the water in the pool must have been fairly low (if we take the UM segment as accurate in what it depicted), because even when Ayleen's husband returned home hours after the accident, the pool was not overflowing. So it would have been simple for her to be filling the pool while she ironed some clothes for the day and prepared to take a bath.

All of this does much to suggest that she was interrupted by someone during daily chores/housework, etc., and was abducted from her home.

However, I find the evidence at the actual scene of the incident somewhat less suggestive of murder. First, according to the segment, there were skid marks approaching where the car impacted the guard rail which suggested she was traveling between 50 and 60 mph when she hit the guard rail. To me, this rules out a few things:

1) suicide
2) a staged accident to cover up a previous murder

Skid marks happen when you break. If it were suicide, why would she break? And why would she choose to drive 19 miles away from her home, only to select a very crapshoot method of killing herself? People have certainly survived accidents of this kind, often under conditions worse than death itself (total paralysis, etc.). The only way I could see it being suicide would be if she herself had doused the inside of the car with gasoline, then ignited it shortly before going over the bridge, intending, essentially, to incinerate herself, but hide that act by intentionally crashing the car. This seems far-fetched and unlikely to me, unless she had some enormous life insurance policy or other very distinct motive for wanting to kill herself in such a way that it did not appear to be a suicide. And, at any rate, I doubt she could have actually hidden a self-immolation from investigators --- there would have been some evidence that this was what she had done.

I also think this evidence tends to rule out a scenario in which someone killed Ayleen prior to the crash, got out of the car, then sent it speeding along on its own to crash it, and then, finally, doused it with gasoline and incinerated it to hide the details of the crime. The UM segment suggests this as a possibility, based mostly on the finding of the Church bulletin found along side the road that Mr. Conway identified as having come from his wife's car. First, I'm not exactly sure how Mr. Conway could say that that particular Church bulletin came from his wife's car --- surely the Church gave out a few hundred of them, if not more, and so it could have come from anyone in the community. Hard to say it was definitely the one from his wife's car. The UM segment goes on to speculate that this evidence points to a scenario in which Ayleen's killer got out of the car when it was at presumably a full stop (about 200 yards from the eventual crash site), at which time the Church bulletin fell out (the UM segment claims that since Ayleen always drove with the windows up, there are only a limited number of ways this bulletin could have ended up by the side of the road), then somehow rigged the automobile so that it would speed up and crash off the bridge. Obviously, this assumes that Ayleen is already dead inside the car. Instead, it crashed into the railing. There are a couple of things wrong with this scenario: if Ayleen, already dead, was the lone occupant of the vehicle as it hurdled toward the guard rail, how is it that the car broke just in front of it, producing the skid marks? And, with just 200 yards separating the car from the guard rail, could the car have been rigged well enough, and was there enough space, to achieve the apparent speed of 50-60mph before impact that was estimated from the skid marks? I say the answer to these two questions is "there was no way the break was hit in this scenario prior to hitting the guard rail" and "there is no way the car would have been travelling that fast on impact, coming as it was from a dead stop only 200 yards away." That rules those scenarios out.

So what are we left with? The forensic expert interviewed in the segment argued that arson was a strong possibility, because of the missing gas cap and because of burn tests done to the inside of the car. However, the car really was travelling somewhere between 50 and 60 miles per hour before impacting the guard rail, with skid marks leading up to the point of impact. It suggests to me a driver who was aware of what was happening, who tried to prevent it, but who could not. That, in turn, suggests to me that Ayleen was alive and driving the car when it crashed. The only opportunity for arson, then, would be if someone doused the car after impact with gasoline, lit a match, and bolted. Only where would this person have gotten the gasoline? This was in the middle of nowhere; did they come prepared with a canister of gasoline, just in case they had to douse the car and incinerate it before heading away on foot? This doesn't seem very likely to me; indeed, everything at the scene points to an unfortunate accident. Perhaps the gas cap had been missing for some time before the day in question, a circumstance that unfortunately worked against Ayleen when she accidentally crashed the car.

Even though I think the evidence at the scene itself most strongly supports an accident, I realize there are some unsatisfactory elements here. Why was the house left the way it was if Ayleen was out on a planned trip? Why would she have left her purse behind? And why was she out at this place, on the road to nowhere, if it wasn't under someone else's direction?

After looking at all of this, I think the most likely explanation is that there was someone in the car with Ayleen when it crashed, but that person was able to get out before it burst into flames, and either made no effort to help Ayleen, or discovered that she was it was already too late by the time he extricated himself (the UM segment does not make it clear if Ayleen died as a result of injuries from the crash or from burning to death). This still doesn't make total sense, because there was evidently no evidence there had been another person in the car (would a fleeing would-be robber turned into murderer close the door of the car before heading out --- and, after the accident, assuming the passenger door could even be opened, would it have been all that easy to close it again?). But I don't know how else one can account for the state the house was left in, on the one hand, and the evidence at the scene, on the other. The only other two scenarios that seem possible to me are that this was indeed an accident caused by Ayleen because she was in some sort of hurry that went unexplained (perhaps she received a phone call about something she felt was an emergency, ran out of the house, as quick as she could, and was in such a hurry that she accidentally wrecked her car? But if this is so, what was it that had her so upset?) or that (and this seems extremely unlikely) the body in the car was misidentified (not unheard of with sever burn victims --- see the man who died in two fires case) because it was so badly burnt, and it was not Ayleen at all. Perhaps Ayleen was killed first and her body dumped elsewhere, and, in speeding away to make good an escape, the killer lost control of the vehicle and ended up a victim him/herself. This scenario would explain a lot, but it has major holes --- though it is possible, I doubt a body ID could be so far off base that not only would it get a person's name wrong, but the person's gender as well (because the killer/intruder here was likely a man, statistically speaking), and, in the comparatively little time that was had, the killer would have had to have hidden Ayleen's body so well that it was never discovered anywhere. This scenario, in short, is almost (if not entirely) impossible, even though it would help to explain some of the facts of the case.

So, what does anyone else think? No matter which way I look at this one, things don't add up. Anyone else have any ideas?

EDIT: In looking at the first part of the segment one more time, Stack's voice-over says the body in the car was burned "beyond recognition," that the car was identified as belonging to Pat Conway by a computer check, and that the victim was "later identified" as Ayleen Conway, which doesn't really give any indication as to how that identification was made (something irrefutable, or snippets of evidence coupled with a best guess?). They didn't have DNA back then; I wouldn't mind seeing the body exhumed for a DNA test today, just to be sure.

mozartpc -

First off, let me just say that this is the BEST post I have read on here.

Second, I really think you are on to something, and you have even changed my way of thinking. I never before considered the skidmarks. The fact that they were there indicates that someone was stepping on the brakes, and I think it is reasonable to assume that someone was Aileen. That being said, this IS clearly a traffic accident and nothing more. What was she doing out there? Who knows. I've always wondered if she could have been leading a double-life (IE. cheating on her husband).

Are you sure Stack et al. said "skidmarks" though? I don't remember this from the segment. Granted I have not watched it in some time, but I do remember them saying there was evidence of where the car left the road. I'm not sure beyond that...

The iron was left on, which runs the risk of burning the house down. I don't think Aileen would have burdened her family both by taking her own life and possibly destroying their house.

However, the car being found in an area Aileen never travelled gives me flashbacks of Gayle Delano, who flew from Maine to Alabama to commit suicide. Was Aileen doing something similar here?

mozartpc -

First off, let me just say that this is the BEST post I have read on here.

Second, I really think you are on to something, and you have even changed my way of thinking. I never before considered the skidmarks. The fact that they were there indicates that someone was stepping on the brakes, and I think it is reasonable to assume that someone was Aileen. That being said, this IS clearly a traffic accident and nothing more. What was she doing out there? Who knows. I've always wondered if she could have been leading a double-life (IE. cheating on her husband).

Are you sure Stack et al. said "skidmarks" though? I don't remember this from the segment. Granted I have not watched it in some time, but I do remember them saying there was evidence of where the car left the road. I'm not sure beyond that...

Thank you for the compliment! To answer your question, yes, skid marks are specifically mentioned --- it is from the pattern of these marks that they are able to determine the car's speed at impact.

The more I think about it, the more I think a DNA test of the corpse found in the car would be an excellent idea. Though the timeline does not favor a scenario in which a killer could have so thoroughly disposed of a body that it would never be found, I think that, if it in fact was someone else driving her car that day, it would explain almost everything else about the case. And, the killer would have had one major advantage here: if the killer's body was indeed incorrectly identified as Ayleen's, nobody ever looked for Ayleen. This might explain why she was never found.

It's a long shot, but I think one worth exploring.

Some interesting theories there mozart. The reason this is one of my all time favorite UM segments is that it is so baffling....nothing completely adds up. It does seem strange that she would be driving in unknown territory but possibly she wasn't thinking clearly and was trying to flee from the robbers. A scenario I never thought of until just now was that maybe Aileen tried to flee from the people that possibly broke into her house. Maybe there was a car chase and in Aileen's attempt to get away decided on a rural route and thus lost control of her car and hit the bridge. The people chasing her could have then doused the car if the impact alone didn't cause it to burst into flames. It does seem strange that someone was in Aileen's car and got out relatively unharmed when Aileen herself suffered such a horrible death. I don't think the things left on and running at her home seem strange although I am suprised at the phone being off the hook. Maybe the intruder (assuming there was one) took it off the hook. She certainly was interrupted while in the middle of doing her daily routine it seems. The scenario of Aileen fleeing and possibly being chased by a car would explain why she didn't think to bring her purse. Any opinions on that theory?

If Ayleen was being chased, I assume that the farmer who initially saw the smoke would have also heard a crash, a car skidding and another car speeding off.

I still suspect suicide.

My gut feeling is that they didn't want to kill her and leave her body in the house because they knew full well that doing so would lead to a homicide investigation. However, if her death could be made to look like an accident, it wouldn't be questioned, and this did work, at least initially.


Your assumption that they removed her from the house to avoid a full homicide investigation of the scene got me thinking of the scenario. Now, please forgive me if what i'm imagining is refuted by facts stating the contrary, but here's what I envision:

Mrs. Conway goes to fill up her pool, figuring that in the time it would take to get the water to the right amount she could have a nice bath, comfortably get herself dry and dressed, iron the clothes she was to wear (or others), and then come back and turn the hose off and then tend to whatever remained of her daily routine.

Once upstairs and disrobed for her bath, her and an intruder, who may or may not have got in while she was in the backyard with the pool, somehow meet and his fight/flight reaction is to attack. Why? Perhaps she knew him. Perhaps he was familiar enough with the Conways to know they were both supposed to be ou to fthe house at this time. Or perhaps that was the intent all along. Maybe they struggle, but not too much as the house doesn't indicate that. Its my feeling she was sexually assaulted, and THAT is what led to her being removed from the house. The criminal decided to erase any direct eveidence of his presence and assault, so the victim is removed from the house with the intention of killing her in a remote location, unless she was already dead at the house. Perhaps strangled due to there being no signs of blood loss. Her car is driven, either by him or her but my guess is him, to a place HE knows of and is familiar with. If she isn't dead by this time, she is killed at that scene and then doused with accelerant and burned. The assailant flees on foot, familiar enough with the area, and perhaps the Conways, to know he's safely within his alotted window of time to get himself somewhere for an alibi.

Okay. Like I said if there are parts of my summation that obviously cannot be, due to known facts/accepted theories, then please excuse my ignorance of them, I've only seen the segment once and I was a little distracted while it was on. Plus...I was a bad boy and I haven't read this complete post before I gave my opinion. If my summation is erroneous, please illuminate me as to what and why. That would help me to reorganize it.


Some things I would like to know:

Would justins5256's "homicide investigation" be any more thorough than the inevitable investigation of the house once she became a "missing person"/her body was found? Would it in any way differ in the methods of investigation?

The iron. I am assuming that this was before the days of automatic shut-off timers on irons (oh, how did you people live in those days?!?) so that the iron must have been on and hot. Do we know from her family if this was her routine? Was she known to let an iron get hot while doing other things, and occasionally forget about it? How much of Mrs. Conway's daily routine can explain the way the house was found?

Where they able to tell if the burned body in the car was clothed? Alive or dead at the time of impact? Is there evidence at the car site of another car being there? Any witnesses to any of the incendiary acts or is just assumed what type of accelerant was used and how it was applied?

Maybe all of those were answered in the segment. I gotta go rre-watch it.

If Ayleen was being chased, I assume that the farmer who initially saw the smoke would have also heard a crash, a car skidding and another car speeding off.



Not necessarily. He could have been in his tractor which would have been very loud and just happen to look up and see the smoke. Meaning just because he saw smoke doesn't mean he was close enough to have heard anything especially being in the cab of a loud tractor.

Not necessarily. He could have been in his tractor which would have been very loud and just happen to look up and see the smoke. Meaning just because he saw smoke doesn't mean he was close enough to have heard anything especially being in the cab of a loud tractor.

That's true. Was there any evidence of a second car being in the area where the car and body was found? I can't remember if they mentioned it on the segment.

I think a suicide is highly unlikely. It would explain why she left her purse, but leaving the iron on seems to unnecessarily endanger the welfare of others. And, supposing she hated her family and that's why she was killing herself and that she didn't care what heppened to them or their house, why would she drive 19 miles away from her home to a remote area to roll the dice that a car accident would do the trick? Why not take pills or get a gun or do anything with a much higher likelihood of success, and why not do it much closer to home? And, if she was intentionally killing herself, why the skid marks in front of the guard rail?

I suppose it is also possible she was being chased; crystaldawn, I had thought of a similar scenario this morning in which she was fleeing from the robbers in a panicked state (not necessarily being chased, however), had gotten lost, and then lost control of her car on that lonely dirt road.

I also thought it possible this morning that she was perhaps having an affair. This might explain why "no one knew what she was doing out there" --- perhaps she was going to the home of a lover no one knew about. I reasoned, in this version of events, that she might have intentionally left things looking like she had just run out for a minute. That way, if anyone came home unexpectedly, she could claim that was why she had gone --- a two minute trip to buy a newspaper, or whatever --- and then gotten caught up talking to someone she met. In other words, perhas she intended the state of disarray to be her alibi, but accidentally ended up dead.

That doesn't seem overly likely to me either, however; every different theory always has to have some reasonable explanation for why her purse was left behind. There are only a few ways to explain that, and suicide and abduction (not an accident while out on some legitimate errand or while out trying to meet a lover for a midafternoon trist) are the most prominent. I just don't see suicide as a reasonable possibility given the manner and location of her death, so murder remains, to me, the most logical remaining assumption.

Of course, much of this hinges on what the husband says he found at his home when he arrived back; we basically only have his word that the iron was on, the water for the pool was running, a bath was poured, and the phone was off the hook (I assume the presence of the purse is verifiable indepently of the husband, but I could even be wrong there). In a wild scenario, perhaps the husband himself had her killed, and now uses the "I insist it was murder" act to protect himself should it ever come to light she actually was murdered (though I assume Pat Conway is likely dead now, given his apparent age in the segment). This doesn't seem likely to me at all, of course, because it leaves a glaring question: how did the killer murder Ayleen? I can't imagine anyone riding in the car with her would have attempted to intentionally induce her to drive off the bridge or into a guard rail at 50-60mph for fear of his own safety. As I argued previously, a staged accident followed by an intentional arson seems equally unlikely from the physical evidence at the scene.

This is a really tough case. I think some things are more or less ruled out, as I said before, by the presence of skid marks on the road and the speed at which the vehicle was apparently travelling (suicide, a murder followed by someone rigging the car so that it drove into the guard rail on its own with only a dead woman inside), but I feel like that does not actually limit the possibilities much. And maybe I've ruled out suicide too quickly --- if she was trying to drive off the bridge into the water below (which would at least make more sense as a suicide attempt than slamming into a guard rail, but I didn't get the impression from the segment that the water the bridge ran over was all that deep or that the gap the bridge went over was all that high, both of which argue against suicide to me --- again, why would you pick a method that had such a large built-in chance of not working?), and something went wrong, perhaps that's why she hit the break and ultimately ended up crashing into the guard rail.

Im leaning toward a one-car accident at the moment, with some kind of bizarre and apparently never discovered reason for her to be out where she was (fleeing from an intruder, being chased, hurrying toward a rendez-vous point with her lover), but I'm not at all sold on this as the only explanation.

Was there any evidence of a second car being in the area where the car and body was found?

Not that the segment mentions.

I think we are all getting too far out in trying to figure out what happened here although it is bizarre. The facts seem to support something happening in the Conway home that caused Aileen to leave in a hurry.

There had to be some type of an emergency to cause her to flee. We have no evidence that Aileen was suicidal or that she was an irresponsible person who would have left her house in such a state of disarray before departing so everything to me points to some type of emergency occuring on that day which caused Aileen to flee the house.

Now what caused her to do that, I don't know. I don't believe she was having an affair though as to me that doesn't seem like a big enough emergency for her to flee out the door leaving her house in the state it was found in. The problem was if it was a true emergency (such as Aileen running off to help someone in need) then that person after Aileen died would've come forward and said "Aileen was coming to help me..." or such and such. Also there would likely be some means of determining where Aileen was headed in such an emergency as she had to get news of this emergency from somewhere (phone call, someone dropping by etc.)

Which leads me back to the robbery theory, I can't remember how far the Conway home is from the bridge (if the segment even mentioned it) but I can't imagine a high speed chase between Aileen Conway and the people that were chasing her and nobody else saw it.

This again leads you to think if Mrs. Conway was already dead when the car hit that bridge. I just don't know, the skid marks theory is interesting although a crafty murderer could have easily staged that as well to make it look like an accident. The fact that there were traces of arson (verified by an arson expert) makes me learn more towards a second party being involved here rather than this just being a case of a traffic accident.

Although then again it could have easily been a case of a hit and run accident where someone unintetionally ran Mrs. Conway off the road and then when they saw her car burst into flames didn't even bother to stop and help her because they didn't want to be responsible for her accident or death - the just drove on by.

I've searched for info on this case and come up a total blank. Is her name definitely spelled "Ayleen"?

One thing I would want to bring up are the skid marks on the road. The road obviously was a dusty dirt path, and most measurements of skid marks to gauge the speed a car was travelling are done on asphalt. When I was a young irresponsible teenager I used to make impressive "skid marks" on dirt roads by hitting the emergency brake.

Is it possible that the car wasn't in fact travelling at 50-60 mph? Is it possible that the car in fact wasn't even braking as it ran off the road?

I've searched for info on this case and come up a total blank. Is her name definitely spelled "Ayleen"?

One thing I would want to bring up are the skid marks on the road. The road obviously was a dusty dirt path, and most measurements of skid marks to gauge the speed a car was travelling are done on asphalt. When I was a young irresponsible teenager I used to make impressive "skid marks" on dirt roads by hitting the emergency brake.

Is it possible that the car wasn't in fact travelling at 50-60 mph? Is it possible that the car in fact wasn't even braking as it ran off the road?

You make an interesting point. I'm no expert on tires, etc., and in the segment UM depicts the road that Ayleen Conway was found on as basically a dirt road. I have no idea what the difference between regular "tire tracks" and "skid marks" would be on a dirt road, assuming that any difference could be noticed. I was simply going by the wording of the segment, and my understanding of what skid marks typically indicate.

Just rewatched this one today. I lean hugely towards Aileen being murdered. Also, she left behind her purse with her drivers license and glasses in it, and the patio door was opened. There had been a rash of burglaries in the area at that time. Really unfortunate, she seemed to have 6 or 7 kids.

Another theory:

She was interrupted by an assailant while doing her regular household chores. She was then forced to her car, perhaps injured or bound in some way. Assailant drives. The assailant rigs the gas pedal, probably by jamming it with something. The assailant exits the car where the church bulletin is found and either forces Ayleen to the driver's seat or places an unconcious Ayleen behind the wheel and sends the car on the way. Ayleen frees herself from her bonds or rouses enough to attempt to stop the car accounting for the skid marks. She is injured in the accident. The assailant then finishes the job by torching the car.

Why didn't she just jump from the car? She was perhaps afraid that if she jumped from the car the assailant would still be there to harm her or was just too disoriented or in shock.

Why not steer the car from danger? Would she have had time to gain control of the car?

This theory would require that there be two assailants, one in Ayleen's car and one following in another.

Whatever happened to Aileen, it had to have happened during a short period of time. A picture at the beginning of the segment shows that she had 7 children. Since nobody else had to have been home at the time, I guess we're too assume that this happened on a week day while the children were at school. The farmer discovered her car burning at 10:40 a.m. - that means that she was killed just a couple hours after the children left for school.

I have no idea what could have happened to her though. At first I leaned towards her coming home early that morning, possibly after dropping the children off at school, to a robbery at her house and she was "taken care of." But there were no signs of a struggle at the house. If there WAS indeed a struggle, the killers could have cleaned it up but they would have taken SOMETHING and as far as I can remember, nothing was reported stolen in the house.

But I don't get the suicide angle either. There was no history of depression, stress or anxiety. Even so, if she wanted to take her own life, there would be so many other faster more conveniant ways to get it done.

Strange case.

There WAS jewelry missing from the house. I read this on Newsbank.

Another theory:

She was interrupted by an assailant while doing her regular household chores. She was then forced to her car, perhaps injured or bound in some way. Assailant drives. The assailant rigs the gas pedal, probably by jamming it with something. The assailant exits the car where the church bulletin is found and either forces Ayleen to the driver's seat or places an unconcious Ayleen behind the wheel and sends the car on the way. Ayleen frees herself from her bonds or rouses enough to attempt to stop the car accounting for the skid marks. She is injured in the accident. The assailant then finishes the job by torching the car.

Why didn't she just jump from the car? She was perhaps afraid that if she jumped from the car the assailant would still be there to harm her or was just too disoriented or in shock.

Why not steer the car from danger? Would she have had time to gain control of the car?

This theory would require that there be two assailants, one in Ayleen's car and one following in another.

This could be, but it seems like an awful lot of things would have to go right, and again, the church bulletin was found about 200 yards from the site of the car crash. Could a car with a rigged accelerator have gotten up to 50-60mph in that short a space? That was the estimate of the speed at impact, from evidence at the scene.

One way to make this scenario a little more plausible would be to discount the church bulletin as having anything to do with Ayleen's car. In my original post on this case, I expressed doubts about whether or not the particular Church bulletin found at the scene could really be positively linked to Ayleen's car, and I still have those doubts. I think it is just as, if not more, likely that the bulletin came from another source (if the Churches I've attended are any indication, it's not as if their bulletins are in short supply or are so rare that if one is found in a town near where the Church is located that it can be precisely traced to whoever last had it). Discounting the bulletin, then, it's possible the killer could have rigged the accelerator with Ayleen behind the wheel any distance from the eventual crash site, which makes more or less any eventual speed possible.

However, I still think this is far too involved to have actually worked. In order to rig the accelerator, the killer would have had to have the car off, and either himself behind the wheel or at least outside the car, bending underneath the steering wheel, which almost certainly means Ayleen must have been far enough out of the way to allow him access to the gas pedal (there isn't a whole lot of room underneath the steering wheel of a car, even in one as big as the one Ayleen appeared to be driving). Then, the perpetrator would have had to put Ayleen's back behind the wheel.

Presumably, Ayleen would have to have been either unconscious or dead for this operation to work, because 1) who would voluntarily get behind the wheel of a car that was rigged to accelerate with no way to stop it? and 2) if she had been restrained in some way, I would think some evidence of that would have been found. And yet, to move her into position behind the wheel, so that it would appear she was driving, I think would have been next to impossible for a single assailant: she was not a small woman. Perhaps if there were two people, but, like all conspiracy theories, this is threatening to spiral out of control fairly quickly. To come up with a scenario where an unconscious or dead Ayleen was placed behind the wheel of her own car and the accelerator rigged, we have to imagine two assailants collaborating, even though there is no physical evidence that there was even one other person with Ayleen that day. Is it possible? Sure. But is it likely? No.

What I am starting to think is that perhaps Ayleen felt the onset of a medical emergency --- some kind of tightness in her chest or symptoms of a stroke seem likely --- and, thinking she could make it and that it would be faster, attempted to get herself to help on her own, rather than calling an amublence. Indeed, perhaps she tried that, but either couldn't remember a number or found she was having trouble speaking or operating the phone in some way, and so quickly changed her plan (which would explain why the phone was off the hook when her husband returned home). She got into her car, and attempted to take herself to help (it would be interesting to know where the nearest hospital was in relation to where she was found), and simply suffered the end phase of whatever it was she was feeling on the way (the final rip of a heart attack, or some last debilitating moment of a stroke). During the final seizure she reflexively hit the break as her car careened out of control, but that reaction came too late; her car, which she was driving at a high rate of speed trying to get to help quickly, drifted into the guard rail, and due to an exposed gas tank (thanks to the gas cap being missing) was set ablaze by the impact of metal with metal, which undoubtedly gave off a few sparks (I see little ones all the time when I rub my metal hangers against the metal rod I hang them on, so wouldn't an electrically charged automobile impacting a guard rail produce even bigger sparks?). If the road she was on was not on the way to the hospital, perhaps what she was suffering from was a stroke, which was affecting her memory/sense of direction even as she was driving. A stroke would also explain an aborted telephone call --- perhaps the stroke was causing her to be unable to speak, and that left herself as her only option for finding help before it was too late.

This scenario seems the best and simplest way to account for everything found at the house and the scene.

This could be, but it seems like an awful lot of things would have to go right, and again, the church bulletin was found about 200 yards from the site of the car crash. Could a car with a rigged accelerator have gotten up to 50-60mph in that short a space? That was the estimate of the speed at impact, from evidence at the scene.

One way to make this scenario a little more plausible would be to discount the church bulletin as having anything to do with Ayleen's car. In my original post on this case, I expressed doubts about whether or not the particular Church bulletin found at the scene could really be positively linked to Ayleen's car, and I still have those doubts. I think it is just as, if not more, likely that the bulletin came from another source (if the Churches I've attended are any indication, it's not as if their bulletins are in short supply or are so rare that if one is found in a town near where the Church is located that it can be precisely traced to whoever last had it). Discounting the bulletin, then, it's possible the killer could have rigged the accelerator with Ayleen behind the wheel any distance from the eventual crash site, which makes more or less any eventual speed possible.

However, I still think this is far too involved to have actually worked. In order to rig the accelerator, the killer would have had to have the car off, and either himself behind the wheel or at least outside the car, bending underneath the steering wheel, which almost certainly means Ayleen must have been far enough out of the way to allow him access to the gas pedal (there isn't a whole lot of room underneath the steering wheel of a car, even in one as big as the one Ayleen appeared to be driving). Then, the perpetrator would have had to put Ayleen's back behind the wheel.

Presumably, Ayleen would have to have been either unconscious or dead for this operation to work, because 1) who would voluntarily get behind the wheel of a car that was rigged to accelerate with no way to stop it? and 2) if she had been restrained in some way, I would think some evidence of that would have been found. And yet, to move her into position behind the wheel, so that it would appear she was driving, I think would have been next to impossible for a single assailant: she was not a small woman. Perhaps if there were two people, but, like all conspiracy theories, this is threatening to spiral out of control fairly quickly. To come up with a scenario where an unconscious or dead Ayleen was placed behind the wheel of her own car and the accelerator rigged, we have to imagine two assailants collaborating, even though there is no physical evidence that there was even one other person with Ayleen that day. Is it possible? Sure. But is it likely? No.

What I am starting to think is that perhaps Ayleen felt the onset of a medical emergency --- some kind of tightness in her chest or symptoms of a stroke seem likely --- and, thinking she could make it and that it would be faster, attempted to get herself to help on her own, rather than calling an amublence. Indeed, perhaps she tried that, but either couldn't remember a number or found she was having trouble speaking or operating the phone in some way, and so quickly changed her plan (which would explain why the phone was off the hook when her husband returned home). She got into her car, and attempted to take herself to help (it would be interesting to know where the nearest hospital was in relation to where she was found), and simply suffered the end phase of whatever it was she was feeling on the way (the final rip of a heart attack, or some last debilitating moment of a stroke). During the final seizure she reflexively hit the break as her car careened out of control, but that reaction came too late; her car, which she was driving at a high rate of speed trying to get to help quickly, drifted into the guard rail, and due to an exposed gas tank (thanks to the gas cap being missing) was set ablaze by the impact of metal with metal, which undoubtedly gave off a few sparks (I see little ones all the time when I rub my metal hangers against the metal rod I hang them on, so wouldn't an electrically charged automobile impacting a guard rail produce even bigger sparks?). If the road she was on was not on the way to the hospital, perhaps what she was suffering from was a stroke, which was affecting her memory/sense of direction even as she was driving. A stroke would also explain an aborted telephone call --- perhaps the stroke was causing her to be unable to speak, and that left herself as her only option for finding help before it was too late.

This scenario seems the best and simplest way to account for everything found at the house and the scene.

No one ever responded to this post :( I thought I just about solved this case!

No one ever responded to this post :( I thought I just about solved this case!

Well I found your posts interesting but I don't really think it was some sort of medical emergency. The way they talked it was a remote area not near their house that none of them have ever traveled on. I think the most plausible scenario was that the people who had vandalized houses in the area, struck during the day where Aileen was there in the midst of her housework and preparing to take a bath. Maybe this was the first time they had encountered someone home during these robberies and maybe Aileen could even identify them and they panicked and killed her. Perhaps there were two and they wanted to dispose of Aileen's body and make people think she may have died in a car accident so took her body and put it in her car while the accomplice or accomplices drove her car to a very isolated area, doused it with accelerants and put something on the accelerator and caused her to drive into the bridge with her dead body inside. Depending whether there was a car belonging to the accomplices they could have either left in the getaway car or ran off on foot. You really have to come to the conclusion that its some sort of foul play simply because of the use of accelerants.

Well I found your posts interesting but I don't really think it was some sort of medical emergency. The way they talked it was a remote area not near their house that none of them have ever traveled on. I think the most plausible scenario was that the people who had vandalized houses in the area, struck during the day where Aileen was there in the midst of her housework and preparing to take a bath. Maybe this was the first time they had encountered someone home during these robberies and maybe Aileen could even identify them and they panicked and killed her. Perhaps there were two and they wanted to dispose of Aileen's body and make people think she may have died in a car accident so took her body and put it in her car while the accomplice or accomplices drove her car to a very isolated area, doused it with accelerants and put something on the accelerator and caused her to drive into the bridge with her dead body inside. Depending whether there was a car belonging to the accomplices they could have either left in the getaway car or ran off on foot. You really have to come to the conclusion that its some sort of foul play simply because of the use of accelerants.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no definitive proof that accelerants were used on the inside of the vehicle. The investigator merely suggested that, because the gas cap was off, the fire burned hotter and more intensely than it would have otherwise, since the gas tank was exposed. If there was irrefutable evidence that she and the interior of her car were doused with gasoline prior to crashing, then I would have to agree (and I'm sure investigating authorities would have to agree as well) that it was either a bizarre suicide or (more likely) a murder. But I don't think the use of accelerants in addition to gasoline naturally present in the gas tank was ever proven.

I still think the problem with the "rigging the accelerator of the car with her already dead or unconscious body inside" theory is that there were skid marks prior to the guard rail, indicating someone hit the break. But how could she if she was dead, or out? If she wasn't dead already, and the killer was depending on the crash to kill her, why use a method of murder that was hardly guaranteed to work? Additionally, if the accelerator was rigged 200 yards from the accident site (near to where the Church bulletin was found), how did it reach the 50-60mph speed on impact before crashing? I don't think it's possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no definitive proof that accelerants were used on the inside of the vehicle. The investigator merely suggested that, because the gas cap was off, the fire burned hotter and more intensely than it would have otherwise, since the gas tank was exposed. If there was irrefutable evidence that she and the interior of her car were doused with gasoline prior to crashing, then I would have to agree (and I'm sure investigating authorities would have to agree as well) that it was either a bizarre suicide or (more likely) a murder. But I don't think the use of accelerants in addition to gasoline naturally present in the gas tank was ever proven.

From what I remember of the segment, and it's been awhile, there was an **assumption** that accelerants were used because of the amount of fire damage to her car. UM "proved" this by showing what would happen if a flame was applied to a piece of carpet from a similar vehicle. Interestingly enough, the carpet was made of a material that acted as a flame retardant and it did not ignite until it was hosed with gasoline. All that aside, I don't believe it was ever stated, as fact, that accelerants were used. From what I recall, the cause of death was changed to "undetermined". If they could prove that an accelerant was used, then I'm thinking it would be more likely classified as a homicide.


I still think the problem with the "rigging the accelerator of the car with her already dead or unconscious body inside" theory is that there were skid marks prior to the guard rail, indicating someone hit the break. But how could she if she was dead, or out? If she wasn't dead already, and the killer was depending on the crash to kill her, why use a method of murder that was hardly guaranteed to work? Additionally, if the accelerator was rigged 200 yards from the accident site (near to where the Church bulletin was found), how did it reach the 50-60mph speed on impact before crashing? I don't think it's possible.

The fact that there were skidmarks suggests, to me at least, that someone was stepping on the brakes just prior to impact. I think its safe to assume she lost control of the car at a high speed, but why was showing going so fast and what was she doing out there? Maybe the chase scenario you suggested in an earlier post isn't that far fetched. They (the killers) could have come back and doused the car post-crash. Ayleen could have already been dead or unconscious.

it's alot of little things that point towards murder as opposed to suicide, accident or medical emergency.

1. the state of the house when it was left: bathtub running, pool filling, etc. When someone decides to commit suicide, it probably isn't so spur of the moment like that. It's more likely planned out well in advance.

2. I think the last thing someone would do in a medical emergency is travel in an area they are unfamiliar with as the risk of getting lost and losing precious amounts of time is quite high.

3. An accident is possible, but why would someone voluntarily leave their house the way it was left?

4. We did learn that there was a string of home burglaries in the area at the time, so a burglary/robbery here is very possible. Additionally, there wasn't any indication Aileen would leave her husband and I believe she had 5-7 kids.

it's alot of little things that point towards murder as opposed to suicide, accident or medical emergency.

1. the state of the house when it was left: bathtub running, pool filling, etc. When someone decides to commit suicide, it probably isn't so spur of the moment like that. It's more likely planned out well in advance.

2. I think the last thing someone would do in a medical emergency is travel in an area they are unfamiliar with as the risk of getting lost and losing precious amounts of time is quite high.

3. An accident is possible, but why would someone voluntarily leave their house the way it was left?

4. We did learn that there was a string of home burglaries in the area at the time, so a burglary/robbery here is very possible. Additionally, there wasn't any indication Aileen would leave her husband and I believe she had 5-7 kids.

The problem with the murder theory to me is this: if she was murdered, how was it done? There doesn't appear to me to be a murder scenario that is very likely. Rigging the car seems too far-fetched, too difficult, too unreliable a method of execution, and besides the physical evidence at the scene (the speed of the car at impact, the skid marks) seem to argue against a rigged vehicle with one dead person inside being purposefully sent to crash. Other methods of murder appear even less likely.

As for why she was out in the middle of nowhere if it was just an accident, I would submit that if she was suffering a stroke, as I have surmised, she could hve easily become disoriented and confused, and simply made a wrong turn or two on her way to where she thought the nearest hospital or emergency room was. If you can accept that as an explanation for her location idea, the rest of the apparently mysterious circumstances start to make a lot more sense. A woman doing her normal, daily house chores suffers the onset of a stroke. Realizing something is wrong, she stops everything she is doing and picks up the telephone to dial for help. The stroke, however, has already either impaired her memory (so that she cannot come up with a number to dial) or her speech (so that even if she could dial, she realizes she would not be able to communicate her situation over the phone). Panicked, she finds her car keys and gets in, and just starts to drive, thinking she can remember where her doctor or the hospital is. Along the way, the effects of the stroke are such that she loses her way, and eventually she ends up in near death, loses control of her car, hits that break reflexively, and the rest, as they say, is history.

A simple accident does not account for why the house was left the way it was or why she was where she was, but a murder, to me, seems extraordinarily uinlikely given the evidence at the scene. If someone can come up with something a lot more plausible than rigging an automobile to crash, I'm willing to listen, but the speed of the vehicle on impact and the skid marks are major obstacles that would need to be overcome.

Please don't kill me board but was the husband ever considered a suspect? I'm not saying he's guilty because he seemed really genuine and sincere in the eppie but there's certainly that possibility he might have staged Ayleen's death to fit these circumstances???? I'm not sure what his motive might have been unless it was money but I'm just throwing something out there.


Also, there was something I noticed UM didn't elaborate on. At the scene, there was mention of skid marks from Ayleen's car. What wasn't indicated was if there was more than one set of tire marks or even a set of footprints to indicate that she might have been followed and/or was not alone?????

One theory I think could have also occurred and this ties in with the phone off the hook, maybe Ayleen got sick? Maybe she was about to call someone for help and realized she was getting worse, panicked and/or became disoriented and decided to go for help herself and thus ended up on that lonely stretch of road?

The problem with the murder theory to me is this: if she was murdered, how was it done? There doesn't appear to me to be a murder scenario that is very likely. Rigging the car seems too far-fetched, too difficult, too unreliable a method of execution, and besides the physical evidence at the scene (the speed of the car at impact, the skid marks) seem to argue against a rigged vehicle with one dead person inside being purposefully sent to crash. Other methods of murder appear even less likely.

As for why she was out in the middle of nowhere if it was just an accident, I would submit that if she was suffering a stroke, as I have surmised, she could hve easily become disoriented and confused, and simply made a wrong turn or two on her way to where she thought the nearest hospital or emergency room was. If you can accept that as an explanation for her location idea, the rest of the apparently mysterious circumstances start to make a lot more sense. A woman doing her normal, daily house chores suffers the onset of a stroke. Realizing something is wrong, she stops everything she is doing and picks up the telephone to dial for help. The stroke, however, has already either impaired her memory (so that she cannot come up with a number to dial) or her speech (so that even if she could dial, she realizes she would not be able to communicate her situation over the phone). Panicked, she finds her car keys and gets in, and just starts to drive, thinking she can remember where her doctor or the hospital is. Along the way, the effects of the stroke are such that she loses her way, and eventually she ends up in near death, loses control of her car, hits that break reflexively, and the rest, as they say, is history.

A simple accident does not account for why the house was left the way it was or why she was where she was, but a murder, to me, seems extraordinarily uinlikely given the evidence at the scene. If someone can come up with something a lot more plausible than rigging an automobile to crash, I'm willing to listen, but the speed of the vehicle on impact and the skid marks are major obstacles that would need to be overcome.

I'm not the world's foremost expert on vehicles, but there was another UM case where someone was murdered and it was enginereed to be a car crash accident (Kathy Bonderson.)

I don't know, if someone doesn't have the mental capacity to call for help, odds are there is absolutely no way they will have the mental capacity to drive somewhere for help. Plus, driving when sick/injured is extremely risky as not only does that person jeopardize their own health and safety, but also the health and safety of everyone on the road.

Please don't kill me board but was the husband ever considered a suspect? I'm not saying he's guilty because he seemed really genuine and sincere in the eppie but there's certainly that possibility he might have staged Ayleen's death to fit these circumstances???? I'm not sure what his motive might have been unless it was money but I'm just throwing something out there.


Also, there was something I noticed UM didn't elaborate on. At the scene, there was mention of skid marks from Ayleen's car. What wasn't indicated was if there was more than one set of tire marks or even a set of footprints to indicate that she might have been followed and/or was not alone?????

One theory I think could have also occurred and this ties in with the phone off the hook, maybe Ayleen got sick? Maybe she was about to call someone for help and realized she was getting worse, panicked and/or became disoriented and decided to go for help herself and thus ended up on that lonely stretch of road?

the phone being off the hook is an interesting point that I forgot. There was another case where a phone was off the hook and it was done presumably while a murder was taking place (the Dr. Ted Losef case). could be the same thing happened here, but the murderer just forgot to put the phone back on the hook. Or it could just be that Ayleen didn't want to be disturbed while taking a bath.

the phone being off the hook is an interesting point that I forgot. There was another case where a phone was off the hook and it was done presumably while a murder was taking place (the Dr. Ted Losef case). could be the same thing happened here, but the murderer just forgot to put the phone back on the hook. Or it could just be that Ayleen didn't want to be disturbed while taking a bath.

Well, if Ayleen didn't want to be disturbed while taking a bath, that sounds more like something she would do every time she took a bath, and therefore it would be common and not necessarily mentioned in the segment? I mean honestly, if I don't want to be disturbed while I'm taking a bath I just don't answer the phone.

looking at this case from a different angle, if it was a burglary/robbery, how come nothing was taken?

I'm curious to know whether the burlaries continued after this incident. If not, that would suggest to me that they did murder Ayleen, as they were probably not comfortable murdering people and intended to stick to home burglaries.

I never thought the church bulleting meant anything. It could have easily blown into the area by breeze. I don't think its either here or there IMO.

looking at this case from a different angle, if it was a burglary/robbery, how come nothing was taken?

Actually, I believe Ayleen's family claimed that, after doing some investigating after her death, they discovered some jewelry and other valuables were missing. The UM segment does not make it clear how long after Ayleen died that these things were discovered to be gone.

In general, I think the point of your question, wiseguy, was right on the money. I was going to bring up the idea of looking at this case from the robbery perspective myself yesterday, but I wanted to wait and see what other people had to say. It was not apparently evident to Ayleen's husband or children that a robbery had taken place the day Ayleen died, even though the house was found in a kind of "suspended animation." If two burglars entered the house expecting to ransack it, how are we to account for this?

I think we have to begin by examining the case for murder very carefully. If Ayleen was murdered, she was murdered by one or more extraordinarily clever people: they figured out how to stage her murder so convincingly like a traffic accident that it's close to impossible to distinguish it from one. It's also been theorized that this killer or these killers were the same people who had perpetrated other burglaries in the area at around the same time Ayleen was killed. As far as we know, no one was killed or even home when these burglaries took place. So, we can surmise from this, assuming the burglarer(s) and killer(s) are one and the same, that these robbers generally wanted to avoid confrontation, but wound up accidentally surprising Ayleen.

But if these people were so damn clever that they could stage Ayleen's murder so that it was indistinguishable from a traffic accident, and they were experienced burglarers who had struck before, why weren't they clever enough to stake out the Conway home for even one day before deciding to try to rob it? If they had, surely they would have noticed that Ayleen was a housewife who was home during the day most of the time, and that when her car was in the driveway, she was home! It's obviously not the case that Ayleen went out for awhile and when she came back the burglarers were in her house, because it's obvious that she was in the middle of doing a bunch of stuff when she was interrupted. So, she must have been in the home when the burglarers entered! How could people capable of such clever murder not figure out whether or not she was home before entering the house!?

Next, upon entering the house, there was apparently no attempt to burglarize it, because presumably, if there had been, the family would have noticed things out of place, drawers that had been sifted through or emptied, etc. I suppose it's possible that Ayleen surprised the robbers almost instantly, so that they never had a chance to do anything without her seeing it. Why then didn't they just turn around and leave? If they did surprise her, they obviously did so at a moment where she wouldn't have been in much of a condition to chase them, even if she was inclined to take the law into her own hands: she was in the middle of daily chores, preparing to take a bath! If they had just turned around and left the moment Ayleen spotted them, they would have gotten away scott free in all probability, without killing anybody.

