Does anyone remember this case?

http://unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/mis_jean_moore.htm

It seems likely that her fiancee murdered her, especially since he gives one story, yet surveillance footage tells another story. My question is, how did he kill her and why? How did he get rid of the body? Seems like an awful lot for an elderly man to do by himself.

Does anyone remember this case?

http://unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/mis_jean_moore.htm

It seems likely that her fiancee murdered her, especially since he gives one story, yet surveillance footage tells another story. My question is, how did he kill her and why? How did he get rid of the body? Seems like an awful lot for an elderly man to do by himself.

Sadly, we'll probably never know. It's been some time, I'm wondering if Al Henderson is even still alive?

I doubt it. He was old as dirt in 1992. I cant find anything online about this case that isn't on a message board. No newspaper articles, television interviews, updates. Nothing.

I doubt it. He was old as dirt in 1992. I cant find anything online about this case that isn't on a message board. No newspaper articles, television interviews, updates. Nothing.

Me neither. CD might know something about it, though. She's up on a lot of the cases.

Me neither. CD might know something about it, though. She's up on a lot of the cases.

Thanks! I haven't had any luck though finding anything about this case. I don't believe she's listed on the missing websites (last time I checked anyway) which I found sort of odd. Surely if her body had been found UM on Spike would have updated it. Such a baffling case! I've always thought the fiance wasn't responsible for her disappearance and that she met with foul play but really not a whole lot makes sense in this case.

Thanks! I haven't had any luck though finding anything about this case. I don't believe she's listed on the missing websites (last time I checked anyway) which I found sort of odd. Surely if her body had been found UM on Spike would have updated it. Such a baffling case! I've always thought the fiance wasn't responsible for her disappearance and that she met with foul play but really not a whole lot makes sense in this case.

Personally, this is one of the cases I really never formed an opinion on. There wasn't enough to push me in one direction or the other. It's still on the UM website as unsolved, with no updates, but I haven't seen a thing, elsewhere. It's a shame :(

Personally, this is one of the cases I really never formed an opinion on. There wasn't enough to push me in one direction or the other. It's still on the UM website as unsolved, with no updates, but I haven't seen a thing, elsewhere. It's a shame :(

As much as I want to believe that ehr fiance was innocent of everything, his story just doesn't make sense. He stated that he was playing Jean's favorite machine, yet the cameras never show him doing so. He stated he dropped her off at a side door and gave her the ticket, yet the cameras never show him doing so. He also stated that he walked around looking for her and yet again, the cameras don't show him doing so. It is definitely a very very odd and baffling case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bell83
Personally, this is one of the cases I really never formed an opinion on. There wasn't enough to push me in one direction or the other. It's still on the UM website as unsolved, with no updates, but I haven't seen a thing, elsewhere. It's a shame

As much as I want to believe that ehr fiance was innocent of everything, his story just doesn't make sense. He stated that he was playing Jean's favorite machine, yet the cameras never show him doing so. He stated he dropped her off at a side door and gave her the ticket, yet the cameras never show him doing so. He also stated that he walked around looking for her and yet again, the cameras don't show him doing so. It is definitely a very very odd and baffling case.

There really is no reason for her fiance to lie or make up his story other than to hide a crime.

I agree. This case has all the signs of a cover up by the finance. As was stated, there's no reason for the last person to see Jean alive to be making statements that are directly contradicted by the evidence. I have a feeling that the police would have tried the finance for 2nd degree murder, or perhaps manslaughter if a body had been found. the fact that he was very clearly not where he was when he said he was there shows that something was amiss. It's obvious to me that he had the window of time to get this accomplished.

I don't believe him for one second. There doesn't appear to be any evidence to support his story. I don't think he killed her intentionly; perhaps something happened accidently and he panicked and disposed of the body and made up the casino story. Maybe that's why they haven't discovered her body - they don't know where to look.

I don't believe him for one second. There doesn't appear to be any evidence to support his story. I don't think he killed her intentionly; perhaps something happened accidently and he panicked and disposed of the body and made up the casino story. Maybe that's why they haven't discovered her body - they don't know where to look.

Well if you believe the family members, they were leary of the guy before the the disappearance.




What other reason could there be for Jean's dissapearance?:confused:
In terms of missing persons.
Jean was an elderly person woman.
1. I find it hard to believe she would up and start a whole new life at her age. Besides she pretty much was doing that with her fiance.
2. While there are many attractive people of Jeans age and sexual predators can go after anyone...the odds are pretty low against her being the victim of a sexual predator.
3. No ransom demanded. So scratch kindapping for ransom.
4. I find it hard to believe that Jean was involved in anything that would force her have to be a fugitive. And anything that would not prompt such an a flight would surel have tipped off her fiance. Why wouldn't he reveal such suspicion in order to clear himself.

I don't believe him for one second. There doesn't appear to be any evidence to support his story. I don't think he killed her intentionly; perhaps something happened accidently and he panicked and disposed of the body and made up the casino story. Maybe that's why they haven't discovered her body - they don't know where to look.

One thought I had is that her fiance had some secret that he was afraid she might reveal. Maybe he was a fraud artists and she discovered this and was threatening to reveal this to the authorities.

I believe Al henderson is telling the truth and may just have some of his facts (i.e locations) mixed up. Laughlin is not exactly an entirely safe haven as crime is fairly high there (Nevada itself is notoriuos fo high rates of crie mainly due to the tourist nature of the state). There are some sick people who would have abducted and killed Jean for nothing more than her purse.

I don't put much stock in Jean's son's opinion of Al either. He gives no explanation as to why he does not trust Al. I always thought he was bitter because his mother was going to re-marry (and it didn't matter who she would marry. the son was always going to view that person--naturally--as being less than his own dad). This thinking is not uncommon from what I understand. He may have felt as if Jean was trying to "replace" his dad with Al, hence the bitterness.

The other thing we have to consider is that other than some unverifiable/potentially false information, there is no evidence that Al Henderson was involved in Jean's disappearance.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe Al henderson is telling the truth and may just have some of his facts (i.e locations) mixed up.

1. But where was he during the time in question? He has no alibi.

2. Are we saying Al just got mixed up because he's old? If he was a twenty year old would we be given him such leniency?

3.

There are some sick people who would have abducted and killed Jean for nothing more than her purse.

Why hide her body?

Why did the robbers attack conveniently when Jean was separated from Al?

The other thing we have to consider is that other than some unverifiable/potentially false information, there is no evidence that Al Henderson was involved in Jean's disappearance.

Nor is there evidence against Paul Pollis, Judy Groezinger, Paul Rizzo, or Don Sherman.

That didn;t stop them from being suspects in the deaths of their respected spouses. Nor has that stopped any of us on this forum from accusing them of murder.

IMHO, There is enough circumstantial evidence to make Al the prime suspect in his wife's disappearance.

Laughlin is not exactly an entirely safe haven as crime is fairly high there (Nevada itself is notoriuos fo high rates of crie mainly due to the tourist nature of the state

The Henderson, Nevada area also has a high rate of spousal murders and battery. Mostly due to the problems caused by gambling addictions and debt.

i dont think poor Jean even made it to the Casino. There is nothing on video cameras right?

I dont know why or how he did it, but maybe one day they will find her body, who knows, but I think he is guitly. He seemed like a sweet old man though.

He seemed like a sweet old man though.

1.That's why kilelr and fraud artists are able to victimize people so easily. They don;t look like "evil people".

2. Also you have to consider that the murder may have been a crime of passion. Perhaps the result of an argument.

3. "Desperation makes criminals of us all"

(sorry I forgot who originally quoted that..:p )

Oh I don't disagree with you at all, Mastermind. He is the prime suspect in my opinion as well. It was more of a lament that there isn't more evidence.

There are a few videos that show her playing the machine, if I remember correctly.

Also to marlins3, I dont think your theory is stacking up very well because if some random person did this, they wouldnt hide her body or dispose of it. Statistics will show you that when its a random act of violence by a complete stranger, they do not go to these lengths to dispose of a body. Generally, when you cant find the body, its because a relative or friend is responsible. Al's age and recollection shouldnt have any bearing on anyone's opinion. As mastermind said, if he was 20, would we give him the same leniancy.

There are a few videos that show her playing the machine, if I remember correctly.

Also to marlins3, I dont think your theory is stacking up very well because if some random person did this, they wouldnt hide her body or dispose of it. Statistics will show you that when its a random act of violence by a complete stranger, they do not go to these lengths to dispose of a body. Generally, when you cant find the body, its because a relative or friend is responsible. Al's age and recollection shouldnt have any bearing on anyone's opinion. As mastermind said, if he was 20, would we give him the same leniancy.

Actually, I don't believe the she showed up on the videos at all. They showed that Jean Moore was not where her husband said she was.

Also, I think you are confusing statistics with evidence. While I agree that she was probably killed by someone she knew, I think it would be imprudent to say something DIDN'T happen just because the probability of another solution is higher. There are many solid reasons why Jean Moore's husband is the main suspect (i.e., that he lied to the police) that have nothing to do with statistics.

Actually, I don't believe the she showed up on the videos at all. They showed that Jean Moore was not where her husband said she was.

Also, I think you are confusing statistics with evidence. While I agree that she was probably killed by someone she knew, I think it would be imprudent to say something DIDN'T happen just because the probability of another solution is higher. There are many solid reasons why Jean Moore's husband is the main suspect (i.e., that he lied to the police) that have nothing to do with statistics.

I don't see how that's confusing statistics with evidence. All I'm saying is that most of the time when a body is found laying around somewhere, it was a random act of violence. Whereas if a body cannot be located or when a body is found buried or hidden, its generally a close friend or relative of the victim. There is no evidence in this case for me to confuse it with. Nothing has ever been found.

I do agree that there are more reasons why Al Henderson is the prime suspect, but if he didn't kill Jean, then who did and where is her body? I'd also like to know whatever became of Al Henderson. I assume he has passed away by now. Did he remarry? Did Jean's kids every speak to him again?

I don't see how that's confusing statistics with evidence. All I'm saying is that most of the time when a body is found laying around somewhere, it was a random act of violence. Whereas if a body cannot be located or when a body is found buried or hidden, its generally a close friend or relative of the victim. There is no evidence in this case for me to confuse it with. Nothing has ever been found.

Agreed.

A stranger looking to rob someone does not care whether you find the body, he has no connection to that person.

Hiding a body is a difficult task. People that hide bodies usually do so because they know that they will be the prime suspect if the body is found.

i saw this segment again (funny short story, i went to the casino last weekend and it remind me of this case!)

what is perplexing is that a woman of Jean's age would be in a casino, without her husband, WITHOUT HER WEDDING RING...considering that her new life with Al and the fact that she seemed happy

To me he is the prime suspect here...there is no one else...however, there is no evidence to suggest there was foul play by Al! the only inconsistency here is the video where it doesn't show Jean on her favorite machine like said she would be

What baffles me the most here is the fact that a woman could disappear in a casino on brod-daylight...i just dont see anything to explain her dissapearance other that MAYBE she was attacked by a random person, then again why dispose of the body???

how about the possibility that maybe there was a serial killer on the loose around the time of her disappearance...

I just dont see why he would kill Jean, i see no benefit from doing that to her...he had money, and it seems like all was well with the relationship so why kill her?? although no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors in a relationship between 2 people...i hope this case gets solved some day BUT without any witnesses or concrete proof that Al murdered her i just dont see anything happening anytime soon :(

i saw this segment again (funny short story, i went to the casino last weekend and it remind me of this case!)

what is perplexing is that a woman of Jean's age would be in a casino, without her husband, WITHOUT HER WEDDING RING...considering that her new life with Al and the fact that she seemed happy

To me he is the prime suspect here...there is no one else...however, there is no evidence to suggest there was foul play by Al! the only inconsistency here is the video where it doesn't show Jean on her favorite machine like said she would be

What baffles me the most here is the fact that a woman could disappear in a casino on brod-daylight...i just dont see anything to explain her dissapearance other that MAYBE she was attacked by a random person, then again why dispose of the body???

how about the possibility that maybe there was a serial killer on the loose around the time of her disappearance...

I just dont see why he would kill Jean, i see no benefit from doing that to her...he had money, and it seems like all was well with the relationship so why kill her?? although no one really knows what goes on behind closed doors in a relationship between 2 people...i hope this case gets solved some day BUT without any witnesses or concrete proof that Al murdered her i just dont see anything happening anytime soon :(

I think the most likely scenario is that Al is responsible. The question is why? I know her family didn't like him but no one ever said that he was abusive or controlling. From her friends that were interviewed on UM, they say her and Al were in love and had a great relationship. She wasn't worth a lot of money, he was, so its not like he killed her for the money. Very odd case.

I think the most likely scenario is that Al is responsible. The question is why? I know her family didn't like him but no one ever said that he was abusive or controlling

1. It could have been a crime of passion where Al and Jean got into an argument that resulted in Al becoming violent and killing Jean. This sadly is the most common type of murder that occurs.

2. Al may be a scam artist of some sort. Perhaps Jean was going to expose him?

3. Maybe Al had found someone else and considered this an easier escape route out of this relationship.

1. It could have been a crime of passion where Al and Jean got into an argument that resulted in Al becoming violent and killing Jean. This sadly is the most common type of murder that occurs.

2. Al may be a scam artist of some sort. Perhaps Jean was going to expose him?

3. Maybe Al had found someone else and considered this an easier escape route out of this relationship.

I agree, which is why I would like to know whatever became of Al. He looked like he was in his 60's or 70's back when this story originally aired in the early 90's, so (not to be mean) I doubt he's still alive.

It would be nice if one of Jean's family members found out about this message board and posted an update on this case as they would definitely know more about what Al Henderson did in the years following Jean's disappearance.

Thanks! I haven't had any luck though finding anything about this case. I don't believe she's listed on the missing websites (last time I checked anyway) which I found sort of odd. Surely if her body had been found UM on Spike would have updated it. Such a baffling case! I've always thought the fiance wasn't responsible for her disappearance and that she met with foul play but really not a whole lot makes sense in this case.

I can look into Al Henderson's eyes and see that he is truly guilty. He looks very cold and deceiving, look Jean's kids both stated. The whole case makes no sense what so ever, only that Al knows a lot more than he is telling. Why would a person abduct a random older woman in broad daylight at a casino? Also, he can't even back up his story. It is very obvious that he is lying, especially since Jean is no where to be seen on the video tapes. If his story was true, she would have been seen on the tapes. Henderson has probably passed away since. I did find an Alva Henderson of Applewood, CA who died in 2001? I did find some information about Jean since the airing.Seven years after her disappearance, her family held a memorial service for her. No body was found. Very sad. I wonder what Henderson did with her?

Jean Marie Moore
Dunn County News, Sun, April 4, 1999, p. A6

[picture]
Born: July 27 1932
Disappeared: April 9, 1992
Jean Marie (Traxler) Moore was born July 27, 1982, in Dunn County, the daughter of Henry and Mable (Mittlestadt) Traxler.
Jean and her family moved to California in 1960 where she ultimately settled in the desert community, of Apple Valley. Jean was employed as an escrow officer for Bank of America until her retirement, then pursued an independent career in real estate. A well-respected member of the community, Jean was, elected honorary mayor of Apple Valley, Calif., in 1987.

On April 9, 1992, Jean was reported missing under suspicious circumstances from Laughlin, Nov., where she was vacationing. Though her disappearance was actively investigated by both the Laughlin Division of the Las Vegas Police Department and by the San Bernardino
County Sheriff's Office, no trace of her has ever been found.

Jean enjoyed traveling, gardening, and entertaining family and friends.

Jean, is survived by her children, Connie Christie of Upland, Calif, and Joe (Pat) Hamilton of San Diego, Calif.; and her grandchildren, Donald, Joseph, and Anthony Barilari and Christine, Mariann and John Hamilton.

She is also survived by her brothers and sisters, Everett (Mary) Traxler and Nor ma Mercer of Eau Claire, Jerome (Jan) and... Raymond NO Traxler of Menomonie, Barbara (Dan) Gorton of Baraboo, and Bernard Traxler of Burnsville, Minn.

Her parents and three infant brothers preceded Jean in death.

A memorial service will be held at 11 a.m. on Saturday, April 10, 1999, at the Stanton-Goodrich-Rhiel Funeral Home, 2317 Schneider Ave. SE, Menomonie, with the Rev. Lyle Schulte of St. Joseph's Catholic Church officiating.

Immediately after the service, lunch will be served in the Badger Room of the Holiday Manor Motor Lodge, 1815 N. Broadway, Menomonie.

:confused: I feel very sorry for her family. To not know what happened and where she is...... horrible. If Henderson is still alive, he should admit it before he dies.

Wow - I had no idea that Jean Moore was from Wisconsin. I grew up less than 1/2 an hour away from where she was born. Small world.

Wow, this case have bothered me! I'm pretty sure that Al Henderson is dead. I found a death record for Alva Henderson in Apple Valley, California. If this indeed is him, he died in September 2001 at the age of 79.

Wow, this case have bothered me! I'm pretty sure that Al Henderson is dead. I found a death record for Alva Henderson in Apple Valley, California. If this indeed is him, he died in September 2001 at the age of 79.

Update: I e-mailed Jean's daughter Connie. Jean's remains have never been found. Al Henderson is in fact dead. My heart goes out to the family of Jean.:(

Update: I e-mailed Jean's daughter Connie. Jean's remains have never been found. Al Henderson is in fact dead. My heart goes out to the family of Jean.:(

So sad. Did you ask if she knew what happened to Al later on after 1992?

I think Al is guilty IMO. Nothing shows that they were even in the casino at the time in question. Yet Al stubbornly continues to lie about it. Plus there is something I didn't like about Al. He stated his net worth was from $2.5 dropping to $1 million. He said he would take that $1 million if he could have her back. This tells me that:

#1 Despite his fiancee's disappearance he still has an ego enough to boast about his money
#2 How in the world did he drop $1.5 million
#3 He seemed like a boastful and selfish man who cared more about himself

Nothing to prove he did it, but it also gives the indication that he could have easily hired the mafia or a hitman to kill her and dispose of her body. Which is something no one has brought up.

Now the question is why? He did ask her to marry him. They were together for 20 years. There was no history of violence or abuse. They got along seemingly well. Why kill her? Nothing has been answered either way. But the only thing is that Al's story is a fairy tale and he sticks to it despite the physical evidence of the cameras proving him wrong. This tells me that he knows where Jean's body is but is arrogant enough to deny it because he will NEVER get proven wrong.

There is no way an elderly woman disappears in broad daylight in a busy casino without anyone seeing something. Or the cameras.

#2 How in the world did he drop $1.5 million

Gambling, possibly.

Nothing to prove he did it, but it also gives the indication that he could have easily hired the mafia or a hitman to kill her and dispose of her body. Which is something no one has brought up.

You'd think though that they'd find a better location to do the hit.

You'd think though that they'd find a better location to do the hit.


They would, which is why I don't think she was anywhere near the Casino during that time that Al says she should have been playing on her "lucky machine"

After exchanging e-mails with Jean's daughter Connie, it doesn't sound like they had any contact over the years following Jean's disappearance. Jean's children believed he was guilty, so they probably wanted nothing to do with him until it was a confession. Has anyone else noticed Al's behavior in the very beginning of the segment. He is talking about Jean deciding it was "ok to marry me." He has a big grin on his face. In a matter of seconds his emotions change. To me, this makes him look guilty. How can someone go from looking happy to looking sad in a few seconds. It was like he realized he was smiling, so he wanted to quickly appear like he was sad. It just seems "not genuine" like Connie discurbs him. In a case like this, you have to pay close detail to a persons emotions.

