Just what the title says. What cases have a theory that gets more underrated than you would like to see? Or brushed off when you don't think it should be ruled out?

#1 Larry Gibson - Not that there isn't something fishy about Larry, but I have never thought that the whole kidnapping theory was impossible. In the segment, Larry's wife hears the gunshot that killed the cat and then claims to still hear Tommy in the yard. Larry claims to be gone jogging for 47 minutes. His wife would have surely checked on two year old Tommy sometime in the 47 minutes. But if she would have found him dead that would be the end of it. If she just couldn't find him it means that he either was A) kidnapped or B) found earlier by Larry accidentally shot dead and then disposed of. The problem with this is that there was no blood found anywhere, not on Larry and not in his patrol car. Larry is an odd duck, but there was a time when Jaycee Dugard's stepfather was a suspect (probably up until she was found alive even) and some didn't believe his story. I'm just saying Tommy being kidnapped doesn't get brought up enough.

#2 Charlotte Pollis - Another popular case with a villain - Paul Pollis. Lately I have opened my mind up a bit more to this one. Maybe Paul isn't involved, who knows? I don't think the home invasion scenario gets enough credit. Charlotte could have been abducted for the sake of someone's sexual pleasure. Or anything, who knows. The lack of evidence that a crime was even committed is something that I feel is underrated.

#3 Tara Calico - That the picture is actually her

#4 Tim McClure - I usually fall into the camp that he did not kill his mother. I've often said that a Casino is a rotten place to be filled with some potentially shady people. There is no evidence that she actually went HOME the last time Tim saw her. She could have gone to a Casino and gotten mugged and killed there. It could happen. I mean would a person who by all accounts was close to his mother have the heart to shoot her right in the head. Even in the re-enactment it just looked awful

#5 Ashley Freeman and Laura Bible are alive. Probably are not in on what happened at all, but since there is no evidence that they have been murdered I often wonder if them being held at their will and used for sexual pleasure (they weren't bad looking girls) could be possible. We've seen times when a girl has mothered children while being held hostage.

#6 Dottie Caylor left on her own. There was evidence she stored some money and it didn't seem like she had a lot of friends or what close to her family either. Jule Caylor is a popular target, I can understand why, but there isn't a shred of proof that implicates him and I think that the simplest option is what happened. She took off.


What theories do you think get underrated that you are most likely in the minority to believe in, or at least NOT rule out

Nice subject, I like it!

1. Eric Tamiyasu - My favorite UM case. While I am a firm believer that Don Dixon was in some way involved in Eric's murder, I am surprised that the "jealous ex boyfriend" theory doesn't have more support. Eric was dating Diana, who, rumor has it, had a very jealous ex boyfriend named Carter. The Tapping Eric heard on his door and windows could have very easily been Carter, waiting for Diana to leave and then killed Eric.

2. Arnold Archambeau & Ruby Bruguier - It seems like the growing popular theory is that the bodies were dumped there after being abducted. I disagree as I believe they were there the whole time and just overlooked. After all, the cause of death is exposure, which is exactly what would have happened if you were left outside in that weather for an extended period of time. Plus, to believe that the bodies were dumped there would be to beleive that they were killed. Who kills someone by methods of exposure. It doesn't make sense.

3. The Circleville Letters - I personally believe Paul Freshour COULD be the culprit. I'm not saying it is him, but it could be. Just because letters were still being sent while he was in prison does not mean anything. He could have had his wife or a friend do it while he was in prison to make it look like he is innocent. Also, this is something that is rarely discussed but I believe it to be important, when Stack is talking about the case, he reads a letter sent by the writer to UM and warns them against coming. In my opinion, it seems likely that someone who was involved in the segment (Freshour perhaps) wrote the letter since he knew they would be filming in the town. I'm just surprised that more people don't think it was Freshour.

In the Circleville writer case, I didn't like how they never revealed the man they initially thought was responsible for the letters. Remember Ron and Mary Gillespie, Paul Freshour, and other relatives all sat down and wrote a letter to the person they thought was responsible. Then the letters ceased. So obviously if this guy was completely innocent of any wrong doing or letter writting, don't you think he would have came forward and said, "I'm not the one writing them, stop accusing me." The fact that the letters stopped tell me this guy was responsible and at first got the hint. Why all of a sudden years later Mary starts accusing Paul Freshour is beyond me. The fact that this person who the Gillespie's thought initially responsible was never looked into thorough enough is "underrated", I think.

