"now, nine years later, he says he is innocent"

Does this phrase narrated by Karl Malden imply that Consagra's claim of innocence is only a recent claim? Or, are we to believe that Glenn has been fighting for freedom since his conviction?

Am I reading into the phrasing too much?

Well they did say prior to the UM segment airing that Glenn had made a number of appeals and lost them all correct?

So he had to be at this for quite awhile before UM came along.

I watched this again last night and they say your first instinct is your best and I just can't see Glenn Consagra as a criminal mastermind, one who would invite his two friends to an isolated location on the pretext of a party only to have them set up to be murdered either by himself or by an accomplice.

Along those lines, I wonder how UM found out about Consagra's case.

I've raised the issue before, and as much as I love the old specials and UM in general, I have to say that the "quality" of some of the early cases isn't up to par with later stories that UM did. It seems, at least to me, that the producers became a lot more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast.

Some examples of "poor" (IE. unsolvable and/or probably solved already "officially") type stories - Don Kemp, Frances Mealbach, Kyra Cook, Aileen Conway, Grand Canyon disappearances, Kurt McFall, Beale's Lost Treasure, and dare I say....Glenn Consagra. Contrast Consagra's final appeal to others like Patricia Stallings, Johnny Lee Wilson, John Purvis. It's hardly a slam dunk, and seems a lot like a "filler" story to me.

Here is a guy who says he's innocent despite a guilty plea and "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence and he gets a chance to appear on a then ad hoc "mystery" special to proclaim his innocense. Why not give him the airtime?

Yeah, I realize how highly subjective this all is. But someone has to play devil's advocate.

I dunno Justin, I'll agree with you for the most part on some of the cases you mentioned with the obvious exception of Aileen Conway. I admit it might be one of the tougher cases to solve but if in fact she was the victim of a robbery (and it was noted there had been several in the area at the time of her death) - its possible that someone could've come forward and identified who these people were.

As for Glenn Consagra and Kyra Cook, you have to remember that these were the first cases that profiled an appelant and an amnesia victim respectively. It was UM dipping a cautious toe in those waters to see if those cases would generate an audience and in the case of the "Final Appeals" segments, I dare say it became one of the most popular segments of the entire series.

I also question UM's becoming "more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast" especially as the series wore on. In my experience one thing that hurts the show in a lot of people's mind is "The Unexplained" segments. While these might have been interesting to watch at the time (and some are quite entertaining or baffling) I cannot tell you the many times when I've brought the show up in conversation and the other party has said something like "Oh thats the show that was always talking about aliens" and this is usually not said in a complimentary tone.

I dunno Justin, I'll agree with you for the most part on some of the cases you mentioned with the obvious exception of Aileen Conway. I admit it might be one of the tougher cases to solve but if in fact she was the victim of a robbery (and it was noted there had been several in the area at the time of her death) - its possible that someone could've come forward and identified who these people were.

While I agree that there probably was something more sinister afoot in the Aileen Conway case, I suppose I lumped it in there because, if we follow the official version, it was a traffic accident, pure and simple. I suppose it is worth mentioning that the cause of Aileen's death was eventually changed to "unexplained", but were/are leads being pursued, or was it a cold case, even back then?


As for Glenn Consagra and Kyra Cook, you have to remember that these were the first cases that profiled an appelant and an amnesia victim respectively. It was UM dipping a cautious toe in those waters to see if those cases would generate an audience and in the case of the "Final Appeals" segments, I dare say it became one of the most popular segments of the entire series.

I won't argue with you about the interest in "Final Appeal". I mean, it spawned it's own show for awhile. I understand what you're saying, but the Kyra Cook case still seemed a little unnecessary to me. Had it aired **before** we knew her identity, it would have been very much inline with "Tyler", "Pierre", etc. However, we knew who she was. How she lost her memory was a mystery, but one that I can't see being solved any time soon. This is especially true if she had been hit by a motor vehicle or bashed over the head by a mugger and there were no other witnesses. It just seemed like a filler segment with little hope of a resolution.


I also question UM's becoming "more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast" especially as the series wore on. In my experience one thing that hurts the show in a lot of people's mind is "The Unexplained" segments. While these might have been interesting to watch at the time (and some are quite entertaining or baffling) I cannot tell you the many times when I've brought the show up in conversation and the other party has said something like "Oh thats the show that was always talking about aliens" and this is usually not said in a complimentary tone.

True, but I wonder if they wanted to go the paranormal route originally. Notice how there were no "paranormal" reports during the specials. I often wonder if they needed the paranormal angle to differentiate themselves from America's Most Wanted. I am also reminded of the Jacob Wetterling abduction which UM's producer's allegedly turned down because they felt there was no chance of solving it - an accurate example of the type of "conservatism" and bias towards stories that I was referring to.

I think it's a crying shame that the paranormal aspects of the show seemed to overshadow the rest of the segments and almost tarnish the show's reputation in the public eye. Your story reminded me of a discussion I had with a representative from Court TV a few years back. I used to work for a criminal defense attorney who was handling a somewhat high profile murder case here in Palm Beach County. (You want to discuss cases that should be on TV if UM was resurrected - this case would have been perfect for it. We had two guys who were facing triple murder charges involving an armed robbery at a restaurant and each defendant accused the other of being the trigger man. My boss said his client was the innocent party, but I don't know). Anyhow, Court TV was interested in covering the case, and had some talk about it with our office. On one occasion, I asked the the Court TV rep if the network would ever consider purchasing the rights to UM (a lame question, but what the Hell?). His response was "isn't that the show about aliens?" Truly sad.

As to the original topic of Consagra - I was convinced the first time I saw this segment that he was innocent. But, the more that I think about, and the more times I watch it, the more doubts creep in.

If I may ask you a personal question, DD, what do you think makes Consagra's case so compelling? I'm assuming you too are haunted by this case just as I am, as you have posted your comments and opinions about it on numerous occasions. Why is this one just so hard to forget? I'll post my opinion on that later, as I feel I have typed enough for one evening. :)

"now, nine years later, he says he is innocent"

Does this phrase narrated by Karl Malden imply that Consagra's claim of innocence is only a recent claim? Or, are we to believe that Glenn has been fighting for freedom since his conviction?

Am I reading into the phrasing too much?

You are probably reading into it a bit but it's sure worth noting. He did plead guilty so maybe that's why it's phrased how it is?


I just can't see Glenn Consagra as a criminal mastermind, one who would invite his two friends to an isolated location on the pretext of a party only to have them set up to be murdered either by himself or by an accomplice.

Why do you think that? I don't see how or why one or more unknown persons would stumble upon a random spoilbank in the middle of the night, bring guns with them and kill two people just for the heck of it.

Along those lines, I wonder how UM found out about Consagra's case.

I've raised the issue before, and as much as I love the old specials and UM in general, I have to say that the "quality" of some of the early cases isn't up to par with later stories that UM did. It seems, at least to me, that the producers became a lot more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast.

Some examples of "poor" (IE. unsolvable and/or probably solved already "officially") type stories - Don Kemp, Frances Mealbach, Kyra Cook, Aileen Conway, Grand Canyon disappearances, Kurt McFall, Beale's Lost Treasure, and dare I say....Glenn Consagra. Contrast Consagra's final appeal to others like Patricia Stallings, Johnny Lee Wilson, John Purvis. It's hardly a slam dunk, and seems a lot like a "filler" story to me.

Here is a guy who says he's innocent despite a guilty plea and "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence and he gets a chance to appear on a then ad hoc "mystery" special to proclaim his innocense. Why not give him the airtime?

Yeah, I realize how highly subjective this all is. But someone has to play devil's advocate.

sorry, but I disagree. While I certainly enjoy some cases more than others, I think all of them are intriguing to a certain extent. Cases like Kyra Cook and others contribute to the shows variety. By having a wide array of topics, it just goes to show how much of the world is unexplained.

For me, Kurt McFall ranks among my favorite segments. It was classic Unsolved, because there was numerous things that supported each side (suicide and murder). That's what I really love about UM, it was a thinking show. Kind of like Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents. You couldn't just watch Unsolved Mysteries, you had to watch it and then think about it. Perhaps that's why Unsolved didn't get as much due as it should have. A lot of people just like to be entertained when they watch television, but with Unsolved, you had to watch and think.

Why do you think that? I don't see how or why one or more unknown persons would stumble upon a random spoilbank in the middle of the night, bring guns with them and kill two people just for the heck of it.