Perhaps, rather than flee, the robbers got the bright idea to take Ayleen hostage, and force her to tell them where to find stuff, obfuscating the need to ransack the house in order to find what they were looking for. Of course, this was not apparently their normal M.O., but let's pretend that's what happened. So, they find some jewelry and other things, then take Ayleen out into the country, where they do a fabulous job of staging an accident in order to kill her? And even if that sounds plausible, one would still have to explain exactly how the murder was perpetrated, as I challenged people to do before.

There are just too many complex variables here. A robbery is committed by burglarers who had previously hit homes that were vacated, and it is done in such a way that there are no obvious signs that someone other than Ayleen had been in the house. These people then decide they need to kill Ayleen, so they drive her several miles out of town, then stage a car accident in order to kill her. The "accident" happens in such a way that it is very difficult to imagine how it could have been staged while accounting for all the physical evidence present at the scene (a point that no one has satisfactorily answered as yet). Not only that, but on a road that was apparently as much dirt as pavement, they staged the accident without leaving any apparent trace of their presence at the scene: no footprints, tiremarks, etc.

Can anyone explain how the accident was staged so that it explains the skidmarks, the speed at impact, AND the apparent lack of evidence of another person or vehicle having been present?

The only scenario I can imagine that involves burglarers at all would be if they came in, thinking the house was empty for some reason, but Ayleen heard them. She picked up the telephone to call the police, but by that time they realized they were not alone and made a break for it. In a moment of vigilante heroism, Ayleen decided to go out to her own car and give chase. She successfully did so for a number of miles, before losing control of her car on a dirt road while following them at a high rate of speed and accidentally crashing.

Given Ayleen's age, apparent physical condition (overweight), and the lack of any direct evidence in the home of burglary on the day in question, I feel this is highly improbable.

It's interesting to note the number of inexperienced criminals that have probably gotten away with murder on UM. The usual suspects (Pollis, Caylor, Rob Page, Chad Noe and others) come to mind. I'm wondering if that is what happened here. Normally, one wouldn't think that such a rookie could get away with it, but it seems to have happened alot.

I just re-watched the segment, and it looks more like murder to me than it did in previous viewings.

1. The patio door was open. Nobody on earth is going to do that, and leave the possibility of intruders coming in and having it so that there's no sign of forcible entry.

2. She left the iron on. I doubt she would have run the risk of having her house burnt down.

3. She left behind her purse, which contained her glasses. Most women don't go anywhere without their purse, and she may have needed the glasses to be able to see to drive. Additionally, without a purse, she has no means of money, identification, emergency supplies (all of which could be imporant to her, including if the going to the hospital angle is true.)

4. Mozart, to answer an earlier question of yours, I don't find it particularly suspicious that the supposed burglars wouldn't have noticed Ayleen in the house. the farmer discovered the burning car at 10:40, The Conways lived at least 15 minutes from the crash site, making the absolute latest Ayleen left the house at 10:25, which is relatively early in most people's mornings. She could have slept in late that day or something.

5. Granted Ayleen might not have cared about too much if she was going to committ suicide, but why leave the good possibility of leaving your house susceptible to being burnt or burglaized, why put your husband and many kids throught that?

6. The use of accelerants has not been proven fact at this point, but it heavily leans that way for several reasons. Justin mentioned one earlier, and there are additional ones: The gas cap was missing, and one of the investgators in the segment mentioned that in most cases of vehicle arson, the gas cap is missing. Also, the car was burned very severely, and Ayleen's body was burnt beyond recognition (they had to do a trace of the car to determine who it belonged to.) which would point to arson as it would be immensely rare in my opinion for a normal car crash to produce that type of a flame.

7. Sorry, I don't buy the medical emergency. As I've stated before, she actually puts herself in greater danger by driving as she risks killing herself and others out on the road. Additionally, if she runs of the road and can't leave the car, there is a chance no one would find her until it's too late. whereas if she stays home, she can at least call 911 and have help come to her or go to a neighbors house.

For it to be something other than murder, it would have to overcome alot of unbelievable odds: the burglaries in the area would have to be a coincidence, Ayleen would willingly leave her house in the state it was in, she would have a reason for being out on a road she never traveled 15 minutes from her home, she would have to not have the mental capacity to dial 911 but would have to have the mental capacity to drive and also risk killing herself and others by driving, the use of accelerants would have to be disproven, even though it strongly leans towards they were used.

I just re-watched the segment, and it looks more like murder to me than it did in previous viewings.

1. The patio door was open. Nobody on earth is going to do that, and leave the possibility of intruders coming in and having it so that there's no sign of forcible entry.

2. She left the iron on. I doubt she would have run the risk of having her house burnt down.

3. She left behind her purse, which contained her glasses. Most women don't go anywhere without their purse, and she may have needed the glasses to be able to see to drive. Additionally, without a purse, she has no means of money, identification, emergency supplies (all of which could be imporant to her, including if the going to the hospital angle is true.)

4. Mozart, to answer an earlier question of yours, I don't find it particularly suspicious that the supposed burglars wouldn't have noticed Ayleen in the house. the farmer discovered the burning car at 10:40, The Conways lived at least 15 minutes from the crash site, making the absolute latest Ayleen left the house at 10:25, which is relatively early in most people's mornings. She could have slept in late that day or something.

5. Granted Ayleen might not have cared about too much if she was going to committ suicide, but why leave the good possibility of leaving your house susceptible to being burnt or burglaized, why put your husband and many kids throught that?

6. The use of accelerants has not been proven fact at this point, but it heavily leans that way for several reasons. Justin mentioned one earlier, and there are additional ones: The gas cap was missing, and one of the investgators in the segment mentioned that in most cases of vehicle arson, the gas cap is missing. Also, the car was burned very severely, and Ayleen's body was burnt beyond recognition (they had to do a trace of the car to determine who it belonged to.) which would point to arson as it would be immensely rare in my opinion for a normal car crash to produce that type of a flame.

7. Sorry, I don't buy the medical emergency. As I've stated before, she actually puts herself in greater danger by driving as she risks killing herself and others out on the road. Additionally, if she runs of the road and can't leave the car, there is a chance no one would find her until it's too late. whereas if she stays home, she can at least call 911 and have help come to her or go to a neighbors house.

For it to be something other than murder, it would have to overcome alot of unbelievable odds: the burglaries in the area would have to be a coincidence, Ayleen would willingly leave her house in the state it was in, she would have a reason for being out on a road she never traveled 15 minutes from her home, she would have to not have the mental capacity to dial 911 but would have to have the mental capacity to drive and also risk killing herself and others by driving, the use of accelerants would have to be disproven, even though it strongly leans towards they were used.

I guess this proves the controversy of this case; I (obviously) think that murder is a much longer shot.

The fact that her purse remained behind in the house argues AGAINST burglary, not for it. What object, more than any other, is likely to contain things of immediate value --- money, credit cards, etc. --- than a purse? If people had actually been in the house to steal stuff, the purse would not have been there, or, if it had been there, anything of any value at all would have been gone from it. If that were the case, the UM segment would have mentioned it, because it would have undoubtedly bolstered the case for burglary/murder.

The patio door being openend is easily explained in the medical emergency scenario. She went out to fill the pool, and started to experience the onset of a mild-to-moderate stroke while outside. She ran back into the house to call for help, realized she couldn't speak well enough (one of the first things a stroke does is impair speech) to make a coherent call, and so ran out to her car to try to get help. The iron being left on is just the result of Ayleen panicking about the state of her immediate health. My guess is, if you're having a stroke and you know it, you don't think "I'd better turn the iron off." You think, "I'd better get help."

Good use of the timeline, wiseguy. In fact, it's so god that I once again thinks it argues against the burglary/murder theory. We know she had to be on her way out of the house NO LATER than 10:25. We also know that she appeared to be in the middle of some daily housework, which means she was probably in the house at 10:00AM. And, since she was drawing a bath, she had probably been in the house since the previous evening (i.e., she had not gone out yet to do the day's shopping, etc.). And, since Ayleen had a car, the most obvious sign in the world that she was home would have been right in front of her house! How could the burglarers fail to notice it? And why would they attempt to burglarize an occupied house, especially since all their other attempts had apparently been against vacated houses?

Finally, and this question STILL has not been satisfactorily answered, HOW was the murder committed, if it was indeed committed on that lonely stretch of road? How did they produce the skid marks if the car was rigged to accelerate until it hit an obstruction? How did they get the car up to that kind of speed before getting it to hit the obstruction (they would have had to have started this process a considerable distance away from the bridge to account for the speed on impact, which doesn't seem overly likely)?

These are questions that must be answered for a murder theory to even be POSSIBLE!

I guess this proves the controversy of this case; I (obviously) think that murder is a much longer shot.

The fact that her purse remained behind in the house argues AGAINST burglary, not for it. What object, more than any other, is likely to contain things of immediate value --- money, credit cards, etc. --- than a purse? If people had actually been in the house to steal stuff, the purse would not have been there, or, if it had been there, anything of any value at all would have been gone from it. If that were the case, the UM segment would have mentioned it, because it would have undoubtedly bolstered the case for burglary/murder.

The patio door being openend is easily explained in the medical emergency scenario. She went out to fill the pool, and started to experience the onset of a mild-to-moderate stroke while outside. She ran back into the house to call for help, realized she couldn't speak well enough (one of the first things a stroke does is impair speech) to make a coherent call, and so ran out to her car to try to get help. The iron being left on is just the result of Ayleen panicking about the state of her immediate health. My guess is, if you're having a stroke and you know it, you don't think "I'd better turn the iron off." You think, "I'd better get help."

Good use of the timeline, wiseguy. In fact, it's so god that I once again thinks it argues against the burglary/murder theory. We know she had to be on her way out of the house NO LATER than 10:25. We also know that she appeared to be in the middle of some daily housework, which means she was probably in the house at 10:00AM. And, since she was drawing a bath, she had probably been in the house since the previous evening (i.e., she had not gone out yet to do the day's shopping, etc.). And, since Ayleen had a car, the most obvious sign in the world that she was home would have been right in front of her house! How could the burglarers fail to notice it? And why would they attempt to burglarize an occupied house, especially since all their other attempts had apparently been against vacated houses?

Finally, and this question STILL has not been satisfactorily answered, HOW was the murder committed, if it was indeed committed on that lonely stretch of road? How did they produce the skid marks if the car was rigged to accelerate until it hit an obstruction? How did they get the car up to that kind of speed before getting it to hit the obstruction (they would have had to have started this process a considerable distance away from the bridge to account for the speed on impact, which doesn't seem overly likely)?

These are questions that must be answered for a murder theory to even be POSSIBLE!
And again the question that begs to be answered, IMO, is was there any indication of her being followed or not being alone on that road. I'm going to watch this eppie tonight because from what I remember, they did show skid marks on the ground but that was (supposedly) from Aileen's car. I don't think UM ever indicated if there was more than one set at the scene. I would think that maybe if another vehicle was following her and once Ayleen's car crashed, I would think they would be trying to haul butt to get out of there, hence tire skid marks going away from the scene, right? Or even if someone was in the car with her before impact, what about footprints?

You know, I love it when we really analyze cases like this because there are so many angles to look at. Honestly, I never really had much interest in this case until now. Keep them coming guys!!

You know, I love it when we really analyze cases like this because there are so many angles to look at. Honestly, I never really had much interest in this case until now. Keep them coming guys!!

I agree. This is one of my most favorite cases because its just so baffling and we're not going to throw out any theories that make sense 100%. It does seem to be agreed on by most everyone that in the midst of her daily routine she left her home abruptly and was probably killed in the car accident...but why? I've always hoped that one of Aileen's relatives or friends would come across this board and be able to tell us more that UM left out so maybe that will happen one day.

I guess this proves the controversy of this case; I (obviously) think that murder is a much longer shot.

The fact that her purse remained behind in the house argues AGAINST burglary, not for it. What object, more than any other, is likely to contain things of immediate value --- money, credit cards, etc. --- than a purse? If people had actually been in the house to steal stuff, the purse would not have been there, or, if it had been there, anything of any value at all would have been gone from it. If that were the case, the UM segment would have mentioned it, because it would have undoubtedly bolstered the case for burglary/murder.

The patio door being openend is easily explained in the medical emergency scenario. She went out to fill the pool, and started to experience the onset of a mild-to-moderate stroke while outside. She ran back into the house to call for help, realized she couldn't speak well enough (one of the first things a stroke does is impair speech) to make a coherent call, and so ran out to her car to try to get help. The iron being left on is just the result of Ayleen panicking about the state of her immediate health. My guess is, if you're having a stroke and you know it, you don't think "I'd better turn the iron off." You think, "I'd better get help."

Good use of the timeline, wiseguy. In fact, it's so god that I once again thinks it argues against the burglary/murder theory. We know she had to be on her way out of the house NO LATER than 10:25. We also know that she appeared to be in the middle of some daily housework, which means she was probably in the house at 10:00AM. And, since she was drawing a bath, she had probably been in the house since the previous evening (i.e., she had not gone out yet to do the day's shopping, etc.). And, since Ayleen had a car, the most obvious sign in the world that she was home would have been right in front of her house! How could the burglarers fail to notice it? And why would they attempt to burglarize an occupied house, especially since all their other attempts had apparently been against vacated houses?

Finally, and this question STILL has not been satisfactorily answered, HOW was the murder committed, if it was indeed committed on that lonely stretch of road? How did they produce the skid marks if the car was rigged to accelerate until it hit an obstruction? How did they get the car up to that kind of speed before getting it to hit the obstruction (they would have had to have started this process a considerable distance away from the bridge to account for the speed on impact, which doesn't seem overly likely)?

These are questions that must be answered for a murder theory to even be POSSIBLE!

I had always thought that burglars weren't in the house for very long as there weren't any obvious signs of burglary, although you mentioned that the family later noticed things missing. Since the car was found 15 min. away, we would have to figure that the burglars, if they did exist, spent at least 15 min with her. That's quite awhile, as most most criminals tend to not lounge around for extended periods of time and just get in and get out. So that they would have to spend so much time with her on the road, they probably didn't stay in the house for exceedingly long as this would have further increased their chances of being noticed (by say a neighbor). This did happen in broad daylight, so there is that risk. Additionally, they probably did not want to off Ayleen in the house as that could have taken mass amounts of time in clean-up.

I've had to call 911 several times, but I was never at the point where I couldn't speak so I can't say for sure, but I have heard that if you can at least manage to call 911 and the operator hears that someone is on the line, but their speech is slurred, or out of breath or whatever, they will figure the person is in trouble and send someone out.

As far as the car goes, maybe it was in the garage? The segment doesn't really specify.

I am by no means a car buff, so I can't answer your final question. Although I do know that UM once did a segment on "Swoop and Swat" I believe it was called, aka "Box-ins". This is where criminals occupy three cars and they form a box-in on the victim, by having one car in front, one car in back, and one on the side to prevent the victim from going anywhere than the side of the road, hence a crash. That is a possibility here, and would make sense as far as why Ayleen was travelling at 50-60 mph.

cheers.

I got to thinking about the Ayleen being chased out of the house angle and becoming a victim of a "swoop and swat" that I just mentioned, and it all seems to fit that way. It would explain why the burglars left the purse, why Ayleen left the house the way it was, why she was out on the road she wasnt familiar with, why there wasn't any signs of another car being present, etc.

not to toot my own horn, but I got to thinking about the Ayleen being chased out of the house angle and becoming a victim of a "swoop and swat" that I just mentioned, and it all seems to fit that way. It would explain why the burglars left the purse, why Ayleen left the house the way it was, why she was out on the road she wasnt familiar with, why there wasn't any signs of another car being present, etc.

But wouldn't bringing three cars to committ ONE burglary be the definition of conspicuous? Wouldn't somebody have noticed a bunch of cars that didn't belong all near the same house? If they were all parked far enough away not to be seen around the house, then Ayleen would have gotten a heck of a head start in getting into her car and driving before any of the burglarers reached theirs.

But wouldn't bringing three cars to committ ONE burglary be the definition of conspicuous? Wouldn't somebody have noticed a bunch of cars that didn't belong all near the same house? If they were all parked far enough away not to be seen around the house, then Ayleen would have gotten a heck of a head start in getting into her car and driving before any of the burglarers reached theirs.

Not if they're spaced enough apart. Plus, the Annie Laurie Hearin segment mentions 2 suspcious vehicles in the neighborhoood that day, so 3 isn't too much of a stretch from 2. Given how fast vehicles can go, I'm sure Ayleen's potential head start could have been erased in no time.

Not if they're spaced enough apart. Plus, the Annie Laurie Hearin segment mentions 2 suspcious vehicles in the neighborhoood that day, so 3 isn't too much of a stretch from 2. Given how fast vehicles can go, I'm sure Ayleen's potential head start could have been erased in no time.

But that's just it --- one vehicle that doesn't belong is likely to be ignored or not noticed. Two starts to become something people take note of. Three? Hard to believe there were no witnesses to three out-of-neighborhood cars hanging around the Conway residence.

And I take back my original hypothesis which was formulated without knowing that the car had crashed, only that it was set aflame.

My new theory is that Ayleen commited suicide. I'm being serious here. I say that because when I say why I think she commited suicide you all might think I'm screwing around. But no, not this time.

After reading the posts and reconsidering how the house was found...the bathtub...the hose and the pool...the iron on...and also considering that she was found alone in a burning wreck 15 mins from home on a road she seldom travled without any of her daily necessities...for me it all points to someone who was consumed with the thought of killing themselves, and who succeeded at it after contemplating the various ways.

What got me here was thinking about water. Why was there water in the tub? Why was a hose running out back? My immeidate thought was of killers who leave tubs/sinks running. But immediately after that I thought about the iron being on.

She was thinking about electrocuting herself.

Maybe she was trying to figure out how to do it the quickest way? How to make it look most like an accident?

I think Ayleen was tormented and consumed with the thought of killing herself. For whatever reason. It was occupying her mind that morning heavily, she had taken the phone off the hook as she had already made her separation with life in her mind. After debating a few different ways, she hurriedly went out of her house and into her car and sped off to do it a way she knew would work. I think its important her purse was left at home because she knew she wouldn't need it, she wasn't coming back. She drove off, headed into unfamiliar territory as she headed off into REAL unfamiliar territory.



5. Granted Ayleen might not have cared about too much if she was going to committ suicide, but why leave the good possibility of leaving your house susceptible to being burnt or burglaized, why put your husband and many kids throught that?

I really don't think anyone's actions up to the point that they end their own life, can ever be examined by others afterward as eminating from someone with a sound, rational mind.

I have a hard time buying the suicide angle in this one. Can't explain why right now but I've watched this case numerous times and have a real hard time buying the suicide angle. I mean from what Corky says its possible but I dunno it just doesn't shake out with me although very little about this case makes sense.

And I take back my original hypothesis which was formulated without knowing that the car had crashed, only that it was set aflame.

My new theory is that Ayleen commited suicide.

I'm not sure about this. First off, crashing a car doesn't seem all that reliable under the circumstances. I mean, what if she survived and ended up a vegetable? Second, if she was that hell bent on killing herself on that day, one might think that her family would have noticed changes in her behavior prior to all this. Your theory suggests some pretty extreme behavior on her part that morning. That being said, its hard to imagine there not being warning signs that would have been noticed by someone. The overall problem with this too is that we don't have a psychological profile. There just isn't that much info given about Ayleen in the segment to jump to a conclusion like this. There is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, but there were no facts presented in the segment indicating that Ayleen was depressed, or suicidal. I believe that any thorough analysis of this case should stick to the facts we know to be true. For example, I could probably make a case that aliens killed Ayleen. Hell, she could have been dialing the UFO hotline to report it when they zapped her away. Very lame humor aside, I think sticking to facts is key to this, and we don't have one iotta of proof that she was suicidal.

But that's just it --- one vehicle that doesn't belong is likely to be ignored or not noticed. Two starts to become something people take note of. Three? Hard to believe there were no witnesses to three out-of-neighborhood cars hanging around the Conway residence.

not necessarily, my friend. The only reason that the two vehicles in the Annie Laurie Hearin segment were tagged as out of place because they were a van and a truck in a neighborhood where the typical vehicle is a luxury car. If the burglars bring cars that are more in line with what the neighborhood owns, they don't come off automatically as suspcious, they just seem like ordinary cars. Additionally, I pay no attention to what my neighbors drive, so I wouldn't immediately recognize a car if it was not from the area. If you have 3 regular cars, spaced far enough apart in the neighborhood, it's something people might not necessarily latch onto right away.

I'm not sure about this. First off, crashing a car doesn't seem all that reliable under the circumstances. I mean, what if she survived and ended up a vegetable? Second, if she was that hell bent on killing herself on that day, one might think that her family would have noticed changes in her behavior prior to all this. Your theory suggests some pretty extreme behavior on her part that morning. That being said, its hard to imagine there not being warning signs that would have been noticed by someone. The overall problem with this too is that we don't have a psychological profile. There just isn't that much info given about Ayleen in the segment to jump to a conclusion like this. There is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box, but there were no facts presented in the segment indicating that Ayleen was depressed, or suicidal. I believe that any thorough analysis of this case should stick to the facts we know to be true. For example, I could probably make a case that aliens killed Ayleen. Hell, she could have been dialing the UFO hotline to report it when they zapped her away. Very lame humor aside, I think sticking to facts is key to this, and we don't have one iotta of proof that she was suicidal.

my thoughts exactly, Justin.

Car crasing is completely unreliable, and she ran the risk of of seriously injuring herself but still being alive, which I'm sure she didn't want. Any number of undesirable things could have happened to her if she failed: burns, blindness, etc. It makes her life worse off than what it was (don't mean to imply it was bad to begin with).

The state of the house that it was in suggest to me she was interrupted by someone or something. As I mentioned before, I'm doubting that Ayleen just spontaneously decided to end her life in the midst of all these activities, it is usually more carefully planned out like that. Plus, people that commit suicide usually go through in their mind how they're going to do it, and don't wait until the last minute to decide. If she did want to commit suicide, there were several ways in the house she could have done it: drowning: they say it's like God giving you a giant wet hug forever, or she could have had a little antifreeze to go with that sandwich.

I know my theory makes a quantum leap from A to B but I think it incorporates the known facts, as UM conveyed them, very well. I acknowledge that we have no idea of her mind state, no idea if she was unhappy, and no idea what the investigative officials affiliated with the case think...but simply because her husband nor Robert Stack make any mention of her being depressed or suicidal, that doesn't mean she absolutely wasn't. As we saw with the Dr. Sneha Phillips segment, families can choose to portray their loved ones however they want and the show may go along with that. But there I go inventing scenarios again.

Like I said previously, my first opinion was that she was attacked in her home and kidnapped. But that was before I understood that the car had been in an accident. Knowing this as well as knowing that there were skidmarks, which I think is a critical point, I now think anyone else's involvement in Ayleen Conway's death is very highly unlikely.

I noticed there was no suicide note: why not leave one? Since any problems Ayleen had would have been ended with the suicide, there doesn't appear to be any reason not to leave one.

I know my theory makes a quantum leap from A to B but I think it incorporates the known facts, as UM conveyed them, very well. I acknowledge that we have no idea of her mind state, no idea if she was unhappy, and no idea what the investigative officials affiliated with the case think...but simply because her husband nor Robert Stack make any mention of her being depressed or suicidal, that doesn't mean she absolutely wasn't. As we saw with the Dr. Sneha Phillips segment, families can choose to portray their loved ones however they want and the show may go along with that. But there I go inventing scenarios again.

Like I said previously, my first opinion was that she was attacked in her home and kidnapped. But that was before I understood that the car had been in an accident. Knowing this as well as knowing that there were skidmarks, which I think is a critical point, I now think anyone else's involvement in Ayleen Conway's death is very highly unlikely.

Corky, you've very nearly reached the same conclusion I did. Now, you just need to make that final leap and realize suicide is also highly unlikely. In another segment, it was mentioned that in the state of Colorado as recently as the 1980s, there were only 3 recorded cases of vehicular suicide. Ayleen didn't live in Colorado, of course, but it seems to me that vehicular suicide is an extraordinarily rare method of killing oneself for reasons I and others have already mentioned (why take the risk of "just" becoming a vegetable instead of dying, which is very, very real). If one WAS determined to kill oneself in a car, a place like Colorado, what with all its cliffs and steep drops offs, is the kind of place to do it --- not so much a straightaway where you are depending on simply crashing into a railing at 50-60mph (and not a 100 foot drop) to be enough to kill you. Remmeber --- it's not even clear Ayleen died as a result of the crash. She may have simply burned to death.

That said, the involvement of other people IS highly improbable, given the physical evidence at the scene. What does that leave? A pure accident, which might be further explained by some extenuating circumstances, such as a concomitant medical emergency. This concomitant medical emergency would also easily explain why she appeared to leave the house in such a hurry, and provides a mostly graceful if tragic answer to most of the mysterious elements of this case.

mozartpc -

First off, let me just say that this is the BEST post I have read on here.

Second, I really think you are on to something, and you have even changed my way of thinking. I never before considered the skidmarks. The fact that they were there indicates that someone was stepping on the brakes, and I think it is reasonable to assume that someone was Aileen. That being said, this IS clearly a traffic accident and nothing more. What was she doing out there? Who knows. I've always wondered if she could have been leading a double-life (IE. cheating on her husband).

Are you sure Stack et al. said "skidmarks" though? I don't remember this from the segment. Granted I have not watched it in some time, but I do remember them saying there was evidence of where the car left the road. I'm not sure beyond that...

Mozartpc's post is one of the finest of all time on here which is high praise considering the quality of posting on this forum. That post certainly convinced me that this was likely an accident. I too wondered whether Ayleen (or is Aileen?) wasn't leading some kind of double life. I know that her husband and family would prefer this not to be the case and would, understandably, not want to consider this possibility but perhaps she was doing something that they were unaware of. As for the skidmarks, they are mentioned at the 1:10 mark of the segment. I never picked up on this at all but that was an excellent catch by Mozartpc and certainly a critical one.

Of course, much of this hinges on what the husband says he found at his home when he arrived back; we basically only have his word that the iron was on, the water for the pool was running, a bath was poured, and the phone was off the hook (I assume the presence of the purse is verifiable indepently of the husband, but I could even be wrong there). In a wild scenario, perhaps the husband himself had her killed, and now uses the "I insist it was murder" act to protect himself should it ever come to light she actually was murdered (though I assume Pat Conway is likely dead now, given his apparent age in the segment).

As I was first viewing the segment, I wondered about the husband. The problem there is that he was the one who first raised the issue that it was foul play. It seemed like the authorities were more than willing to assume that it was an accident but he was the one protesting that it wasn't. Of course, he could have been playing some kind of game but he didn't really seem like the type and playing any games certainly could have easily backfired on him anyway.

No one ever responded to this post :( I thought I just about solved this case!

You have sold me on the stroke theory! The rule of thumb that I now try to follow with these cases is to look for the simplest explanation that can account for all of the facts (as they have been presented in the UM segment). While there have been good suicide and murder theories presented in this thread, they just seem far too complicated to have reasonably occurred. Vehicular suicides are rare as has been mentioned and I would venture a guess that it is even more rare for women to die in this way. As for the theory about three burglars travelling in three separate vehicles ultimately boxing in Ayleen Conway and causing her death, again, this just seems far too complicated to have had a reasonable chance of happening. The stroke theory seems to be the most plausible while being consistent with all of the facts in the case as we know them from the UM segment.

You have sold me on the stroke theory! The rule of thumb that I now try to follow with these cases is to look for the simplest explanation that can account for all of the facts (as they have been presented in the UM segment). While there have been good suicide and murder theories presented in this thread, they just seem far too complicated to have reasonably occurred. Vehicular suicides are rare as has been mentioned and I would venture a guess that it is even more rare for women to die in this way. As for the theory about three burglars travelling in three separate vehicles ultimately boxing in Ayleen Conway and causing her death, again, this just seems far too complicated to have had a reasonable chance of happening. The stroke theory seems to be the most plausible while being consistent with all of the facts in the case as we know them from the UM segment.

Thanks for the kind words in this and other posts! I was very excited the day I made these observations, because I kind of knew that it was unlikely any post I ever made from that point forward would be as good as those were. So thanks again for taking notice, and I'm glad I convinced somebody!

If i read correctly,

There was indeed valuables missing from the home? If so what and how much?

I think the simplest explanation that might be the most accurate, would be murder.

I think she surprised some robbers and was killed somehow along the way, possibly by accident in escaping the robber.

If she did have a stroke. How far where the neighbors and how far was she from help? She had enough faculty to drive reasonably well for several minutes. Why would she not be able to drive to the nearest gas station or neighbor for help? Or why wouldn;t she drive in the direction of the hospital or the police or even her husband's work?

I would buy the stroke theory more if she was found closer to her home and if the car was so badly destroyed.

If she did have a stroke. How far where the neighbors and how far was she from help? She had enough faculty to drive reasonably well for several minutes. Why would she not be able to drive to the nearest gas station or neighbor for help? Or why wouldn;t she drive in the direction of the hospital or the police or even her husband's work?

I would buy the stroke theory more if she was found closer to her home and if the car was so badly destroyed.

All good points, and perhaps the answers the stroke theory gives are not entirely satisfactory (I would postulate that she panicked, got into her car INTENDING to go to the hospital and somehow got either confused or lost along the way).

If she was murdered, given all the restrictions that appear to be on that theory, exactly how was it accomplished?

BTW i don;t think your theory is bad. I just think it might be based on incomplete evidence.

The phone being off the hook is the biggest clue in this case.

Things we need to know. ( i have a hazy memory on this case)

1. What exactly was missing from the house?

2. Is there anything in Ayleen's background that would point to foul play or a possible flight?

3. How exactly did Ayleen die? Was the fire indeed deliberately set.

4. Is there any evidence to link the husband to the case. Was there a large insurance policy. Was the couples relationship intact or were there problems.

5. I don;t know if it is possible considering this happened way back? But i suppose there is no way to confirm whether Ayleen actually made a call from her phone. And to whom the call was made to? I assume that 911 did not receive a call at the time.
If Ayleen had a stroke, she would have tried to call 911 first and when the operator was on the line she would have had the difficulty of not being able to speak. The operator would have most likely still recorded the call and tried to send someone over for a driveby. If Ayleen did not have the faculty to dial 911 or continue with the call i don't think she would have the faculty to get her car keys out of her bag and back up the car out of her driveway and get on to a major road.

6.There was no evidence of a struggle inside the house. But if she was checking on her pool the struggle could have occured outside. Possibly she may have escaped the struggle and tried to flee in her car.

7.If she was hit on head during a struggle she might have been confused driving the car to find help and would prodice the same effect as the "stroke theory" would.

8. It also occurs to me that, leaving your phone off the hook is also a way to make sure your not disturbed by an incoming call. Perhaps there was something going on in the house that Ayleen did not want to be disturbed by an outside call. Or perhaps Ayleen simply didn;t want to be disturbed by outside calls while doing her chores.
if she was taking a bath, maybe she just wanted to relax and not be disturbed by ringing. I seem to remember hearing about people who leave the phone off the hook while taking a bath, so they don;t have to hear the ringing and run out of the tub to pick up the phone. I doubt her husband would be privy to her habits when doing chores during the daytime, so here leaving the phone off the hook would seem out of place to him, but perhaps not out of place to her.

Were the phone records in this case ever checked? I ask this because I think that maybe she got a call that someone had been hurt or maybe someone called her and needed her help right away. Whether that call was legit or not remains to be seen. I can remember getting a call that my sister had been badly hurt in an accident and I got to the hospital but I can't tell you how I got there...lol. I came back home to find that I must have been in a blind haste because I left the tv on, water running, and my front door unlocked. That experience made me think of this case for some reason.


My other guess would be that Aileen was badly in need of medical help herself in some way and just decided to seek it herself rather than wait for the paramedics.

This story is so weird. If she was in need of medical attention, why would she drive out to an area where she's never been to? Even if she was, how did her car end up crashing into a bridge with the car burning up like it was intentionally set on fire?

---This story is so weird. If she was in need of medical attention, why would she drive out to an area where she's never been to? Even if she was, how did her car end up crashing into a bridge with the car burning up like it was intentionally set on fire?---

Too much of this case screams of foul play

Longtime reader, first time poster.

I just to let you all know I immediately come here to read the forums after I watch a segment.

I have to say, of all the UM segments, this is one of the most puzzling.

I'd like to offer my opinions, if I may:

Ayleen is at home in the morning multitasking by filling the pool, ironing some clothes (or just one article), and filling the bathtub all at once. A woman with 6-7 children would have to be able to juggle multiple things at once.

I like the stroke / heart attack theory. She's in the bathroom, she fumbles for the phone, but due to the pain she's in, can't function enough to call 911 or perhaps because of a stroke, can't speak.

So, she stumbles out of the house leaving the iron on and hose on, as well and the sliding glass door open. She attempts to drive herself to hospital, but becomes disoriented, gets on this unfamiliar road, loses control of the car, and crashes.

Does anyone know if this dirt road might be between her house and a hospital?

As I'm writing this I'm turning over all the other theories. Murder mostly fits. There was a rash of burglaries in the area. Jewelry was missing? I don't remember this being stated in the segment. Where is this information coming from? Could the jewelry have been in the car? Was any suspects caught for the local burglaries?

Okay, brand new theory (I think). Dementia? The Conways were married for 33 years, so that puts her at her youngest, in her mid-50's at the time of her death. Could she have been suffering from early signs of Dementia without anyone knowing and this day she had a particularly bad episode, got confused and wandered out of her house?

This scenario reminds me of the case of the elderly man that got confused on this way to pick up his wife from the bus station and vanished.

Any thoughts?

Longtime reader, first time poster.

I just to let you all know I immediately come here to read the forums after I watch a segment.

I have to say, of all the UM segments, this is one of the most puzzling.

I'd like to offer my opinions, if I may:

Ayleen is at home in the morning multitasking by filling the pool, ironing some clothes (or just one article), and filling the bathtub all at once. A woman with 6-7 children would have to be able to juggle multiple things at once.

I like the stroke / heart attack theory. She's in the bathroom, she fumbles for the phone, but due to the pain she's in, can't function enough to call 911 or perhaps because of a stroke, can't speak.

So, she stumbles out of the house leaving the iron on and hose on, as well and the sliding glass door open. She attempts to drive herself to hospital, but becomes disoriented, gets on this unfamiliar road, loses control of the car, and crashes.

Does anyone know if this dirt road might be between her house and a hospital?

As I'm writing this I'm turning over all the other theories. Murder mostly fits. There was a rash of burglaries in the area. Jewelry was missing? I don't remember this being stated in the segment. Where is this information coming from? Could the jewelry have been in the car? Was any suspects caught for the local burglaries?

Okay, brand new theory (I think). Dementia? The Conways were married for 33 years, so that puts her at her youngest, in her mid-50's at the time of her death. Could she have been suffering from early signs of Dementia without anyone knowing and this day she had a particularly bad episode, got confused and wandered out of her house?

This scenario reminds me of the case of the elderly man that got confused on this way to pick up his wife from the bus station and vanished.

Any thoughts?

Welcome uncleslappy! Yes I totally agree, I think the Aileen Conway segment is the most baffling. I do tend to think she was going about her typical day and was surprised by robbers. No theory makes total sense in this case but it seemed they wanted her dead so she couldn't identify them possibly and maybe they hoped with the staged car accident police wouldn't think she was murdered. As far as jewelry being missing from the area, I believe Justin read that in some articles on Newsbank about the case.

Hi. I am a new poster but have read this forum for about 2 weeks now.

My question in this case is why have people not suspected the farmer reporting the case? What makes him immune from suspicion?

I don't believe Ayleen had a stroke. I believe she was surprised by robbers. I think there is a possibility that she heard the robbers come into her home & she was either in the bathroom or made her way into the bathroom to call the police & they found her. The crime scene looked staged to me. Also the gas cap from her car was missing.

I like the stroke / heart attack theory. She's in the bathroom, she fumbles for the phone, but due to the pain she's in, can't function enough to call 911 or perhaps because of a stroke, can't speak.

There are several problems with this theory.

1. It doesn't explain why the gas cap was missing on the car. It would be an amazing coincidence that on the day she got a stroke that she happened to forgot to put it back on. Add that to the fire that was more extreme than in the usually car fire and the evidence of gasoline being on the inside. This all points to the car being set on fire intentionally.

2. I would buy this theory more if she was found closer to the home or near a hospital. But she was found way off in a place that she had never been. This leads more to someone wanting her body to be found as far away from the house as possible.

3. she has enough strength to drive the car so far, yet not enough to see a neighbor or stay on the line with 911? Did the phone records show a 911 call?

4. It's important to keep in mind that because of the fire, the exact manner in which she died is unkown. A very convenient fire this was.


The husband is innocent IMHO. If he killed Aileen, he;s scott free since it wa labelled an accident. Why would he force a murder investigation that could incriminate himself?

I think the reason that there was no sign of a struggle is because she was attacked outside the house while she was filling the pool. I think the perps forced her to drive to a far away place and then they killed her with a blow to the head and set the car on fire to hide the evidence.

I think the reason that there was no sign of a struggle is because she was attacked outside the house while she was filling the pool. I think the perps forced her to drive to a far away place and then they killed her with a blow to the head and set the car on fire to hide the evidence.

I still wonder what the motive was. I don't think they were trying to rob the house if they attacked her outside and made her drive to a remote place.

Lawton is a military town (Fort Sill). I often wonder if Pat Conway was a military officer, and 2 guys with a grudge went after Aeileen as retribution for something - they were dishonorably discharged, maybe? I just think it was too violent a death to just be a robbery gone wrong.

I still wonder what the motive was. I don't think they were trying to rob the house if they attacked her outside and made her drive to a remote place.

Lawton is a military town (Fort Sill). I often wonder if Pat Conway was a military officer, and 2 guys with a grudge went after Aeileen as retribution for something - they were dishonorably discharged, maybe? I just think it was too violent a death to just be a robbery gone wrong.

I've wondered about a military angle as well. Lots of weird crimes go down around bases--and drug dealing and gangs are still a problem. Perhaps the intruders were DDed for some crimes along those lines (Pat being instrumental in their dismissal in some way, of course), and, in true "gang" fashion, decided to make an example of Pat by murdering Aileen in an overkill.

[QUOTE still wonder what the motive was. I don't think they were trying to rob the house if they attacked her outside and made her drive to a remote place.QUOTE]

It's possible that while Ayleen was checking on the pool, she saw the burgulars while they were attempting to enter a neighbors house or even attempting to enter her yard.

I could easily see a situation where when Ayleen went outside she noticed some strange men at a neighbors house. She may have not considered them burgulars but called out to them to ask what they were doing. The burgulars may have acted friendly at first, but when they got close enough to her they pointed a gun at her and told her to get her car keys and drive them to the next town.

[QUOTE still wonder what the motive was. I don't think they were trying to rob the house if they attacked her outside and made her drive to a remote place.QUOTE]

It's possible that while Ayleen was checking on the pool, she saw the burgulars while they were attempting to enter a neighbors house or even attempting to enter her yard.

I could easily see a situation where when Ayleen went outside she noticed some strange men at a neighbors house. She may have not considered them burgulars but called out to them to ask what they were doing. The burgulars may have acted friendly at first, but when they got close enough to her they pointed a gun at her and told her to get her car keys and drive them to the next town.

MM,

Really like your last few posts.

I think the witness angle is very intriguing. The segment depicts the Conways having a fairly tall wooden fence; which would be difficult to see over from the backyard. I wonder if the fence was truly above eye level, they had a chain link fence, or perhaps no fence at all.

Yes, they had a pool, but in the early 80's not everyone who had a pool necessarily had a fence. My grandparents has a small above ground pool when my mother was a child and they didn't have a fence at first.

Anyway, my slant on MM's theory is that perhaps burglars were going around the neighborhood looking for easy opportunities, by turning knobs all around looking for unlocked ones. It was the middle of the day, the burglars tried the Conways fence gate, found it to be unlocked (just speculation) and were suprised to find Mrs. Conway there filling the pool. they quickly overwhelmed her, probably in the backyard, grabbed some jewelry, then figuring they had a lot to lose if they were connected to numerous burlaries, faked the car accident.

It's possible that in this scenario, Mrs. Conway recognized the burglars (perhaps posing as meter readers or something) and their quickly conceived cover story didn't work on her, so they killed her.

Nice to see this old thread back near the top again. I haven't been posting here much lately, but, to anyone interested in this case, I'd ask you to read my many posts in it, which present all the difficulties involved with saying the accident was "staged," and come up with a plausible explanation for how it was done AND accounts for all the facts that we know.

It's not enough to say she was murdered and the accident was "staged"; you have to be able to show how it was done, given the evidence we've got!

As a young fan of UM who seen this episode, how come no one paid any attention to the post I posted earlier about the reliability of the witness?

It's not enough to say she was murdered and the accident was "staged"; you have to be able to show how it was done, given the evidence we've got!

1. Gas cap was missing
2. Fire was greater and more intense than the average car fire
3. She was found miles away from her home
4. There were signs of gasoline dousing on the inside of the car, much more than in the usual accidental fire.

All this points as evidence to the car being set on fire on purpose rather than accidently.


What evidence do you have of a stroke?

I highly doubt that the gas cap was missing prior to this incident.

As a mom, I wouldn't send my kids off to school, then be home (in the bath or otherwise) with the phone purposely off the hook, so that I wouldn't be disturbed.

I would worry that one of my kids may have forgotten their lunch, or need lunch money, or may have an accident at school, and the school would be trying to contact me while I was busy having a nice soak in the tub.

On the other hand, Ayleen had 7 kids, so maybe she really, really, needed a long quiet soak in the tub.

After reading through this thread, I see that her glasses were left behind, but no one knows if they were just reading glasses, or if she would actually need them to be able to see well enough to drive. Were any photos of her shown on the segment where she was wearing glasses? That would make it obvious that she needed them for every day use, rather than just reading.

What kind of car was she driving? Does anyone recall the case (somewhere in the south, I think) where a woman was convicted of killing her mother in a car accident just like this one? It was a ford (cougar, maybe?) and the way the car burned, and the materials that the interior of the car was made of, made it look like "pour patterns" and an intentional arson.

She finally got out of prison when a auto pro proved that there was a known defective part on that certain car that would ignite. He also proved how everything in the car would melt in a fire, since it was all basically plastic (even the foam in the car seats), and that melted plastic would then act like a liquid, pooling up in certain areas as it burned, and give the impression of accellerant pour patterns.

And the gas cap on Ayleen's car was missing. Was it found nearby? Did they search the area for it like they did with the church bulletin that was found 200 yards (or whatever) away? Was the cap just off the vehicle but still with the vehicle?

It seems like the same thing happened in the other case. The gas cap blew off in the fire, but the cops thought the woman had placed a rag in the spout and ignited it while also pouring gas inside and lighting that on fire.

What kind of investigators are we dealing with in Ayleen's case? Were they living in a good sized city with professional investigators, or did all this happen in a small town with just regular cops making educated guesses?

As a young fan of UM who seen this episode, how come no one paid any attention to the post I posted earlier about the reliability of the witness?

I noticed just wasn't sure what to say. I had never thought of questioning the farmer's eyewitness account. According to the reenactment he was on his tractor in the middle of his field when he saw the fire so I guess they figured he wasn't involved. I wonder if he saw any suspicious vehicles leaving the area or heard anything before he saw the fire.

To Mastermind - unfortunately, none of your response answers the question I am asking. By asking "how was it done?", I'm NOT referring to how the car was burned, but how the accident was staged. IF it was burned, I'm sure gasoline was involved. That's not what people in the "she was murdered" theory camp need to explain. I think I've shown in earlier posts that:

1. Authorities were able to determine that she hit the guard rail at a speed between 50-60 MPH using what the segment terms "skid marks" aong with the physical damage done to the rail and the car independent of the fire, and

2. Based on the presence of skid marks, there was apparently some attempt to STOP the vehicle by the driver before it hit the guard rail.

