Looks like Nancy Grace is taking on this case:

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/10/15/aisenberg-sabrina-investigation-day-1-nancy-grace-mysteries

There's a few more links on her website's pages pertaining to Sabrina.

I've always been on the fence about this one. Depending on which version you watch on TV and the spin put on it.

I sure don't like nancy Grace. She is a hateful spiteful, witch with a B.

If these parents are innocent I hate to see her stirring up trouble for them. _ that said w/o looking at the links- in a hurry will check them later.

I bet Nancy is approaching this with an open mind. I recall her being dead wrong in the Elizabeth Smart case, but not humbled.

NG notwithstanding, this is a fascinating case. Somewhat similar to JBR.

Can't stand Nancy Grace (let's face it, she would have fried Patricia Stallings), but glad this case is getting a second look. Defies all easy explanations, IMO.

I watched, just a rehash of the same information. Or, did I miss something?

Don't judge her so soon. I recall once that one of her viewers saw a missing girl that was featured on her show and they caught the guy that abducted the girl (and they say Nancy is no good. I beg to differ).

This case is a weird one. I strongly feel that the Aisenbergs are responsible for her disappearance. There are just too many things pointing in their direction and away from an intruder. (lack of evidence, the dog didn't bark etc.)

This case is a weird one. I strongly feel that the Aisenbergs are responsible for her disappearance. There are just too many things pointing in their direction and away from an intruder. (lack of evidence, the dog didn't bark etc.)

The baby has never been found??

Never. Lots of circumstantial evidence, but no proof of the parents doing something.

I've seen this case presented both ways- an intruder took her, the parents did it. And each time, you want to believe it is the way you are being told. A real puzzler.

I would be a lot more willing to believe the parents did it if the authorities hadn't bugged their house, then went on to tell the judge all about how they had the parents on tape talking about taking cocaine and killing the baby.

When the judge heard those tapes, (and I heard some of them too when this info was on TV) he heard a bunch of static, the television, and almost no decipherable conversation. IIRC, he was disgusted with this "evidence" and made it known.

If the parents are guilty, that whole debacle probably ruined any chances of bringing a believable prosecution.

Don't judge her so soon. I recall once that one of her viewers saw a missing girl that was featured on her show and they caught the guy that abducted the girl (and they say Nancy is no good. I beg to differ).

What does that have to do with NG's guilty before innocent style of journalism? She's always at the ready to call the rest of the villagers to storm the castle with their torches and pitchforks before all the facts are in. It's awful. Not to mention that the case you mention, Brittany Mae Smith, was carried on more than just NG's show.

I'm all for someone bringing these cold cases back into the light of day, but I can't stand NG's style of journalism either. I think she is going to end up doing more harm than good in the long run as people are already growing tired of listening to her harp on about cases. Soon it won't matter what she says because people will see that it's her and not bother watching/listening/reading because of it.

That said, I'm glad she's bringing another cold case back into the spotlight. I just wish there was someone else doing the same work that NG does with a bit more impartiality and class.

What does that have to do with NG's guilty before innocent style of journalism? She's always at the ready to call the rest of the villagers to storm the castle with their torches and pitchforks before all the facts are in. It's awful. Not to mention that the case you mention, Brittany Mae Smith, was carried on more than just NG's show.

I'm all for someone bringing these cold cases back into the light of day, but I can't stand NG's style of journalism either. I think she is going to end up doing more harm than good in the long run as people are already growing tired of listening to her harp on about cases. Soon it won't matter what she says because people will see that it's her and not bother watching/listening/reading because of it.

That said, I'm glad she's bringing another cold case back into the spotlight. I just wish there was someone else doing the same work that NG does with a bit more impartiality and class.


:clap Mashing your "like" button! Very well put- my feelings about NG exactly!

Never. Lots of circumstantial evidence, but no proof of the parents doing something.

I've seen this case presented both ways- an intruder took her, the parents did it. And each time, you want to believe it is the way you are being told. A real puzzler.

If the parents did it they must've killed her.

What does that have to do with NG's guilty before innocent style of journalism? She's always at the ready to call the rest of the villagers to storm the castle with their torches and pitchforks before all the facts are in. It's awful. Not to mention that the case you mention, Brittany Mae Smith, was carried on more than just NG's show.

