Does anyone remember the case of Lynn Amos that aired on UM?. She was the financial analyst who was murdered in December 1995 in mysterious circumstances. They think that the assailant may have forced her to consume levels of alcohol and subsequently set her on fire. She lived for 10 days before dying
http://dim.com/~jbettin/uwp-d80/amos_unsolved.htm
I saw this case on UM last year on the Crime Investigation Channel on Cable here in Australia. It was one of those cases that profoundly moved and saddened me -such a beautiful and talented young woman murdered and the assailant managed to get away with it

I am presuming that there are no updates on this one. Sadly, this seems like one that will be very hard to solve but I hope against hope that it will be and whoever did this will be held to account for his or her actions

I saw this case on UM last year on the Crime Investigation Channel on Cable here in Australia.

This was on Ci just the other weekend ago. It's nearly the same as the case of Meagan Curl. Like as I was watching it I thought it was the Curl case. Same as Marvin Gabrian and Joe Sheperd cases start off the same, I didn't know what was going on.

Yes I remember that one well. Very disturbing reenactment. It has some elements that are similar to the Lee Young case that UM also profiled. He was a bank fraud investigator who mysteriously disappeared and they speculated it could have to do with his job. I believe his briefcase was missing and I can't remember if his car was set on fire or not.

[QUOTE=crystaldawn]Yes I remember that one well. Very disturbing reenactment.QUOTE]

Very disturbing case.
Have there been any developments?

Very sad. She seemed like a nice lady.
I agree about the reenactment being disturbing.... forcing her to drink all that alcohol. I only hope because she was so intoxicated that she didn't suffer much.:(

This is a weird, devastating case for sure. Am I the only one who has a hard time imagining a professional hit man forcing his target to chug alcohol before killing her? There are easier ways to render someone incapacitated that take much less time (sedative, chemical soaked rag, etc). I know the entire episode centered around the theory that her work (Mexican loans) has something to do with her murder, but I'm not so sure.

To me, this has all the signs of a romantic encounter that went horribly wrong, or a romantic encounter with a sadistic killer:

1) There was no sign of forced entry at all.
2) The alcohol might indicate that she and her date had been drinking.
3) She called in to work and said she was going to be late (not arriving until noon). Sounds like she may have known she would be up late and drinking.

Until I looked at the dates and realized it was impossible, I thought that Gregory Barker (the monster profiled on UM from the DC area who murdered Hilda Roche after meeting her at a bar and returning her wallet to her house) may have been involved in this. After all, police say they suspect he murdered at least 16 women. But it appears this happened after Barker was arrested.

Anyone else kind of surprised that the work angle was discussed so much and not the possibility of a intimate encounter or sexual predator?

Anyone else kind of surprised that the work angle was discussed so much and not the possibility of a intimate encounter or sexual predator?

No. I think that what you have postulated is possible, but I'm more inclined to believe the pro hit theory. While alcohol seems an odd choice to incapacitate someone, the killer apparently tried to make this death look like an accident. I believe that alcohol was used as the other methods mentioned would have left a definite non-natural trace upon autopsy. Alcohol would be more likely to look accidental.

The house showed no signs of forced entry; however, a skilled professional would probably know how to effectively pick a lock fairly quickly.

As for her late arrival at work, a romantic encounter keeping her up late is only one of several possible conclusions to this. Perhaps she wasn't feeling well, or had a repairman coming to the house, or had an appointment of some sort. They never mentioned that her calling to go to work late as strange in the segment, which leads me to the idea that either someone knew why or they were able to figure out why she was going to be late and it was non-sinister in nature. In a mysterious case like this, I can't imagine them leaving out a detail like that if her call to arrive late was unexplained.

Very puzzling case. I, too, hope it gets solved someday.

No. I think that what you have postulated is possible, but I'm more inclined to believe the pro hit theory. While alcohol seems an odd choice to incapacitate someone, the killer apparently tried to make this death look like an accident. I believe that alcohol was used as the other methods mentioned would have left a definite non-natural trace upon autopsy. Alcohol would be more likely to look accidental.

