Any Theories or updates

Theories?

I agree with the police's theory that Ayleen was murdered by burgulars she interrupted.

I think it is wrong to characterize that as "the police's theory." It was the family's theory.

Suffice it to say, I disagree.

I think it is wrong to characterize that as "the police's theory." It was the family's theory.

Suffice it to say, I disagree.

Isn;t the case open by the police?

Isn;t the case open by the police?

Even if it is still considered an open investigation - and, after 25 years and no really solid evidence of foul play, I don't think it's safe to assume that it is - I don't believe the police believe this was definitely a robbery gone wrong. All the investigation being "open" means is that they are unwilling to say definitively what happened in their opinion.

Even if it is still considered an open investigation - and, after 25 years and no really solid evidence of foul play, I don't think it's safe to assume that it is - I don't believe the police believe this was definitely a robbery gone wrong.

1. It's not that they have no solid evidence of foul play...it's that they don;t have a suspect yet. Which is the same problem that we have in most of these UM cases. Basically what your telling me is that it can;t be foul play because nobody;s been arrested.

2. if a case is opened..There is a detective who is responsible for the case and a supervisor who is asking about. If the police didn;t believe the case wasn't foul play they wouldn't keep it open. Especially consider this case file has to be so large that it isn;t the type that would go unnoticed. This case is their equivalent to the Jon Benet Ramsey case and the Black Dahlia. Their have to be officers and detectives who talk about the file all the time.

3. How do you know these robbers are not active and haven't killed someone else...or planning to kill someone else. are you willing to take that risk? What if one of these guys decides to move to the very town you or I live in/ Would you rather the police be as lazy as you suggest and just drop the case because they haven;t solved it in 25 years.

4. This case was going to be a "whodunnit" because of several factors
a. The killers did not know the victim. It was a stranger killing which are difficult to begin with.
b. There is no cause of death, murder weapon or evidence(burned in the car)
c. The criminals may have been experienced criminals. They may have moved and stopped their burgluries once they knew they had a potential murder rap on them.

It is not surprising that this case hasn;t been solved due to the above factors.

This case (like most cases) is waiting for someone to make a jailhouse confession or someone to speak about knowing a robber who killed a woman and burned her car. God willing that moment will come at some point. That's how this case will be cracked.

1. It's not that they have no solid evidence of foul play...it's that they don;t have a suspect yet. Which is the same problem that we have in most of these UM cases. Basically what your telling me is that it can;t be foul play because nobody;s been arrested.

2. if a case is opened..There is a detective who is responsible for the case and a supervisor who is asking about. If the police didn;t believe the case wasn't foul play they wouldn't keep it open. Especially consider this case file has to be so large that it isn;t the type that would go unnoticed. This case is their equivalent to the Jon Benet Ramsey case and the Black Dahlia. Their have to be officers and detectives who talk about the file all the time.

3. How do you know these robbers are not active and haven't killed someone else...or planning to kill someone else. are you willing to take that risk? What if one of these guys decides to move to the very town you or I live in/ Would you rather the police be as lazy as you suggest and just drop the case because they haven;t solved it in 25 years.

4. This case was going to be a "whodunnit" because of several factors
a. The killers did not know the victim. It was a stranger killing which are difficult to begin with.
b. There is no cause of death, murder weapon or evidence(burned in the car)
c. The criminals may have been experienced criminals. They may have moved and stopped their burgluries once they knew they had a potential murder rap on them.

It is not surprising that this case hasn;t been solved due to the above factors.

This case (like most cases) is waiting for someone to make a jailhouse confession or someone to speak about knowing a robber who killed a woman and burned her car. God willing that moment will come at some point. That's how this case will be cracked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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