Let's take the second one first. Since an attempt to stop the car was apparently made BEFORE the moment of the crash, the ONLY way in which this could be a set up is if Aileen was placed in the car, unconscious but NOT dead, the accelerator rigged, and then, just seconds before impact (i.e., not in any way near enough time ot stop the car), she wakes up and hits the break in an attempt to stop the car. She would have to be alone in the car and unconscious for the initial set up because I think it's safe to assume no one attempting to intentionally murder her would get into a car with her while she drove it 50-60MPH into an obstruction - there'd be too much risk of injury to the killer himself. At the same time, Aileen would have to be unconscious BUT NOT ALREADY DEAD for any scenario in which the accelerator was rigged and the killer remained outside the car, because otherwise why wouldn't she hit the break before hitting anything? So there is only one very narrow circumstance under which this accident COULD have been staged.

Now let's take the first one. For the car to reach a speed of 50-60MPH BEFORE hitting the guard rail, it would have to be rigged some distance away from where it actually crashed, because to rig the car to accelerate down the road from outside the car, so he doesn't have to be in it when it crashes, the killer would have to start with the car at a dead stop. In 2009, in an era of MUCH more efficient cars with much greater average horsepower than in years past, it takes 8.4 seconds for the average automobile to get from 0 to 60 mph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_to_60_mph). So-called "performance" cars take between 4 and 6 seconds. Aileen's clearly wasn't a performance car, but let's assume that it was an above average car for its era and it could get from 0 to 60mph in 8 seconds (a rare figure today among regular cars). To go from 0 to 60 MPH in 8 seconds, assuming constant acceleration (which is a VERY poor assumption with an automobile), her acceleration would be:

a=(v(f)-v(o))/t
a=(88 ft/sec-0 ft/sec)/8 sec
a=11 ft/sec^2

where 88 ft/sec is 60 mph rendered in feet per second. At that rate of acceleration, to get from 0 to 50 MPH, it would take:

t=[v(f)-v(o)]/a
t=[73.3-0]/11
t=6.66 sec

where 73.3 ft/sec is 50 mph rendered in feet per second. This, in turn, would mean that, in order to get to at least 50 MPH from a full stop, the car would have to cover a distance of about 75 yards:

d=v(o)*t + 0.5 * a * t^2
d=(0 * 6.66 sec) + (0.5 * 11 ft/sec^2 * [6.66 sec]^2)
d=0 + (0.5 * 11 ft/sec^2 * 44.4 sec^2)
d= 244 ft.

As I've said, assuming a constant acceleration for a car is a TERRIBLE assumption, because as cars shift gears from first to second, etc. they accelerate more and more quickly. The acceleration in first gear, which would cover the first part of a trip starting at 0 mph, would not approach the 9.162 ft./sec^2 assumed for the whole of the trip here. In other words, 244 feet is the absolute minimum distance it would take for the car to get to at least 50 mph, but it would almost certainly take considerably more than than that. The Church bulletin that the segment mentions which was supposedly from Aileen's car and that was found 200 yards away, or more than twice that distance, might perhaps be closer to reality (but whether that Church bulletin really ame from Aileen's car or not I think is very much open to question). It's worth noting here, I might add, that we don't know what kind of transmission Aileen's car had. If it was a stick, not necessarily likely but certainly not impossible, it would have been basically impossible for the car to get from 0 to 60 with a rigged accelerator, because there would have been no one to take it out of first gear.

The problem with the distance is that, assuming the segment shows us the actual site of the accident, there doesn't appear to be a very long guard rail or bridge at the location of the accident. How could the killer know for sure Aileen's car would hit this guard rail from a distance of 120 yards or more away? That's excellent aim for someone who I'm sure wouldn't be practicing sending unmanned cars into small targets from healthy distances every day. It could just as easily have drifted into the cornfield that lined the road, hitting nothing and driving off indefinitely through corn. The probabilities are not in any way in favor of the killer in this circumstance. And, lest we forget, this still doesn't explain the skid marks indicating an attempted stop.

And let's not overlook a final bit of suggestive evidence which is conspicuous by its absence. UM, of course, was invested in making this seem as mysterious as possible; had there been any evidence, at the home or at the scene, that someone else was with Aileen, it would have been mentioned. To rig an accident scene, the killer would obviously have had to be present at the scene, and he would have had to rig the accelerator. Rigging an accelerator takes a not-insiginficant amount of pressure, to keep a spring-loaded pedal down to the floor. Easy enough to achieve with a length of pipe or something similar wedged between the bottom of the driver's seat and the pedal, but not so easy with just a piece of rope or something easily flammable. And, in any event, the killer would probably want to REMOVE whatever instrument or instruments he used to rig the accelerator from the car, because he could never be sure that they would be burned up totally in the fire, and any indication of their presence would make the killer's intended deception all too obvious. Given that the segment makes no mention of any indication of a rigged accelerator, it's safe to assume there was no evidence left that this had been done. So, it's likely the killer would have retrieved whatever he used AFTER the car had crashed: this would require him getting very close to the car's driver's side, so he could get down to the floor and remove whatever was rigging the car. Now, the road shown in the segment, if not exatly a dirt road, certainly had enough dust, etc., that you could reasonably expect there to be footprints or tire marks from another person or car had there been one. And yet, there was, evidently, no indication of footprints in the dirt outside the vehicle that might indicate the presence of someone else, trying to extricate whatever he had used to rig the accelerator. Nor is there any evidence that the accelerator had in fact been rigged. Further, there is apparently no indication anywhere of footprints leading away from the scene. It's possible that the killer came to the scene with an accomplice who drove them both away, but I think I've shown that rigging an accident scene would still involve a substantial amount of time spent outside for at least one person, and yet there is no indication of that mentioned, probably because it wasn't there.

This is what I mean about the HOW of the murder. I understand that IF the accident was rigged, arson was involved. The question is, can you come up with a specific scenario that accounts for the evidence at the scene in which the accident was rigged. The only way I can see it happening is this:

The killer (or killers), having accidentally attempted to burgle a home that was in fact occupied, is surprised but comes up with a new plan on the fly. First, he (or they) forces Aileen to tell him where certain types of valuables are kept, so this is explains how he is able to steal what he steals without ransacking the home in any obvious way, and without, evidently, disturbing the contents of her purse, which, one would think, would be where her money and credit cards would be. Either our single killer heards Aileen into her car with her and drives off, or one of our two killer does this while the other gets in another car and follows him. By doing this, mind you, they risk being seen outside her home. Somewhere in this time period the lone killer decides he will fake an accident to dispose of Aileen (even though he has apparently stolen everything he wants), or discusses it with his partner and they decide on the same.

At the scene, and this is what I mean when I say that it's not enough to just assert the accident was rigged, any theory that wants to contend that a crime has been committed must account for ALL the evidence available, not just those pieces cherry-picked. In order to explain the skid marks, which indicate an attempt to stop the car, and the lack of any evidence of the accelerator having been rigged or one or more parties having been present in the immediate vicinity of the car, you have to do some pretty significant mental gymnastics:

Our killer (or killers) arrive with Aileen and either knock her unconscious now, or had previously knocked her out. Perhaps he believes he has already killed her, but he has not. He then moves Aileen behind the driver's seat, rigs the accelerator and sends the car hurtling towards a relatively short guard rail some 100-200 yards away, hoping the car will crash into it or go over the bridge of which it is a part. Perhaps, just perhaps, somewhere between her house and the eventual murder scene, the killer or killer have also stopped to purchase some gasoline that can be poured around the inside of the car and used to start a fire, and that, just before the car is send accelerating down the road, the killer removes the gas cap and starts the car ablaze (I still think that it is MORE likely, even in this scenario, that the fire is an unintended consequence of the crash - would you really stop to buy gas in the middle of an unplanned kidnapping?). Before it crashes, Aileen awakes from her stupor, and, in a final desperate attempt to save her life, slams the brakes on, but it is too late. The killer or killers then either leave the scene and hope the evidence that they have rigged the accelrator will burn up completely before the car is discovered, or, if they are smart (and, from what we've seen so far, they must be pretty damn smart and able to think very coolly and very visciously under pressure), remove the materials used to rig the accelerator. Perhaps, IF the car is indeed intentionally set on fire at all, they have not set the car on fire to this point, but do it now. And they do all this without managing to leave any obvious signs that there was one (or more) parties at the scene of the accident.

Oh, and they do all this to someone who they didn't even think they would see. These burglars, by everyone's admission so far (because this is what the segment indicates), normally went into homes where no one was home. So, they got surprised, but managed to keep their heads and not only leave precious little indication that they were ever in the home to begin with, they also come up with this ELABORATE murder plot that perfectly hides that there was a murder at all. They do all this on the fly.

The point is, to say, as I have repeatedly said, this was an accident, all you need to explain is why she was where she was and why she left the house abruptly. To say it was murder, you have to explain HOW it was done in such a way that no direct evidence of murder is present, and how a live person ended up in an automobile that was rigged to accelerate but made no attempt to stop it until the last seconds, when it was far too late. But the attempt WAS made, so you need to explain it.

Mastermind, here is what you offered:

1. Gas cap was missing

Suggestive, perhaps, but not really proof of anything. It could have been missing for weeks. She was a housewife who probably didn't drive all that far on any given day, and thus probably didn't buy gasoline all that often. Perhaps it had been stolen since the last time she had gotten gas. Why would she even notice it before she got gas again? And perhaps she did notice it, but hadn't gotten around to replacing it yet. Or maybe she didn't care.

2. Fire was greater and more intense than the average car fire

Because there was no gas cap on the car. WHY there was no gas cap is open to interpretation, but, since we know there wasn't one, this is hardly all that mysterious.

3. She was found miles away from her home.

Again, open to interpretation. Not really evidence of murder by itself.

4. There were signs of gasoline dousing on the inside of the car, much more than in the usual accidental fire.

I believe the segment suggests that, since the interior was made of a flame-retardant material and that in lab tests it had to be doused in gasoline in order to light, the interior must have been doused with gasoline. The thing is, that is only a supposition on their part, and anyway I wouldn't be at all surprised if, in the course of the accident, the fuel line in the car burst in one or more places, dousing the engine and undercarriage in gasoline. Whatever could burn there did, and started a fire so intense that, combined with the open gas tank, allowed the fire to burn through to the interior of the car and eventually light it as well. The point is, it isn't nearly as implausible that the car could have caught fire after an accident as the whole "rigging the accident" scenario is, once you make that scenario square with the evidence at the scene.

What evidence do you have of a stroke?

Admittedly, I have none. I am going on likeliest explanation here. I'll say this one more time: people who want to argue murder have to come up with HOW, step by step, the murder was done in a way that accounts for ALL the evidence at the scene. I've offered such an explanation, but it seems highly improbable to me, and seems to go out of its way to envision a murder where a simple accident explains everything so much more easily.

As a final note, I'd like to add that, if you want to argue that Aileen was coereced into being where she was and that in this sense foul play was involved, the SIMPLEST explanation that would account for all the evidence at the scene is that someone for some reason managed to enter her home and abducted her, forcing her to drive him somewhere for some purpose (I'm only speculating, but in this case I would suspect it would not be simple burglary). As they drive along with Aileen behind the wheel, Aileen, perhaps realizing as they get further and further out into nowhere that she's not coming back alive unless she does something to try to escape, tries to crash the car intentionally, only she ends up either killing herself instantly or trapping herself, as a result of the crash, inside the car, and she burns to death when it burns. Or perhaps just by total accident born of her panicked state she crashes the car. In either event, while Aileen is trapped, unconscious, or already dead, the killer, relatively unharmed, espcaes on foot. This would explain the skid marks and makes the accident scene a REAL car crash, not something staged. But it still leaves the question of why there were no fotprints in a dirt road leading away from an accident scene, since the second person (who would not, in this case, have killed her intentionally) in this case would have had to get out of the car and proceed on foot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
What evidence do you have of a stroke?

Admittedly, I have none.

That was all I really wanted to know.

Mozart can I ask you something?

Can you list all the evidence in this case?

Suggestive, perhaps, but not really proof of anything. It could have been missing for weeks. She was a housewife who probably didn't drive all that far on any given day, and thus probably didn't buy gasoline all that often. Perhaps it had been stolen since the last time she had gotten gas. Why would she even notice it before she got gas again? And perhaps she did notice it, but hadn't gotten around to replacing it yet. Or maybe she didn't care.


Just because she is a housewife doesn't mean she did not drive much. It missing for weeks, well I think most people would notice something like this. Just did not care- yeah ok. Sorry but your theories on the gas cap are bit of a stretch IMO.

As a young fan of UM who seen this episode, how come no one paid any attention to the post I posted earlier about the reliability of the witness?

I'm sure he was routinely checked out, provided an alibi, and had his story corroborated, as do most individuals who report crime-related incidents. If the farmer was in any way suspicious, I would assume he would figure into the segment far more than the first ten seconds.

Mozart can I ask you something?

Can you list all the evidence in this case?

Aileen Conway left her home, apparently abruptly, leaving a drawn bath, a hot iron, the telephone off the hook in her house, the back porch door open, and water running into her pool.

She was found in her car, several miles away from her home on a lonely country road that she had no readily apparent reason for being on. from eveidence at the scene, she was apparently traveling between 50 and 60 mph hour when she hit the guard rail, which can be estimated from skid marks, which themselves indicate there was an attempt to stop the car before it hit the obstruction. The car was found ablaze. The gas cap was missing. A Church bulletin matching the decription of one Aileen's husband claims was in her car was found about 200 yards away from the accident scene. I don't remember if the segment specifies in which direction.

That's about it I think.

Why do you ask?

Mozart,

Why a stroke?

Why not a heart attack or diabetic shock?

Why did you choose a stroke?

it didn't have anything to do with the fact that it conveniently prevented her from making a 911 did it or speaking into the phone?

You sure you didn't choose a stroke cause it fit the theory? You sure your not cherrypicking?

Aileen Conway left her home, apparently abruptly, leaving a drawn bath, a hot iron, the telephone off the hook in her house, the back porch door open, and water running into her pool.

She was found in her car, several miles away from her home on a lonely country road that she had no readily apparent reason for being on. from eveidence at the scene, she was apparently traveling between 50 and 60 mph hour when she hit the guard rail, which can be estimated from skid marks, which themselves indicate there was an attempt to stop the car before it hit the obstruction. The car was found ablaze. The gas cap was missing. A Church bulletin matching the decription of one Aileen's husband claims was in her car was found about 200 yards away from the accident scene. I don't remember if the segment specifies in which direction.

That's about it I think.

Why do you ask?

if you asked a homicide detective, that a body was found miles away from it's home. And that same home was in a state of activity or disarray? And last known location was said home.

What would you lean toward?

That was all I really wanted to know.

I take it from this comment that you think that since I can't prove a stroke happened, that murder is therefore equally likely. This is exactly my point: ANYTHING we say here is obviously only speculation, but, if someone wants to speculate murder, any scenario someone draws up has to 1) fit the conditions of the case (i.e., the facts as we know them) and 2) be plausible in meeting those conditions. I'm callin attention to the problem that theories of the murder where someone says "the accident was rigged," usually dn't offer a plausible explanation of how that was done. To say that the gas cap was missing and the car catching on fire by itself from an accident isn't likely are perhaps reasons to suspect arson and a rigged accident, but they offer no explanation of how the actual accident part of this supposedly staged event was accomplished. Most attempts to explain how this accident cold have been staged not only do not but CAN NOT square with the evidence at the scene. There is only one possible way to construct a "rigged accident" narrative that accounts for the evidence and the scene and is therefore physically possible, but it depends on so many suppositions - not the least of which is the assumption of the presence of someone when there is no direct evidence to support it - as to be highly unlikely.

Yes, I have no evidence that she had a stroke. But aside from that one guess, the theory I presented explains everything without relying on the existence of third parties we can't say for sure even exist, and supposes an accident scenario at the scene very much supported by the physical evidence.

In order to propose a murder scenario I can accept, someone would need to come up with a narrative that, while accounting for the for the evidence of the speed of the car and the attempt at braking before impact, explains how the accident was staged that is far more likely than the only one I could up with.

if you asked a homicide detective, that a body was found miles away from it's home. And that same home was in a state of activity or disarray? And last known location was said home.

What would you lean toward?

This is cherry picking: you left out the fact that the body wasn't found out by itself in a ditch somewhere, it was found in a CAR. That had clearly had an accident. And that the person in question was found behind the wheel, and had died in that accident (though I don't think the segment makes clear whether the cause of death was determined to be injuries resulting from the accident or smoke inhalation resulting from the fire, but it doesn't really matter - either manner of death could be consistent with a car accident of the nature discovered that morning). And that there was nothing to suggest anyone else was with her when this happened.

I tend to agree with the lawyer from the segment. Based on what UM gave us, this case is simply unsolvable. This is a big topic and some strong theories have been posted, but ultimately we only have that the home was left in a state as if she just picked up and left, maybe some jewelry missing. There are skid marks on a dirt road, a super-intense fire and a church bulletin 200 yards away.

I'm having trouble with that. Maybe it's fairly common to see objects fly that far away in accidents, but a piece of paper (can't be of any great thickness as they probably produced hundreds of these things on a regular basis) going twice the length of a football field? It's amazing to me that the wind or windshield or anything didn't stop it, or the fact that it's paper and would flip fly around. I'm not saying there's some big conspiracy theory there, but wowzers at that.

I really wish there wasn't such sparse information available for this case. What did UM withhold for tip verification? What other info is there?

Unfortunately, none of the evidence is really useful. To me, missing jewelry is only important if a lot is missing, but we didn't get any clear amount. If it's just a small amount then there's no telling what happened. After all, how often was this guy/family looking at her jewelry to know everything she had? So, I don't trust it unless it was a substantial amount.

As previously mentioned in Mozart's last post, the gas cap being missing doesn't explain anything. It leads to interesting theories, but that's it. She could have lost it the last time she filled up, which could have been right before the fateful trip or in that very recent timeframe. That the missing cap made the fire much worse is bad, but greater coincidences have happened, especially on UM.

Since I don't think any of the evidence is really that strong and there isn't much of it to go around in the first place, this case is a nightmare. Since we have no phone records, there is no way to know in any way, shape, or form why she even left the house. Was it an affair with an accidental car accident? A medical emergency? Foul play? Was she going to the store to pick up something for a meal, but she knew the local grocery store wouldn't carry it, so she decided to try a new store that had opened recently in a nearby town?

I personally think she was headed somewhere, for some reason, and she had some unfortunate medical episode that caused her to lose control and swerve right. She may or may not have been trying to brake, it could have just been her body going stiff from whatever was going on. Phone records may show why she was leaving, but I doubt it because they would have mentioned it. Unless that was their tip filter, which would be a weird tip filter.

So once again, things fall apart.

Sounds as good as any theory to me.

In order to propose a murder scenario I can accept, someone would need to come up with a narrative that, while accounting for the for the evidence of the speed of the car and the attempt at braking before impact, explains how the accident was staged that is far more likely than the only one I could up with.

In order to investigate murder all I need is good enough cause to warrant spending my time following that angle. To me all the evidence makes the search for a murder suspect worthwhile.

There is nothing to prevent me from looking into the robberies in the area. Catching a suspect and then gaining more evidence that may lead to one of them being an accomplice in the murder of Aileen.

In your scenario, I think we run a huge risk in someone not only getting away with murders, but potentially commiting more crimes.

I personally think she was headed somewhere, for some reason, and she had some unfortunate medical episode that caused her to lose control and swerve right. She may or may not have been trying to brake, it could have just been her body going stiff from whatever was going on. Phone records may show why she was leaving, but I doubt it because they would have mentioned it. Unless that was their tip filter, which would be a weird tip filter.

Why would she leave her house like that with the water running? What phone call could be that important to cause her to do that?

Mozart,

Why a stroke?

Why not a heart attack or diabetic shock?

Why did you choose a stroke?

it didn't have anything to do with the fact that it conveniently prevented her from making a 911 did it or speaking into the phone?

You sure you didn't choose a stroke cause it fit the theory? You sure your not cherrypicking?

Perhaps i should clarify: I am not so much arguing FOR my theory as I am AGAINST any theory that claims she was murdered as part of a rigged accident scene. I could much more easily accept, for example, the idea i posted at the end of my big long post: perhaps she had been abducted, and, through happenstance or in an effort to escape, the car crashed. But the key difference here between this and a staged accident theory is that 1) the car really crashed and 2) it was not planned by a murderer.

I guess what I am saying is this: the evidence at the scene basically excludes, in my mind, a "fake" crash. After that, it's anybody's guess exactly what happened: Why was she where she was? Why did she leave the house in such a hurry? We can only guess at the answers to these questions, but we must always come back to the one thing we do really know (or at least I'm arguing we know): this was a REAL car crash, not one staged by a murderer. So the answers to these questions must make sense when combined with that fact.

When people say "She was murdered! It was arson!" this begs the question: it assumes the accident was rigged in order to show that it was rigged. The problem is there is no way to explain the speed of the car and the attempt to stop which also features a rigged accident, at least not that I can figure. If someone wants to explain how it could plausibly bee done, I'm all ears.

this was a REAL car crash, not one staged by a murderer. So the answers to these questions must make sense when combined with that fact.

On a scale of 1-10. How certain are you that it was a real crash?

Unfortunately, none of the evidence is really useful. To me, missing jewelry is only important if a lot is missing

You don't think the fact jewelry was missing from the house is significant????!!!:confused:

On a scale of 1-10. How certain are you that it was a real crash?

10

For this to be an accident & noone else involved, you have to ask yourself what made her leave the house & leave it the way it was later found. Only explanation for that I can think of is some kind of emergency. Only emergencies I can think of is it being some kind of medical involving one of her family members(which we know is not the case), with a friend(wich we know is not the case) or with herself. I think if it was with her, instead of risking causing more harm to herself buy driving, I think she would have called 911 instead. What doesn't makey any sense is the phone in the master bath was off the hook. If she was gonna go do some sort of errand, I think that she would not leave the phone off the hook, water running in the pool, iron on & leave her purse behind.

To me at least 1 person surprised her in her home while she was doing different things. I think they surprised her while she was in the bathroom or she was in another part of the house, notice someone/s were in her home & made her way to the bathroom to call 911 & they caught her.

They stated in the segment that they think whoever got her out there on that lonely road tried to get the car to go into the river but instead it crashed into the guardrail. Also mentioned that most likely the inside of the car was doused with gasoline.

With this case, I will always believe in some way shape or form there was foul play involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
On a scale of 1-10. How certain are you that it was a real crash?

10

Unless you were an eyeball witness or god almighty...there is no way you can be a 10.

The highest I would ever go would be 8.

On this case I'm a 7.

This case took place in Oklahoma, to refresh everyone's memory. Ayleen/Aileen is actually spelled, as a poster once pointed out in a different thread before, "Aeileen Conway." It appears that her mother passed away in 2003 (http://files.usgwarchives.net/ok/grady/obits/abc/a5360067.txt). From the obituary of her mother, Aeileen seems to have had a brother named Patrick C. Anderson and a sister named Judy Wilson (nee Anderson) who were alive in 2003.

Not only that, but her husband, Pat Conway, was alive as recently as 2003, and evidently re-married, this time to a woman named Patt. Pat Conway is still listed as Aeileen's mother's son-in-law in this obit. I guess Pat remained close to his first wife's family.

Something else that occured to me is that keeping the telephone off the hook also gives the impression that Ayleen was still at home if her husband or anyone called.

I have enjoyed reading all the theories here. I'm gonna have a go at it now ;) This case sort of reminds me of the woman (pre-stack episode) who was staying with her Aunt and Uncle, and broke the window of her bedroom and ended up (apparently, as later evidence showed) wandering down a lonely road in the middle of the night, and slipped off of a small cliff and fell to her death.

We are all thinking that Ayleen was in a rational frame of mind when she left/was taken from the house. But in the above case, the girl apparently had a panic attack, or something happened and she snapped, and wandered off and slipped (it was ruled that she died accidentally).

This makes me think that Ayleen could have been conducting her normal routine (the phone off the hook was most likely that she did not want to be disturbed), and then had a psychological attack/turmoil of some kind, in which she lost it and fled.

The very fact that the evidence doesn't support one single, logical hypothesis (suicide, murder, accident, etc) leads me to believe that she was totally off when this happened.

I doubt the idea of a medical emergency (non-psychiatric) because she was found 19 miles from her house. She would have been basically driving for 15 minutes in the wrong direction before she ultimately had the final stroke, etc, for that theory to work. I think, for reasons we will never know, she had a mental break, and fled.

No other theory really makes sense to me (the debate has been great though on the forum). It would be interesting to know if she had psychological problems, or even if she didn't, a history in her family. Often, things go undiagnosed.

Any thoughts? I agree that murder seems unlikely, considering the way the car was found, and the level with which they random robbers would have gone to hide the crime. Seems too far-fetched.

This makes me think that Ayleen could have been conducting her normal routine (the phone off the hook was most likely that she did not want to be disturbed), and then had a psychological attack/turmoil of some kind, in which she lost it and fled.


Sorry but I don't believe that as a possible theory...

Why not? Seriously, I'm asking. It seems as plausible as some of the other theories. I mean, we are really guessing at pretty much everything with this case.

This makes me think that Ayleen could have been conducting her normal routine (the phone off the hook was most likely that she did not want to be disturbed), and then had a psychological attack/turmoil of some kind, in which she lost it and fled.

1. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "psychological attack/turmoil". That term could account for several things. Are you referring to neurological or pyschological?:confused:

2. Being attacked by robbers or a killer can induce psycological attacks as well.
Not all stimuli needs to be imaginary.

3. It seems too convenient that this attack casued her drive reasonably well for a few miles than she completely looses it in a part of town she never drove in.

4. Where;s the history of these attacks?

3. It seems too convenient that this attack casued her drive reasonably well for a few miles than she completely looses it in a part of town she never drove in.

You're right about that one Mastermind. She probably wouldn't of been able to make it out of her driveway without crashing into something (which the police would have found during their investigation).

My own opinion is that she interrupted a robbery as she went about her routine that morning. She fled from the house and the robber(s) gave chase. Due to her extreme fear - and who wouldn't be scared? - she took a wrong turn and crashed, which knocked her out cold. The Robber(s) got out of their car and set hers on fire, hence the missing gas cap.

My own opinion is that she interrupted a robbery as she went about her routine that morning. She fled from the house and the robber(s) gave chase. Due to her extreme fear - and who wouldn't be scared? - she took a wrong turn and crashed, which knocked her out cold. The Robber(s) got out of their car and set hers on fire, hence the missing gas cap.

Yes. That's the most likely theory.

Though, I tend to lean more toward, one of the robbers being in the car with her with one trailing her and she tried to crash or struggle and this led to the robbers burning the car and escaping.

Yes. That's the most likely theory.

Though, I tend to lean more toward, one of the robbers being in the car with her with one trailing her and she tried to crash or struggle and this led to the robbers burning the car and escaping.
Hmm. That makes more sense, actually.

i agree that the interrupted robbery is what likely happened here...the robbers dint want to get identified and murdered her....she was probably in the shower when she heard the door downstairs and she probably asked who was there (she probably thought it was her husband, family member) after no answer she then picked up the phone and tried to dial someone but they came in and took her by the time she was able to actually dial (assuming she kept calling who was there and eventually went downstairs to see who was there and came back to the make the call after seeing the robbery taking place) the reason why her purse might of been left behind could have been the fact that the robbers panicked??? and decided to take care of her..

The other disturbing thing was the iron was still on....who takes a bath (tub was full so im assuming she was about to or taking a bath) and leaves an iron running?

and i totally disagree with the suicide theory...why go thru so much trouble of driving 15 miles away from your house to crash your car and then set yourself on fire??? why not hang your self, slash your wrist deeply or buy a gun and shoot yourself? just doesn't make any sense...

she was probably in the shower when she heard the door downstairs and she probably asked who was there (she probably thought it was her husband, family member)

She definitely wasn't in the shower. She drew a bath. There was no evidence that suggests she entered it or removed her clothes. Also, she probably would have finished the other chores before entering the bath. But I do get your point about how she was disturbed in her daily activities and went to check on what was going on. :)

The other disturbing thing was the iron was still on....who takes a bath (tub was full so im assuming she was about to or taking a bath) and leaves an iron running?

She was going to draw the bath and take it after the ironing was done.

Though you do bring up a point that I hadn't considered. Maybe Eileen didn't draw the bath. Maybe her killers did so for some purpose.


and i totally disagree with the suicide theory...why go thru so much trouble of driving 15 miles away from your house to crash your car and then set yourself on fire??? why not hang your self, slash your wrist deeply or buy a gun and shoot yourself? just doesn't make any sense...

Who brought up the idea she committed suicide???:confused:

This is a very strange case. I think the msot likely scenario is that she put the hose in the pool to fill it up, went upstairs to turn off the bath water and then back downstairs to iron. I think during her ironing, she interrupted a burglary in progress and tried to flee from the scene. Whats odd to me is that the burglars would chase her. Why not just continue robbing the home and then jet out of there? I wonder if one of the burglars (assuming there is more than one, which there may only be one) was someone she knew and thus, followed her to shut her up before she did or said anything to anyone?

I believe there is something in the family that viewers do not know. Because we aren't given so much background about the family in this segment.

Whats odd to me is that the burglars would chase her. Why not just continue robbing the home and then jet out of there?

1. I don;t think Ayleen had a chance to flee in the car. I think she was captured before she ever got that chance. She was either killed and put in the car or she was kidnapped at gunpoint in the car.

2. The burglars were probably were not wearing masks. They feared Ayleen could identify them. Heck they may have been locals that knew Ayleen and she knew them.

2. The burglars were probably were not wearing masks. They feared Ayleen could identify them. Heck they may have been locals that knew Ayleen and she knew them.

Agreed and that's basically what I was alluding to. If she didn't indeed stumble upon her house being burglarized, my thought is that she may have recognized one of, if not both of, the burglars and fled. Now whether or not they were with her and killed her is up in the air.

I believe there is something in the family that viewers do not know. Because we aren't given so much background about the family in this segment.

What exactly do you mean?

Bumping this sucker up.

Bumping this sucker up.

In my opinion, this is one of those cases where you think you may have a good scenario as to what happened but then there's that 1 bit of information that you cant explain. In my opinion, I believe she walked in on a burglary. Maybe she was upstairs for a while and then came back down to see the burglars. I also believe that she knew at least 1 of the burglars (that's to say that there was more than 1). I also think that she somehow escaped and fled in her car. Maybe one of the assailants jumped into the car with her while the other followed. At some point, the assailant in the car, incapacitated her in some way and eventually murdered her. Either by incapacitating her or by setting the car on fire. My question is why?

In my opinion, this is one of those cases where you think you may have a good scenario as to what happened but then there's that 1 bit of information that you cant explain. In my opinion, I believe she walked in on a burglary. Maybe she was upstairs for a while and then came back down to see the burglars. I also believe that she knew at least 1 of the burglars (that's to say that there was more than 1). I also think that she somehow escaped and fled in her car. Maybe one of the assailants jumped into the car with her while the other followed. At some point, the assailant in the car, incapacitated her in some way and eventually murdered her. Either by incapacitating her or by setting the car on fire. My question is why?

Maybe she could identify them.

I'm cross-posting in this thread, to make sure this gets read:

This is my problem with all murder theories: there is only the faintest suggestion that the house was even burglarized, let alone that Ayleen herself met burglars and was murdered by them. Lest we forget: her purse was found IN THE HOUSE, apparently intact, including any money or credit cards that might have been inside (had it not been, the UM segment surely would have mentioned that her purse had been tampered with, and perhaps money taken from it). If you broke into a house to steal things, wouldn't a purse be the absolute FIRST thing you'd go for? Also, these alleged burglars must not have been very smart: Ayleen's car obviously had to be at the house since she ended up inside of it and dead; did they not see it and think that someone might be home?

At any event, all the people on here (not just Mastermind) who keep asserting this robber theory have a real evidentiary problem. Everything anybody knows about this case comes from the segment. The segment tells us two things vis-a-vis robbery:

(1) Some homes in the area had been burglarized at an unspecified time supposedly "around" the time of Ayleen's disappearance
(2) Some unspecified time after Ayleen's death, some jewelry was found to be missing from her collection.

Let's take these two one by one. The first is a total non-starter, as it could mean just about anything: how many homes had been burglarized? How close were they to Ayleen's (i.e., how is UM defining the "area" of Ayleen's home?)? And by "around the time" of her death, what are we talking about? Three months before? A week before? Six months after? The UM segment gives no information to answer any of these questions; in short, they provide only the broadest possible suggestion that some burglaries in an area somewhat close to Ayleen's house during a time somewhat close to her death may or may not have been related to her death. Well, in April of 1986, a treaty ended the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War between the Netherlands and Sicily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years%27_War). I think Ayleen may have been assasinated in the political shakeout that followed.

The second is soooo shaky as to be meaningless. Let's say my grandfather in an apparent one-car wreck. Then let's say, some time later (a week? a month?), when I'm going through his things and sorting out his affairs, I notice some semi-valuable cuff links appear to be missing from his collection without explanation? keeping in mind it is totally impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long they have been missing, since he isn't around to ask, what is the MOST LOGICAL conclusion to draw from this information?

a) My grandfather may have lost or sold these cuff links at any time prior to his death.
b) These cuff links may have been stolen - but apparently the robbers who stole them managed to steal NOTHING else - some time prior to his death.
c) My grandfather interrupted burglars who were in the process of robbing his home, getting nothing but some cuff links before they were caught. So, they took him hostage somehow, then drove him out away from the home, and staged a car accident, murdering him. Taking the cuff links, but NOT his wallet or car.

For real, people. There weren't any burglars.

I'm cross-posting in this thread, to make sure this gets read:

This is my problem with all murder theories: there is only the faintest suggestion that the house was even burglarized, let alone that Ayleen herself met burglars and was murdered by them. Lest we forget: her purse was found IN THE HOUSE, apparently intact, including any money or credit cards that might have been inside (had it not been, the UM segment surely would have mentioned that her purse had been tampered with, and perhaps money taken from it). If you broke into a house to steal things, wouldn't a purse be the absolute FIRST thing you'd go for? Also, these alleged burglars must not have been very smart: Ayleen's car obviously had to be at the house since she ended up inside of it and dead; did they not see it and think that someone might be home?

At any event, all the people on here (not just Mastermind) who keep asserting this robber theory have a real evidentiary problem. Everything anybody knows about this case comes from the segment. The segment tells us two things vis-a-vis robbery:

(1) Some homes in the area had been burglarized at an unspecified time supposedly "around" the time of Ayleen's disappearance
(2) Some unspecified time after Ayleen's death, some jewelry was found to be missing from her collection.

Let's take these two one by one. The first is a total non-starter, as it could mean just about anything: how many homes had been burglarized? How close were they to Ayleen's (i.e., how is UM defining the "area" of Ayleen's home?)? And by "around the time" of her death, what are we talking about? Three months before? A week before? Six months after? The UM segment gives no information to answer any of these questions; in short, they provide only the broadest possible suggestion that some burglaries in an area somewhat close to Ayleen's house during a time somewhat close to her death may or may not have been related to her death. Well, in April of 1986, a treaty ended the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War between the Netherlands and Sicily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years%27_War). I think Ayleen may have been assasinated in the political shakeout that followed.

The second is soooo shaky as to be meaningless. Let's say my grandfather in an apparent one-car wreck. Then let's say, some time later (a week? a month?), when I'm going through his things and sorting out his affairs, I notice some semi-valuable cuff links appear to be missing from his collection without explanation? keeping in mind it is totally impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long they have been missing, since he isn't around to ask, what is the MOST LOGICAL conclusion to draw from this information?

a) My grandfather may have lost or sold these cuff links at any time prior to his death.
b) These cuff links may have been stolen - but apparently the robbers who stole them managed to steal NOTHING else - some time prior to his death.
c) My grandfather interrupted burglars who were in the process of robbing his home, getting nothing but some cuff links before they were caught. So, they took him hostage somehow, then drove him out away from the home, and staged a car accident, murdering him. Taking the cuff links, but NOT his wallet or car.

For real, people. There weren't any burglars.

Very well put!!! I totally agree.

I agree with Dark Dante when he said we are reaching too far in this case. It was simply a burglary gone bad, IMO.

There's been alot of discussion about skid marks which, according to some, is supposed to prove that Aeileen wasn't murdered. This doesn't prove that Aeileen wasn't murdered. It may prove the car was going 50-60mph at best, and that's it. I believe it's possible Aeileen was being chased by burglars and encountered a deer, and swerved to avoid it, thus explaining the skid marks and the crash. And while that could be classified as an accident, doesn't mean that the burglars are completely innocent here.

There are just too many problems with the state the house was left in, which I will list now.
1. the iron was on which runs the risk of burning the house down and killing anyone who may have come home and not realized it was on.
2. the sliding door was open, which would be an invitation to intruders.
3. her purse was left behind. As stated in the Charlotte Pollis segment, it is very unlikely a woman goes anywhere without her purse. All of her important items are in there, including driver's license and payment methods.
4. her glasses are left behind. It is not known if these are regular glasses or reading glasses, but it can be concluded she would need them at some point.
5. you leave the bathtub running and hose running, risking the flooding of your house.
6. all of above points have been rationalized by some that she left these behind while leaving the house in an emergency while seeking medical attention. However, I find it extremely unlikely that she would leave the house as opposed to calling for help/seeking a neighbor. If someone is in great pain or in need of medical assistance, they are much better off calling for help or getting someone else to assist them rather than driving themselves, explained by these subpoints.
a. you run the risk of killing yourself because you aren't in a proper state to drive.
b. you run the risk of killing other people, putting yourself in potential legal jeopardy.
c. you run the risk of your illness/affliction worsening and getting to the point where you are no longer able to drive and are forced to rely on the chance that someone driving by will help you, as critical minutes continue to tick by.
d. you decide that driving yourself somewhere is easier than picking up a phone, calling 911 and saying i need help, or going to next door where they can tell you obviously need attention and they can call for help.
e. it requires you to drive in an area of town you are not familiar with, running the risk of you being lost as precious moments tick by.
f. you run the risk of your illness distorting your sense of direction.

And when you combine all that with rash of burglaies in neighbohood, jewerly was missing and no known indications of suicide, it suggests that burlglars were involved. Now you could take any one of those points in and of itself and write it off as a coincidence or say it is unimpotant, but to write off all of those points I just mentioned as coincidence is just utterly too conveinent.

Mozart to answer some of your questions.

1. No, a purse would probably not be the first thing a burglar is going to go for in a house. Stealing checks and credit cards is not a great idea because they are pretty easily traced. There might be some cash in there, but a suburban housewife with 7 kids probably doesn't have an excess amount of money in there. Jewerly (which was stolen) would be a better bet because it
is much more valuable, not easily traced (unless it is unique) and can be easily transported.

2. you state that a car was left at home, therefore any potential burglars would conclude the house is occupied. I say that is not the case. If her car is left at home, she could have easily gotten a ride with someone to wherever she wanted to go. Additionally, families often travel together, and don't take separate cars all the time. For a burglar to conclude that a house is occupied because a car is there is not the greatest idea.

3. Granted I nor anyone else can prove things such as Aeleen's jewerly was stolen, it was related to the burglaries in the area (which were nearby both in location and date) and things like that. But on the flip side of the coin, you can't prove that they weren't. That is the thing about this case, and others. While we can't prove anything, neither can you.

4. You seem pretty confident in your beliefs, going so far as to say "I've just about solved this case." If that is the case, have you ever considered contacting the Lawton, OK police department? Because if you have solved the case, I'm sure they would like to hear about it.

I'm cross-posting in this thread, to make sure this gets read:

This is my problem with all murder theories: there is only the faintest suggestion that the house was even burglarized, let alone that Ayleen herself met burglars and was murdered by them. Lest we forget: her purse was found IN THE HOUSE, apparently intact, including any money or credit cards that might have been inside (had it not been, the UM segment surely would have mentioned that her purse had been tampered with, and perhaps money taken from it). If you broke into a house to steal things, wouldn't a purse be the absolute FIRST thing you'd go for? Also, these alleged burglars must not have been very smart: Ayleen's car obviously had to be at the house since she ended up inside of it and dead; did they not see it and think that someone might be home?

At any event, all the people on here (not just Mastermind) who keep asserting this robber theory have a real evidentiary problem. Everything anybody knows about this case comes from the segment. The segment tells us two things vis-a-vis robbery:

(1) Some homes in the area had been burglarized at an unspecified time supposedly "around" the time of Ayleen's disappearance
(2) Some unspecified time after Ayleen's death, some jewelry was found to be missing from her collection.

Let's take these two one by one. The first is a total non-starter, as it could mean just about anything: how many homes had been burglarized? How close were they to Ayleen's (i.e., how is UM defining the "area" of Ayleen's home?)? And by "around the time" of her death, what are we talking about? Three months before? A week before? Six months after? The UM segment gives no information to answer any of these questions; in short, they provide only the broadest possible suggestion that some burglaries in an area somewhat close to Ayleen's house during a time somewhat close to her death may or may not have been related to her death. Well, in April of 1986, a treaty ended the Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War between the Netherlands and Sicily (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Hundred_and_Thirty_Five_Years%27_War). I think Ayleen may have been assasinated in the political shakeout that followed.

The second is soooo shaky as to be meaningless. Let's say my grandfather in an apparent one-car wreck. Then let's say, some time later (a week? a month?), when I'm going through his things and sorting out his affairs, I notice some semi-valuable cuff links appear to be missing from his collection without explanation? keeping in mind it is totally impossible to say with any degree of certainty how long they have been missing, since he isn't around to ask, what is the MOST LOGICAL conclusion to draw from this information?

a) My grandfather may have lost or sold these cuff links at any time prior to his death.
b) These cuff links may have been stolen - but apparently the robbers who stole them managed to steal NOTHING else - some time prior to his death.
c) My grandfather interrupted burglars who were in the process of robbing his home, getting nothing but some cuff links before they were caught. So, they took him hostage somehow, then drove him out away from the home, and staged a car accident, murdering him. Taking the cuff links, but NOT his wallet or car.

For real, people. There weren't any burglars.

She could have interrupted the burglary right at the beginning before anything was stolen. She could have recognized one or both of the burglars (assuming there was more than one). If this occured, odfds are, burglarizing the house takes a back seat as they try to hush the only witness to the crime.

A long post, wiseguy, and well-taken. Allow me to respond to the salient points, but not necessarily in order.

4. You seem pretty confident in your beliefs, going so far as to say "I've just about solved this case." If that is the case, have you ever considered contacting the Lawton, OK police department? Because if you have solved the case, I'm sure they would like to hear about it.

First, let me start by saying that I know I have at times behaved badly, particularly in this thread. I was rather pleased with myself and my theory back when I first came up with it, and I let that show, which is uncharacteristic for me if you knew me personally. For this I apologize.