I can't speak for Dante, but I think the popular theory that some of us believe is that Consagra and his drug dealing friend "Ted" conspired to kill Freddie because Freddie was a police informant. Consagra lured Freddie and Mary Lou to the secluded spoilbank knowing that Ted and company would show up later.

I don't know where this spoilbank is, but I wonder what the chances were of Ted and company finding it that night if they didn't have some idea ahead of time that this particular spoilbank was the specific location where Consagra and his friends would be. You also have to keep in mind that the trio's original destination that night was Honeymoon Island. They ended up on the spoilbank because of mechanical trouble.

sorry, but I disagree. While I certainly enjoy some cases more than others, I think all of them are intriguing to a certain extent. Cases like Kyra Cook and others contribute to the shows variety. By having a wide array of topics, it just goes to show how much of the world is unexplained.

For me, Kurt McFall ranks among my favorite segments. It was classic Unsolved, because there was numerous things that supported each side (suicide and murder). That's what I really love about UM, it was a thinking show. Kind of like Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents. You couldn't just watch Unsolved Mysteries, you had to watch it and then think about it. Perhaps that's why Unsolved didn't get as much due as it should have. A lot of people just like to be entertained when they watch television, but with Unsolved, you had to watch and think.

No offense taken. As I said, it's subjective. But yes, the show does make you think, and I believe that is why most of us are here and still remember and have an interest in the cases.

I can't speak for Dante, but I think the popular theory that some of us believe is that Consagra and his drug dealing friend "Ted" conspired to kill Freddie because Freddie was a police informant. Consagra lured Freddie and Mary Lou to the secluded spoilbank knowing that Ted and company would show up later.

I don't know where this spoilbank is, but I wonder what the chances were of Ted and company finding it that night if they didn't have some idea ahead of time that this particular spoilbank was the specific location where Consagra and his friends would be. You also have to keep in mind that the trio's original destination that night was Honeymoon Island. They ended up on the spoilbank because of mechanical trouble.

Exactly!
The original destination was Honeymoon Island if you believe Consagra. I personally believe he had the whole thing planned out. He also says Freddie and Mary Lou were drunk/drinking alot so it might not have been that difficult for Consagra to make them believe the boat had 'mechanical trouble'.

Also, if I read correctly, you guys think this is a poor Final Appeal case when compared to those other ones mentioned? Odd, because I find this one to be one of the best ones.

Well no doubt the PSS were a test of different types of cases to see if there was an interest in seeing them. Lets see on them you have bank robbery, lost heirs (Marsh & Mealbach would both qualify in that one), missing persons, unexplained death, amnesia, murder, conwomen, bigamist and a few others. Apparently they thought the mixture was good because UM went on to profile a lot of segments related to all of the above topics. I still think the Kyra Cook segment wasn't worth profiling because it was never proven that she was assaulted and she was reunited with her family.

As for Consagra I'm still not sure what I think. I think the more I watch the segment the more I think he could be guilty. The main reason is where the two were shot...an isolated spoilbank. That makes me wonder if Consagra lured them there. I wish UM would have mentioned if the three had a history of going to that particular location to "party". I also think its possible that if Consagra did commit the murders, he didn't act alone.

As far as Consagra goes basically everything CD has said goes for me too - there is a lot of evidence against Consagra but there are still some issues regarding his guilt that concern me, I think the most likely scenerio may be that Consagra was not the triggerman but possibly was some sort of accomplice who in the end his buddies had take the fall for them. Its just a gut reaction to the segment and nothing more.

As for why I like this case? - Well I'm a huge fan of the "Final Appeals" segments to begin with and the Consagra case is so complexing for me as well as some other people around here as we all keep going back and forth on his guilt. That makes for some compelling television in my mind. I wish we could find out just why Consagra was given parole in the early 90s, I know he did plead down to lesser charges but even those charges were pretty severe charges carrying stiff penalties. If Consagra hadn't died and we knew nothing of his parole I would think most here would assume that he was still in jail.

Regarding Francis Mealbach: I've always viewed this case as a strange hybrid between a lost heirs and a lost loves case myself, Crystaldawn.

Regarding Kyra Cook: Well I have to come out in defense of UM here, again it was their first time out at bat with this type of story and at the time maybe they were just looking for anything different to profile besides a straight "true crime" story.

Also in retrospect while the Kyra Cook segment is not as strong as some of the other segments on the show, the end line always gets to me where Kyra says something like "When I hear friends talking about memories, I'm envious of them - I look forward to the day when I can look back on 20 years and think about all those things"

I can't help but thinking its been over 20 years now (1986-2007) and wonder exactly what Kyra Cook is up to or has done with her life. So yeah I think its a worthy addition.

I agree with others in that the first time I saw this case I thought Consagra was innocent, but a subsequent viewing pulled me into 50/50 status. I do admit the evidence is definitely not stacked in Glenn's favor.

I think what UM was shooting for in the Kyra Cook segment was not so much a mystery as to who she was, but rather a mystery of how the body and mind works.

Exactly!
The original destination was Honeymoon Island if you believe Consagra. I personally believe he had the whole thing planned out. He also says Freddie and Mary Lou were drunk/drinking alot so it might not have been that difficult for Consagra to make them believe the boat had 'mechanical trouble'.

Some things really do not wash with this case:

If Consagra was the sole killer, why would he bring two guns?

If Consagra was the sole killer, how did he drag Freddie and Mary Lou's corpses AND the boat engine into the water by himself? All totaled, the combined weight was in excess of three hundred pounds.

If Consagra was the sole killer, why did he sink his own boat and leave himself stranded on the spoilbank?

If Consagra was truly innocent, why didn't he tell the police from day one that Ted was the killer? He gave two different conflicting accounts of what happened on the spoilbank. Neither version specifically implicated anyone, BUT if Glenn was laying a few feet away and out of sight from where the carnage was ensuing, certainly he would have recognized Ted's voice and been able to tell the police that Ted was on the spoilbank. He NEVER implicated Ted.

Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is that Consagra and Ted were conspiring together. Consagra couldn't tell the truth because in doing so he would implicate himself. Ted was in the same boat, but had an advantage over Glenn - the cops never placed Ted on the spoilbank. In fact, no one did until Donna came forward.

Instead, Ted ended up implicating Glenn. Glenn takes the fall for the entire thing and is bitter because his partner in crime double crossed him and got away.

I suppose I like this case because it was one of the first "Final Appeals". It also occurred in my home state. I also like the fact that it was on the last special that Karl Malden hosted before Stack took over. The presentation was excellent in my opinion. Did anyone watch the ending credits on special 3? The music was so haunting, and even though they were showing scenes from the Lutter story, my mind is always transfixed on Consagra's case when I see this and hear the music. I wonder if Glenn ever got to watch the special or if he saw it the night it aired from prison. Finally, I feel a bit empty now, because I never got a chance to write to Consagra. He is really the only person from UM I have ever considered writing to.

Here's hoping we have some answers someday...

Some things really do not wash with this case:

If Consagra was the sole killer, why would he bring two guns?

If Consagra was the sole killer, how did he drag Freddie and Mary Lou's corpses AND the boat engine into the water by himself? All totaled, the combined weight was in excess of three hundred pounds.

If Consagra was the sole killer, why did he sink his own boat and leave himself stranded on the spoilbank?

If Consagra was truly innocent, why didn't he tell the police from day one that Ted was the killer? He gave two different conflicting accounts of what happened on the spoilbank. Neither version specifically implicated anyone, BUT if Glenn was laying a few feet away and out of sight from where the carnage was ensuing, certainly he would have recognized Ted's voice and been able to tell the police that Ted was on the spoilbank. He NEVER implicated Ted.

Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is that Consagra and Ted were conspiring together. Consagra couldn't tell the truth because in doing so he would implicate himself. Ted was in the same boat, but had an advantage over Glenn - the cops never placed Ted on the spoilbank. In fact, no one did until Donna came forward.

Instead, Ted ended up implicating Glenn. Glenn takes the fall for the entire thing and is bitter because his partner in crime double crossed him and got away.

I suppose I like this case because it was one of the first "Final Appeals". It also occurred in my home state. I also like the fact that it was on the last special that Karl Malden hosted before Stack took over. The presentation was excellent in my opinion. Did anyone watch the ending credits on special 3? The music was so haunting, and even though they were showing scenes from the Lutter story, my mind is always transfixed on Consagra's case when I see this and hear the music. I wonder if Glenn ever got to watch the special or if he saw it the night it aired from prison. Finally, I feel a bit empty now, because I never got a chance to write to Consagra. He is really the only person from UM I have ever considered writing to.