The house showed no signs of forced entry; however, a skilled professional would probably know how to effectively pick a lock fairly quickly.

As for her late arrival at work, a romantic encounter keeping her up late is only one of several possible conclusions to this. Perhaps she wasn't feeling well, or had a repairman coming to the house, or had an appointment of some sort. They never mentioned that her calling to go to work late as strange in the segment, which leads me to the idea that either someone knew why or they were able to figure out why she was going to be late and it was non-sinister in nature. In a mysterious case like this, I can't imagine them leaving out a detail like that if her call to arrive late was unexplained.

Very puzzling case. I, too, hope it gets solved someday.

I agree with you that a professional hit is def. a possibility here. For me, the weird part about the staged accident theory is why did the professional hit man douse the bed with kerosene and gasoline? One would think that, if he went to all the trouble to force her to ingest so much alcohol, he would not then pour such identifiable accelerants all over the crime scene. Perhaps he didn't feel that the investigation would uncover the liquids?

You're also right that the call saying she would be late for work might have meant nothing; it's a bit strange though that she called in late for work on the very night that she was found murdered. I can't help but think it's relevant somehow.

There were a few threads on this case so wasn't sure where to post, chose this one as it had most replies so far.

Was watching this case again and a couple of things struck me about it.

1. Did Lynn actually spend any time in Mexico when investigating the credit dealings she was looking into? From what I could see, UM did not focus much on this.

2. UM didn't mention that Lynn discussed her work with a lot of people. It referred twice that when discussing with "friends" (or were they actually acquaintances?) she thought she had uncovered something and the second time that it could be "dangerous". This leads me to wonder about #3 below.

3. It has been mentioned a few times it was likely a hit. Could it be possible that this was an inside job - setup by someone at her place of work?

UM stated they contacted her workplace but they declined to be interviewed. They wrote in a letter "We have the same questions as investigators and we hope that forensic science can provide some answers".

Call me suspicious, but the last few words didn't quite sit right with me - even though I have seen this numerous times am only thinking about it now.

Is it possible that they hope "forensic science" will have some answers so that if it was the job of a hitman, that this would deflect attention away from the aspect of her associations/friends/acquaintances/relationships - since some one of those may actually know more than they are telling about this case?

There were a few threads on this case so wasn't sure where to post, chose this one as it had most replies so far.

Was watching this case again and a couple of things struck me about it.

1. Did Lynn actually spend any time in Mexico when investigating the credit dealings she was looking into? From what I could see, UM did not focus much on this.

2. UM didn't mention that Lynn discussed her work with a lot of people. It referred twice that when discussing with "friends" (or were they actually acquaintances?) she thought she had uncovered something and the second time that it could be "dangerous". This leads me to wonder about #3 below.

3. It has been mentioned a few times it was likely a hit. Could it be possible that this was an inside job - setup by someone at her place of work?

UM stated they contacted her workplace but they declined to be interviewed. They wrote in a letter "We have the same questions as investigators and we hope that forensic science can provide some answers".

Call me suspicious, but the last few words didn't quite sit right with me - even though I have seen this numerous times am only thinking about it now.

Is it possible that they hope "forensic science" will have some answers so that if it was the job of a hitman, that this would deflect attention away from the aspect of her associations/friends/acquaintances/relationships - since some one of those may actually know more than they are telling about this case?

I always thought that the most likely explanation here was the one presented most strongly by UM -- that Lynn Amos became privy to some organized criminal activity and was going to be a whistle blower, and that the masterminds of it just weren't going to have that if they could help it. However, one thing you mentioned that never occurred to me before that I think you could be onto something with is the possibility of it being an inside job. It's entirely possible that someone she worked with might have been involved in the illegal activity taking place, and this might explain why there was no sign of a break in at her place. Robert Stack had mentioned in the segment that investigators considered the possibility of the intruder having a key. How exactly he might have obtained that key I'm not sure, but if this was someone who had some inside information on Lynn Amos that the average stranger shouldn't be privy to, it would certainly be easier for this person to cover their tracks that it would be for just anybody.

