The theory of Occam's Razor is that the most logical hypothesis is probably the correct one. It is well documented on here that UM does not follow this theory, and often tilts stories in certain directions by centering on certain things and leaving out others. Cases such as that of Amy Billig, Tammy Lynn Leppert, and Curtis Borton are examples where obvious assumptions were eschewed in favor of sexier, more outlandish theories of what may have happened.

My question is, is this really in UM's favor to present stories in this way? I mean, I would like to think the motive of the show was to solve crimes and find missing people, and I don't know if misleading viewers is the best way to do this. We all like an intriguing story, of course, but I don't think it is right to veer the investigation by ignoring credible leads and acknowledging less-than-reliable ones just for better television. I guess this begs the question, was UM on television to help people, or as operatic entertainment of which help would only be a by-product?

What does everyone think? I'd like to get a good debate going.

I have a B.S. in criminal justice and I learned much about investigation protocol during my college years. It is standard procedure for law enforcement officials to not make sensitive information available to the public. One reason is because they have to assume the perpetrators in crimes may be paying attention to the media and may be on to them; it only makes it easier for the perpetrators to avoid getting caught if they know what evidence the police have discovered. The police also make a point of withholding information about suspects and victims such as their names.

I believe UM may have stretched the truth or withheld information about certain cases that may have been important for the public to know if they wanted them solved. I've also been somewhat inclined to believe that cases such as Don Kemp have the possibility of being fabricated simply for ratings; similar stuff happens in the media pretty often.

For what it's worth, I have a BA in criminal justice and I'm currently working on my MS in the same field. My eventual goal is to teach criminology at the college level. I mention all of this to illustrate that crime and the criminal justice system are subjects that are very dear and important to me.

Unfortunately, I think that the older I get (and perhaps the more schooling I get) the more I realize that UM, as awesome as it is/was, is a television show designed to get ratings and sell ad space. It's basically a tabloid show that focuses on the sensational and the bizarre. Mundane, run of the mill crimes/stories have no real place on UM. If such cases are presented, certain angles are overemphasized or downplayed to make the case more compelling/sensational. The goal of this is obvious - to attract and hold the interest of audiences.

In some ways, it's a tough reality to face. There was a time that I thought of UM as a public service. In some ways, it did serve that purpose. Criminals were caught, lost loved ones reunited, etc. However, when I think of some of the spins and smoke and mirrors elements they added to certain stories it really drives home the point (for me at least) that whatever public service goals the show proclaimed to have were clearly secondary.

Just curious, what do you consider the obvious assumption about Tammy Leppert's disappearance?

I think that with most true crime shows, there's going to be a mix of altruism, escapism and sensationalism occurring, with a focus usually leaning towards the latter two. UM brought much needed publicity to many of the cases, but sometimes with the caveat that they overly indulged in conspiracy theories - shadowy government or military mechanizations and satanic panic. A crime becomes more of a 'mystery' if there are esoteric elements involved, strange letters, calls or sightings, circumstances that don't fit in the ordinary parameters.

The plight of POWs/MIAs and the dangers of occult practice were hot button social issues in the period that UM was at it's peak, so it's not terribly surprising that they chose to feature cases that had those elements or at least played up those angles. Those theories may not have been credible, but they weren't necessarily dreamed up entirely by the show's producers. From my own recollections of growing up in the 1980's, it wasn't ludicrous to many people, even law enforcement, that POWs had been held for decades and that governments withheld that information, that there were organized satanic cults that were committing crimes, or even that 'white slavery' (a Victorian moral panic) was the cause of the abduction of children and young women.

For what it's worth, I have a BA in criminal justice and I'm currently working on my MS in the same field. My eventual goal is to teach criminology at the college level. I mention all of this to illustrate that crime and the criminal justice system are subjects that are very dear and important to me.