Here's hoping we have some answers someday...

Karl Malden said something like Donna said she went to the spoil bank with two of Glen's cronies one of them named Ted and they went there to take care of business. The word cronies seems to imply Glen knew who the killers were but Glen didn't say he knew them in the interview.

Well I watched this one the other day and this is a tough one. I guess I dont know why Consagra would kill Freddie and Mary Lou because I dont really see what he would have gained by it. At the same time it does trouble me that he would tell different stories and stuff. I do think that in Consagra's case I think it is more likely he was involved but I do not think he acted alone. I think if Consagra is innocent than there was certainly more than one person that killed Freddy and Mary Lou. However one thing I found that might show Consagra is innocent is if he did it, he would have had to take the boat to dump the bodies, than taken it back to the island and got rid of the motor and then swam to the neighboring island and then eventually from the neighboring island back to shore. Just a very unusual thing for someone to do and if he was that desperate at the time to make it look like he didnt do it than why wouldnt he implicate Ted from the beginning? I dont know, I actually am 50/50 on this one, it is a tough one that is for sure.

Well I watched this one the other day and this is a tough one. I guess I dont know why Consagra would kill Freddie and Mary Lou because I dont really see what he would have gained by it. At the same time it does trouble me that he would tell different stories and stuff. I do think that in Consagra's case I think it is more likely he was involved but I do not think he acted alone. I think if Consagra is innocent than there was certainly more than one person that killed Freddy and Mary Lou. However one thing I found that might show Consagra is innocent is if he did it, he would have had to take the boat to dump the bodies, than taken it back to the island and got rid of the motor and then swam to the neighboring island and then eventually from the neighboring island back to shore. Just a very unusual thing for someone to do and if he was that desperate at the time to make it look like he didnt do it than why wouldnt he implicate Ted from the beginning? I dont know, I actually am 50/50 on this one, it is a tough one that is for sure.

It was mentioned on the segment that the bodies and boat engine were discovered a few yards off the spoilbank. I got the impression that the bodies were physically dragged by someone and dropped a ways out. Then the ocean currents could have pushed them even further away from where they originally entered the water (remember, the bodies weren't found for three days). In other words, he wouldn't need the boat to get the bodies to where they were discovered. However, the fact that this enormous weight was dragged or even manhandled at all suggests more than one person in my opinion. The total weight would have been in excess of three hundred pounds.

Does anyone know for a fact that Consagra did swim back to the mainland? Since more than likely Consagra had a hand in the murders there most likely was a second boat and that's why he never said anything once he got back (rather than "I didn't say anything coz the I didn't want the murderer to know I was on the spoilbank at the time..."). Doesn't really make a difference if he is innocent because he never saw the actual murders occur anyway, he said. He's a liar.

I wouldnt be so cocky that he is a liar. I dont think you or I know that. I mean of course he is a liar, but to say for sure "he is a liar" I think is reaching when there is doubt to the man's guilt. I tend to lean in the category of he isnt completely innocent but also isnt completely guilty. I think he knows more than what he is saying but I do not necessarily think he committed the murders or if he did do them he didnt do it alone.

It does in deed matter if he was innocent, if he was innocent he deserves to have his name cleared and his family compensated by the state of Florida for his wrongful imprisonment as well as an official apology from the state of Florida for that wrongful imprisonment. I believe he was seen arriving on the mainland so I think it is known he did in fact swim back.

It is troubling more to me though why he would tell one version of events and then totally change it so I tend to lean towards the opinion he wasnt completely innocent but wasnt completely guilty. I think it is certainly a possiblity he could have been heavily intoxicated and passed out and slept through the murders, it is possible. It might be unlikely but it certainly is not impossible.

There must have been some real doubt to his guilt otherwise UM would not have profiled his case and he certainly wouldnt have been paroled after serving just 14 years of a life sentence for a double homicide if his guilt was for sure certain. I am an aspiring defense attorney so that is why I tend to take these guys side more.

Sorry Space Invaderz, dont take it personally, like I have said before, I do not personally dislike you, it is just we are often on opposite sides so it is easier for me to pick your stuff apart.

I wouldnt be so cocky that he is a liar. I dont think you or I know that. I mean of course he is a liar, but to say for sure "he is a liar" I think is reaching when there is doubt to the man's guilt. I tend to lean in the category of he isnt completely innocent but also isnt completely guilty. I think he knows more than what he is saying but I do not necessarily think he committed the murders or if he did do them he didnt do it alone.

It does in deed matter if he was innocent, if he was innocent he deserves to have his name cleared and his family compensated by the state of Florida for his wrongful imprisonment as well as an official apology from the state of Florida for that wrongful imprisonment. I believe he was seen arriving on the mainland so I think it is known he did in fact swim back.

It is troubling more to me though why he would tell one version of events and then totally change it so I tend to lean towards the opinion he wasnt completely innocent but wasnt completely guilty. I think it is certainly a possiblity he could have been heavily intoxicated and passed out and slept through the murders, it is possible. It might be unlikely but it certainly is not impossible.

There must have been some real doubt to his guilt otherwise UM would not have profiled his case and he certainly wouldnt have been paroled after serving just 14 years of a life sentence for a double homicide if his guilt was for sure certain. I am an aspiring defense attorney so that is why I tend to take these guys side more.

Sorry Space Invaderz, dont take it personally, like I have said before, I do not personally dislike you, it is just we are often on opposite sides so it is easier for me to pick your stuff apart.

Yeah ok.."pick my stuff apart"... :rolleyes:

First off, why, if he is innocent does he need an apology and compensation from the state of Florida, he pleaded no contest to two 2nd degree murder charges? No one else but himself made that plea.

So you are saying he didn't lie when he got back to the mainland, he said as far as he knew Freddie and Mary Lou left to get more beer. Well I guess being you I guess since he didn't actually see anyone get murdered he's telling the truth??

Who saw him swimming back to the mainland, how do you know this?

It is troubling more to me though why he would tell one version of events and then totally change it so I tend to lean towards the opinion he wasnt completely innocent but wasnt completely guilty. I think it is certainly a possiblity he could have been heavily intoxicated and passed out and slept through the murders, it is possible. It might be unlikely but it certainly is not impossible.

You raise a good point here. Unfortunately, this is one of the downfalls of the story. We don't know if he was drinking, or how much. I say this because if Consagra got drunk it could have led to an argument with Freddie over the unpaid loan or the theft ring and that argument could have escalated to violence. I'm not saying I believe that is what happened. I'm just presenting another alternate angle that is perhaps in line with what the state was claiming. This theory certainly doesn't explain how he was able to single handedly get the bodies off the spoilbank, why he used two firearms, why he would sink his own boat, or Donna's story. I would also like to know more details about this theft ring and the alleged threats Consagra made, specifically, comments he made to parties other than "Ted". Unfortunately, I can't help but think that UM was intentionally vague in these regards as they wanted to present Consagra in the best light possible. Despite this, I got the impression that Glen, Ted, Donna and the victims were not exactly pillars of society, so I do think this means that their statements need to be scrutinized very carefully rather than just accepted for what they are.


There must have been some real doubt to his guilt otherwise UM would not have profiled his case...

I've raised the issue before that I think the quality of Consagra's case was poor compared to later "Final Appeals". Same deal with some of the other stories on the early specials. Totally my opinion here, but I'm sticking to it.


and he certainly wouldnt have been paroled after serving just 14 years of a life sentence for a double homicide if his guilt was for sure certain.

I don't mean this to sound disrespectful, but I thought you said on another thread that a lot of Florida lifers were paroled during this period? How is this case different?

I look at it this way...he's either lying and guilty in some way, shape, or form, or innocent and the victim of a conspiracy and a terrible string of bad luck.

Hey Justin, no disrespect taken. Well yes I did say that throughout the 80's and into the early 1990's a lot of lifers in Florida received parole. However I dont know that a lot of people that were convicted of multiple homicides received parole even at that time in Florida. But yes, in the mid 1990's Florida completely revamped their parole and sentencing guidelines making it much harder for sentencing and making it much harder to gain parole for lifers.

Yes I would agree that Glen, Ted or the victims certainly were not pillars of society. I mean as Glen said they were all pretty much the type where they pretty much drank everyday and that was pretty much the extent of their lives was getting drunk as often as possible. Certainly none of them were pillars of society, as I said I tend to lean towards the opinion that is unusual but I feel true in that Consagra wasnt completely innocent but wasnt completely guilty. In that I think he almost certainly knew more than he was saying and if he wasnt the one that actually did the murders he certainly was there when it happened and I think he witnessed them and maybe even helped move the bodies, even if Consagra was the killer I think he had help.