I'm all for someone bringing these cold cases back into the light of day, but I can't stand NG's style of journalism either. I think she is going to end up doing more harm than good in the long run as people are already growing tired of listening to her harp on about cases. Soon it won't matter what she says because people will see that it's her and not bother watching/listening/reading because of it.

That said, I'm glad she's bringing another cold case back into the spotlight. I just wish there was someone else doing the same work that NG does with a bit more impartiality and class.

I third that.

I bet Nancy is approaching this with an open mind. I recall her being dead wrong in the Elizabeth Smart case, but not humbled.

And let's not forget the Duke Lacrosse case.

What does that have to do with NG's guilty before innocent style of journalism? She's always at the ready to call the rest of the villagers to storm the castle with their torches and pitchforks before all the facts are in. It's awful. Not to mention that the case you mention, Brittany Mae Smith, was carried on more than just NG's show.

I'm all for someone bringing these cold cases back into the light of day, but I can't stand NG's style of journalism either. I think she is going to end up doing more harm than good in the long run as people are already growing tired of listening to her harp on about cases. Soon it won't matter what she says because people will see that it's her and not bother watching/listening/reading because of it.

That said, I'm glad she's bringing another cold case back into the spotlight. I just wish there was someone else doing the same work that NG does with a bit more impartiality and class.

Do you have to argue everything I talk about? You don't have to like her, but you don't need to dog her. She may not be the best on-air personality, but at least someone is getting these cases back in the light. Do you think politicians or certain TV producers care about a missing girl named Sabrina Aisenberg or something? I doubt it.

Is this on the forbidden site?

Is this on the forbidden site?

Last I checked, no, but there are other videos about her there, just not the UM one.

Last I checked, no, but there are other videos about her there, just not the UM one.
Yeah, it's been ages since I've seen it. What I mostly remember is the mother's panicked reacting to be accused, the open garage door, and people thinking they were guilty because of a news camera catching them ''smiling.''

Do you have to argue everything I talk about? You don't have to like her, but you don't need to dog her. She may not be the best on-air personality, but at least someone is getting these cases back in the light. Do you think politicians or certain TV producers care about a missing girl named Sabrina Aisenberg or something? I doubt it.

YOU began any "argument" by telling others not to judge her too soon and then related something that had very little to do with NG and her style of journalism. Yes, it's awesome that a viewer had a tip BUT as I stated before, a viewer having a tip (on a case that was covered by more than NG) isn't exactly a strong argument for her and her style of 'journalism'.

I also clearly stated that I am GLAD that the case is getting back into the spotlight. I'm not sure what politicians or tv producers have to do with this discussion, either.

I'm sorry you feel that I argue with everything that you say, but to be quite honest, I don't really post here all that much to really recognize too many people when I visit. I tend to just focus on the content/discussion and not the face/avatar beside it.

Do you think politicians or certain TV producers care about a missing girl named Sabrina Aisenberg or something? I doubt it.

There isn't much to suggest Nancy Grace necessarily does, either. The mere fact that someone or something is featured on a television show one hosts, produces, or otherwise works on does not invariably mean that individual has taken it upon him- or herself to be a personal advocate for any specific object of focus on the program.

Disagreement isn't necessarily disrespect, either. It's not personal. No rational person would believe you're somehow bad or wrong because he or she holds an opinion different from yours.


I would be a lot more willing to believe the parents did it if the authorities hadn't bugged their house, then went on to tell the judge all about how they had the parents on tape talking about taking cocaine and killing the baby.

When the judge heard those tapes, (and I heard some of them too when this info was on TV) he heard a bunch of static, the television, and almost no decipherable conversation. IIRC, he was disgusted with this "evidence" and made it known.

If the parents are guilty, that whole debacle probably ruined any chances of bringing a believable prosecution.

I do agree.

YOU began any "argument" by telling others not to judge her too soon and then related something that had very little to do with NG and her style of journalism. Yes, it's awesome that a viewer had a tip BUT as I stated before, a viewer having a tip (on a case that was covered by more than NG) isn't exactly a strong argument for her and her style of 'journalism'.

I also clearly stated that I am GLAD that the case is getting back into the spotlight. I'm not sure what politicians or tv producers have to do with this discussion, either.