It's entirely possible that someone she worked with might have been involved in the illegal activity taking place, and this might explain why there was no sign of a break in at her place.

UM mentioned, "in the weeks before she died, Lynn abruptly stopped talking to her friends about her job".

I wonder why? Was it that she learned there was someone who was not so supportive, was a backstabber, or was dangerous in her own workplace and for her own safety she should keep her mouth shut about what she was doing?



Robert Stack had mentioned in the segment that investigators considered the possibility of the intruder having a key. How exactly he might have obtained that key I'm not sure

Yes this is odd - how did UM come to the conclusion the intruder had a key and yet not go any further down that line of thinking?


There is something rather suspicious with that - there are a few possibilities about the key if UM had that correct though:


(i) Lynn had given a spare key to a friend for some unknown reason, the friend let themselves in

(ii) Lynn was expecting someone (a friend or colleague) along that night so had left the door unlocked while waiting for them

(iii) Lynn left her door unlocked normally out of habit and a friend (who she was or was not expecting) could have turned up

(iv) Lynn had given a key to a 'friend' for some reason, but was taken by surprise when it was someone other than the friend who turned up

(v) Lynn had a spare key 'under the mat' (or another safeplace) that was found by an intruder, and was taken by complete surprise



While alcohol seems an odd choice to incapacitate someone, the killer apparently tried to make this death look like an accident.

Which leads me to when they were in the house - the alcohol...

The manner that UM explained the alcohol was strange.

UM mentioned (in their calculations) it would take a number of entire glasses every 4-5 mins for Lynn to become that intoxicated. She could have been forced to drink that, as UM said - but that is a significant period of time for an intruder to be hanging around and risking getting caught.


If it was someone she knew (and trusted) on the other hand, it could have been that they were having a casual evening celebrating that Lynn was coming to the end of her "big report".

Lynn called her work after 10pm to say she'd be late the next day.

Could it be that she and the friend were drinking late into the night and so she knew she would need a little more time the next morning to sober up?


"Lynn was rushed to Washington Hospital Center with 3rd degree burns over 80% of her body. Reportedly one of the nurses who saw Lynn when she was brought in to the hospital, asked her if she knew what had happened to her, and Lynn shook her head, 'No' ".

If she had been drinking, with a friend - and possibly drank too much - well, that could be considered reasonably normal - and in a normal passive conversation it may not come to mind immediately.

On the other hand though, if an intruder broke in, threatened you to be quiet and forced you to drink alcohol - would you not think that somewhere during that time, that shock of the situation may set in? That is something you are much more likely to remember, since you have undergone a trauma.

UM mentioned, "in the weeks before she died, Lynn abruptly stopped talking to her friends about her job".

I wonder why? Was it that she learned there was someone who was not so supportive, was a backstabber, or was dangerous in her own workplace and for her own safety she should keep her mouth shut about what she was doing?





Yes this is odd - how did UM come to the conclusion the intruder had a key and yet not go any further down that line of thinking?


There is something rather suspicious with that - there are a few possibilities about the key if UM had that correct though:


(i) Lynn had given a spare key to a friend for some unknown reason, the friend let themselves in

(ii) Lynn was expecting someone (a friend or colleague) along that night so had left the door unlocked while waiting for them

(iii) Lynn left her door unlocked normally out of habit and a friend (who she was or was not expecting) could have turned up

(iv) Lynn had given a key to a 'friend' for some reason, but was taken by surprise when it was someone other than the friend who turned up

(v) Lynn had a spare key 'under the mat' (or another safeplace) that was found by an intruder, and was taken by complete surprise





Which leads me to when they were in the house - the alcohol...

The manner that UM explained the alcohol was strange.

UM mentioned (in their calculations) it would take a number of entire glasses every 4-5 mins for Lynn to become that intoxicated. She could have been forced to drink that, as UM said - but that is a significant period of time for an intruder to be hanging around and risking getting caught.


If it was someone she knew (and trusted) on the other hand, it could have been that they were having a casual evening celebrating that Lynn was coming to the end of her "big report".

Lynn called her work after 10pm to say she'd be late the next day.

