For those of you who are interested, the Sabrina Aisenberg case (the 5 month old baby who was taken from her crib but some suspect the parents had something to do with it) will be featured on 48 Hours Saturday night. It said it is a new episode which makes me wonder if there are any new developments since she's been missing since 1997.

Hi Everyone! My name is Melanie and I'm new. I found this board and thought I'd join since I've been a big UM fan for years now!

Anyway, about Sabrina Aisenberg. A couple of years ago they found a little girl in Illinois they thought could be Sabrina. Apparently she had been adopted around 5 months old (same age as Sabrina when she disappeared). They did DNA testing on the girl but it wasn't a match. Unfortunately I don't believe there has been anymore big developments since.

What are everyone's thoughts on this case? Do you think the parents really did something to Sabrina like what the prosecutor thinks? What about those so called confession tapes? I think Sabrina's parents are hiding something. I dunno if they did do something to her. But I have a gut feeling that they are hiding something.

My opinion even before this 48 Hours episode was that I couldn't see any indication that these people could have done such a thing to their daughter. And even after 7 years, the mother's grief still seems just barely contained. She's either a helluvan actress or she honestly had nothing to do with it. The fact that her housekeeping was lousy was held against her by childrens' services when they came to the house after Sabrina disappeared?! Then OMG I should be arrested for neglect LOL! The dad is and always had been less emotional--but I just put that down to him being a man, trying to be strong for the rest of his family.

I recall hearing (I think both on UM and other shows) that the tapes secretly recorded of the Aisenbergs were unintelligible, but the 48 Hours piece actually plays them while showing a copy of the transcripts, and I can't understand how the transcribers made what they did out of the sounds on those tapes. It is often hard to tell what is background noise and what are the voices. This piece advances the theory--which I had never heard before and had never thought of--that the voices on the tapes talking about cocaine use and all that are actually coming from a TV program!

I just don't know what to make of this case. It baffles me just like the JonBenet Ramsey case.

If the parents did in fact kill Sabrina, I would suspect that it was unintentional in the moment of frustration (ie Shaken Baby Syndrome). But if the parents were involved I would think the police would have already found some solid physical evidence proving guilt. The parents wouldn't have had time to cover up a murder that would remain unsolved years later.

But on the flip side the statistics show that randomly kidnapping an infant isn't common at all. Sex offenders usually target older children. The only thing I could picture is that somebody stalked the family and knew of the child and wanted to take her and possibly sell her to make money. Seems far fetched but this case is very perplexing and wierd!

I have never forgotten the Sabrina case. She was (is) such a gorgeous baby. It was another case where I couldnt make up my mind about hte parents guilt however it is odd that the dad bought a brand new car a day or 2 after her disappearance. And I believe there was a barking dog issue..they had a dog who failed to bark throughout the kidnapping , etc. Id much rather believe she was sold to a loving couple than murdered.

All I hope for is that she is alive and well. :)

Has anyone heard anything recently about this case? Is John Mark Karr going to confess to this one, too? On the fishiness scale, I would rate the Aisenbergs as being more fishy than the Ramseys, but not as fishy as Susan Smith, who I knew was lying from the very beginning.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say the father got mad at Sabrina, shook her, and she died. Then he got the wife to help with the cover up. My gut just tells me that he's involved, although that certainly wouldn't hold water in a court of law!

I saw this case on 48 hours tonight. It referenced the "recent" development of the girl in Illinois that was tested due to her resemblance. Since that happened in 2003 I'm sure what I watched was a repeat. Just based on stories I had followed at the time about the case, I too felt the parents were suspicious - diminished emotion during broadcast filming in the hours after she was taken...The tapes that showed they made incriminating remarks., etc. After watching the show, I'm 100% on their side and do not believe they had any thing to do with it. When the tapes were played you could not understand any words at all. And in some cases, phrases were tied back to tv programs playing in the rooms where the bugs were. I didn't see any credible evidence or indication that they were involved.

One theory had that the mother shook her to death while on drugs and a friend with a boat disposed of the body by chopping it into fish bait. :(

Another spoke of someone who lived nearby hearing a baby crying out where there were no houses--as if being carried through woods--and someone spotted a baby resembling Sabrina with a woman at the airport. The baby was crying and pushing the woman away as if it didn't know her. This was like, the night of and morning after her disappearance.

they just recently reshowed this story on UM. Its been a really long time and from a brief search there does not seem to be any new developments. Anyone heard anything new regarding anything to do with this case?

I just don't know what to make of this case. It baffles me just like the JonBenet Ramsey case.

If the parents did in fact kill Sabrina, I would suspect that it was unintentional in the moment of frustration (ie Shaken Baby Syndrome). But if the parents were involved I would think the police would have already found some solid physical evidence proving guilt. The parents wouldn't have had time to cover up a murder that would remain unsolved years later.

But on the flip side the statistics show that randomly kidnapping an infant isn't common at all. Sex offenders usually target older children. The only thing I could picture is that somebody stalked the family and knew of the child and wanted to take her and possibly sell her to make money. Seems far fetched but this case is very perplexing and wierd!

So here is the thing, how can you prove a baby was shaken - even accidentally - and then disposed of if there is no body? There wouldn't be physical evidence of this. There would be no blood. If Sabrina was limp and dead and buried then someone did a good job of doing this as it has been 26 years without her being found. If it happened late in the evening, while it isn't a ton of time, it is still enough time to concoct a good story and dump the body to cover for yourself. That's plenty of hours until 6:30am or so. Marlene says she checked on her at midnight, according to..............Marlene. What could have been happening at that time was them in the middle of their plan.

I do not think they sold her, although parents do this, I don't think they hated her as they had two other kids, I just think it was an accidental death and they covered for each other so no one took the fall. They don't look like grieving parents to me. They also moved a couple of years later, I don't like that.

This case bugs me because you can't prove it. And if it bugged me I know it bugged the cops. No way is an abductor going to have that good fortune of an open door. No forced entry, nothing. No baby crying?

The Aisenbergs are still together to this day. I honestly don't know how the cops didn't get them, but again like I said there was never any evidence that they did anything in the first place. The problem I just have with this case - like the Dowaliby's case to a lesser extent - is that there is never any evidence that something OTHER than them was responsible.