In the Circleville writer case, I didn't like how they never revealed the man they initially thought was responsible for the letters. Remember Ron and Mary Gillespie, Paul Freshour, and other relatives all sat down and wrote a letter to the person they thought was responsible. Then the letters ceased. So obviously if this guy was completely innocent of any wrong doing or letter writting, don't you think he would have came forward and said, "I'm not the one writing them, stop accusing me." The fact that the letters stopped tell me this guy was responsible and at first got the hint. Why all of a sudden years later Mary starts accusing Paul Freshour is beyond me. The fact that this person who the Gillespie's thought initially responsible was never looked into thorough enough is "underrated", I think.

Good points. I need to rewatch this segment as I have forgotten alot of it.

3. The Circleville Letters - I personally believe Paul Freshour COULD be the culprit. I'm not saying it is him, but it could be. Just because letters were still being sent while he was in prison does not mean anything. He could have had his wife or a friend do it while he was in prison to make it look like he is innocent. Also, this is something that is rarely discussed but I believe it to be important, when Stack is talking about the case, he reads a letter sent by the writer to UM and warns them against coming. In my opinion, it seems likely that someone who was involved in the segment (Freshour perhaps) wrote the letter since he knew they would be filming in the town. I'm just surprised that more people don't think it was Freshour.

Wasn't Paul's wife the sister of mary and somebody who he later divorced and didn't look like they were amicable at all? There is no doubt it wasn't her at least with compliance by Paul because then there will be no question she would have ratted him out.

Wasn't Paul's wife the sister of mary and somebody who he later divorced and didn't look like they were amicable at all? There is no doubt it wasn't her at least with compliance by Paul because then there will be no question she would have ratted him out.

I've always thought Paul's ex-wife may have had a hand somehow in the whole Circleville letter writer thing to frame Freshour. By all accounts both were bitter, and if Freshour's story is true someone had to have stolen or given his gun away. I've always thought the ex-wife was responsible for the gun being missing.

I believe that in another thread someone pointed out that Paul Freshour pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. That's an affirmative defense meaning that he essentially admitted to his role in the crime.

I believe that in another thread someone pointed out that Paul Freshour pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. That's an affirmative defense meaning that he essentially admitted to his role in the crime. I don't think Paul pled guilty to anything - I believe he was found guilty by a jury. I can do some research but I don't think there was a plea involved.

Arnold Archambeau & Ruby Bruguier I believe they were in a bad accident. No foul play, just some bad choices by some teens and a sad ending.

Tim McClure Not sure about his guilt but he dhould haev been charged with something for that hideous mullett.

I believe that in another thread someone pointed out that Paul Freshour pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. That's an affirmative defense meaning that he essentially admitted to his role in the crime.

Actually it was a fairly common tactic used by some people back in the 70's and 80's to plead not guilty by reason of a mental defect/insanity. Let's just assume that Freshour is innocent of the attempted murder of Mary Gillespie, and the letter writing (beyond Freshour's admittal that he and the Gillespie's suspected someone and they wrote letters to him telling him to stop). First when he was initially arrested he plead innocent. Only after he got an attorney did he seek an affirmative defense, so that leads me to believe it was his lawyer's advice which lead to his affirmative defense. His gun was used in the booby trap. They had an apparent "match" from his handwriting to the Circleville letters. It seemed like an open and shut case for the prosecution. While I personally wouldn't agree to basically admitting my involvement in the crime by using an affirmative defense, I could see how some people could have perceived that being their only way out of being railroaded. And I think that's the case with Freshour.

Obviously whoever set this booby trap for Mary Gillespie was pretty sloppy about it all. We have a witness say she saw a man fiddling around with something in the same area Mary would find the trap later that day driving an El Camino. Freshour had no ties to anyone with an El Camino. Why would Freshour use his own gun and not completely erase the serial number? That tells me someone wanted it to be known that it was Freshour's gun used in the booby trap. If Freshour is guilty, he's an idiot. The trap was crudely made, and it seems like it was never actually intended to kill anyone. Just seems like a sick way to set up Freshour as the fall guy IMO. Lastly, what exactly did Freshour plan on doing by setting up this booby trap? Obviously if Freshour set the trap and actually succeeded in murdering Mary Gillespie, the gun would easily be traced back to him in no time. It's not like Freshour was waiting in the wings so he could hurry up and dispose of the booby trap and then Mary's body. And what guarantee did Freshour have that Mary would be the one tearing down the sign? It all just seems too contrived to me, it definitely seems like a set up.

