in order to make it more interesting for TV?


hell, in real life, creepy horror music doesn't play when they really occur like in the show lol

yes

in the 2pac case, they try to make it sound like Yafeu Fula (aka rapper Kadafi from the Outlawz) was killed to keep silent about 2pac's murder


instead he was killed by a friend over a $50 Mike Tyson bet

Tina Resch, the "psychic" girl who could make things fly across the room with her mind, was exposed as a fraud and sent to prison years later for the death of her young daughter. Some also claim that Michael Jones, the "ghost boy" who saw his great-grandfather's ghost and a evil entity called the "black shadow man", made the whole thing up. He was in a ghost hunt recently I found and has a tattoo of a Honda or Toyota symbol on his face I think.

Lol!

~opens door~
*cue UM theme*
It DID pop into my mind when I was walking by my work place one night and the doors were open with no one inside well after closing!

Well, I'm certainly not treading any new territory with this, but if ever there was a case involving exaggeration to the extreme, it would have to be the Sammy Wheeler segment.

What comes to my mind is all those lengthy segments - like the ones about Tupac, Cobain, etc. where it's obvious they're just doing it so they could interest fans of the artists rather than presenting fact.

Along similar lines, another thing that comes to mind for me is the segment where they seemed to go to great lengths to prove the max factor heir rapist innocent. They tried to prove that it couldn't happen the way the victim claimed when it was later proven that she was telling the truth. I think this one felt particularly "hoaxy" to me as I saw it after knowing the truth. Of course, maybe that better fits a thread for "segments that were in bad taste."

The Paul Ferrell case comes to mind. The segment tried to imply someone other than Ferrell murdered Cathy Ford.

Well, I'm certainly not treading any new territory with this, but if ever there was a case involving exaggeration to the extreme, it would have to be the Sammy Wheeler segment.

Just seen the Sammy Wheeler segment for the first time.

If there wasn't a murder involved it would be absolute comedy gold - especially given the update at the end.

I think it went both ways on this show. Some cases were exaggerated, some were not detailed enough.

For instance, Larry Dickens sister Dawna posted on here that the murder of her brother was actually worse than what was shown in the reenactment. Very disturbing to think about.

The Paul Ferrell case comes to mind. The segment tried to imply someone other than Ferrell murdered Cathy Ford.

This gets my vote for worst/most exaggerated UM segment. There was not one single shred of evidence presented in Ferrell's favor. It was quite the lame segment.

I've always voted for Kenneth Engie's death as the most needlessly exaggerated UM segment as they really stretched themselves thin trying to make a mystery out of a guy who simply died of carbon monoxide poisoning through his own stupidity.

I must admit, I initally found the Arnold Archambeau/Ruby Bruguier case to be one of the most mind-blowing mysteries I've ever seen, but once you step back and fully analyze the situation, it seems more like a simple case of two people freezing to death and not having their bodies found for months.

I've always voted for Kenneth Engie's death as the most needlessly exaggerated UM segment as they really stretched themselves thin trying to make a mystery out of a guy who simply died of carbon monoxide poisoning through his own stupidity.

I had forgotten all about this one. It amazes me that UM profiled stories like Paul Ferrell and Kenneth Engie, when there were literally thousands of other "stories" that could have been told from murders to missing people.

I must admit, I initally found the Arnold Archambeau/Ruby Bruguier case to be one of the most mind-blowing mysteries I've ever seen, but once you step back and fully analyze the situation, it seems more like a simple case of two people freezing to death and not having their bodies found for months.

I was shocked that UM really went with the "the police couldn't find their bodies, so they must not have been there!" when it's so obvious they were just overlooked.

After reading more about Jeanne Tovrea, UM seemed to really go out of their way to portray her as a saint who was above reproach in thoughts and deeds. In reality, she was heavily involved was drug trafficking, drug dealing (both actually selling the drugs as well as financing the transactions), and helped run a loan sharking business with alleged organized crime figures. Jeanne may have been a nice person and fun to be around, but the show REALLY over-emphasized that aspect of her personality while conveniently leaving out the fact that she may well have had some dangerous enemies who could have wanted her dead due to her illegal activities.

Amy Billig was also made to look far more 'wholesome' than she actually was. It turns out that although she wasn't an addict, she certainly was no stranger to drugs and alcohol and had no qualms about partying with strangers or partaking in casual sex with them.