I'm sorry you feel that I argue with everything that you say, but to be quite honest, I don't really post here all that much to really recognize too many people when I visit. I tend to just focus on the content/discussion and not the face/avatar beside it.

I don't like arguing with you, but I just feel that you jump on me alot on different topics. I would like to get along, we all have things to offer this forum. I can agree that Nancy can be a (expletive) sometimes but I guess that's why I like her sometimes. I just want to get back to talking about Sabrina Aisenberg, this little girl needs justice.

There isn't much to suggest Nancy Grace necessarily does, either. The mere fact that someone or something is featured on a television show one hosts, produces, or otherwise works on does not invariably mean that individual has taken it upon him- or herself to be a personal advocate for any specific object of focus on the program.

Disagreement isn't necessarily disrespect, either. It's not personal. No rational person would believe you're somehow bad or wrong because he or she holds an opinion different from yours.

That makes sense to me now. Thanks.

That makes sense to me now. Thanks.

No thanks necessary, but they're appreciated. The diversity of opinions is good, save for the ideology-of-the-month diehard we get here every once in a blue moon (fortunately). You said it yourself, we all have things to offer on the board. :)

No thanks necessary, but they're appreciated. The diversity of opinions is good, save for the ideology-of-the-month diehard we get here every once in a blue moon (fortunately). You said it yourself, we all have things to offer on the board. :)

I can't imagine who you are talking about. :lol:

It's important to remember that we completely lose the non-verbal communication aspects of tone and gesture when on message boards. It's easy to misunderstand someone's intent and connotation sometimes.

No thanks necessary, but they're appreciated. The diversity of opinions is good, save for the ideology-of-the-month diehard we get here every once in a blue moon (fortunately). You said it yourself, we all have things to offer on the board. :)

I'm just waiting for this thread to turn into a "racially motivated" abduction.

I'm just waiting for this thread to turn into a "racially motivated" abduction.

But dude, he has....umm...err...news articles and anecdotes! EUREKA! :lol:

He was like D.B. Cooper: hijacker extraordinaire! Fortunately, he eventually got a parachute. He was banned like a month or so ago.

But once, chocolate milk ruined his favorite shirt! Clearly, that is evidence of a racial conspiracy!

And let's not forget the Duke Lacrosse case.
I was just getting ready to say that. Nancy did not appear on her show the night the charges were dropped. She never mentioned it again.

I was just getting ready to say that. Nancy did not appear on her show the night the charges were dropped. She never mentioned it again.

Shocker! :rolleyes:

I think we need to get back on topic :talk: :)

I always felt that the parents were a bit evasive and shady. If the dad and/or mom in fact killed Sabrina, why? Was she fussy or did she make a mess of some sort and that's what set her mom or dad off? Did her mom have postpartum depression and in a rage, kill Sabrina? Did they accidentally harm her and in a panic, dispose of her body? I haven't seen the UM episode in ages, so I don't know if these questions have been asked.

I continue to believe that the Aisenbergs know what happened to their daughter. Of course, I base that on nothing more than watching interviews with them, and a vibe I get off of them. I speak as someone who knew immediately that Susan Smith was lying about being carjacked with her kids still in the car. But I could be wrong.

Compare the Aisenbergs' decision to move back to Maryland soon after Sabrina's disappearance with Jacob Wetterling's parents, who have made it known time and time again that they continue to live in the same house that Jacob grew up in and have the same phone number, in case he was able to call them. OK - Sabrina was just a baby and wouldn't know where her home was or her phone number, but the Aisenbergs' move back to Maryland strikes me as an attempt to get away from the whole situation. And I don't think you would want to get away from something you had nothing to do with.

I continue to believe that the Aisenbergs know what happened to their daughter. Of course, I base that on nothing more than watching interviews with them, and a vibe I get off of them. I speak as someone who knew immediately that Susan Smith was lying about being carjacked with her kids still in the car. But I could be wrong.

Compare the Aisenbergs' decision to move back to Maryland soon after Sabrina's disappearance with Jacob Wetterling's parents, who have made it known time and time again that they continue to live in the same house that Jacob grew up in and have the same phone number, in case he was able to call them. OK - Sabrina was just a baby and wouldn't know where her home was or her phone number, but the Aisenbergs' move back to Maryland strikes me as an attempt to get away from the whole situation. And I don't think you would want to get away from something you had nothing to do with.