Yeah, this is truly a case in which I'm surprised that Al was never arrested. I know that no body was found, but there was obvious deception, and verifiable lying on his part to authorities.

Like some other posters, I too was disgusted when Al was boasting about how his net worth had dropped, and using that as justification for not killing Jean for money.. that seemed very strange to me.

And even though the segment didn't mention anything about a history of domestic violence, we all know that a lot can happen behind closed doors. Plus, it was strange that:

1) The daughter said that Al put her down in front of others (which is cruel and shows what a person might be capable of).
2) Al admitted that it took Jean quite a while to finally agree to marry him... One has to wonder what was making her so hesitant for so long (perhaps there was abuse and he had promised that it would stop or something).

Regardless, I think they had a fight or something happened that was not planned, and he panicked and concocted the story about dropping her off at the casino (which turned out to be a really bad story since it was proven untrue).

The guy was lucky though... he made a lot of mistakes with this crime, and never got in trouble for it.. a real shame.

One other thing: I just watched the segment again, and it was noted that Jean did not take her engagement ring or her purse??? Virtually all women take their purse with them, particularly if they are going somewhere to gamble! This also goes against the theory that she met with random foul play so that someone could steal her purse.

The thing I thought of is that she never made it out of the hotel, or he didn't want to part with the ring b/c it was worth quite a bit of money, so he took it off of her finger before he disposed of the body.

Again, I think this was an accident and he panicked. Just my opinion though.

One other thing: I just watched the segment again, and it was noted that Jean did not take her engagement ring or her purse??? Virtually all women take their purse with them, particularly if they are going somewhere to gamble! This also goes against the theory that she met with random foul play so that someone could steal her purse.

The thing I thought of is that she never made it out of the hotel, or he didn't want to part with the ring b/c it was worth quite a bit of money, so he took it off of her finger before he disposed of the body.

Again, I think this was an accident and he panicked. Just my opinion though.

I agree that it was most likely an accident and he panicked but what I don't understand is how he blatantly lied about dropping her off at a certain entrance and her playing certain slot machines. The video surveillance directly refutes this. He also stated that he walked in and played "her" slot machine hoping she would see him, which is also refuted by the surveillance. Generally when police have evidence that their prime suspect is lying, more can be done in terms of "grilling them" or even closely monitoring them.

Obviously if Al swore that he himself was playing a certain set of slot machines at a specific time and surveillance cameras show otherwise, he's guilty. All he had to do was say he dropped Jean off and then went to get something to eat and then came back and couldn't find her. The simlpe fact that he puts himself in the casino would be a solid enough alibi...if he was on film. But he's not, therefore he has to be guilty. There would be no other reason for him to lie about his whereabouts. I do think there was an argument, perhaps over his gambling that got out of hand and he hid her body...or perhaps hired someone to help dispose of her body.

When I re-watched this segment a few months back, I started thinking about Al's age at the time of the disappearance. He was probably in his 60's or 70's at the time and it reminded me of something. In the years preceding my grandmother's death, she was alert and oriented but she would often mis-remember things. She would swear up and down that her keys were in her purse, but they were actually on her nightstand. Stuff like that. I wondered if Al thinks he dropped her off in one place, but actually dropped her somewhere else and she met with foul play elsewhere. He then went on to say that he went into the casino and player her favorite slot machine hoping she would see him, but the video surveillance does not reflect that.

If this theory is true, then someone has abducted and most likely killed Jean. If it is not true, then Al Henderson has completely outsmarted the police. It takes a very stupid person to say they did something when video surveillance shows different. But without a body, its still a disappearance.

Having said all of that, I don't think its what happened. I think he accidentally killed her and then disposed of the body but it presents an alternative theory to the disappearance.

Since only one person in Laughlin, Nevada reports even seeing Jean Moore (an elderly coffeeshop waitress), you have to actually ask was she ever there? I find it very difficult to believe that no one at the hotel where Jeane and Al were staying saw her, either leaving or entering their room or getting into or out of Al's car.

In fact, if she never was in Laughlin that changes the entire story.if she never made it to Laughlin, the police would be looking in the entirely wrong area for her. Al could've disposed of her body anywhere in the hundreds of miles of desert between Apple Valley California,and Laughlin.

To me ( since Al is now apparently deceased)the main thing to determine would have been: was Jean wore ever in Laughlin at or around the time of her disappearance? Without an exact timeline ( and no, I don't believe Al's bookkeeper) of when they left and where they may have stopped, this case is almost impossible to solve.

As soon as I read this case, it reminded me of this case.

http://www.justnews.com/news/4780944/detail.html

I think he is guilty. They were referred to as elderly, but she was 60 when she dissappeared. He might have been a few years older. My Dh is 65 and can outwork men decades younger than him. So I don't buy what someone said about him being elderly and not able to hide the body. It certainly is possible for a man that age to be able to, look at the Garvin case in the link, he was an older guy also.

Guilty.

After exchanging e-mails with Jean's daughter Connie, it doesn't sound like they had any contact over the years following Jean's disappearance. Jean's children believed he was guilty, so they probably wanted nothing to do with him until it was a confession. Has anyone else noticed Al's behavior in the very beginning of the segment. He is talking about Jean deciding it was "ok to marry me." He has a big grin on his face. In a matter of seconds his emotions change. To me, this makes him look guilty. How can someone go from looking happy to looking sad in a few seconds. It was like he realized he was smiling, so he wanted to quickly appear like he was sad. It just seems "not genuine" like Connie discurbs him. In a case like this, you have to pay close detail to a persons emotions.

With the discovery of Jeans body, did they determine how she died?

With the discovery of Jeans body, did they determine how she died?

I don't think they ever discovered Jean's body or wherabouts. As to Al smirking when he said she decided it was "Ok to marry him", it could have just been a simple smile from an old man reminiscing about better times. There really wasn't anyone other than Al though, who had a motive to do harm to Jean.

I don't think they ever discovered Jean's body or wherabouts. As to Al smirking when he said she decided it was "Ok to marry him", it could have just been a simple smile from reminiscing about better times. There really wasn't anyone other than Al though, who had a motive to do harm to Jean.

Agreed. Someone saying his smirk was anything but an older man reminiscing on better days is reading too much into it IMO. Not saying he is innocent but that smirk/smile sure was.

The more I think about this case the more I start to question Al's guilt. Just how could he have pulled this off? He almost certainly wouldn't have been able to do it alone, so it seems likely (due to his financial background) that he would have the means to hire someone to help him murder Jean. But there's two things lacking. A motive for one, and two there's no indication that Al ever took out large sums of money to pay for a hitman. What exactly would Al have to gain in killing Jean, or having her killed? He was already up in age, retired, and should have been ready to live the rest of his years relaxed and unrestrained. The fact that her kids say he "put her down" in front of others is meaningless, IMO. Just because you can be a jerk sometimes does not necessitate that you are a murderer. I always seem to flip flop on this case.

Anyone else find it weird that Jean Moore isn't listed on Charley Project, Doe Network or any other missing persons website I can find? Other than her being listed in the "missing" section on the UM website, I can't find any other information about this case anywhere. You'd think with a reward having been offered for her return, Jean would have more exposure.

The more I think about this case the more I start to question Al's guilt. Just how could he have pulled this off? He almost certainly wouldn't have been able to do it alone, so it seems likely (due to his financial background) that he would have the means to hire someone to help him murder Jean. But there's two things lacking. A motive for one, and two there's no indication that Al ever took out large sums of money to pay for a hitman. What exactly would Al have to gain in killing Jean, or having her killed? He was already up in age, retired, and should have been ready to live the rest of his years relaxed and unrestrained. The fact that her kids say he "put her down" in front of others is meaningless, IMO. Just because you can be a jerk sometimes does not necessitate that you are a murderer. I always seem to flip flop on this case.
It would be easy to pull this off. Older dosn't mean feeble...my dad is 72 and can still dig ditches, work on cars, haul heavy mattresses and furniture around. He's not in the best of health he can do it. He can simply kill her, dispose the body, go to the casinos for an alibi of sorts, and that's it. I don't want to be gruesome but I can easily think of several simple ways he could do this.

WIth the kids statements, gut feelings and actions go a long way. You can't convict someone with gut feelings, but if they felt he was bad news they had reasons for it. Statistically (and no I can't pull them out of my head, but during my training at an abuse crisis center I know I had them) many many of the murdered women and children today are victims of the partner or relative that is abusing them. This is why the spouse/partner/parent is always looked at first. Rare are the stranger abductions/murders/rapes. So the family has the stats on their side at the very least. There is a lot we don't know about, but I can see him harming her because he's abusive. It could have been an accident initially, as some here theorize. His anger went too far.

Another very possible scenario is that she found out about some shady practices that he was doing. People very rarely win 1.5 million gambling. Go to any casino and learn about the way things are set up. You have to be a high roller just to get NEAR the areas that dish out money like that and if you are, you're watched closely. Smaller jackpots are way more common then ANYTHING like that, and it's very unlikely that he got that money won from a casino. WHERE did he get the money? Logic says some sort of swindle or theft. If you take about the possible abuse angle, this would be the much more logical angle. He had some sort of shady dealings and she found out.

Yeah, this is truly a case in which I'm surprised that Al was never arrested. I know that no body was found, but there was obvious deception, and verifiable lying on his part to authorities.

Really? While I certainly think there's good reason to suspect Al, there's absolutely no proof of a crime. No ASA in their right mind brings this case.

It would be easy to pull this off. Older dosn't mean feeble...my dad is 72 and can still dig ditches, work on cars, haul heavy mattresses and furniture around. He's not in the best of health he can do it. He can simply kill her, dispose the body, go to the casinos for an alibi of sorts, and that's it. I don't want to be gruesome but I can easily think of several simple ways he could do this.

I find it hard to believe that an elderly man could kill someone and dispose of their body in a tourist-like atmosphere in Laughlin, without anyone noticing anything. If he killed her in their hotel room, just how did he get her body out unnoticed? We have Al's bookkeeper who said she spoke to both Al and Jean the evening before she disappeared. So they were definitely in Laughlin that night. So it doesn't appear that this was premeditated (if Al is guilty), so what could have possibly be the turning point that pushed him to murder Jean and hide her body?

Another very possible scenario is that she found out about some shady practices that he was doing. People very rarely win 1.5 million gambling. Go to any casino and learn about the way things are set up. You have to be a high roller just to get NEAR the areas that dish out money like that and if you are, you're watched closely. Smaller jackpots are way more common then ANYTHING like that, and it's very unlikely that he got that money won from a casino. WHERE did he get the money? Logic says some sort of swindle or theft. If you take about the possible abuse angle, this would be the much more logical angle. He had some sort of shady dealings and she found out.

Al and Jean were not married. He also was the one who posted the $25,000 reward to find Jean, and I believe Al was wealthy. If she found out about something shady, or perhaps a gambling habit he had that she didn't approve of, why not just leave her? Seems more logical to call the engagement off instead of murdering her. Although, interestingly enough in the UM segment they say that Jean did not have her purse or her engagement ring on her the day she disappeared. So either she left it back in the hotel room for some unknown reason when she and Al went to the casino, or she returned to the hotel room and left the items there after leaving the casino without Al's knowledge. Her leaving the casino and returning the items to the hotel room is highly unlikely, because Al's car was parked in the parking lot the entire time. So this tells me that maybe Jean and Al did in fact have a fight, and maybe Jean called off their engagement. That would explain why her ring was left in the hotel room. But if Jean was incensed at Al or vice versa for whatever reason, how could Al have gotten Jean out of the hotel to go do harm to her elsewhere and ditch her body?

So this is pure speculation here. Obviously Al's story of the day she disappeared has several holes in it. So either he killed her and disposed of her body, possibly because of a fight they had, and made up the entire morning story. Or another possibility is Al's innocent, but he's still lying about the morning trip to the casino. Why would he lie about that? Perhaps Jean did find some illegal activity Al was involved in, and didn't approve of it. Maybe she called off the engagement, left the hotel room in a huff (which is why her purse was left behind too), went to one of the casinos to cool down and that's where she was abducted by an unknown third party. Al may have went to bed that night thinking Jean would return, and by the next morning he decided to do a half-assed search for her at the casino where her favorite slot machine was located, did a brief search, didn't find her and then left to check other casinos. Remember, the surveillance tape only showed Al entering the casino, it never shows him actually playing any of the machines when he said he was. He may have lied about the whole trip to the casino that morning out of fear that if police probed too far they would find out about Al's illegal activity. IMO, if he's innocent, this could be a reason why his story has several holes in it.

I find it hard to believe that an elderly man could kill someone and dispose of their body in a tourist-like atmosphere in Laughlin, without anyone noticing anything. If he killed her in their hotel room, just how did he get her body out unnoticed? We have Al's bookkeeper who said she spoke to both Al and Jean the evening before she disappeared. So they were definitely in Laughlin that night. So it doesn't appear that this was premeditated (if Al is guilty), so what could have possibly be the turning point that pushed him to murder Jean and hide her body?



Al and Jean were not married. He also was the one who posted the $25,000 reward to find Jean, and I believe Al was wealthy. If she found out about something shady, or perhaps a gambling habit he had that she didn't approve of, why not just leave her? Seems more logical to call the engagement off instead of murdering her. Although, interestingly enough in the UM segment they say that Jean did not have her purse or her engagement ring on her the day she disappeared. So either she left it back in the hotel room for some unknown reason when she and Al went to the casino, or she returned to the hotel room and left the items there after leaving the casino without Al's knowledge. Her leaving the casino and returning the items to the hotel room is highly unlikely, because Al's car was parked in the parking lot the entire time. So this tells me that maybe Jean and Al did in fact have a fight, and maybe Jean called off their engagement. That would explain why her ring was left in the hotel room. But if Jean was incensed at Al or vice versa for whatever reason, how could Al have gotten Jean out of the hotel to go do harm to her elsewhere and ditch her body?

So this is pure speculation here. Obviously Al's story of the day she disappeared has several holes in it. So either he killed her and disposed of her body, possibly because of a fight they had, and made up the entire morning story. Or another possibility is Al's innocent, but he's still lying about the morning trip to the casino. Why would he lie about that? Perhaps Jean did find some illegal activity Al was involved in, and didn't approve of it. Maybe she called off the engagement, left the hotel room in a huff (which is why her purse was left behind too), went to one of the casinos to cool down and that's where she was abducted by an unknown third party. Al may have went to bed that night thinking Jean would return, and by the next morning he decided to do a half-assed search for her at the casino where her favorite slot machine was located, did a brief search, didn't find her and then left to check other casinos. Remember, the surveillance tape only showed Al entering the casino, it never shows him actually playing any of the machines when he said he was. He may have lied about the whole trip to the casino that morning out of fear that if police probed too far they would find out about Al's illegal activity. IMO, if he's innocent, this could be a reason why his story has several holes in it.

Last I heard, murder doesn't have to be logical. Logically, Scott Peterson could have divorced his wife. He murdered her and their child instead. People who murder don't think like the rest of us with logic. My question also was where did the wealth come from? He said he got 1.5 mil in gambling at one point.

Why would she have to have been murdered at the hotel? There's no evidence she was killed there. There's quite a bit of long desert stretches around in the area, though I can't say where the closest one would be. She was last known to be alive the evening before she disappeared, after that it's a mystery. Go out somewhere relatively remote, have it done in whatever manner he chooses. Leave it there or do a shallow grave if it's remote enough to not easily be found. Come back, go to the casino, start his story. How could he have gotten her out of the room? Gunpoint, with the admonition of "act normal and don't say a word to anyone." Put the gun in a pocket or jacket (can't remember what he was wearing) and walk out having look everything normal. Threats? Coercion? Charm? "Hey lets go to so and so, I'm sorry for what happened." If someone wants something done, they find ways to do it. Things happen in broad daylight and yet no one seems to see things.

I think it's possible too that your scenario of a fight and then her leaving and being abducted by someone could have happened too. I think he's shady regardless and it's quite possible that he's guilty of other things but killing her.

I hate to be blunt, but Al Henderson is a lying pos and its obvious that he killed Jean Moore.


Because of the purse and engagement ring that was "left behind" in Henderson's hotel room, that leads me to believe he had a hit man kill her and bring him back her personal effects to indicate to him that the job was done, and also so Al could make it seem like she was actually at his hotel room.

Not that this has any bearing on Al Henderson's guilt or innocence, but I always found it pretty amusing that the guy would say: "If I could get her back, I'd give the whole $1 million". I'm sure most cynics would retort with: "Okay, then why are you only offering a reward for $25,000, you big cheapskate?".

Not that this has any bearing on Al Henderson's guilt or innocence, but I always found it pretty amusing that the guy would say: "If I could get her back, I'd give the whole $1 million". I'm sure most cynics would retort with: "Okay, then why are you only offering a reward for $25,000, you big cheapskate?".
ROFL! Yeah something similar did cross my mind....

Since only one person in Laughlin, Nevada reports even seeing Jean Moore (an elderly coffeeshop waitress), you have to actually ask was she ever there? I find it very difficult to believe that no one at the hotel where Jeane and Al were staying saw her, either leaving or entering their room or getting into or out of Al's car.

Agreed. It's hard to believe that they could only find one witness for the entire, multi-day trip. I think it's a valid question to suggest she was never there, or alternatively, he did something to her earlier then the Thursday she went "missing."

In fact, if she never was in Laughlin that changes the entire story.if she never made it to Laughlin, the police would be looking in the entirely wrong area for her. Al could've disposed of her body anywhere in the hundreds of miles of desert between Apple Valley California,and Laughlin.

To me (since Al is now apparently deceased)the main thing to determine would have been: was Jean wore ever in Laughlin at or around the time of her disappearance? Without an exact timeline ( and no, I don't believe Al's bookkeeper) of when they left and where they may have stopped, this case is almost impossible to solve.

In addition to a timeline re: Jean - one of Al would also be useful. He showed he made calls on a certain day, which doesn't really prove anything since anyone could have made those calls. What would be helpful to know (and what I presume police did, although the segment doesn't say it), is did a review of the security cameras during the whole trip: (1) show Jean playing "her favorite machine"; or (2) Al in the casino when/where he claims to be. We know his story on Thursday is B.S., but what of the others?

In addition to a timeline re: Jean - one of Al would also be useful. He showed he made calls on a certain day, which doesn't really prove anything since anyone could have made those calls. What would be helpful to know (and what I presume police did, although the segment doesn't say it), is did a review of the security cameras during the whole trip: (1) show Jean playing "her favorite machine"; or (2) Al in the casino when/where he claims to be. We know his story on Thursday is B.S., but what of the others?

Agreed. I have to think that LE checked all surveillance to make sure Jean was even there. If they didn't do it initially then they had to have done it after they heard Al's story and saw that it didn't match up. That would immediate lead to the question of if Jean was even in Laughlin to begin with.

Agreed. I have to think that LE checked all surveillance to make sure Jean was even there. If they didn't do it initially then they had to have done it after they heard Al's story and saw that it didn't match up. That would immediate lead to the question of if Jean was even in Laughlin to begin with.

I would think they did as well, presuming such tapes were still in existence (I would think they'd keep them for at least 30 days or so, so I've have to think they would have been). If we take the officer's statement at face value, Jean did not appear on the tapes (since he stated that the waitress was the ONLY witness to Jean in Laughlin)

I would think they did as well, presuming such tapes were still in existence (I would think they'd keep them for at least 30 days or so, so I've have to think they would have been). If we take the officer's statement at face value, Jean did not appear on the tapes (since he stated that the waitress was the ONLY witness to Jean in Laughlin)

Yes and we all know how reliable witness statements are (sarcasm).