These women certainly didn't deserve their respective fates, but the show definitely went overboard in portraying them as being flawless angels who did no wrong. They were human, just like everyone else.

I was shocked that UM really went with the "the police couldn't find their bodies, so they must not have been there!" when it's so obvious they were just overlooked.
I agree. Makes you wonder how many other cases they made it seem like there was a perplexing mystery when there really wasn't one.

After reading more about Jeanne Tovrea, UM seemed to really go out of their way to portray her as a saint who was above reproach in thoughts and deeds. In reality, she was heavily involved was drug trafficking, drug dealing (both actually selling the drugs as well as financing the transactions), and helped run a loan sharking business with alleged organized crime figures. Jeanne may have been a nice person and fun to be around, but the show REALLY over-emphasized that aspect of her personality while conveniently leaving out the fact that she may well have had some dangerous enemies who could have wanted her dead due to her illegal activities.

Amy Billig was also made to look far more 'wholesome' than she actually was. It turns out that although she wasn't an addict, she certainly was no stranger to drugs and alcohol and had no qualms about partying with strangers or partaking in casual sex with them.

These women certainly didn't deserve their respective fates, but the show definitely went overboard in portraying them as being flawless angels who did no wrong. They were human, just like everyone else.

UM definitely liked to downplay the victim's pasts when showing a segment. It's kind of frustruating, because maybe if they did actual reveal more information the cases may have been solved sooner.

Katie, the woman who supposedly can create gold foil on her stomach and back and produce gems out of her ear. If she was really able to do that, she would have made tons of money in the jewelry and metal industry! :lol:

Then there are the ones where it was implied Satanism may have been the reason behind the crimes, like Eric and Pam Ellender, Shane & Sally (last names escape me) and Pat Farmer, who was only subjecting her grandson Jared to Satanic images to paint her daughter Ladonna as a bad mother to take him away, not because she was a devil worshipper. (We learned later that Ladonna turned out to be not so innocent, being arrested for drugs). The "Satanic panic" angle was really stressed and played by UM during the 80's.

Short answer: yes.

Leaving aside the paranormal cases (which, by their very nature, are subjective, at best), it seems to have been a common tactic to emphasize certain aspects (and thus de-emphasizing others) of the criminal cases. Some of the most common seem to be:

1. Failing to disclose or elaborate on negative traits/habits of the victim
2. Avoiding "controversial" (for the times) theories/traits/habits (homosexuality is probably the most common one here)
3. Focusing or spotlighting one or a few potential theories that are the "sexiest," or at least the most "mysterious," regardless of their plausability
4. Presenting a case from a biased or one-sided perspective - usually, this took the form of a "wronged" family complaining about an official investigation. This isn't to say, of course, that all such cases were just sour grapes or magical thinking, but this sort of case usually strongly supports the family's version (regardless of plausibility), demonizes "official explanations," harps on minor details or possible inconsistencies (no matter how minor or logically explainable) and usually involves some variation of a loved one remarking that they "know" it was murder no matter what the evidence actually shows.

So while UM never, to my knowledge, out and out lied, I think it certainly was guilty of distortions and means we, discussing most of these cases only from the knowledge gleaned from the segments, must be especially careful to think critically before speculating.

Two cases that UM made more sinister than the evidence deserved:

– Kurt McFall. He either fell off the cliff or killed himself. If Satan had anything to do with it, we'll need to consult our WASP albums again.

– Keith Reinhard and Tom Young. Although Satan wasn't accused, he might as well have been.

yes they are...UFO's...Ghosts...Psychics...to say the least. Not to say that some of that isn't possible, but some of the stories were crazy.

I think some of the military segments were stretched a lot as well. or they add mystique because of military and they feed off of the public's ignorance about military like a hollywood script. but that's part of the show and why we like it.

One that stands out for me was that so called "mysterious disappearance" of Agatha Christie in 1926. What in the world would even make UM think it was a good idea to make such a segment? I haven't seen it in a few years, but from what I remember, she had either run off on purpose or had vanished briefly and resurfaced with a logical explanation, so there really was no mystery here, she lived for another 50 years, and most everything important about her life from 1926 until her death was well-known and well-documented before UM ever came along.