Actually it was a fairly common tactic used by some people back in the 70's and 80's to plead not guilty by reason of a mental defect/insanity. Let's just assume that Freshour is innocent of the attempted murder of Mary Gillespie, and the letter writing (beyond Freshour's admittal that he and the Gillespie's suspected someone and they wrote letters to him telling him to stop). First when he was initially arrested he plead innocent. Only after he got an attorney did he seek an affirmative defense, so that leads me to believe it was his lawyer's advice which lead to his affirmative defense. His gun was used in the booby trap. They had an apparent "match" from his handwriting to the Circleville letters. It seemed like an open and shut case for the prosecution. While I personally wouldn't agree to basically admitting my involvement in the crime by using an affirmative defense, I could see how some people could have perceived that being their only way out of being railroaded. And I think that's the case with Freshour.

Obviously whoever set this booby trap for Mary Gillespie was pretty sloppy about it all. We have a witness say she saw a man fiddling around with something in the same area Mary would find the trap later that day driving an El Camino. Freshour had no ties to anyone with an El Camino. Why would Freshour use his own gun and not completely erase the serial number? That tells me someone wanted it to be known that it was Freshour's gun used in the booby trap. If Freshour is guilty, he's an idiot. The trap was crudely made, and it seems like it was never actually intended to kill anyone. Just seems like a sick way to set up Freshour as the fall guy IMO. Lastly, what exactly did Freshour plan on doing by setting up this booby trap? Obviously if Freshour set the trap and actually succeeded in murdering Mary Gillespie, the gun would easily be traced back to him in no time. It's not like Freshour was waiting in the wings so he could hurry up and dispose of the booby trap and then Mary's body. And what guarantee did Freshour have that Mary would be the one tearing down the sign? It all just seems too contrived to me, it definitely seems like a set up.

I've never heard of "mental disease or defect" as ever being a "popular defense." Since anybody who uses is essentially claiming that they committed the offense(s) they are being accused of,it would likely only be used a "last ditch" defense or in cases where it could garner the defendant the best possible sentence. What's the source of your information on that?

As far as the "booby trap", that seems to be one more ridiculous (although deadly) element in this farce. It wasn't an effective device (it didn't go off) and it was easily traceable to someone,although perhaps not the person who set the trap. Unless Freshour had experience in making booby traps or was known for setting similar traps, it doesn't seem that he would be the perpetrator.

Definitely Tim McClure's innocence.

The possibility that the killer of Laura Burbank killed other children (it was mentioned in the broadcast that he possibly was, but then never discussed again once he was caught and haven't heard much mention of it)

Bobby Parker being kidnapped by Dial and actually staying out of genuine fear that he would get someone to go after her family due to connections he would have had.

That the Hansen case had nothing to do with the license plate. What if it was sexually motivated and the killer was pointing at Jean and not necessarily her license? If he had said anything smutty about her, Dick's reaction before getting shot would have been understandable.
(Not that I believe all of this, but they are possibilities). What if he was just out for a thrill?

And how about conclusion (that we definitely know of from solved cases) that are rarely discussed? I randomly thought of the last UM case last night, of the two missing girls (one was barely a teenager, the other a year away) and it was solved rather quickly when they found the scum who did it. I'm just surprised it hasn't been talked about more.

That the Hansen case had nothing to do with the license plate. What if it was sexually motivated and the killer was pointing at Jean and not necessarily her license? If he had said anything smutty about her, Dick's reaction before getting shot would have been understandable.
(Not that I believe all of this, but they are possibilities). What if he was just out for a thrill?



If it was a sexual thing, you get the feeling he'd have sexually assaulted her right there. You are right, that is an extremely underrated opinion around here. Most of us figure it is a professional hit since it has all the earmarks for one.

If it was a sexual thing, you get the feeling he'd have sexually assaulted her right there. You are right, that is an extremely underrated opinion around here. Most of us figure it is a professional hit since it has all the earmarks for one.

Never got the "vibe" that Hansen's murder was a "professional hit." A pro wouldn't have left a witness and he wouldn't have shot such a large man as Hansen in the chest as a body shot may not have killed or incapacitated him quickly enough.

A pro also wouldn't have chased Mr. Hansen's date as this would have attracted attention to him which he would have been trying to avoid. To my mind, this was a random attack/thrill killing.

I've always thought Paul's ex-wife may have had a hand somehow in the whole Circleville letter writer thing to frame Freshour. By all accounts both were bitter, and if Freshour's story is true someone had to have stolen or given his gun away. I've always thought the ex-wife was responsible for the gun being missing.

But by writing while he was in jail, like the poster wondered, she would not be framing the guy but actually provided proof that he wasn't the guilty party since he couldn't write the letters from jail.

If it was a sexual thing, you get the feeling he'd have sexually assaulted her right there. You are right, that is an extremely underrated opinion around here. Most of us figure it is a professional hit since it has all the earmarks for one.

I definitely buy the professional hit over the 49er theory.