Hey Space Invaderz, well we will continue to pick each other apart, it is all good. I am glad we can at least be civil to each other. You did raise a good point with the no contest plea, however a no contest plea is not necessarily a guilty plea in the true sense of the word. You just arent opposing the charges, usually people take no contest pleas so they can take a favorable deal without pleading guilty. In Consagra's case there was a lot of evidence albiet a lot of it circumstancial and I think Consagra felt the odds were better that he would get convicted than be acquitted. IF convicted by jury he would have probably got the death penalty so to save his life he took the plea deal which was plead no contest to 2nd degree murder charges and take two life sentences and be eligible for parole after a few years which in Consagra's case was the best plea offer he was going to get. It was probably a one time only take it or leave it offer and so he took it. I dont blame him, if you had a lot of evidence against you, even if you knew you didnt do it, you might plead no contest rather than end up on death row. A lot of people have pled guilty to things they didnt do, that is actually not that uncommon. I am also sure he plead no contest to 2nd degree murder because it is easier to get parole on 2nd degree murder charges than it is on first degree.

Hey Space Invaderz, well we will continue to pick each other apart, it is all good. I am glad we can at least be civil to each other. You did raise a good point with the no contest plea, however a no contest plea is not necessarily a guilty plea in the true sense of the word. You just arent opposing the charges, usually people take no contest pleas so they can take a favorable deal without pleading guilty. In Consagra's case there was a lot of evidence albiet a lot of it circumstancial and I think Consagra felt the odds were better that he would get convicted than be acquitted. IF convicted by jury he would have probably got the death penalty so to save his life he took the plea deal which was plead no contest to 2nd degree murder charges and take two life sentences and be eligible for parole after a few years which in Consagra's case was the best plea offer he was going to get. It was probably a one time only take it or leave it offer and so he took it. I dont blame him, if you had a lot of evidence against you, even if you knew you didnt do it, you might plead no contest rather than end up on death row. A lot of people have pled guilty to things they didnt do, that is actually not that uncommon. I am also sure he plead no contest to 2nd degree murder because it is easier to get parole on 2nd degree murder charges than it is on first degree.

Well, not to nitpick, but he pled "no contest" in Mary Lou's death (she was killed with a shotgun) and "guilty" in Freddie's death. I raise this because here is something I don't understand, kadrmas. Why do you think Consagra believed he would be eligible for parole in six months? Crow seemed to imply that Consagra should have known he was pleading to and accepting two life terms. Did Consagra really know that life in prison was in the cards if he entered these pleas?

Well I know in Florida, usually if you plead guilty or no contest to 2nd degree murder you dont get a life sentence out of it. I am sure back then you could get sentenced to as little as just a few years in prison. I have the feeling Consagra got bad legal counsel from the public defenders. That is indeed unusual that he would plead no contest in one death yet plead guilty in the other. It could be he really did only commit one of the killings and someone else did the other one. As I said, I think he is somewhat innocent and somewhat guilty. It is an odd case that is for sure. But I am trying to figure out where the 6 months came from. Someone must have told him that he would be eligible for parole in 6 months if eligible for parole. In Florida you can be sentenced to up to life in prison for 2nd degree murder but that is the maximum and usually is not given if there is a plea agreement in place. I think these days people get sentenced from anywhere from 25 to 40 years for 2nd degree murder if there is a guilty plea and pre arranged plea bargain. So I would have to look up the laws in effect in Florida in 1978 for 2nd degree murder but yes for someone to become eligible for parole after only 6 months is unusual when talking about 2nd degree murder. It just seems like Consagra got bad legal advice, I am sure he was using state paid for public defenders. I am thinking that Consagra didnt know that life was a possiblity if pleading guilty, I am sure his lawyers probably told him he could get life but I think Consagra thought he would get less time for pleading guilty, I dont see why else he would do what he did.

I believe he was seen arriving on the mainland so I think it is known he did in fact swim back.

Again can you tell me how you know this and who saw him?

Again can you tell me how you know this and who saw him?

Doesn't some guy walk up to him in the re-enactment?

Doesn't some guy walk up to him in the re-enactment?

Anything is possible in the re-enactment but I'm not sure, I can picture him emerging out of the water only. I really want to know if it can be confirmed that he did swim back to shore and that leads into why he lied about Freddie and Mary Lou "going to get more beer".

That is indeed unusual that he would plead no contest in one death yet plead guilty in the other. It could be he really did only commit one of the killings and someone else did the other one. As I said, I think he is somewhat innocent and somewhat guilty.

Most of the circumstantial evidence pertaining to Consagra's guilt has to do with Freddie. I wonder if he pled guilty to Freddie's death because the state had stronger evidence of a motive and lacked it in Mary Lou's death so they let him skate by with a "no contest" on that one. Not that it would have mattered anyway.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the segment states that Consagra was known to have owned both of the type of guns that killed Freddie and Mary Lou, but I don't think it stated that the guns were ever found on the island. This would likely indicate that Consagra was innocent (?)

Also, while Consagra didn't have as much to drink as Freddie and Mary Lou, he was drinking. I can't imagine anyone that has had a fair amount of alcohol would drown their boat and force themselves to have to swim that distance. That would be a Herculean effort under the circumstances.

But I'm still 50/50 on this one. Consagra comes off as pretty cold and cocky in his interview and it's tough to sympathize with him.

^ Just watched this one and this point may have been discussed before but I wonder if it was put out there publically how many times Freddie and Mary Lou were shot. This would be interesting because if this information was never made public and the public only knew that they had been murdered, then how did Donna know exactly how many times they were shot and what type of weapons were used?

Here's something I just thought of, I just re-watched this one as well.

I could go either way on this one, but let's assume for a sec that Consagra is guilty. He's the natural suspect as he was the only other one that went out on the trip. So the only way he's not guilty is if somebody else stumbled upon the scene, like he claimed. Now, how does he come up with a convincable story that he's not responsible? He invents the story about getting away from Freddie and Mary Lou by hiding behind the box, thus preventing him from seeing the actual shooting. One problem remains: he could still hear though. Herein would lie the genuis of it: If Consagra says that he recgonized the voice, then it would be his word versus that persons', and at best would have a 50/50 shot at being believed. But if he says he doesn't recognize the voice, he doesn't implicate anyone and in the process deflects some of the attention off of him, or at least tries to. If he returns to where they departed, and people see he's the only one coming back and the others will turn up dead, Consagra knows the suspcious falls upon him, so he purposefully sinks the boat to make it seem like others were involved.

Assuming Consagra is innocent, he hears shots, but doesn't know who got shot. What if the same person got shot multiple times, but the other was unfazed. Then that person (either Freddie or Mary Lou) would know Glen is still behind the box, and theoretically could come after him. Yet, Consagra reamins where he is for a very long time, risking getting shot himself and making no attempt to save himself.

He could be innocent, but it could mean that a lot of unlikely events would have had to occur.

Here's something I just thought of, I just re-watched this one as well.

I could go either way on this one, but let's assume for a sec that Consagra is guilty. He's the natural suspect as he was the only other one that went out on the trip. So the only way he's not guilty is if somebody else stumbled upon the scene, like he claimed. Now, how does he come up with a convincable story that he's not responsible? He invents the story about getting away from Freddie and Mary Lou by hiding behind the box, thus preventing him from seeing the actual shooting. One problem remains: he could still hear though. Herein would lie the genuis of it: If Consagra says that he recgonized the voice, then it would be his word versus that persons', and at best would have a 50/50 shot at being believed. But if he says he doesn't recognize the voice, he doesn't implicate anyone and in the process deflects some of the attention off of him, or at least tries to. If he returns to where they departed, and people see he's the only one coming back and the others will turn up dead, Consagra knows the suspcious falls upon him, so he purposefully sinks the boat to make it seem like others were involved.

Assuming Consagra is innocent, he hears shots, but doesn't know who got shot. What if the same person got shot multiple times, but the other was unfazed. Then that person (either Freddie or Mary Lou) would know Glen is still behind the box, and theoretically could come after him. Yet, Consagra reamins where he is for a very long time, risking getting shot himself and making no attempt to save himself.

He could be innocent, but it could mean that a lot of unlikely events would have had to occur.

Gee, he's guilty :D

I think the scenario that DarkDante once proposed is probably closest to the truth - Consagra was involved in the murders in some capacity, but ended up taking on full responsibility either because he wanted to, was forced, or was screwed over by his buddies.