One that stands out for me was that so called "mysterious disappearance" of Agatha Christie in 1926. What in the world would even make UM think it was a good idea to make such a segment? I haven't seen it in a few years, but from what I remember, she had either run off on purpose or had vanished briefly and resurfaced with a logical explanation, so there really was no mystery here, she lived for another 50 years, and most everything important about her life from 1926 until her death was well-known and well-documented before UM ever came along.
I think they wanted to know WHY she did it. If she really had a breakdown or deviously planned it all alone. Plus, writing about the best-selling fiction writer of all time, making a period piece segment, and doing something about England probably were all things that made this a segment they wanted to produce. ;) I enjoy it, particularly the ladies who are interviewed and the one who says she probably planned it. I love the part where she's reading in the newspaper that her husband is suspected of killing her and she smirks, then when she addresses him as "brother" and he looks shocked.

I think they wanted to know WHY she did it. If she really had a breakdown or deviously planned it all alone. Plus, writing about the best-selling fiction writer of all time, making a period piece segment, and doing something about England probably were all things that made this a segment they wanted to produce. ;) I enjoy it, particularly the ladies who are interviewed and the one who says she probably planned it. I love the part where she's reading in the newspaper that her husband is suspected of killing her and she smirks, then when she addresses him as "brother" and he looks shocked.

I guess it could have entertainment value if you're an Agatha Christie fan, and I think it's as likely that she had a mental breakdown as that she could have done it on purpose, but was that possibility never researched prior to the UM segment? I must say I'd be very surprised if it was never touched upon during the nearly 50 years afterward that Agatha lived, and if it was put to rest, or at the very least, given an explanation accepted by most of the general public, I kind of wonder why UM would touch upon it after so many years. Well, whatever, I guess there are many stranger things that have happened.

I know that she refused to speak of it and even left it out of her autobiography. So people still wonder and debate on it. Is it one of the best mysteries ever? No, not really. But it is cool there's a little mystery for the arguably best mystery writer of the twentieth century. I have to agree it doesn't really deserve a place in the strange legends DVD. Maybe RS or the crew really wanted to go to England, too :)

Amy Billig was also made to look far more 'wholesome' than she actually was. It turns out that although she wasn't an addict, she certainly was no stranger to drugs and alcohol and had no qualms about partying with strangers or partaking in casual sex with them.


I didn't know that.is this info online somewhere? thx.

Tina Resch, the "psychic" girl who could make things fly across the room with her mind, was exposed as a fraud and sent to prison years later for the death of her young daughter.
I totally agree.IMO she was just a quick hand and a fraud with the whole thing.I think her parents brought it to UM because they wondered if such a thing were even possble,but in this case,I don't think so.I think they didn't want to beleive it was her doing it.

Some also claim that Michael Jones, the "ghost boy" who saw his great-grandfather's ghost and a evil entity called the "black shadow man", made the whole thing up. He was in a ghost hunt recently I found and has a tattoo of a Honda or Toyota symbol on his face I think.agree as well.I think he was brain-damaged to some extent,because of his trauma with being revived so many times,and I think he was the one making up the incidents,if he didn't think they were real.I also think he scratched himself,and there was nothing more to it than that.I suspect he enjoyed the attention he was getting from it all.
I also wonder why his parents would leave him in his room alone,the same room,night after night,if indeed these things really occurred.you'd think they'd have been more concerned for his welfare than that.JMO.

I totally agree.IMO she was just a quick hand and a fraud with the whole thing.I think her parents brought it to UM because they wondered if such a thing were even possble,but in this case,I don't think so.I think they didn't want to beleive it was her doing it.

agree as well.I think he was brain-damaged to some extent,because of his trauma with being revived so many times,and I think he was the one making up the incidents,if he didn't think they were real.I also think he scratched himself,and there was nothing more to it than that.I suspect he enjoyed the attention he was getting from it all.
I also wonder why his parents would leave him in his room alone,the same room,night after night,if indeed these things really occurred.you'd think they'd have been more concerned for his welfare than that.JMO.
I agree with you. and I think that UM was a platform for the most unreal paranormal to share their story(real or fake)and we all watched. In a lot of the cases as bob stack would say you have to keep an open mind eventhough they may seem crazy. and as many on here have already said they have to spice it up with music and drama to get out attention and keep us coming for more. that's why we all love the show and still watch.

Perhaps best of all that is underrated for the show is that they did a incredible job of bringing in experts and credible people on to the show to be interviewed. People like william rolle for the paranormal cases, crime scene detectives for the more normal cases( but sometimes also to verify even some of the most unbelievable physic investigative accounts), government agents, etc.