Last I heard, murder doesn't have to be logical. Logically, Scott Peterson could have divorced his wife.

Yes, but in Peterson's case he was married, and in his mind he rationalized murdering Laci instead of being bogged down through divorce proceedings, which would have resulted in their assets being split 50/50. Al Henderson did not have to worry about this since he and Jean were only engaged.

Why would she have to have been murdered at the hotel? There's no evidence she was killed there. There's quite a bit of long desert stretches around in the area, though I can't say where the closest one would be. She was last known to be alive the evening before she disappeared, after that it's a mystery. Go out somewhere relatively remote, have it done in whatever manner he chooses. Leave it there or do a shallow grave if it's remote enough to not easily be found. Come back, go to the casino, start his story. How could he have gotten her out of the room? Gunpoint, with the admonition of "act normal and don't say a word to anyone." Put the gun in a pocket or jacket (can't remember what he was wearing) and walk out having look everything normal. Threats? Coercion? Charm? "Hey lets go to so and so, I'm sorry for what happened." If someone wants something done, they find ways to do it. Things happen in broad daylight and yet no one seems to see things.

I understand he could have held her at gunpoint and coerced her out of the room. I wonder if LE ever checked to see if Henderson owned any guns. Unfortunately UM left out that detail for us so all we can do is speculate.


Agreed. It's hard to believe that they could only find one witness for the entire, multi-day trip. I think it's a valid question to suggest she was never there, or alternatively, he did something to her earlier then the Thursday she went "missing."

Well there were actually two. We have the coffee shop waitress who said she waited on Al and Jean in Laughlin the day they arrived, and Al's bookkeeper said she talked to Jean over the phone on the evening before she disappeared. And phone records confirmed this phone call. So I think Jean was actually there in Laughlin since the bookkeeper would have no reason to lie, and there is a phone record to confirm the date of the call. I'm not sure how busy the Laughlin casinos are, but most people in casinos are intent on the games their playing and don't pay that much attention to people around them. This could be why we have no one who witnessed Jean in the casinos. Did anyone at the hotel remember seeing Jean when they checked in, or did UM leave that detail out?

Yes and we all know how reliable witness statements are (sarcasm).

Sarcasm, but a valid point - just because no one reported seeing Jean there doesn't mean she wasn't there - IF she's not on the tapes, however, that is rather damning.

Well there were actually two. We have the coffee shop waitress who said she waited on Al and Jean in Laughlin the day they arrived, and Al's bookkeeper said she talked to Jean over the phone on the evening before she disappeared. And phone records confirmed this phone call. So I think Jean was actually there in Laughlin since the bookkeeper would have no reason to lie, and there is a phone record to confirm the date of the call. I'm not sure how busy the Laughlin casinos are, but most people in casinos are intent on the games their playing and don't pay that much attention to people around them. This could be why we have no one who witnessed Jean in the casinos. Did anyone at the hotel remember seeing Jean when they checked in, or did UM leave that detail out?

Phone records confirm a call did take place, but not the substance therein.

Whether or not the book-keeper would have reason to lie is another question - we don't know anything about her or her relationship with Al, so while we have no reason to believe she would lie, we have no reason to believe she isn't, either.

I agree with you as to the casino patrons. I find the lack of hotel employee witnesses to be more suspicious, as it is my experience that hotel staff do recognize the guests of the hotel, although this is certainly not determinative. The segment did not mention the staff particularly, however we can conclude that the PO saying "no-one else" saw her would indicate they did not.

Sarcasm, but a valid point - just because no one reported seeing Jean there doesn't mean she wasn't there - IF she's not on the tapes, however, that is rather damning.

I know the general consensus seems to be that Al killed or had Jean killed. What makes me wonder if that's true is that we have Al saying he dropped her at this one spot, he played her favorite machine hoping she came back etc.. yet the video footage does not reflect any of that. It seems like the LE in this case would be pressing Al big time if they have proof that his alibi is a bunch of BS yet there is no indication that they did so. I wonder if they know more then was let on in hopes of someone popping up with information.

I know the general consensus seems to be that Al killed or had Jean killed. What makes me wonder if that's true is that we have Al saying he dropped her at this one spot, he played her favorite machine hoping she came back etc.. yet the video footage does not reflect any of that. It seems like the LE in this case would be pressing Al big time if they have proof that his alibi is a bunch of BS yet there is no indication that they did so. I wonder if they know more then was let on in hopes of someone popping up with information.

I agree. Had they had a glaring hole in Henderson's story (such as him not being on film when he said he should have been) should have resulted in an intense interrogation. Even the law enforcement official interviewed on the tape did not sound that sure when he was saying Henderson was not on the tapes at the time he said he was. Isn't it possible that the security in the casino (who referred the officer to the machine Al said he was playing) got the wrong machine? It's very frustruating that there's absolutely nothing about this case online. I doubt if Al Henderson is even alive, but I wonder what his activities were after her disappearance.

I agree. Had they had a glaring hole in Henderson's story (such as him not being on film when he said he should have been) should have resulted in an intense interrogation. Even the law enforcement official interviewed on the tape did not sound that sure when he was saying Henderson was not on the tapes at the time he said he was. Isn't it possible that the security in the casino (who referred the officer to the machine Al said he was playing) got the wrong machine? It's very frustruating that there's absolutely nothing about this case online. I doubt if Al Henderson is even alive, but I wonder what his activities were after her disappearance.

Yea plus elderly people misremember all the time. Also, UM and LE did not mention that Al Henderson had lawyered up. It seems like if he was questioned hard about the holes in his story and he lawyered up, it would have been mentioned. I am starting to think that either LE involved in this case is completely clueless or they simply do not think Al Henderson had anything to do with this murder.

Yea plus elderly people misremember all the time. Also, UM and LE did not mention that Al Henderson had lawyered up. It seems like if he was questioned hard about the holes in his story and he lawyered up, it would have been mentioned. I am starting to think that either LE involved in this case is completely clueless or they simply do not think Al Henderson had anything to do with this murder.

Valid points all, but we just don't know. Let's also remember that this isn't a "murder," it's a disappearance. Admittedly, the chances of Jean being alive are minimal, but there's absolutely no direct evidence of murder.

Yea plus elderly people misremember all the time. Also, UM and LE did not mention that Al Henderson had lawyered up. It seems like if he was questioned hard about the holes in his story and he lawyered up, it would have been mentioned. I am starting to think that either LE involved in this case is completely clueless or they simply do not think Al Henderson had anything to do with this murder.

I think police most likely did check Henderson's story and his background, and the only evidence they had against him (at least as presented in the UM segment) was the security tapes. It's not like Henderson was arrested years after Jean's disappearance for some shady business dealings, and it's all pure speculation that he was involved in illegal activity and Jean found out about it which resulted in her disappearance. You make a good point about Henderson not getting a lawyer. He also was the one who put forth the reward money. Two things that do not strike me as something a guilty person would have done.

I think police most likely did check Henderson's story and his background, and the only evidence they had against him (at least as presented in the UM segment) was the security tapes. It's not like Henderson was arrested years after Jean's disappearance for some shady business dealings, and it's all pure speculation that he was involved in illegal activity and Jean found out about it which resulted in her disappearance. You make a good point about Henderson not getting a lawyer. He also was the one who put forth the reward money. Two things that do not strike me as something a guilty person would have done.

If they have the money to do so, then I could see the perpetrator putting up money for a reward in an attempt to make themselves look innocent. Take a look at the Eric Tamoyasu case, for example, where Dixon blathers about him being involved in putting up the reward. However, in this case, I think its legit. It just seems to me that if Al Henderson was trying to hide something, he would have lawyered up and then the police would have mentioned him lawyering up in the segment, which they did not do.

Al Henderson may be guilty but based on what we know, I just don't see it.

Al Henderson may be guilty but based on what we know, I just don't see it.

I agree. The only thing Henderson is guilty of (as far as the UM segment) is that he disagreed with the investigator on saying he should have been on the security tapes when he clearly wasn't. UM left out a lot of important details in this segment. Jean's son goes on a tangent and says he went to the police station shortly after her disappearance and layed out why he thought Henderson was responsible, yet doesn't elaborate. Also, we don't know if Henderson can be tied to a firearm (which would obviously hold more weight that he's guilty if he in fact owned one), don't know if anyone at the hotel remembers Jean when she and Al allegedly checked in, and we really don't know any clear cut motive Henderson would have in "offing" Jean. Too many loose ends in this case to make a definitive answer, but based off of what we do know, it doesn't appear (IMO) that Henderson is guilty.

I agree. The only thing Henderson is guilty of (as far as the UM segment) is that he disagreed with the investigator on saying he should have been on the security tapes when he clearly wasn't. UM left out a lot of important details in this segment. Jean's son goes on a tangent and says he went to the police station shortly after her disappearance and layed out why he thought Henderson was responsible, yet doesn't elaborate. Also, we don't know if Henderson can be tied to a firearm (which would obviously hold more weight that he's guilty if he in fact owned one), don't know if anyone at the hotel remembers Jean when she and Al allegedly checked in, and we really don't know any clear cut motive Henderson would have in "offing" Jean. Too many loose ends in this case to make a definitive answer, but based off of what we do know, it doesn't appear (IMO) that Henderson is guilty.

If Al did kill Jean, then I doubt it was premeditated. They may have gotten into an argument and he went too far. I just cant see any premeditation on this one due to no motive for it. She wasn't the rich one, he was, so he wasn't killing for money or valuables.

I saw this segment today and I got the feeling that the Bookkeeper knows something about it. She looked older then Al so I am sure she probably passed as well.

I saw this segment today and I got the feeling that the Bookkeeper knows something about it. She looked older then Al so I am sure she probably passed as well.


Al could have offered her some cash to keep quiet, he had the funds.

Did Jeans son or daughter give specific reasons for disliking Al from the start? Or could be a case of any guy that there mother will be with they wont like...

Did Jeans son or daughter give specific reasons for disliking Al from the start? Or could be a case of any guy that there mother will be with they wont like...

No specifics were given. I think (and this is pure speculation) that this may be a case of Al is just not better than their dad in their eyes. There could have been more to it but no details were given.

Also, the theory of the bookkeeper being in on it does not make sense to me. Nothing was said or suggested to lead me to believe the bookkeeper had any part in Jean's disappearance.

Also, the theory of the bookkeeper being in on it does not make sense to me. Nothing was said or suggested to lead me to believe the bookkeeper had any part in Jean's disappearance.

What stake would the bookkeeper have in lying to help Al? Not to mention what would she have to gain in covering up Jean's disappearance? I can't think of any rational reason. I think she's an important witness to this story, since she can confirm Jean was in Laughlin when Al said they were. For one thing, she knew Jean personally and there are even phone records to confirm the call between her and Al. And she did in fact talk to them less than 24 hours before Jean disappeared, so that seems to rule out a "heated argument gone bad" since (according to the bookkeeper) Jean was in high spirits after hitting big on a poker machine.

Did Jeans son or daughter give specific reasons for disliking Al from the start? Or could be a case of any guy that there mother will be with they wont like...

The claim that they made during the UM segment was that Al was the kind of guy who seemed nice on the surface, but had a habit of putting Jean down in front of other people. I don't know if that's just them reaching to find a reason not to like him, but if it turned out that Al had a controlling personality, I wouldn't be too surprised.

Hate to bump an old thread, but after rereading through this I think some people are not grasping the importance of the book keeper. She is the one irrefutable witness that can place Jean in Laughlin the day before she disappeared. Al called his book keeper, and has phone records which prove this call was made. And the book keeper would have no reason to lie about speaking with Jean and her being in "high spirits" after winning on a machine. Also, I've never thought about this before, but is it possible that due to Al's age, he went to the wrong casino looking for Jean, then "remembered" that he was at a different one?

Also, I've never thought about this before, but is it possible that due to Al's age, he went to the wrong casino looking for Jean, then "remembered" that he was at a different one?

Yea, he could have been. However, that would indicate that Jean was killed by a stranger/random idiot. IMO, if she was killed by some random person, the body would have surfaced by now. People who kill people they know tend to be the ones who get rid of the bodies in fear of it coming back on them, whereas, if some random stranger kills someone, they would likely just leave the body somewhere.

I do wonder if Al was in the early stages of Alzheimers or some other form of dementia.

I also wonder why Jean isn't listed on missing persons websites. She could be an unidentified body in Namus.

I got the impression from the kids that Al wasn't their dad and no one was good enough for their mom. (An understandable position)

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and think it's entirely possible that Al had some "short term memory" lapse and swears that he was at one casino playing a machine but was actually at a different casino. I wonder if LE ever checked other surveillance tapes from nearby casinos around the same time Al said he went looking for Jean.

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and think it's entirely possible that Al had some "short term memory" lapse and swears that he was at one casino playing a machine but was actually at a different casino. I wonder if LE ever checked other surveillance tapes from nearby casinos around the same time Al said he went looking for Jean.

Yea, I've thought about that as well. Its entirely possible that it could have happened given his age.

I've been thinking about this for a couple of days and think it's entirely possible that Al had some "short term memory" lapse and swears that he was at one casino playing a machine but was actually at a different casino. I wonder if LE ever checked other surveillance tapes from nearby casinos around the same time Al said he went looking for Jean.

I thought (and I could be wrong) that security checked all the cameras that the time Al said he should have been on camera. If Al said it was 10am...they checked a few hours before 10am and a few hours afterwards. Plus they checked multiple cameras as well.

I am just not sure what to make of Al - not sure why her kids disliked him....lots of adult kids don't like their parents new spouse. I wish they could have elaborated on that issue.

I am just not sure what to make of Al - not sure why her kids disliked him....lots of adult kids don't like their parents new spouse. I wish they could have elaborated on that issue.

I agree. In the UM segment, Jean's son said something about going to the police station shortly after Jean went missing and detailing all of the reasons why he thought Al was involved, but the segment does not elaborate on this. The only thing they say is that Al put down their mother in front of other people and that his story changed a few times.

I agree. In the UM segment, Jean's son said something about going to the police station shortly after Jean went missing and detailing all of the reasons why he thought Al was involved, but the segment does not elaborate on this. The only thing they say is that Al put down their mother in front of other people and that his story changed a few times.

Maybe there was some stuff the kids did not want made public? I also wonder if there was a prenup involved. That wouls answer a few questions. Al seems like the type to want one as he seemed pretty business minded. (And I am not chapping on him....if I ever got married again I would get one!!)

What about the friend of Jean's that saw them at the gas station back in Apple Valley the day before or the day of her disappearance? That's the witness I deemed most credible because she was on her way to a school function, so the date and time are pretty nailed down.

I also wonder why Al and Jean waited so long to get engaged/married. Hadn't they been together for something like 25 years? Most women don't wait that long for a ring.

I'm also a little suspicious of Al's decreasing wealth. Something was fishy with his financial situation. I'm guessing those issues came to light during the Laughlin trip. Net worth doesn't mean liquid assets. He could have been involved in activities that led him to be cash poor. I think money was the catalyst for an argument here. Just a hunch.

What about the friend of Jean's that saw them at the gas station back in Apple Valley the day before or the day of her disappearance? That's the witness I deemed most credible because she was on her way to a school function, so the date and time are pretty nailed down.

I also wonder why Al and Jean waited so long to get engaged/married. Hadn't they been together for something like 25 years? Most women don't wait that long for a ring.

I'm also a little suspicious of Al's decreasing wealth. Something was fishy with his financial situation. I'm guessing those issues came to light during the Laughlin trip. Net worth doesn't mean liquid assets. He could have been involved in activities that led him to be cash poor. I think money was the catalyst for an argument here. Just a hunch.

Why did he feel the need to talk about the decrease in his wealth? So we would like patting him on the back for putting up a reward?

Why did he feel the need to talk about the decrease in his wealth? So we would like patting him on the back for putting up a reward?

I believe he said it in response to a roundabout question of him killing Jean to collect life insurance and he basically said that he hasn't gained money since she disappeared, but has actually lost money. I didn't see anything wrong with what he said.

I believe he said it in response to a roundabout question of him killing Jean to collect life insurance and he basically said that he hasn't gained money since she disappeared, but has actually lost money. I didn't see anything wrong with what he said.

He also appeared to become (genuinely) emotional when he said something about he'd give up all of his wealth to have Jean back.

He also appeared to become (genuinely) emotional when he said something about he'd give up all of his wealth to have Jean back.

You guys have such awesome memories! I forgot that Al was asked the question about wanting Jean's life insurance money.

What stake would the bookkeeper have in lying to help Al? Not to mention what would she have to gain in covering up Jean's disappearance? I can't think of any rational reason. I think she's an important witness to this story, since she can confirm Jean was in Laughlin when Al said they were. For one thing, she knew Jean personally and there are even phone records to confirm the call between her and Al. And she did in fact talk to them less than 24 hours before Jean disappeared, so that seems to rule out a "heated argument gone bad" since (according to the bookkeeper) Jean was in high spirits after hitting big on a poker machine.
Do we know if Al & bookeeper were having an affair? Didn't the show say bookeeper worked for Al for many many years? Do we know if Jean and bookeeper were friends? Just because bookeeper said they were friends doesn't mean they were. Do we know, for a fact, if bookeeper really did talk with Jean? The phone records indicate a call was made but was Jean really on the other end of the phone line. Do we know Jean even made it to Lauglin? Witness put her at a gas station the evening before.

Excerpt from UM website:
"So where was Jean Moore between the Monday sighting and Thursday, when she supposedly disappeared? A few weeks later, a witness came forward with a possible answer. A friend of Jean's claimed she saw the couple 150 miles away from Laughlin. They were at a gas station in their hometown of Apple Valley, the day before Jean was reported missing. Det. Ball spoke to the witness:

"The witness remembered the time because they were in route to a school function ... at that time, and pinpointed the time and date."

Do we know if Al & bookeeper were having an affair? Didn't the show say bookeeper worked for Al for many many years? Do we know if Jean and bookeeper were friends? Just because bookeeper said they were friends doesn't mean they were. Do we know, for a fact, if bookeeper really did talk with Jean? The phone records indicate a call was made but was Jean really on the other end of the phone line. Do we know Jean even made it to Lauglin? Witness put her at a gas station the evening before.

Excerpt from UM website:
"So where was Jean Moore between the Monday sighting and Thursday, when she supposedly disappeared? A few weeks later, a witness came forward with a possible answer. A friend of Jean's claimed she saw the couple 150 miles away from Laughlin. They were at a gas station in their hometown of Apple Valley, the day before Jean was reported missing. Det. Ball spoke to the witness:

"The witness remembered the time because they were in route to a school function ... at that time, and pinpointed the time and date."

Al's phone records confirm that this would have been impossible for he and Jean to have been in Apple Valley the time that the friend reported seeing them. There was also a coffee shop waitress who remembered seeing Al and Jean in Laughlin on the day they arrived. Al offered up a plausible explanation:

"I've provided several people with copies of my telephone log from Call USA, showing that I made a call from Laughlin to the Victorville area at a little bit after three on that day. I had another call, I think it was at 6:59, on that day. So you've got less than four hours. And it's physically impossible, even if all you did is drive from Laughlin and turn around and go back, you can't do it in less than six hours."

I honestly think the friend who saw them in Apple Valley got the date wrong. It was a few weeks after she had disappeared after all.

Al's phone records confirm that this would have been impossible for he and Jean to have been in Apple Valley the time that the friend reported seeing them. There was also a coffee shop waitress who remembered seeing Al and Jean in Laughlin on the day they arrived. Al offered up a plausible explanation:

"I've provided several people with copies of my telephone log from Call USA, showing that I made a call from Laughlin to the Victorville area at a little bit after three on that day. I had another call, I think it was at 6:59, on that day. So you've got less than four hours. And it's physically impossible, even if all you did is drive from Laughlin and turn around and go back, you can't do it in less than six hours."