Unfortunately, I think that the older I get (and perhaps the more schooling I get) the more I realize that UM, as awesome as it is/was, is a television show designed to get ratings and sell ad space. It's basically a tabloid show that focuses on the sensational and the bizarre. Mundane, run of the mill crimes/stories have no real place on UM. If such cases are presented, certain angles are overemphasized or downplayed to make the case more compelling/sensational. The goal of this is obvious - to attract and hold the interest of audiences.

In some ways, it's a tough reality to face. There was a time that I thought of UM as a public service. In some ways, it did serve that purpose. Criminals were caught, lost loved ones reunited, etc. However, when I think of some of the spins and smoke and mirrors elements they added to certain stories it really drives home the point (for me at least) that whatever public service goals the show proclaimed to have were clearly secondary.

I don´t know why you were surprised at all. Ever since I became a fan of the show as a little kid, I key word of the show was Unsolved MYSTERIES. I knew that it was a show about mysterious things and not a true crime show. I guess your belief is why many of the show complain about supernatural and legendary segments, when to me those were the closest to the true reason for the show existing. I don´t think it´s a fault of the show at all.

I think a topic/thread similar to this was made awhile back. I don't know what exactly you're hinting at but I will say that there were certain things they had to leave out for legal reasons. Of course, later as times went by, you could find out other tidbits by searching on Google and beyond, but only as the investigations into the crimes progressed as well.

If they didn't twist some things around, exaggerate things or edit bits and pieces, then we would have never been interested in Unsolved Mysteries. The show was/is half entertaintment, half reality-based. As corky as some cases were like the UFOs or psychics or what have you, there were also cases that helped catch criminals, reunite friends and family and find missing people.

I'm just thankful for what the show was and not what it necessarily lacked.

It's also important to remember that a big network like NBC (and later CBS) wouldn't air a show without a catch to get ratings and viewership. As ideal as it would be to believe UM was simply an altruistic show out to help others, it was there to get viewers intrigued and people watching the network. But the upside is that the show also served to get crimes solved even if that's not why it was being aired in the first place. I still consider it probably my favorite show ever because we have the mysterious elements of real crime and the "unexplained." I don't like to think about a bunch of network execs thinking about the big ratings they were going to snatch, but that's just reality.

Just curious, what do you consider the obvious assumption about Tammy Leppert's disappearance?

I think she was abducted the day she disappeared and murdered soon after. UM focused a lot on her paranoia and her delusions, and tells the story in a way to make you think her disappearance was tied in with all of her irrational fears. While this definitely made the story more intriguing, it was obvious to me that her kidnapping was most likely a random crime, and all of her supposed traumas were an overblown coincidence.

Another thing that makes me skeptical with this story is the way Tammy left the house the last time. It just doesn't make sense that Tammy's mother would simply wave goodbye to her as she left the house with a stranger. She (the mother) had acknowledged that she was worried sick about Tammy's mental state and had a gut feeling that she would never see Tammy again. I am damn sure that if one of my parents felt that way about me, they'd have thrown that phone down in an instant and grabbed me...not just said, "Okay, see you later." So I always thought that this part of the story was either made up, or that Tammy's delusions were overblown.

I have to disagree. I think the state of mind of a missing person can be very, very important and should be considered when trying to deduce what happened. It may not end up having anything to do with what ultimately happened, but just in case, it should be considered. Every potential angle should be considered. I also think it was foul play, but I think it could have had something to do with what Tammy witnessed. The extent of her fear could have been paranoia- or it could have been horror of knowing she was in very real danger. Tammy didn't just vanish- there was a buildup of fear and change that startled those around her. Yes, it adds more suspense for viewing, but it also adds a potential clue to a MP case.

I do find it odd that the mother just let her leave but if it's anything like the reenactment it sounds like she was on the phone and didn't hear what she said and only realized when she saw her getting in the car at a distance. It was already too late to run after her.