"Kurt McFall. He either fell off the cliff or killed himself. If Satan had anything to do with it, we'll need to consult our WASP albums again."

I still think he could have been pushed/shoved.

I think the theraputic touch segment definitely stretched the laws of physics and common logic.

"Kurt McFall. He either fell off the cliff or killed himself. If Satan had anything to do with it, we'll need to consult our WASP albums again."

I still think he could have been pushed/shoved.

I lol'ed at that

I still think he could have been pushed/shoved.
100% agree. I think something like this definitely could have happened.

didn't they present the Redwood City Arsonist as some kind of Satanist? And in the end he was just a crazy teenager

Kay Hall. Bob Hall had plenty of time to find her and kill her, but UM made it seem near impossible.

What comes to my mind is all those lengthy segments - like the ones about Tupac, Cobain, etc.

I do think there's a big distinction between Tupac and Kurt Cobain, though. Whether Cobain killed himself or was murdered (and I subscribe to the former) is probably going to be continually "debated" the way Elvis death conspiracy theories were and are discussed--for the most part, weak conjecture born of a fan desire for a hero or martyr. But Tupac was absolutely and undeniably murdered and his killer(s) still have not been conclusively identified, let alone prosecuted. For this reason, I think Tupac's death is more palpable subject matter for a segment and don't consider it at all a "stretch" piece (save for maybe the bit about Kadafi Blackout brought up at the beginning of the thread).

The Bobby Fuller segment, IMO, made far too much of the "mafia theory", but I also think it is definitely a story with some huge unanswered questions--namely, what was all that gasoline all about? But I think I would still qualify the segment as exaggerated, even though the case is nonetheless appropriate for UM on its own.

I think UM, as excellent of an investigative job as they did presenting all sides of a story, did sometimes slant us to thinking one thing happened, when its very possible that's not how it went down. Even though I've always been open-minded, I did take things kinda at face value when I was a kid/young teen. There's definitely an attitude difference with me now that I explore every possibility.

Roger Dean is a perfect example. In 1994 at 12, I genuinely believed the segment suggesting that Roger's killer was the same guy trying to extort and threaten DJ & Tammy 5 years later. Chances are, this was somebody who just knew details of the case, and was trying to get money out of them (if he'd been legit, he probably would've followed up on his threats, and thankfully he didn't!).

I'm also sure that, while he probably was mostly a good guy, their marriage was on the rocks and he may have been capable of theft or other shady things than DJ seemed unwilling to admit to (we're all biased towards loved ones, somewhat understandably).

The lack of much information on cases like this makes us think even deeper about it, in a way, too. Although at least there's some articles (one pretty recent one from 2010) about Roger's case... not like The Wackers, where the segment itself is literally the only "evidence" in the world, lol.

Roger Dean is a perfect example. In 1994 at 12, I genuinely believed the segment suggesting that Roger's killer was the same guy trying to extort and threaten DJ & Tammy 5 years later. Chances are, this was somebody who just knew details of the case, and was trying to get money out of them (if he'd been legit, he probably would've followed up on his threats, and thankfully he didn't!).

I don't think Unsolved Mysteries hinted that he was the same man. They just said the author of the letter/extortionist claimed to be the man who had killed her husband. Those were Robert Stack's exact words.

But otherwise I agree with you that it could very easily be some nut who wasn't Roger's killer but saw an opportunity to get some money. His letter, which was shown on screen, is impossible to read except for a couple lines. The only part I can make out, other than what was heard in a voice over, was that he followed Tammy to New York City and had met her a few times.

The letter is very long as well. If we knew exactly what it said, I think it would be easier to come to definite conclusion.

A great deal of relevant evidence was ignored in the Clifford Sherwood case.

I don't think Unsolved Mysteries hinted that he was the same man. They just said the author of the letter/extortionist claimed to be the man who had killed her husband. Those were Robert Stack's exact words.

But otherwise I agree with you that it could very easily be some nut who wasn't Roger's killer but saw an opportunity to get some money. His letter, which was shown on screen, is impossible to read except for a couple lines. The only part I can make out, other than what was heard in a voice over, was that he followed Tammy to New York City and had met her a few times.

The letter is very long as well. If we knew exactly what it said, I think it would be easier to come to definite conclusion.