I honestly think the friend who saw them in Apple Valley got the date wrong. It was a few weeks after she had disappeared after all.
Right...and we all know phones records are absolute proof that Al was on the other end of the phone line! And we know Al told the truth, right? Luckily he provided the audience with a great alibi. Funny how that works out; manipulation. Who in they're right mind remembers the exact minute a phone call comes in?? Sure we know once we review the bill but honestly, I review my bill often and cannot recite the times calls were made. Hmmmm...just enough to make you say hmmmmm.

This is a random chance question...does anyone know who Ann Bieber was, how she was related to Alva Henderson and where Ann is now?

Another part of Al Henderson's story that never made sense to me: he drops Jean off at the casino, can't find a parking place, decides to leave the car with a valet, gives Jean the car's claim check, and then tries to hail a cab. When he can't get a cab, he decides to go look for Jean, plays her slot machine when he can't find her, and then finally hails a cab to go back to the hotel and checks out at 12:15. He then takes a cab back to the casino, but he is alarmed to find the car still parked there and no sign of Jean.

However, Al claims that they were planning to meet back at the hotel at 12:15, so why did he take a cab back to the casino? I suppose he might have gotten worried if Jean didn't show up, but the segment never specifies if he waited a long time at the hotel for her. It just makes it sound like he went back to the casino immediately to meet her even though that wasn't their initial plan. I also found it strange how he said he got worried when he saw that "the car was right where it had been left". But since he had a valet park his car for him and Jean had the claim check, how would he have known if the car was "right where it had been left"? It just seems more logical that he would just drop Jean off, go back to the hotel to check out, and pick up her afterward rather than go through the trouble of parking the car and hailing a cab.

I know Al seems more likable than most of the suspicious spouses on UM and I want to believe he's innocent, but there's just too much in his story that doesn't add up.

I've always felt Al Henderson was among the more blatant seemingly guilty parties of all the spousal disappearances, personally.

Like RobinW brought up above, why not just wait for Jean at the hotel if he was going to meet her at 12:15 anyway? None of that story makes the least bit of sense to me. His version would have him creating more work for himself, but a better environment for the events to have transpired exactly as he said they happened. That's usually one of the first indicators someone might be lying.



The engagement ring being left behind could be the result of Jean simply being cautious. I know sometimes people are accosted outside casinos. But I would be very curious to know what became of that ring in the months after Jean's disappearance.

I realize it's an anecdote, but the handful of times I've been to a casino, I've rarely carried my full purse. I've usually just taken the wallet out and carried it, for sake of convenience. If Jean was so cautious she'd leave her ring behind, she might have been the sort to have left her purse as well. But surely she would have carried at least an ID and obviously some amount of money. Those things would be carried most conveniently in a wallet or some similar thing. I'd be curious to know if THAT was out of the purse. If it was left behind, then there's a huge red flag to me.

I don't know what to make of the Apple Valley sighting. I do find it interesting that the sighting was at least by someone who knew the couple as opposed to a stranger as in the coffee shop sighting, but ultimately neither eye witness's account is crucial to me, at least given nothing but the information presented in the segment.

The phone records do not and cannot indicate if it was indeed Al Henderson who made those calls. It's simply a record of outgoing and incoming calls with a time and date. It doesn't bolster or prove, or conversely discredit or refute, an argument either way.


Most importantly, Al nor Jean are on any of those tapes. He said he was in a particular location at a particular time, and he wasn't. Period.


I think he had something to do with it. This is one of those rare segments I've been unable to change my opinion about since the first viewing, although I've challenged it many times. His story doesn't add up, and there's clear evidence that shows he wasn't where he said he was. He may have been a man of advanced years--a charming and amiable one at that--but seniors are just as capable of committing crime as anyone else.

Like RobinW brought up above, why not just wait for Jean at the hotel if he was going to meet her at 12:15 anyway? None of that story makes the least bit of sense to me. His version would have him creating more work for himself, but a better environment for the events to have transpired exactly as he said they happened. That's usually one of the first indicators someone might be lying.

Yes, it just reeked of someone deliberately attempting to create an alibi for himself. Al had no reason to park the car there in the first place, but leaving the vehicle with a valet provides him with a witness who can place him at the scene. This is actually one of the few occasions where UM seemed to call someone out for providing them with a contradictory story. RS specificially states Al told "us" he dropped Jean off at the casino side entrance even though he had originally told LE that he dropped her off at the front. It's almost like he decided to change his story once he found out there were cameras at the main entrance yet none of them captured Jean walking inside.

I particularly love Stack's line: "From this point on, Al and the surveillance footage seem to disagree" :lol:.

Detective Thomas Ball of the Las Vegas Municipal Police Department is quoted as saying, "I have checked with the surveillance personnel for the hotel and they have advised me that this is the group of machines that Al Henderson told the security personnel was Jeannie's favorite machine."

Why is the slot machine Jeannie supposedly went missing from second-hand or third-hand information (are surveillance personnel the same as security personnel)? Al should have showed the police himself. Doesn't this render the video footage unreliable?

I haven't seen this episode in years. The quote is from http://unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/mis_jean_moore.htm, so maybe the re-enactment explains this.

Detective Thomas Ball of the Las Vegas Municipal Police Department is quoted as saying, "I have checked with the surveillance personnel for the hotel and they have advised me that this is the group of machines that Al Henderson told the security personnel was Jeannie's favorite machine."

Why is the slot machine Jeannie supposedly went missing from second-hand or third-hand information (are surveillance personnel the same as security personnel)? Al should have showed the police himself. Doesn't this render the video footage unreliable?

I haven't seen this episode in years. The quote is from http://unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/mis_jean_moore.htm, so maybe the re-enactment explains this.

There was video footage spanning the entire casino which was checked in addition to the machine that was reportedly the one Al supposedly played on while waiting for Jean.

Re: surveillance and security personnel--they're one and the same. I worked as a power plant security guard for some time. There are roving security guards that walk a particular area, stationary guards that remain at posts like a gate, and surveillance guards that remain in a monitor room and watch video throughout the shift.

Detective Thomas Ball of the Las Vegas Municipal Police Department is quoted as saying, "I have checked with the surveillance personnel for the hotel and they have advised me that this is the group of machines that Al Henderson told the security personnel was Jeannie's favorite machine."

Why is the slot machine Jeannie supposedly went missing from second-hand or third-hand information (are surveillance personnel the same as security personnel)? Al should have showed the police himself. Doesn't this render the video footage unreliable?

I think Al had specficially told the police which machines Jean was using and casino security then pointed those machines out to the cops on the surveillance tapes. The detective made those comments to counter Al's claim that he was looking at a tape of the wrong machine.

If Al is guilty, then I really don't understand why he would lie about playing the slot machines for 30 straight minutes. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't know that a detail like that could easily be verified by surveillance footage. It makes me wonder what he was really doing during that time.

Another part of Al Henderson's story that never made sense to me: he drops Jean off at the casino, can't find a parking place, decides to leave the car with a valet, gives Jean the car's claim check, and then tries to hail a cab. When he can't get a cab, he decides to go look for Jean, plays her slot machine when he can't find her, and then finally hails a cab to go back to the hotel and checks out at 12:15. He then takes a cab back to the casino, but he is alarmed to find the car still parked there and no sign of Jean.

This is where the ambiguity of the UM segment clouds a lot of the story. They never mention whether or not it was verified that Al Henderson checked out at 12:15, or if he actually parked his car with the casino valet. However, if neither of these things were verified I think the UM segment would have mentioned this to further cast suspicion on Henderson. But since they make no mention about neither of these incidents not being verified, IMO I think they did happen. So then that raises the question, just what exactly was Henderson doing from roughly 10:15 in the morning until around noon that day without his vehicle? I suppose the thought (if he's guilty) is that Henderson was out dumping evidence and/or Jean's body. But how could he accomplish this without his car? Henderson says he waited inside the casino until about 10:15 waiting for Jean to show up, but she never did. Then he hailed a cab back to the hotel and checked out around noon. I know this seems like it took Henderson awfully long to do these things, but we don't know how far the hotel was from the casino. Plus Henderson would have had to have packed his and Jean's belongings, checked out, and then returned to the casino shortly after noon. IMO, the window is too small for Henderson to have been out doing something nefarious AND be able to run around from casino to hotel and back to the casino.

However, Al claims that they were planning to meet back at the hotel at 12:15, so why did he take a cab back to the casino? I suppose he might have gotten worried if Jean didn't show up, but the segment never specifies if he waited a long time at the hotel for her. It just makes it sound like he went back to the casino immediately to meet her even though that wasn't their initial plan. I also found it strange how he said he got worried when he saw that "the car was right where it had been left". But since he had a valet park his car for him and Jean had the claim check, how would he have known if the car was "right where it had been left"? It just seems more logical that he would just drop Jean off, go back to the hotel to check out, and pick up her afterward rather than go through the trouble of parking the car and hailing a cab.

I agree about the ambiguity with the segment. They make no mention of how long Henderson waited at the hotel for Jean, which is a crucial part of the story. I guess it's possible that Henderson figured that since Jean wasn't there at their planned time she was still at the casino so he would simply check out and go directly back over there hoping to find her before she left to meet him. And if there was a parking lot for valet parking, I think his comment about the car being "right where it was left" was just meant that Jean never left the casino, since the car was still in the valet parking lot. And I think Henderson (if innocent), figured Jean would have came back shortly before noon which is why he decided to take a cab back to the hotel.

I know Al seems more likable than most of the suspicious spouses on UM and I want to believe he's innocent, but there's just too much in his story that doesn't add up.

It's been speculated in this thread before that maybe Henderson "remembered" Jean's favorite machine incorrectly. That would explain why he was not shown on the tapes where he said he was. The biggest reason why I still think Henderson is innocent is that there really is no motive presented in the case. And others have said that the phone records are meaningless because there really can be no way to verify who was making the calls. But, Al's bookkeeper says she received a call from Al the night before Jean disappeared and she spoke to Jean over the phone. And this call was listed in the records. And I still cannot think of a reason as to why Al's bookkeeper would have any reason to lie about talking to Jean.

I've brought this theory up in a previous post, and figured I'd share it again.

So this is pure speculation here. Obviously Al's story of the day she disappeared has several holes in it. So either he killed her and disposed of her body, possibly because of a fight they had, and made up the entire morning story. Or another possibility is Al's innocent, but he's still lying about the morning trip to the casino. Why would he lie about that? Perhaps Jean did find some illegal activity Al was involved in, and didn't approve of it. Maybe she called off the engagement, left the hotel room in a huff (which is why her purse was left behind too), went to one of the casinos to cool down and that's where she was abducted by an unknown third party. Al may have went to bed that night thinking Jean would return, and by the next morning he decided to do a half-assed search for her at the casino where her favorite slot machine was located, did a brief search, didn't find her and then left to check other casinos. Remember, the surveillance tape only showed Al entering the casino, it never shows him actually playing any of the machines when he said he was. He may have lied about the whole trip to the casino that morning out of fear that if police probed too far they would find out about Al's illegal activity. IMO, if he's innocent, this could be a reason why his story has several holes in it.

Most importantly, Al nor Jean are on any of those tapes. He said he was in a particular location at a particular time, and he wasn't. Period.

Bingo. You hit the proverbial nail on the head. In fact, I talked about this years ago, but wanted to expand on it. The cameras show Al entering the casino...AND THAT'S IT. Now I could understand if maybe Al misremembered and got the wrong slot machine, but there is no footage of Jean at all. And there is no footage of Al past the entrance. They aren't seen anywhere. Al also claims that he gave Jean the claim check in the casino near the entrance (after changing his story of giving it to her outside), but there's no footage of that either.

They were in Laughlin for DAYS. They were at casinos, restaurants, hotels. Yet out of all that, we have only one singular sighting of Jean, on the very first morning of their trip. Past that there's nothing. Add that to the lack of Jean and Al on the tapes, and you have Al looking pretty guilty. Being that we can't place Jean for sure in Laughlin past Monday morning, that gives Al over 3 days to do whatever with her. Plus, you have the sighting of them in Apple Valley, California on Tuesday, which jives with the theory that she probably wasn't in Laughlin past Monday morning, if at all. Plus, the sighting in Apple Valley is more credible because it was someone who knew them.

Al had ample time and he could have disposed of her anywhere between Nevada and California. His story has enough gigantic holes that you could drive a mack truck through them.

Here's some trivia: Laughlin is on the border of Nevada. The next city over is actually in Arizona: Bullhead City. Where Scott Johnson and his friend were murdered.

Now I'm sure Cars will come back with another of his marathon posts, so I will pose this question to him: You think it took Al 2 hours to get from the casino to the hotel and back in tiny little Laughlin?

This is where the ambiguity of the UM segment clouds a lot of the story. They never mention whether or not it was verified that Al Henderson checked out at 12:15, or if he actually parked his car with the casino valet. However, if neither of these things were verified I think the UM segment would have mentioned this to further cast suspicion on Henderson. But since they make no mention about neither of these incidents not being verified, IMO I think they did happen. So then that raises the question, just what exactly was Henderson doing from roughly 10:15 in the morning until around noon that day without his vehicle?

I agree, and I'm sure they would have also verified with the cab company whether or not Al actually took a taxi to the hotel and back to the casino. I do think this part of his story was probably true and that he really was at the hotel. There's no way he's out disposing of a body if he's using a taxi to travel. It doesn't seem that unusual that he would be hanging out at the hotel for nearly two hours before checkout time, and he could just say that he wanted to give Jean more time to gamble.

However, if Al really did kill Jean and dispose of her body, I'm sure he would have done it the night before. If the bookkeeper's account of hearing Jean on the phone call is true, that still leaves him with over 12 hours to do this before he is seen at the casino the next morning. He then concocts a cover story to make it sound like she vanished from the casino when he wasn't around, and he takes this trip to the hotel in order to create a fake alibi for himself since parking valets, cab drivers and hotel staff will verify he wasn't in the vicinity when Jean "disappeared". Of course, his big problem is that the surveillance footage shows no sign of Jean ever being in the casino to begin with.

It's been speculated in this thread before that maybe Henderson "remembered" Jean's favorite machine incorrectly. That would explain why he was not shown on the tapes where he said he was.

This is another point where UM might be a bit too ambiguous. I do think there's a possibility that Al got the location of the slot machines wrong, but if that's true, he still claims he played a slot machine somewhere for 30 straight minutes. Isn't there ANY footage on those tapes of Al playing the slots during that time period? However, UM does not elaborate if LE checked all the security footage from that morning or just the section which showed that particular machine.

As I stated earlier, I don't know why Al would claim he was playing slots from 9:45 to 10:15 when he wasn't, unless he was doing something suspicious during that time period that he didn't want people to know about. But of course, that's hardly enough time for him to be disposing of a body or anything.

The biggest reason why I still think Henderson is innocent is that there really is no motive presented in the case.

I do agree that unlike most guilty spouses on UM, there's no indication of abuse, life insurance policies, or serious trouble with the relationship in general, so it doesn't seem like logical that an elderly man would suddenly decide to kill his spouse of 20 years. However, as UM showed us with the Joe Owens case, this kind of thing does happen, and since the suspect there eventually killed himself, we never did find out his true motive.

Now I'm sure Cars will come back with another of his marathon posts, so I will pose this question to him: You think it took Al 2 hours to get from the casino to the hotel and back in tiny little Laughlin?

I asked the same question in an earlier post. What exactly could he have done without his vehicle? He left it with the valet around 9:30 that morning. That means he did not have a car from 9:30 until about 12:15 p.m. that day. So what exactly was he doing? I think like he says, he was waiting for Jean. Their original plan was to meet there by 12:15 p.m., and when she didn't show is when he took the cab back to the casino. That's why there's the gap in time. He couldn't be doing anything nefarious since he didn't have his vehicle.

EDIT: For those that believe Al is guilty, where do they think Al murdered Jean and for what reason? I know there are a myriad of possibilities, but I'd still like to see some other theories. The one big thing that keeps sticking out in my mind, is that if Al did kill Jean in the hotel, how did he get her body out unnoticed?

They were in Laughlin for DAYS. They were at casinos, restaurants, hotels. Yet out of all that, we have only one singular sighting of Jean, on the very first morning of their trip. Past that there's nothing. Add that to the lack of Jean and Al on the tapes, and you have Al looking pretty guilty. Being that we can't place Jean for sure in Laughlin past Monday morning, that gives Al over 3 days to do whatever with her. Plus, you have the sighting of them in Apple Valley, California on Tuesday, which jives with the theory that she probably wasn't in Laughlin past Monday morning, if at all. Plus, the sighting in Apple Valley is more credible because it was someone who knew them.

Al had ample time and he could have disposed of her anywhere between Nevada and California. His story has enough gigantic holes that you could drive a mack truck through them.

Agreed in full, and that's what makes neatly summarizing how and when Al could've done it pretty much impossible. He himself doesn't provide in the segment a play-by-play of those days in Laughlin that can be corroborated by anyone or anything else. But when there DOES exist a (uninterested, electronic) means by which to corroborate a part of Al's story, it fails to do so.

I re-watched this segment. For whatever reason, Al's version of events seemed sincere. He just "seemed" like an honest man.

Then I re-read the "evidence" in black and white and considered posts by wiseguy182 and MegtheEgg86 pointing out,

1. Al had days of unaccounted for time
2. The times Al did try to account for could not be supported by/were dis-proven by additional evidence

And now it seems obvious Al is guilty of Jean's disappearance. I'm going to refine my people reading skills!

Jack Fales, a friend of Jean's, says he's been searching for her since she went missing and may be close to the answer. He was featured in an article published in April 2012. The article also quotes Nevada Deputy District Attorney John Thomas as saying there is evidence Jean never even made it to Laughlin.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/articles/later-33883-missing-apple.html

I asked the same question in an earlier post. What exactly could he have done without his vehicle? He left it with the valet around 9:30 that morning. That means he did not have a car from 9:30 until about 12:15 p.m. that day. So what exactly was he doing? I think like he says, he was waiting for Jean. Their original plan was to meet there by 12:15 p.m., and when she didn't show is when he took the cab back to the casino. That's why there's the gap in time. He couldn't be doing anything nefarious since he didn't have his vehicle.

EDIT: For those that believe Al is guilty, where do they think Al murdered Jean and for what reason? I know there are a myriad of possibilities, but I'd still like to see some other theories. The one big thing that keeps sticking out in my mind, is that if Al did kill Jean in the hotel, how did he get her body out unnoticed?

You're not taking into account the likelihood that Jean was never in Laughlin, or at least not past Monday morning. All of your theories, assumptions, etc are based on Jean being in Laughlin. Again, we have to go back to the knowledge that despite Jean supposedly being in Laughlin for FOUR DAYS, there is only one, singular sighting of her on the first morning of their trip. Past that, no sightings in this tiny town. She would have had to been numerous places if she was there. Plus, there is no sighting of Jean on any of the tapes. Plus, the eyewitness that knew them placing Jean in California on Tuesday. Truth be told, you can't prove that Jean was ever in Laughlin to begin with, and it's highly unlikely that she was. And when you consider that, most of your statements about Jean being in Laughlin are hard to believe.

As far as what Al did with her, that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, I'm afraid. I have no doubt Al would like us to believe that Jean was in Laughlin until Thursday and got nabbed at the casino. But the evidence suggests otherwise. She could be in California or Nevada. Heck, since Laughlin bordered Arizona, she could even be in AZ. The possibilities are really endless. A lot of that area is desert and uninhabitable wilderness. As was mentioned before, it would be the ideal place to dump a body if one didn't want it to be found.