I think the core goal of UM was similar to America's Most Wanted, where the show was more of a public service than it was a ratings seeker. I do think UM "beefed up" some of their segments to make them more mysterious and/or try to attract viewers, but I can honestly only think of a handful off hand where they did this. And it seemed like when they did add elements to certain cases, they were usually cases that were going to remain unsolved (Son of Sam, UFO's, Chair of Death, etc. come to mind) no matter what. I think another major complaint about UM was their ambiguity. But we have to remember that they were trying to present complex cases with only ten minutes of a segment devoted to it. That's why I think UM left out some details in certain cases.

I don´t know why you were surprised at all. Ever since I became a fan of the show as a little kid, I key word of the show was Unsolved MYSTERIES. I knew that it was a show about mysterious things and not a true crime show. I guess your belief is why many of the show complain about supernatural and legendary segments, when to me those were the closest to the true reason for the show existing. I don´t think it´s a fault of the show at all.

I don't know that I would necessarily agree with the paranormal segments being the true reason for the show's existence.

I think one can make a case for UM being a true crime show. You can also make the case for it being a paranormal show too. Personally, I prefer not to pigeonhole it in either category because of the mixed presentation of stories. It's not a true crime show in the sense of an American Justice, Investigative Reports, or America's Most Wanted that focus exclusively on unsolved crimes and fugitives. It's also not an exclusively paranormal show like Sightings or Encounters either.

In my opinion, the show served different functions geared toward reeling in different portions of the television audience. In the end, the one thing that bonded all of it together and was key, however, was entertainment and ratings. I think that is what the OP was asking about with regard to sensationalism and creative story telling.

I never watched UM when it was on prime time. I began watching it when it was on late night TV. During "my time" after the kids and my husband were in bed. It was my time to unwind.

I always took UM at face value and believed what was said about the cases, until I saw the Tommy Zeiglar episode and saw how they could make it look perfectly logical that an innocent man was in prison for a time he didn't commit. When I myself, along with most of the residents of Winter Garden had never for a minute doubted that he was the killer and right where he belongs.

So yes, I do believe they changed things up for their own reasons.

But like others are saying, its still a good show, one of my favorites. I just don't believe everything they say anymore.

To answer the original question, it absolutely was in UM's favor to present the cases in the intriguing, overexaggerated manner it often did. Viewers benefit by being engaged or otherwise entertained for an hour, and the production company and networks benefit by viewership numbers. I do believe the crime-solving aspect was very much a happy secondary by-product of the show (not to mention yet another way to bolster viewership. People typically like to feel as though they're doing something morally correct. It makes them feel good. What better way to hook someone than making them feel like a Very Good Person (TM) simply by a passive activity you'd probably engage in anyway: watching television? I mean, there's plenty of other things you could watch in the evening. But YOU chose to have an opportunity to "solve a mystery"--i.e., help someone in need, or catch a dangerous criminal. It's genius, from a marketing standpoint). I don't know of one television show that has ever existed for primarily altruistic purposes, and that includes AMW.

Regardless, I do very much enjoy the show, obviously. But when it comes to "better television" or presenting the most credible leads, of course "better television" will win out 10 times out of 10. That's economics. Is that right? I suppose it depends on who you ask.

I think she was abducted the day she disappeared and murdered soon after. UM focused a lot on her paranoia and her delusions, and tells the story in a way to make you think her disappearance was tied in with all of her irrational fears. While this definitely made the story more intriguing, it was obvious to me that her kidnapping was most likely a random crime, and all of her supposed traumas were an overblown coincidence.

Another thing that makes me skeptical with this story is the way Tammy left the house the last time. It just doesn't make sense that Tammy's mother would simply wave goodbye to her as she left the house with a stranger. She (the mother) had acknowledged that she was worried sick about Tammy's mental state and had a gut feeling that she would never see Tammy again. I am damn sure that if one of my parents felt that way about me, they'd have thrown that phone down in an instant and grabbed me...not just said, "Okay, see you later." So I always thought that this part of the story was either made up, or that Tammy's delusions were overblown.