It's true that, perhaps, I've become a little too-attached to my theory, and am not tolerant enough of alternative explanations of this case. Again, I apologize for this. But, let me also explain that my behavior with respect to this case is not born of contempt for others, but rather of my passion for the thing that turns me on most about UM: the possibility of being presented with a real puzzle that, if just enough logic and clear thinking is employed, can be solved. Obviously, this is an overly romanticized version of things; we are never given enough information to solve these cases on our wits alone; if we were, they wouldn't be unsolved, would they? Nevertheless, my passion for the orderly thinking through of evidence, for correctly identifying what is and, just as importantly, is not relevant or reliable, and for designing narrative that account for all the facts in a case while using as LITTLE conjecture as possible is what draws me to UM. With that in mind, let's turn to Aeileen Conway and the case for attempted robbery as the proximate cause of her death just one more time.

3. Granted I nor anyone else can prove things such as Aeleen's jewerly was stolen, it was related to the burglaries in the area (which were nearby both in location and date) and things like that. But on the flip side of the coin, you can't prove that they weren't. That is the thing about this case, and others. While we can't prove anything, neither can you.

Let's talk about the process of developing a theory (of anything) for the moment. The more conjectures (the polite term for "guesses") one makes about something, anything, the more one introduces the probability of error. So, if I come home and my wife isn't home and I guess that she went to the store, I have a certain probability, let's call it 1/x, where x>1, of being correct. If there is no direct evidence that she went with anyone, but I guess that she did go with a friend, I've introduced another variable, which has it's own percentage of being right or wrong. Let's call this probability 1/y, where y>1. So now, my overall probability of being right is (1/x) * (1/y). If either guess, for example, is a 50/50 chance, and I make two of them, my probability of being right on both is 1/4. The more factors you add, the higher your probability of being wrong becomes.

What I am leading toward here is the difference between proof and probability. No, I can't *prove* that Aeileen didn't interrupt a burglary, and you can't *prove* that she did. This does not mean, however, we shouldn't evaluate which is more likely. Now, first, I must call your attention to process: one can NEVER prove a negative. It isn't logically possible. For example, I can't prove that horizontally striped tigers DON'T exist. Yet we are all reasonably confident that they don't. That's because, in the collective experience of humanity, such a creature has never once been sighted. The burden of proof, then, for the existence of horizontally striped tigers is not on me. Anyone wishing to claim that they DO exist needs to be able to show it. The more evidence they provide, the greater the probability of their existence becomes. Until someone produces incontroveritable proof of the existence of such creatures - such as a living example or a recent carcass - we can never be sure. But what we can do is evaluate the probability that they DO exist versus the probability that they DON'T.

Similarly, as there is no incontriveritable evidence Aileen was ever accompanied at any time during the day of her death (say, in the form of foreign fingerprints or DNA), the burden of proof for this claim lies with those who would make it. We know there is no incontriveritable evidence anyone else was with her because, had it been in any way obvious that someone else had been inside of her home with her or inside of her car with her on the day of her death, the UM segment surely would have mentioned it, and Pat Conway certainly would have brought such evidence to the attention of the police. So, the next step is to identify what, if any, evidence there is that anyone else was there.

So, let's apply these principles of rational thought and use of evidence to Aieleen's specific case. The only thing even resembling direct evidence that anyone MIGHT have been with Aieleen that day is that some jewelry turned out to be missing; however, as this was only discovered some time after her death, it can hardly be taken as conclusive. In addition to this observation, the segment offers the vague notion that some burglaries had occurred in the same general area at the same general time as Aieleen's death as a way of bolstering the idea that the missing jewelry may have been stolen, and that it is possible there was an interrupted burglary at the center of this event. I say "vague" because the UM segment is perilously unspecific about exactly WHEN or WHERE these burglaries occurred - that's not my opinon, it's the fact of the matter.

Now let's think about this supposed burglary. As I've already mentioned, had such an attempt been in any way obvious, it presumably would have been reported that same day by Pat Conway to the police, and, even if he hadn't, he would certainly have mentioned the evidence of a break-in to UM, which in turn would have mentioned it in the segment. So, I think it's pretty safe to say that, if someone broke in, it wasn't obvious to anyone. This doesn't necessarily prove anything, of course; surely I could walk into any one of my neighbor's homes today, provided they weren't home and the door was unlocked, and take some small item or two, and it might be days before anyone noticed what was missing, and there would be no other direct evidence that I had ever been there. But, the point here is, burglars don't typically attempt to HIDE the fact that there has been a burglary - to do that, they'd need to steal un-obvious things that were kept in plain sight, or else be very careful about putting things back more or less exactly how they were found. We can't be entirely sure, but it's a good bet the burglaries that occurred near Aieleen's house - whenever and wherever it was that they happened - were not cleverly concealed. Obviously, people figured out there had been burglaries - that's how we know they happened in the first place!

So, it's much safer to assume the burglars, if they existed, came into Aieleen's home without the specific intent of attempting to hide the fact that they had in fact robbed the place. Now, let's say they get inside, but shortly after gaining access, Aieleen surprises them. Apparently, I guess, her next step is to run and get on the telephone and call the police, but the burglars prevent that from happening. They do NOT, at this point, make her hang up the phone. They DO, however, make her hand over jewelry, but in such a way that it's not obvious her things had been disturbed. Why would they be careful about this with respect to the jewelry, but not the telephone? And why would they require only her jewelry of her, and nothing else?

The point is, there simply isn't any evidence Aieleen was not alone in her house that day, just as there is no evidence that there was anyone else present when she crashed. And yet, people have built up a whole narrative about Aieleen interrupting a burglary, fleeing her own home, and then being either chased for NINETEEN MILES (!) by these burglars until she crashed, or somehow being forced to drive out to that secluded location, where she was murdered either by leaving her alone in a careening and out-of-control automobile which crashed, trapping her inside, or by killing her and then staging this accident. All this from some jewelry that turned out to be missing some time after her death, and from a vague description of some burglaries in the area that no one has any information about other than "gut feelings" that they were somehow related to her death.

This narrative adds in one unfounded guess after another; it's frustrating to me to see people who are apparently unable to grasp why these unsupported suppositions are unlikely, and only get more unliklely each time a new element is added.

I love logic and probability, probably too much I guess, and that's why I get excited. I don't mean to be rude. I just want people to acknowledge the ramifications of their theories, and the increasing unlikeliness with each new element which supposes the existence of second and third parties, the existence of which are in no way supported by the facts as we know them.

actually I don;t think her's was the house that was the target of the burgulars.

Most likely Ayleen stumbled upon these burgulars while they were robbing a neigbors house. She was going back and forth to check on the pool, she may have noticed these men in the neighbors yard or even in her own yard.

Mozart a couple of questions

1. Would you agree that for your "stroke theory" to work, the ailment would have to be a stroke and nothing else?

2. Would you also agree that this stroke and Ayleen's actions as a result of this stroke would be unusual in terms of the ailments. Not within the norms. That your stroke requires some very specific symptoms to allow Ayleen to wind up in the burning car miles from her home.

3. Would you also agree that the only alternative to foul play would be this stroke theory? That there is no other theory that would explain accidental death.

4. Would you also agree that your stroke theory is basically unprovable since ayleen's body was burned to a crisp. There will be no autopsy or evidence to disprove your theory, nor prove it. You are holding this theory from the advantage that there is missing evidence in terms of the autopsy.

5. Would you agree that our theory is actually provable since we can still find our asailants and they can explain to us the whole murder.

6. Would you also agree that the only defense of your theory and whole in our theory is that assailants haven't been captured yet? A situation that could change any day?

7. Do you believe that your theory may be based on incomplete or missing evidence. Do you believe that all the evidence in this case is present? None of it destroyed or waiting to be found.

8. Would you agree that the basis of your stroke theory is mostly based around a need for a non-homicidal reason for Ayleen;s sudden departure and the phone being off the hook. Two things that could be explained via other methods.

Mozart, I like you and think you are a very intelligent person. And if you read my posts in regards to the Cindy James case and the Wackers I have sided that there are no attackers. So contrary to what you may think, I'm not one to jump at murder if there is no murder.

If I felt that this case was not a murder I would tell you and even defend your viewpoint. But in this case there is too much circumstantial evidence (and no phsyical evidence period in either scenario!) to point to foul play. I usually go by the rule of threes here. There are three unusual and abnormal events in this case. The odds that all these events can be explained away is highly improbable.
1. The sudden departure from the home while doing chores
2. The missing gas cap
3. The unusually large fire
4. The fact that the body and car were found so far off from the house.

What are the odds that a stroke could cause all four of these things to happen.

If she had a stroke, the following things are more likely to happen
1. Have died right on the floor as most people do.
2. She could have ran to her fence or another car in the mad dash she went to drive out.
3. The stroke could not have been serious enough to impair speech and seh waits for 911. Or actually makes the call and then drives the car and the paramedics arrive at the scene and record the call.
4. She gets caught by the police for speeding
5. Her car crashes but the fire is small or there is no fire at all and she expires.
6. Or she even makes it to the hospital and lives in the same miraculous display of human fortitude that you have her displaying in your theory.


The bugular theory is a line of investigation into foul play in this case. So far there has not been another line of investigation or supsect, but that could also change. Remember, that new evidence can always pop up in a case. Never assume that the evidence you have is all there ever will be.

Considering that the burgulary case was already open at the time, there was already an investigation there.

BTW doesn;t everyone find it strange that the burgularies have not been solved?

Makes you wonder if they went into hiding...I wonder why?;)

Mozart,

to answer all of your questions about the possible burglary (why wasn't it an obvious burglary?, why did they just take jewelry?, isn't it far-fetched they chased her 19 miles) can all be explained by one thing several of us have said from the start: the burglary was interrupted by Aileen, it went bad. The burglary was not finished.

1. this explains why just jewelry was taken and why it may not have been an obvious burglary, they didn't have time for anything else, especially since they may have chased her for 19 miles. That's 38 miles round-trip. Her vehicle was found around 10:45 I believe, and Pat Conway returned home in the 12:00 hour (IIRC), so they wouldn't have had excess time to hang around in there.

2. Some have speculated that Aeileen may have attempted to call for help first, then ran out. I don't know, I think I would get the heck out of dodge rather than call for help in the same house some intruders are in. I've never been in that situation, but I think I would flee, or at the very least, go for a neighbor's house. So I'm not actually surprised that Aeileen left, I think she made the smart decision there. And the burglars knew if she could identify them, they could possible be tied to all of the other burglaries in the area, they had alot gambling on this one, and I think they decided to get rid of Aeileen (tragically).

3. they speculated the car was going 50-60 when it crashed, which is about speed limit in a lot of areas. It was mentioned awhile back that a chase would have had witnesses, but I don't believe this one would have been. they both would have been going about speed limit, so it probably wasn't suspicious to any passersby.

4. One possible explanation for why she was found in a place she never traveled before was because she was trying to throw the burglars off by taking alot of turns.

5. you talked about how unlikely it was for the burglars to chase Aeileen for 19 miles. on the flip side, I think it's unlikely that Aeileen, in need of desperate medical attention, would drive at least 19 miles, + whatever the distance was from where she was found to the hospital. This is where it starts getting into Larry Race territory where you have someone going to superhuman efforts according to your story.

Hi all--brand new, but I've read this whole thread and watched the segment this morning, and had some thoughts.

If you're a burgular and you get caught, and you don't have any weapon on your person with which to easily eliminate an eyewitness, why the heck would you go to the ridiculous amount of trouble these burgulars would have had to go to to kill Aeileen?

Why wouldn't you just flee and take the chance of going to jail for a short term for burgulary instead of attempting some VERY risky staged accident/homicide for which you could be caught and imprisoned for a MUCH longer period?

Also, as Mozart has pointed out numerous times, there was no physical evidence at the scene of the accident that would indicate anyone else's presence. No footprints, no other tire tracks, nothing that we have been made aware of. I'm sorry but a church bulletin that could have been dropped there at any time by anyone is not enough to indicate foul play.

If you don't want to accept the medical emergency theory (and I do agree with the person that pointed out that she could easily have gone to a neighbor for help instead of risking driving on her own) and are dead set that a burgulary was interrupted--a burgulary in which the assailant managed to get in the house and go straight for the jewelry box before being noticed--then perhaps this assailant did immediately flee, and for whatever reason (perhaps Aeileen DID know the person), she decides to give chase. Maybe the burgular was on foot and Aeileen got in her car thinking she would overtake him, followed him all the way out to this area and then lost control of the car? I don't know, but that also seems incredibly farfetched and requires a lot of extra thinking about why she didn't catch up to the guy much sooner.

The whole rigged accelerator theory seems extremely complicated, if not impossible based on the skid marks and the lack of any rigging device being found, AND the lack of evidence of any other persons or cars at the scene.

I could agree that she may have seen the burgular/s attempting to enter someone else's home, but that begs the same question I first asked--WHY wouldn't that burgular (if he didn't have a gun or knife on him) just flee instead of attempting some strange rigged accident, which WOULD require him having quick access to a rigging device for the accelerator AND an accelerant with which to set the interior of the car on fire? Why would he have these things, but not a gun or knife?

I think the idea of some sort of emergency drawing Aeileen from the house is the simplest. It would be interesting to see what, if anything, was found in their phone records that day. Maybe Aeileen took the phone off the hook so as not to be interrupted in her bath (which is kind of a weird thing to do, but apparently people have done that), then suffered her emergency or disorientation in another room, and forgetting that the phone was off the hook attempted to dial 911 but could not get a dial tone?

Did the police secure the house and search it for physical evidence of any outside persons? If so, they must not have found any or they must have withheld it from the public.

There are definitely a lot of wild scenarios that COULD be applied to this case, but the physical evidence that we have been made privy to only seems to support Aeileen alone being the cause of her demise. There is some strange and questionable circumstancial evidence that could point to lots of different things, but circumstancial evidence is not enough to go on, which is why it isn't acceptable for a court of law. Also, as mozart pointed out, it is impossible to prove a negative--this is why our court system places the burden of proof on the prosecution and not the defense. No, I can't prove with 100% certainty that outside assailants were NOT involved, but those who feel foul play occurred should be able to prove conclusively that there WERE before you cry homicide.

The only way this works as a homicide is if it was planned far in advance with lots of time for setting up the incident. And if this were the case, what was the motive? Why target Aeileen? We have no information that she or her husband had any enemies, but for me that is the only way this could work as a murder, and even then--why were there skid marks? As far as a gas cap being missing, someone pointed out that it could have blown off as the car went up in flames. Or it could have been lost at an earlier point in time--I can assure you that a missing gas cap wouldn't cause me that much grief if it had only been lost for a couple of days or so. I just don't care about stuff like that when compared to my other daily responsibilities. Maybe Aeileen was the same way?

Sorry for the long first post, but this case is driving me nuts! :crazy:

So, I've been out of commission for awhile, for no real reason except that I've been busy. Actually, I've been re-watching some old segments and had thoughts on several, but just didn't have the time or inclination to get involved in posting long narratives concerning them. I still have more to say on Tommy Ziegler, and am intrigued by Russell Evans, for example. There are others I've watched recently that I wanted to say some things about, but I can't think of them off-hand at the moment, and I'm going to be pretty busy for the next several days, so I doubt I will get to them.

But I needed to respond to this, because - *sniff* - CeeAlicia at least understood where I was coming from. That makes me happy.

But I also wanted to respond to Mastermind and wiseguy by thanking them for the kind words, and assuring them both that I LIKE YOU TOO!!!! I just get carried away sometimes by my own frustration.

I'll admit that the question "Why didn't Aieleen go to a neighbor if she was feeling ill?" question, which I had somehow missed before, is a good one. Still, I think that can be readily explained by suggesting either confusion on her part or perhaps positing that no immediate neighbors were home, and she didn't feel she had the time to go knocking door to door until she found somebody.

I just don't see evidence of other parties, either at her home or at the accident scene, and to assume that to be true without any evidence just seems to me to be an unreasonable leap of faith.

I think the idea of some sort of emergency drawing Aeileen from the house is the simplest. It would be interesting to see what, if anything, was found in their phone records that day. Maybe Aeileen took the phone off the hook so as not to be interrupted in her bath (which is kind of a weird thing to do, but apparently people have done that), then suffered her emergency or disorientation in another room, and forgetting that the phone was off the hook attempted to dial 911 but could not get a dial tone?


And she drove normally through her driveway for hours and everything just falls apart the moment she's miles away from any hospital or any place she knows????:confused:

What kind of ailment would allow someone to operate like that? Why was she not found closer to the hospital? Why did poilice or nobody else see someone speeding and weaving like a madman?


If you ask me the emergency situation is the theory that's farfetched.

Why wouldn't you just flee and take the chance of going to jail for a short term for burgulary instead of attempting some VERY risky staged accident/homicide for which you could be caught and imprisoned for a MUCH longer period?


1. Because they weren't wearing masks. Contrary to movies, Most burgulars do not wear masks when committing robberies. Especially in the day, when wearing a mask causes more suspicion. They also didn;t wear masks because they didn;t expect anybody to be home.

2. It also shouldn't be ruled out that these people could be locals that ayleen recognized. Making the need to kill her even more important.

3. Keep in mind that these were a series of robberies. It's not just this one they could get caught for but several others. If the criminals have priors or are even wanted fugutives, the jail time could be extremely long and could warrant a murder been done to get out of jail.

4. It may have not been their intention to kill Ayleen. They may have just wanted to hold her hostage for a while until they come up with a plan. Ayleen may have changed things by struggling in the car. Hence they had no choice but to kill her and burn the car.

5. The more likely scenario is that they took her hostage and one robber drobve in the car with her while another was in a follow car(the one the arrived with at the burgulary scene). Either Ayleen got into a struggle and the car crashed or they killed her and decided to burn the car at the spot.

Also, as Mozart has pointed out numerous times, there was no physical evidence at the scene of the accident that would indicate anyone else's presence. No footprints, no other tire tracks, nothing that we have been made aware of. I'm sorry but a church bulletin that could have been dropped there at any time by anyone is not enough to indicate foul play.

They most likely were not robbing Ayleen's house but a house nearby. Ayleen most likely came across them when she was filling the pool. Or even through the window while she was filling the bath. Ayleen may have walked over to them to investigate. The conversation was probably civil, but became dire once ayleen put two and two together. Hence the criminals saw the need to take Ayleen as a hostage.

2. If they have a gun there really is no need to struggle. The criminals can enter into ayleens house like any other person that would be invited. In fact you could make an argument that the criminals don;t have to enter the hous at all. Only one guy needs to enter in to watch Ayleen as she gets her car keys. No real evidence would be left in the house. Any struggle probably happened outside.

3. There is absolutely no evidence that Ayleen suffered a serious medical ailments.

If you're a burgular and you get caught, and you don't have any weapon on your person with which to easily eliminate an eyewitness, why the heck would you go to the ridiculous amount of trouble these burgulars would have had to go to to kill Aeileen?

Because if you shoot Ayleen on the spot, it definitely is a murder and you have a homicide charge. If you drive ayleen in her car all the way out in the sticks and set the car on fire, you have an accident. No homicide charge. A simple easy plan that criminals have done all the time. It also seems to have worked since apparently several people on this board believe it was an accident. ;)

The whole rigged accelerator theory seems extremely complicated, if not impossible based on the skid marks and the lack of any rigging device being found, AND the lack of evidence of any other persons or cars at the scene.

Wouln;t the fire have destroyed most of that evidence. Wouldn;t the firetrucks and first responders also destroy a lot of that evidence.

Don't you also run into the problem of why Ayleen didn;t leave skid marks speeding out of her driveway to save herself.

It is not unusual to not find skid marks or evidence of another car. A lot of it depends on the terrain, whether temperature and whether the evidence is damaged by other vehicles.

I could agree that she may have seen the burgular/s attempting to enter someone else's home, but that begs the same question I first asked--WHY wouldn't that burgular (if he didn't have a gun or knife on him) just flee instead of attempting some strange rigged accident, which WOULD require him having quick access to a rigging device for the accelerator AND an accelerant with which to set the interior of the car on fire? Why would he have these things, but not a gun or knife?

How do you know he doesn;t have a gun or a knife. At the very least he does have a "burglars" kit which may have a device or tools that can be used for rigging. The burgular may also very well be a mechanic, electrician, or plumber (as a quite a lot of them are).


We also don;t know what other tools are in the other car that followed Ayleen. The other car may havew tools, gas funnel, etc.

The gas in Ayleens own car would make do as an accelerant. That is apparently what the police thought themselves.

The only way this works as a homicide is if it was planned far in advance with lots of time for setting up the incident. And if this were the case, what was the motive? Why target Aeileen? We have no information that she or her husband had any enemies, but for me that is the only way this could work as a murder, and even then--why were there skid marks? As far as a gas cap being missing, someone pointed out that it could have blown off as the car went up in flames. Or it could have been lost at an earlier point in time--I can assure you that a missing gas cap wouldn't cause me that much grief if it had only been lost for a couple of days or so. I just don't care about stuff like that when compared to my other daily responsibilities. Maybe Aeileen was the same way?

To set up the fire and kill Ayleen takes no time at all. It's a lot easier than you think. You or I coulod do it if we killed someone by accident. Rigging an accelerator is also very easy. Several people have done this on the spot to fake insurance claims and hide DUIs.

If you ask every arson investigator or police detective a missing gas cap is a huge pointer in fires being set. It practically guarantees that a criminal investigation must be initiated.

I can;t stress enough that an experienced arson investigator has said that this fire was set intentionally. Someone with much more know how that any of us, including myself. Listening to his reasoning, I have to concur with his views.

It is not out of the realm that Ayleen was killed premeditatedly by someone. There has been no evidence of a person that would have it

Since the burgulars that commited the robbers have not been found or arrested yet. It makes more sense to follow that line of homicide since those cases at the time where open.

Should there be some other lead involving a potential suspect, that lead can be investigated concurrently with the burgular theory. There's no rule in investigations saying you can't investigate more than one possibility, you know? It's merely a manpower issue.

Keep in mind that these were a series of robberies. It's not just this one they could get caught for but several others. If the criminals have priors or are even wanted fugutives, the jail time could be extremely long and could warrant a murder been done to get out of jail.

The segment said there had been some burglaries "in the weeks and months" (that's a direct quote from the segment) leading up to this incident with Aieleen. The segment offers no further information about where these burglaries occurred in relation to Aieleen's home - we're given the general impression that they were "in the neighborhood," but that's it - nor are we given any other information to suggest that all these other burglaries were necessarily related to each other, let alone to this case. In short, you have stated, as fact, that "these were a series of robberies." In actual point of fact, you don't know that to be true.

I can;t stress enough that an experienced arson investigator has said that this fire was set intentionally. Someone with much more know how that any of us, including myself. Listening to his reasoning, I have to concur with his views.

I cannot stress enough that the arson investigator does NOT say "this fire was set intentionally." He says that there are certain elements of the scene that are more consistent with arson than not, but he does not say the fire was definitely set intentionally. He simply cannot prove that it was. He suspects it is quite possible, but that's as far as he goes.

Should there be some other lead involving a potential suspect, that lead can be investigated concurrently with the burgular theory. There's no rule in investigations saying you can't investigate more than one possibility, you know? It's merely a manpower issue.

We should all keep an open mind, granted. But let me give you an example of how keeping an open mind to the point of assuming facts not in evidence can open up pretty much ANY possibility:

We only "know" that the house was found the way it was because, presumably, that's what Pat Conway says he (or his children, it's kind of unclear) found when he/they got home. What if he's lying? What if the children were lying? What if one kid got home first, and started filling the pool, but didn't know what had happened to his Mom yet? Maybe the pool-filling was unrelated to the rest of it. Maybe there are perfectly boring explanations for every one of these things. I could go on like this. If I'm willing to assume anything, anything becomes possible. Maybe Pat Conway set this whole thing up. Maybe he murdered her after the kids left for school, set up the accident scene, then went to work.

And maybe there were burglars there. Or crack-assassins. Or aliens. Or ghosts. Maybe Aieleen knew something about the Kennedy assassination.
And on and on and on.

All we KNOW is that Aieleen was in the house, and Aieleen died in that car alone, and that car hit the guard rail going 50-60MPH.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
I can;t stress enough that an experienced arson investigator has said that this fire was set intentionally. Someone with much more know how that any of us, including myself. Listening to his reasoning, I have to concur with his views.

I cannot stress enough that the arson investigator does NOT say "this fire was set intentionally." He says that there are certain elements of the scene that are more consistent with arson than not, but he does not say the fire was definitely set intentionally. He simply cannot prove that it was. He suspects it is quite possible, but that's as far as he goes.

That's how investigators say they suspect something, mozart. He's saying he suspects arson. That is the opinion. If he didn;t suspect arson he would have said "I see no evidence to suggest arson or any crimninal activity". The fact that he didn;t say that means that it is his opinion that the fire was set via arson. :rolleyes:


The segment said there had been some burglaries "in the weeks and months" (that's a direct quote from the segment) leading up to this incident with Aieleen. The segment offers no further information about where these burglaries occurred in relation to Aieleen's home - we're given the general impression that they were "in the neighborhood," but that's it - nor are we given any other information to suggest that all these other burglaries were necessarily related to each other, let alone to this case. In short, you have stated, as fact, that "these were a series of robberies." In actual point of fact, you don't know that to be true.

Are you saying there were no burgularies investigated by the department of record?

I don't see how it matters whether the burgularies are are all done by the same crew or person. If there are 10 different. we just need one of these guys to be the one that gets interrupted by Ayleen.

I also seriously doubt that all these burgularies are first offenses by the perpetrators.

Weeks and months in between and in different jurisdictions is actually how most robbers operate...they space out there attempts and try to do them in different jurisdictions.

More than likely these bugularies are connected and most of them if not all are done by the same people.

We should all keep an open mind, granted. But let me give you an example of how keeping an open mind to the point of assuming facts not in evidence can open up pretty much ANY possibility:

I'm not opening up to any possibility in this case. I've already considered the "mysterious ailment theory" as invalid and improbable. Unless someone can provide phsyical evidence that Ayleen suffered some attack, I consider that to be an example of opening your mind to ANY possibility despite it being farfetched.

I consider there enough evidence to suggest that the fire was intentionally set. As to whom killed Ayleen, that is open to debate.

Considering the police have brought up the possibility of burgulary...this seems like a good line of which to investigate and determine if more leads and evidence develop.

And maybe there were burglars there. Or crack-assassins. Or aliens. Or ghosts. Maybe Aieleen knew something about the Kennedy assassination.
And on and on and on.

Actually Ayleen seing a ghost or an alien would explain your accident theory better. Maybe Ayleen saw Mothman, decided that she had to leave and escape this creature flying over head. In the heat of escape she hit the accelarator and died in the fire.

Makes a lot more sense than her having a stroke.


All we KNOW is that Aieleen was in the house, and Aieleen died in that car alone, and that car hit the guard rail going 50-60MPH.

1. We don;t know that she was alone in the car when it hit the rail. Most of the evidence was destroyed in the massive fire.
2. we don't know that she died in the car. The fire destroyed the evidence.

A better way to describe the evidence in this case is this
1. We have a middle aged woman who suddenly vanished from her home with only her car keys and the rest of the house left with appliances and water running in the pool (indicating that she was moving back and forth from the outside)
2. the phone was off the hook and no attempt at calling 911.
3. Ayleens car was found miles away in a part of the country that she had never been to.
4. Ayleens body was consumed in a fire that was so intense that it fused the car to the guard rail. The gas cap was also missing. Arson investigator believes there is evidence of gasoline being doused on the inside.
5. Friends and family recieved no calls from Ayleen prior to the departure. No explanation has been found for the departure.
6. House was found left open. No physical evidence of intruders. Husband claims some items missing from the house.
7. No autopsy was able to be performed due to the fire. Cause of death is unknown.
9. No signs of illness were found inside the house. No vomiting, blood from Ayleen.

As cases go, we are missing two vital pieces of evidence.
1. The cause of death
2. The evidence inside the car. Which would actually techincally the murder scene, not the house.

With those examples of evidence missing, any theory made would be based on incomplete evidence. The decision that needs to be made is whether there is enough evidence to overrule homicide. And the answer to that question is that there is none. In fact the fire evidence lends itself to criminal activity. Hence a criminal investigation must be initiated If later evidence is found to prove accidental death, the investigation can always be suspended and closed.

If the decision is made to proceed with a murderd investigation. These possibilities must be followed in this order
1. The husband, friends and immediate family members must be looked at and cleared.
2. Stranger or intruder murder must be looked at. Rape, bugulary, home invasion. Are there repeat incidents of rape, home invasion or bugulary withing the county limits? Answer, yes bugularies reported within the radius and within the time frame of a year. Possible connection must be investiigated. Coordinate activities and evidence with any existing robbery investigations.
3. Pscyhotic attack. Serial killer. Are there any similar murders prior or after Ayleen;'s death?


Considering that 1 & 3 have provided no leads. #2 remains the best lead and most likely lead on a possible homicide investigation.

IMHO, this is actually one of the better examples of police work and dediuction done by police on UM. Granted a suspect hasn;t been found yet, but they followed a logical process in this case and arrived at the best line of investigation.

That must be one boy scout of a burgular! He comes PREPARED! ;) I'm sorry, Mastermind, I've read your posts in the Wacker thread and I can see that you're very smart and you really think things through, but I'm going to have to go with mozart on this one.

How come there were no signs of a struggle in the house? How did the burgular get in? Through the open backdoor? If you saw an open back door wouldn't you assume that someone was at home? Why would a burgular take that risk? If you were Aeileen and you saw someone breaking and entering another home, wouldn't you run inside and lock that door immediately before calling the cops? So why was the back door still open, and no evidence of a struggle inside?

I also never suggested anyone was wearing a mask. I discussed the possibility that she knew this assailant. What I suggested is that a burgular would be more likely to have a gun or a knife and use it in a straightforward manner than go to some elaborate trouble to set up an accident that may or may not work out as planned. Car accidents are definitely not the simplest way to commit homicide, although I do agree, people do stage them and get away with it. This just doesn't seem like one of those cases to me.

I also think that if the arson investigator were certain that it was arson, he wouldn't have minced words and said what he did--he would have come out and said he felt it was arson.

You also said something about Aeileen driving normally through her driveway for hours? I'm not sure what you're referring to there, if you're saying she drove normally up until she all of a sudden had the accident, well, that's how accidents happen sometimes. Maybe an animal jumped out in the road ahead of her and she braked and swerved? Or maybe she was disoriented and confused by whatever caused her to leave the house and get in the car in the first place, and then had another episode that caused her to crash. We don't know her medical history, you are right, but sometimes people do have "episodes" that could be chemical or could be mental, with no previous problems on record.

I guess these sound just as outlandish to you as your theories about a roving band of burgulars who have kits that would allow them to set up elaborate car accidents sounds to me.

I did say at the end of my post that if it was pre-planned then I could accept the murder theory. But I don't see a spontaneous event like getting caught in the act of robbing a house as setting off what you suggest followed. It's just too complicated. And what caused the skid marks if she was already unconscious or dead in the car?

Maybe the emergency response did contaminate the scene and destory evidence, but the officer who was the first responder said he could see right away that she was beyond help, so I'm thinking the emergency response would have focused on putting out the fire, and investigating the scene before bringing in whoever would need to remove the vehicle and body.

I agree, if we knew the cause of death then we would be a lot closer to understanding this. I'm not saying these things never happen, I'm just not convinced in this case. There is too much uncertainty. The police didn't even call it murder or arson, they just called it "unexplained." So if they had some evidence which they felt was strong enought to bump it up to a criminal offense, I feel they would have done so.

Its great there so much discussion on this case...probably one of my top 5 most favorite cases! It is so baffling but the more I think about it the more I still believe it was a robbery. I can speculate that maybe it was some teenagers or young adults, perhaps even someone that Ayleen knew because she may have had kids that age. That could have been why they felt they needed to silence her. I also wonder if maybe they hit Ayleen to silence her and without really planning to killed her and panicked and staged the accident. As far as no sign of a struggle, I think Ayleen would have cooperated with them in hopes of them not hurting her. Not sure what all was taken but I do believe Justin found an article that mentioned jewelry was missing from the home. Maybe they were looking for something specific and found it.

but I'm going to have to go with mozart on this one.

Thanks. But I didn;t create the bugular theory. The police in conjunction with Mr. Conway created the theory.

Mozart's "accidental death" theory was created on his own.
I have no idea what his qualifications are as he has no idea of yours or my own.

I usually avoid coming up with a theory to frame around a case, I usually just point to what's the best method as to where an investigation should go? What is the best path from a law enforcement perspective.

This is not a "who's the killer" case or a "is he inoocent or guilty" case. This is a murder/accident suicide scenario. Is it accident, suicide, or murder?
In cases like these you have to be careful in siding with suicide or accident. If you choose murder and your wrong...all that's happening is that your chasing after a murderer that deosn;t exist. No real harm or foul. But if you choose accident or suicide...if your wrong...people's lives could be in danger.

IMHO, if there is any significant doubt as to whether this was an accident...A homicide investigation must be initiated to cover all bases.

Would you not agree that there is significant doubt as to whether this is an accident?

[QUOTE]I also think that if the arson investigator were certain that it was arson, he wouldn't have minced words and said what he did--he would have come out and said he felt it was arson.[/QUOTE

Do me 3 favors.

1. Call the Boulder Colorado police department and ask them whether Patsey Ramsey is a suspect in the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey and compare there answer to you to the one the arson investigator gave you.

2. Watch 10 UM segments and compare the answers that the police officers gave in their interviews to the one the arson investigator gave.

3. Ask yourself if you had to go on national television and give an answer on your opinion on whether Ayleen Conway's death was a murder or not...how composed and precise your answer would be in front of all those cameras.

I also never suggested anyone was wearing a mask. I discussed the possibility that she knew this assailant. What I suggested is that a burgular would be more likely to have a gun or a knife and use it in a straightforward manner than go to some elaborate trouble to set up an accident that may or may not work out as planned. Car accidents are definitely not the simplest way to commit homicide, although I do agree, people do stage them and get away with it. This just doesn't seem like one of those cases to me.

Why does it not seem like one of those cases to you? Explain.

How come there were no signs of a struggle in the house? How did the burgular get in? Through the open backdoor? If you saw an open back door wouldn't you assume that someone was at home? Why would a burgular take that risk? If you were Aeileen and you saw someone breaking and entering another home, wouldn't you run inside and lock that door immediately before calling the cops? So why was the back door still open, and no evidence of a struggle inside?

1. The burgular got in through whatever door Ayleen let him in when she became a hostage of the bugulars.

2. Your assuming that Ayleen would register them as being burgulars. She may have just walked over to them to explain that her neighbor was not in and that they should come back tomorrow. She may have thought they were meter readers or coming to do electrical work. As a matter of fact they may have been dresssed as meter readers. It's a common tactic that several burgulars have used.

3. The backdoor was still open because the robbers where not too interested in securing Ayleen's house after they left with Ayleen. What..were they worried that some one might break in??:lol: Considering the condition of the pool, iron, phone and bath..why do you consider the back door being open to be odd??:confused:

4. Again, most likely Ayleens house was not being robbed at the time she ran into them. Most likeley they were either on her property when she ran into them or their were in the process of robbing a neighbors house.

Maybe the emergency response did contaminate the scene and destory evidence, but the officer who was the first responder said he could see right away that she was beyond help, so I'm thinking the emergency response would have focused on putting out the fire, and investigating the scene before bringing in whoever would need to remove the vehicle and body.

Why would anyone investigate the scene? It's a fire. All that stuff is going to happen after the firetrucks and ambulances have driven over the road are gone. In fact no investigators would be called until way after the fact. That's why the burning of the car is such a great method of diposing of a body...everyone assumes it's just an accident and a fire at the first response.



That must be one boy scout of a burgular! He comes PREPARED!

You do realize what a burgular has to do to rob a house, don;t you? You do realize there is some equipment needed here.

If he was dressed as a meter man or an electrician...he has even more tools to utilize.

Not to mention whats in the car or might be in Ayleens car. Or what might be in Ayleen's house.

I agree, if we knew the cause of death then we would be a lot closer to understanding this. I'm not saying these things never happen, I'm just not convinced in this case. There is too much uncertainty. The police didn't even call it murder or arson, they just called it "unexplained." So if they had some evidence which they felt was strong enought to bump it up to a criminal offense, I feel they would have done so.

Unexplained death is investigated by a homicide detective. just as regular homicide is.

The only reason they classify it as unexplained death is that it allows the case to be classified as a suicide or accidental death.

Any case that involves suicide/accident/ or murder as a possibility is always classified as unexplained death regardless of the probablilities and likelihoods of either scenario.

A straight homicide classification is a case where a woman is found axe murdered in her living room. In a case like that accident and suicide are never possibilities.

If a person is killed in a vehicular homicide like a drunk driver case it almost always is classified as unexplained death.

Car accidents are definitely not the simplest way to commit homicide, although I do agree, people do stage them and get away with it. This just doesn't seem like one of those cases to me.

I agree. Bludgeoning someone unconcious and setting fire to them alive is a much better method.


I guess these sound just as outlandish to you as your theories about a roving band of burgulars who have kits that would allow them to set up elaborate car accidents sounds to me.


http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.px.yelp.com/bphoto/AqLvBeN0WOajVkFhOnH4zA/l&imgrefurl=http://www.yelp.com/biz_photos/HMLvVJf8troA3m9b-eAHxQ%3Fselect%3DAqLvBeN0WOajVkFhOnH4zA&h=398&w=600&sz=41&tbnid=dLTj6egVryXRbM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3DBurglar%2Btools&hl=en&usg=__FqaLUu2hkuG1HgqEBTiU_xP4Rgo=&ei=PCVyS6OVIZCY8AaB1bHxCw&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=9&ct=image&ved=0CB8Q9QEwCA

This is the primitive version of a "burgulars kit" and one geared toward Sutton's work(not necessarily emblematic of one that would be used in this case. This actually is probably the template from which all thiefs and burgulars developed the concept of the "burgular kit". The burgular's kit is a sort of concept that has been spread through rote. The thing about burglary is that it is a skill that has to be taught if your going to be successful. Mst people learn from another burgular or through rote of other ex-cons when they are jailed.

Most modern kits contain
1. Several types of lockpicks or jimmeys.
2. Air hose
3. Pipe or bludgeone device
4. Rope
5. Duct tape
6. Hammer
7. Screwdriver set
8. Flashlight
9. File

Most of this placed in a black bag or even on a tool belt.

More complex kits could can be geared toward breaking safes
1. Blow torch
2. Dynamite ( I actually came across a burgular kit that had three sticks of dynamite in his house to blow the safe of of a residential house!!

You also said something about Aeileen driving normally through her driveway for hours? I'm not sure what you're referring to there, if you're saying she drove normally up until she all of a sudden had the accident, well, that's how accidents happen sometimes. Maybe an animal jumped out in the road ahead of her and she braked and swerved? Or maybe she was disoriented and confused by whatever caused her to leave the house and get in the car in the first place

Whatever caused her to leave the house with her iron on, the pool been filled, the door open and the phone off the hook could only be a life threatening situation (like serious illness or the threat of being killed by someone or being held hostage).

Sure accidents happen when your driving normally to get your groceries at teh store, but she wouldn;t be driving normally...she would be racing like a madman trying to get to the hospital before she expired. She would be racing and weaving out of traffic trying to get to someone that could help her

Apparently while in this mad dash she managed to avoid getting killed or attracting attention while she was still close to her house. Yet this illness allowed her to drive well enough to wind up on that highway where all of a sudden everything falls apart an ends in a massive fireball that just happens to be exascerbated by the fact that the gas cap flew off.

Boy that must have been the worst day ever had by a person.
1. She manages to get a suprise live threatening ailment that she's never had or been prepared for.
2. This ailment just happens to prevent her from calling the police properly or her own actions left the phone inoperable
3. She know has to drive to help, yet this disease and her own fear prevent her from simply driving to the hospital, next door or the nearest gas station or shopping area.
4. On top of that she winds up on a road that is completely away from any help whatsover
5. She succumbs to whatever and finally crashes after having been able to drive all this distance with this ailment and not crashing once.6.
6. And on top of that the gas cap comes off igniting a hellish inferno that kills her
7. To make matters worse this fire is so powerful it prevents any way for the autopsy to be done to determine death leaving the case looking suspiciously like it was arson.

Everything that went wrong that day apparently did. This is Murphy's Law taken to the extreme. :eek:

We don't know her medical history, you are right, but sometimes people do have "episodes" that could be chemical or could be mental, with no previous problems on record.

I guess these sound just as outlandish to you as your theories about a roving band of burgulars who have kits that would allow them to set up elaborate car accidents sounds to me.


Suicide makes more sense than accidental death. There have been several examples of people driving their cars into structures to kill themselves. The benefit being that it makes the suicide look like an accident. So that your loved ones will not have the grief of knowing you committed suicide. (also helps with insurance.

It makes more sense that Ayleen would suffer some depression attack during her chores. Decides to drive away immediately to escape her "psychological demon". While being far away from her home, Ayleen decides to feel all is hopeless and decides to end it all and hit the accelerator into the rail. In fact, she may have removed the cap to make sure the fire kills her.

She could have interrupted the burglary right at the beginning before anything was stolen. She could have recognized one or both of the burglars (assuming there was more than one). If this occurred, odds are, burglarizing the house takes a back seat as they try to hush the only witness to the crime.

I lean towards this and it's quite possible that Aeileen was killed or injured before the accident and fire occurred.

It is common for victims of a heart attack/stroke/aneurysm to attempt to drive themselves to the hospital (at the hospital where my brother works, they have found people in the parking lot who managed to get there and then have died in their vehicle). A person suffering from a sudden medical condition could become disoriented and meander down roads, eventually wrecking or disabling their vehicle, but this doesn't explain the intense fire or the missing gas cap.

Reviewed this segment just today; the crash scene itself suggests strongly to me that it was no accident: a missing gas cap, evidence of accelerants, and a high rate of speed. You don't accidently douse your car and yourself with gasoline.

Beyond that, there's just not much evidence presented to support a theory.

Suicide? Possible, but there's nothing in the segment suggesting her motives for suicide.

Burglary? Maybe, although the scene at the house doesn't look like a burglary, given no evidence of ransacking or theft. If there were burglars, it would appear they were looking for something specific or interrupted before they could start burglaring.

Another possibility that the segment didn't really discuss would be a targeted homicide; that is, that someone went to the house for the sole purpose of killing Ayleen. It seemed that the family had money, and perhaps enemies of her husband (if it said what he did for a living, I didn't catch it) may have had reason to target them.

In cases like these you have to be careful in siding with suicide or accident. If you choose murder and your wrong...all that's happening is that your chasing after a murderer that deosn;t exist. No real harm or foul.

I'm not saying they shouldn't investigate. They definitely should, nad if they find evidence that it was a homicide, then go for it. I've got no problem with being proven wrong since I'm not a professional. But, what if you find someone you think was the murderer, they get convicted on scant evidence, and it turns out they are not guilty? Texas has the death penalty, wrongful convictions do happen and people have been wrongfully executed. So there could be harm and foul.

[QOUTE=Mastermind]IMHO, if there is any significant doubt as to whether this was an accident...A homicide investigation must be initiated to cover all bases.

Would you not agree that there is significant doubt as to whether this is an accident?[/QUOTE]

Yes, there are doubts. I listed my doubts the first time I posted--she could have gone to the neighbors for help if it were a medical problem, it could have been a pre-planned scenario for some unknown reason, why didn't the police secure and investigate the home as soon as the husband reported the strange state of the house? Why was her purse still there? These are my doubts. I don't disagree that there are weird circumstances that could lead to all sorts of speculation. I was just left with a different impression of what seemed most likely, given the fact that we are not presented with any physical evidence of other persons being at either scene.

Why does it not seem like one of those cases to you? Explain.