You're not taking into account the likelihood that Jean was never in Laughlin, or at least not past Monday morning. All of your theories, assumptions, etc are based on Jean being in Laughlin. Again, we have to go back to the knowledge that despite Jean supposedly being in Laughlin for FOUR DAYS, there is only one, singular sighting of her on the first morning of their trip. Past that, no sightings in this tiny town. She would have had to been numerous places if she was there. Plus, there is no sighting of Jean on any of the tapes. Plus, the eyewitness that knew them placing Jean in California on Tuesday. Truth be told, you can't prove that Jean was ever in Laughlin to begin with, and it's highly unlikely that she was. And when you consider that, most of your statements about Jean being in Laughlin are hard to believe.

As far as what Al did with her, that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, I'm afraid. I have no doubt Al would like us to believe that Jean was in Laughlin until Thursday and got nabbed at the casino. But the evidence suggests otherwise. She could be in California or Nevada. Heck, since Laughlin bordered Arizona, she could even be in AZ. The possibilities are really endless. A lot of that area is desert and uninhabitable wilderness. As was mentioned before, it would be the ideal place to dump a body if one didn't want it to be found.

How do you explain Al's bookkeeper who says she talked to Jean the night before she was last seen alive? She even said Jean was mentioning running into some luck with one of the slot machines. And it's also not that uncommon that no one remembers seeing Jean in Laughlin. No one remembers Al Henderson being their either, outside of the day Jean disappeared. It's not like witnesses placed Al anywhere outside of Laughlin in the time frame he says he was there.

How do you explain Al's bookkeeper who says she talked to Jean the night before she was last seen alive? She even said Jean was mentioning running into some luck with one of the slot machines. And it's also not that uncommon that no one remembers seeing Jean in Laughlin. No one remembers Al Henderson being their either, outside of the day Jean disappeared. It's not like witnesses placed Al anywhere outside of Laughlin in the time frame he says he was there.

What? Do you actually watch the segments?

I've said repeatedly that there was a witness who placed them in California on Tuesday. Do you not remember that?

The fact that nobody remembers seeing Al in Laughlin makes his story MORE suspcious, not less.

I don't know what to make of Al's bookkeeper. I think it's just as plausible that she got the date wrong then the person who saw them on Tuesday in California got the date wrong, which you allege.

I don't know what to make of Al's bookkeeper. I think it's just as plausible that she got the date wrong then the person who saw them on Tuesday in California got the date wrong, which you allege.

I was about to mention this. Even if she remembered the date correctly, that still doesn't exclude two distinct possibilities:

1. Al and Jean were NOT in Laughlin from 6 April (MON) to 9 April (THURS)--the period of time that Al claims.
2. Al could have disposed of Jean the evening of 8 April (WED) post-phone call.

Just for informational purposes, the drive from Apple Valley, CA to Laughlin, NV takes a little over three and a half hours on I-40, according to Google. The distance is 214.8 miles.

What? Do you actually watch the segments?

I've said repeatedly that there was a witness who placed them in California on Tuesday. Do you not remember that?

The fact that nobody remembers seeing Al in Laughlin makes his story MORE suspcious, not less.

I don't know what to make of Al's bookkeeper. I think it's just as plausible that she got the date wrong then the person who saw them on Tuesday in California got the date wrong, which you allege.

Apparently you have some issue with me for some reason, why I don't know...but anyway, you missed the point of the segment about the phone calls...

Jean and Al went to Laughlin on April 6, 1992. Which was Monday. There was a coffee shop waitress who remembered waiting on them on that day when they arrived. So that means at the very least, Jean was seen in Laughlin on that Monday. She was reported missing April 9th on Thursday. This "friend" alleged to have seen both of them on Wednesday, the 8th near Apple Valley, CA. But Al has phone records that show he placed two phone calls between a 4 hour span that were placed from Laughlin. There's no way this "friend" could have seen them, since as Al said, it would have been impossible because just driving to Apple Valley and back (without stopping) would have taken six hours. Also, the friend, if my memory serves me, did not approach nor speak to Jean and Al, she just claimed to have seen them. That second phone call, placed at 6:59 p.m., was to the bookkeeper. And she verifies that she spoke with Jean and that she was in Laughlin on Wednesday evening, the night before she disappeared.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't find it odd that no one remembers seeing them there. Especially if they spent most of their time in the casinos gambling. Not too many people are going to be people-watching in a casino.

Jean and Al went to Laughlin on April 6, 1992. Which was Monday. There was a coffee shop waitress who remembered waiting on them on that day when they arrived. So that means at the very least, Jean was seen in Laughlin on that Monday.

I don't understand why this waitress is any more credible than the woman in Apple Valley.

She was reported missing April 9th on Thursday. This "friend" alleged to have seen both of them on Wednesday, the 8th near Apple Valley, CA. But Al has phone records that show he placed two phone calls between a 4 hour span that were placed from Laughlin. There's no way this "friend" could have seen them, since as Al said, it would have been impossible because just driving to Apple Valley and back (without stopping) would have taken six hours. Also, the friend, if my memory serves me, did not approach nor speak to Jean and Al, she just claimed to have seen them. That second phone call, placed at 6:59 p.m., was to the bookkeeper. And she verifies that she spoke with Jean and that she was in Laughlin on Wednesday evening, the night before she disappeared.

Even if Al's version of the trip up until that Wednesday evening is true, he still could've done something to Jean in the period of time between the phone call termination and the minute she was reported missing. That's a lot of time.

I'm a little lost on the phone aspect. Is Call USA some kind of prepaid telephone card deal or what?

I don't understand why this waitress is any more credible than the woman in Apple Valley.

I guess they could cancel each other out. But we have no other witnesses who place Jean outside of Laughlin, whereas the bookkeeper says she spoke to her over the phone on that Wednesday. One of these people had to have gotten the date right. I just think the waitress would have a better memory than the friend since the waitress was actually waiting on them and had interaction with and spoke to them. The friend just says she saw them at a gas station.

Even if Al's version of the trip up until that Wednesday evening is true, he still could've done something to Jean in the period of time between the phone call termination and the minute she was reported missing. That's a lot of time.

I'm a little lost on the phone aspect. Is Call USA some kind of prepaid telephone card deal or what?

You're right. Al did have plenty of time to kill Jean and dispose of her body. I just personally don't think he did. As for Call USA, I would imagine it was some kind of prepaid thing that was used because he was calling long distance from his hotel room in Laughlin.

Two things I've noticed when re-watching the segment today:

-On Jean's missing poster it says "possible amnesia". Anyone else find that odd? Why would it say that, instead of possible foul play or something along those lines? Unless Jean had some sort of history of memory lapses, or something along those lines, I don't see why "amnesia" would have even been a possibility.

-Henderson asked the security personnel at the casino if they would make a copy of the surveillance tapes available to him. Why? If he's guilty, what purpose does this serve, since the original tape would still be in the possession of the casino. I guess it's possible that Henderson wanted to see for himself it it really was the set of slots he was playing at or not, but I just find it odd that he would request the tapes.

Perhaps Jean had a family or personal history of strokes, aneurysm or AVMs or had risk factors for it. Maybe her family was starting to notice the onset of alzheimers or other dementia symptoms (or looking backward began to analyze her behavior and noticed such symptons.)

Two things I've noticed when re-watching the segment today:
Was the segment aired again on UM?


-On Jean's missing poster it says "possible amnesia". Anyone else find that odd? Why would it say that, instead of possible foul play or something along those lines? Unless Jean had some sort of history of memory lapses, or something along those lines, I don't see why "amnesia" would have even been a possibility.
It was probably Al who created the poster and wanted everyone to think Jean's disappearance was an accident. If Jean had amnesia or some other type of illness that could account for her disappearance, it would've been mentioned on the original UM airing

How do you explain Al's bookkeeper who says she talked to Jean the night before she was last seen alive? She even said Jean was mentioning running into some luck with one of the slot machines. And it's also not that uncommon that no one remembers seeing Jean in Laughlin. No one remembers Al Henderson being their either, outside of the day Jean disappeared. It's not like witnesses placed Al anywhere outside of Laughlin in the time frame he says he was there.
This idea that Jean disappeared from a busy casino in broad daylight is to my mind a non-starter and unfortunately just sensationalising on the part of the programme makers to get viewers interested in the case. These are my thoughts and questions on the case:

1) Was there ever any CCTV footage to confirm that Jean had ever played any of the machines in Laughlin? If not then Al might have put her up to making the call to the accountant.

2)Did Al have any financial motive to gain from her death such as an insurance policy? It's still not been categorically answered either way.

3)Did Al have an obsession with this woman in that he had been with her over twenty years? Did he like to humiliate her in private as well as public? Was this the reason why she would not marry him?

4) It's stated that Jean was small at 5 feet 2ins and 125 pounds. She's therefore not going to put up much of a struggle against someone who catches her unawares,perhaps hitting her over the head as they stop somewhere on a night drive shortly after Jean was put on to the telephone by Al to speak to his accountant.

5)I think most people would probably accept she's dead.

This idea that Jean disappeared from a busy casino in broad daylight is to my mind a non-starter and unfortunately just sensationalising on the part of the programme makers to get viewers interested in the case. These are my thoughts and questions on the case:

1) Was there ever any CCTV footage to confirm that Jean had ever played any of the machines in Laughlin? If not then Al might have put her up to making the call to the accountant.

2)Did Al have any financial motive to gain from her death such as an insurance policy? It's still not been categorically answered either way.

3)Did Al have an obsession with this woman in that he had been with her over twenty years? Did he like to humiliate her in private as well as public? Was this the reason why she would not marry him?

4) It's stated that Jean was small at 5 feet 2ins and 125 pounds. She's therefore not going to put up much of a struggle against someone who catches her unawares,perhaps hitting her over the head as they stop somewhere on a night drive shortly after Jean was put on to the telephone by Al to speak to his accountant.

5)I think most people would probably accept she's dead.

I agree, but the idea that Jean disappeared from a busy casino came from Al himself, not the show. It's what he wants us to believe.

1) There is no videotape footage of Jean at the casino at any time at any place. The same can be said for Al with the sole exception of his appearance at the front entrance.

2) There could be financial motive, although I think insurance is unlikely since her body was never found.

3) I always thought the 20 year courtship was kind of odd. Leads me to believe that Jean had some doubts about Al (deservedly so) for a long time.

4) agreed

5) agreed

I also should point out that I don't think Al came off as a "kindly old man." There are a lot of people out there that think old necessarily means nice. It doesn't. Something i say often in life is that there are good and bad people of every kind. Not all old people are as nice as Betty White.

I've forgotten... Were Al and Jean living together?

I don't know what the US tax laws were back then, but I have heard of lots of senior citizens living together instead of getting married so they can have a financial advantage tax-wise and also something about keeping their full social security payment, which would negatively change/be reduced if they were to marry.

I suppose something like this could have factored into the 20 year courtship instead of their relationship leading to a legal marriage. (Just throwing some ideas out there FWIW.)

I've forgotten... Were Al and Jean living together?

I don't know what the US tax laws were back then, but I have heard of lots of senior citizens living together instead of getting married so they can have a financial advantage tax-wise and also something about keeping their full social security payment, which would negatively change/be reduced if they were to marry.

I suppose something like this could have factored into the 20 year courtship instead of their relationship leading to a legal marriage. (Just throwing some ideas out there FWIW.)
Not to be unkind on the victim,but I would have thought Al with his money could have attracted a young dolly bird had he so wished. It makes me think the only possible explanation was a spur of the moment killing. They went for a night drive and got into an argument,Al bashed her over the head and buried her body in a shallow grave off the road somewhere.

I was thinking about this case, and thought of some information that UM left out. The valet working at the casino could have verified or disproven Al's story about dropping the car off, getting the ticket and saying he was going to give it to Jean, etc. Surveillance tapes show Al dropping the car off and entering the casino a little after 9:00 a.m. I wonder if the valet attendant was questioned about whether or not Al returned back to the valet to tell him that Jean would be picking up the car, and whether or not he verified his story and the timeline he gave. I also wonder if the police checked the tapes from the other dates during their trip. Because the bookkeeper says Jean ran into a stroke of luck on a poker machine, obviously there must be a tape of it if she were really there.

Anyone else find it weird that Jean Moore isn't listed on Charley Project, Doe Network or any other missing persons website I can find? Other than her being listed in the "missing" section on the UM website, I can't find any other information about this case anywhere. You'd think with a reward having been offered for her return, Jean would have more exposure.

She's listed on The Charley Project's website now: Jean Moore (http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/m/moore_jean.html)

Just rewatched this one and I noticed something in the segment I never noticed before: Al Henderson says he was playing Jean's favorite machine from roughly 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on the date of her disappearance. LE says that the surveillance footage does not show Henderson playing the machine. Henderson says that they were looking at the wrong machine, and then LE says that the "security personnel" were the ones who told LE that this was the group of machines Henderson was playing. Isn't it plausible that the security personnel got the machine wrong and relayed the wrong information to LE?

Just rewatched this one and I noticed something in the segment I never noticed before: Al Henderson says he was playing Jean's favorite machine from roughly 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on the date of her disappearance. LE says that the surveillance footage does not show Henderson playing the machine. Henderson says that they were looking at the wrong machine, and then LE says that the "security personnel" were the ones who told LE that this was the group of machines Henderson was playing. Isn't it plausible that the security personnel got the machine wrong and relayed the wrong information to LE?

Possible. I wouldn't put anything past the ineptitude of casino security. It's truly mind boggling. I've detailed a few anecdotes but there are countless others.

For example, I was twice confronted by casino security, once at the old Castaways and once at Circus Circus, for the crime of watching the sports ticker scroll on a side wall of their sportsbooks. Neither group of security could figure out what I was doing and somehow they concluded I was up to no good.

Let me set the scene: That sportsticker scroll is roughly 10 feet wide and maybe 9 inches high. It runs a frequent and sometimes continuous update on sports scores of all types, in big red lettering running across the ticker. I didn't like to watch the basketball games and all the critical missed free throws and turnovers down the stretch, so I would relax in the corner and watch the ticker instead of the games themselves.

Can you imagine how limited a person has to be if they see someone looking at a wall and can't figure out the motive, when that wall has a prominent big sports ticker, and it's within the sportsbook? I was no more than 25 feet away from the ticker on both occasions. I wish I were making this up. Both times multiple security personnel people approached me and asked to see ID while asking what I was doing. Not until I pointed out the sportsticker did they look at each other in stunned silence. One group laughed at their error but the other bunch tried to pass it off as nothing unusual.

Don't assign or assume minimal competence from that position. That's all I'm saying. I would make it a favorite that the correct machines were checked and Jean was not there, but it's hardly an absolute. Besides, as I've pointed out previously, video surveillance in casinos is laughably overstated. That's true in this era and was exponentially more applicable in the '80s. The theme is propped as a fearful deterrent to casino crimes more than it's useful to actually view the entire casino floor.

Possible. I wouldn't put anything past the ineptitude of casino security. It's truly mind boggling. I've detailed a few anecdotes but there are countless others.

For example, I was twice confronted by casino security, once at the old Castaways and once at Circus Circus, for the crime of watching the sports ticker scroll on a side wall of their sportsbooks. Neither group of security could figure out what I was doing and somehow they concluded I was up to no good.

Let me set the scene: That sportsticker scroll is roughly 10 feet wide and maybe 9 inches high. It runs a frequent and sometimes continuous update on sports scores of all types, in big red lettering running across the ticker. I didn't like to watch the basketball games and all the critical missed free throws and turnovers down the stretch, so I would relax in the corner and watch the ticker instead of the games themselves.

Can you imagine how limited a person has to be if they see someone looking at a wall and can't figure out the motive, when that wall has a prominent big sports ticker, and it's within the sportsbook? I was no more than 25 feet away from the ticker on both occasions. I wish I were making this up. Both times multiple security personnel people approached me and asked to see ID while asking what I was doing. Not until I pointed out the sportsticker did they look at each other in stunned silence. One group laughed at their error but the other bunch tried to pass it off as nothing unusual.

Don't assign or assume minimal competence from that position. That's all I'm saying. I would make it a favorite that the correct machines were checked and Jean was not there, but it's hardly an absolute. Besides, as I've pointed out previously, video surveillance in casinos is laughably overstated. That's true in this era and was exponentially more applicable in the '80s. The theme is propped as a fearful deterrent to casino crimes more than it's useful to actually view the entire casino floor.

I am not familiar with the area that Jean Moore disappeared, but I do have an anecdotal story to tell about my experience in a casino (in Atlantic City):

My father and uncle took my to Atlantic City for my 21st birthday...guess what I wanted to do? Drink lots and lots of alcohol. Anyway, I was more concerned with drinking than gambling, so I planted myself at a bar while my uncle and father gambled at Bailey's casino. After a couple of hours downing beers at the bar, I went to find my father...and found him at a blackjack table. I just stood behind him and watched him play for a few spins and then he started asking what numbers/colors/even/odd etc. he should play. I started just randomly spouting off numbers, at this point I had a decent buzz, and then to my shock my father started winning. After 3-4 times of back to back winnings a guy at the table said something to my father about me being "a good luck charm". One of the dealers kept giving me a stern look, and my father played for 2-3 more spins before he got up for me and him to find my uncle. As soon as he got up, a bunch of dudes in suits started coming over to us. They didn't say anything, but they stared us down as we walked away. I wonder if they thought I was some professional cheater or something...I thought it was hilarious.

Just rewatched this one and I noticed something in the segment I never noticed before: Al Henderson says he was playing Jean's favorite machine from roughly 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. on the date of her disappearance. LE says that the surveillance footage does not show Henderson playing the machine. Henderson says that they were looking at the wrong machine, and then LE says that the "security personnel" were the ones who told LE that this was the group of machines Henderson was playing. Isn't it plausible that the security personnel got the machine wrong and relayed the wrong information to LE?

That's pretty interesting. Is it plausible? Sure. But I have to assume that LE and even the casino manager and security staff all had Al Henderson walk them directly to the EXACT machine she referred to as her "favorite". However, it is interesting that when Al Henderson said they weren't looking at the right machine, LE doesn't immediately say "we were looking at footage from the one Mr. Henderson showed us himself".

I agree, but the idea that Jean disappeared from a busy casino came from Al himself, not the show. It's what he wants us to believe.

1) There is no videotape footage of Jean at the casino at any time at any place. The same can be said for Al with the sole exception of his appearance at the front entrance.

2) There could be financial motive, although I think insurance is unlikely since her body was never found.

3) I always thought the 20 year courtship was kind of odd. Leads me to believe that Jean had some doubts about Al (deservedly so) for a long time.

4) agreed

5) agreed

I also should point out that I don't think Al came off as a "kindly old man." There are a lot of people out there that think old necessarily means nice. It doesn't. Something i say often in life is that there are good and bad people of every kind. Not all old people are as nice as Betty White.

Are you acting under the belief that Al and Jean were NEVER in Laughlin or at the casinos mentioned in the segment at all during this trip?

Are you acting under the belief that Al and Jean were NEVER in Laughlin or at the casinos mentioned in the segment at all during this trip?

Al was, but the only thing placing Jean there was a single eyewitness sighting, which was probably coming from someone who was mistaken. (like most eyewitness sightings on UM). There should be tapes of Jean from the cameras if she was there...there aren't.

Al was, but the only thing placing Jean there was a single eyewitness sighting, which was probably coming from someone who was mistaken. (like most eyewitness sightings on UM). There should be tapes of Jean from the cameras if she as there...there aren't.