I find it questionable that Consagra denied any knowledge of what was going on when we know, for a fact, that he was associated with both the victims and the alleged killers - Ted and "Glen's cronies" - as implicated by Donna. Its kinda like Watergate with Tricky Dick denying knowledge of the burglary until we find out that higher-ups in the White House were involved. Whoops! For Consagra to be that much in the dark almost seems laughable. Especially when you consider that he made death threats about the victims and was a member, as was "Ted", of this "stolen property" ring that Freddie was allegedly squealing on. Okay, okay.....so, could Glen have been framed? Maybe. But, why then would he feel a need to change his story? He claims he changed it out of fear, but fear of what? If we follow his "true version", he didn't see or hear ANYTHING that could implicate any party. So, who is he afraid of? If that story really was the truth, it does nothing in terms of identifying a suspect. Also, we are left to assume that the "real" killers didn't know that Glen was hiding behind that bait tank. If everything actually went down as he said, AND he told the police the truth from the start, how would the real killers have even known Glen was there and a "potential witness"? It's not like the cops were going to broadcast this fact to every suspect they interviewed.

Sorry guys, his explanations don't hold water (hehe....water, get it?)

I think the scenario that DarkDante once proposed is probably closest to the truth - Consagra was involved in the murders in some capacity, but ended up taking on full responsibility either because he wanted to, was forced, or was screwed over by his buddies.

I find it questionable that Consagra denied any knowledge of what was going on when we know, for a fact, that he was associated with both the victims and the alleged killers - Ted and "Glen's cronies" - as implicated by Donna. Its kinda like Watergate with Tricky Dick denying knowledge of the burglary until we find out that higher-ups in the White House were involved. Whoops! For Consagra to be that much in the dark almost seems laughable. Especially when you consider that he made death threats about the victims and was a member, as was "Ted", of this "stolen property" ring that Freddie was allegedly squealing on. Okay, okay.....so, could Glen have been framed? Maybe. But, why then would he feel a need to change his story? He claims he changed it out of fear, but fear of what? If we follow his "true version", he didn't see or hear ANYTHING that could implicate any party. So, who is he afraid of? If that story really was the truth, it does nothing in terms of identifying a suspect. Also, we are left to assume that the "real" killers didn't know that Glen was hiding behind that bait tank. If everything actually went down as he said, AND he told the police the truth from the start, how would the real killers have even known Glen was there and a "potential witness"? It's not like the cops were going to broadcast this fact to every suspect they interviewed.

Sorry guys, his explanations don't hold water (hehe....water, get it?)

some good points there that I haven't thought of.

I have a hard time believing Consagra was screwed over by his buddies though. Consagra comes off as somewhat intelligent or at least not as dumb as the average criminal. For him to put himself in a situation where he goes out in the water with 2 people and only himself comes back, he would have to figure that he's going to be the prime suspect, so it would have been real risky for him to plot something with other people and get the police to believe other people were responsible for their murders.

I'm not sure I could completely trust the witness though - Donna. She changed her story 6 times, before retracting everything alltogether and claiming she was never on the island to begin with.

Well, after re-watching the segment a few times, I too unfortunatly have backed off my claim that Consagra was completely innocent. I do think it is possible that he is only "half-guilty" if there is such a thing. I think it is very likely he at the very least knew who committed the murders if he didnt do them himself.

Just watching the segment again it became obvious to me that Consagra, while not necessarily lying, was certainly not telling all he knew. There is just a lot of stuff that happened there, that tells me that Consagra like I said might not have been the trigger man but I think he was involved in the killings in someway probably.

However Consagra was released on parole after doing 14 years, not bad for a guy convicted of a double murder which tells me there must have been just enough doubt in his case that he got paroled early. However as I have mentioned on here before up until about the mid 1990's when the system was completely overhauled, Florida had rather liberal parole policies for lifers.

I am also not surprised at Space Invaderz and his "gee he is guilty" response. Sorry SI, just had to take a little swipe at that LOL. However I never have really understood why you think pretty much everyone is guilty but you have your rights to your opinion just like I have the right to my opinion that there are a lot of innocent people in prison and that cops and prosecutors make real serious mistakes. However unfortunatly SI you are probably right on Consagra's guilt at least as far as him probably having been at the very least involved in the murders and not telling all he knew if he wasnt the trigger man.

However Consagra was released on parole after doing 14 years, not bad for a guy convicted of a double murder which tells me there must have been just enough doubt in his case that he got paroled early. However as I have mentioned on here before up until about the mid 1990's when the system was completely overhauled, Florida had rather liberal parole policies for lifers.



Is Glenn Consagra a free man? That is really amazing. If he spent 14 years in prison and the murders took place in 1978, then he was released in 1992. But, at least for me, it´s really amazing that he is now free. And I am 50/50 on this case, as far as Consagra´s guilt concerns. I said that it was amazing because the DA (I think his name is Doug Crow), is adamant about Glenn´s culpability and, in the segment, he didn´t seem to believe any point of Consagra´s story or his witness Donna. I think what you said about the overhauling of the prison system in Florida back in the early 90´s, is the most realistic explanation for Glenn Consagra´s release.

I am also not surprised at Space Invaderz and his "gee he is guilty" response. Sorry SI, just had to take a little swipe at that LOL. However I never have really understood why you think pretty much everyone is guilty but you have your rights to your opinion just like I have the right to my opinion that there are a lot of innocent people in prison and that cops and prosecutors make real serious mistakes. However unfortunatly SI you are probably right on Consagra's guilt at least as far as him probably having been at the very least involved in the murders and not telling all he knew if he wasnt the trigger man.

lol no offence taken. I'm not going to go into reason why I know Consogra's guilty as I've already mentioned them in the past. Ironically enuf, I saw this case when it first aired as a child and I originally thought he was innocent, then after seeing it again last year or so (after about 18 years) as an adult there is no doubt to me he is involved in the murders.

Oh and if I think other Final Appeals cases are innocent I'll say so for sure. First time I watched Rolando Cruz, Johnny Wilson, Michael Self (off the top of my head) I came racing to the boards/internet hoping to see if these guys are now free.

I also watched this case, for the first time, when I was a child, and also thought that he was innocent, but now, as I said before I am split 50/50 over this one. In any case, since he was released back in 1992, he has been a free man for nearly 15 years, for me that in itself is amazing.

I also watched this case, for the first time, when I was a child, and also thought that he was innocent, but now, as I said before I am split 50/50 over this one. In any case, since he was released back in 1992, he has been a free man for nearly 15 years, for me that in itself is amazing.

He died in 1996.

He died in 1996.


Thanks for the update justins. Well at least he spent 14 years in prison, if he was guilty and 4 years, until his death, as a free person, if he was indeed innocent.

Consagra comes off as pretty cold and cocky in his interview and it's tough to sympathize with him.

In re-reading this thread I found this little gem. I'm going to have to agree with you there, wiseguy. In fact, your comment reminded me of the first time I watched the special a few years ago. Just before the "final appeal" comes on there is a little preview of what is to come and a shot of Consagra saying something along the lines of "it was a night that turned to tragedy...no I didn't kill them". I remember thinking to myself, sarcastically, "yeah, that's convincing".

He did come off rather cold, but I can't fault him for that, and I'm not sure that his demeanor really indicates anything about his guilt or lack thereof. The guy has been locked up for almost ten years. All of his legal appeals (and there were a few) failed. He probably wasn't too optimistic at that point. I have also said before that I think it is hard to judge someone when we're only seeing snippets of a much longer interview that was heavily edited down, as is the case with pretty much every interview that we see on UM, and lots of other programs as well.

There are alot more questionable facts if you believe Consogra didnt do it than if he did. If he did it, everything pretty much ties into place nicely. If he didnt do it, then who did and what were they doing at a random spoilbank at that time? Why did they kill Freddie and Mary Lou? Why did they then hang around the murder site, thrash it and sink Consogra's boat? I'd like to have heard Consogra answers to these questions.

In re-reading this thread I found this little gem. I'm going to have to agree with you there, wiseguy. In fact, your comment reminded me of the first time I watched the special a few years ago. Just before the "final appeal" comes on there is a little preview of what is to come and a shot of Consagra saying something along the lines of "it was a night that turned to tragedy...no I didn't kill them". I remember thinking to myself, sarcastically, "yeah, that's convincing".