That´s it? You´re especulating as much as anybody here. So just because you have your theory, that doesn´t make UM as falsifying the truth just because it doesn´t match yours. It´s not like you know more than most on it.

I don't know that I would necessarily agree with the paranormal segments being the true reason for the show's existence.

I think one can make a case for UM being a true crime show. You can also make the case for it being a paranormal show too. Personally, I prefer not to pigeonhole it in either category because of the mixed presentation of stories. It's not a true crime show in the sense of an American Justice, Investigative Reports, or America's Most Wanted that focus exclusively on unsolved crimes and fugitives. It's also not an exclusively paranormal show like Sightings or Encounters either.

In my opinion, the show served different functions geared toward reeling in different portions of the television audience. In the end, the one thing that bonded all of it together and was key, however, was entertainment and ratings. I think that is what the OP was asking about with regard to sensationalism and creative story telling.

Well I wasn´t trying to say that paranormal segments are the true reason but Mysterious segments which those fit to a tee. That´s why the show wasn´t a true crime show. The defining thing of all the cases was the mystery behind them. That´s why I don´t get your criticism about other crimes being featured in it, since it wasn´t what was behind it. And also the altruistic thing which like meg said, doesn´t happen in any tv show.

My answer to this question depends widely from case to case. In some cases, it's obvious (partially in hindsight) that they were billed as "mysterious" in order to get more attention and find more witnesses/leads in order to put away the culprit.

Others - like the rape case - where they went out of their way to prove that he must absolutely be innocent - my answer would be emphatically no. This case sticks out in my mind mostly because one day on Lifetime, their tv movie of the "real story" came on right before the UM episode with this segment did and it made Stack look like a total butt while he explained how it couldn't have possibly happened because of the way the backseat of the car functioned.

Of course, the easily debunked UFO stories and those awesome favorite segments like the one on aphrodisiacs, definitely didn't help the series seem more factual and legit.

I'm also angry that they spent time on cases that were probably a case of Occam's Razor and likely unsolvable - Clifford Sherwood sticks out in my mind for this category - when that time could have been given to a more recent case with a better chance of being solved.

The segments about Elvis, Kurt Cobain, and Tupac were blatant grabs for ratings that also hurt the sense of legitimacy the show had.

And honestly, what we're able to do right here on this forum is a big reason why I think the show doesn't work today on tv. It's so easy to be online during a show and get more information on something "spooky" that it just can't work like it used to. Even the most oddball segments (for the most part) couldn't have been so easily debunked within seconds back in the 80s/90s - which is why the mysterious "twists" of UM worked so well.

I don't think UM twisted the truth in the Bryan Nisenfeld story, but even airing this story and the parents' anguished but absurd insinuations did the dead boy no justice.

I'm also angry that they spent time on cases that were probably a case of Occam's Razor and likely unsolvable - Clifford Sherwood sticks out in my mind for this category - when that time could have been given to a more recent case with a better chance of being solved.

I agree. The thing that MOST annoyed me about the Cliff Sherwood case was when Frances (Cliff's mom) refused to ID a body that may have been her son. If you are a mother and you are trying to solve this case, why wouldn't you check this lead, not only for your own closure, but to lay your son to rest if it is him? And if the body was Cliff and he was murdered, then she actively hindered an investigation to catch the bastard who murdered her son. I smelled a rat from this point forward with that case.

This example of avoiding a possible solution for the sake of keeping the mystery alive is evident in the Curtis Borton case as well. The shadowy person who may or may not have been Curtis was right there, in front of his sister. She could have solved this "great mystery" for once and for all with one swipe of the tongue...but nope. This would undoubtedly put her kids in danger. The whole freakin' gist of this story was that Curtis was trying to make himself known to his family, but in the one instance where it could all be put together, the assumption is made that he will go off like a madman and murder his sister, nieces and nephews.