I definitely buy the professional hit over the 49er theory.

Why would this have been a "professional hit?"

Never got the "vibe" that Hansen's murder was a "professional hit." A pro wouldn't have left a witness and he wouldn't have shot such a large man as Hansen in the chest as a body shot may not have killed or incapacitated him quickly enough.

A pro also wouldn't have chased Mr. Hansen's date as this would have attracted attention to him which he would have been trying to avoid. To my mind, this was a random attack/thrill killing.

I actually don't think so, either. It doesn't seem at all like a professional hit to me--indeed, the killer did draw far too much attention to himself, even for an amateurish hitman a la the individual directly responsible for T.K Hardy's death. At least he hid himself.

I tend to think it was random. I know there was a theory going around a long while ago about Hansen possibly being mixed up in drugs (pretty sure that one got started on Websleuths and made its way here), but that's never, as far as I know, ever really been corroborated with any other information. As I remember that claim, one could just as easily say he was a chicken farmer or an acrobat.

I also tend to think the killer might not have been sane. Targeting two people and tailing them for miles with no apparent motive is rather telling, but I think Dick's exchange with the killer is often rather overlooked, if we take Jean at her word.

When he asked the shooter what he was doing, the reply was apparently so ludicrous to Dick that he "threw up his hands" and told the man to "get the 'blankety-blank' out of here". He felt comfortable enough to express those sentiments and then proceed to walk back to his truck. In other words, it doesn't appear at all as though he perceived this individual as an immediate threat. I always felt as though Dick's actions (again, if we take Jean at her word) indicated he had heard something totally ridiculous, or crazed, come out of that man's mouth. And Dick took him as just that: a loon.

I don't know that it was a professional hit (and it seems very unlikely admittably). However, I would buy that more over the 49er theory, which I have never believed. Sorry for not elaborating more! I would subscribe most to a random loon.

I don't know that it was a professional hit (and it seems very unlikely admittably). However, I would buy that more over the 49er theory, which I have never believed. Sorry for not elaborating more! I would subscribe most to a random loon.

I think the reason that people subscribe to the professional hit theory in the Hansen case is because Jean was left alive and unharmed, and actually saw Dick's murderer.

I think the reason that people subscribe to the professional hit theory in the Hansen case is because Jean was left alive and unharmed, and actually saw Dick's murderer.

I was wondering why that was brought up. That would make sense, I suppose. I have always found it strange that he just drove away and made no attempt to even mess with Jean after having the balls to chase them for miles and shoot Dick. Such a weird case! I thought he might have had an attraction to Jean, perhaps, but in the middle of nowhere spot he would have had a perfect chance to grab her, especially with that gun in tow.

On a side note, anyone find the actor portraying the driver to be incredibly creepy? They did a good job with that!

I think the reason that people subscribe to the professional hit theory in the Hansen case is because Jean was left alive and unharmed, and actually saw Dick's murderer.

That actually makes it LESS likely that this was a hit. A professional killer would have tried to get Hansen alone, or failing that, would have killed any witnesses close enough to identify him. Even a poorly trained amateur killer wouldn't have chased the vehicles as that would have attracted attention or might not have had the desired result (e.g. the the cars stopping)

If this had taken place while they were in the car "talking" or as they left the bar, then I would be more convinced that this was a hit.

On a side note, anyone find the actor portraying the driver to be incredibly creepy? They did a good job with that!

Unequivocally yes.

That actually makes it LESS likely that this was a hit. A professional killer would have tried to get Hansen alone, or failing that, would have killed any witnesses close enough to identify him. Even a poorly trained amateur killer wouldn't have chased the vehicles as that would have attracted attention or might not have had the desired result (e.g. the the cars stopping)

If this had taken place while they were in the car "talking" or as they left the bar, then I would be more convinced that this was a hit.

I agree. I think the most likely case is that the killer was someone obsessed with Jeana and was stalking them that night. Then Dick maybe said something to piss the guy off and the guy killed him. Now, knowing that the object of his obsession has seen him kill her friend, he now knows she will have nothing to do with him and he has to avoid her in order to stay out of prison for fear of her turning him in or recognizing him.

That actually makes it LESS likely that this was a hit. A professional killer would have tried to get Hansen alone, or failing that, would have killed any witnesses close enough to identify him. Even a poorly trained amateur killer wouldn't have chased the vehicles as that would have attracted attention or might not have had the desired result (e.g. the the cars stopping)

If this had taken place while they were in the car "talking" or as they left the bar, then I would be more convinced that this was a hit.