Yeah, I've tried to pause it myself and I can only legibly read about half of it on screen. I wonder what Tammy's connection to New York was (maybe she went to college out there or something?).

Did you ever read the 2006 cold case article about this? It's really interesting, basically it suggests that Roger had some extended family that were involved in organized crime, and that his mistress, and the girlfriend's son, were never ruled out as suspects in his murder. I do wonder if one of them (or perhaps a shady local, totally unrelated to the case) saw an opportunity to try and get money out of DJ later on? Once this guy knew the cops were onto him, he probably just let it go.

http://coloradocommunitymedia.com/stories/Cold-case-files-Who-killed-Roger-Dean,75259

Oh, I just watched it again and Stack's exact quote was: "DJ and Tammy notified the local authorities and the FBI. The FBI had no doubt the extortionist was who he claimed to be, Roger Dean's killer."

Yeah, I've tried to pause it myself and I can only legibly read about half of it on screen. I wonder what Tammy's connection to New York was (maybe she went to college out there or something?).

Did you ever read the 2006 cold case article about this? It's really interesting, basically it suggests that Roger had some extended family that were involved in organized crime, and that his mistress, and the girlfriend's son, were never ruled out as suspects in his murder. I do wonder if one of them (or perhaps a shady local, totally unrelated to the case) saw an opportunity to try and get money out of DJ later on? Once this guy knew the cops were onto him, he probably just let it go.

http://coloradocommunitymedia.com/stories/Cold-case-files-Who-killed-Roger-Dean,75259

Oh, I just watched it again and Stack's exact quote was: "DJ and Tammy notified the local authorities and the FBI. The FBI had no doubt the extortionist was who he claimed to be, Roger Dean's killer."

Thanks for the link.

As for the New York mention, the letter writer said that Tammy was a very attractive model. So she probably worked as one. New York City has modeling agencies all over the place. But once you're in your mid-20's, I think you're considered "over the hill," in model world. That's probably why she moved back to Colorado, which was before the extortion letter arrived. Interestingly, another old link about the case mentioned that Tammy was married at the time the extortion and threats began.

As for the rest of the info stated? Wow.

DJ Dean thought her husband ended his affair with his secretary, but investigators discovered he met with the woman the week of his death. The secretary disappeared soon after the killing.

Yeah. That doesn't sound suspicious at all. What the hell? She must have been found eventually since she was "investigated." But I'd love to hear her reason for disappearing at such a convenient time. And why was her son looked at as a suspect? Maybe there was bad blood between him and Roger.

I always had major sympathy for D.J. During a two year period, two separate car accidents killed her son and both of her parents. Then Roger is murdered. Then just when she's attempted to move on with her life, a scumbag extortionist comes calling. That's an 8 year period of 4 deaths in the family and a stranger threatening to kill you. How a person doesn't lose their mind after that is beyond me.

Thanks for the link.

As for the New York mention, the letter writer said that Tammy was a very attractive model. So she probably worked as one. New York City has modeling agencies all over the place. But once you're in your mid-20's, I think you're considered "over the hill," in model world. That's probably why she moved back to Colorado, which was before the extortion letter arrived. Interestingly, another old link about the case mentioned that Tammy was married at the time the extortion and threats began.

As for the rest of the info stated? Wow.

Yeah. That doesn't sound suspicious at all. What the hell? She must have been found eventually since she was "investigated." But I'd love to hear her reason for disappearing at such a convenient time. And why was her son looked at as a suspect? Maybe there was bad blood between him and Roger.

I always had major sympathy for D.J. During a two year period, two separate car accidents killed her son and both of her parents. Then Roger is murdered. Then just when she's attempted to move on with her life, a scumbag extortionist comes calling. That's an 8 year period of 4 deaths in the family and a stranger threatening to kill you. How a person doesn't lose their mind after that is beyond me.

No problem. :)

Yeah, I looked and Tammy was 29 in 1991 when the segment was filmed, and was still really pretty, although I think they do think even early 20s are getting a little old/older in modeling (which is ridiculous). Maybe she moved to NYC after high school and modeled and could have unknowingly met or attracted some shady characters there? I read that she and her husband lived in Arizona, but moved back to Lone Tree after Roger's murder to be closer to her mom.