In my opinion, situations like this are where UM wanders off the reality plantation and goes into "mystery movie" territory.

I agree. The thing that MOST annoyed me about the Cliff Sherwood case was when Frances (Cliff's mom) refused to ID a body that may have been her son. If you are a mother and you are trying to solve this case, why wouldn't you check this lead, not only for your own closure, but to lay your son to rest if it is him? And if the body was Cliff and he was murdered, then she actively hindered an investigation to catch the bastard who murdered her son. I smelled a rat from this point forward with that case.

This example of avoiding a possible solution for the sake of keeping the mystery alive is evident in the Curtis Borton case as well. The shadowy person who may or may not have been Curtis was right there, in front of his sister. She could have solved this "great mystery" for once and for all with one swipe of the tongue...but nope. This would undoubtedly put her kids in danger. The whole freakin' gist of this story was that Curtis was trying to make himself known to his family, but in the one instance where it could all be put together, the assumption is made that he will go off like a madman and murder his sister, nieces and nephews.

In my opinion, situations like this are where UM wanders off the reality plantation and goes into "mystery movie" territory.

But in both of those cases it wasn´t UM who did this but the family members themselves. If UM had decided to follow a different route or paid attention to something else or hide parts of the stories (which they supposedly did in other cases), then it would be on them. But this is key part of the stories of the family and you either believe them or don´t. You may think it´s stupid but there are people even on this board who are convinced of both cases validity so it isn´t as clear. Either way UM wasn´t the one who changed the plot of those stories but the family themselves. What was UM supposed to do once Clifford mom failed to ID the kid? The case is still open because of that and there is no way for them to see the course of that kid´s body. So they can only present it like it was and for people to wonder stuff like why she didn´t and if the case has any value after that.

I agree. The thing that MOST annoyed me about the Cliff Sherwood case was when Frances (Cliff's mom) refused to ID a body that may have been her son. If you are a mother and you are trying to solve this case, why wouldn't you check this lead, not only for your own closure, but to lay your son to rest if it is him? And if the body was Cliff and he was murdered, then she actively hindered an investigation to catch the bastard who murdered her son. I smelled a rat from this point forward with that case.


I think the Clifford Sherwood case/segment is a classic example of UM relying too much on one person's pet theory, in this situation, the mother's. She obviously couldn't accept that Clifford was most likely dead, so she concocted this elaborate story about how her ex-husband abducted Clifford and raised him in secret. Another major red flag in the presentation is almost non-mention of the second boy who went missing along with Clifford: Georges Gumbley (sp?) The fact that both kids disappeared suggest that whatever forces caused their disappearance effected them both. The odds of the father being involved drop dramatically then, IMO. Of course, UM glossed this over to make the mother's theories more attractive.

I agree. The thing that MOST annoyed me about the Cliff Sherwood case was when Frances (Cliff's mom) refused to ID a body that may have been her son. If you are a mother and you are trying to solve this case, why wouldn't you check this lead, not only for your own closure, but to lay your son to rest if it is him? And if the body was Cliff and he was murdered, then she actively hindered an investigation to catch the bastard who murdered her son. I smelled a rat from this point forward with that case.

That, surprisingly, wasn't what bothered me about that segment. My hinky radar was already twitching when they mentioned another boy went missing with him but then said relatively little else about him (there is another segment like that) and then proceeded to focus on the idea that his dad must have taken both kids. Really?

I also think it's UM's fault for focusing on the ravings of an individual. With proper research they could have easily read the same articles I have that state the police believe the most likely scenario is that the boys drowned while they were skipping school. I also think that the times when they run a segment with no input from the other family it makes it feel incomplete and even more fantastic.

I'm not saying they necessarily shouldn't have covered this case at all, but when more recent kids got a brief mention in other segments and this one got way more time by comparison...it irks me.