I don't think Hansen's murder was a hit, just saying why some people do. I think this guy may have been at the bar, either Jean or Dick did something to really piss him off, he got wasted and followed them home trying to scare them (he never did get out of his vehicle, if he truly intended on killing Hansen or Jean he would have made an attempt to do so) and when Hansen confronted him he shot him.

Okay fair enough people. How about some other ones?

Would there be anyone on here who thinks Patty Stallings actually was guilty? I sure don't but that would certainly qualify as an "underrated conclusion".

How about David Dowaliby? I'm not saying David was involved but I certainly have never put to bed the fact that someone in that household could have been responsible for Jacklyn. I believe that is for the most part a minority opinion.

Anyone on the side of Darlie Routier?

Or believe that Don Sherman is innocent?

I think UM glossed over the posibility of somebody else murdering Kay Hall. They really glossed over the thing that is most mysterious about this case and could prove her husband from being innocent: the fact that she was drunk and got lost and went in a total different direction from her house. So the guy had to go home and drive not knowing where her wife was, and going back thru the party where he had been in a short amount of time. Could that have happened? How did he know she was there? Could somebody else had run her over and left?

I think UM glossed over the posibility of somebody else murdering Kay Hall. They really glossed over the thing that is most mysterious about this case and could prove her husband from being innocent: the fact that she was drunk and got lost and went in a total different direction from her house. So the guy had to go home and drive not knowing where her wife was, and going back thru the party where he had been in a short amount of time. Could that have happened? How did he know she was there? Could somebody else had run her over and left?

Yeah, in spite of the fact that Bob Hall took a plea deal and served time for the murder, it's always seemed impossible to me that he could have found his wife and killed her and made it back to his house in such a limited timeframe. It always seemed like too much of a coincidence that Kay wound up dead the same day she announced she was collecting an inhertiance, but someone else could have taken advantage of that. One possible theory that hasn't been discussed much is the idea that someone else at that party with a personal grudge against Kay witnessed her leaving alone and decided it was a timely opportunity to go after her and kill her because they knew that ALL the suspicion would fall on Bob! I think it would depend on how many people at that party knew about the inheritance.

Other interesting conclusions that probably aren't correct, but interesting to ponder:

The Mary Morris Murders: In spite of the numerous suspects, maybe the killer was some psycho who just decided to select two random murder victims who were side-by-side in the phone book, kinda like the cops' initial theory about the Sarah Connor murders in "The Terminator". Whenever I see an UM suspect with multiple suspects, I think of the Sammy Wheeler case and wonder if the actual murderer is completely unrelated.

Terri McClure: Tim McClure's wife is the killer and since Tim seems like a really weak-minded individual, she has been able to scare and intimidate him into staying silent about it and absorbing all of the suspicion ever since.

Any missing person case where there are no leads or trace of them whatsoever: They were kidnapped by UFOs!! Okay, I don't really take that theory seriously, but tell me it doesn't cross your mind at least once when it seems like someone just seems to vanish into thin air and there are no clues at all about where they've gone :lol:

I was never totally sold on Bob Hall's guilt. It's a really narrow timeframe and he is looking for a needle in a haystack. Plus, wasn't Bob drunk too? I would imagine that would cause him to drive slower and impair his judgement while looking for Kay. Plus, he would run the risk of being pulled over or getting in an accident. Plus, sometimes it's just hard enough to find something that is motionless, but being that Kay is moving constantly (driving her vehicle) that can make finding her alot more difficult.

And I know it's possible, but would Bob really be that stupid as to murder her the same day she received the inheritance? I'm guessing he was one of the few people who would profit off it in the event of her death (in regards to her will).

Whenever I see an UM suspect with multiple suspects, I think of the Sammy Wheeler case and wonder if the actual murderer is completely unrelated.

I think that's an underrated conclusion for several UM cases and one people dislike since there's something very unsettling about the random killer killing people for no reason, since any of us could suffer the same fate.

I think that's an underrated conclusion for several UM cases and one people dislike since there's something very unsettling about the random killer killing people for no reason, since any of us could suffer the same fate.

Only about 1/5 of the murders in the US in an average year are committed by complete strangers against complete strangers. That's lower odds than being killed in a car accident. Worrying about being killed by stranger is, at least IMHO, a waste of valuable energy.

Only about 1/5 of the murders in the US in an average year are committed by complete strangers against complete strangers. That's lower odds than being killed in a car accident. Worrying about being killed by stranger is, at least IMHO, a waste of valuable energy.

I certainly agree. I don't have the stats handy, but I believe random crimes are also less likely to be solved - so becoming "Unsolved Mysteries."

Of course, people tend to worry more about the unusual then the mundane - witness airport security and drunk driving laws.