On the other hand, if they didnt do it, then they might want to get away from the house that their daughter was abducted from. If innocent, then that would be a non-stop reminder of what happened. Although I lean towards them being responsible in some way. This case just never made any sense to me at all. They had two kids right? I find it hard to believe that they murdered their third child. I suppose there could have been some sort of accident that resulted in her death, but if so, then why would they deny that? Unless maybe they were worried about being prosecuted for something and in a panic they disposed of her body. Very bizarre case.

I wonder if someone the parents wanted to protect could have accidentally killed Sabrina. I'm not saying who as I would hate for anyone to google this and find accusations.

I didn't see this on UM only 48 hours. I don't know so much about it but from what I've read online the parents are suspects. Is there any new info as of 2016? Has Sabrina ever been found?

No, Sabrina is still missing, unfortunately. She'll be 19 next month and 20 next year. Here's the newest age progression of her.
http://www.missingkids.org/photographs/NCMC840605e1.jpg

I wonder if someone the parents wanted to protect could have accidentally killed Sabrina. I'm not saying who as I would hate for anyone to google this and find accusations.

Yep, I'm thinking along the lines of JonBenét Ramsey, either someone in that house did it, or someone the parents so feared that they themselves would cover up for that person for fear of further reprisals, such as is believed of Anthonette Cayedito.

I saw this case recently and based off of the Farina version of the segment (not sure if they edited anything out of the Stack version), I'm inclined to believe that they are guilty of something, or at the very least know who took Sabrina.

Am I the only one who thinks that the cocaine line that is heard on the audio is oddly specific? It's just a weird aspect to the audio where I can't make anything out.

This case should have been solved relatively quickly. If the Aisenbergs are innocent, someone known to them had to have been involved. Most likely a woman who either lost a young child or could not conceive. The garage door was left open and the entry into the home via their laundry room was unlocked. How would someone completely unknown to the Aisenbergs get this lucky and not only have the luck of the garage door being open and the laundry door unlocked, but also have Sabrina's bedroom be the first bedroom around the corner?

If they are guilty, I think there are two possibilities:

-Something happened (either accident or foul play) and they disposed of Sabrina's remains in a panic.
-They prearranged Sabrina's abduction with someone they knew.

I don't feel strongly about any of these and am still on the fence 50/50 as to whether or not they were involved or had knowledge. My gut says they weren't, but the odds of a stranger coming into that home and getting that lucky are astronomical.

I do lean to the Aisenberg's being guilty, especially the mother. It never sat well with me how she conducted herself in the interview. A Susan Smith-vibe, and that is never good!

So my wife and I just saw this segment (her for the first time) and immediately her reaction was an accident with the baby and a cover up. In other words, maybe the 3rd child wasn't the charm, the mom is depressed and maybe slaps Sabrina a little too hard when she is crying. Then the cover up happens. I don't think they are professionals, so they somehow dump the body somewhere and come up with the abduction angle. There wouldn't be any evidence of a baby just going limp in the house. No blood, no witnesses, nothing. Both husband and wife cover for each other. Or maybe even just the wife did it as she did not have the results be conclusive from her polygraph.

I think either way there was not an abductor. Someone mentioned it upthread already, but how the heck can a child abductor get that lucky in a home invasion? The doors are wide open for them, 4 other people in the home don't wake up? Did they have a dog, I can't remember? But they vanish without a trace? The baby never cries? There are no witnesses of anyone - even wrongly - seeing the baby with some strangers? Nothing amiss around the neighbourhood? I honestly think something happened at night and they had an entire night to deal with whatever happened. Can you be that cold as a parent to bury your child just to make sure you don't take the rap from an accidental death? I think desperate times call for desperate measures.