To present the Sherwood story the way they did...a conspiracy involving Clifford's father, a picture of an older Clifford, covering up of military records, a driver's license of someone of the same name and birthday...was good television. It was an intriguing, sexy story that stuck with people. To come on and say that Cliff disappeared in 1954 and was most likely killed shortly thereafter is a sad story but, sorry to sound insensitive, nothing that anyone would really care about. When was it aired, in 1992? To tell the Occam's Razor version of the story would just be a kid that was killed 38 years ago by a random bad guy who is elderly or dead at this point. With no leads or suspects, it would be impossible to even begin to know who this can be, so the case is vastly uninteresting. Instead, presenting the story like a Dorothy Sayers novel rather than a random crime that happened two generations ago turned this case from a bore to a captivating "unsolved mystery."

To present the Sherwood story the way they did...a conspiracy involving Clifford's father, a picture of an older Clifford, covering up of military records, a driver's license of someone of the same name and birthday...was good television. It was an intriguing, sexy story that stuck with people. To come on and say that Cliff disappeared in 1954 and was most likely killed shortly thereafter is a sad story but, sorry to sound insensitive, nothing that anyone would really care about. When was it aired, in 1992? To tell the Occam's Razor version of the story would just be a kid that was killed 38 years ago by a random bad guy who is elderly or dead at this point. With no leads or suspects, it would be impossible to even begin to know who this can be, so the case is vastly uninteresting. Instead, presenting the story like a Dorothy Sayers novel rather than a random crime that happened two generations ago turned this case from a bore to a captivating "unsolved mystery."

I highly disagree. Clifford's story is interesting and the fact they never identified the male torso they found adds to the mystique. His mother Francis died 3 years ago and wondered everyday about him. I think one of his sisters is now deceased too. Alot of people do care. Not just his family, but viewers have wondered what became of him. It's possible he is still alive, but he hasn't surfaced in over 55 years. Another question, what do you mean by "sexy"? That's an odd way to describe a missing persons case.

I highly disagree. Clifford's story is interesting and the fact they never identified the male torso they found adds to the mystique. His mother Francis died 3 years ago and wondered everyday about him. I think one of his sisters is now deceased too. Alot of people do care. Not just his family, but viewers have wondered what became of him. It's possible he is still alive, but he hasn't surfaced in over 55 years. Another question, what do you mean by "sexy"? That's an odd way to describe a missing persons case.

You're missing my point. I am not saying that Clifford's story is not interesting or that nobody cares. What I'm saying is that UM's portrayal of the story has generated more interest than would have been if the story was told the way it probably happened. Mrs. Sherwood refusing to identify what could have been her son at best ignored a possible solution, and at worst, let her son's murder go unsolved and his killer go free.

I am using "sexy" as an idiom, basically meaning intriguing, captivating, a good story.

You're missing my point. I am not saying that Clifford's story is not interesting or that nobody cares. What I'm saying is that UM's portrayal of the story has generated more interest than would have been if the story was told the way it probably happened. Mrs. Sherwood refusing to identify what could have been her son at best ignored a possible solution, and at worst, let her son's murder go unsolved and his killer go free.

I am using "sexy" as an idiom, basically meaning intriguing, captivating, a good story.

Ok, that makes more sense :)

You're missing my point. I am not saying that Clifford's story is not interesting or that nobody cares. What I'm saying is that UM's portrayal of the story has generated more interest than would have been if the story was told the way it probably happened. Mrs. Sherwood refusing to identify what could have been her son at best ignored a possible solution, and at worst, let her son's murder go unsolved and his killer go free.

I am using "sexy" as an idiom, basically meaning intriguing, captivating, a good story.

But again, that´s on Clifford´s mother not on UM. Becuase of her actions, that body wasn´t IDed as Clifford. It might be the strange but if UM was telling the story from the point of the people who brought the case to their attention, they had to cover it plus they can´t go and see it as what happend to that torso.