I've already done this. That's what I did in my previous posts.


1. The burgular got in through whatever door Ayleen let him in when she became a hostage of the bugulars.

Why would she let them in her house if she saw them doing something suspicious at a neighbor's house? If they spotted each other through the back yard, and they forced her to let them in the back door, then okay. If you're saying she spotted them through the back door, and then they asked her to let them in through some other door, then she could easily just lock herself in the house and call 911 and not let anyone in.

2. Your assuming that Ayleen would register them as being burgulars. She may have just walked over to them to explain that her neighbor was not in and that they should come back tomorrow. She may have thought they were meter readers or coming to do electrical work. As a matter of fact they may have been dresssed as meter readers. It's a common tactic that several burgulars have used.

Sooo, if she thought they were meter readers or construction workers, and they thought she thought they were meter readers, why kill her? Why not just say, thanks, and then walk away. I mean, I suppose she could have mentioned it to the neighbor and then realized what it actually was later, but by then the assailant would be long gone. If she knew the person, she probably wouldn't have had any clue what the heck was going on, unless it was a person who was already a known suspicious type--did she even know about the other burgularies in the area? And why would a burgular risk robbing a house that close to someone he knew, and probably knew would be home during the day? I just don't see why someone would take the risk of setting up a weird accident that could go horribly wrong just to avoid some possible burgulary charges? I mean, what if someone had driven by on that road she crashed on and saw what was going on? That's a pretty big risk, even if it is a back country road. It bordered people's land, it was the middle of the day, anyone could have seen them setting this up. Did the police bother to stake out that road during their investigation to see what type of activity occurred there during the day, to see if it was routinely used by anyone as a meeting point or something because of its isolation? We don't know. Did they keep it under wraps that they were doing further investigation at first, or did they make it publicly known?

3. The backdoor was still open because the robbers where not too interested in securing Ayleen's house after they left with Ayleen. What..were they worried that some one might break in??:lol: Considering the condition of the pool, iron, phone and bath..why do you consider the back door being open to be odd??:confused:

I mentioned it because I thought you were implying that she had spotted these burgulars breaking into someone else's house while she was in the backyard. If not, and she for whatever reason let them in another door, which I don't understand the circumstances of how you think that would have occurred, then you're right and the open back door is not germane. Were any of the other doors of the house left unlocked that day? We are not told.

Also, they're not concerned with the state of Aeileen's house being left in a suspicious way that might raise questions about her death being a murder, but they ARE so concerned that she might finger them in a burgulary that they kill her and stage an elaborate car accident?

4. Again, most likely Ayleens house was not being robbed at the time she ran into them. Most likeley they were either on her property when she ran into them or their were in the process of robbing a neighbors house.

I'm still fuzzy on how you think she ran into them? If she spotted them from her backyard, saw it was someone she knew (who I'm assuming she knew was not a meter reader or construction worker, or whatever) doing something suspicious, why not run back in through the open back door and then close and lock it behind you? I don't know, maybe they saw her and already had their guns out and had time to threaten her into letting them in through the backdoor. Or maybe they just threatened her into coming with them and getting in her car right at that moment and never went in the house. That would explain not finding any physical evidence in Aeileen's house--but what about the house that was in the process of being broken into? Was there a report that day from any of her neighbors about anything missing from their homes or anything weird at all? Not that we were shown. Did she see them out a window and go out the front door to talk to them? Then anyone on the street could have seen them.

Why would anyone investigate the scene? It's a fire. All that stuff is going to happen after the firetrucks and ambulances have driven over the road are gone. In fact no investigators would be called until way after the fact. That's why the burning of the car is such a great method of diposing of a body...everyone assumes it's just an accident and a fire at the first response.

I think accident scenes involving fatalities usually have an investigation--not necessarily an unexplained death or homicide investigation, but at least an accident investigation. That's why there are photographs of the car at the scene before it was removed. I also said that yes, a fire truck probably would have been there to put out the fire and could have destroyed evidence. I agreed with you on that point. But I feel like any other emergency response would or should have been told to wait before moving in and removing anything (body included) from the scene. As the responding officer stated, he could see that she was already dead when he arrived. There was no one else injured so any emergency medical response would have been unnecessary. Maybe the police were just really that incompetent and did a very cursory investigation--I don't know.


You do realize what a burgular has to do to rob a house, don;t you? You do realize there is some equipment needed here.

If he was dressed as a meter man or an electrician...he has even more tools to utilize.

Not to mention whats in the car or might be in Ayleens car. Or what might be in Ayleen's house.

Was anything other than some jewelry reported as missing from the home?



Unexplained death is investigated by a homicide detective. just as regular homicide is.

The only reason they classify it as unexplained death is that it allows the case to be classified as a suicide or accidental death.

Okay, but in the course of their investigation, they never bumped it up to homicide, or even arson.


I agree. Bludgeoning someone unconcious and setting fire to them alive is a much better method.

Is this what you feel happened here? Then why were there skid marks? Maybe she came to at the last minute, slammed the brakes, got knocked out again but not killed when she crashed, and then they felt they had to set the car on fire? And what if the car had gone over the bridge as they supposedly intended? She could possibly have survived that, too. She could possibly have survived any crash scenario they set up, without the arson element. They were gonna go down underneath the bridge and set the car on fire then, too, maybe? It's hard to tell from the segment what exactly is underneath the bridge, how big of a drop it is, etc. This seems like another very risky proposition.

Most modern kits contain
1. Several types of lockpicks or jimmeys.
2. Air hose
3. Pipe or bludgeone device
4. Rope
5. Duct tape
6. Hammer
7. Screwdriver set
8. Flashlight
9. File


Once again, we are not given any information on what types of break-ins these were. Were they the work of a sophisticated pair who went to lengths to cover up how they got in, or were they broken windows, jimmied locks, belongings strewn about, etc. We have no way of knowing. Did the break-ins happen during the day? If they were sophisticated enough burgulars to have lots of equipment and costumes, why didn't they bother to stake out the street to see if there were any housewives at home during the day that might see something?

Sure accidents happen when your driving normally to get your groceries at teh store, but she wouldn;t be driving normally...she would be racing like a madman trying to get to the hospital before she expired. She would be racing and weaving out of traffic trying to get to someone that could help her

Not necessarily. If it was psychological in nature, then there's no telling how well or terribly she was driving. Or where she thought she was going. She could have done any sort of weird thing, like leaving her house in a strange state and driving off to the middle of nowhere, losing control of the car, and crashing.


Boy that must have been the worst day ever had by a person.
1. She manages to get a suprise live threatening ailment that she's never had or been prepared for.
2. This ailment just happens to prevent her from calling the police properly or her own actions left the phone inoperable
3. She know has to drive to help, yet this disease and her own fear prevent her from simply driving to the hospital, next door or the nearest gas station or shopping area.
4. On top of that she winds up on a road that is completely away from any help whatsover
5. She succumbs to whatever and finally crashes after having been able to drive all this distance with this ailment and not crashing once.
6. And on top of that the gas cap comes off igniting a hellish inferno that kills her
7. To make matters worse this fire is so powerful it prevents any way for the autopsy to be done to determine death leaving the case looking suspiciously like it was arson.

Everything that went wrong that day apparently did. This is Murphy's Law taken to the extreme. :eek:

Hey, s**t happens! :lol: Seriously, though, the above scenario is just as whacked as the break-in scenario. That would have been a seriously bad day for Aeileen, too! Either way, a lot of stuff DID go wrong for her that day and she ended up dead.


Suicide makes more sense than accidental death. There have been several examples of people driving their cars into structures to kill themselves. The benefit being that it makes the suicide look like an accident. So that your loved ones will not have the grief of knowing you committed suicide. (also helps with insurance.

I wouldn't completely rule out suicide, but then why leave the house in such a way? And why skid marks? And what if she survived and was left in pain, incapacitated, etc?

It makes more sense that Ayleen would suffer some depression attack during her chores. Decides to drive away immediately to escape her "psychological demon". While being far away from her home, Ayleen decides to feel all is hopeless and decides to end it all and hit the accelerator into the rail. In fact, she may have removed the cap to make sure the fire kills her.

I doubt anyone "decides" to feel that all is hopeless. Suicide can't necessarily be ruled out, but once again, why skid marks? And I don't know if I think she removed the gas cap. It could have been misplaced earlier and she didn't mention it to Pat, or she didn't notice yet. I just need to see some shred of physical evidence that someone else was at either scene before I'll believe it was a burgulary gone awry. For now, I only see something going terribly wrong with Aeileen herself.

I was just thinking about this one some more, and frankly, it seems like the initial question, at least, all comes down to the crime scene.

If there were accelerants used, I think everyone would have to agree accident (in whatever flavor) is off the table. What's frustrating is that this shouldn't be an open question - analysis of the burn marks and chemical analysis of the vehicle should make it easy to tell what, if any, accelerants were used. It's not clear from the segment if this was done, and, if not, is a potentially major blunder by LE.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
In cases like these you have to be careful in siding with suicide or accident. If you choose murder and your wrong...all that's happening is that your chasing after a murderer that deosn;t exist. No real harm or foul.

I'm not saying they shouldn't investigate. They definitely should, nad if they find evidence that it was a homicide, then go for it. I've got no problem with being proven wrong since I'm not a professional. But, what if you find someone you think was the murderer, they get convicted on scant evidence, and it turns out they are not guilty? Texas has the death penalty, wrongful convictions do happen and people have been wrongfully executed. So there could be harm and foul.

[QOUTE=Mastermind]IMHO, if there is any significant doubt as to whether this was an accident...A homicide investigation must be initiated to cover all bases.

Would you not agree that there is significant doubt as to whether this is an accident?

Yes, there are doubts. I listed my doubts the first time I posted--she could have gone to the neighbors for help if it were a medical problem, it could have been a pre-planned scenario for some unknown reason, why didn't the police secure and investigate the home as soon as the husband reported the strange state of the house? Why was her purse still there? These are my doubts. I don't disagree that there are weird circumstances that could lead to all sorts of speculation. I was just left with a different impression of what seemed most likely, given the fact that we are not presented with any physical evidence of other persons being at either scene.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
Why does it not seem like one of those cases to you? Explain.

I've already done this. That's what I did in my previous posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
1. The burgular got in through whatever door Ayleen let him in when she became a hostage of the bugulars.

Why would she let them in her house if she saw them doing something suspicious at a neighbor's house? If they spotted each other through the back yard, and they forced her to let them in the back door, then okay. If you're saying she spotted them through the back door, and then they asked her to let them in through some other door, then she could easily just lock herself in the house and call 911 and not let anyone in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
2. Your assuming that Ayleen would register them as being burgulars. She may have just walked over to them to explain that her neighbor was not in and that they should come back tomorrow. She may have thought they were meter readers or coming to do electrical work. As a matter of fact they may have been dresssed as meter readers. It's a common tactic that several burgulars have used.

Sooo, if she thought they were meter readers or construction workers, and they thought she thought they were meter readers, why kill her? Why not just say, thanks, and then walk away. I mean, I suppose she could have mentioned it to the neighbor and then realized what it actually was later, but by then the assailant would be long gone. If she knew the person, she probably wouldn't have had any clue what the heck was going on, unless it was a person who was already a known suspicious type--did she even know about the other burgularies in the area? And why would a burgular risk robbing a house that close to someone he knew, and probably knew would be home during the day? I just don't see why someone would take the risk of setting up a weird accident that could go horribly wrong just to avoid some possible burgulary charges? I mean, what if someone had driven by on that road she crashed on and saw what was going on? That's a pretty big risk, even if it is a back country road. It bordered people's land, it was the middle of the day, anyone could have seen them setting this up. Did the police bother to stake out that road during their investigation to see what type of activity occurred there during the day, to see if it was routinely used by anyone as a meeting point or something because of its isolation? We don't know. Did they keep it under wraps that they were doing further investigation at first, or did they make it publicly known?

Quote:
3. The backdoor was still open because the robbers where not too interested in securing Ayleen's house after they left with Ayleen. What..were they worried that some one might break in?? Considering the condition of the pool, iron, phone and bath..why do you consider the back door being open to be odd??

I mentioned it because I thought you were implying that she had spotted these burgulars breaking into someone else's house while she was in the backyard. If not, and she for whatever reason let them in another door, which I don't understand the circumstances of how you think that would have occurred, then you're right and the open back door is not germane. Were any of the other doors of the house left unlocked that day? We are not told.

Also, they're not concerned with the state of Aeileen's house being left in a suspicious way that might raise questions about her death being a murder, but they ARE so concerned that she might finger them in a burgulary that they kill her and stage an elaborate car accident?

Quote:
4. Again, most likely Ayleens house was not being robbed at the time she ran into them. Most likeley they were either on her property when she ran into them or their were in the process of robbing a neighbors house.

I'm still fuzzy on how you think she ran into them? If she spotted them from her backyard, saw it was someone she knew (who I'm assuming she knew was not a meter reader or construction worker, or whatever) doing something suspicious, why not run back in through the open back door and then close and lock it behind you? I don't know, maybe they saw her and already had their guns out and had time to threaten her into letting them in through the backdoor. Or maybe they just threatened her into coming with them and getting in her car right at that moment and never went in the house. That would explain not finding any physical evidence in Aeileen's house--but what about the house that was in the process of being broken into? Was there a report that day from any of her neighbors about anything missing from their homes or anything weird at all? Not that we were shown. Did she see them out a window and go out the front door to talk to them? Then anyone on the street could have seen them.

Quote:
Why would anyone investigate the scene? It's a fire. All that stuff is going to happen after the firetrucks and ambulances have driven over the road are gone. In fact no investigators would be called until way after the fact. That's why the burning of the car is such a great method of diposing of a body...everyone assumes it's just an accident and a fire at the first response.

I think accident scenes involving fatalities usually have an investigation--not necessarily an unexplained death or homicide investigation, but at least an accident investigation. That's why there are photographs of the car at the scene before it was removed. I also said that yes, a fire truck probably would have been there to put out the fire and could have destroyed evidence. I agreed with you on that point. But I feel like any other emergency response would or should have been told to wait before moving in and removing anything (body included) from the scene. As the responding officer stated, he could see that she was already dead when he arrived. There was no one else injured so any emergency medical response would have been unnecessary. Maybe the police were just really that incompetent and did a very cursory investigation--I don't know.


Quote:
You do realize what a burgular has to do to rob a house, don;t you? You do realize there is some equipment needed here.

If he was dressed as a meter man or an electrician...he has even more tools to utilize.

Not to mention whats in the car or might be in Ayleens car. Or what might be in Ayleen's house.

Was anything other than some jewelry reported as missing from the home?



Quote:
Unexplained death is investigated by a homicide detective. just as regular homicide is.

The only reason they classify it as unexplained death is that it allows the case to be classified as a suicide or accidental death.

Okay, but in the course of their investigation, they never bumped it up to homicide, or even arson.


Quote:
I agree. Bludgeoning someone unconcious and setting fire to them alive is a much better method.


Is this what you feel happened here? Then why were there skid marks? Maybe she came to at the last minute, slammed the brakes, got knocked out again but not killed when she crashed, and then they felt they had to set the car on fire? And what if the car had gone over the bridge as they supposedly intended? She could possibly have survived that, too. She could possibly have survived any crash scenario they set up, without the arson element. They were gonna go down underneath the bridge and set the car on fire then, too, maybe? It's hard to tell from the segment what exactly is underneath the bridge, how big of a drop it is, etc. This seems like another very risky proposition.

Quote:
Most modern kits contain
1. Several types of lockpicks or jimmeys.
2. Air hose
3. Pipe or bludgeone device
4. Rope
5. Duct tape
6. Hammer
7. Screwdriver set
8. Flashlight
9. File

Once again, we are not given any information on what types of break-ins these were. Were they the work of a sophisticated pair who went to lengths to cover up how they got in, or were they broken windows, jimmied locks, belongings strewn about, etc. We have no way of knowing. Did the break-ins happen during the day? If they were sophisticated enough burgulars to have lots of equipment and costumes, why didn't they bother to stake out the street to see if there were any housewives at home during the day that might see something?

Quote:
Sure accidents happen when your driving normally to get your groceries at teh store, but she wouldn;t be driving normally...she would be racing like a madman trying to get to the hospital before she expired. She would be racing and weaving out of traffic trying to get to someone that could help her

Not necessarily. If it was psychological in nature, then there's no telling how well or terribly she was driving. Or where she thought she was going. She could have done any sort of weird thing, like leaving her house in a strange state and driving off to the middle of nowhere, losing control of the car, and crashing.


Quote:
Boy that must have been the worst day ever had by a person.
1. She manages to get a suprise live threatening ailment that she's never had or been prepared for.
2. This ailment just happens to prevent her from calling the police properly or her own actions left the phone inoperable
3. She know has to drive to help, yet this disease and her own fear prevent her from simply driving to the hospital, next door or the nearest gas station or shopping area.
4. On top of that she winds up on a road that is completely away from any help whatsover
5. She succumbs to whatever and finally crashes after having been able to drive all this distance with this ailment and not crashing once.
6. And on top of that the gas cap comes off igniting a hellish inferno that kills her
7. To make matters worse this fire is so powerful it prevents any way for the autopsy to be done to determine death leaving the case looking suspiciously like it was arson.

Everything that went wrong that day apparently did. This is Murphy's Law taken to the extreme.

Hey, s**t happens! Seriously, though, the above scenario is just as whacked as the break-in scenario. That would have been a seriously bad day for Aeileen, too! Either way, a lot of stuff DID go wrong for her that day and she ended up dead.


Quote:
Suicide makes more sense than accidental death. There have been several examples of people driving their cars into structures to kill themselves. The benefit being that it makes the suicide look like an accident. So that your loved ones will not have the grief of knowing you committed suicide. (also helps with insurance.

I wouldn't completely rule out suicide, but then why leave the house in such a way? And why skid marks? And what if she survived and was left in pain, incapacitated, etc?

Quote:
It makes more sense that Ayleen would suffer some depression attack during her chores. Decides to drive away immediately to escape her "psychological demon". While being far away from her home, Ayleen decides to feel all is hopeless and decides to end it all and hit the accelerator into the rail. In fact, she may have removed the cap to make sure the fire kills her.

I doubt anyone "decides" to feel that all is hopeless. Suicide can't necessarily be ruled out, but once again, why skid marks? And I don't know if I think she removed the gas cap. It could have been misplaced earlier and she didn't mention it to Pat, or she didn't notice yet. I just need to see some shred of physical evidence that someone else was at either scene before I'll believe it was a burgulary gone awry. For now, I only see something going terribly wrong with Aeileen herself.[/QUOTE]

All due respect, your arguments were less convincing than your previous post. I also feel your completely avoiding and missed points that were made previously. I could answer your questions but I would be repeating what is said in previous posts and what others have said. We would be arguing just to argue. I also have a feeling your locked into a theory just to be locked into one. A situation where i am not, if there is evidence to promote accident I will follow that theory and even bolster it. You have presented nothing to present accident here.

In short you've actually made me more convinced that this is not an accident. But in fairness, you did help bring up the one possibility of homicide.

In regards to the lack of physical evidence of break through there are several examples of home invasion, breakthroughs and murders in which the perps never left physical evidence. Lets consider the types of physical evidence not left

1. Footprints...You could spend your life in homicide and never come across a footprint. Whether someone leaves a footprint depends on
a. Size and girth...short and light people tend not to leave heavy impressions
b. Surface---Very few people have floors or concrete surfaces. Carpet is the common surface. Shag carpeting is a notoriously bad surface for footprints.
c. Environment- Footprints are usually caused by a substance in contact with the shoe..if theres no dust, rain, mud, snow, etc...you stand an excellent chance of not leaving footprints.
d. Shoes---Sneakers rarely leave footrprints. Boots almost always do. Dress shoes fall in between. If you have smooth surface shoes they tend not to leave impressions unlike cleated shoe or heeled shoes.
e. Movement-- If your not running in the house or moving that much. If you walking a little bit or standing or sitting in a house, these going to be less opportunity to leave prints
f. Time- How long are you in the house? If you simply walk into one or two rooms and walk out, theres even less a chance you leave prints.

2. Evidence of break in---Not an issue here, the door was open.

3. Fingerprints- as long as you wear gloves (a common tactic in burgularies) , you wont leave a print

4. DNA- AH!!! Maybe there were scads of DNA left by these people..Unfortunately we were several years too early for that technology. Time and Movement also decrease the chances of DNA being in the house. Clothing also affects this. If your not sweating, rubbing onto something, etc you might not leave discernable DNA.

5. Evidence of struggle - If there are two 200 lbs guys fighting in the house, there would be tons of evidence of chairs turned over, lamps broken, bookshelves turned over.. But Ayleen is a woman being apprehemded by possibley two men...how much of a struggle could she make? It probably took them fives seconds to grab her. Could easily be done without any damage to the house or furniture.

The lack of struggle actually hurts the accident theory more...If she was in dire straits to leave the house why was she not fumbling for the medicine cabinet turning over chairs trying to run to the car. Why was her purse not turned over. Why did she not know over anything driving the car out of the driveway?

6. Blood - Most likely Ayleen was not killed in the house. Hence no blood. Any struggle would have taken a short amount of time with very little chance of skin being cut.

7. Hair- If your bald you won;t leave hair. If your short haired you'l leave even less chance of hair. You usually need long hair to have a chance of leaving a hair sample at the scene. Considering this is the late 70s early 80s, there might be a chance that an African American would have an Afro hairstyle which could leave hair. But quite a few of them tend to have shorter hairs and nappy hair tends to be less likely to be left. Chances of arm hair being left depends on whether criminal is wearing short sleaves or not. Pubic hair only gets left in rapes or if the perp goes to use the toilet. Women tend to have the greatest chance of leaving hair do to the length and the greater chance hair is on their clothing. People that have dogs tend to have dog hair on the clothes which is also a consideration. As with the other factors above, time and movement affect the chances this evidence is left. Plus hair also gets blown away by wind and movement making it difficult to find if it ever was there.

8. Clothing Fibers- This is something that sounds good in theory..but in practice never works. Fibers depend a lot on what type of clothing you wear. Some clothes leave significantly less than others. Also leaving fibers usually requires your clothes to be in contact with something directly. In this case the only thing that clothing would be in contact with would be Ayleen Conway herself and the car. Unfortunately the fire destroyed any possibility of that evidence to be found. Fibers can also be blown aways.

If you review the above factors, you'll see why it is not unusual to find evidence of an intruder at a crime scene.

That;'s why a detective cannot use the absence of physical evidence as thee sole reason to rule out an intruder. There are other mitigating factors (less of all is contamination of the crime scene) that are likely to prevent that evidence from existing.

It is also important to keep in mind that the crime scene is also extended to Ayleen;s car. Which in this case was completely burned. A majority of the evidence that you feel may be missing may have actually been in that car.

They're probably were hair, fibers and blood evidence in that car. Maybe even fingerprints.

I don;t know why the accelarator is such a big deal in this case. It neither proves nor disproves accident/suicide/murder.

1. If Ayleen was being kidnapped by burgulars, a struggle could have ensued that resulted in the accelarator being hit and the car hitting the rail.

2. If Ayleen was being chased she could have hit the accelerator to escape
or in confusion.

3. If Ayleen was suicidal she could have hit the accelator to kill herself.

4. if ayleen was suffering from "Abnormally Sudden Mysteries Illness Syndrome" ASMIS (I want medical credit for this!!) she could have hit the accelerator will finally succumbing to the throes of this rare disease.

5. Her abductors could have knocked her unconcious, rigged the accelerator to hit the rail and then set the car on fire.

All theories are valid based on the accelarator evidence.
All the accelerator tells us is that it was the reason why the car hit the rail. That's about it.

The evidence for arson, Mastermind, ultimately boils down to this:

1) The gas cap was missing
2) The car and all of its interior burned very intensely, more so than the accident investigator would expect if the fire had started "naturally," given that the interior upholstrey used flame-retardant materials.

There is no direct evidence, apparently, that the inside of the car was actually doused with gasoline. Had there been, this would remove all doubt.

Let's compare this case to the Kathy Bonderman case for a moment (she too was found dead inside a burning car), because I think that would be instructive. In the Bonderman case, the local sheriff thought that this had been an accident, but the state highway patrolman sent to investigate thought it was murder. In that case, the evidence for arson was strong, especially when compared to the case against it. One of the big issues was whether, as the local sheriff surmised, Kathy's car had veered off the road, then gone over railroad tracks at a place not designed for automobile crossing. He felt that this was what had happened, and in the process of going over raised tracks, a combination of sparks and perhaps leaking fuel had ignited the fire that eventually killed her. However, when the state police examined Kathy's car, they found no evidence of structural damage, other than the fire. This, of course, is strong evidence for arson. Furthermore, upon investigating the interior of the car, state police could identify multiple starting points for the fire, originating in the interior of the car. Again, strong evidence for arson, especially when taken together with the complete lack of structural damage to the automobile. Moreover, Kathy was found on the passenger side of the vehicle, not the driver's side, as one would expect. Finally, about 300 yards from the site where her car was found, an empty gas container was found; hardly proof, but awfully suggestive. As it turned out, of course, this WAS arson, and her husband was the one who had killed her.

Now let's turn back to Aieleen's case. No one disputes that there was heavy front-end structural damage to the car, owing to the again undisputed real crash that occurred. This factor alone could have caused a rupture in the fuel line inside the engine; if that rupture happens, causing gasoline to spew forth, as metal strikes metal at a high rate of speed, causing sparks, a fire - and a very bad one - is hardly a surprising result. Further, the pattern of the burning (the melding of the bumper to the guard rail you mentioned) to me suggests the intensity of the fire was highest at the point of impact - i.e., where the bumper and the front of the car collided with the guard rail. Again, this is what you would expect if a metal-on-metal collision ruptures a fuel line, introducing gasoline into the equation. I've had my own car have a ruptured fuel line once, inside the engine compartment, and it's amazing how fast, just by coming into contact with engine parts that are hot from the normal heat of a running engine, that gasoline will ignite, let me assure you.

The gas cap was missing, which might be suggestive, but we really don't know if it went missing during this accident, or whether it had been missing some time before. Further, it would not be so extraordinary for the gas cap to be blown off in an intense fire that originates at the front end of the car and features a ruptured (and therefore open) fuel line. The heat from that fire would travel down the fuel line and begin to heat the tank itself, causing a rise in pressure inside the gas tank, which could blow a plastic cap off.

The point is, the missing gas cap is only suggestive, at best.

So, in summary, it can't be shown for sure that the interior of the car was in fact doused with gasoline or another accelrant, and neither can it be firmly established that the fire had an origin point inside the vehicle, which it certainly would in an arson case (no one trying to dispose of a body and evidence inside the cabin of a vehicle is going to douse the engine of that vehicle with gaoline, light it on fire, and then leave, hoping that the fire spreads quickly enough and ferociously enough into the cabin to destroy all the evidence).

It's entirely possible that fire was started by the accident itself (I've certainly seen more than a few total burn-outs caused by traffic accidents in my travels), and, to have staged this accident, the burglar or burglars - who, again, left no traces of their own existence - would have either had to take their lives in their own hands by being inside a car travelling 50-60mph as it struck a guard rail, or else managed to get very lucky in staging exactly this scene.

It's still the deep, deep unlikelihood of being able to stage an accident scene like this - skid marks and all - that makes a murder in this case unbelievable to me.

It's still the deep, deep unlikelihood of being able to stage an accident scene like this - skid marks and all - that makes a murder in this case unbelievable to me.

No it's a deep deep, unlikelihood that this was accidental death.

Evidence is missing destroyed, your basing your theory on the absence of evidence.

1. Ayleen's body was destroyed
2. The evidence in the car was destroyed.


mozartpc27 The evidence for arson, Mastermind, ultimately boils down to this:

1) The gas cap was missing
2) The car and all of its interior burned very intensely, more so than the accident investigator would expect if the fire had started "naturally," given that the interior upholstrey used flame-retardant materials.

There is no direct evidence, apparently, that the inside of the car was actually doused with gasoline. Had there been, this would remove all doubt

1. That's two pieces of evidence more than the accidental death theory. You have zero evidence to prove that she suffered a stroke.
2. Your assuming there is no more evidence to find. There is much more that can be investigated and more evidence that can be discovered.

There are several differences between this case and the Kathy Bonderson case. I think your letting that case jade your opinions on this one.

Mozart, what is the medical practicality that your stroke theory would work? That a human being could perform these acts under a stroke?

You also mentioned in a post that you felt Unsolved Mysteries trumped up several cases to make them more mysterious. This would indicate that you have a bias to see that this case become one of those trumped up cases.

Technically this makes you biased in your assessment.

Mastermind, in my last post, which you stated convinced you more than ever that this WAS a homicide, I really wasn't trying to necessarily convince you of the accident/illness theory. I feel that you, too, are locked in to your idea of what happened. We all perceive things in our own way, and sometimes we are proven right, and sometimes we are proven wrong. At this point, I seriously doubt any one of us is going to get a solid answer about what happened--it's been like, 25 years with no new information.

I was asking a lot of questions that I felt were relevant that we didn't get answers to in the segment--such as the details of the burgularies in the area, how the scenes were investigated, whether there were other reports of suspicious activities or missing valuables in the neighborhood that day, the possible timeline of events that morning, etc.--trying to really convince myself one way or the other. Also, I was trying to respond to your questions with what my line of thinking had been, and why I felt mozart's idea seemed more in line with the evidence.

There are lots of ways that I could see this shaking out as a burgulary gone wrong--IF we had more complete answers. It's not so clear-cut to me, as it seems to be for you.

Here's a theory--Aeileen sees through a window in her home, an electrician in a uniform in her next door neighbor's yard, trying to get in the house. She goes out her back door, leaving it open, and gets the person's attention over her fence to let them know that the neighbor is not at home, when the guy turns around and pulls out his gun. (Apparently he doesn't care that she thinks he's an electrician, he's determined to kill ANYONE who sees him, even though he is in costume, and she has clearly bought into it. OR it was someone she happened to know, and as soon as he turned around, he knew that she would know he was not an electrician and that he was indeed about to rob the house, therefore he must kill her. Somewhat irrational, but let's just go with it for the sake of the theory, since we are already on this slippery slope.) He orders her to come with him--they go out the gate in her fence, through the neighbor's yard to the front of the houses where the cars are parked and alerts his partner who is waiting for him in their getaway car.

The guy with the gun tells Aeileen to get into her car and drive, while the partner follows in the second car. (This was before Oprah had enlightened the world about never letting them bring you to a second location. :lol: )

They drive out to this road which the burgular happens to know is very isolated and has a bridge. He tells Aeileen to stop the car about 200-250 feet away from the bridge. When she pulls over, he knocks her out with the butt of his gun, and gets out of the car, somehow managing to remove the church bulletin at the same time without realizing it, or just not caring. THEN, these two discuss how to get rid of her without it looking like a murder, and decide to set up an accident.

Somehow with whatever he and his partner happen to have in their all-purpose burgulary kit and getaway car, they (for example) rig a brick or some other heavy object over the accelerator to press down (maybe they use a rope, I don't know, I'm not really sure how you rig accidents, but it seems kind of complicated, to say the least) on the accelerator once the car is started AND put in Drive. They expect the car to go over the bridge (possibly), or maybe they actually did expect it to just hit the guard rail really fast and hard. Maybe besides being burgulars, they were also mathematicians and geometricians and physicists who could figure out really quickly how fast the car would go, where it would hit, how much time it would need and all that stuff. Or, maybe they were just gambling men who decided to set it up and see what happened! (But that does imply that they would come to the burgulary way less prepared, and that they might have been willing to risk just walking away once Aeileen had told them the neighbors were out. I don't know, I wasn't a psych major, I freely admit it.)

If they expected the car to go over the bridge, then, shoot, bad luck! Not only did the car NOT go over the bridge and kill Aeileen, but she also woke up during the course of the accident and hit the brakes, causing the skid marks! But one lucky thing did happen--she got knocked out again, or so badly injured once the car hit that she can't move to get out of the car and fight for her life. Because at this point she would know that they were trying to kill her, and I would hope that if she had any fight in her, she would have fought. At any rate, she's incapacitated AGAIN--but still not dead, otherwise why wouldn't they just remove the rigging device and leave her there looking like she crashed and died--and the car is totalled. OR maybe she is dead, but the car is so badly damaged that they can't get in the front seat to remove the rigging device, so oops, now what?!

Now, one of the burgulars gets the bright idea that if they set the car on fire, it will look like something that happened in the course of the accident, and hopefully destroy lots of evidence. But they don't have an accelerant in their kit! Darn! However, they do for some reason (maybe they've also been stealing people's gas from their cars) have a siphon and a canister. They remove the gas cap and siphon the gas out of Aeileen's car into their canister and get in the backseat and pour the gasoline all over the place, toss a match, run, and watch the car burn up.

They think they have done their very best, and, satisfied, drive off into the sunset.

But whoops--these brilliant, or brilliantly lucky, men have totally forgotten that they maybe should have gone back to Aeileen's home to make sure she hadn't had the iron (or even worse, the stove) on or left any other clues that may have made her leaving the house seem so abrupt and suspicious. Big mistake, because once Pat gets home the alarm bells are ringing.

BUT, then they got lucky again because the cops so bungle the scene that absolutely NO evidence of their shoes or their getaway car is discovered. AND luckily whatever they were doing at the neighbor's house never got far enough to arouse anyone else's suspicion that there was an attempted break-in. AND luckily the fire was so intense that it burned up the rigging device that they couldn't get, OR in the event that they had been able to remove the rigging device but the initial accident hadn't killed Aeileen, luckily for them Aeileen was so intensely burned that the coroner or ME had no way of determining whether the accident or the fire killed her, or whether she had been pistol-whipped at any point. AND luckily AGAIN, the arson investigator couldn't even determine whether there was definitely an accelerant used to start the fire or not. All he could say conclusively was that the gas cap was missing (oops, one other thing they forgot!).

That's a theory that pretty much fits in with the evidence we were shown. (Although I am sure I missed something somewhere :crazy: ) Given, I would think they maybe held back some details from the public so that if there was a tip or if someone did get caught that they could determine for certain it's authenticity.

It seems like to me, either Aeileen had the unluckiest day of her life, and/or the assailants had the luckiest day of theirs. I feel like a lot more unlikely things happened in my above scenario than what mozart suggested, but hey, maybe I'm (or you, since it involves your idea about the neighbor being the target of the burgulary, and the wearing of the disguises, and suggestion of the burgulary kit) at least partially right. Now if only someone could prove it!

I also don't see why you think that just because a person had a medical emergency, became disoriented, and wanted to leave the house quickly that they would be turning over chairs or causing other havoc, like driving completely recklessly through town. When my grandmother had her first stroke, she took a valium and then called my father to try to tell him that she had had a stroke. People do weird things when they are under some pressure or anxiety. Or, maybe Aeileen had been going through some depression or other type of adjustment or anxiety disorder that caused her to want to leave everything behind, but Pat couldn't or wouldn't accept it (or admit it publicly), and so he set up the hose, the bath, and the iron himself. We never hear from any of the older kids or other family members--that's kind of unusual on UM, although not unheard of. Basically, there's just as much evidence presented to us for smart, reasonable people to draw very different conclusions.

I hope you don't think I'm just trying to argue with you for the sake of argument. This is a very intriguing discussion to me, and I do like to read everyone's posts and see what ideas come up. Hopefully I'm contributing some of those, too.

Anyway, sorry for the novel-length post. Hope it was somewhat entertaining.

herefore he must kill her. Somewhat irrational



I don;t think they originally intended to kill at all. I think the situation deteriorated to a point where they had no choice but to kill her.

It's only a possibility that they were wearing a uniform...they might have been wearing regular clothes. There is no standard burgular uniform, so I don;t know that you would register one or two men on someone's property as burgulars. This isn;t the South Bronx...I would imagine that people are a lot friendlier and not that distrustful.

1. I think there first idea was to try to pass their actions off as being normal. If a stranger they probably said " Oh, hi we're just here to ummm. ummm check on the light fixture. or if a known person they probably tried to bypass the reason why there on the person's property "Oh Hi, Ayleen ..Mrs. Conway...we're umm. just here to help out with the lawn.

2. At this point Ayleen may have believed them, been suspicous or made a rush. Several things could have happened here.
1. Ayleen may said right out that she was going to call the police. Not an unusal scenario I've seen old ladies do just that and they've lived in a lot worse neighborhoods. CW Rodddy got into a fist fight with a drug-dealer..why would it be so out of the ordinary for Ayleen to do this? This is especially true if she knew the person. The burgular may have even been arguing with her all the way into the house till she got to the phone.
2. Ayleen may have said nothing...panic may have set in to one of the criminals and they either drew a gun or rushed to track her down before she got to the phone. Hence a burgualry know became a hostage situation.
3. At this point this became a botched robbery attempt...There plan ruined. Now they had a women in the possesion who has seen them and could testify them. They couldn't just kill her and leave...
a. They would have a murder on their hands that could get tied to them(especially if a gun is used...bullet could be tied to the gun.
b. They lose out on their haul considering they would have stolen nothing.
4. This started what was an improvised plan that probably changed right up to the end. They couldn't stay in the house, they couldn't do a complete burgulary of the house (except for maybe a few things), since they had Ayleen to deal with. Remember the phone was off the hook, someone might come any minute to investigate why Ayleen was not home. The best plan at this point was to leave the premise with Ayleen. They took her in her car (maybe they had their own, maybe they thought they could sell it., maybe burning the car came to them at this point)
5. Hence they all left in Ayleen's car (or two cars maybe). They probably told Ayleen that they had no desire to kill her and just wanted to escape out of state. They probably just told her that they would let her go once they reached the limits.(this would explain why Ayleen was found so far away, if I am correct this would be the route to leave the state) What happened from this point is open to several possibilities. What we do know is that at the end of this interrupted burgulary, the pers set Ayleen's car on fire to burn any evidence and make it look like an accident.

There are lots of ways that I could see this shaking out as a burgulary gone wrong--IF we had more complete answers. It's not so clear-cut to me, as it seems to be for you.

I believe there is more evidence to be found via further investigation. I do not believe we have all the pieces of the puzzle here. We're missing a big piece in the lack of autopsy and the destruction of one potential crimes scene(the car).

The guy with the gun tells Aeileen to get into her car and drive, while the partner follows in the second car. (This was before Oprah had enlightened the world about never letting them bring you to a second location.

You were'nt serious with that statement? You honestly told me that nobody gets into the car with an armed person, anymore because Oprah, said it. You lost credibility with that statement. That there no hostage situations anymore because "america got wiser"? There was a hostage situation last month that played out like that in California.

Somehow with whatever he and his partner happen to have in their all-purpose burgulary kit and getaway car, they (for example) rig a brick or some other heavy object over the accelerator to press down (maybe they use a rope, I don't know, I'm not really sure how you rig accidents, but it seems kind of complicated, to say the least) on the accelerator once the car is started AND put in Drive. They expect the car to go over the bridge (possibly), or maybe they actually did expect it to just hit the guard rail really fast and hard. Maybe besides being burgulars, they were also mathematicians and geometricians and physicists who could figure out really quickly how fast the car would go, where it would hit, how much time it would need and all that stuff. Or, maybe they were just gambling men who decided to set it up and see what happened! (But that does imply that they would come to the burgulary way less prepared, and that they might have been willing to risk just walking away once Aeileen had told them the neighbors were out. I don't know, I wasn't a psych major, I freely admit it.)

You seem to be under the impression that burning a car and rigging an accelerator are beyond the layperson. One does not have to be a criminal genius or even heavily equipped.

1. To rig any accelarator all you need is a heavy object. A perfect example of this is in a scene in the movie "Sideways" with Paul Giammati. Auto insuaance investigators come across several examples of people who have rigged acceleerators to fake crashes. None of these people are rocket scientiests or have equipment bags.

2. If you walk through the streets of Detroit or anacostia, DC, you'll be treated to the beautiful sights of charred out automobiles. Who does them/ Street youths, Gangs, ticked off drug dealers. All you need to burn a car is a piece of cloth and match or lighter. None of these people are expert arsonists.

3. You seem to also believe that this burgualry scenario is unique to this case. It is not. There have been several murders that involved a person being taking and then set up to make it look like they died in a fire. I could be wrong but didn;t one of the Mary Morris murders occur this way? I might be wrong, skip that.

Basically, there's just as much evidence presented to us for smart, reasonable people to draw very different conclusions.

Not really. There zero evidence to really conclude an accident.

When an accident happens
1. You know the reason why the person was on the road to begin with. To go to work, to pickup their kids, to drive to the bar. There is no evidence to indicate a reason why she left. Not only that, she left her house in disarray with the door open. She left under suspicious circumstances.
2. You also usually have a good idea why the car crashed. In this case, the guard rail caused the crash, but the fire was really caused by the fact the gas cap was missing. The cause of the accident was the was not just the crash but the fire that was caused by the gas cap disappearance.
3. Usually you have a good majority of the inside of the car available to see if there is any evidence. In this case, all the evidence in the inside was destroyed by the fire. An in this case you had the advantage of the car not been compacted, which is the usuall problem.
4. And more importantly their is the absence of the autopsy which usually conclusive in telling us they died of a broken neck, etc. We don't have that in this case.

The chances of all the above happening in an accident are improbabe. This would be one of the more bizarre accidents ever recorded.

I cannot buy that all the above happened under normal circumstances.

It seems like to me, either Aeileen had the unluckiest day of her life, and/or the assailants had the luckiest day of theirs

How can you call them lucky?
1. They got interrupted before they could burgular a house and make their pay day.
2. They suffered the worse thing that can happen in that they have an eyeball witness to their activities.
3. They made off with practically nothing in their haul.
4. They had to waste time in trying to deal with this witness.
5. They had to stoop to murder to get rid of this witness. Including the arduous task of taking her out, killing her and burning the car and body.
6. They probably spent the entire ride back smelling of gasoline and commiserating about what they had to do.
7. Their attempt to hide Ayleen's murder as an accident failed. The arson investigator pointed to the possibility of arson (is that correect enough language for you guys...SHEESHH:rolleyes: ) This case is on the books and is being investigated by violent crimes. Hence they did not cover the crime.
8. They probably had to curtail or even stop their burgularies because of the murder investigation and the fact that burgulars were considered a suspect. They most likely can't operate in the town or even have to lam it completely. They may be living far worse of than they where before the murder.
9. They know have to live with the fact that there is a murder case that has superceded the burgualry cases meaning they have to be on watch every day of their lives.

This was a botched robbery. A failure of "bay of pigs" enormity. There is nothing lucky at all regarding anyone in this case. Except maybe Unsolved Mysteries which got an interesting case to do.

The Oprah comment was a joke. That was why I put a "LOL" smiley after it. I obviously don't think that that ended all hostage situations in America or anywhere. May have been in poor taste, sorry.

I'm honestly trying to figure out what you think the scenario was here, not just trying to wind you up. I guess it is enough just to leave it at--you think there was foul play, and you have lots of different speculations about how and why--which opens the door to all sorts of possible universes. I think there could have been foul play, but I also think mozart's idea makes more sense given what we've seen. I'm not trying to make it a personal attack, or tell you you have no credibility as a thinking person or whatever.

1. I did account for the possibility that Aeileen approached the person in a friendly or inquisitive manner.

2. I did account for the possibility that it was someone she knew.

3. Okay, let's assume they all left in one car. I'd love to be able to find this road on Google Maps and see if your idea about leaving the state via this route is at all viable. I guess it depends which state they were supposedly hoping to get to afterward. And I think it would have had to have been 2 cars because otherwise, after the accident, they're walking around out in the open carrying their burgular kits, and probably smelling like gasoline and fire or whatever. And wouldn't they have most likely approached the original burgulary in a vehicle, if they are carrying around all this different equipment? And once again, wouldn't they have staked out the street for a day or two to make sure there wasn't a housewife neighbor at home who could see them?