Also, I saw an interview with them from 2022. They seem.....................I don't know, jovial would be the word. Big smiles on their face, not a lot of grief when talking about Sabrina. I talked to a friend the other day who mentioned 30 years ago the still born death she had. This is 30 years ago, and publicly she wasn't crying while talking about her one child who died, but you can still see when she is mentioned that there is if not a sadness a solemn demeanor when talking about her. Sort of a "what if" type of thing. I don't see this here, and that just bugs me with these parents. Yeah I know time heals all wounds, but if your child literally got kidnapped in the dead of night and you still don't know where she is since she was 5 months old I think it still sits with you forever.............unless you covered things up and are a sociopath.

This is one of those weird cases because the cops can't lock them up because there is no evidence they did it. But there is not a shred in the other direction either. So I think that is why they resorted to desperate things like wire tapping and such and they were so sure they did it that they got sloppy. I think sometimes police departments can be like that where they get too emotional about it and don't let things play out.

Lastly, why do you move to Maryland? Come on, I know you might want to escape the leering and such, but this just doesn't strike me as parents that want to do anything they can to find their daughter.

Just bumping this thread because I have always been intrigued with this case.

Not saying polygraphs are admissible or anything, but I believe Steve passed his and Marlene's was inconclusive, said to be because of the emotional toll that was happening at the time.

A couple things on this case since I have looked into it a bit more since I last posted. The Aisenbergs are realtors in Maryland. They post a lot of pictures of their family, and seem to have some support from friends and family. They look happy, are still married and their kids have grown up. I see the odd comment on their photos about them being murderers and such (why on earth they don't erase those I don't know) but in general it is positive.

Part of me says life goes on and you have to continue going on despite never knowing what happened to your baby. Another side of me looks at people like Nyleen Marshall's since deceased mother, and even years after Nyleen disappeared she revealed how no matter where she is she is looking for her daughter, even at a carnival or fair, and even if it looks like she is having fun. Which side is normal? Is it normal to never give up and have it dominate your surroundings or is it normal to almost accept what is likely and realize the sun still rises? Because if the Aisenbergs are innocent, then that is a hard decision to make everyday. I tend to say I'd try to go the Aisenbergs route and just enjoy the life you still have, with who you still have, even if you still have an ear to the ground about your baby.

Unless...............you killed them of course. It is either impressive that they remained married or it is a marriage of convenience where they know the truth and they are staying together for those reasons. They could be the most deceptive people ever or some of the biggest victims ever, and that's the thing, they are one of those extremes. Not sure which.

Onto the case, I think if you start with the 911 call it is one of two things. A legitimately frantic mother, or a mother who even in the 911 call is calculating things and even mentions her alibi in the 911 call ("I woke up to check on my son"). And I don't know which one it is. Those wire taps should have uncovered a lot more than they heard. And if I recall the conversations were very inconclusive and you almost had to imagine or guess what they may have been saying. Two months of wiretaps tell me that you definitely should find out the truth that way, and they didn't, at least not conclusively.

I also think that a thief is extremely lucky to have the doors left open and unlocked. It was either someone waiting for the opportunity to kidnap the baby and they waited until the Aisenberg's slipped up or it was random and just fortunate for them. Because there were no witnesses, no sightings, no dogs barking, almost 30 years and not a sign of the baby. That's never good.

On the flip side, if Marlene or whoever accidentally shook the baby and then covered it up, they did not have a lot of time to cover this up. To cover something up for 30 years without a trace of evidence is something that seems near impossible for me coming from two parents who just mere hours earlier had a million dollar family with three children and were living the dream. If Marlene did this they had to have buried Sabrina somewhere, and quick. I don't think you can do this without being sloppy. Anything from even having excess dirt on your shoes from digging a grave would come up. While people including myself think Larry Gibson is guilty I can never shake the idea that he didn't have a lot of time himself to bury Tommy's body to the point where it has never been found for 35 years. And that is the same thing here, it bothers me that you couldn't conclusively find evidence against them even circumstantial, that they did this.

I can see it being them knowing who may have taken her, which is why Sabrina has never been found. Because this is the most convenient kidnapping ever. The Dowaliby's whether someone in that house is guilty or not had the screen door cut open. Usually you see some sort of evidence of things. All that is here is an unlocked door that was open.

So that's the thing with this case. I find it equally hard to dispose of your daughter's body that easily without any evidence as much as I do someone making a clean getaway with such ease and convenience with a 5 month old baby. This is one of those coin flip cases for me. I never know.