He did come off rather cold, but I can't fault him for that, and I'm not sure that his demeanor really indicates anything about his guilt or lack thereof. The guy has been locked up for almost ten years. All of his legal appeals (and there were a few) failed. He probably wasn't too optimistic at that point. I have also said before that I think it is hard to judge someone when we're only seeing snippets of a much longer interview that was heavily edited down, as is the case with pretty much every interview that we see on UM, and lots of other programs as well.

I agree with you about editing. Done a certain way, editing can make anyone look stupid (or intelligent).

The reason I mentioned that is because it's a little easier to believe someone is innocent when they show some human emotion. Consagra's delivery of "I didn't kill Freddie and Mary Lou, they were my best friends" was extremely flat, and just came off as unconvincing. But maybe Consagra is just one of those people that don't take to the video camera well.

There are alot more questionable facts if you believe Consogra didnt do it than if he did. If he did it, everything pretty much ties into place nicely. If he didnt do it, then who did and what were they doing at a random spoilbank at that time? Why did they kill Freddie and Mary Lou? Why did they then hang around the murder site, thrash it and sink Consogra's boat? I'd like to have heard Consogra answers to these questions.

Some good points there.

If they were killed by somebody else, I would imagine it was others in the stolen property ring. They might have hung around for a bit to make certain that they were dead, and could have sunk the boat to prevent them from getting help if they did recover enough from the shootings. It's not entirely unbelievable, several UM victims have been left for dead, but have survived. The spoil bank was an isolated location, so the supposed killers probably figured they had plenty of time to clean up the crime scene and not have to worry about being caught (but oddly enough if this scenario were true, they had no idea Consagra was hiding in the area.)

The reason it's so hard for me to lean one way or the other on this case is because it doesn't appear that anybody involved in this segment were "pillars of society", although not much is known about Freddie or Mary Lou, we don't even get to see a picture of them which is odd, but UM was still in its early stages at this point.

Here's the thing: it is believed that tensions were high in the stolen property ring around the time of the killings, so I am skeptical that Freddie and Mary Lou would allow themselves to be taken to such a remote location with a member of the ring at night and not think something bad could happen. they would almost certainly have to be a little naive.

But one other thing makes me believe Consagra is guilty: if his story is true, then he has to be the unluckiest guy in the world, I mean, the guy would suffer from worse luck than Larry Race (Oh I hope I just didn't open up a can of worms with that statement):lol:

Here's the thing: it is believed that tensions were high in the stolen property ring around the time of the killings, so I am skeptical that Freddie and Mary Lou would allow themselves to be taken to such a remote location with a member of the ring at night and not think something bad could happen. they would almost certainly have to be a little naive.

But one other thing makes me believe Consagra is guilty: if his story is true, then he has to be the unluckiest guy in the world, I mean, the guy would suffer from worse luck than Larry Race (Oh I hope I just didn't open up a can of worms with that statement):lol:

The original destination was another Island, they stayed at the spoilbank because #cough#boat troubles#cough#BS. Glenn said that Freddie and Mary Lou were pretty much drunk all day so I doubt it would of been too difficult for him to convince them of the boat troubles.

If Glenn is as you say the most unluckiest guy in the world, why did he lie once he returned to the mainland? It's childish to say "I didnt want the murderers to know I was on the spoilbank at the time", come on, the guy has just witnessed the murders of two of his friends...and that's the best he can come up with?

I'd be very interested in knowing exactly when Consogra stated that knew nothing of the whereabouts of Freddie and Mary Lou. Before of after the bodies where found.

If Glenn is as you say the most unluckiest guy in the world, why did he lie once he returned to the mainland? It's childish to say "I didnt want the murderers to know I was on the spoilbank at the time", come on, the guy has just witnessed the murders of two of his friends...and that's the best he can come up with?

actually I said if he is innocent, then he is the unluckiest guy in the world. I'm still torn about this case, but if I had to swing one way I would actually swing towards Consagra as guilty. I just wanted to get all possibilities across.

Some of the things Consagra says are questionable, but the part about him not wanting the supposed murderers to know he was on the spoil bank is plausible - they could have come after him too.

I believe there are a great many questions in this case that really need answers: A few that have always bothered me are

1) The relationship between Consagra and the victims: Consagra claims they were very good friends and this is bolstered by the fact that Freddie and Mary Lou agreed to party with Glenn on the night of their death. However the prosecution paints their relationship quite differently saying that at that time there was bad feelings between Consagra and Freddie due to Freddie defaulting on a car payment as well as the possibility that Freddie was going to implicate Glenn as part of a stolen property ring.

This brings to mind that if Freddie and Glenn were such buddies, why would Freddie be so quick to turn his friend into the authorities? - But if they were involved in such a bitter feud at the time over the car payments why would Freddie and Mary Lou even agree to spend an evening with Glenn Consagra anyhow?

2) I believe that if Consagra is guilty there is no way he acted alone. UM made a good case that it would be almost humanly impossible for Glenn to move the victims plus all of the boat equipment by himself. I think the most likely scenerio is that Consagra, "Ted" and their other accomplices wanted to get Freddie in an isolated location that night. Apparently they all were friends so maybe they thought they could either convince him or possibly strong arm him not to identify them in the stolen property ring (if this was indeed the motive for the crime)

Its possible that Freddie refused or began to get into a heated argument/fight with "Ted" which lead to Freddie being shot and killed. Once Freddie was shot of course they had no choice but to kill Mary Lou as well.

The question then becomes one of "how much did Glen Consagra know in advance about what was going to go down that night?"

There are 3 possible scenerios in my mind

1) This first one is highly unlikely in my mind but if it is true would bear out that Consagra is 100% innocent: Consagra could've mentioned casually to "Ted" that he, Freddie and Mary Lou were going to celebrate the birth of his grandchild on Honeymoon Island that night. This would've been a joyous occasion for Consagra and it would not be beyond the scope of the imagination that he would share this information with his all of his friends.

"Ted" could've then made his way to Honeymoon Island with Donna and another accomplice and noticed Glenn's boat docked at the spoil bank. (which was on the way to Honeymoon Island) Then on his own volition committed the murders exactly as Consagra and Donna described in the segment.

There are many things that make this scenerio highly unlikely in my mind (and I can get into them if need be) but if Consagra is truly innocent this would be the most likely scenerio as to how the murders were committed without any involvement from Glenn Consagra.

2) My second theory is a varation on my first theory and in my mind is the most likely scenerio. As stated previously, Glenn may have lured Freddie and Mary Lou to an isolated location that night so he and his friends could either convince or strong arm Freddie into not leaking information to the authorities about their illegal activities. This could've developed into a fight and "Ted" boiled over with rage murdered Freddie and Mary Lou with Consagra being only a witness to the events.

However, due to the fact that Consagra was already technically implicated in the plot to bring Mary Lou and Freddie to the spoil bank, he did help "Ted" and the others attempt to cover up the evidence of their crime by dragging the bodies and the equipment into the water. Then they all decided to sink Consagra's boat to make it look like a random act of violence. "Ted", Donna and their other accomplice took their boat back to shore and left Consagra to swim back and instructed him to tell that ridiculous story he gave to the police upon arriving back on the mainland.

This all seems very likely in my mind as so many things about the attempted cover up of the murders of Mary Lou and Freddie seem so slip-shod that they had to be spur of the moment decisions. While I'm not sure about "Ted", I'm pretty sure that Consagra didn't expect a murder to go down that night on the spoil bank. I think he anticipated a confrontation of some sort but I don't think he expected it to go as far as it did. I think its possible that "Ted" was just a hothead and in a violent fit of rage murdered Freddie and then had to do away with Mary Lou as well.

3) The third scenerio is also somewhat unlikely in my mind and that is that the murder of Freddie and Mary Lou was pre-meditated well in advance by Consagra and "Ted". The problem I have with this is that if there was any degree of thought put into this murder, then why would they choose to murder Freddie and Mary Lou in such an isolated location where a random act of violence would be so highly unlikely?

In addition why would they involve Mary Lou Holmes in the plot at all?...From all accounts it was Freddie that had the potential probelm with Glenn and "Ted". If they really wanted to do away Freddie, they surely could've gotten him into a situation by himself and murdered him without having to murder any other unnecessary victims.

Finally if this was a pre-meditated plot why bother involving four people in the plot? It is possible that either Consagra or "Ted" could've killed Freddie on their own and not involved anyone else in the plot. Even if they chose to carry out the murder as a team why would they involve Donna and another accomplice in the scheme leaving more potential witnesses to their crime?

The whole thing to me sounds like a crime of passion that was quickly and poorly covered up and resulted in Glenn Consagra taking the fall for the entire affair.

