Just rewatched this and I have come up with a completely different spin on the case..

Is it possible that Jean was an unlikable person with a checkered history, and that is why the police are somewhat laissez-faire on the matter? Think about it...

1) She and Al were together a long time and she finally said it was "decided it was okay to marry him." Sounds like he may have been in love with her moreso than she was with him, and she finally caved into a "I'll marry you, but only if you cater to my every whim" deal.

2) Jean's kids obviously weren't crazy about Al in the least, but failed to give much of a reason why not. It's not hard to imagine the kids constantly getting just her side of the story if she was the type of person who badmouthed him constantly. Her kids didn't seem to be the nicest of people anyway, IMO.

3) A lot of people have Al pegged as a phony and a liar, but let's just take him at face value for a minute. He gives off vibes of a broken, defeated man. Could his wistful demeanor signify a nostalgia for a past love who never quite loved him back? It's just my opinion, but Al seems to refer to Jean in a longing, regretful manner, in sharp contrast to the cold, defensive attitudes of obviously guilty spouses such as Steve Page.

It's possible Jean could have had a bad reputation in Laughlin. The two evidently were no strangers to the gambling world, and apparently dealt in large sums of money. It isn't hard to make enemies living that kind of lifestyle, especially if she/they made a habit of illicit activities. So taking that viewpoint, is it possible that there could have been one or several people that wanted Jean gone, and that is the explanation for her disappearance?

If that is the case, a lot of things would make more sense. It wouldn't be unheard of for the cops to not exactly focus a lot of effort on the case if she was a known criminal who'd been through the system. UM, as we all know, is known to withhold a lot of background facts in favor of pet theories. The segment was obviously written to make Al look responsible for the disappearance, but the presentation hardly had a forthcoming feel to it. I might be totally off base in my theory, but I would like to know a lot more about the Al and Jean story and what kind of person she was.

There's really not enough solid evidence to lean strongly one way or the other, and while I do not know enough about either of them to have a solid theory of my own, I tend to agree with you about the possibility of Al Henderson not being the guilty party here. To me, he just never came across as such, nor did he seem arrogant and cocky in any way. I also agree that Jean's kids seemed to be jumping to a lot of conclusions without having a lot of in-your-face facts to back them up. As far as Jean not being the goody-goody that she's made out to be in the segment, it's really hard to say one way or another without knowing any more about her than we already do.

Just rewatched this and I have come up with a completely different spin on the case..

Is it possible that Jean was an unlikable person with a checkered history, and that is why the police are somewhat laissez-faire on the matter? Think about it...

Possible, but not highly likely. Even if she was, that doesn't excuse what happened to her. She was killed, Al did it and he deserved to pay for it.

1) She and Al were together a long time and she finally said it was "decided it was okay to marry him." Sounds like he may have been in love with her moreso than she was with him, and she finally caved into a "I'll marry you, but only if you cater to my every whim" deal.

Impossible to say. All we have is Al's version of events, and he's hardly the most reliable source. Maybe it was Al who resisted, or they both did, or they had an on-again/off-again romance.

2) Jean's kids obviously weren't crazy about Al in the least, but failed to give much of a reason why not. It's not hard to imagine the kids constantly getting just her side of the story if she was the type of person who badmouthed him constantly. Her kids didn't seem to be the nicest of people anyway, IMO.

We didn't get much of their interviews. There could have been a lot on the editing room floor.

3) A lot of people have Al pegged as a phony and a liar, but let's just take him at face value for a minute. He gives off vibes of a broken, defeated man. Could his wistful demeanor signify a nostalgia for a past love who never quite loved him back? It's just my opinion, but Al seems to refer to Jean in a longing, regretful manner, in sharp contrast to the cold, defensive attitudes of obviously guilty spouses such as Steve Page.

Sorry, but I'm going to need more than perceptions to believe he is innocent. I think he tried to talk a good game, but when you look at the actual facts of the case, there's a lot he can't answer or account for.

It's possible Jean could have had a bad reputation in Laughlin. The two evidently were no strangers to the gambling world, and apparently dealt in large sums of money. It isn't hard to make enemies living that kind of lifestyle, especially if she/they made a habit of illicit activities. So taking that viewpoint, is it possible that there could have been one or several people that wanted Jean gone, and that is the explanation for her disappearance?

With all due respect, I think that's grasping at straws. This is Nevada we're talking about here, where gambling is very common. I can't really see two older folks incurring the wrath of bad guys over an activity practically everyone in the state does. It would also have to be a remarkable chance encounter (in broad daylight) as they had no idea Jean would be at that casino at that time. That's even if Al can be believed, which again, he cannot.

As for her personal demeanor, I have no idea what she was like, but the segment did say she was "honorary mayor" or something of a city, so I think her reputation was at least decent enough.