Completely agree with you. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, agree on the eyewitness sightings. I don't take any of them seriously unless the eyewitness spoke with the individual. Kinda like in the Brad Bishop segment. That was a KNOWN sighting, not just an "I'm pretty sure it was him".

I cannot remember specifically, but did the segment show the surveillance tapes of the entrance to the casino showing Al Henderson kind of walking around? I know Jean was never seen on the tapes, but wasn't Al shown?

And if he was guilty in Jean's disappearance, what exactly was he doing on the tapes? Was he making it seem like he was looking for her? And if that's the case, why not say the last time he saw Jean was the evening prior?

And I still think the book keeper was correct in saying that she talked to Jean on the Wednesday prior to her disappearance. She made mention that Jean had told her that she had just hit a stroke of good luck on her lucky machine. Where else would Jean have been besides Laughlin getting lucky on a slot machine?

Does anyone remember this case?

http://unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/mis_jean_moore.htm

It seems likely that her fiancee murdered her, especially since he gives one story, yet surveillance footage tells another story. My question is, how did he kill her and why? How did he get rid of the body? Seems like an awful lot for an elderly man to do by himself.
What was the reason for al killing her

What was the reason for al killing her

One of my favorite movie quotes come courtesy of the 1996 blockbuster Scream: "There's always some stupid bull***t reason to kill your girlfriend!"

One of my favorite movie quotes come courtesy of the 1996 blockbuster Scream: "There's always some stupid bull***t reason to kill your girlfriend!"
But he said he was worth a million dollars

For arguments sake is there another plausible theory other than Al did it? I mean it was 10 in the morning when she supposedly went missing from the Casino...thats certainly not the time nor place one would be on the prowl to abduct someone. If it was amnesia then there would have been a sighting, especially with a 25k reward. Hell theres not even any evidence she was there that morning.

I only just watched this segment. I never saw it when UM used to be on. The fiancée gave me the creeps! Of course he put out such a high reward because he knew no one but him would know where Jean is to collect the reward!!

Why would he kill her

Why would he kill her

Why ask why? Try Bud Dry

My feeling on this one is that there is one bit of info that was overlooked or just not perceived correctly that would explain the whole thing. There just isn't really any evidence to speak of. Circumstantially, Al is the obvious suspect. But there just doesn't seem to be a reason or motive. I know the family said he didn't treat her the best, but even if that is the case, they seem to be suggesting verbal abuse at the most. Nothing physical.

There are other possibilities of course:

-Maybe something happened to Jean that was the Casino's fault. Maybe they worked to cover it up to avoid a law suit.

-Jean could have walked in the side door as shown in the segment. Perhaps this was not an area covered by cameras. She could have been abducted on the way in. They said in the segment that she had a run of luck at the casino a day or two (I forget the exact time frame) prior to disappearing. It is possible someone abducted her after noticing her winning on a previous visit. This would of course be most likely implicating casino personnel to see her winning on one occasion and be in a position to spot her again at the same place. I would be curious to know if muggings were regular in the area at the time. Could be casino employees targeting the occasional winner of their own casino.

-Maybe she died in some embarrassing way (to Al) and he did dispose of her and just made up the story.

-Also possible is the simply random act of abduction and/or murder.

There just isn't enough to say one way or another. That's why Al was never charged.

In any case, while parts of his story don't totally add up, Al strikes me as being honest in what he is saying. I just don't think he did it.

My feeling on this one is that there is one bit of info that was overlooked or just not perceived correctly that would explain the whole thing. There just isn't really any evidence to speak of. Circumstantially, Al is the obvious suspect. But there just doesn't seem to be a reason or motive. I know the family said he didn't treat her the best, but even if that is the case, they seem to be suggesting verbal abuse at the most. Nothing physical.

There are other possibilities of course:

-Maybe something happened to Jean that was the Casino's fault. Maybe they worked to cover it up to avoid a law suit.

-Jean could have walked in the side door as shown in the segment. Perhaps this was not an area covered by cameras. She could have been abducted on the way in. They said in the segment that she had a run of luck at the casino a day or two (I forget the exact time frame) prior to disappearing. It is possible someone abducted her after noticing her winning on a previous visit. This would of course be most likely implicating casino personnel to see her winning on one occasion and be in a position to spot her again at the same place. I would be curious to know if muggings were regular in the area at the time. Could be casino employees targeting the occasional winner of their own casino.

-Maybe she died in some embarrassing way (to Al) and he did dispose of her and just made up the story.

-Also possible is the simply random act of abduction and/or murder.

There just isn't enough to say one way or another. That's why Al was never charged.

In any case, while parts of his story don't totally add up, Al strikes me as being honest in what he is saying. I just don't think he did it.

That's my instinct also. For one thing, I have no idea why a rather wealthy and apparently intelligent senior citizen would choose a casino town for this type of crime, or coverup if the crime was elsewhere. Some people have speculated Jean never arrived in Laughlin and therefore Al was on a caper for several days. Meanwhile, surveillance cameras weren't exactly prevalent in 1992. So Al Henderson, if guilty, apparently brainstormed to find one of the very, very few areas that his story and details could be reviewed, and doubt attached if warranted.

I don't buy it. I think this is another strange case in which not everything comes together, allowing all the dominos to fit logically and without much effort. Sometimes criminals stumble upon the perfectly sloppy crime and escape.

This case needed another national exposure, preferably an hour. Every time I scan one of these marathon threads debating 12 minutes worth of material I shake my head and wonder if those producers decades ago realized what they would inspire, if one mostly random editing decision that used one quote instead of another or one tidbit instead of another would become the basis for debate and absolute conclusion. It's simply not enough. I get frustrated nowadays watching half hour programs because I've seen the same crime covered on hour shows. Unsolved Mysteries cut in half and then half again. That makes the producer the star, the definer. I'm sure it was somewhat random which producer worked on which segment. Flop the assignments and we'd receive different interpretation and the threads/conclusions would vary dramatically as well.

Not all of these casino towns are created equal. I'm sure I've detailed this elsewhere, if not in this thread. I'm somewhat frustrated when the word casino pops up and everyone applies the same stereotyped perspective. Carson City is prominent in the McClure case. That is basically a normal town with occasional casinos that blend into the architecture. You could drive through without knowing that gambling was legal or at all popular. Laughlin is exactly the opposite. It is pure casino, and basically an excuse for Arizonans smack across the Colorado River in Bullhead City to have quick access to legal gambling. Laughin is not a city as much a row of casinos along the river. Initially there were only a few casinos, and on one side of the street. In the mid '80s many more gaming companies started building in Laughlin, extending the row to more than a mile and narrowing the gap between casinos, along with some casinos placed on the other side of the street, closer to the mountains which are not far away. Laughlin has a very small strip of flat usable land before everything further away from the river is rocky and slanted.

Laughlin is incredibly unsophisticated by standards of a casino town. I can't emphasize that enough. Beginning in 1985 I made the 90 mile drive from Las Vegas to Laughlin 3 times per week for a couple of years. I didn't do it because my Datsun needed the exercise or because I wanted yet another peek at dusty Searchlight, NV, hometown of Harry Reid. I did it because the Laughlin sportsbook odds were an absolute joke. I'd pick off game after game that were 2 points or more different from the painted lines in Las Vegas. As soon as a walked into the Edgewater sportsbook I'd have to restrain laughter at the numbers I was looking at. Gambling isn't so difficult when you can creatively switch the odds in your favor. That's what driving to Laughlin accomplished. I had guys in Las Vegas telling me the, "Laughlin numbers don't count," when I would chuckle in the sportsbooks while rooting in my wagers. Unfortunately I bragged about it too much and next thing you know wise guys with clipboards were likewise making the drive to Laughlin and ruining the favorable numbers.

Later that decade and into the early '90s I was driving to Laughlin for a slightly different reason: Bonus slot machines were in their infancy. You had a severe advantage with selective intelligent play. Basically you couldn't lose. Laughlin had far more of them per casino than Las Vegas, and there was less competition from other guys playing those same machines. Also, it was blatantly obvious that the casino floor personnel and mechanics had absolutely no clue what they were doing, in contrast to Las Vegas. We'd laugh about this all the time. Once in a while you'd be playing a poker or bonus machine and notice that it was overpaying. In other words, it would spit out let's say 22 quarters instead of the proper 20. Hmmm. I might stay here for a while. You aren't doing anything wrong. Merely playing a machine and accepting what it throws into your tray. Not my fault if it can't count.

Twenty five years later I'm not exactly proud of this but I suspect others would have done the same. In fact, many tourists did. I'd find an overpaying poker machine in Laughlin and when I drove back 2 days later a local from Bullhead City would be playing it, and using all the correct tactics, cashing out all the time instead of allowing the credits to build up. She knew the game and the math. I distinctly remember one hefty build classy dressed lady who shared the same downstairs machine with me at Sam's Town Gold River for months and months. We never spoke a word to each other but we'd basically alternate shifts. The mechanics were so clueless they'd fill the machine with another $200 in quarters time after time without ever bothering to check if it was paying out the correct amount each time you cashed out. When I drove back one night and she was not playing the machine when I arrived, I knew it had been fixed. Yep. What a sad day. Instead of a cheap $400 profit for a few hours playing a poker machine I drove back square.

What a ripoff, by Laughlin standards.

I'm reporting this because I have to chuckle at all the posts assigning sophistication to Laughlin casino personnel, at any level. If they made mistakes in the areas I am familiar with, I'm confident they were prevalent everywhere. And this did not stop in the early '90s, when I ended my Laughlin days, for the most part. When the major Vision series slot machines debuted circa 1996 and had roughly an 8 year heyday I knew countless friends from Las Vegas who relocated to Laughlin for the same familiar reasons...simply more mistakes made by casino employees and therefore greater opportunity for profit. I heard all the familiar stories. By that time I had a very nice bankroll and was betting heavily on sports so while I was aware of the great Vision ("Robbing the One-Armed Bandits") series machines and played them in my spare time, I did not make them a priority like a decade earlier.

My feeling on this one is that there is one bit of info that was overlooked or just not perceived correctly that would explain the whole thing. There just isn't really any evidence to speak of. Circumstantially, Al is the obvious suspect. But there just doesn't seem to be a reason or motive. I know the family said he didn't treat her the best, but even if that is the case, they seem to be suggesting verbal abuse at the most. Nothing physical.

There are other possibilities of course:

-Maybe something happened to Jean that was the Casino's fault. Maybe they worked to cover it up to avoid a law suit.

-Jean could have walked in the side door as shown in the segment. Perhaps this was not an area covered by cameras. She could have been abducted on the way in. They said in the segment that she had a run of luck at the casino a day or two (I forget the exact time frame) prior to disappearing. It is possible someone abducted her after noticing her winning on a previous visit. This would of course be most likely implicating casino personnel to see her winning on one occasion and be in a position to spot her again at the same place. I would be curious to know if muggings were regular in the area at the time. Could be casino employees targeting the occasional winner of their own casino.

-Maybe she died in some embarrassing way (to Al) and he did dispose of her and just made up the story.

-Also possible is the simply random act of abduction and/or murder.

There just isn't enough to say one way or another. That's why Al was never charged.

In any case, while parts of his story don't totally add up, Al strikes me as being honest in what he is saying. I just don't think he did it.

Jean Moore disappearance gif:

Interesting case, we will probably never know what happened.

Interesting case, we will probably never know what happened.
Buying would not make sense if he killed he for money he was worth 1 million dollars . Maybe she was kidnapped to get ransom from him. But things with array then they killed her.

Has anyone seen or have a link to Al's obituary? I have some questions about his later life that might be answered by that.

He most likely killed her, but it's impossible to know for sure with the small amount of info in the UM segment. There's definitely more to this story than meets the eye.

Has anyone seen or have a link to Al's obituary? I have some questions about his later life that might be answered by that.

He most likely killed her, but it's impossible to know for sure with the small amount of info in the UM segment. There's definitely more to this story than meets the eye.
What do you know???

IIRC, the casino where Jean & Al went to was right up against the Colorado River. I wonder if it's possible that Jean's disappearance was an accident. Perhaps she went to play her favorite slot but it was taken, so she decided to walk outside to the walkway where the river was, and something happened there. The place where Al says he went back to was NOT that far of a walk to get to from where he says he dropped Jean off. It was a little over a half a mile. She also could've started to walk back to the casino to meet back up with Al and something happened then.

IIRC, the casino where Jean & Al went to was right up against the Colorado River. I wonder if it's possible that Jean's disappearance was an accident. Perhaps she went to play her favorite slot but it was taken, so she decided to walk outside to the walkway where the river was, and something happened there. The place where Al says he went back to was NOT that far of a walk to get to from where he says he dropped Jean off. It was a little over a half a mile. She also could've started to walk back to the casino to meet back up with Al and something happened then.
But why has her body not been found.

But why has her body not been found.

The Colorado is a big river. She could been washed far enough away from Laughlin that she was found and labelled a Jane Doe and the connection was never made. All that is not very likely, but it is possible.

The Colorado is a big river. She could been washed far enough away from Laughlin that she was found and labelled a Jane Doe and the connection was never made. All that is not very likely, but it is possible.
Interesting the family should tell police to look at jane does to find out.

Tough one to figure. Seems sincere on UM but all the information in the case points to him having her killed.

I still can't get over how detailed his story is, and yet NONE of that is supported by CCTV. Then when confronted with that, he sticks to his story and has no explanation. It's one thing to have a "he said, she said" scenario but this is his word vs. reality.

It makes me wonder if he accidentally killed her and covered it up or if he owed someone and they killed her and he won't talk because of it. He does seem sincere in the interview, yet his story can't be real.

I've never been to Nevada and have only visited a casino once in my life. But I don't need to know much about them to know that Al is guilty as sin!

Whether or not the cameras were high-quality doesn't matter. What matters is that they tell a completely different tale than the yarn Al spun about him playing a specific machine while waiting for Jean. The cameras don't show him at that machine -- or for that matter, anywhere in the casino past the front entrance.

Al Henderson.

When asked the question of why the tapes don't show him past the front entrance, Al gives an evasive non-answer about how he can't answer that because he's not an expert on video surveillance. Well, you don't need to be, it's not rocket science. The cameras pick up what's in front of them and they don't show you on there were you said you were.

Next, Al is confronted with the question of why neither he nor Jean is spotted at the machine(s) he indicated was Jean's favorite machine that they were both supposedly at that day. Al says "The only response to that is evidently they were looking at the tape of the wrong machine." This is immediately refuted by the investigator who is absolutely certain they were looking at the tapes of the right machines.

All of that is pretty damning, but throw on the fact that the tapes *don't show Jean at all for that day* and *don't show Al past the front entrance* is pretty overwheming. The cameras pick up nearly every square inch of the casino 24 hours a day. As a person moves about the casino, they will walk out of frame from one camera, but into another. So both of them, according to Al's story, should have been all over the cameras, for hours on end. Absoutely none of Al's story is backed up by the tapes.

Then you pile on that Al changed his story and said he gave her the claim ticket inside the casino, after telling the police he gave it to her outside. Not to mention his long, convoulted, non-sensical story about waiting for cabs and this, that and the other.

After thinking about it, I think that perhaps Jean was there on Laughlin on Monday (the first day of the trip, according to the waitresses statement), but that they went back to Apple Valley on Wednesdsay (which would explain the acquaintances statement) and Al did something to her on either Wednesday or Thursday and Lord knows where. She could literally be anywhere and I unforuntately don't have a lot of confidence she will ever be found.

I don't really know what Call USA is/was, but it really doesn't prove anything. Al could have simply given the phone to someone else and they placed the calls.

For me, Al was always one of the most obviously guilty parties. I think he stepped into the casino, thinking if he just walks into the front entrance, that will be enough to prove he was there, without taking into account anything else.

throw on the fact that the tapes *don't show Jean at all for that day* and *don't show Al past the front entrance* is pretty overwheming. The cameras pick up nearly every square inch of the casino 24 hours a day. As a person moves about the casino, they will walk out of frame from one camera, but into another. So both of them, according to Al's story, should have been all over the cameras, for hours on end. Absoutely none of Al's story is backed up by the tapes.

Yep I agree - she should have moved out of one frame and into another for certain.

Also - I did not get the yapping about his net worth - like who the hell cares about your net worth dropping??

Al Henderson.

When asked the question of why the tapes don't show him past the front entrance, Al gives an evasive non-answer about how he can't answer that because he's not an expert on video surveillance. Well, you don't need to be, it's not rocket science. The cameras pick up what's in front of them and they don't show you on there were you said you were.

This has always been my problem with Al Henderson. His story was very specific and detailed... until the cameras saw none of it. And then it changed. If he had said "I don't know, maybe I did this, maybe she did that..." you could understand. But he was very specific on their movements until informed that none of that was shown on the video. He either didn't think of this or didn't know it was on video.

It's not like a he said-she said. This is a he said-video shows something different.

What makes me call "BS!" from the very start is Al's claim that he couldn't find a parking space. Seriously? I've been to Laughlin many times and finding parking has absolutely never been an issue. Jean disappeared on a Thursday morning. Trust me, there was parking.

Clearly Al changed his story about which entrance he'd dropped Jean off at once LE pulled the video footage and it showed him entering the casino alone. "Oh no, I meant I dropped her off at the side entrance!"

Also, Laughlin is extremely small...unless Al had issues walking, there was likely no need for him to take a taxi from the Hilton to whatever hotel they'd been staying at (they never specified which hotel that was). Someone in a previous post stated it was half a mile away. I'd feel silly asking a taxi driver to drive me half a mile. But it doesn't matter anyway! Because Al magically changed his mind about going back to his hotel when he couldn't find a taxi and was suddenly cool with hanging out at the Hilton.

--Detective Sum Ting Wong

I've always felt Al Henderson was among the more blatant seemingly guilty parties of all the spousal disappearances, personally.

Like RobinW brought up above, why not just wait for Jean at the hotel if he was going to meet her at 12:15 anyway? None of that story makes the least bit of sense to me. His version would have him creating more work for himself, but a better environment for the events to have transpired exactly as he said they happened. That's usually one of the first indicators someone might be lying.



The engagement ring being left behind could be the result of Jean simply being cautious. I know sometimes people are accosted outside casinos. But I would be very curious to know what became of that ring in the months after Jean's disappearance.

I realize it's an anecdote, but the handful of times I've been to a casino, I've rarely carried my full purse. I've usually just taken the wallet out and carried it, for sake of convenience. If Jean was so cautious she'd leave her ring behind, she might have been the sort to have left her purse as well. But surely she would have carried at least an ID and obviously some amount of money. Those things would be carried most conveniently in a wallet or some similar thing. I'd be curious to know if THAT was out of the purse. If it was left behind, then there's a huge red flag to me.

I don't know what to make of the Apple Valley sighting. I do find it interesting that the sighting was at least by someone who knew the couple as opposed to a stranger as in the coffee shop sighting, but ultimately neither eye witness's account is crucial to me, at least given nothing but the information presented in the segment.

The phone records do not and cannot indicate if it was indeed Al Henderson who made those calls. It's simply a record of outgoing and incoming calls with a time and date. It doesn't bolster or prove, or conversely discredit or refute, an argument either way.


Most importantly, Al nor Jean are on any of those tapes. He said he was in a particular location at a particular time, and he wasn't. Period.


I think he had something to do with it. This is one of those rare segments I've been unable to change my opinion about since the first viewing, although I've challenged it many times. His story doesn't add up, and there's clear evidence that shows he wasn't where he said he was. He may have been a man of advanced years--a charming and amiable one at that--but seniors are just as capable of committing crime as anyone else.

Also caught this one again recently.

Still feel the exact same way about it six years later.