Could it be that she and the friend were drinking late into the night and so she knew she would need a little more time the next morning to sober up?


"Lynn was rushed to Washington Hospital Center with 3rd degree burns over 80% of her body. Reportedly one of the nurses who saw Lynn when she was brought in to the hospital, asked her if she knew what had happened to her, and Lynn shook her head, 'No' ".

If she had been drinking, with a friend - and possibly drank too much - well, that could be considered reasonably normal - and in a normal passive conversation it may not come to mind immediately.

On the other hand though, if an intruder broke in, threatened you to be quiet and forced you to drink alcohol - would you not think that somewhere during that time, that shock of the situation may set in? That is something you are much more likely to remember, since you have undergone a trauma.

I forgot about the part about her not talking to her friends about her job, but that would certainly make sense if she thought that she had reason not to trust one or more of them, and certainly makes stronger the possibility of the whole thing being an inside job.

Though it's not a theory that I strongly support, I suppose that it could have been something totally random that had nothing at all to do with her job, but if it was supposed to be an 'intimate' night with a so-called 'friend,' I wonder why this person would go to such horrible extremes just because the night might not have played out the way he wanted it to.

Hi guys
this case really was interesting and in the same time so sad for such good lady like her . but can anyone explain me the fire

“The insurance investigators' report showed that there was a combination of kerosene, gasoline, and turpentine. And the doctor told me that her burns were consistent with those from a fire that was accelerated. He told me at the hospital. He couldn't believe that only she and the bed had burned. He said she looked like the result of a house having been burned around her.”

how only her body and her bed only which get on fire with such this powerful materials to turn on fire

What if those materials (Kerosene . Gasoline . turpentine ) were already planted in her bed lets imagine it like a timing bomb . is it possible ?

Very strange case and after hearing all these different points of view, some of which had never crossed my mind I still struggle to come to my own conclusion.

I love the idea of the killer finding a key under the mat as so many of us do but it's more probable that the door was left unlocked.
The fact that she was drinking that much alcohol is very strange factor. I could not possibly drink a glass ever 4-5 minutes, could she? Was she a big / fast drinker?
I do like the idea of a hit man & more so to it being an inside job! The fact that she stopped talking about her work tells us that she was afraid someone had used what she told against her.
But the fact that the killer forced her to drink till she passed out to set the bed on fire? I find that strange, as mention why would the killer hang around and risk being caught. Also a killer carrying jelly cans of accelerant and enough alcohol to knock a lady out would stand out walking the streets?
Maybe the pressure of work had drove her to drink and she was so intoxicated that she passed out! The killer had arrive at the house planning to burn the whole house down by pouring the accelerant through the letter box, found the door unlocked and went into find her comatose by the amount of booze she had take and choose to take up on this opportunity and burn her on the bed.

It would be interesting to know if she had purchased the alcohol her self. Had any receipts been found or credit card statement? Any witnesses who sold her booze?

So horrible....it always stuck in my head that she called in to say she would be late. Was the intruder there? Forcing her to call? Really would love to see this solved. To be burned alive and die 10 days later...such a scary moment.

Today marks 20 years since Lynn Amos was found burned alive in her bed. I can't believe her murder is still unsolved. Someone needs to reopen this case and go after the person or persons who did this.

I favour a sex attacker got in & staged it so she would like like a drunk who dropped a cigarette after he had assaulted/raped her. Seriously, if the Mexican Cartel wanted her gone they would have whacked her down there, or got somebody north of the border to put a bullet in her head or make her vanish. Why would they bother trying to make it look like an accident when they knew the accelerant would be found? It reeks of an amateur criminal.

I favour a sex attacker got in & staged it so she would like like a drunk who dropped a cigarette after he had assaulted/raped her. Seriously, if the Mexican Cartel wanted her gone they would have whacked her down there, or got somebody north of the border to put a bullet in her head or make her vanish. Why would they bother trying to make it look like an accident when they knew the accelerant would be found? It reeks of an amateur criminal.