4. Those people you mentioned who the insurance investigators run across as rigging accidents--I'm assuming the only reason they know the accidents were rigged is because it was done poorly and the people got caught. Rigging an accident to occur in itself might not be difficult, but doing it successfully without getting discovered probably requires a little bit of study beforehand.

5. You still haven't accounted for the skid marks. That is evidence of an accident, or at the very least, someone attempting to stop a crash from happening.

6. I agree that the house was left under suspicious circumstances--but to say that when an accident happens you always know the reason a person was in their car and the reason they were in the location is not true. I could decide to take my car out somewhere I've never been tomorrow without alerting anyone and end up having an accident and dying, and no one would know why I was there. Obviously, that isn't what happened here, but your statement is way presumptive. And, once again, I don't see why they went to all this trouble to make everything at the crash scene appear accidental, but they let her leave her house in such a state as to instantly arouse suspicion?

7. I don't know what caused the fire. No one knows. Not even the arson investigator could say for certain what caused the fire. Cars do crash and catch on fire without arsonists being involved. I know they're not supposed to, and I don't know if they're always this intense, but it does happen.

8. When I said they were lucky, I meant they were lucky in relation to the circumstances they found themselves in re: Aeileen. They succesfully rigged a murder and an arson to look like an accident, didn't leave any evidence except for a church bulletin at either scene, and had cops that didn't believe her husband when he first raised the red flag. Obviously they weren't lucky in relation to an attempted burgulary.

Mastermind: Not to keep debating this endlessly, but you've asked me a couple of times recently what kind of an ailment would allow Aieleen to drive for awhile BEFORE getting into an accident. I ask you to consider the case of George Owens (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=201996). Owens clearly had some sort of minor medical "event" - probably a stroke - that caused him to become disoriented, and drive far away from his home for no apparent reason. Moreover, my grandfather suffered from very minor strokes for much of his adult life (as a consequence of injuries sustained during WWII).

In other words, a stroke need not total incapacitate its victim. It is, in fact, more than possible to have a minor stroke and become disoriented. Indeed, it is also more than possible to then suffer a more major stroke a not-too-long-time later.

It's not as wildly implausible as you want to make it seem.

Mastermind: Not to keep debating this endlessly, but you've asked me a couple of times recently what kind of an ailment would allow Aieleen to drive for awhile BEFORE getting into an accident. I ask you to consider the case of George Owens. Owens clearly had some sort of minor medical "event" - probably a stroke - that caused him to become disoriented, and drive far away from his home for no apparent reason. Moreover, my grandfather suffered from very minor strokes for much of his adult life (as a consequence of injuries sustained during WWII).

In other words, a stroke need not total incapacitate its victim. It is, in fact, more than possible to have a minor stroke and become disoriented. Indeed, it is also more than possible to then suffer a more major stroke a not-too-long-time later.

It's not as wildly implausible as you want to make it seem.

Let me get this straight...your comparing this case to the George Owens disappearance???:confused:

1. First of all, George Owens is a missing person. Which is a huge factor in his case. We know where Ayleen's body is, she is not a missing person. Apples and oranges.
2. We have all the evidence available in George Owens car. It is perfectly in tact. Ayleens car is burnt to the ground hence destroying a lot of evidence.
3. George Owens was a septagenarian. Had several prior health problems that required him to walk with a cane. Ayleen Conway had no reportred health problems even remotely similar to George and Ayleen was not even in George's age bracket. Given Georges age and race, health problems like strokes, heart attacks, dementia, rheumetism, liver damage, broken bones are not possibilities...they're almost certainties. None of those conditions are that high probability in someone Ayleen's age or race.
4. If I remember the george Owen's case, there were at least two people that saw George at the time of the disappearance. The women in the store said she observed George being disorientated and weak. We have an eyeball witness that can verify that George may have been having health problems at the time. We have no such witnesses in the Ayleen Conway case..(unfortunately.:( )
5. If I seem to remember George had left his house under normal circumstances, it was on the way to his daily activities that he suffered his stroke. Things started normally and then become awry.
6. Nobody questions whether George Owens had a stroke or heart attack. what we question is whether George's ultimate death was foul play or not. There is still a large possibility that George was killed after having this stroke.
a. His body was never found..yet his can was near the car. It's difficult to imaging how George could gets so far without his can. He would have to have crawled the distance. Georges body should have been found within the search radius. Not even his glasses or hat was found in the radius.
b. There is still the evidence of a truck that may or may not have been in the area.
c. Given his condition and the fact that no wallet was found..it is not far-fetched that George was attacked by someone who saw him as an easy target.

Both Ayleen Conway and George Ownes cases are unexplained death.
There is a strong possibility that foul play may have occured in both cases.
I agree with the assesment that both cases should be kept open.
Ayleen;s even more so because there is more evidence or fould play and even less of a chance of accidental death.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, when my grandmother had her first stroke she was not completely incapacitated and was not in a panicked state, but she did do some weird things like take a valium and call my Dad (who lived 5 hours away) before trying to get herself to a hospital. She didn't ask a neighbor for help, she didn't call 911, or anything.

Also, she suffered more than 7 strokes, at building levels of intensity, before she passed away. The final four all occurred within one night. Strokes are very unpredictable and can cause all sorts of different types of disorientation and incapacitation when they occur.

Yes, as I mentioned earlier, when my grandmother had her first stroke she was not completely incapacitated and was not in a panicked state, but she did do some weird things like take a valium and call my Dad (who lived 5 hours away) before trying to get herself to a hospital. She didn't ask a neighbor for help, she didn't call 911, or anything.

Also, she suffered more than 7 strokes, at building levels of intensity, before she passed away. The final four all occurred within one night. Strokes are very unpredictable and can cause all sorts of different types of disorientation and incapacitation when they occur.

The fact that you know about those attacks proves my point for me. There is documentation and circumstantial evidence that your grandmother had a prior condition.

Godforbid if your mother were found dead on a lonely track of road, I as an investigator could ask you or your family if your mother had been acting out of sorts lately or taking any medication. I can also look in her medicine chest and find the valium..from this point I can figure a psychological panic in the attack. I can read the presciption label on the medicine and call a doctor who can tell me all types of physcial and psychological problems your grandma had. I can probably talk to neighbors around the house who saw your grandma acting crazy and rushing out of the house and even bothering them with all types of nonsenes. I would dream of taking that call...that would be the ideal dunker of a case as opposed to the stone-cold whodunit that the Ayleen Conway case is.

Your also bringing up your grandmother of an extreme age...has your mother or father ever suffered the same ailments and done the same things?

Have you ever known anybody age 35-50 to suffer the same thing as your grandma did.

Can you people do better than bringing up elderly people??? Please.:mad:

Elderly people can die falling down the stairs to get milk. When you see an elderly person dead...accidental death is ALWAYS the first thought. Get back to me...:mad:

3. Okay, let's assume they all left in one car. I'd love to be able to find this road on Google Maps and see if your idea about leaving the state via this route is at all viable.

Wouldn;t prove anything since esentially any major road can potentially lead out of state or out of town.


I guess it depends which state they were supposedly hoping to get to afterward. And I think it would have had to have been 2 cars because otherwise, after the accident, they're walking around out in the open carrying their burgular kits, and probably smelling like gasoline and fire or whatever

I am glad you aren't criminal....burgular kits????:confused: Why in god's name would you need more than one set of tools to burgular a house??:rolleyes:

1. Only an idiot would do that. Possesing burgulary tools is a huge criminal charge! Having two kits increases the likelihood of a charge if everyone in your party is caught. One set of tools is more than enough.

2. I'm not even sure what the practicality of having more than one set of tools does. How many times do you need to jimy a lock or crack a safe??

3. Wouldn't you want your buddies unecumbered with tools so they can carry much heavier items....like say all the loot your trying to rob from the house.
Isn;t that the reason why you brought another guy with you in the first place..to do all the heavy lifting??:rolleyes:



And wouldn't they have most likely approached the original burgulary in a vehicle, if they are carrying around all this different equipment?

Probably.. I do know of one burgular in Bronx, NY that took the subway to and from his burgularies:lol: . I have heard that drug dealers have rented cabs to hit people in D.C. I would not be surprised to hear of a burgular that actually walked to his crime scene and walked back on foot.


And once again, wouldn't they have staked out the street for a day or two to make sure there wasn't a housewife neighbor at home who could see them?

Let me get this straight...you scoff at the idea of burgulars bringing tools with them to rob a house...yet now you want them massive recon on the entire perimeter of the area?:confused: :confused:

I feel like I'm giving lessons in how to committ robberies here...:p

When committing a burgulary on a residential house...you have two choices.
1.You can do it in the day
2.You can do it in the night

Contrary to popular belief it is actually easier to rob a house in the day than it is during night.

The advantage of night is that nobody sees you approaching the house...you wear dark fatigues...few people out at night...you have the night to cover you.. But once inside you run into a huge problem...there a people (sometimes several of them in the house). You know have to rob someone without waking them up...a difficult task.

But in the daylight..there's more of a chance that your house will be empty. An empty house where you can spend as much time as you like robbing the house without being interrupted.

But it comes with a downside...More people are out in the daylight...you don't have camoflauge or dark clothing..you don't have the night.

Hence the key in the daylight robberies is in the approach
1. Look as normal as possible on the approach...dress in normal fatigues or dress as a electrician, mover, meterman, etc..
2. You have to be quick and enter the house as soon as possible..the more that you are outside the greater the chance of discovery. Once inside the house your safe.
3. You could have the greatest lookout in the world tell you the whereabouts of nearly everyone in the neighborhood and it won't mean a thing!!! There is always a house with a neighbor next door..How the hell are you going to find a house that has NO neighbor at home next door to it?:rolleyes:

The only recon that is done prior to a robbery is to look for these things
1. Is there a dog in the yard or nearby?
2. Is the house easily assecessible
3. Is the house you are robbing going to be empty.
4. Is their a cop car patroling?
5. Is the house worth the risk? (why rob a house that looks dilapidated when you can make the same risk on a McMansion that's just as easy to rob.
6. Is their some type of alarm system? Can it be bypassed? (much more a problem now then it was earlier)

Ayleen's husband always seemed like a nice man to me, a simpleton in a way and I mean that in a good way. Typical blue collared family man. This case is so perplexing that you can't rule anything out. I've heard everything about this case from Ayleen having a heart attack while driving, to a robbery/murder, to a potential affair. In reality it's probably the 2nd one.

The interesting thing I always found was the church bulletin found on the grass. It proves that either she or her killer got out of the car at some point. This was a case from 1986 I think and to be honest Ayleen's husband just might have passed on by now

Have you ever known anybody age 35-50 to suffer the same thing as your grandma did.

Can you people do better than bringing up elderly people??? Please.:mad:

Elderly people can die falling down the stairs to get milk. When you see an elderly person dead...accidental death is ALWAYS the first thought. Get back to me...:mad:

No need to become enraged, Mastermind.

Perhaps Aieleen was suffering from a rupturing brain aneurysm, a related condition but not entirely identical to a stroke (strokes can come in two forms: hemorrhagic - caused by a rupturing of an aneurysm inside the brain - and embolic - caused by blockage elsewhere in the body that disrupts blood, and thus oxygen, flow to the brain). A brain aneurysm is, in effect, a type of stroke.

Typically, we associate strokes with older folks. But brain aneurysms, while rarer in younger people than older people, have been known (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3173719) to affect people (http://www.articlesbase.com/health-and-safety-articles/young-boy-suffers-brain-aneurism-and-the-results-of-a-doctors-failure-to-diagnose-1844878.html) of ALL ages, down (http://shoutback.com/metro/new-york/news/2009/09/25/NJ-Teen-Dies-Suddenly-Of-Rare-Brain-Aneurysm) to the VERY young (http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/18969139.html). I myself had a friend who very nearly died from an aneurysm at the age of 34. Symptoms of a building brain aneurysm - just BEFORE the aneurysm actually ruptures - can include, among other things (http://www.brainaneurysm.com/aneurysm-symptoms.html):

Thinking or processing problems
Speech complications
Perceptual problems
Short-term memory difficulty

Symptoms of an erupting brain aneurysm include severe headache and nausea.

Additionally, high blood pressure is one of the possible causes of brain aneurysms, and heightened stress levels can contribute to higher blood pressure, which in turn can cause a bulging aneurysm to rupture, causing death.

So, say Aieleen begins to feel the symptoms of an aneurysm that is close to or at the eruption point: starts to feel a bad headache and she is having trouble speaking. She can still do some things at this point, panics, and gets into her car. She drives, half-panicked, and over time she starts to become disoriented, and probably starts to feel more pain as the situation worsens. Not only that, but the stress she is putting herself under is probably causing a temporary rise in blood pressure, which is exacerbating her condition. Eventually, she is overwhelmed, and reflexively hits the break; she either dies of the stroke, of the impact, or of the fire.

It's really not that hard to imagine. As I've conclusively shown above, ANYBODY can have a brain aneurysm rupture, at any age.

What's much harder to believe is that burglars caught, by your own theory, essentially unprepared, could stage a car accident with Aieleen behind the wheel, all while leaving no trace of their own existence.

In general, I think the chances of successfully staging a car accident are less than 1%. People act like it would be easy.

No, it freaking wouldn't.

One more thing, for those advocating a murder of some kind: logically, you've got only two choices.

EITHER the accident is genuine, and the decision to burn the car and Aieleen came only after the car had crashed as the most convenient and ready way to destroy all incriminating evidence...

OR the accident is staged.

Now, I think I've demonstrated, several times, why STAGING an accident in which a car collides with a guard rail - to the SIDE of the road - has all kinds of problems and is pretty damn unlikely. The skid marks, let's remember, are basically impossbile to fake, so Aieleen must have been ALIVE inside the vehicle and attempted to stop it before it crashed into the guard rail. But why would the killers take the chance of leaving her alive while they send the car away from themselves? Too many things could go wrong in this scenario, and frankly, I don't think a couple of "surprised" neighborhood burglars would be clever enough to come up with this plan, and carry it out so expertly, on the fly. I think the chances of that are less than 0.1%, seriously.

So, that leaves us with the accident being real, and only the arson being done by the killers on purpose. Only, this poses, to me, a logical question absolutely lethal to this theory: if the accident was genuine (unstaged), and therefore unintended, WHY did the burglars just happen to have enough gasoline, in a separate container, with them that they could use to incinerate the vehicle and its contents? And how could the accident so badly destroy the car, but not injure either burglar?

Both of these possibilities are fatally flawed, on a purely logical front. There is no evidence, either at the scene or at Aieleen's house, that anyone other than Aieleen was present.

Occam's Razor advises us, as ever, that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. "Simple," in this case, means introducing as few detective-novel-level "clever" plot points and phantom burglars into our proposed solution as possible.

Every time you add a new wrinkle, unsupported by any physical evidence, you add more probability of wrongness!

In general, I think the chances of successfully staging a car accident are less than 1%. People act like it would be easy.

No, it freaking wouldn't.

Where did you get that statistic from?

I think the chances of that are less than 0.1%, seriously.
Another made up statistic.

I notice both of your statistics are less than 1% which makes the alternative practicaly 100%.

Interesting coincidence. Source please.

Both of these possibilities are fatally flawed, on a purely logical front. There is no evidence, either at the scene or at Aieleen's house, that anyone other than Aieleen was present.


There's also no evidence that Paul Paullis, Mark Nichols killed their wifes, yet you;d adhered to those theories. Nor is their any evidence she suffered a stroke or any other ailment.

Oh, and the car was destroyed as well as Ayleen so were missing whatever evidence was in that.

- has all kinds of problems and is pretty damn unlikely. The skid marks, let's remember, are basically impossbile to fake,


That is incorrect, skid marks can occur when the brake is released with the accelerator been wedged down.The screeching and weaving that occurs when the car finally is released will produce skid marks.

The skid marks could also be from another car previously as well.

There is also nothing saying that the accelerator wasn't actually hit in a struggle or by Ayleen trying to escape whoever.

Occam's Razor advises us, as ever, that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. "Simple," in this case, means introducing as few detective-novel-level "clever" plot points and phantom burglars into our proposed solution as possible.

There is no simple explanation...evidence is destroyed and missing. More evidence is needed to come up with a proper explanation.
if we bought into simple explanations, we would still believe the earth was flat and the earth is at the center of the universe.

But why would the killers take the chance of leaving her alive while they send the car away from themselves? Too many things could go wrong in this scenario, and frankly,

Who the heck said she was alive when the can ran into the rail?? More likely she was rendered unconcious or even killed with a knife or whatever.

It;s shame we don;t have the autopsy don;t we....who knows what it might have revealed.:(

Every time you add a new wrinkle, unsupported by any physical evidence, you add more probability of wrongness!

Probability of wrongness.???:lol: Is their a probabiliy of rightness too? You mean you can actually tell whether someone will answer the correct questions on a test based on a probability..is this related to new math??? Did you come up with that as well as the stroke theory. Is that from the same statistic book that you got the 1% and .01% from?

What new wrinkles.....this has been the same theory that i proposed months ago to you...do you not read previous posts. I'm answering the posts that you countered to my statements. Personally I think you've done more adding of new wrinkles....the latest being comparing George Owen's fate to Ayleen Conway's.. You were seriously joking their weren't you????

For all your genius in coming up with a theory that you created on your own...you seem to missing the point that your theory is essentially unprovable...

Where Ayleens murderers could be caught any day which would destroy nearly every aspect of the accident


EITHER the accident is genuine, and the decision to burn the car and Aieleen came only after the car had crashed as the most convenient and ready way to destroy all incriminating evidence...

OR the accident is staged.

1. The decision to kill Ayleen came way before any proposed crash occured.

2. The decision to burn the car was going to happen in either scenario.

Occam's Razor advises us,
This is the second time I heard this used in a post...by a different poster.. curious.

Perhaps Aieleen was suffering from a rupturing brain aneurysm, a related condition but not entirely identical to a stroke (strokes can come in two forms: hemorrhagic - caused by a rupturing of an aneurysm inside the brain - and embolic - caused by blockage elsewhere in the body that disrupts blood, and thus oxygen, flow to the brain). A brain aneurysm is, in effect, a type of stroke.

Typically, we associate strokes with older folks. But brain aneurysms, while rarer in younger people than older people, have been known to affect people of ALL ages, down to the VERY young. I myself had a friend who very nearly died from an aneurysm at the age of 34. Symptoms of a building brain aneurysm - just BEFORE the aneurysm actually ruptures - can include, among other things:

This actually was what I was looking to see you post. An actual medical explanation on what type of syndrome would fit your theory. This actually allows me to ask you some questions regarding your theory. This finally avoids this bickering that this post is devolving too.

Is this the only syndrome or disease that would fit your theory? What if she had a heatattack, diabetic attack, grand mal seizure.

I;m not a doctor but isn;t their potentially bleeding involved...wouldn;t we find blood?

Why didn;t Ayleen reach a medicine cabinet for aspirin?

Would Ayleen even register this symptom as being serious? The whole basis of this theory is that Ayleen felt she was dying and rushed out of the house to




Again, this is all unprovable...there was no chance for an autopsy...with the gas cap off, the distance away, the evidence of dousing inside that's too much evidence to simply say that it all happened as a result of an accidental crash.

Common homicide practice says that when you have a victim has been found miles away.....house is broken into (in this case the house wasn;t broken into

I would essentially be making a huge leap of faith to accept your theory and risk the concept of potentially letting a killer go loose.

Add that if burgulars were involved...there is a public danger and a potential for a repeat murder.

In practice, if I were your homicide sarge...the risks outweigh everything. Worse comes to worse your chasing nobody....and the burgularies are definitely actual cases..so essentially your merging this investigation with an existing one.

You know for all the talk of Ayleen...the burgularies that occured are potentially a violent situation. Say Ayleen did die of an accident unrelated to a burgulary..god knows what the burgularies might do next. Suppose they are not pros. What if they rape or molest a family.

The investigative process is not always an intellectual exercise it also is a law prevention tool as well. Decisions on what gets investigated has to at many times deal with what prevents the most deaths.

I could care less about being right about any theory...but whether someone dies because of arrogance about a theory...that does bother me. I've seen too many cases where a homicide detective (some on UM) adheres to a theory and refuses to

I;m sorry it';s not good practice. There is nothing to say your theory is any more definitive that the murder theory. There is no way to prove that she died of a brain seizure.

This case needs to be investigated as a homicide. The homicide angle needs to be investigated.

If I used your reasoning at this stage of investigations for every case like this..we would be letting several criminals go through.

If there is any doubt at all...homicide needs to be the choice. I stand by that theory and I think every policeman in the country would as well.


BTW For all the talk about whose right...we could hear tomorrow that the Ayleen Conway case was solved because someone confessed to the murder. Much like the mike reimer murder all theories could be destroyed completely by the revelation of a new piece of evidence.

Adieu an piece be with you.

Is this scenario possible?

Ayleen is going about her daily business. She's ironing, she's watering the lawn and drawing a bath. She hears a noise. Hears intruders and ducks out gets into her car and drives away only to be pursued by the burglars. She is frantic, does not know where to go. She takes surprise turns in her car hoping to elude the burglars. Suffice to say she is driving very fast. Maybe her church bulletin flys out the window while she's being chased. She is scared and loses control of the vehicle, she skids, runs into a rail and dies/gets hurt. The burglars are freaked out, they don't want to be fingered and then quickly dump some gasoline on the car and bolt.

This is a very possible scenario. It would explain why her husband couldn't understand why she was travelling down that road. It would explain the house being left the way it was. It would explain the crash, the gasoline.

The heart attack/brain anerysum theory doesn't make sense. Why would her car be doused with gasoline?

Why would her car be doused with gasoline?

To answer your question, in the medical emergency theory, her car wasn't doused with gasoline, though, as I suggest above, it is possible that the crash ruptured the fuel line and thus created a supply of gasoline to help the fire burn.

But you speak of her car being doused with gasoline like it is a fact. It is not a fact, just a theory.

To answer your question, in the medical emergency theory, her car wasn't doused with gasoline, though, as I suggest above, it is possible that the crash ruptured the fuel line and thus created a supply of gasoline to help the fire burn.

But you speak of her car being doused with gasoline like it is a fact. It is not a fact, just a theory.

It wasn't okay, my bad. I haven't seen the segment in a while. Yes it could have ruptured the fuel line, who knows stranger things have happened. But it still can lead to my theory. Someone was chasing her most likely

In practice, if I were your homicide sarge...the risks outweigh everything. Worse comes to worse your chasing nobody....and the burgularies are definitely actual cases..so essentially your merging this investigation with an existing one.

You know for all the talk of Ayleen...the burgularies that occured are potentially a violent situation. Say Ayleen did die of an accident unrelated to a burgulary..god knows what the burgularies might do next. Suppose they are not pros. What if they rape or molest a family.

The investigative process is not always an intellectual exercise it also is a law prevention tool as well. Decisions on what gets investigated has to at many times deal with what prevents the most deaths.

I could care less about being right about any theory...but whether someone dies because of arrogance about a theory...that does bother me. I've seen too many cases where a homicide detective (some on UM) adheres to a theory and refuses to

I;m sorry it';s not good practice. There is nothing to say your theory is any more definitive that the murder theory. There is no way to prove that she died of a brain seizure.

This case needs to be investigated as a homicide. The homicide angle needs to be investigated.

I would never argue AGAINST the authorities looking at something thoroughly. I don't think anyone on here is claiming to be a seasoned homicide detective, or asking you to be our "sarge." You yourself stated earlier that an "unexplained death" (as Aeileen's was determined to be) is investigated by a homicide detective. So, clearly, this homicide angle HAS been investigated, and they haven't come up with much.

At least mozart has laid out an idea that is consistent and covers pretty much all the bases--in my opinion, obviously.

I have read through this whole thread, and I don't think I've seen you lay out clearly what exactly you think happened. (Maybe I'm wrong, I will go back and look again if you have already done this.) You've responded to others' thoughts, and you've stated lots of different ideas about what could have occurred in response to their theories. But it just gets more and more complicated, with more and more chances for the assailants to have screwed up somewhere along the line. Even the district attorney said that (assuming it was foul play) the case would really only get solved if someone started shooting his mouth off, which means there isn't much else to go on.

Also, I wasn't scoffing at the idea of burgulary kits, I was trying to figure out what you thought went on in your scenario you had dreamt up where someone doesn't have a car and is just walking around after attempting to rob a house, setting up a car accident and then setting the car on fire. This is what I mean when I say that your ideas seem overly complicated--they result in inconsistencies. If they have a burgulary kit with all sorts of different equipment, then they probably had a car--that's all I was trying to say. And yet, we haven't been shown any evidence that another car was in the vicinity at the time. So, which is it? Either they had a car to keep all of their equipment and loot in and managed to conceal it having been nearby, or they were walking around without a lot of equipment and wouldn't have had the tools at hand to rig the accident and set the car on fire. (OR, they weren't ever there.)

I didn't bring up the idea of them not having a car--YOU did. And if you don't think it's a valid idea in this case, then WHY did you even mention it? Just so you could pick on me for using a plural instead of a singular (in relation to the kit) when I discredited it?

And my mentioning of what happened with my grandmother was just to say that strokes are unpredictable in the type of effects they cause, and when and how people react to them. Obviously, they are more likely to strike the elderly, but it is not unheard of for people under 50 to have them unexpectedly. Besides, no one was saying that it was definitely a stroke--it was just an example of a medical incident that can cause disorientation. Mozart has since provided another example of a medical problem with similar results.

When you see an elderly person dead...accidental death is ALWAYS the first thought. Get back to me...

Uhh, what? I'm assuming this was sarcasm.

Why don't you lay out exactly what you think occurred, covering all that we have been shown, answering for why we didn't hear of any other evidence, and without a bunch of inconsistencies? And if you've already done this, please point me in its direction.

Looks like Mastermind has left us, CeeAlicia, but I'm glad to see you understood the logic underwriting my theory, and my insistence to anyone arguing for murder that they present a plausible explanation for how the murder was accomplished.

Mozart,

I don't get how you insist that the chances for rigging a car accident are very remote. UM has depicted several instances where it was highly likely that someone's death was attempted to be covered up via staging a car accident. Cases like Chief Robert Hamrick, Leroy Drieth, and another one, I think they're last names were Page, though it wasn't the Pam Page segment. Maybe others. It's really not all that far-fetched when you think about it.

I got your PM, I will answer it when I get a chance.

I hope I wasn't too angry-sounding in my last post. As I've said earlier, I do enjoy the discussion on here. Things got a little heated, and I am sorry for that. Maybe I will PM Mastermind. Anyway, I wonder what Aeileen's adult children think about what happened? Too bad there was never an update about this case, it would have been great to hear if they even caught the people who were responsible for the burgularies in the area.

Is this scenario possible?

Ayleen is going about her daily business. She's ironing, she's watering the lawn and drawing a bath. She hears a noise. Hears intruders and ducks out gets into her car and drives away only to be pursued by the burglars. She is frantic, does not know where to go. She takes surprise turns in her car hoping to elude the burglars. Suffice to say she is driving very fast. Maybe her church bulletin flys out the window while she's being chased. She is scared and loses control of the vehicle, she skids, runs into a rail and dies/gets hurt. The burglars are freaked out, they don't want to be fingered and then quickly dump some gasoline on the car and bolt.

This is a very possible scenario. It would explain why her husband couldn't understand why she was travelling down that road. It would explain the house being left the way it was. It would explain the crash, the gasoline.

The heart attack/brain anerysum theory doesn't make sense. Why would her car be doused with gasoline?


I think that this theory actually makes a lot of sense. However, wasn't there a farmer in the area at the time of the crash, and wouldn't he have seen or heard the second car?

Charli-Ann

Is this scenario possible?

Ayleen is going about her daily business. She's ironing, she's watering the lawn and drawing a bath. She hears a noise. Hears intruders and ducks out gets into her car and drives away only to be pursued by the burglars. She is frantic, does not know where to go. She takes surprise turns in her car hoping to elude the burglars. Suffice to say she is driving very fast. Maybe her church bulletin flys out the window while she's being chased. She is scared and loses control of the vehicle, she skids, runs into a rail and dies/gets hurt. The burglars are freaked out, they don't want to be fingered and then quickly dump some gasoline on the car and bolt.

This is a very possible scenario. It would explain why her husband couldn't understand why she was travelling down that road. It would explain the house being left the way it was. It would explain the crash, the gasoline.

The heart attack/brain anerysum theory doesn't make sense. Why would her car be doused with gasoline?

If your scenario happened, there would be no reason for the burglars to set fire to her car if shes already dead. There would be nothing that directly linked them to her.

She is scared and loses control of the vehicle, she skids, runs into a rail and dies/gets hurt. The burglars are freaked out, they don't want to be fingered and then quickly dump some gasoline on the car and bolt.

Where'd they get this gasoline they used to douse the car? They just happen to have it with them?

Mozart,

I don't get how you insist that the chances for rigging a car accident are very remote. UM has depicted several instances where it was highly likely that someone's death was attempted to be covered up via staging a car accident. Cases like Chief Robert Hamrick, Leroy Drieth, and another one, I think they're last names were Page, though it wasn't the Pam Page segment. Maybe others. It's really not all that far-fetched when you think about it.

I got your PM, I will answer it when I get a chance.

Well, there is, of course, a difference between an attempt and a successful attempt. I think it's probably very difficult to successfully stage a car accident. Also, keep in mind, in spite of my perhaps poorly-worded posts above, we are not talking about the probability that ANY apparent car accident was staged, but rather THIS PARTICULAR car accident was staged. Given the physical evidence at the scene, I just don't see how one can sustain an argument that this crash was "staged."

More to the point, wiseguy, I think this might be a question of how we define "staged." Remember: Aeileen's car REALLY DID crash violently into that guard rail; she was apparently travelling 50-60 mph when she hit it. So, the crash was, in this sense, "real." Now, if you want to suggest someone else was there and that Aeileen died as a direct or indirect consequence of actions taken by this other person, you've got three possibilities:

1) She was being chased by a third party, and crashed the car. In this case, the accident is real, not staged.

2) She was struggling with someone inside the car while driving it, and she lost control; again, the accident is real, not staged.

3) Someone found a way to rig her car - with her inside of it - such that it careened into a guard rail while going 50-60 mph. This accident was "staged."

In other words, for this accident to have been "staged," it is basically a FACT that the only way this could have been done was by rigging the accelerator and sending the car off in the direction of the bridge and guard rail, some distance away from that spot. This accident wasn't staged, for example, by gently rolling the car into the guard rail, then setting the car ablaze, or pushing the car with a second car into the guard rail, then setting it ablaze, etc. She was traveling 50-60 mph when she hit the guard rail. The only way you do that in a "staged" scenario is by rigging the accelerator. So, if you want to insist the accident was staged at this point, we can break this into two further possibilities:

1) Aeileen was conscious as her killer or killers rigged her car to accelerate, and then was left conscious inside the car as it hurtled toward the guard rail, but she was apparently unable to stop it in time.

OR

2) Aeileen was either dead or unconscious as her killer or killers rigged the accelerator and sent her and her car hurtling toward the guard rail.

Let's look at these one by one.

IF Aeileen was alive and conscious as her killer or killers rigged her car to accelerate, we must ask a serious question: why would any conscious person allow themselves to be put inside a car that was rigged to accelerate without 1) resisting that effort ferociously initially and, more importantly 2) once left alone inside the now-speeding vehicle, doing everything possible to stop it? To answer the second part of that first, I suppose it is possible that the accelerator was rigged in such a way that Aeieleen's attempts to stop it were unsuccessful, but I am not going to worry so much about that because I believe the answer to the first part of this question is: it is not possible to rig a car to accelerate while having to work around a conscious person, in the driver's seat, who is resisting you. If nothing else, access to the accelerator would be severely limited by the presence of this second person. If someone can find me even one other instance where one person murdered another by successfully rigging a car to accelerate while the victim was sitting conscious inside the car behind the steering wheel, I will relent, but I don't think that has literally ever happened, and I am not prepared to assume that a singular circumstance in the history of humanity is what led to Aeileen's death that day.

So, let's move on to possibility number 2, if you believe the accident is staged: Aeileen was either dead or unconscious while her killer or killers rigged her car to accelerate. As I've brought up before, the skid marks make this a highly unlikely scenario, as they indicate there was an attempt to stop the car BEFORE it crashed. If Aeileen was dead inside of a rigged car, this simply isn't possible; if she was unconscious, I guess it's possible that she woke up just in time to try to stop the car before it crashed.

So, from this analysis, there is only one very narrow circumstance which fits the evidence at the scene in which the accident was staged: Aeileen, alive but unconscious, was left behind the steering wheel of her vehicle, the accelerator rigged, and the car sent off toward the guard rail. She wakes up in time to hit the break hard enough to make skid marks, but not in time to actually prevent the crash. Is this possible? Yes. Is it likely? Hell no. I think it's obvious we're starting to get pretty outlandish in our thinking at this point.

This is all, of course, to say nothing of the highly risky thing it would be to try to rig a car to accelerate some distance away from a small, immovable object, aim the car at it, and hope it hits it (the rail appears only to have been long enough to go over the small bridge in the segment). In an earlier post, I suggested the killer or killers who sent her car toward the guard rail must have been a considerable distance away from the guard rail in order for the car to reach its final speed of 50mph (minimally) before hitting the guard rail: no less than 250 feet, I think the number was, but that was assuming constant acceleration and a car with uncommonly good pick-up for that era. More likely, the killers would have had to have been 300 feet or more away from the fateful guard rail when they started Aeileen's car in motion: who in the world is practiced at aiming cars that won't be consciously steered at small targets from a distance?

So, since rigging the car to accelerate and thus "staging" the accident scene seems to have been just about impossible whether Aeileen was alive or dead inside the car, the accident, in all probability, was real.

QED.

This then leads us to a separate question: could the accident have been real, but prompted by a killer or killers? I don't think it's likely that there were people inside the car with Aeileen as it crashed into the guard rail, because I think it's likely that, if there had been, they would have been hurt too in the crash, and, moreover, had they been able to escape the car, they would have left some sign of their presence in the dirt road, namely foot prints leading away from Aeileen's vehicle.

So, in my mind, we are down to one possibility: she was being chased. Possible, sure. But this was 15 miles away from her home. If she was being chased, by would-be burglars, as many here have assumed, wouldn't the very act of chasing her that distance defeat the very purpose OF chasing her? Presumably, they would be chasing her because she saw them, and could perhaps identify them, and so they wanted to eliminate or scare a possible witness. But if you chase somebody for 15 miles, you create a lot more probability of being noticed by a lot more people - people, in general, tend to notice things like car chases, especially when they begin, as this one would have had to, in suburban neighborhoods. I just don't think this happened, because it doesn't make any sense.

This last piece is more of a judgment call/conjecture than anything else, granted, but I return to what I have said over and over: there is no evidence supporting anyone else was with Aeileen at any point that day. To invent an encounter with one or more burglars, and a subsequent car chase, for which there is precisely NO evidence, as an explanation for Aeileen's behavior and eventual car crash that day, seems dubious at best to me.

She was alone in the house. She was found alone. There was no evidence anyone else was there. Rigging THE SPECIFIC ACCIDENT that authorities found that day seems to be a logical impossibility. So the accident is real.

There seems to be only one logical conclusion left to make to me.

So, in my mind, we are down to one possibility: she was being chased. Possible, sure. But this was 15 miles away from her home. If she was being chased, by would-be burglars, as many here have assumed, wouldn't the very act of chasing her that distance defeat the very purpose OF chasing her? Presumably, they would be chasing her because she saw them, and could perhaps identify them, and so they wanted to eliminate or scare a possible witness. But if you chase somebody for 15 miles, you create a lot more probability of being noticed by a lot more people - people, in general, tend to notice things like car chases, especially when they begin, as this one would have had to, in suburban neighborhoods. I just don't think this happened, because it doesn't make any sense.

This last piece is more of a judgment call/conjecture than anything else, granted, but I return to what I have said over and over: there is no evidence supporting anyone else was with Aeileen at any point that day. To invent an encounter with one or more burglars, and a subsequent car chase, for which there is precisely NO evidence, as an explanation for Aeileen's behavior and eventual car crash that day, seems dubious at best to me.



I hear ya, but it just doesnt make sense. Why leave your house the way it was? A bathtub full of water, the iron on, the hose running. It just makes no sense. Why be 15 miles from your house? This is a road her husband cannot wrap his head around as to why she was driving on. I mean, why leave those hazards in your house? An iron on is dangerous.

And yes someone could have seen a chase happening, but the place she crashed looked like a deserted area. Maybe a farm close by. No doubt in my mind the "burglars" would want to silence her. Stranger things have happened.

This woman by the looks of it had 7 kids. Mostly grown up by the looks of it. For sure this was no staged accident or suicide attempt. No evidence suggests that. To be honest, despite our brainstorming this is a bizarre incident and it is possible not ONE of us has actually mentioned what actually happened that day

Call it a cameo appearance.

Discussing this case via PM with a fellow of websleuths. I will be there now under the same name. I think it's a better place for actual investigative discussions on cases. This is more a fan site and I feel at times I'm hogging or being a nuisance to the casual poster her. I invite all to join me and others on that site. I'm looking into opening up

I'm also going to try to contact the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation via email in regards to this case and what their opinons are. If I get any responses I will post them here


http://www.unsolved.com/unexplained.html

I suggest that the case site on UM be referred to their were a lot of questions brought up that could be explained from that site.


In regards to the burgularies.
We backtracked a little bit into the neighborhood and apparently there had been reports of burglaries in the weeks and months preceding this situation. So, the possibility of an interrupted burglary is there.


Pat first became suspicious when he returned home a few hours after his wife’s death to find the patio door wide open. Aileen’s purse, which she always carried with her, had been left behind. Her driver’s license and glasses were inside. An ironing board was set up and the iron left on. Water from a garden hose was running into the backyard swimming pool. In the master bathroom, the tub was still full of water and the phone was off the hook. All of these clues seemed more than suspicious to Pat:

Another thing to focus on is that the purse was left behind with driver's license, wallet and anything. Ayleen rushed(or was rushed from the house).

Considering she had time to take her keys from the purse it seems odd that she wouldn;t just take the purse and remove the keys once at the car.


There was another disturbing detail that nagged at Pat: what would Aileen have been doing out on that lonely country road? Neither of them had ever been in the area. Nothing about his wife’s death made sense. Pat contacted Investigator Ray Anderson of the District Attorney’s office:

The first impression that I had, of this case, when I met with Mr. Conway, was that of a spouse that was left alone, not expecting the tragedy that happened and looking for some reason why this happened, other than it just being an accident. However, when you start looking at the extenuating and surrounding circumstances, the way that she left her house, it leads you to believe that there is a possibility that there could have been foul play.”

A few days later, Pat and Ray Anderson went to the crash site, looking for clues. Ray found a church bulletin in the grass, a considerable distance from the bridge. Pat recognized it as having formerly been on the dash of Aileen’s car. But Aileen always drove with the windows rolled up and the air conditioning turned on. The bulletin could not have flown out of a moving car. So the car would have to have been stopped. Ray Anderson began to come up with theories of his own:

“Someone else may have been with her, opened the door, set the accelerator, and slammed it into drive, hoping to run Mrs. Conway off into the creek, and to make it appear it was an accident."

“Someone else may have been with her, opened the door, set the accelerator, and slammed it into drive, hoping to run Mrs. Conway off into the creek, and to make it appear it was an accident.”

Ray Anderson the investigator form District Attorney was the one who came up with the idea that the accelerator was set and made to look like an accident. Now, considering a legal investigator for the DA adheres to this theory..I would have to imagine that setting an accelerator is not a difficult or too uncommon occurance as some have suggested.

Some other points to consider.

1. It should also be pointed out that the car did not explode..it burned. A strange occurence since the power of the collision was strong enough to force the gas cap off and spill gasoline. If the gas cap was forced off the collision should have shaken the gas in tank. A potential recipe for explosion.

2. The car went from 50 mph to 60 mph. When you think about it that is not that fast. You and I do that most of the time on highways. It may very well been within the speed limit of that road. (Maybe, I'd have to find out). The car was not speeding like a bat out of hell. The 50 mph to 60 is well within the build up speed it would take for a car set to crash to build up speed.

If any one has questions on how difficult it is to rig a car crash or what the probabilities are..

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=135425&catid=57
http://cbs11tv.com/consumer/Staged.Car.Accidents.2.711794.html

It's becoming quite an epidemic.

Has anyone brought up the possibility that Aieleen received a phone call?

If someone phoned her with an emergency, threat, etc. - something that would make her leave the house in a hurry, and maybe not take the time to hang up the phone. If she left the house in a hurry, she may have left the back door open.

On the other hand, she may have witnessed an attempted break-in in a neighbor's house. Maybe she had just picked up the phone to make a completely unrelated call, and noticed something outside. She could have gone outside to check it out and recognized one of the burglars. Perhaps they had a weapon, which caused her to flee in her vehicle. If they chased her out to the deserted road, they could have shot at her, causing her to swerve and hit the bridge.

There isn't a lot that makes sense in this case. If she was chased out of her house, why are there no witnesses that saw her driving erratically or being chased? Lawton isn't a small town.

I think this case is kind of similar to Perman Gilbert. No explanation for the bodies found where they were, and tons of theories floating around.

I have family in the Lawton area, and I have thought about trying to find the bridge when I'm visiting there. But it seems like there is no information available online about this case besides this board and the UM website.

Mastermind: You should keep posting here, as you are def. not hogging the boards or being a nuisance. Even though this is a fan site, it is after all about Unsolved Mysteries, and the whole purpose seems to be about discussing these cases.

I can't get into Webslueths only because it is so vast and imo, not very user friendly. There are so many posts and threads, and you have to weed through a lot to find what you're looking for.

This is def. one of the best cases ever on UM, because absolutely nothing makes sense.

The Phone: She could have been trying to make a call, she could have received a call, or she could have purposely taken the phone off the hook so she wouldn't be disturbed while taking a relaxing bath.

The state of the house: As many have stated, this looks like a woman who was going about her normal routine- ironing clothes for her to wear that day, running the bath water to fill it up and placing the phone off the hook perhaps to relax. If this is the case, I feel that she was interrupted during the ironing phase, as she probably would have turned the iron off after finishing and before taking her bath. That is, unless she just forgot to turn the iron off (which we've all done at some point).

The road: This is what makes it very tricky. I have a really hard time believing the accident was staged, as that seems like an elaborate way for a stranger to handle a murder. Burglars would want her dead, period. I doubt they would have taken the time to rig the accelerator, etc.

Ideas: We all have theories and ideas. I still wonder why the husband was not mentioned as a possible suspect on the segment. Usually, Stack will make a point to say why a spouse is not a suspect, such as having an alibi, etc. There was another case on UM (that I can't remember the name of right now) in which a husband killed his wife (or ex-wife) and then staged the accident. If in fact the accident was staged, I could only see someone very close to her doing this, and not strangers.

If the husband did in fact do this (or hired someone to do this), then a lot of the unexplained issues would make more sense. I know that he came off as very sympathetic on the segment, and he even hired an private investigator, so of course he might have had nothing to do with it. Still, I can't quite get past the fact that we know virtually nothing about his actions that day.