Al Henderson could possibly fit into the bizarre/nonsensical motive thread we have here. I still think he's responsible for Jean's disappearance, but unlike the other suspicious spouses featured on UM, I have no idea what his motive would have been.

Al Henderson could possibly fit into the bizarre/nonsensical motive thread we have here. I still think he's responsible for Jean's disappearance, but unlike the other suspicious spouses featured on UM, I have no idea what his motive would have been.

I totally agree. His story is so bad that he is covering up something, but there really is no strong motive. My best guess is that he accidentally killed her and then covered it up.

I realize not all of the "looks guilty on UM" crowd is actually guilty, but in this case there is the video. Based on his story and the fact that none of it is on video as he stated, he is guilty of something.

In addition to the phone records, I wonder why UM never mentioned the hotel records which indicated that Al checked into Laughlin on April 6th, as well as room service being ordered and delivered to his room on the 6th, 7th, and 8th? They were due to check out on the 9th. And I wonder why so little attention was paid to the security tapes on those days prior, to verify whether or not Jean was ever in Laughlin in the first place. The big "a-ha" moment in the UM segment is the blurb about Jean not being on the surveillance footage on the 9th. No mention if any tapes were checked for prior dates. As for the footage from the 9th, the detective says this:

I have checked with the surveillance personnel for the hotel and they have advised me that this is the group of machines that Al Henderson told the security personnel was Jeannie’s favorite machine.

I've raised this earlier in the thread, but isn't it possible that the security personnel got the machines mixed up? Al is the most likely suspect, don't get me wrong. But I have a hard time seeing how he could have pulled off the perfect crime. And would he be that stupid (or it was deliberate, cunning) enough to tell the security what Jean's favorite machine was, knowing full well that she was dead and not going to show up on the tape?

ETA: Doesn't Al say he came back into the casino after dropping Jean off and parking the car with the valet, to give her the ticket for the car? And that her favorite machine was being played by someone else? By his time frame, this was approximately 15 minutes to a half an hour. IMO, it's logical that Jean went in and saw the same thing Al saw, someone else playing her machine, and then went elsewhere.

In addition to the phone records, I wonder why UM never mentioned the hotel records which indicated that Al checked into Laughlin on April 6th, as well as room service being ordered and delivered to his room on the 6th, 7th, and 8th? They were due to check out on the 9th. And I wonder why so little attention was paid to the security tapes on those days prior, to verify whether or not Jean was ever in Laughlin in the first place. The big "a-ha" moment in the UM segment is the blurb about Jean not being on the surveillance footage on the 9th. No mention if any tapes were checked for prior dates. As for the footage from the 9th, the detective says this:



I've raised this earlier in the thread, but isn't it possible that the security personnel got the machines mixed up? Al is the most likely suspect, don't get me wrong. But I have a hard time seeing how he could have pulled off the perfect crime. And would he be that stupid (or it was deliberate, cunning) enough to tell the security what Jean's favorite machine was, knowing full well that she was dead and not going to show up on the tape?

ETA: Doesn't Al say he came back into the casino after dropping Jean off and parking the car with the valet, to give her the ticket for the car? And that her favorite machine was being played by someone else? By his time frame, this was approximately 15 minutes to a half an hour. IMO, it's logical that Jean went in and saw the same thing Al saw, someone else playing her machine, and then went elsewhere.

Oh Cars I'm so glad you bumped this thread this morning because I'm watching the segment as we speak!

I'm curious about which casino the storied favorite machine was even located. Jean Moore's missing person poster clearly states she disappeared from the Hilton Flamingo (which is now Aquarius Casino Resort), but the segment reenactment shows the couple arriving at what I now know to be Don Laughlin's Riverside Resort after doing some online research. The casinos are approximately half a mile down the road from one another, and by virtue of Al's story of having to drive Jean to a casino, they probably weren't staying at the Hilton Flamingo. It would seem, like on many such trips, the couple would've been staying at one casino resort and likely visited several during their stay. This is significant because it would seem several other casinos' video footage would theoretically be able to verify whether Jean was even in Laughlin or not over the days leading up to the stated date of her disappearance. A recent-ish article I read concerning the case indicates that the D.A.'s office has some reason to believe Jean never even made it to Laughlin at all, and I wonder if the reason why is because she never appears on ANY surrounding casinos' surveillance tapes, not just the Flamingo's from April 9, 1992.

I agree that it is fully within the realm of possibility that the security personnel made a mistake when they identified the "lucky" machine. Al, not unreasonably, states that this is in fact what actually occurred. But he's also never on tape in the area in which he says he provided Jean the claim ticket for the car. I suspect that Al, incorrectly reasoning that a side entrance may not provide the kind of surveillance coverage a main entrance would, banked on the hope this would in fact be the case in the process of simply making up a story as he went along.

I'll give him the slot machine tapes, but he most assuredly should have been recorded at one of the entrances with Jean. He's not. Says it all.

I'll give him the slot machine tapes, but he most assuredly should have been recorded at one of the entrances with Jean. He's not. Says it all.

I forgot about this part in Al's story. He's shown on the tapes, but not Jean, right? I haven't made it that far into the Prime episodes to rewatch this one.

I forgot about this part in Al's story. He's shown on the tapes, but not Jean, right?

Yes. He's shown twice: pulling up in his Cadillac outside, then walking through the entrance. Whether or not he was seen again isn't clear, but Stack makes it a point to say that this is the point at which "the tapes and Al Henderson disagree". Jean was never on the tapes, and Henderson wasn't even in the spot he says he gave Jean the claim ticket for the car at all.

Yes. He's shown twice: pulling up in his Cadillac outside, then walking through the entrance. Whether or not he was seen again isn't clear, but Stack makes it a point to say that this is the point at which "the tapes and Al Henderson disagree". Jean was never on the tapes, and Henderson wasn't even in the spot he says he gave Jean the claim ticket for the car at all.

So if Jean never made it to Laughlin, this means Al did her harm prior to leaving on the trip to establish an alibi of sorts. He also would've had to have packed bags for her, took her purse, jewelry, etc. because these items were found to have been left behind. So either he went through all of this trouble to make it seem like Jean was in Laughlin with him, but he was dumb enough to add a part of his story that could easily be refuted by video evidence, or she was in fact with him in Laughlin. I tend to believe the latter. And I'd be much more inclined to believe Al did harm to Jean sometime between the 8th and the 9th, rather than prior to even going to Laughlin at all with her.

I'm also trying to come up with a reason as to why Al would have lied about certain aspects of his story without having caused Jean's disappearance, and can't come up with anything rational. Although a huge clue, IMO, is the engagement ring left behind. Why would she take it off at all? It indicates an argument of some sort. But what are the odds that she would run into foul play elsewhere if she left their room in anger?

So if Jean never made it to Laughlin, this means Al did her harm prior to leaving on the trip to establish an alibi of sorts. He also would've had to have packed bags for her, took her purse, jewelry, etc. because these items were found to have been left behind. So either he went through all of this trouble to make it seem like Jean was in Laughlin with him, but he was dumb enough to add a part of his story that could easily be refuted by video evidence, or she was in fact with him in Laughlin. I tend to believe the latter. And I'd be much more inclined to believe Al did harm to Jean sometime between the 8th and the 9th, rather than prior to even going to Laughlin at all with her.

I feel precisely the same way.

I'm also trying to come up with a reason as to why Al would have lied about certain aspects of his story without having caused Jean's disappearance, and can't come up with anything rational. Although a huge clue, IMO, is the engagement ring left behind. Why would she take it off at all? It indicates an argument of some sort. But what are the odds that she would run into foul play elsewhere if she left their room in anger?

I think there's a possibility Al himself removed the ring from Jean's finger, perhaps with the intention of reselling the piece.

Maybe I'm biased in favor of Al because he looks identical to my grandfather.

In all seriousness, I just don't get the guilty spouse vibe from Henderson like I do with others. I know that means absolutley nothing in terms of his guilt or innocence, but the points in his favor are:

-He put up the reward money.
-He actively searched for her and, according to a glossed over line in the original segment, "Over the next few days Al questioned dozens of people and distributed thousands of fliers in the Laughlin area."
-Immediately reported her missing.

There's also a remark that the detective makes, where he says Al asked the casino to make a copy of the tape available for Al, but they refused to do so and turned the tapes over to the cops. What purpose would this serve in the long run if Al had killed Jean and knew she was dead? It seems like he's definitely inserting himself into the investigation more than other guilty spouses on UM have done. Typically they try to distance themselves, not insert themselves more.

I'd like to chime in in reference to nobody seeing Jean in Laughlin.

I mentioned this in regards to Tim Mc'Clure as well, but I don't find it usual that no one remembers seeing them. Especially in a casino. There's so much going on and so many distractions. Casinos are very noisy places (even in the morning and mid-day) and a lot of times you don't see too many socializing other than maybe at the tables. People are drinking, zoned out on the slots, and are generally in their own little world. I wouldn't be surprised if no one could remember Jean or Al. Who's going to remember some random older people? Maybe someone with a really great memory. Maybe somebody who spoke with them for a short or long amount of time. But in the segment, it is never said if either one of them interacted with someone while in the casino. Other than Al claiming that he gave his keys to the Valet (was this person ever spoken to or was this interaction ever confirmed?) did he talk to anyone else while he walked around the casino? Did he ask anyone if they had seen Jean? I know after she was reported missing to police he gave out flyers, but what about that particular day? He says he went around to some of the shops to see if she was there...

I agree with the poster (might have been Cars?) that said in order to confirm that the bookkeeper had spoken to Jean was to check back on the cameras to see if she had indeed had a "winning streak". I see no reason for the bookkeeper to lie. And I doubt she had her dates mixed up if Jean was talking about winning big at the casino. That confirms that she at least made it to Laughlin and was there and alive that day. Pair that with the sighting by the waitress of her and Al at the restaurant and that confirms her whereabouts.

The main issue with this case is there are more questions than answers. I wish they would have given more information on how Al and Jean supposedly spent their time in Laughlin. How many Casinos did they visit during that time? what restaurants? Did they stay at the same hotel the entire four days? What shops did Al go to look for her? Did those places have video cameras and were they accessed? The UM segment made it look like the police only checked out the cameras from the day of Jean's disappearance. I can see why, but why not actually check different times, or the days prior, if not to at least actually confirm that both Al and Jean were in Laughlin? Al was an older guy, and I can see how he may have been confused or off with dates. I'd be really surprised if they only checked THAT day for footage. I'd also be shocked if they never tried to get ahold of footage from any other casino.

While I believe cameras never lie, I can also know what a pain in the ass they are to deal with. I'm a student and right now I work graveyard at a gas station. On the occasion, we have to check our camera footage if we notice someone stealing or for other various reasons. Now, our camera system is older, but not as old as the ones back in 1992. Nevertheless, it's such a pain to search through the footage, looking for something specifically. You have to keep your eye on every frame, and the search features (even on slow) go very quickly. It's extremely easy to miss something. It also can be a painfully slow process, unless you have an exact time frame. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that even witha camera system, it's very easy to miss something. Not saying that those casino cameras in 1992 missed something- it was obvious that Jean nor Al were in the casino at the times he claimed. What I am saying is that I wouldn't be surprised if police or personnel only looked at the specific window of time that Al gave them and didn't bother to review beyond that. It's exhausting, boring work and there was probably hours beyond hours of possible footage from Mon to that Thurs. They probably checked the footage, saw that he was lying, and didn't bother to poke any further.

I don't know what happened so I don't have a solid theory to present. All I can say is that the only way I would start suspecting Al is if evidence was shown that Jean was never in Laughlin. So far, that can neither be confirmed nor denied. Although, I'm leaning more toward that she was just because of the phone call and the waitress sighting.

Al's version of events has Jean at the casino at 9:30 in the morning, and Al going in and waiting for her for a half an hour (9:45 to 10:15) before going back to their hotel and checking out at 12. What could have happened to her in that time frame in a casino of all places? That's the hardest part of the theory of Al being innocent for me to swallow: what are the odds she would randomly run into foul play during that very specific time frame?

Al's version of events has Jean at the casino at 9:30 in the morning, and Al going in and waiting for her for a half an hour (9:45 to 10:15) before going back to their hotel and checking out at 12. What could have happened to her in that time frame in a casino of all places? That's the hardest part of the theory of Al being innocent for me to swallow: what are the odds she would randomly run into foul play during that very specific time frame?

Bingo. If we are to believe his story, she has to leave on her own (very unlikely), or meet with foul play in a casino where none of it is caught on camera, in a very short window of time. This wouldn't prove Al is guilty, but it does really make his story less likely.

Part of me thinks (if he did do it) that he could make up this story about "losing" her in a casino and people would just buy it because they are so busy. If it weren't for what isn't on the cameras, people might buy it. Once it was proven the cameras didn't show what he said, he had to stick with his story no matter how preposterous it seems.

The only way I can see her meeting with foul play so quickly is if she had a lot of money or someone thought she had a lot of money and she was robbed and/or abducted and killed. But how would strangers get her out of a casino without making a ruckus or anyone noticing?

I agree, Cars, that the narrow timeline almost makes Al's version of events impossible.

Bingo. If we are to believe his story, she has to leave on her own (very unlikely), or meet with foul play in a casino where none of it is caught on camera, in a very short window of time. This wouldn't prove Al is guilty, but it does really make his story less likely.

Part of me thinks (if he did do it) that he could make up this story about "losing" her in a casino and people would just buy it because they are so busy. If it weren't for what isn't on the cameras, people might buy it. Once it was proven the cameras didn't show what he said, he had to stick with his story no matter how preposterous it seems.

The only way I can see her meeting with foul play so quickly is if she had a lot of money or someone thought she had a lot of money and she was robbed and/or abducted and killed. But how would strangers get her out of a casino without making a ruckus or anyone noticing?

I agree, Cars, that the narrow timeline almost makes Al's version of events impossible.

My wife and I got separated in a casino (during a weekday afternoon) for hours on our honeymoon. And this was in the age of cell phones. She couldn't hear her ringtone when I tried to call her, and hen she called me back, my phone was on silent so I didn't hear or feel it vibrate. I know this is anecdotal, but getting separated from someone in a casino is easy. The only problem is, the odds of anything happening to someone if they stay in the casino is close to zero. And I see no reason why Jean would want to play her favorite slot, and then turn around and leave the casino just because someone else was playing it.

Al's version of events has Jean at the casino at 9:30 in the morning, and Al going in and waiting for her for a half an hour (9:45 to 10:15) before going back to their hotel and checking out at 12. What could have happened to her in that time frame in a casino of all places? That's the hardest part of the theory of Al being innocent for me to swallow: what are the odds she would randomly run into foul play during that very specific time frame?

12 pages of posts to finally have someone hit the nail right on the head. Even if there was no video surveillance to contradict Al's story, this is the thing that can't be ignored. How often do we see a story where a grown adult was abducted secretly and silently from a public place? Casinos are high-traffic public places, and we're dealing with a very limited time-frame.

I, personally, subscribe to the theory that Jean was never in Laughlin. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, so I dismiss the testimony of the waitress who said she served Jean and Al. I've always been curious about the relationship between Al and his bookkeeper Geraldine Fender. I asked last year in this thread if anyone had a link to an online copy of Al's obituary. I wonder if Al was romancing Geraldine behind Jean's back, and I was curious if perhaps he went on to marry her. Geraldine is the only witness we have who can attest to Jean being in Laughlin as she says she spoke to Jean on a phone call that Al placed from Laughlin to Victorville.

12 pages of posts to finally have someone hit the nail right on the head. Even if there was no video surveillance to contradict Al's story, this is the thing that can't be ignored. How often do we see a story where a grown adult was abducted secretly and silently from a public place? Casinos are high-traffic public places, and we're dealing with a very limited time-frame.

I, personally, subscribe to the theory that Jean was never in Laughlin. Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable, so I dismiss the testimony of the waitress who said she served Jean and Al. I've always been curious about the relationship between Al and his bookkeeper Geraldine Fender. I asked last year in this thread if anyone had a link to an online copy of Al's obituary. I wonder if Al was romancing Geraldine behind Jean's back, and I was curious if perhaps he went on to marry her. Geraldine is the only witness we have who can attest to Jean being in Laughlin as she says she spoke to Jean on a phone call that Al placed from Laughlin to Victorville.

I think RobinW found some articles which mentioned room service being delivered to their room during the trip, and that on the first day 2 meals were delivered to the room, and then 1 for the days after. In addition to the call logs provided by Al, the bookkeeper's testimony, and the waitress, IMO, I think Jean was in Laughlin. But something happened to her after the bookkeeper's call but before Al reported her missing.

I think RobinW found some articles which mentioned room service being delivered to their room during the trip, and that on the first day 2 meals were delivered to the room, and then 1 for the days after. In addition to the call logs provided by Al, the bookkeeper's testimony, and the waitress, IMO, I think Jean was in Laughlin. But something happened to her after the bookkeeper's call but before Al reported her missing.

The room service thing gives me pause and may change my mind. I hadn't heard/read that before. I give that more credit than anything else. That's a clincher on Al's guilt and shows that Jean was most likely in Laughlin on the first day. What a slip on his part.

I think RobinW found some articles which mentioned room service being delivered to their room during the trip, and that on the first day 2 meals were delivered to the room, and then 1 for the days after. In addition to the call logs provided by Al, the bookkeeper's testimony, and the waitress, IMO, I think Jean was in Laughlin. But something happened to her after the bookkeeper's call but before Al reported her missing.

Yes, it's true, even though I lean toward Al being responsible for Jean's disappearance, I actually think there's enough evidence to believe she was in Laughlin the entire week and that the eyewitness who saw Jean at the gas station in Apple Valley on the afternoon of April 8 has to be mistaken. Al's account of everything which happened up until the morning of April 9 does hold up and combined with the apparent lack of motive and his proactive attitude in the search effort for Jean (he even paid $1200 to charter a helicopter to fly over the desert to look for her), I'd be inclined to believe him if it wasn't for the huge red flag of the video footage completely contradicting his story and the lack of logical explanation for how Jean could have gone missing from a crowded casino in the middle of the morning.

Yes, it's true, even though I lean toward Al being responsible for Jean's disappearance, I actually think there's enough evidence to believe she was in Laughlin the entire week and that the eyewitness who saw Jean at the gas station in Apple Valley on the afternoon of April 8 has to be mistaken. Al's account of everything which happened up until the morning of April 9 does hold up and combined with the apparent lack of motive and his proactive attitude in the search effort for Jean (he even paid $1200 to charter a helicopter to fly over the desert to look for her), I'd be inclined to believe him if it wasn't for the huge red flag of the video footage completely contradicting his story and the lack of logical explanation for how Jean could have gone missing from a crowded casino in the middle of the morning.

The only plausible explanation I have for him to not be involved in Jean's disappearance, but also lie about that morning is an argument over something that Al did not want to tell the authorities. Or it could be something as simple as them arguing and Al (who was described by Jean's kids as always putting her down) saying something hurtful to her which caused her to take off, and Al just nonchalantly thought she'd be back so he waited around before haphazardly checking the casinos for her. IIRC, the footage just shows him in the lobby of one of the casinos, and he's not really doing anything other than kind of standing there.

The only plausible explanation I have for him to not be involved in Jean's disappearance, but also lie about that morning is an argument over something that Al did not want to tell the authorities. Or it could be something as simple as them arguing and Al (who was described by Jean's kids as always putting her down) saying something hurtful to her which caused her to take off, and Al just nonchalantly thought she'd be back so he waited around before haphazardly checking the casinos for her. IIRC, the footage just shows him in the lobby of one of the casinos, and he's not really doing anything other than kind of standing there.