Very good post, Dante. However, one thing that still bothers me: why would Donna say that Consagra wasn't there? I know she has major credibility issues, but I thought this was one of the few points that she never wavered on - that Consagra was NOT on the spolibank.

Although, it is of interest that her confession wasn't exactly given voluntarily. She was sought out by the gumshoe Consagra's family hired to clear his name. Doug Crow made a point to say that Donna had a habit of fabricating stories about things both related and unrelated to the case. Maybe she just told the PI what he wanted to hear.

Also, if your second scenario is true, should Consagra be deserving of a "final appeal"? He didn't commit the murders, as he said, and is wrongly accused in THAT regard. I'm not saying that he should have not received any punishment, but this would technically be a wrongful conviction since he's serving life for a crime someone else committed. Sure, he lied his butt off in the "final appeal" but is life in prison really necessary for an observer/accessory after the fact?

Well Johnny Wilson was released, he was pardoned by the governor of Missouri Mel Carnahan in 1995 and has been free since then. Was this Rolando Cruz on death row in Illinois or something? There was a Cruz in Illinois that was found not guilty by DNA and was released from death row in 1995, 1996, somewhere in there.

and by forcing the gun into Donna's hand, Ted solidified her involvement and insurance that she too was tainted with guilt and wouldn't run to the police when this was over. I wonder if Donna felt bad for Glen taking the fall and confirmed his story for the PI in hopes that Glen would be exonerated.

Doug Crow even made the comment that one of Glen's cronies had said "why don't we rough Freddie up and make him pay". Seems very much inline with Dante's second theory of giving Freddie a good talking to, but the situation ended up horribly wrong. In a way, Consagra's musing about the night "turning into tragedy" suddenly makes a lot of sense.

Consagra was released from prison in 1992. Does anyone think he associated with these folks ever again?

I have talked with members of Consagra's family. At least one of them thinks he is guiilty.

Based on the UM broadcast I have a hard time believing anything Donna said.

I dont know, I think Consagra was probably involved but I do not know that he was necessarily the trigger man. I think there were others involved, if Consagra was involved in this he almost certainly didnt act alone in my opinion.

However the fact he lied when he came ashore really means squat. I mean that certainly doesnt make the guy a murderer because he lied about something. If everyone that lied was a murderer there would be a lot of murderers out there.

However as I said in a previous post, Space Invaderz is probably right that Consagra was involved in the murders but he probably didnt act alone if he was involved.

Just wanted to bump this in the event Steve Millwee decides to post. I consider this the definitive Consagra thread.

It was interesting re-reading, and I discovered something Wiseguy wrote that I would like to expand upon - if Consagra was guilty, what became of the murder weapons? They were never recovered to my knowledge. Yet, Malden claims that Consagra had been seen with a .22 and a shotgun before the murders.

Something else - Consagra passed polygraphs and hypnosis examination according to Millwee's site. I realize how subjective this is, but I doubt the average person can fool a polygraph without training.

I just watched this case on an old CD volume.

I have to say, when I first saw it I was more of a "Consagra didn't do it" guy but now I'm definitely more of a "he did it or had a hand in it" guy.

I can believe most of what he said but why after he swam to shore did he mention nothing about the gun shots? I just can't swallow why he would change the truth. At that point, there were no bodies and he would have had nothing to hide.

Anytime an innocent person starts lying, my "Spidey-sense" says there's something wrong. When an innocent person pleads guilty to murder, that is just plain crazy. :crazy:

I realize he might be facing the chair, but pleading guilty to murder? The more time goes by the more I just can't buy that argument. Just like with John Branion, after you do something like that, trying to prove your innocence is basically impossible.

I'm not convinced he even did the deed but I think he knows a hell of a lot more than he ever said. Something very weird happened that night and I just don't think Consagra's story adds up.

As for the polygraph, all I'll say is that if you believe a lie long and hard enough, it can become your reality.

Hmm, I dont TM, I tend to disagree. People pleading guilty to murders they did not commit and know nothing about are more common than what you may think. Out of the convicted murderers proven innocent by DNA, about 25 percent had pled guilty to murder. Call me crazy but I think it makes sense Consagra would not have all the answers if he was not the one that did the murder. I have sort of gone back and forth on Consagra. I do feel that he knew more than he was telling but I also do not think he was actually the one that did the murder. But yeah, I certainly do not think the guy was guilty because he pled guilty. That happens way more than what most people want to accept where people admit to things they did not do and plead guilty to things they did not do. Especially in 1978 in Florida, 2nd degree murder was a crime where even if you got the maximum sentence which was life, you rarely did more than a few years in prison. To me, that sure beats getting the death penalty in which case Consagra would have been executed. Had he gone to trial, I am pretty sure he would have got the death penalty or even if he did get life for first degree murder, it would have been back to back 25 to life sentences. Consagra knew if you go on trial in America, especially for murder, the chances are over 95 percent that you are going down. Just my two cents.

I was talking with DD about the case awhile ago and he sold me on his theory. All these folks got together, went to the spoil bank, got wasted, an argument broke out - possibly over the stolen property ring or Freddie being a police informant - and the argument led to violence. After Freddie and Mary Lou were dead, the remaining participants scrambled to cover up this spur of the moment crime. Part of the cover was having Glen swim to shore and tell the cops that Freddie and MaryLou had taken the boat out for more beer and never returned. When the police began asking questions and really zeroing in on these folks, they all rolled on Consagra and implicated him to save themselves. I think Consagra was either the trigger man, or perhaps he had the most motive for wanting Freddie dead, as he had made threats about killing him prior to this incident. In any event, I just can't believe he wasn't dirty in this somehow.

The guilty plea is interesting, but I agree with kadrmas :eek: He could have really been afraid of the death penalty and entered the plea to save his life. I don't find that unreasonable at all. People plead guilty all the time, often to things they didn't do - possibly lesser charges - because they get a better deal than if they rolled the dice and pled "not guilty" and received a jury trial.

Now you have to ask, if his attorneys thought there was NO HOPE for Consagra to win and they strongly advised hm to enter the plea, the prosecution must have had some pretty convincing evidence of his guilt. So much so that a jury would likely be convinced and find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the flip side, if witnesses were lying and Consagra was framed, as he claimed, then there would overwhelming evidence of his guilt.

Some things really do not wash with this case:

If Consagra was the sole killer, why would he bring two guns?

If Consagra was the sole killer, how did he drag Freddie and Mary Lou's corpses AND the boat engine into the water by himself? All totaled, the combined weight was in excess of three hundred pounds.

If Consagra was the sole killer, why did he sink his own boat and leave himself stranded on the spoilbank?


The reason for all of the above is simple: by doing things the way he did them, people would ask these very questions, and it would lend a great deal of credence to Consagra's claims of innocence.

Random thoughts on the case:

1. Donna truly might have been a witness, but I usually do not lend much credence to the testimony of a schizophrenic who changes her story six times.

2. Considering Mr. Millwee was hired and paid to prove Consagra's innocence, I would not put much faith in his claims that Consagra passed two polygraph examinations (no indication given by him as to who administered it, btw).

3. Personally, Glen did not seem too honest or sincere, at least in my judgment. I definitely thought he might have been lying.

4. If things went down just as he said, I don't know why you would lie about what happened. Unless, of course, you had shady friends, and were pretty sure those friends committed the murder.

5. Also, I am almost always suspicious when someone pleads guilty to a crime he did not commit. Do you think there is a frame? Okay, come out and say there's a frame, and send Mr. Millwee out to make a case for that. OJ's lawyers weren't afraid to come public with that, and bring that information to the trial.

6. One thing that jarred me was when Glen said one moment, "they were my best friends", and the next moment, said, "Freddy and Lou drank all day everyday, so it was pretty much their natural state of mind to be intoxicated". Wow, that seems like a pretty snide comment and way to say that. I generally don't talk that way about my "best friends", and I certainly would not talk that way about them if they had been viciously murdered. I would be honouring their memory a bit too much for that. "Freddy and Lou were intoxicated" would have been sufficient.

Conclusion: I think Glen probably acted alone, although it seems quite logical that "Ted" was involved, if for no other reason than Ted would have motive and it would make sense for the two of them to conspire to commit this murder.

Random thoughts on the case:
Conclusion: I think Glen probably acted alone, although it seems quite logical that "Ted" was involved, if for no other reason than Ted would have motive and it would make sense for the two of them to conspire to commit this murder.