Yeah, Roger's girlfriend suddenly disappearing after his murder (especially if they'd just met days earlier) is suspicious to say the least. I wonder if she had anything to do with the $30,000 Roger embezzled from his company? Like if he took it because they were planning to start a life together and he had second thoughts about it later on?

Me too. Apparently DJ still lives in the area (which from what I've looked at on Google Earth's time slider, has grown massively...it was kinda rural suburban in the 80s/early 90s) and she's 78 now. I certainly hope ever since the UM segment that she's been able to live in some degree of peace and happiness, she seemed like quite a nice lady who'd been through some horrible tragedies.

I had no idea about Jeanne Tovrea and the drug trafficking. Where was this found out and did i miss the post about it?

Amy Billig was also made to look far more 'wholesome' than she actually was. It turns out that although she wasn't an addict, she certainly was no stranger to drugs and alcohol and had no qualms about partying with strangers or partaking in casual sex with them.


Where did you get this info? I'm just curious. I read Without A Trace and have read numerous articles on Amy and never saw anything like that. I know that she wasn't a stranger to the party/drug scene and even wore roach clips in her hair, but never saw anything about casual sex with strangers.

Where did you get this info? I'm just curious. I read Without A Trace and have read numerous articles on Amy and never saw anything like that. I know that she wasn't a stranger to the party/drug scene and even wore roach clips in her hair, but never saw anything about casual sex with strangers.

I have the book "Without a Trace" too and you're right, it wasn't in there. There was an American Justice special from around 1991 (before UM covered the case in January 1994) about Amy. In it, some of Amy's less desirable tendencies such as casual sex with strangers were brought to light. I haven't seen the special in years and can't find it online anywhere, but I believe the investigators interviewed were under the impression that Amy may have "hooked up" with some people who turned out to be dangerous and who ultimately harmed her.

I have the book "Without a Trace" too and you're right, it wasn't in there. There was an American Justice special from around 1991 (before UM covered the case in January 1994) about Amy. In it, some of Amy's less desirable tendencies such as casual sex with strangers were brought to light. I haven't seen the special in years and can't find it online anywhere, but I believe the investigators interviewed were under the impression that Amy may have "hooked up" with some people who turned out to be dangerous and who ultimately harmed her.
Wow, I had no idea AJ covered the case! I'd also love to find the episode. I'll let you know if I come across it online.

Kay Hall. Bob Hall had plenty of time to find her and kill her, but UM made it seem near impossible.

I don't know about that one.

Also has there ever been legitimate proof that Jeanne Tourvea was involved in drug dealing?

I don't know about that one.

You should really go check out the Kay Hall thread and see some links to various articles and appeals from Bob Hall, that shatter the timing aspect of the case.

You should really go check out the Kay Hall thread and see some links to various articles and appeals from Bob Hall, that shatter the timing aspect of the case.

I have and I still say it's very hard to find someone out in the dark like that. Not impossible, just very hard.

Well, its a fine line between airing a missing persons/possible homicide victims dirty laundry and telling the whole story. Its not just UM that didn't air undesirable traits of victims as the show Disappeared does the same thing. They use positive terms such as "getting their life together" and brush over troubling aspects of their lives. I think producers are careful as they have the victims families trust and try to reflect the victim in the best way possible yet still telling the story correctly. Obviously, nobody is perfect and sometimes their lifestyle does play a role in what happened to them such as drug use ect. However, I think out of respect for the victim and family,they try not to dwell on the negative aspects.

Well, its a fine line between airing a missing persons/possible homicide victims dirty laundry and telling the whole story. Its not just UM that didn't air undesirable traits of victims as the show Disappeared does the same thing. They use positive terms such as "getting their life together" and brush over troubling aspects of their lives. I think producers are careful as they have the victims families trust and try to reflect the victim in the best way possible yet still telling the story correctly. Obviously, nobody is perfect and sometimes their lifestyle does play a role in what happened to them such as drug use ect. However, I think out of respect for the victim and family,they try not to dwell on the negative aspects.
Good point. The great thing about the show was they showcased variety. They made it interesting for the viewer. Certainly they scripted segments in the manner to gain more suspense for the viewer. But I do notice in certain cases that were solved and features in other mediums such as forensic files or AMW usually UM was pretty close with their portrayal of segments.

The bordello murders is a good example of UM stepping up and representing victims well and helping a case be publicized when it may not have been solved otherwise.

Pretty much every Bigfoot or Skunk Ape segment UM did was exaggerated.