Also: I was just reading on the UM site, that the car in which she was found belonged to Pat (her husband). What was he driving then? Or was it just that it was registered in his name but they had multiple cars?

Has anyone brought up the possibility that Aieleen received a phone call?

If someone phoned her with an emergency, threat, etc. - something that would make her leave the house in a hurry, and maybe not take the time to hang up the phone. If she left the house in a hurry, she may have left the back door open.

1. What could be that extreme that you would not even take your purse and close your own door. Even in dire scenarios, most people take some time to close the door before meeting the loved one at the hospital.

2. Any emergency that serious would have to involve a family member. Her husband was accounted for. The children or their schools didn't say or may a call. Who was having the emergency?

3. If it was a threat..then the caller is a viable suspect for foul play. The person given the threatening phone call may have been waiting for her outside or even demanded that she drive him somewhere.

The Phone: She could have been trying to make a call, she could have received a call, or she could have purposely taken the phone off the hook so she wouldn't be disturbed while taking a relaxing bath.

I have no knowledge of this but I am going to take a reasonable deduction that there was no recorded received or made call from the house at the times that she went missing.

The road: This is what makes it very tricky. I have a really hard time believing the accident was staged, as that seems like an elaborate way for a stranger to handle a murder. Burglars would want her dead, period. I doubt they would have taken the time to rig the accelerator, etc.

1. Burgulars would want to get avoid being arrested by all means necessary. I'm sure they would make the time..to avoid that fate.

2. Again....rigging a car accident is not an uncommon occurence. There was someone in Britain who did a few months back. Nor is it difficult.
Ask your mechanic...I'm sure he could tell you how easy it is to do.

3. They had a lot of time to think this thing through and ad-hoc it. There primary goal was to secure her and take her away from the house with them. That they had to do in any scenario. They probably were thinking of

4. Again, it should be mentioned that they may have not faked anything. The accelerator may have been hit by ayleen on purpose or accident and the car crashed. All these guys may have done is burn the car.


We all have theories and ideas. I still wonder why the husband was not mentioned as a possible suspect on the segment. Usually, Stack will make a point to say why a spouse is not a suspect, such as having an alibi, etc. There was another case on UM (that I can't remember the name of right now) in which a husband killed his wife (or ex-wife) and then staged the accident. If in fact the accident was staged, I could only see someone very close to her doing this, and not strangers.

If the husband did in fact do this (or hired someone to do this), then a lot of the unexplained issues would make more sense. I know that he came off as very sympathetic on the segment, and he even hired an private investigator, so of course he might have had nothing to do with it. Still, I can't quite get past the fact that we know virtually nothing about his actions that day.

Pat was the one who brought up the murder theory to investigators in the first place. Why would he do that when it is already ruled an accident. He's basically asking police to go and investigate a murder he masterminded. That doesn't make sense.

Why even report the state of the house to the police? He could have said the house was in perfect order and

The state of the house: As many have stated, this looks like a woman who was going about her normal routine- ironing clothes for her to wear that day, running the bath water to fill it up and placing the phone off the hook perhaps to relax. If this is the case, I feel that she was interrupted during the ironing phase, as she probably would have turned the iron off after finishing and before taking her bath. That is, unless she just forgot to turn the iron off (which we've all done at some point).

I think a point that gets lost in this case is that ayleen was moving back and forth from the inside of the house and the outside to fill the pool. She was not completely in the house the whole time with the door locked.

She would be an easy target as well as her house would be when she was out in the backyard.

The problem with the planned hit theory is that It requires her to be killed away from the house. I guess they could have knocked her unconcious and carried her in her own car.

If any one has questions on how difficult it is to rig a car crash or what the probabilities are..

http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=135425&catid=57
http://cbs11tv.com/consumer/Staged.Car.Accidents.2.711794.html

It's becoming quite an epidemic.

I don't think this constitutes a fair comparison, Mastermind, and thus proof that the SPECIFIC car accident that Aeileen was involved in was staged.

The point of the car accidents you cite here is to defraud auto insurance companies with difficult-to-refute injury claims on soft tissue ("my neck hurts," "my back hurts," etc.)

They are not meant to cover up murder.

The persons involved in the fraud you cite are most often people who are consciously, actively operating a motor vehicle, and who intentionally collide with something. They are, in other words, in total control of the vehicle from start to finish. I am sure they are careful to minimize the risk of real injuries to themselves when they do this. Indeed, there was a whole UM segment about staged car accidents. I believe that segment mentions that occasionally people have been killed while attempting it; nevertheless, this was the exception, not the rule, and more importantly it was certainly not the INTENT of these fraudsters to kill people in their staged accidents, only to intentionally cause a car collision from which they could claim phantom injuries. In other words, the purpose of these staged accident was NOT murder; it was insurance fraud.

By contrast, if the accident involving Aeileen was staged, there was no conscious person behind the wheel of her car. Remember, her car REALLY DID HIT THE GUARD RAIL AT 50 MPH. No one would get behind the wheel of a car and intentionally try to hit something at 50mph, unless they had a death wish. And the intent surely was to either murder Aeileen by means of the car crash, or to cover up a murder already accomplished.

When I say "it's difficult to stage an accident," I am referring, and perhaps I should have been clearer, very specifically to accidents which are intended to cover up or to cause a fatality. No, it's not difficult to stage a car crash, if all you are trying to do is have evidence of a collision; it is also quite possible that someone might accidentally be killed in an attempt to do this. But that is a very different thing from staging an accident for the express purpose of killing a person, or covering up a previous murder by making that murder appear to have been the result of a car accident instead.

But, even more specifically, I am not all that interested in ANY staged accident; I am interested in THIS accident. As my post above goes into great detail to show, I think THIS PARTICULAR ACCIDENT could only have been "staged," as I define that term above, in a very narrow circumstance.

I don't think this constitutes a fair comparison, Mastermind, and thus proof that the SPECIFIC car accident that Aeileen was involved in was staged.

The point of the car accidents you cite here is to defraud auto insurance companies with difficult-to-refute injury claims on soft tissue ("my neck hurts," "my back hurts," etc.)

No, there are several staged car accidents where no actual vehicular accident occurred that constitute the statistics. At least the ones where it was discovered, anyway. Remember that the above statistics only include the people that have been caught. There are probably countless others that have not been discovered.

Why not ask your insurance company or one of your fellow private investigators, if what I say is true?

Why not ask your mechanic about the ease of rigging an accelerator or burning a car?

There will be no way to verify if a response from you is true if you do speak to those people. So I will leave this argument at that.

You also haven't responded to my question as to why you went away from a "stroke" in your intitial theory?? Why?

You also haven't responded to my question as to why you went away from a "stroke" in your intitial theory?? Why?

As far as I know, I haven't. I think a minor stroke is the likeliest starting circumstance here. Still a possibility, but less likely, is a minor heart attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
You also haven't responded to my question as to why you went away from a "stroke" in your intitial theory?? Why?

As far as I know, I haven't. I think a minor stroke is the likeliest starting circumstance here. Still a possibility, but less likely, is a minor heart attack.

reread your posts.

You or someone else developed the stroke theory to explain why Ayleen didn't speak to 911 on the phone. Something about Ayleen picked up the phone dialed 911 but couldn't speak, hence she panicked.

No, there are several staged car accidents where no actual vehicular accident occurred that constitute the statistics. At least the ones where it was discovered, anyway. Remember that the above statistics only include the people that have been caught. There are probably countless others that have not been discovered.

Why not ask your insurance company or one of your fellow private investigators, if what I say is true?

Why not ask your mechanic about the ease of rigging an accelerator or burning a car?

There will be no way to verify if a response from you is true if you do speak to those people. So I will leave this argument at that.

I've got to be honest with you: this whole post doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Regardless of how the "accident" is staged, my point is that these articles you refer to, which you cite for evidence of an "epidemic" of staged car accidents, are really referring to the staging of accidents for the purposes of insurance fraud.

Far, far, far less common are car accidents staged for the purpose of murdering someone, or covering up the actual cause of a murder already accomplished. Even less common are car accidents staged in such a way that a REAL collision actually takes place. From skid marks at the scene (and presumably the extent and type of damage done to the car), it is pretty much an established fact that Aeileen's car hit the guard rail at 50mph, as the segment tells us; importantly, even the segment itself does not dispute that point.

With that fact in mind, as I argue above, it is much harder to see how a third party, not in direct control of the motor vehicle itself, could have set in motion a sequence of events that resulted in the high-speed collision that IN FACT TOOK PLACE. Some of the possible ways this might have been accomplished appear to be logical impossibilities.

That is my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mastermind
No, there are several staged car accidents where no actual vehicular accident occurred that constitute the statistics. At least the ones where it was discovered, anyway. Remember that the above statistics only include the people that have been caught. There are probably countless others that have not been discovered.

Why not ask your insurance company or one of your fellow private investigators, if what I say is true?

Why not ask your mechanic about the ease of rigging an accelerator or burning a car?

There will be no way to verify if a response from you is true if you do speak to those people. So I will leave this argument at that.

I've got to be honest with you: this whole post doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

What's not to make sense of....

You stated in posts that you do not believe it is easy to rig an accelerator. Fine...why not ask professional who knows something about automatives. Ask your mechanic? What's difficult to understand about that?

You stated in previous posts that you believe that faking vehicular accidents like the one proposed in the murder scenario are impossible. Ask an insurance investigator whether they are probable or not?

I'm suggesting that you confirm your skepticism by asking a professional. What doesn;t make sense here?:confused:

BTW, I'm not asking you to do ask those people for my benifit..it's for your benefit. I could care less what and whether you post the responses you get from these peoples.

If there answers confirm your opinions then you can have comfort in your viewpoints. If not, then you can re-analyse your opinion on the murder scenario.

Once you do this re-analysis you may still hold on to your beliefs.


BTW, mozartpc...

1. is the stroke scenario a scenario that you made up alone?
Is there anybody else that proposed this sceario.

Are you sure your not steadfast to this theory because...you came up with it on your own?


2. If you feel so strongly against the murder theory...remember that I did not create the theory. You need to voice complaints to the police department that still has the case om their books that they are wasting departmental resources on an obvious accident.

Also,

I should point out that my gripe with you mozartpc isn't that your theory is neccessarily wrong.

It's that your steadfast in believing that it's the only valid theory...even though

1.the accident theory cannot and never will be proven. (sorry occam's razor doesn;t cut it .....no pun intended...)
2. There is very little evidence (most of it destroyed and damaged)

Mastermind,

I can honestly say that I am not attached to my theory because it is my theory. I am not even attached to the whole "she had a stroke" theory at all per se. In the Kurt Sova segment, the medical examiner explains at one point that his listed cause of death was "diagnosis by elimination": he had considered and eliminated all other possibilities, and that which remained had to be the truth.

Well, that's what we have here, and that is what I am attached to. What I have repeatedly asserted is that there is a set of evidence at the crime scene that EXCLUDES some things from being possible. Like, for instance, that Aeileen's car was set hurtling toward the guard rail with a rigged accelerator with her inside but dead or unconscious (because there were SKID MARKS present, which means SOMEBODY tried to STOP THE CAR before it hit), or that the car was just rolled toward the guard rail while off, with the damage being staged (since the skid marks demonstrated the car had been going 50-60mph when it hit).

So, there appears to have been a genuine, one-car collision with a guard rail here. Now, why might that have happened? Lots of reasons, I guess, but the damage was so extensive that we know Aeileen had no chance to get out alive, if she even survived the initial impact. However, if there was another person with her, this person not only did manage to get away alive, but also relatively uninjured, and without leaving any trace he was there in the first place (not even any footprints leading away from the accident scene, which he would have presumably left in a dirt road if he had had to walk). I, again, see this as almost impossible, given the extent of the damage and the violence of the impact.

So we're left with the idea that she was being chased. For 15 miles? Over some stolen jewelry or something? Possible, but not probable.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that there continues to be no evidence that Aeileen was with another living soul that day.

I am eliminating possible scenarios, based on their likelihood. Could there have been an attempted burglary? Sure, though we see no direct evidence of one. Could the burglarly have turned into a 15-mile car chase in the name of eliminating a potential witness, which, as I have argued, defeats its own purpose, as people tend to notice things like car chases, especially ones that go on for 15 miles and begin in populated suburban neighborhoods? Yeah, sure, but there is no evidence this happened.

Could this have been a suicide? Possible, but not probable: vehicular suicides are rare for the very practical reason that there's too great a likelihood that one might survive an attempted vehicular suicide and be left a vegetable instead. No one would want that. Also, the fact that there were skid marks, which, again, indicate an attempt to stop, argues against this, though I suppose you could write them off as a last-second gut-reaction. And if she was going off to kill herself, why was the house left the way it was?

Could this have been a regular old accident? Possible, but not probable: if it was, why did she leave her purse behind, where was she going, and why did she leave the house the way it was found?

I see a lot of "possible-not-probable" scenarios here, none of which really satisfy all the evidence we actually DO have. As long as we take Pat Conway at his word, we do have quite a bit of evidence. Consider:

-The back door was left open
-The phone was off the hook
-A bath was drawn
-A hose was filling the pool with water
-Her purse and its accoutrements were found inside the house
-There were skid marks at the accident scene
-Those same skid marks indicated the car was traveling around 50-60mph
-Her body was found inside the car, behind the driver's seat

What we need is a narrative that makes all these pieces fit, WITHOUT assuming the existence of other pieces for which no supporting evidence exists (like the presence of one or more other people). If none can be found, then there must be pieces missing.

But, as I've argued, one CAN be found: she had a mild-to-moderate SOMETHING while doing daily chores (stroke or heart attack is the most likely), she attempted to call for help, but found she was having trouble making herself understood in some way or making the call in the first place (remember, this was 1986, so lots of places didn't have 911 service yet, you had to call separate telephone numbers for police, etc.), so she did what she thought she needed to do, getting into her car to go get help. On the way, whatever was causing her symptoms perhaps started to panic her or interfere with her sense of direction (stroke can do this, but so can a mild heart attack if it disrupts the normal flow of oxygen to the brain), she gets lost, and either has a second, more major stroke or heart attack, which then causes her to seize up and crash the car, or she just crashes the car on her own in a panicked state, and, unfortunately, the nature of the accident is such that the car catches fire.

She's found dead, the house is found in disarray, everything is accounted for, and I haven't assumed the existence of people for whom there is no evidential basis. I'm attached to the PROCESS that leads me to this theory, not the theory itself.

The problem with an intruder theory is simply this: the way Aeileen died is NOT consistent with murder. It just plain isn't. It's consistent with an accident. And before someone screams "But her car burned a lot and the segment says that could only happen if there was an accelerant present," let me point out three very salient points:

1) Every car's upholstery is treated with flame-retardant chemicals. It's standard. And yet, accidental car fires happen, sometimes ones that burn a car totally. I remember seeing a truck burned down to white ashes EVERYWHERE as the result of an accident just a few years ago. So, obviously, it is entirely possible for a fire to start that burns up upholstery during an accident without someone spreading gasoline all over the place.

2) Every car uses gasoline, which means it has a fire accelerant already on board. During an accident, a fuel line can easily be ruptured, providing gasoline to an open flame. You don't NEED a third party to come spread gasoline around a car; if an accident causes any kind of fuel line rupture, the gasoline will ALREADY be there!

3) The person who performed this test, when he appears on the segment, only says the fire is "consistent with" an accelerant being used. Well, first of all, the accelerant could have been produced from the car itself as part of the accident! Moreover, "consistent with" is not "was definitely used." If the investigator had said that an accelerant had definitely been used to start this fire, I would have a totally different take on this case.

So, how do we explain everything we see in this case while introducing the fewest possible unsupported variables? That's my question; that is ALWAYS my question, for any of these cases. I've done it introducing ONE variable: a medical emergency. People who want to assume there was a disrupted burglary at the center of this incident need to introduce no less than two: the buglary or attempted burglary itself, which is not directly attested by any evidence, then the "how" of how Aeileen's death was related to said burglary or attempted burglary. The simplest answer to that question is that she was being chased, and ultimately died in a collision resulting from that chase; all other possible answers introduce ever more variables, precisely NONE of which are supported by any evidence at the scene or at Aeileen's house. A handful of the "murder" theories that have been suggested here with respect to the accident itself are, in fact, impossible.

So, that is a summary of my whole position, Mastermind. Again, it is NOT my theory itself that I am attached to; it is the process by which I reached that conclusion.

I am not even attached to the whole "she had a stroke" theory at all per se.

That's all I needed to read.

Thanks. :)

i honestly beleive that she was somehow kidnapped and died trying to get away, the killer who was chasing her may have put the car on fire.

I don't think Aileen had a stroke or heart attack. Either one would have incompacitated her enough to where she couldn't drive or even make it out of her home. Especially with the "stroke" theory, because she would have been unconscious right after it hit. I know someone who had a stroke, she said that she couldn't even move any part of her body. I think Aileen was home doing her daily chores such as ironing and filling water in the pool. She started her bath while she was ironing and was planning to take it when she was finished. She either took the phone off the hook before the intruder came into her home or the person who broke in took it off the hook before they left. Or he could have come in while she was in the bath. I don't think the intruder knew that anyone was home, and this surprised him. I think he may have forced Aileen out of her home at gunpoint (which would explain why her purse, glasses and driver's license were left at home) and made her drive out to that lonely country road which she'd never been on before, and I doubt would have found it by chance. A struggle ensued inside of the vehicle with Aileen at the wheel and she crashed with the intruder in the passenger seat, she was either killed in the crash or knocked out. The perpetrator set the car on fire to cover up the crime. I think she may have known this person or he may have known her somehow. He could have been casing the house (which a lot of burglars often do) and waiting for the perfect time to come into the house. This is what I think most likely happened

Well reasoned and written, kudos to you. I'll put in with the medical emergency theory, IMO its immensely more plausible than any nefarious conspiracy theories.


Mastermind,

I can honestly say that I am not attached to my theory because it is my theory. I am not even attached to the whole "she had a stroke" theory at all per se. In the Kurt Sova segment, the medical examiner explains at one point that his listed cause of death was "diagnosis by elimination": he had considered and eliminated all other possibilities, and that which remained had to be the truth.

Well, that's what we have here, and that is what I am attached to. What I have repeatedly asserted is that there is a set of evidence at the crime scene that EXCLUDES some things from being possible. Like, for instance, that Aeileen's car was set hurtling toward the guard rail with a rigged accelerator with her inside but dead or unconscious (because there were SKID MARKS present, which means SOMEBODY tried to STOP THE CAR before it hit), or that the car was just rolled toward the guard rail while off, with the damage being staged (since the skid marks demonstrated the car had been going 50-60mph when it hit).

So, there appears to have been a genuine, one-car collision with a guard rail here. Now, why might that have happened? Lots of reasons, I guess, but the damage was so extensive that we know Aeileen had no chance to get out alive, if she even survived the initial impact. However, if there was another person with her, this person not only did manage to get away alive, but also relatively uninjured, and without leaving any trace he was there in the first place (not even any footprints leading away from the accident scene, which he would have presumably left in a dirt road if he had had to walk). I, again, see this as almost impossible, given the extent of the damage and the violence of the impact.

So we're left with the idea that she was being chased. For 15 miles? Over some stolen jewelry or something? Possible, but not probable.

And this is to say nothing of the fact that there continues to be no evidence that Aeileen was with another living soul that day.

I am eliminating possible scenarios, based on their likelihood. Could there have been an attempted burglary? Sure, though we see no direct evidence of one. Could the burglarly have turned into a 15-mile car chase in the name of eliminating a potential witness, which, as I have argued, defeats its own purpose, as people tend to notice things like car chases, especially ones that go on for 15 miles and begin in populated suburban neighborhoods? Yeah, sure, but there is no evidence this happened.

Could this have been a suicide? Possible, but not probable: vehicular suicides are rare for the very practical reason that there's too great a likelihood that one might survive an attempted vehicular suicide and be left a vegetable instead. No one would want that. Also, the fact that there were skid marks, which, again, indicate an attempt to stop, argues against this, though I suppose you could write them off as a last-second gut-reaction. And if she was going off to kill herself, why was the house left the way it was?

Could this have been a regular old accident? Possible, but not probable: if it was, why did she leave her purse behind, where was she going, and why did she leave the house the way it was found?

I see a lot of "possible-not-probable" scenarios here, none of which really satisfy all the evidence we actually DO have. As long as we take Pat Conway at his word, we do have quite a bit of evidence. Consider:

-The back door was left open
-The phone was off the hook
-A bath was drawn
-A hose was filling the pool with water
-Her purse and its accoutrements were found inside the house
-There were skid marks at the accident scene
-Those same skid marks indicated the car was traveling around 50-60mph
-Her body was found inside the car, behind the driver's seat

What we need is a narrative that makes all these pieces fit, WITHOUT assuming the existence of other pieces for which no supporting evidence exists (like the presence of one or more other people). If none can be found, then there must be pieces missing.

But, as I've argued, one CAN be found: she had a mild-to-moderate SOMETHING while doing daily chores (stroke or heart attack is the most likely), she attempted to call for help, but found she was having trouble making herself understood in some way or making the call in the first place (remember, this was 1986, so lots of places didn't have 911 service yet, you had to call separate telephone numbers for police, etc.), so she did what she thought she needed to do, getting into her car to go get help. On the way, whatever was causing her symptoms perhaps started to panic her or interfere with her sense of direction (stroke can do this, but so can a mild heart attack if it disrupts the normal flow of oxygen to the brain), she gets lost, and either has a second, more major stroke or heart attack, which then causes her to seize up and crash the car, or she just crashes the car on her own in a panicked state, and, unfortunately, the nature of the accident is such that the car catches fire.

She's found dead, the house is found in disarray, everything is accounted for, and I haven't assumed the existence of people for whom there is no evidential basis. I'm attached to the PROCESS that leads me to this theory, not the theory itself.

The problem with an intruder theory is simply this: the way Aeileen died is NOT consistent with murder. It just plain isn't. It's consistent with an accident. And before someone screams "But her car burned a lot and the segment says that could only happen if there was an accelerant present," let me point out three very salient points:

1) Every car's upholstery is treated with flame-retardant chemicals. It's standard. And yet, accidental car fires happen, sometimes ones that burn a car totally. I remember seeing a truck burned down to white ashes EVERYWHERE as the result of an accident just a few years ago. So, obviously, it is entirely possible for a fire to start that burns up upholstery during an accident without someone spreading gasoline all over the place.

2) Every car uses gasoline, which means it has a fire accelerant already on board. During an accident, a fuel line can easily be ruptured, providing gasoline to an open flame. You don't NEED a third party to come spread gasoline around a car; if an accident causes any kind of fuel line rupture, the gasoline will ALREADY be there!

3) The person who performed this test, when he appears on the segment, only says the fire is "consistent with" an accelerant being used. Well, first of all, the accelerant could have been produced from the car itself as part of the accident! Moreover, "consistent with" is not "was definitely used." If the investigator had said that an accelerant had definitely been used to start this fire, I would have a totally different take on this case.

So, how do we explain everything we see in this case while introducing the fewest possible unsupported variables? That's my question; that is ALWAYS my question, for any of these cases. I've done it introducing ONE variable: a medical emergency. People who want to assume there was a disrupted burglary at the center of this incident need to introduce no less than two: the buglary or attempted burglary itself, which is not directly attested by any evidence, then the "how" of how Aeileen's death was related to said burglary or attempted burglary. The simplest answer to that question is that she was being chased, and ultimately died in a collision resulting from that chase; all other possible answers introduce ever more variables, precisely NONE of which are supported by any evidence at the scene or at Aeileen's house. A handful of the "murder" theories that have been suggested here with respect to the accident itself are, in fact, impossible.

So, that is a summary of my whole position, Mastermind. Again, it is NOT my theory itself that I am attached to; it is the process by which I reached that conclusion.

Well reasoned and written, kudos to you. I'll put in with the medical emergency theory, IMO its immensely more plausible than any nefarious conspiracy theories.

1. Not really much of a conspiracy theory.

Two burgulars botching a crime.

That's it just two people.

Not exactly the DeGaulle assassination attempt.

2. It's a nefarious theory that the police and the investigators developed way before any of us on this board.

The theory you are commending is one that mozartpc created on his own.

3. I would argue that its quite possible that only "One" burgular could have pulled off the crime.

Which by definition wouldn;t be a conspiracy.

This case is less a conspiracy argument and more a murder/accident/suicide case.

4. I think there is far better case for suicide than accident.
Suicide answers many more questions than the accident theory.

There have been several cases of people committing suicide in the same manner as Ayleen.

I don't think Aileen had a stroke or heart attack. Either one would have incompacitated her enough to where she couldn't drive or even make it out of her home. Especially with the "stroke" theory, because she would have been unconscious right after it hit. I know someone who had a stroke, she said that she couldn't even move any part of her body. I think Aileen was home doing her daily chores such as ironing and filling water in the pool. She started her bath while she was ironing and was planning to take it when she was finished. She either took the phone off the hook before the intruder came into her home or the person who broke in took it off the hook before they left. Or he could have come in while she was in the bath. I don't think the intruder knew that anyone was home, and this surprised him. I think he may have forced Aileen out of her home at gunpoint (which would explain why her purse, glasses and driver's license were left at home) and made her drive out to that lonely country road which she'd never been on before, and I doubt would have found it by chance. A struggle ensued inside of the vehicle with Aileen at the wheel and she crashed with the intruder in the passenger seat, she was either killed in the crash or knocked out. The perpetrator set the car on fire to cover up the crime. I think she may have known this person or he may have known her somehow. He could have been casing the house (which a lot of burglars often do) and waiting for the perfect time to come into the house. This is what I think most likely happened

I think that is very possible.

I think the most likely scenario of this case is that Ayleen interrupted a burglary. Maybe she was upstairs running the bath water and saw the burglars and tried to get away without them noticing her. Or, maybe they forced her into her car and abducted her at gunpoint.

The only issue I have is the church bulletin that was found. I would not be so quick to directly link that bulletin to Ayleen as anyone who visited said church the previous Sunday could have driven down that road.

The really only seem to be three possibilities in the situation: accident, suicide or murder.

1) Accident- Given the evidence of the segment this seems to be the most likely theory as to why Mrs. Conway crashed into the bridge.
As a poster on here earlier stated a mini stroke ( or a seizure) could have made Mrs. Conway become disoriented and she attempted to call the hospital.Unable to reach the hospital for whatever reason, she then tried to drive there in her car, became overcome by her medical condition and crashed into a guardrail by the bridge.

The the subsequent crash caused the fire and the resulting conflagration consumed a car. The church bulletin could have been thrown clear or blown clear of the burning vehicle. Or perhaps when the car caught on fire, the windows shattered or melted and a gust of wind blew the bulletin out of the car.

Without knowing Mrs. Conway's overall state of medical health, there's no way of really telling whether or not she was prone to this occurring.

2) Suicide - Suicide is certainly always a possibility. However no mention was made of this being something that would be expected from Mrs. Conway. Also, there are far less painful manners to kill oneself besides immolation.
unless there was a history of mental/emotional issues, suicide attempts, or a recent diagnosis of a fatal illness, it seems very unlikely that this woman would have killed herself in this manner.

3) Murder - From what I saw in the segment ( the story is no longer even on the website of the Lawton, Oklahoma paper) this seems to be the least likely of the three to have happened. Burglaries, even burglaries where they are interrupted by the homeowner, very rarely result in the murder of the homeowner.In fact, the ones that do, the overwhelming majority end with the homeowner being killed in the home and not taken away.

While this potentially could also have been a murder for hire, the main suspect in something like that is almost always the spouse. In the spouse in this case, seem to be greatly upset about the death of his wife. While he could've been faking it, he seemed to be going out of his way to make sure that this case was not ignored.which is something that would not be expected if he had caused her death.

Besides, while people see murders every day on TV, murder is a relatively rare crime given the population of the United States. Most victims know the killers, and most killers are apprehended in a relatively short amount of time after committing the crime.

Just from looking at the situation, based on what was shown in the segment, a murder by driving someone's car into a guard rail seems to be a complicated and rather convoluted manner to commit a relatively simple act. Had they found bullet wounds, knife wounds, evidence that she'd been bludgeoned or a serious lack of carbon monoxide space in her lungs, then I would not have any problems with seeing this as a potential murder.

This appears to have been an accidental death and for some reason known only to her spouse, this is been turned into some type of unsolved mystery.

This appears to have been an accidental death and for some reason known only to her spouse, this is been turned into some type of unsolved mystery.

I don't know, this is still one of my all-time favourite UM segments simply because it's impossible to come up with any airtight theories that doesn't have any holes. It may have just been a simple car accident, but that doesn't explain why she was doing on that country road in the first place, why she didn't take her purse and glasses, and why the house was left behind in such a bizarre state.

One theory that's never really been discussed in this thread is the idea of Aileen simply having an unexplained mental breakdown. It certainly seems a lot more plausible to me than her trying to drive herself to the hospital after a stroke. I think something in her brain just cracked and for reasons no one will ever understand, she started doing multiple household chores at the same time before deciding to get into her car (with no regard to her purse or glasses) and irrationally driving off into a random area and getting into an accident (maybe due to vision problems from leaving her glasses behind) that cost her her life. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense, but mental illness doesn't make a lot of sense either and causes people to do some pretty strange things. It didn't make any sense for Gail Delano to fly into another state and check into a hotel to commit suicide, but she did it for reasons that no one else but her will understand.

We never really learned much about Aileen in the UM segment or if she had any history of mental problems. But it could have just been one of things that happened to her without any build-up or explanation. In my eyes, this is the only scenario that accounts for a lot of the bizarre details in the case. Of course, it's a theory that wouldn't provide any closure for Aileen's family since she is the only person who could ever verify it.

I don't know, this is still one of my all-time favourite UM segments simply because it's impossible to come up with any airtight theories that doesn't have any holes. It may have just been a simple car accident, but that doesn't explain why she was doing on that country road in the first place, why she didn't take her purse and glasses, and why the house was left behind in such a bizarre state.

One theory that's never really been discussed in this thread is the idea of Aileen simply having an unexplained mental breakdown. It certainly seems a lot more plausible to me than her trying to drive herself to the hospital after a stroke. I think something in her brain just cracked and for reasons no one will ever understand, she started doing multiple household chores at the same time before deciding to get into her car (with no regard to her purse or glasses) and irrationally driving off into a random area and getting into an accident (maybe due to vision problems from leaving her glasses behind) that cost her her life. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense, but mental illness doesn't make a lot of sense either and causes people to do some pretty strange things. It didn't make any sense for Gail Delano to fly into another state and check into a hotel to commit suicide, but she did it for reasons that no one else but her will understand.

We never really learned much about Aileen in the UM segment or if she had any history of mental problems. But it could have just been one of things that happened to her without any build-up or explanation. In my eyes, this is the only scenario that accounts for a lot of the bizarre details in the case. Of course, it's a theory that wouldn't provide any closure for Aileen's family since she is the only person who could ever verify it.

I agree with you, poster. Some type of undetermined mental collapse could've also triggered the types of behavior exhibited by Mrs. Conway in this situation. I personally was thinking that it may be a stroke or seizure, but you are correct that a stroke would've made it difficult bordering on impossible to operate a vehicle for more than a few miles

What surprises me, and seems to have been left out of the segment is that no one saw her leave her home and/or driving erratically away from the scene. While this could certainly be explained in the area of the vehicle crash ( a remote rural area) it's hard to explain how she left her neighborhood and drove all the way to that area without attracting any attention.

And this may be one of the unsolved mystery cases where a grieving spouse or parent decides that not revealing a painful detail about their loved ones mental or emotional states somehow won't hurt the case. While I can understand the reluctance, it seems that by doing this they actually cause themselves more pain as the wound always remains fresh.

I pretty much gotta whole lotta nothing, but I'm gonna post a few things, fwiw.

In 2009, the population of Lawton, OK was 91,000 people. Was Aileen from Lawton or just the general area, country outskirts, etc?

Was the phone that was off the hook the line that was in the bathroom near the filled tub, or somewhere else in the house? Back in the 80s, a burglar would not have to cut a phone line to keep a victim from making a call out of the house. All they had to do was take one of the phones off the hook and set it down. If the victim tried to pick up another extension in the house, there'd be no way to place a call. That makes it kinda sneaky for the buglar, since they wouldn't have to cut the phone lines and leave a definite sign of foul play.

There's been a telephone scam that's been going around for a while where the perp calls someone, tells them that their loved one is injured and in the hospital or has been arrested by a foreign government. They use high pressure urgency tactics to convince the victim to wire money to them to help the injured/incarcerated loved one. Once they do that, they call to check the hospital/jail where the loved one is and find out they've been scammed.

Is it possible that Aileen was the victim of a variation of this? Maybe someone called her, saying that one of her kids had been kidnapped and for her to bring her valuables out to some dirt road in the country to pay ransom. It's bizarrely far fetched, but explains why valuables were missing and why she was out in the middle of nowhere. (Also explains why the house was left in the condition it was, since time was of the essence.)

The patio door was found open? Did the Conways keep their keys in their cars? If Aileen was met by burglars, is it possible she skipped grabbing her purse and glasses when she fled and just ran out the closest door to get to the car (keys already in it) and drive away in a hurry, losing control in her panic?

Remember the doctor's wife (Cawood?) on UM who along with her son Trinity interrupted a burglary? In her panic, the wife ran straight toward the bad guys instead of fleeing to safety. People do weird things in stressful situations.

About that missing gas cap, I can still see where that may not be related to an arson. The lady I mentioned in an earlier post had her car catch fire via a manufacturer's defect. It burned up completely and blew the gas cap off, I think it was when the gas tank exploded.

What kind of personality did Aileen have? Was the phone set down gently off the hook or hanging by the cord or what? Is it possible that she was on the phone engaged in an argument, threw the phone down in a rage and left the house so angry that she just grabbed her keys and drove around to cool down, then the accident happened?

News articles state that there was jewelry missing from the house, and it was discovered to be missing some time after Aileen died rather than immediately? Was the missing amount of jewelry just what she would have been wearing and could have possibly been destroyed in the fire, or was all of her valuable jewelry missing?

Also, how are funerals handled in the area Aileen was from? I wonder if they were burglarized during an open house type thing after the funeral. When my grandma died in 94, there was an open house held right after the service. In the small town she was from, it was common in the obituary to state the time of the service and then invite friends and relatives to the open house afterwards. It included the deceased's home address. (IIRC, my grandma's obit even stated that her only decendants, my mom and I, were from out of state, so the thief knew that he/she would not be recognized.)

That kind of info lets the burglar know how to dress, how to act, where and when to show up, gives them an idea about what kind of home the deceased has and what kind of valuables may be there. It was 2 or 3 weeks later, when packing up my grandma's things that we noticed some of her jewelry was missing. We thought back over all the people who had come to the house after the funeral. There was one woman who none of us could recall ever meeting before. She didn't attend the funeral but did show up to the hosue afterwards. We suspect that she was the thief but could never identify her. Possibly the Conway family was victimized this way?

What surprises me, and seems to have been left out of the segment is that no one saw her leave her home and/or driving erratically away from the scene. Wallace could certainly be explained in the area of the vehicle crash ( a remote rural area) it's hard to explain how she left her neighborhood and drove all the way to that area without attracting any attention.

This is why I've always had trouble with the burglar and stroke theories. If there was a burglary and Aileen was taken out of the house by force in broad daylight, you'd think someone in the neighbourhood would see something. And if she had a stroke, why wouldn't she just got to a neighbour's house instead driving all the way out into the country? However, she could have easily left the house and driven away on her own in a normal fashion without anyone noticing. I'm sure if anyone had come forward and said they saw her leaving, the segment would have mentioned it.

There's been a telephone scam that's been going around for a while where the perp calls someone, tells them that their loved one is injured and in the hospital or has been arrested by a foreign government. They use high pressure urgency tactics to convince the victim to wire money to them to help the injured/incarcerated loved one. Once they do that, they call to check the hospital/jail where the loved one is and find out they've been scammed.

Well, I'd say this post certainly isn't a "whole lotta nothing", :lol:. This is actually one of the more unique and interesting theories I've heard about this case. It's been theorized that Aileen could have received a phone call that made her drive away into a place she'd never been before without any regard to grabbing her purse or leaving the house in disarray, and a call like that certainly could have prompted her to do this. I don't know how common phone scams like this were in 1986, but the fact they weren't common would certainly make it easier for Aileen to believe the call was genuine.

Did the Conways keep their keys in their cars? If Aileen was met by burglars, is it possible she skipped grabbing her purse and glasses when she fled and just ran out the closest door to get to the car (keys already in it) and drive away in a hurry, losing control in her panic?

Yes, as hard as that may be to believe, the 1980s were just much a different time and people would actually leave their keys in the car or leave their houses unlocked without considering any possible consequences, especially if it was daytime. I always assumed Aileen never kept her keys in her purse since it would make no sense to grab the keys out of it without taking the purse with her.

Was the phone set down gently off the hook or hanging by the cord or what?

Well, assuming the re-enactment is accurate, the receiver was lying next to the phone on the edge of the tub and looked like it had been put down gently.

News articles state that there was jewelry missing from the house, and it was discovered to be missing some time after Aileen died rather than immediately? Was the missing amount of jewelry just what she would have been wearing and could have possibly been destroyed in the fire, or was all of her valuable jewelry missing?

Good point. I've never considered the possibility that Aileen may have been wearing the missing jewelry. And I don't know how many husbands really keep track of their wife's jewelry anyhow. Your open house funeral idea is pretty interesting as well as it just seems weird that someone would go to the trouble of pulling a burglary, but not try to steal anything else.

There's been a telephone scam that's been going around for a while where the perp calls someone, tells them that their loved one is injured and in the hospital or has been arrested by a foreign government. They use high pressure urgency tactics to convince the victim to wire money to them to help the injured/incarcerated loved one. Once they do that, they call to check the hospital/jail where the loved one is and find out they've been scammed.

This is a very good theory. In fact, I would tend to think this may be what happened. The only problem I have with it is that scam artists are greedy. I have a hard time believing that they would only ask for jewelry and not money and if I'm right, then why did she leave her purse at home and not bring it?

However, this theory of yours TracyLynn is a good one. What if some kids were prank calling people telling them their relative was in the hospital and maybe they called Ayleen and told her that her relative was injured and was at a certain hospital that was down that country road but didn't ask for money as they only did this for sh*ts and giggles. Maybe that could be why she left in such a hurry and without any of her personal belongings.

I wonder if the Conway's telephone records were ever seized from the day of her death to see if any calls came in right before she disappeared.

That's the thing. This case is one where the simplest option could be the correct one. There are no clues with this case. It might not be a murder. It might be a simple accident. For whatever reason Ayleen could have been in a hurry and lost control of her car.

But I've heard things go as far as:

- she had an affair
- she was burglarized and somehow managed to get away from the house and then crash
- the culprits staged her accident (unlikely)

Its just my thought that the first option (she was in a hurry to go somewhere) is probably the correct one. Nothing sinister here. She goes flying in her car to an unknown destination (maybe a prank call prompted this) and then her church bulletin flies out the window and she crashes. Sad ending but I really believe this is the most likely scenario

This is a very good theory. In fact, I would tend to think this may be what happened. The only problem I have with it is that scam artists are greedy. I have a hard time believing that they would only ask for jewelry and not money and if I'm right, then why did she leave her purse at home and not bring it?

However, this theory of yours TracyLynn is a good one. What if some kids were prank calling people telling them their relative was in the hospital and maybe they called Ayleen and told her that her relative was injured and was at a certain hospital that was down that country road but didn't ask for money as they only did this for sh*ts and giggles. Maybe that could be why she left in such a hurry and without any of her personal belongings.

I wonder if the Conway's telephone records were ever seized from the day of her death to see if any calls came in right before she disappeared.

It's a good theory, but w/o proof that somebody or that this type of "prank/scam" was being committed in this area, it would remain a just a theory. Also, the caller would have to be fairly accurate when they called as reporting that a non-existent child or a deceased relative or friend was "in trouble" would probably not have the intended effect the caller would be seeking.

This case has to be one of the most intriguing cases UM has aired. A couple of points I'd like to bring up.

1-What kind of burglars strike in the daytime? I'm sure it happens but it's very risky business. IMO, the individual/s would have to be very bold to try and burglarize a house during the daytime. In addition, IF they were bold enough to burglarize peoples' houses during the daytime, one would have to assume they were wearing ski masks. Why increase the chances of being identified? But this to go against the theory presented by UM. Their theory involves some unmasked burglars were in the Conway house, and Ayleen Conway caught them stealing, so the burglars decided to kill her. But that doesn't make sense to me since any burglar with a brain would wear a ski mask to prevent identification in the first place, especially in a daytime robbery.

2-I think other posters have brought this up but I'll reiterate: why didn't the robbers take more loot? They didn't even attempt to take any money from the Conway home. Yet, they put a WHOLE lot of effort into killing Ayleen Conway? No, it doesn't make any sense. The robbers wouldn't have gained anything. Most robbers want loot without getting their hands dirty. So, I don't agree with the burglary gone wrong.

I'm still on the fence on whether or not Ayleen's death was a murder or accident. One idea that is worth exploring that Ayleen's death was that of a wrong hit. Perhaps the hit was intended for some other woman named Ayleen Conway. Maybe a hitman wanted to make Ayleen's death look like an accident. Also, her missing jewelry would be proof to the hitman's client that he killed her. Just a thought...

I just recently re-watched this case and of course in the back of my mind, I'm thinking of a burglary gone bad but then I started to think about another scenario. I wonder if maybe Ayleen received a knock on her door in the midst of starting her bath and filling the pool with water and answered only to find someone trying to attack and possibly rape her. Maybe Ayleen tried to get away from this person by fleeing her home and then the crash happened. Just a thought...

Was there any mention about the phone being off the hook? I'd think if she got a phone call around the time this happened, it would explain some things.

I think it's some kind of robbery/murder situation. I figure that she was out filling up the pool and someone saw her. He followed her inside since she left the house open while filling up the pool. The bath/iron situation is where it gets confusing for me. There's no good explanation for both of those being on at the same time. You leave an iron on to plug in and heat up, but you also don't leave the bath filled with water. I have to believe that she tried to escape from a pursuerer leaving everything there with leaving the purse and everything else.

I do think that she was trying to get away from her persurer's which would explain some of it. I like the idea of her interrupting a robbery personally. It would explain the phone atleast. Maybe she saw the burglary, interrupted it and the guy came and chased her. She made it to bathroom, went to call the police and used the bath tub to disrupt the sound of her on the phone.

Random comments:

Wanted to make a comment about the jewelery - Nothing in the situation would make sense of her wearing jewelery. You would not wear jewelery while filling up a pool, taking a bath and ironing. Since they said it a large amount was missing, it promotes the robbery theory.

Also, Church bulletin - Alot of people grab this when leaving church and stick it in their car.

Iron - Wouldn't the iron have gotten too hot if it was sitting on the board for a few hours?

Was there any mention of anything being knocked over in the house? This always happeneds in robberies.

Also, any details on her remains or was she too charred up? I think that could solve some questions possibly.

In one sense, this is an excellent UM for the simple fact that the facts, as presented by the segment, simply leave far too many questions. As always, of course, many things remain unsaid or vague, which may (or may not) make things appear more mysterious then they are.

None of the theories presented in this thread or in the segment itself are very satisfying. Let's start with some facts we don't know:

1. we are told absolutely nothing about ayleen herself (other then she was married). Rank speculation about a lover, medical problems, mental problems, etc. is thus wholly unsupported at best.