If there is one thing I've become convinced of in regards to this case is that Consagra did not act alone. I think some of the evidence brought out in the UM segment, bears out that someone had to have helped Consagra murder Freddie and Mary Lou.

For the record, I don't think Consagra and his friends (Freddie and Mary Lou included) were necessarily pillars of society. I know UM does its best to make the people they portray seem sympathetic but it just seems to me that Consagra ran with a group of people that at the very least dabbled in many different "grey area" sort of things. Taking that into account, I think Consagra, Donna and Ted are all lying to some degree or another. I think they were all involved to some degree or another in the murders and in the way that Consagra and Donna tell their stories it sounds like two people trying to concoct a story where they can admit to being present on the evening of the murders but also downplay their involvement.

Sorry to bump an old thread, but I recently rewatched this one and paid more attention. I know before I had said I thought he was innocent, but that was after viewing the segment once at my house and not the forbidden website where I could actually pay more attention to detail. I definitely think this is one of the more ridiculous "Final Appeal" segments, along the same lines as Paul Ferrell.

-Consagra LIED about the events that transpired on the island. Something an innocent person would not do. If you heard gunshots, and then waited around long enough until you thought the coast was clear, and didn't see your "good friends" anywhere, why wouldn't you go to the police immediately? Wouldn't lying about what transpired draw more heat on Consagra considering he was the last person to see Freddy & Lou alive? Why say his friends left to get beer, yet do a complete 180 (after the bodies were found mind you) and say he heard gunshots, but didn't get up or act on it because he was "scared"? It's also interesting to note that after hearing the gunshots, Consagra did absolutely NOTHING to check on his friends, nor did he make any mention of a loud argument taking place. A simple, "Freddy, Lou are you all right?" or a look around the oil tank would have sufficed. Yet Consagra did NOTHING.

-He gives no real explanation for lying about what happened to his friends. He claims he was afraid that the "real killers" would be after him had he came forward. But, if we are to believe Consagra's story of events, the "killers" didn't even know he was on the island.

-This is another part of the story that makes no sense: just how did the "killers" stumble upon the island where Consagra and his friends were partying? I guess if the "killers" were friends of Consagra's he could have innocently let it slip that he, Freddy, and Lou were all going out to party on the island. But, Consagra states that their destination was another island than the one they wound up on. The only reason they came upon the man made island was because of problems with his boat. So how did the "killers" find them, especially at night when visibility was bad?

-Consagra was alleged to be involved in a stolen property ring, and his friend Freddy was alleged to have been informing information to police about this ring. That is a motive, especially if Consagra was drinking that night, for him to have murdered Freddy, and possibly Lou.

-It kind of annoys me in certain "Final Appeal" segments (like this one or Paul Ferrell) where the person claims to be innocent, yet offers absolutely no evidence to support these claims. Even in the "largely circumstantial" cases, there is little to no circumstantial evidence suggesting that the appellant is innocent. There's nothing to support his innocence other than his story of sleeping through the murders, then waking up and being scared, all the while he convieniently did not look up or attempt to check things out until well after the murders and the getaway, and then swimming to shore and lying about what happened out of fear for his life. And if Consagra's story is true, why did he not come forward after this guy Ted implicated him as the murderer? Why didn't Consagra then say that Ted was the one who had the beef with Freddy and more of a reason to kill him?

-An innocent person will NEVER plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit. He should have at least taken this to trial where it would have been a 50/50 chance. I don't understand where his lawyer came up with the 1 in 5 chance, but I don't necessarily buy into him being scared of the electric chair. Think about it...if two of your closest friends were murdered, and you were being accused of murdering them but you were 100% innocent, would you plead guilty to one of their murders almost all but eradicating any chance of prosecuting the "real killers"?

-Also, this case was investigated three different times after Consagra was convicted. They each came back with the conclusion that Consagra was guilty, every single time. It appears as though there was enough room for doubt to warrant new investigations each time, yet they all came to the same conclusion. Pretty damning if you ask me.

There's no doubt in my mind Consagra killed at least one of his friends on the island. Most likely Freddy. Why? Most likely because of Freddy being an informant to the police. I also think Consagra was at least one of the triggermen because if he wasn't, why wouldn't he come forward (after being convicted or even before when he swam back to the mainland) and admit to being there, and also admit to witnessing the crime and that it was in fact Ted, "Donna", and the 3rd man were the ones responsible for the murder? He doesn't point the finger at anyone and continues to stick to his "innocent" story.

Here's what I think happened: Consagra wanted to "rough up", scare, or possibly kill Freddy for him informing the cops on his property fraud scheme. I think he had this pre-planned to wind up on the man made island, and his "cronies" (Ted, "Donna", and the other man) knew this is where they would be. Consagra may have feigned the problems with his boat, or Freddy and Lou may have been so drunk that they didn't seem to care, but ultimately they wound up on the man made island by design, not by fate. I think when the others arrived is when Consagra pulled one of the guns on Freddy. Freddy, possibly because he was intoxicated, may have began to shout back or attempt to put up a fight which angered Consagra (who may have been drunk as well) and Consagra shot and killed Freddy. Then Lou was killed by one of the other members (or maybe even Consagra), possibly the way "Donna" described, it to keep her quiet. I then think they all conspired to concoct a story about what "really happened". I think they all weighed the bodies down thinking they would never be found, and they sank Consagra's boat as a way to help solidify the story. I think when Consagra swam back to shore, he said that the last time he saw Freddy and Lou was when they took his boat to get more beer for a reason. HIS BOAT WAS SANK. That was going to be the crux of their story, so to speak. Consagra says they left in his boat, and his boat and both Freddy and Lou are missing, so he's going to put forth the theory that the boat sank, and Freddy and Lou drowned. But the wrench was thrown in that story when their bodies surfaced. And I think that's when Consagra's "cronies" realized they may be implicated in the murders and/or the aftermath in covering them up. Therefore, they place the blame squarely on Consagra to cover their own necks. This is why I tend to believe Consagra killed at least one or both of his friends. Had he been a witness to the crime, but helped cover it up in some way, why didn't he and the others collectively come forward and implicate Ted? Or the "other man" with the shotgun?

This was one of the most bizarre cases UM ever profiled, but after watching it and actually paying attention there's no doubt in my mind that Consagra had a hand in one or both of his friends deaths. The fact that he initially lied about it, then changed his story when the bodies surfaced, helps me think my theory about what happened is pretty accurate. Guilty.

This was one of the most bizarre cases UM ever profiled, but after watching it and actually paying attention there's no doubt in my mind that Consagra had a hand in one or both of his friends deaths. The fact that he initially lied about it, then changed his story when the bodies surfaced, helps me think my theory about what happened is pretty accurate. Guilty.


I agree 100%. Well said.

This was one of the most bizarre cases UM ever profiled, but after watching it and actually paying attention there's no doubt in my mind that Consagra had a hand in one or both of his friends deaths. The fact that he initially lied about it, then changed his story when the bodies surfaced, helps me think my theory about what happened is pretty accurate. Guilty.

Yep, I think the only reason this case made it to air is because it was one of the earliest episodes and they were still experimenting with the "final appeal" format. This probably never would have made it past the initial screening stage in later years. However, it is a pretty unique final appeal case in that the accused may not technically be guilty of all the crimes he was convicted of, but likely did SOMETHING on that island to deserve time in prison.

This probably never would have made it past the initial screening stage in later years.

I tend to agree, but might add the caveat that they did pass the Paul Ferrell final appeal case 5 years later. The case for Ferrell's innocence is a complete joke. It's so laughable I have to wonder if they did the story simply because it was tawdry and scandalous enough that it made for good TV; His claims of innocence were secondary and just made for nice window dressing.

I tend to agree, but might add the caveat that they did pass the Paul Ferrell final appeal case 5 years later. The case for Ferrell's innocence is a complete joke. It's so laughable I have to wonder if they did the story simply because it was tawdry and scandalous enough that it made for good TV; His claims of innocence were secondary and just made for nice window dressing.

Yes, I'd agree that UM probably thought the story was sensational enough that they wanted to air it somehow, regardless of how unconvincing the case was for the accused's innocence. And unlike other final appeal cases, the victim's body was never found, so even with if the right person was in prison, the mystery wasn't 100 % solved yet.

IMO, Ferrell and Consagra's stories are interchangeable. They both have unbelievable stories to support their "innocence", both witnessed crimes or knew one had taken place yet lied about it initially and attempted to keep "living the lie", and both could offer no concrete proof that anyone other than themselves committed the crimes they were convicted for.