If Jean was accosted by some unknown party in the casino, either someone would have noticed it or it would have been picked up by the cameras. For it to go totally undetected seems nearly impossible. And then you throw in the issue that what was on the tapes was completely different from what Al said happened.

If that is the case, a lot of things would make more sense. It wouldn't be unheard of for the cops to not exactly focus a lot of effort on the case if she was a known criminal who'd been through the system. UM, as we all know, is known to withhold a lot of background facts in favor of pet theories. The segment was obviously written to make Al look responsible for the disappearance, but the presentation hardly had a forthcoming feel to it. I might be totally off base in my theory, but I would like to know a lot more about the Al and Jean story and what kind of person she was.

Going by the facts, Al did not have a decent explanation as to why the video cameras totally contradicted what he told police. He said she went in there to play slots, he eventually followed suit and he played a specific machine. NONE of that is corroborated by the tapes. And the tapes don't lie. And that was just the tip of the iceberg with him, there were numerous things he couldn't explain.

Heck, he kind of reminds me of another man in Nevada...Perhaps someone knows who I am thinking of. :)

Al Henderson told investigators he was in a specific location in the casino for half an hour and a videotape recording refuted it. He had no explanation for that other than the investigators were "evidently looking at the tape of the wrong machine", yet LE asserts that the machine on the tape recording was indeed the one Henderson identified as Jean's favorite to the casino security staff.

Even if one can chalk this up to a miscommunication or misunderstanding, one must confront the fact that Jean was not found on any of the recordings covering the locations Al claimed they were together in the casino on that morning. Further still, he gave two different versions of events concerning dropping Jean off and handing her the valet ticket--one to the police, the other to the UM interviewer.

We may speculate on reputations, demeanors, or marital discord, but the fact remains that Mr. Henderson gave the police a version of events that could have been corroborated by multiple video recordings, but was instead solidly refuted. I don't know for certain if Al Henderson was involved in his wife's disappearance, but I do know that his story didn't match up to what was on those tapes. The simplest explanation would appear to be that he did not tell the truth about what happened that morning.

We needed another true crime program to take a look at this case, and within the relevant window with Al Henderson alive and talking. Didn't happen. So now we're left with 12 minutes or so from decades ago. Not enough. That's so glaring when comparing Unsolved Mysteries with current programs that devote an hour. You need that full hour and often that is not enough. Sometimes a second or third depiction of the same program provides details the other overlooked or deemed insignificant. These threads assume we know everything regarding the case when it's not close to being accurate.

Casino surveillance is comically overstated. I've made that point countless times previously. It doesn't matter how often anybody says it because the public is comfortably brainwashed and led along. Overhead cameras should have aided the Bill Brennan case. They didn't. Same with Anthony Carleo and countless others. In this case, if that Laughlin camera surveillance were adequate and sophisticated we wouldn't be guessing regarding this case. They would have Al Henderson all over the place, with or without Jean. Other crimes have been easily pieced together using that method. It didn't happen here because casinos aren't set up that way, to this day and particularly in Laughlin during the time frame. I used to travel the 90 miles from Las Vegas during the '80s and '90s because Laughlin was known to be so primitive compared to Las Vegas. The sportsbook odds were out of date and flawed. Old bonus machines that were passe in Las Vegas still existed in Laughlin. This continued well into the new millennium. So it's kind of comical to read guesswork from afar attributing wonderful sophistication to tiny Laughlin and its camerawork.

That said, I don't think of Laughlin as a place where somebody gets a reputation. The casinos are isolated more than any gaming area I've experienced. Not far apart but virtually no foot traffic, unlike the Las Vegas Strip where walking from one joint to another is part of the attraction. People in Laughlin tend to find a favorite spot and stay there, whether it's the Edgewater or Riverside or whatever. It's a small section of casinos extending maybe a mile and a half alongside the Colorado River. There are a few casinos on the other side of the street and then the mountains intervene immediately. The city itself and all the normal activity is across the river in another state -- Bullhead City, Arizona, which has also been the site of Unsolved Mysteries cases. If Jean Moore had a so-called reputation it likely would have been within that one casino, which makes it not only more unlikely but also that it wouldn't have been detected, by the lowlifes targeting her and making themselves obvious. People who get thrown out of fancy Las Vegas casinos are known to find refuge in Laughlin, where the standards are less rigid.

I don't know what happened. It's seemingly a great area to dispose of a body, as I've mentioned multiple times previously. That drive from Las Vegas to Laughlin is occupied by wild rabbits and Harry Reid's home town of Searchlight but not much else. One time I fell asleep and was fortunate that speed bumps woke me up just in time as a formidable truck approached from the other direction. I still think about that sometimes. It may not be a true crime escape. It was my near miss.

Is it possible Jean could have run off with somebody? This would make a lot of sense also. Perhaps there were clues that UM left out. Something just seems to be off in this case. I just can't picture Al as a murderer. Unless it was an accident somehow.