I have to say, with no offense meant to the family, but the Conradina Olson case, as presented, has to be one of the stupidest segments on UM.

There is absolutely no question that, what-ever happened to Conradina, she is not the woman buried in Ellis, MO. The segment states that Conradina, who was born in 1871, disappeared when she was 38, i.e., 1909 or 1910. Yet the segment, after wasting time re-telling the story of the Ellis lady and the "psychic" who said nothing, tells you at the end that the story of the Ellis lady appeared in local newspapers in 1888, 22 years BEFORE Olson disappeared. Despite what her grand-daughter may believe, there is no connection.

Family stories must have portrayed Carl Olson as a really nasty guy, since his grand-daughter feels confident accusing her grandfather (who according to what i've found, died about ten years before she was born) of murder.

While I enjoy this segment, I have to agree with you. Why even bring up the unknown woman's grave when there is glaring evidence that it isn't Conradina? I mean, they didn't even offer any evidence or theories to contradict the newspaper article, so..isn't it kinda straightforward? it isn't her. :confused:

Is it conclusive that the newspaper article refers to the same body buried next to the tracks? It could be referring to another murder, I suppose (or one may have been an accident). Maybe it specifies in the article from 1888 where exactly the body was found and buried. If it was the same place as the grave near the tracks in Ellis, there would be no reason to exhume the remains, and the granddaughter's case is pretty useless.

However, I still think it's interesting as simply an account of a woman killed by her lover near some tracks and buried by railroad workers. It has a creepy urban legend vibe to it.

Underrating the sensational beard that the historian had though.