That's an interesting thought. I doubt that it's true, but there something interesting there. He's on the casino footage in the lobby. If he was at the casino to attempt to establish his story, why didn't he actually go through the motions of playing her favorite machine for 15-30 minutes like he claimed he did. Did he only think to add that to the story after the fact?

That's an interesting thought. I doubt that it's true, but there something interesting there. He's on the casino footage in the lobby. If he was at the casino to attempt to establish his story, why didn't he actually go through the motions of playing her favorite machine for 15-30 minutes like he claimed he did. Did he only think to add that to the story after the fact?

Yep. He just never thought about (or knew about) the cameras. I think this would have been very different otherwise. By the time it was brought to his attention, he was in too deep to change his story so he stuck with it, improbable as it is.

Looked like a nice old guy but plainly a killer-she doesn't show up anywhere on the footage, he does-but his version of events doesn't tally with the footage. What sort of person would check out of the hotel when she had vanished & he had not been able to contact her or her him? He surely would have gone to look for her car after his invisible slot machine playing finished two hours before this & raised the alarm. Plainly money wasn't a motive, best guess is they argued the night before or that morning-possibly her saying she didn't want to go through with the marriage, he flipped out & she died, he then disposed of the body & turned up at the casino to give himself an alibi-but didn't realise how many cameras there were.

That's an interesting thought. I doubt that it's true, but there something interesting there. He's on the casino footage in the lobby. If he was at the casino to attempt to establish his story, why didn't he actually go through the motions of playing her favorite machine for 15-30 minutes like he claimed he did. Did he only think to add that to the story after the fact?

Which is kind of odd - most people are aware that cameras are EVERYWHERE in a casino!!! (Except for restrooms)

I just wanted to suggest a possible reason that Al went forward with his mostly implausible story despite the lack of CCTV collaboration. Based on my experiences of working retail jobs that required customers to establish their identity using credit-debit cards, some people were down right annoyed that a peon cash register jockey had the nerve to question them or their intentions. Simply put, some very wealthy powerful people were miffed that somebody had the nerve to ask for ID on their unlimited credit card.

That's the point that I'm trying to make. I think Al was so used to getting his way (because he was a SOMEBODY~ he was rich) that it was insulting to him that people would doubt any part of his story. I think that was part of the story why he was never charged in addition to the lack of evidence.

He definitely looks guilty as hell. The biggest question I have is why? What did he have to gain?

He definitely looks guilty as hell. The biggest question I have is why? What did he have to gain?

This is my biggest question too.

The surveillance is another big stickler for me. The fact that casinos & the like are brimming with cameras everywhere should be glaringly obvious. Assuming Al wasn't ignorant of this, why would he lie about Jean being in a certain place at a certain time?? (knowing that the surveillance would catch him in that lie)

Maybe he was arrogant enough to bet he wouldn't be caught. That explanation I could buy.

That doesn't jive at all though with his reported efforts to find her. If you craft an alibi with a gigantic hole or two (the surveillance) that the authorities would eventually pick up on, why go to the lengths that Al did and waste time/money/effort like that??

Did he figure he could try and pull something off Oceans 11-style??

Assuming Al's guilty, the only other thing I could think of was that this was a third party job - he mentioned the idea to someone and this other person took care of the rest (logistics, hiring someone etc etc)


Switching gears entirely though, here's something else I thought of.

Remember the Craig Williamson case?? (see this thread (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=195923&highlight=craig+williamson))

There was a lot of speculation that he faked his supposed "amnesia" to escape financial obligations and an ill-advised marriage.

What if something like that happened here?? Unbeknownst entirely to Al, Jean wanted out & decided to just walk away altogether? Cutting off all contact with family would obviously be a huge issue, but hey, Williamson did it (and no traces of Jean's body/signs of foul play were ever found - nor was any evidence Al did something to her himself or hired someone to kill her).

Was she ever found did she disappear like gone girl

Please forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I have never seen anyone bring this point up.

Al said Jean wanted to return to the casino to play her “lucky” slot that she had won $600 on the day before. As there has been much speculation as to whether or not Jean was actually ever in Laughlin in the first place, I think this would have been a way to prove if she was there one way or the other. Back in the 1990s, slot machines still used coins. A $600 payout on a slot machine would not have been delivered in coins, and would have had to been processed by an attendant, and the winner would have to go to the cashier window (or some type of office) and present their ID for tax purposes and receive a W-2G form. Did investigators ever check with the casino about Jean’s winnings on this day? The casino must have had records….

Currently the amount that triggers a W-2G form is anything over $1200, but back in the 90s that amount was much lower. My roommate and I were gambling in Reno in 1995, and she won $650 on a 25 cent slot at Fitzgerald’s , and she was required to present ID and sign to receive her winnings, so I would think something similar would have been required of Jean, as that happened only 3 years prior.

Good point.

I think that's always been the problem; accepting everything said from the spouse of the missing person.

Investigators probably only verified that the couple had indeed checked in and went no further.

Please forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I have never seen anyone bring this point up.

Al said Jean wanted to return to the casino to play her “lucky” slot that she had won $600 on the day before. As there has been much speculation as to whether or not Jean was actually ever in Laughlin in the first place, I think this would have been a way to prove if she was there one way or the other. Back in the 1990s, slot machines still used coins. A $600 payout on a slot machine would not have been delivered in coins, and would have had to been processed by an attendant, and the winner would have to go to the cashier window (or some type of office) and present their ID for tax purposes and receive a W-2G form. Did investigators ever check with the casino about Jean’s winnings on this day? The casino must have had records….

Currently the amount that triggers a W-2G form is anything over $1200, but back in the 90s that amount was much lower. My roommate and I were gambling in Reno in 1995, and she won $650 on a 25 cent slot at Fitzgerald’s , and she was required to present ID and sign to receive her winnings, so I would think something similar would have been required of Jean, as that happened only 3 years prior.

All this time, I never even once considered that and that's an excellent point. I had to present ID and sign for a $1400 winning at a Michigan casino sometime back around 2012 or 2013. I don't know how long such records are retained, but they certainly would've been fresh at the time Jean was reported missing.

Please forgive me if this has been mentioned, but I have never seen anyone bring this point up.

That's a really good point. It would be nice because it would prove at least she was there at some point, like you said.

The fact that the security camera doesn't line up with Al's story still totally makes him guilty in some form. It wasn't a complicated story by any means or it wasn't like they were trying to pull Jean's face out of video from a crowd of people 300 yards away.

Al gave his simple story and the video showed none of it, and his only answer is to double down on his story (no gambling pun intended). The video doesn't lie and there isn't much wiggle room here. Either Al had dementia and was just really not with it (possible) or what he said was a fabrication because he was hiding something (more likely). There is an outside chance that she just took off and Al was embarrassed so he made up this story, but I put that chance very low. I can't come up with a story of what actually happened here but 99% chance Al was very much involved in it. If it can be proven she was never there, then it goes up to 100%.

Watched this again on Pluto tv this morning and started reading about it again. Also saw Robin Warder's Reddit page which jogged my memory about something he mentioned in his podcast(love it by the way Robin!). Jeanne had said something to her kids about talking to her lawyer in early Dec before she got engaged and disappeared?

What if she was i was tired of waiting for Al to propose and was going to look into suing for palimony? Even though they were together 20 years I don't think CA recognizes common law marriages but she could have been inquiring on that and possible monetary settlement.

That would explain why he after so long popped the question. If he got wind of possibly losing part of his money. But after a few months he changes his mind and tells Jean after they get to Laughlin. They fight and he either accidentally or purposefully kills her. That explains only one meal after a certain time and why she is on no surveillance tapes. But I can't figure out how he got rid of her body without being seen and her never being found.

Also according to an article a read 20 years after her disappearance by a friend - Al was only giving the reward if she was found alive. Did he know she a) would never be found or b) if she was/is found she would be deceased? Sorry so long!

The casino is completely unimportant in terms of her whereabouts, because no one but Al saw her there. It was only used to establish an alibi.

He was elderly so it's doubtful he shot her and moved her body, etc. My theory is he drove her to an nature overlook early that morning and just pushed her over. There are mountainous locations nearby Laughlin they could have driven to.

Not sure what the jewelry being left behind in the hotel room means...that does bug me a little. That would make it seem like he hurt her in the hotel room, which I don't believe. (I don't think he could have carried her out of there unnoticed)...But it also doesn't indicate she just walked out on her life either.

Also not quite sure what to think of the missing poster. It said she might have amnesia...that might have just been a sign of the times. It was 1991, back when amnesia seemed like a much bigger threat in our culture (and part of that was because of shows like UM!!). As for Al, he's already claiming his wife disappeared from a casino, so I think he's just doubling down ("the only way she walked out on me is if she has amnesia")

Also it really bothers me that we only know about the footage from the casino where Al showed up at...clearly she was never there so it's useless

They stayed at a different casino. What about the footage there?? What time was she last seen on that footage?

Here is the link to my writeup on Jean's case.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/631752367223887/permalink/1357640681301715/

It's been awhile since I've heard RobinW's podcast episode covering this case, and he may have already brought this up, but on Charley Project, they say that shortly after Al was seen standing in the lobby of the casino where he claims to have dropped Jean off, he left that casino and went back to the one they were staying at and played black jack. If this is true, that could be why he didn't go back to the casino for approximately two hours.

The writeup also mentions that records confirmed that Al checked into the Colorado Belle on April 6th, at 1:00 p.m., which a check out on April 9th. It also says that "blood stained tissues" were found on the floor of Al's motor home. I have no idea what significance that would hold, because IMO, Jean met up with foul play somewhere in the Laughlin area.

the Charley Project site says:

"Records at the Colorado Belle show Henderson checked in to the hotel at 1:00 p.m. on April 6, three days before Moore's disappearance, and booked rooms for the next three nights, with a departure on April 9. Hotel records show two meals were delivered to Henderson's room on April 6, one on April 7, one on April 8, and none on April 9. Investigators are not sure Moore ever arrived in Laughlin, and think she may have met with foul play in either California or Nevada."

Maybe Jean never left California... Al killed her in his motor home and made up the whole story of Jean going with him to Laughlin. The first night he had 2 meals to pretend she was there but he didn't bother the following days.

Not sure what the jewelry being left behind in the hotel room means...that does bug me a little. That would make it seem like he hurt her in the hotel room, which I don't believe. (I don't think he could have carried her out of there unnoticed)...But it also doesn't indicate she just walked out on her life either.

It could be the foul play happened in CA and Al packed her jewelry along with her cloths and other belongings. Al simply didn’t appreciate that her jewelry being left in the hotel room would set off alarms by itself.

It's been a while since I've watched this episode, so forgive me if this has already been covered. I know that during the segment, security footage is shown of the area/slot machines that Al said he dropped Jean off at but Jean is nowhere to be found. Was it ever mentioned if any security camera ever captured Jean Moore during those days in the casino? I'm wondering if she ever even made it to Laughlin?

I'm wondering if she ever even made it to Laughlin?

Could be she didn't. I want to say the investigators thought this was a distinct possibility as we only have Al's word for it

Could be she didn't. I want to say the investigators thought this was a distinct possibility as we only have Al's word for it

I guess my point is, if we have surveillance footage of the slot machines where Al said he dropped her off at, yet she wasn't there, then I wonder if they reviewed the same cameras to see if they captured Jean at all during that trip?

I guess my point is, if we have surveillance footage of the slot machines where Al said he dropped her off at, yet she wasn't there, then I wonder if they reviewed the same cameras to see if they captured Jean at all during that trip?

On RobinW's podcast, he mentioned that Al ordered room service for two on the first night in Laughlin. This, coupled with the waitress who says she waited on Jean and Al, are the "best" evidence we have that she was in Laughlin for at least the first night. On the day of her reported disappearance, Al is seen walking around the lobby of the casino he claims to have dropped Jean off in, but she is seen nowhere on the tapes. I believe it was also mentioned on RobinW's podcast that after leaving that casino, Al went back to the one they were staying at and played blackjack before checking out. If this is true, there has to be some recording of Al at the other casino.

I've never gotten the vibe that Al, if he had murdered and dumped Jean's body elsewhere, would be stupid enough to walk into the lobby of a casino to be videotaped, and then say that is where he dropped Jean off and met her to give her the valet ticket. It's always came off to me like he was wandering around the lobby trying to see if he could find her there.

Take this with a grain of salt, but someone back in May was posting several comments on UM's writeup about this case. This person claims to have seen the surveillance footage and kind of implies they were involved in law enforcement or a private investigator:

After reviewing the surveillance footage I clearly saw her. And in one clip I even spotted his bald head at the bottom of the screen. The only discrepancy is in a dark room her pants didn’t seem white. More towards the light in other footage they where plainly white.

They were not even married yet. If he didn’t like her all he had to do was call off the marriage and just be friends like they were the last 20 years. It wasn’t like they were married and a breakup would cost him half of everything. But looking at the surveillance they seemed seemed very excited. The detective was wearing bifocals when interviewed. And had issues with his vision.

They were not bad. But they were no exactly helpful. You can see how excited she was on camera. And as a gentleman he dropped her off so she wouldn’t have to walk. It is a forgotten courtesy. The poor elderly man was just hammered by everyone until his death.

She is seen on surveillance putting the valet ticket in her duffle bag. Then she is walking against the wall. And out of range you can see Al’s bald head watching her walk away. She was 60. But was still very attractive for a predator.

Some cold cases are lacking one vital piece of evidence. Others just have a wrong suspect.

I don’t believe it was Al. But my suspect is also dead.

These were all made within 3 days of each other in March, all indicating that this person has seen the footage and that you can see Jean in them. I have no idea if this person is telling the truth, but it would be bizarre to randomly comment on an UM cold case and make multiple comments echoing the same thing in response to older comments.

Here are my thoughts on the case:

Al’s account of his movements on the morning of Jean’s disappearance is incoherent. Forget which casino entrance he used to drop off Jean, why was he dropping her off in the first place? According to the segment, Jean wanted to play her “favorite” slot machine, so Al dropped her off at the casino, parked the car, handed her the valet ticket, and planned to take a cab back to the hotel. Jean would then drive the car back to the hotel where they would check out and head home. Great! So why didn’t Jean just take the car in the first place and leave Al behind at the hotel? Or why didn’t Al just take the car back to the hotel and pick her back up at a designated time?

Al’s actions seem deliberate and calculated, almost like he was “planting” the car at the casino for unknown reasons.

Al said he couldn’t find a cab, so he decided to head into the casino and gamble after all, for a half-hour or so. I don’t buy that Al had trouble finding a cab at 9:30 on a Thursday morning, or that Al couldn’t simply walk the half-mile (10 minutes) back to his hotel. Wasn’t his plan all along to return to the hotel and wait for Jean? Why did he suddenly decide to gamble?

Al finally returns to the hotel around noon, although it’s not clear how he got there. But according to the segment, after finishing packing, he took a cab back to the casino to locate Jean, where he realized she was missing. Again, why didn’t he just take his own vehicle to and from the hotel?

Al returns to the casino and finds his car “right where it had been left”, although it’s not clear how he knew where his car was parked. (It’s possible that the casino had a small enough campus for Al to locate his car.)

LE discovered that Jean left behind her purse and jewelry in the hotel room the day she disappeared. To me, this is suspicious but consistent with someone not wanting to “flash” (or be carrying) anything in a crowded casino. The actress in the segment is portrayed as wearing a fanny pack strapped to her waist. If in fact Jean was wearing a fanny pack that day, it’s possible she kept her ID and cash in there. The segment doesn’t specify if Jean had anything missing from her purse.

Casino surveillance footage contradicts Al’s claims that he handed Jean the valley ticket where he said he did, and that he played Jean’s “favorite” slot machine while waiting for her. I think this aspect of the segment is overblown. The footage conflicting with Al’s statements could be due to a variety of factors. The Detective’s key words are, “The surveillance tapes that I have reviewed….we do not see Jeanie in any of those tapes.” To me, that’s Police Code for: “We only reviewed the tapes that were given to us and didn’t investigate further.”

Accordingly, the Detective states that he only reviewed the footage for the “favorite slot machine” during the half-hour window that Al gave them.

Did LE even have all the necessary footage? It seems like they were operating solely on where Al says he was and at what time. Forget the Missing Wife for a second. An older man’s memory of his exact movements in a crowded casino is going to be highly questionable. So one would question who gathered the footage, who screened it, and whether it was even possible to identify an older couple amongst a sea of similar looking and dressed gamblers. To me, it’s highly possible that Al and/or Jean moved about the casino undetected by the cameras, especially with early 90s surveillance technology in a low-budget, grungy casino in Laughlin.

I’m also troubled by the Detective offering (literal) third-hand testimony in the segment, saying that Al told casino security, who then told LE where Jean’s favorite slot machine was located, instead of the Detective investigating himself. Again, forget the suspicious disappearance. We’re dealing with hearsay and Al’s potentially questionable memory. (Or, I’m suspecting, a red herring.)

The Jean sighting in Apple Valley by a friend the day before she disappeared doesn’t have enough detail, but to me holds much more weight than the waitress sighting. This is someone who knows Jean personally, and -- as depicted in the segment -- she walked up to Jean in her car and they spoke briefly. Why was that never followed up on? Especially when Al’s response was to point to his phone records. Again, that sounds like someone with too elaborate of an alibi.

Al’s call with his bookkeeper the night before Jean disappeared is a HUGE red flag, perhaps the biggest in the segment. There’s no question that Al deliberately placed that call to his bookkeeper that night to strengthen his alibi, this time “planting” himself in Laughlin at that specific date and time via the subsequent “CALL USA” phone records that he later brandished. The fact that he went out of his way to put “Jean” on the phone with the bookkeeper is highly suspicious.

Al’s bookkeeper claims to have spoken with Jean on that call, but how did she know it was really her voice? The bookkeeper is an older woman who might not hear as well as she used to. Al could have put anyone on the phone. If he says it’s Jean, the bookkeeper likely wouldn’t question it. But to me, this was a deliberate act on Al’s part to create the impression that Jean was still alive the night before her “disappearance.”

Finally, Al’s conflicting account of where he dropped Jean off the second largest red flag. It’s clear he told the UM producers that he dropped Jean off at the casino side entrance only after the surveillance footage busted his claim to LE that he dropped her off at the front entrance. The segment doesn’t specify whether there were surveillance cameras by the side entrance, but Al was definitely “busted” on that one.

At the end, we’re left with a very mysterious disappearance and a very suspicious, grieving fiance. Overall, I think Al’s account of his own actions on the day of the disappearance were too elaborate and confusing to be a rock-solid alibi. Too many of his actions -- the parking of the car, walking into the casino when he knew Jean wasn’t there, leaving his car at the casino and taking cabs to and from the hotel, the phone call to the bookkeeper and placing “Jean” on the phone -- seem too deliberate and like he was constructing and staging his alibi.

I’m of the opinion that Jean may have made it to Laughlin the first night or two, but the couple left early, drove back to Apple Valley where they were spotted by Jean’s friend, and that’s where/when Jean met with foul play. Whatever happened to Jean’s body after that is anyone’s guess, but Al then drove back to Laughlin to stage her disappearance and send LE on a wild goose chase with surveillance footage and phone records. Speaking of which, it’s not clear how the witness sighting at the Cali gas station conflicts with Al’s phone records, but the records don’t specify who he called or the duration of the call(s) that Al says he placed from Laughlin while the witness spotted them in Apple Valley (200 miles away). In other words, it could have been anyone calling.

And that leads to my other theory: Al had help. He needed help carrying out the “act”, disposing of Jean’s body, and then calling the bookkeeper to create the impression that Jean was still alive the night before her disappearance.

As Al has surely passed away a long time ago, it’s doubtful this case will ever be solved.