2. the only apparent "witness" to the disorder in the house is pat. there is no evidence anyone else verified these conditions, nor any evidence that LE did any contemporaneous investigation into the condition of the house.

Given this, we have to start at the accident scene itself. we aren't told where the accident specifically occured, only that it was a rural area, 15 miles from lawton, ok. ayleen's car smashed into the guardrail at 50-60 mph. the road as shown in the segment was dirt - so that certainly would be a high rate of speed for a dirt road. the presence of skid marks would indicate an attempt to slow down before the crash - which would indicate travel at an even higher rate of speed. the accident happened on a tuesday morning. smoke from the accident was first noticed at 1040a, but it is unknown how long the car may have been burning. the car appears to have been severly damaged in the accident. the gas cap was missing and the car burned in such a manner that required gasoline to have coated the interior. there was no evidence of another individual or vehicle at the scene, although admittedly any physical evidence inside the car would have been destroyed.

the seminal question that first must be asked is whether the force of the accident could have caused the gas tank to rupture and burn the car on its own. this question should be able to be answered experimentally, but this was apparently never done. obviously, if the force alone could have caused the fire, it does not prove it did, but it would suggest it, esp. in the absence of any third-party presence and traces of another accelerant.

the question of why ayleen was in the area is a good one. if we take pat at his word, she had no reason to be there and any theory of a rushed exit from her house can't really explain why she would have left an urbanized area for a rural one. if she was injured, wouldn't she be going to a hospital? if chased, a police station? instead, she seems to be going into the middle of nowhere.

Here are some of the unanswered questions that come to my mind:

1. who was the last person to see ayleen alive? what time?
2. did any of her neighbors see her leave? see anything or anyone suspicious?
3. did anyone see her vehicle whilst it was being driven? At a minimum, she must have been driving for 10-15 minutes - can her route be established? can a potential destination be determined? (for both of these, I have presumed that there were a limited number of roads one could take to arrive at her accident site, and a limited number of places it leads into)
4. were her keys in the car or did she have to get them from her purse?
5. what was she wearing? from the description of a bath being drawn and house errands underway, one could presume she might still have been in pajamas or a housecoat - not, presumably, proper attire for leaving the house.
6. did she have any skeletons, mental or health problems?

answers to some of these questions would help better frame the context of the case. to me, if we accept pat's description of the house, it does not seem like a burglary gone bad. Nothing is missing, nothing is out of place, per say - it appears more that she stepped out for a minute in the middle of several tasks. as shown in the segment, the phone is off the hook in a manner someone would place it if they didn't want to be disturbed - not if they had just received an emergency call or were interrupted in the middle of an emergency call - however, who knows if that's how it actually was. if ayleen had to get her keys out of her purse, why didn't she take the whole purse?

Was there any mention about the phone being off the hook? I'd think if she got a phone call around the time this happened, it would explain some things.

the segment shows the phone placed neatly off the hook, in a manner you would place it, say, if you were going to take a bath and didn't want to be disturbed. if she had received a normal call, you'd expect the phone to be hung up again; if an emergency call, to be left dangling, perhaps.

I think it's some kind of robbery/murder situation. I figure that she was out filling up the pool and someone saw her. He followed her inside since she left the house open while filling up the pool.

there is absolutely no evidence of a third party. besides, robbers look for empty houses, so a robber wouldn't be likely to enter a residence they know is occupied. a rapist or murderer might, but again, you'd expect to see something that indicates their presence and/or a struggle.

without that, you're essentially left with a scenario that posits that ayleen saw someone suspicious before they could make contact with her and fled in panic - possible, i suppose, but likely - unknown.

The bath/iron situation is where it gets confusing for me. There's no good explanation for both of those being on at the same time. You leave an iron on to plug in and heat up, but you also don't leave the bath filled with water. I have to believe that she tried to escape from a pursuerer leaving everything there with leaving the purse and everything else.

She could have easily drawn the bath, then realized she needed to iron something to wear for the day - we don't know the specifics here, but I'm not necessarily troubled with both being in use.

I do think that she was trying to get away from her persurer's which would explain some of it. I like the idea of her interrupting a robbery personally. It would explain the phone atleast. Maybe she saw the burglary, interrupted it and the guy came and chased her. She made it to bathroom, went to call the police and used the bath tub to disrupt the sound of her on the phone.

I don't think that makes sense at all. if a guy was chasing here, there'd be some sign of it. if she made it to safety in the bathroom, why leave? and she certainly would want any thief to know she was calling the police since that would give him incentive to flee.

Random comments:

Wanted to make a comment about the jewelery - Nothing in the situation would make sense of her wearing jewelery. You would not wear jewelery while filling up a pool, taking a bath and ironing. Since they said it a large amount was missing, it promotes the robbery theory.

we can't draw any conclusions from the jewelery. we don't know what was missing, when/if it was noticed missing, whether or not it was missing before the incident, etc. I certainly agree with you that it would not seem likely that ayleen would be wearing jewelry whilst doing errands, but that's still an assumption that would need to be confirmed.

Also, Church bulletin - Alot of people grab this when leaving church and stick it in their car.

The church bulletin doesn't really prove anything. first of all, it's not conclusive it came from the car. let's presume it did, however. it could have blown out of the smashed car after the accident and been blown around outside - it was close to the scene and found days later. and even if ayleen's habit was to have the windows closed, it doesn't mean she didn't have a window down.

Iron - Wouldn't the iron have gotten too hot if it was sitting on the board for a few hours?

depends on the type of iron. Modern irons, as I understand it, shut themselves off if they get too hot. I'm not sure if they had such irons in 1986 and/or if ayleen's iron was such an iron.

Was there any mention of anything being knocked over in the house? This always happeneds in robberies.

Also, any details on her remains or was she too charred up? I think that could solve some questions possibly.

there was absolutely no evidence presented of anything in the house being ransacked or even disturbed. that's one reason I think robbery is unlikely. Of course, we don't know what, if any, investigation was done at the conway residence. if pat didn't preserve the scene then he and his family likely destroyed any evidence that was there.

ayleen's remains were badly burned. I have no idea if an autopsy was performed, however. we aren't told of anything, so I suppose we can draw the negative inference that there were no injuries inconsistent with the crash, but that's about it

Isn't it entirely possible that Ayleen suffered a minor stroke or something that debilitated her ability to speak (which would be why the phone was found of the hook, perhaps she did attempt to call someone but couldn't speak), and in a panic ran to her car in an attempt to go to the hospital but wound up on the isolated road, lost? And in the panic and confusion that's when she crashed into the guard rail? That seems more likely than a botched home invasion or murder theory, IMO.

Isn't it entirely possible that Ayleen suffered a minor stroke or something that debilitated her ability to speak (which would be why the phone was found of the hook, perhaps she did attempt to call someone but couldn't speak), and in a panic ran to her car in an attempt to go to the hospital but wound up on the isolated road, lost? And in the panic and confusion that's when she crashed into the guard rail? That seems more likely than a botched home invasion or murder theory, IMO.
Interesting theory. But to me that doesn't account for the bathwater being drawn and the ironing being done. I mean, I suppose she would have filled the tub and let it sit while ironing then had the stroke and tried to phone for help. But something just doesn't add up about that.

I understand this was a smaller area, but weren't there houses next door? Why not run next door to try to alert the neighbors rather than get in the car while being in such a state? Of course, I can't say what my frame of mind would be when having a stroke.

The stroke/medical problem itself would have to be pretty bad for her to be unable to speak. Would she really be able to get to the car? How far away was the crash site from the home? I don't recall it being mentioned as too close to the home.

Interesting theory. But to me that doesn't account for the bathwater being drawn and the ironing being done. I mean, I suppose she would have filled the tub and let it sit while ironing then had the stroke and tried to phone for help. But something just doesn't add up about that.

I understand this was a smaller area, but weren't there houses next door? Why not run next door to try to alert the neighbors rather than get in the car while being in such a state? Of course, I can't say what my frame of mind would be when having a stroke.

The stroke/medical problem itself would have to be pretty bad for her to be unable to speak. Would she really be able to get to the car? How far away was the crash site from the home? I don't recall it being mentioned as too close to the home.

The crash site was 15 miles away from the Conway house. The reason I think the accidental theory is more likely is simply because there never really was any motive presented for murder. If there were intruders who Aileen discovered during a home invasion/burglary, why did they pursue Aileen, somehow overtake her and her car, kill her and then stage an "accident" instead of flee the scene? There really isn't anything that makes sense or gels with the murder theory, IMO.

There really isn't anything that makes sense or gels with the murder theory, IMO.
The thing about this case is that none of the theories I've heard seem to gel, so to speak. She looks like she was being interrupted in her tasks, but why was the crash so far away if it was murder? And if it was an accident, why would she leave the iron on and have the phone off the hook and all that? This is probably the most classic example of an unsolved mystery in all that were profiled on the show. No theory I've heard lacks holes or implausibilities.

Isn't it entirely possible that Ayleen suffered a minor stroke or something that debilitated her ability to speak (which would be why the phone was found of the hook, perhaps she did attempt to call someone but couldn't speak), and in a panic ran to her car in an attempt to go to the hospital but wound up on the isolated road, lost? And in the panic and confusion that's when she crashed into the guard rail? That seems more likely than a botched home invasion or murder theory, IMO.

Is it possible? Of course, anything's possible.

Based on the scant evidence we have, I wouldn't say it's more likely then the home invasion/murder theory, but it's just as plausible insofar as neither make much sense, but they could explain the evidence.

I would like the stroke theory better if a couple things were known: (1) her medical and mental history; (2) whether her keys were normally kept in the car; (3) her possible route and locations of her doctor(s), hospitals, etc. - i.e., if she could have ended up at her final location by taking a turn somewhere along the trip to her doctor or a hospital, it would be stronger (circumstantial, of course) evidence that it could have been her intended destination.

Interesting theory. But to me that doesn't account for the bathwater being drawn and the ironing being done. I mean, I suppose she would have filled the tub and let it sit while ironing then had the stroke and tried to phone for help. But something just doesn't add up about that.

I understand this was a smaller area, but weren't there houses next door? Why not run next door to try to alert the neighbors rather than get in the car while being in such a state? Of course, I can't say what my frame of mind would be when having a stroke.

The stroke/medical problem itself would have to be pretty bad for her to be unable to speak. Would she really be able to get to the car? How far away was the crash site from the home? I don't recall it being mentioned as too close to the home.

All the theories of why she left the house don't really make sense, in that they all require odd, but not impossible, chains of events and decisions.

The crash site was 15 miles away from the Conway house. The reason I think the accidental theory is more likely is simply because there never really was any motive presented for murder. If there were intruders who Aileen discovered during a home invasion/burglary, why did they pursue Aileen, somehow overtake her and her car, kill her and then stage an "accident" instead of flee the scene? There really isn't anything that makes sense or gels with the murder theory, IMO.

I think there are really two mysteries here:

1. Was the crash an accident or murder? - IMO, this should have been easy to determine, since experimental studies could have shown whether the crash itself could have caused the gas tank to rupture and chemical analysis would show if any other accelerants were used. If the crash itself could have caused the rupture and the only accelerant was gasoline and the burn pattern doesn't show a pouring effect, I'd say it was an accident. This doesn't answer the second mystery:

2. Why did she leave the house? If the accident scene was staged, the robber/murder theory becomes the dominant one, but even if she died in an accident, a botched robbery could have made her leave the house, as could a medical problem, as could a a simple errand or other seeming routine task. This mystery feeds into the other, simply because her departure seems so odd, it starts the mind down nefarious paths.

I'm admittedly not an expert on the geography of the Lawton, Oklahoma area, but the town had a population of around 80,000 back in 1986, so if Aileen had to get a hospital, I'm sure she wouldn't have needed to drive 15 miles out into the middle of nowhere. And she certainly could have gone someplace safer if she was trying to escape from an assailant who was chasing her.

I still lean towards the theory that some sort of unexplained mental breakdown caused her to become disoriented, and do a bunch of odd things like running the garden hose into the pool and filling the tub with water before she inexplicably decided to drive into the middle of nowhere and died in an accident.

I actually found Aileen at Find-a-Grave, which states she was 50 at the time of her death. I suppose that's a little young to be suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia, but anything's possible.
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Conway&GSfn=Aileen&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=76679106&df=all&

This is one case that I don't know if it will ever be solved. Officially it was ruled an accident, but that still doesn't get us any closer to, IMO, the bigger mystery...why was she out on that road fifteen miles away from her house? Something medical (mental illness) could have been going on, causing her to become disoriented and confused, but again we don't know her medical history so it's simply speculative.

List of all the discrepancies, according to the family.

Patio door wide open.
Purse inside house with glasses and drivers license.
Iron board setup with Iron left on.
Pool being filled by hose.
Master bedroom bath full with phone off the hook.

If something happened in the house, I assume that one of the intruders first locations would have been in the master bedroom.

I assume that the intruder was in hiding in that room, watched Ayleen fill up the tub and leave. At this point they took the phone off the hook and ambushed her before she could get her ironing done.

The location of the church paper is a good guess where the vehicle was setup to crash, 200 feet.

I don't think anyone heard the crash, it was detected by smoke.

The killer then fled by foot.

List of all the discrepancies, according to the family.

Patio door wide open.
Purse inside house with glasses and drivers license.
Iron board setup with Iron left on.
Pool being filled by hose.
Master bedroom bath full with phone off the hook.

If something happened in the house, I assume that one of the intruders first locations would have been in the master bedroom.

I assume that the intruder was in hiding in that room, watched Ayleen fill up the tub and leave. At this point they took the phone off the hook and ambushed her before she could get her ironing done.

The location of the church paper is a good guess where the vehicle was setup to crash, 200 feet.

I don't think anyone heard the crash, it was detected by smoke.

The killer then fled by foot.

The killer then fled by foot.

But wouldn't it have been easier for the intruder to simply ran away once Aileen discovered him/them in the house? If there was an intruder there trying to rob the house, why would he then turn to cold blooded murder just because Aileen was home? And why go through all of the trouble of staging the crash?

I used to believe the theory presented in the segment. However, I think this was an accident. I wonder if she could have had some sort of mental breakdown ala Don Kemp/David Stone/Dan Wilson and drove to her demise rather than walking as the others did.

I used to believe the theory presented in the segment. However, I think this was an accident. I wonder if she could have had some sort of mental breakdown ala Don Kemp/David Stone/Dan Wilson and drove to her demise rather than walking as the others did.

I think this is the most plausible explanation of what happened.

Still, it seems like an odd coincidence for her car to catch on fire while having this supposed breakdown/episode/anxiety attack/whatever mental thing it could have been.

Still, it seems like an odd coincidence for her car to catch on fire while having this supposed breakdown/episode/anxiety attack/whatever mental thing it could have been.

Well, if she was driving the car and crashed into the guardrail at a high rate of speed, the gas tank could have ruptured, a spark from the engine or the car's electrical system could have ignited it and there's your fire.

You know, one thing still bothers me though. Unlike many other UM cases where the police seem content writing off the suspicious death as an accident or suicide and dismissing other scenarios, that doesn't appear to be the case here. It seems like, at the time at least, the police were looking into the matter pretty seriously. I think the cause of death was even changed to "undetermined". I wonder if there was other evidence not disclosed in the segment that pointed more directly to burglary and/or murder. I also seem to remember some articles I dug up on the case years ago that were printed in the "Crime Stopper" section of the paper and basically implored anyone who might have seen something suspicious that day to come forward. It could be just a search for leads, but it seems strange that they would go to such lengths if they thought the whole thing was simply an accident. Just a thought.

I'm guessing the investigation already looked into this, but since the bathtub was filled with water, I wonder if they ever noticed if any of Aileen's clothes or shoes were missing? Even in an emergency, a person isn't likely to leave without their shoes unless their life is in immediate danger.

I'm sure the segment would have mentioned if clothes were on the bathroom floor or something, but if Aileen had already taken off her clothes or put on a bathrobe before being interrupted by an intruder who murdered or abducted her, I can see why they might choose to commit arson in order to stage a fake accident scene. Burning her body beyond recognition would make it impossible to determine what clothes she was wearing at the time of the crash, and obviously, the accident theory wouldn't hold up if she was found at the wheel of her car wearing nothing but a bathrobe.

Those questions aside, I've always agreed that an inexplicable mental breakdown is the best theory and would be the only way to explain all the stuff that makes no sense. I just find it frustrating that one of my all-time favourite mysteries has zero information available anywhere else on the Net.

Someone said she was 50 years old? That seems odd, in the segment they say Pat was married to her for 33 years which means in 1953 she was 17 or perhaps turning 18. I guess it isn't unusual though since getting married at 18 in the 1950s didn't raise any eyebrows.

But I find one thing questionable. They had 7 kids. In the picture they show in the segment the kids look all under 20. It looks like an older picture of them, perhaps in the mid 1970s (just a guess) but even so by 1986 some of those kids would have still lived at home I would have thought. If this was a staged burglary then you would think that the perpetrator had to know when the kids weren't home. Again, I think more than one of them had to still live at home at that time.

Also, another thing not brought up enough is the fact that the perpetrators could have gone back to the house and staged a "surprise" type of scenario in the house. It is plausible for sure.

I guess UM didn't elaborate as to whether or not some or all of the Conway's children were living at home at the time of Aileen's death. If some of the children were still at home, unless the perpetrators were known to the Conway's, they would have to have been very lucky to rob a house where the only person present was a woman in her 50's.

I guess UM didn't elaborate as to whether or not some or all of the Conway's children were living at home at the time of Aileen's death. If some of the children were still at home, unless the perpertrators were known to the Conway's, they would have to have been very lucky to rob a house where the only person present was a woman in her 50's.

I checked and found out that April 29, 1986 was a Tuesday, so it's reasonable to assume that the kids would have been at school that morning. Of course, I'm not sure if there were any older Conway children no longer attending school who were still living at home, but a weekday morning when people will generally be at school or at work would seem like an opportune time to rob a house. The impression I got was that Aileen was a stay-at-home housewife, but maybe she had other outside interests or activities that would make a perpetrator assume she wouldn't be home that day.

I checked and found out that April 29, 1986 was a Tuesday, so it's reasonable to assume that the kids would have been at school that morning. Of course, I'm not sure if there were any older Conway children no longer attending school who were still living at home, but a weekday morning when people will generally be at school or at work would seem like an opportune time to rob a house. The impression I got was that Aileen was a stay-at-home housewife, but maybe she had other outside interests or activities that would make a perpetrator assume she wouldn't be home that day.

Well they were married 33 years. Just doing the simple math having 7 kids would probably mean Ayleen got pregnant a year or two after marriage and then I think its reasonable to assume they had 7 kids over 13-14 years meaning the youngest was probably in their late teens. Again, the person probably knew the Conway's routine but on April 29th while the youngest might still be in high school any University/college student would be presumably home at that time, and I would think that 7 kids aged 18-30 (ballparking) that close to half still might live at home which makes it even more difficult for a perpetrator to get her alone.

This had to have been a robbery gone bad. I wonder what ever happened to her husband and if he is still alive.

bump

Apologies because I haven't read all 16 pages of this thread. But I just watched this segment again and wanted to comment.
I think mozartpc had a good theory early in the thread of a possible medical emergency.

I just have always felt the theory presented by her husband is unlikely. Even with a rash of burglaries. I find it highly unlikely for her to have been murdered in this way by a burglar(s). While it's possible she surprised a burglar and they panicked, odds are she'd have been left where she was attacked and they'd have split. Not to mention that most burglars are more likely to flee than confront anyway.

If she was murdered, there probably would have to be some personal involvement. A random burglar would never have gone to this much trouble. They probably would have fled if surprised. I think if it was murder either she had to know the person/persons. Or this was something other than a burglary, ie attempted rape, etc. If the intent was rape, that would explain the lack of ransacking/stuff missing. I haven't seen the article where missing jewelry was supposedly alleged by the family.

But unless the case of the missing items is really compelling, wouldn't put much stock in it. For one, it was probably her jewelry which was missing and how sure are they it wasn't misplaced, lost etc. before (or even after) the incident since they apparently noticed it some time later? Not to mention the husband is apparently invested in this being foul play.

I think a scenario mentioned in the first few pages of the thread is most likely if this was in fact, a burglary - someone came in and she surprised them, they fled, and she gave chase. (I actually had a scenario like this happen once). Someone broke in, maybe even took something, she's pissed and irrational and takes off after them in a car chase. They flee down a remote road hoping to lose her and she crashes. I'm not sure of the likelihood of this happening, but it would fit the evidence. She was interrupted/surprised by someone in the house, maybe even went to check a noise out. The perp/perps flee and she decides she's not going to let them get away with it and gives chase, even if just to get the plate number.

Since I assume she wasn't talking to anyone on the phone or they would have come forward, maybe she first considered calling an emergency number when she thought she heard someone in the house.

It explains why she was on an unfamiliar road if she was chasing someone. and it fits the part about burglaries in the area (though I'd be interested to know how common this was; was the occurrence so rare).

I think this fits available evidence best: she appears to have been interrupted in her home, phone off the hook with no evidence she was talking to anyone, she's on an unfamiliar road she apparently had never been on, no evidence anyone was with her when she crashed, no footprints, or evidence of another vehicle (would there be if she was just chasing someone ahead of her who never stopped?) etc.

But for this theory to work, she'd have to be bold enough to run to her car and chase intruders to her home after possibly considering calling for help. The incident I'm thinking of where a woman did this, she was actually returning home and still in her vehicle when she saw the burglars fleeing with stolen goods to their vehicle. So, does being surprised actually in her home make it likely she'd run to the car to give chase? Probably less likely.

There's probably a simple explanation to this case. We just don't know what. Probably the simplest is that her husband simply wasn't as aware of her routine as he thought. How sure is he she never had reason to be on that road? If there's a murderer involved, I think he knew her or the family. Even a random rapist/serial killer type probably wouldn't have gone to that much trouble and just killed and left her in the house or decided she was too much trouble and aborted the crime attempt.

Speaking of... is it possible she was running from someone instead of chasing someone?

The church bulletin might have been an older one that she kept for some reason, and just never got around to bringing it inside. There are things in my car I just left in there. Usually I end up throwing it out or bringing it inside. I haven't seen this episode recently, so I don't remember if it was a newer bulletin. If it was one she kept, Maybe that's why her husband thought it had to have come from her car.

Also, stroke keeps getting brought up. I did a quick look up about stroke symptoms, and it just didn't seem to jive with what happened here. If we go with medical emergency, how about low blood sugar? I knew somebody with diabetes who would do weird things when his blood sugar got too low/high.

I personally believe it was murder.

The church bulletin might have been an older one that she kept for some reason, and just never got around to bringing it inside. There are things in my car I just left in there. Usually I end up throwing it out or bringing it inside. I haven't seen this episode recently, so I don't remember if it was a newer bulletin. If it was one she kept, Maybe that's why her husband thought it had to have come from her car.

Pat (her husband) actually said it was a bulletin from the previous Sunday.

Also, stroke keeps getting brought up. I did a quick look up about stroke symptoms, and it just didn't seem to jive with what happened here. If we go with medical emergency, how about low blood sugar? I knew somebody with diabetes who would do weird things when his blood sugar got too low/high.

I personally believe it was murder.

I think hypoglycemia is way more probable than stroke if we're exploring the "medical emergency" theory.

I still don't know what to think of this one.

ETA: I saw a Forensic Files episode relatively recently that covered the 1990 Lime Street fire in Jacksonville, FL. Basically, an investigator duplicated a fire that destroyed a home and killed a number of people--a fire that was strongly suspected of being arson due to "pour patterns" on the floor of the home. He managed get permission to burn the condemned house next door and to duplicate the living room exactly. He set the fire without accelerant, and the same "pour patterns" appeared, even though he simply put flame to the couch and waited for the fire to spread (which it did--it engulfed the living room in less than five minutes, despite their predictions that it would take much longer without accelerant). The experiment actually completely revolutionized arson investigation, and a lot of old investigation methods and "indicators" were thrown out as bad science.

I wonder if Ayleen Conway's car might not have been looked at with the same antiquated lens.

Regardless, an explanation would still be needed for why her car burned if it wasn't due to an intentionally set fire, and why her gas cap was missing.

Well in that case, unless she had written a note or number on the bulletin (or the husband or one of their kids had), noone can be certain it came from her car.

And there's also that Texas arson-murder case, where a man was convicted and executed on what was later determined to be junk science.

although Ayleen was found deceased in her car, that doesn't mean she necessarily drove her car to the spot where she was found dead. I think it's entirely possible that she was killed elsewhere (possibly her house) and her body placed in the car and it was set on fire. Unfortunately, the biggest whammy in this case was that her body was so badly charred that I'm sure an autopsy wasn't possible for that reason. Additionally, I don't know if they were able to examine the car that much (because of it's condition). I wonder if they were able to examine the house or if they even thought of it.

I remember one poster who thought they had solved this case because of some skid marks that were found near the crash site. But again, we don't know if Ayleen was actually driving the car. It's interesting to note that we don't know of any witnesses that actually place Ayleen in the car that morning.

I think the biggest thing that screams foul play to me is how badly Ayleen and the car were burnt. This wasn't some simple crash which led to fire. This is more arson with accelerant. And wasn't there some issue with the gas cap? I always believed foul play here.

The Conway's house was undisturbed, IIRC, and didn't the segment say that it seemed like Aileen just stopped whatever she was doing and left? Other than a phone being off the hook (which is a reach) I don't think there were any other signs of foul play at the house. Although after reading the case summary on UM's website, I had forgotten that Aileen's husband returned home and saw the patio doors wide open. That and the phone being off the hook definitely seems like a botched burglary attempt. But why would burglars go through the trouble of removing her from the house and staging such an elaborate "accident"? The only way that makes sense is if Aileen knew one or more of the burglars.

I haven't read every page, but I always assumed she ran to car to flee someone and they kept on her and she turned down, a dead end road (IIRC) and they knew it and she couldn't stop. Leading her to crash and they took off....I don't know. Suicide? Weird way to go lol Not knowing if the crash would kill you or not.

I think I have a theory that could fit with the known evidence. Aileen is home preparing to take a bath, household chores, etc. when a burglar (or possibly a sexual predator) either entered her home or she interrupted him. The burglar was someone who knew the Conway's, which is why:

-They would have taken Aileen away from the house, instead of simply running out.
-Specifically targeted the Conway home. They would have known about valuables, and what the best time of day would have been to burglarize the house.

The burglar was armed, and he ordered Aileen out of the house and into her car. He orders her to drive to some secluded area 15 miles away. Aileen realizes he's probably driving her to some spot to murder her, so she floors the car, she then struggles with the guy for control of the vehicle, and in some sort of reflex reaction slams the brakes right before the car hits the guard rail. It was her attempt to stop this guy from killing her, IMO. Both Aileen and the burglar (now incensed) are still alive, and Aileen is then murdered and her car is set on fire to destroy the evidence of the burglar. The church bulletin may have been taken out of the car (with other pieces of paper) and was going to be used as something to light and throw in the gas tank, but the bulletin wasn't used and was discarded.

I started to rethink about the case after reading it over on UM.com, and after rereading mozartpc27's theory on pages 1 & 2, and how the skid marks pretty much prove that whoever was driving the car made an attempt to stop it. That would rule out the "rigged car" scenario, and that Aileen was already dead when the car crashed. I think the burglar and sexual predator motives are interchangeable, and the evidence would fit either scenario, IMO. The sexual predator would explain why nothing was taken from the house, and perhaps why he had taken Aileen to a secluded location.

ETA: mozartpc27 had a similar theory to mine above posted on page 6 in this thread. I didn't read it until after posting mine. Guess I should've read the whole thread first. :lol:

Totally OFF TOPIC, but I saw um.com in TheCars post above and I thought, "There's a UM site I don't know about!!!?" So I run over there and it's just a holding page for the domain. :(

But there was an ad there for "Online College's". Yep. College's. With that extra apostrophe hanging out there for no reason at all... except maybe to convince us not to use their search tool for our edumacations. lol


ONLINE COLLEGE 'S‎
Search multiple engines for online college 's‎

Ok, sorry to keep posting in this thread but I kept thinking about this case during a long drive home from work (traffic blows in the Balt/DC area at 5:00). I thought more about the "interrupted burglar" theory and now think that is unlikely.

-For one, had this been someone unknown to the Conway's, there would be no reason for them to take Aileen away from the residence. If Aileen surprised them in the middle of burglary, they would have just ran out of the house.
-If this was someone that the Conway's knew, and Aileen interrupted them before they could take anything (it's debatable whether or not anything was actually missing from the house), they could have easily talked themselves out of the situation, IMHO. Example: Aileen sees someone inside her house, "Hey what are you doing here?" to which the person responds, "Oh I was driving/walking by your house and noticed the doors were open and just wanted to check things out". There are a number of things this person could have said to not make Aileen suspicious.
-Let's assume that Aileen spotted this person putting items of jewelry in their pocket. If they knew Aileen and/or her family, why not just own up to what you did and say, "oh Aileen I'm so sorry I didn't know you were home", etc. and just give the jewelry back? Why make the sudden leap from burglary to murder!?
-Aileen's car was in the driveway. Obviously, if someone she knew was this burglar why would they go into the house knowing that Aileen was home?

I know wholeheartedly lean towards the sexual predator theory. It makes the most sense, and fits the known evidence the best. This person did not have to know Aileen in order to want to murder her after sexually assaulting her. It reminds me of the Ethel Kidd case. Random sicko driving around looking for victims, spots Aileen either going in and out of her house or sees her fill the pool, and sets his sights on her. This would explain why she was taken from the house (the possibility of a family member or neighbor walking in, or just the possibility of Aileen yelling for help would want him to leave the house), the only thing taken from the house was Aileen, and why the car was found in such a remote location. The only hole in this theory is how did the guy get back to his vehicle? The only explanation I can think of is that he obviously did not plan on Aileen crashing the car, and was going to use her car to get back to his. And it's still entirely possible that whoever murdered her was known to her. As opposed to the random sicko theory, I think it's just as likely that she had an admirer, who came over when he knew she'd be home alone and professed his love to her. When she rebuffed him, he became incensed and abducted her from the house.

I skimmed back through this thread and went over to the UM wikia to see what info they had.

All they have is what we already know and this info, that I had forgotten: Authorities believe that Aileen's death may be connected to several burglaries in the area and that, when she walked in on the burglars, they abducted and killed her.

What a bummer that it's been all these years, since 1986, and we still don't know why there were all those weird things at her house: purse, tub filled, phone of the hook, hose filling up pool. And the strange situation her body was found in, with the burned out car on a road she didn't travel.

What a bummer that it's been all these years, since 1986, and we still don't know why there were all those weird things at her house: purse, tub filled, phone of the hook, hose filling up pool. And the strange situation her body was found in, with the burned out car on a road she didn't travel.

I was just thinking about this after posting my "sexual predator" theory. I think either she was in the middle of making a legitimate phone call but was interrupted, or the suspect took the phone off the hook to make people think Aileen was on the phone as opposed to just having it ring and ring making people become suspicious that she's not answering it. Then she starts to say something to the effect of, "my husband will be home any minute" and then he decides to take her out of the house. There are several tiny tidbits of information that UM left out, that would make or break any scenario. If she had a bath drawn and clothes set out to iron, were there any clothes missing from the house? Did she leave fully clothed, etc.?

There are several tiny tidbits of information that UM left out, that would make or break any scenario. If she had a bath drawn and clothes set out to iron, were there any clothes missing from the house? Did she leave fully clothed, etc.?

Yeah, I find your sexual predator theory pretty intriguing, but of course, the big problem is that her body was "burned beyond recognition", so there was no way to tell if Aileen was sexually assaulted or what clothing she may have been wearing when she was killed. Even though she had drawn a bath, there was no indication of a bathrobe missing or any loose clothing lying around. If Aileen's family remembered what she was wearing that morning before they left, I assume the segment might have mentioned if those same clothes were left behind at the house.

I was actually going to push forward the theory that a sexual predator chose to burn Aileen's body so badly to destroy potential DNA evidence, but then I remembered this was 1986 when DNA profiling was barely even a thing. But still, it could have been done by some sicko who just liked to set his victims on fire, much like Megan Curl's killer. It makes more sense than a burglary-gone-wrong where the perpetrator just happened to have a convenient accelerant on hand to burn the evidence.

Yeah, I find your sexual predator theory pretty intriguing, but of course, the big problem is that her body was "burned beyond recognition", so there was no way to tell if Aileen was sexually assaulted or what clothing she may have been wearing when she was killed. Even though she had drawn a bath, there was no indication of a bathrobe missing or any loose clothing lying around. If Aileen's family remembered what she was wearing that morning before they left, I assume the segment might have mentioned if those same clothes were left behind at the house.

I was actually going to push forward the theory that a sexual predator chose to burn Aileen's body so badly to destroy potential DNA evidence, but then I remembered this was 1986 when DNA profiling was barely even a thing. But still, it could have been done by some sicko who just liked to set his victims on fire, much like Megan Curl's killer. It makes more sense than a burglary-gone-wrong where the perpetrator just happened to have a convenient accelerant on hand to burn the evidence.

If the guy murdered her after the car crash, I would see how the guy would want to torch the car. Or it's just possible like you said that the guy was just some sicko who wanted to torch the car. Ethel Kidd's body was found in such a horrible way too.

Literally just read this entire thread. After news of Pat Conway's relatively recent death was posted in another thread this past Sunday, I got to thinking about this case again. Unfortunately, Mr. Conway's obituary held more information about the case than I think any of us have probably come across in years.

Since Lawton is home to Ft Sill, MissFit and I wondered several pages ago if maybe Pat was a retired military officer. Apparently, he was not. He owned a flooring business and was still working up until last year.

More significantly, Pat's obituary reveals the Conways were Catholic--in fact, Pat's sister is a Benedictine nun. This certainly explains the substantial size of their family, but more importantly, it indicates to me that that church bulletin almost certainly DID come right out of Aileen's vehicle.

Relative to the rest of the country, there are very few Catholics in the southern United States. Being both a born-and-raised Southerner and a Catholic convert, I can personally attest to this--my home diocese in Tennessee is actually the smallest in the entire nation. Given the immense number of Protestant churches relative to Catholic ones in any given state in the south alone (with the unique exception of Louisiana), I feel that bulletin was definitely Aileen's. Add to this Pat's testimony that it came from their specific Catholic church, and I am pretty well sold that is exactly how that bulletin got there. So, provided the report that Aileen always drove with her windows rolled up is factual, it would seem to me someone indeed had to step out of her stopped vehicle--for whatever reason.

One theory has it that someone stepped out and doused the interior of the vehicle with an accelerant. What I wonder is this: how then did that individual flee the scene? On foot? Did another individual follow behind Aileen's car in another vehicle to the bridge?

Speaking of the bridge, it piques my interest that out of all the places a vehicle could possibly become involved in an accident on a lonely country road (as RS put it), Aileen's car slammed into a guardrail on a bridge. I think this supports the idea that someone may have tried to run this vehicle through the guardrail, right off the bridge, and into the water below. (This presupposes Aileen was likely dead before the car ever caught fire, but given the reported condition of her remains, it would seem we will probably never know the answer to that particular question.) When whomever may have aimed to run the vehicle into the water was unsuccessful in doing so, he or she may have felt the need to resort to burning the car.

Based on justin's post from years ago that he read valuables had in fact been taken from the Conway home (I have no reason to doubt him) and the interrupted character of the interior of the house, I think this was probably a burglary-turned-murder. Aileen may have even recognized the intruders, as there were no reported signs of struggle in the home.

It just seems like waaaay too much planning in trying to destroy the car, IMO, for this to be a botched robbery. Why not just run out of the house? Why abduct her, kill her, crash the car in an attempt to make it look like an accident? Why not just drop her off alive on the country road and drive away and abandon the car later? Why even kill Aileen at all? Makes no sense to me.

Why even kill Aileen at all? Makes no sense to me.

It does seem hard to come up with a decent motive in this case.

In recent years, it seems there's been an increase in criminals killing the witnesses for no reason. Not even to just keep a witness from testifying against them. It's like they're escalating a comparatively minor crime into murder with no real motive to do so. Of course, those are just my observations and I haven't looked up any data to back that up.

So in Aylene's case, what could have been the motive, if there even was one? Were her daughters old enough to date and was there a guy the Conways didn't approve of as a boyfriend? Someone like that would know her schedule and when she'd be home alone.

...We actually had a similar situation, which made me think of this possibility. Hubby and I finally put our foot down about an unsuitable guy who'd been dating our teenage daughter, treating her badly, and even stealing from us (my jewelry and $1700 in cash). We kicked him to the curb on her behalf, and ended up having to run the guy out of our house at the end of a gun, as he was reaching for a wrench to attack hubby with. He later came back when our house was empty and vandalized it...

Similarly, there's Richard Church, who murdered Colleen Ritters parents, and tried to kill the whole family, just because she broke up with him.

Or was it a case like Robert Dirschel, where the killer was a neighbor committing a robbery, panicked, and killed Mr. Dirschel? If Aylene knew the intruder (family friend, family enemy, neighbor) they could have panicked and killed her without a real motive.

It seems like young, inexperienced offenders or people on drugs seem to be the one's who do this, which is another reason I wondering if it could have been a rebuffed young man with revenge as a motive.

I'm reading back through the thread.

This subject was touched on very early, and I don't have my CDs handy to bring up this segment for reference.

The house was not in such disarray as to suspect a violent struggle took place.

How tall was Mrs. Conway and how much did she weigh?

Was her bathtub filled in such a way for her to take a bath, or did an assailant fill the tub in order to drown her? That definitely wouldn't be the only murder to take place in such a manner.

Was there an autopsy done that was thorough enough to detect if she had water in the lungs or smoke from the car fire? Not able to conclude due to condition of the body?

Do her children or relatives maintain a facebook page or any website devoted to solving her case?

How tall was Mrs. Conway and how much did she weigh?

Not sure of the exact measurements and I don't think the segment ever even mentioned this.

Was her bathtub filled in such a way for her to take a bath, or did an assailant fill the tub in order to drown her? That definitely wouldn't be the only murder to take place in such a manner.

The theory was she was in the process of getting ready to take a bath when she was either abducted or was interrupted by someone.

Was there an autopsy done that was thorough enough to detect if she had water in the lungs or smoke from the car fire? Not able to conclude due to condition of the body?

They weren't able to determine much due to the condition of her body, IIRC.

Do her children or relatives maintain a facebook page or any website devoted to solving her case?

I've looked. No such luck thuough.

Speaking of the bridge, it piques my interest that out of all the places a vehicle could possibly become involved in an accident on a lonely country road (as RS put it), Aileen's car slammed into a guardrail on a bridge. I think this supports the idea that someone may have tried to run this vehicle through the guardrail, right off the bridge, and into the water below. (This presupposes Aileen was likely dead before the car ever caught fire, but given the reported condition of her remains, it would seem we will probably never know the answer to that particular question.) When whomever may have aimed to run the vehicle into the water was unsuccessful in doing so, he or she may have felt the need to resort to burning the car.

This scenario does make sense, but the big unanswered question is the accelerant they used on the vehicle. If the perpetrator's initial intention was to drive the car off the bridge, did they just conveniently have an extra can of gasoline on hand to burn the car? Now that I think of it, I wonder if there were any cans of gasoline in the Conway garage which happened to go missing?

I always compare this segment to the Kathy Bonderson case, but the key difference is that her accident was staged in the middle of the night while Aileen's death took place in broad daylight. Aileen's flaming vehicle was discovered at 10:40 AM, which I'm assuming is only about 2-3 hours after her family left her alone at home. If this was a burglary gone wrong and they initially didn't have any intentions of committing murder, that's a small amount of time to dream up and stage a very elaborate accident scene. I don't know, if there was foul play involved, I'd lean more towards it being a premeditated murder from someone who knew Aileen would be alone that day and planned to kill her.

This scenario does make sense, but the big unanswered question is the accelerant they used on the vehicle. If the perpetrator's initial intention was to drive the car off the bridge, did they just conveniently have an extra can of gasoline on hand to burn the car? Now that I think of it, I wonder if there were any cans of gasoline in the Conway garage which happened to go missing?

I just finished reading through the whole thread. The investigators never concluded that there was an accelerant used on the car. They just thought that was a possibility because of the intensity of the fire.

Also, after reading through the whole thread, I found out that there was never an autopsy done on Mrs. Conway's body. There's no way to answer my question about if she had smoke in her air way or was drowned in her bathtub.

Why didn't they do an autopsy? I've read of a few cases where people's bodies were burned so badly almost nothing was left, but they were still able to do some tests, such as checking lungs and doing toxicology tests.

At this point, I'm assuming they either decided it was an accident right away and didn't to an autopsy or her body was almost completely incinerated, leaving nearly no remains to perform testing on.

Since I read through everything, I thought I'd recap all the different motives the posters have come up with over the years:

*Suicide

*Interrupted robbery (there were several burglaries in the area, but I don't know how close to the Conway home, if in the same neighborhood or not, but they were in the weeks and months prior to her death, according to UM)

*Sexual assault escalated to murder

*Traffic accident - destination unknown

*Ayleen substituted a victim in the burned out car and left on her own

*Medical condition: stroke, diabetic shock, medicine reaction, medical emergency that caused her become disoriented or confused, caused her to drive fast toward help instead of calling for an ambulance (due to some kind of impairment causing her to be unable to call/speak), mental break down, low blood sugar incident

*Affair - explains why she was on a road her husband thought she seldom took

*Quick errand that ended up in a deadly accident

*Husband killed her

*Road rage incident got out of control, hit and run car accident

*Assailant rigged the car to crash and catch on fire, escaped with accomplice in second car

*Ayleen chased burglars out of her house, pursued them in her car, and crashed accidentally

*Victim of a "swoop and squat" "box in" car insurance scam

*Revenge murder for something her husband did such as get someone fired from their job, or rebuffed suitor (either pursuing Ayleen or a daughter)

*Pranksters/criminals called Ayleen, lied about one of her loved ones being held for ransom, or having an emergency, causing her leave in such a hurry

*A contract hit on the wrong victim

This scenario does make sense, but the big unanswered question is the accelerant they used on the vehicle. If the perpetrator's initial intention was to drive the car off the bridge, did they just conveniently have an extra can of gasoline on hand to burn the car? Now that I think of it, I wonder if there were any cans of gasoline in the Conway garage which happened to go missing?

That someone doused the interior with accelerant was a theory purported by the arson investigator interviewed on the segment, but given the major discoveries made in just the past thirty years about fire investigation and with the advantage of being able to kick back in hindsight here in 2014, it's possible that he may have been using antiquated investigation techniques (I brought this up sometime last year in this thread, I think). However, his claim about the missing gas cap is definitely relevant, and it does seem to point to someone attempting to burn the car. What I don't understand is how the car burned as badly as it did.

I always compare this segment to the Kathy Bonderson case, but the key difference is that her accident was staged in the middle of the night while Aileen's death took place in broad daylight. Aileen's flaming vehicle was discovered at 10:40 AM, which I'm assuming is only about 2-3 hours after her family left her alone at home. If this was a burglary gone wrong and they initially didn't have any intentions of committing murder, that's a small amount of time to dream up and stage a very elaborate accident scene. I don't know, if there was foul play involved, I'd lean more towards it being a premeditated murder from someone who knew Aileen would be alone that day and planned to kill her.

The more I think about it, the more it would seem any intruders may have been someone Aileen was comfortable with. The house looked, by all accounts, perfectly normal minus the lone fact that Aileen was missing from it.