Agreed. The accelerant and the alcohol points stick out like sore thumbs here. To me though, I'd tend to go with an inside job. Cartels wouldn't be this sloppy and for a random rapist/attacker/whatever, dousing her with an accelerant -AND- filling her up with that much alcohol is overkill IMO - just too improbable.

On the other hand, it's quite probable that the masterminds of whatever organized criminal activity Lynn was going to expose (or at least, seriously tarnish), could've either done this themselves (you wouldn't expect white collar characters to be as clean/smart about it as cartel sicarios) or hired someone to do it (that someone being a complete amateur)

This LA case is especially tragic & also baffling. Who went into/broke into her house & burned her up with the fire isolated to just herself & her bed?!

Since there were no signs of forced entry, was the person known to her?! Was it a guy she was romantically involved in/casually dating who killed her for some reason?

Or, was the death connected to something she uncovered on her job - as was strongly implied by the UM segment?

Very strange.

So what do you think happened to Lynn Amos? She just seemed like a woman trying to do her job who wound up uncovering some nasty things with Mexican banking. I know she had mentioned at least a couple of times that what she found was not good and even dangerous.

There are already a few threads on this case, with this one being the most posted on: https://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=194294&highlight=lynn+amos

This is one of those cases where friends and family claim the victim was murdered they knew "too much" but are not able to reveal what this knowledge was or provide any kind if evidence they ever said this. If she was murdered I believe it must've been more personal. Definitely not a hitman.

But I wonder if this easn't an accident after all I remember reading about a few cases where investigators initially believed an accelerant was used, but further investigation found no evidence of an accelerant. Maybe it's possible that the alcohol she had consumed fueled the fire?

She had a .25 BAC and was a smaller woman. That's extremely high for someone her size. At some point, if someone were forcing her to drink, and she was not used to drinking that amount, she would either pass out or throw up. At that point, I don't see how it would be possible for someone to force someone to down something if they were passed out. I found a Washington Post article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1996/02/10/family-fears-it-never-will-have-answers-to-dc-arson-homicide/3d4658f9-b4bd-4cb7-853b-850ed0aa1ca8/) which says that "small to moderate concentrations of flammable substances" were found on the floor of the bedroom, on the mattress, and on one pillow.

She called her office at 10:00 p.m. on the night of her death and told them she was going to be late the next day. There were no signs of forced entry. I don't want to disparage the poor woman, but the family and friends were quick to point out that she wasn't a smoker, but they never say anything about her being a non-drinker. I know the segment implies she found some hidden information and was killed because of it, but how did her killer gain entry into the home and force her to drink that much alcohol? And then the method they used to kill her was extremely lucky, because Lynn was rescued by the firefighters and survived for ten days. What if she had survived and made a full recovery? To me, the most baffling cases (such as this one) often have the simplest explanations. She was drinking that night, and called her work to let them know she would be late. Maybe it was an accident, maybe it was a suicide, but the amount of alcohol in her system suggests to me someone working up "liquid courage" to do something drastic. Was turpentine, paint thinner and gasoline found anywhere in her house? If so, I think this could have been an elaborate suicide.

But I wouldn't rule out homicide either. And if it was, it was someone she let in because there was no forced entry. A professional hitman wouldn't have risked being in her home long enough to force her to drink to get her BAC up to .25.

My main issue with this case is the inconsistent info we get on the evidence. Accelerants were used they said, but the theory is...she accidently caused the fire with a cigarette? Kind of contradictory to say the least, so I don't know what to believe. So we're just left with the cause of the fire being undermined.

In which case I'd say the most likely scenario here is she drank too much because of the pressures she was under, leading to a terrible tragic accident.

.25 is extremely high but I don't buy that it's not possible. It's easy to pull up a BAC chart online, you can see that being smaller means you would reach a higher BAC twice as quickly as a larger person. Also there are other causes of fires besides cigarettes (candles, weed, etc.)

I can't go along with the Mexican Drug Cartel theory...if we assumed that was the cause, why do it in Washington, D.C. if she was travelling to Mexico frequently? Seems so much easier to commit a murder there, rather than traveling to a U.S. Federal district of all places, 1,800 miles from the border. Not impossible I guess but significantly less likely.