Jean Moore..went missing from a casino..any news? - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

mikem7715 · 01-02-2007, 12:57 AM

Jean Moore UM favorite vol. 6 went missing from a casino.Her fiance was an older man who was a millionaire,he was suspected in her dissapearance.He seemed very nice,and very genuine,my gut feeling was,he wasnt involved.Any news or updates?

crystaldawn · 01-09-2007, 06:05 PM

I totally agree with you. My gut feeling is that Al Henderson was a sweet old man and had nothing to do with her disappearance. I mean what in the world would his motive had been? He had just proposed to her and therefore didn't have a big life insurance policy on her or anything. Her kids apparently didn't like him but were really grasping at straws trying to convince us of his guilt. He had said some not so nice things to her in the past (as her daughter claims) so that means he's capable of killing her? Plus not to mention he wasn't exactly a spring chicken so would he even have been physically capable of killing her and then disposing of her body which if he's guilty he would have had to do. I really can't imagine what could have happened to her though. The only thing I can possiby think of was maybe someone saw her in the casino and she had a lot of money on her and quietly forced her into their car or perhaps she suffered from something like a stroke and wandered off not remembering who she was but even that doesn't sound too likely its just the only thing that comes to mind about how she could have went missing in a casino in broad daylight.

kamy · 05-19-2010, 01:03 PM

Just watched this one for the first time. Anyone know of any updates?

I also thought that Al Henderson came off as genuine and I feel he had nothing to do with her disappearance. But I am troubled by the descrepencies (sp) in the casino video that disproves what Al told the police; he nor Jean was spotted at her favorite slot machine, but he continues to claim he played it while waiting for her and so forth. It's also interesting that the missing flyer says "possible amnesia" but we are told nothing about this in the segment. What could that be all about?

Anyone have any ideas of this case?

Gelatinous Goo · 05-19-2010, 02:08 PM

Henderson did appear to be genuine to me as well. The one thing that got to me was what Jean's son said about Al's capability of being convincing enough to put up a charming facade. Despite any bias, he did personally know Henderson. That, coupled with the lack of evidence of Jean's presence on security cameras still leaves me without the basis to express an opinion one way or the other.

brianh333 · 05-19-2010, 03:12 PM

Pretty interesting discussion, previously:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=259005

I lean a lot more to the guilty side than it seems that others do. The only thing that seems to be going 'for' him is that he "seems like such a nice old man".

The discrepancy with the surveillance video, the existence of her jewelry, the comments made by her family - I feel like if he had come off in his interview like a Jule Caylor or a Paul Pollis, we'd be naming him in the "guiltiest person in the history of UM" thread.

crystaldawn · 05-19-2010, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamy

Just watched this one for the first time. Anyone know of any updates?

I also thought that Al Henderson came off as genuine and I feel he had nothing to do with her disappearance. But I am troubled by the descrepencies (sp) in the casino video that disproves what Al told the police; he nor Jean was spotted at her favorite slot machine, but he continues to claim he played it while waiting for her and so forth. It's also interesting that the missing flyer says "possible amnesia" but we are told nothing about this in the segment. What could that be all about?

Anyone have any ideas of this case?

Well I'm probably in the minority but I've always leaned towards Al being innocent. I thought he seemed genuine like you did and I don't know of any motive and he was old so I can't envision killing her and having the strength to dispose of her body where no one would ever find it. He could have been confused about which slot machines she was on (once again his age possibly being a factor). Its tough having a plausible explanation for what happened to her no matter which side you're on. I have thought that since it was a casino she could have been abducted and forced into a car or maybe even suffered a stroke and wandered off.

Mastermind · 05-19-2010, 08:05 PM

I believe Al is guilty of murder.

He has two holes in his alibi. One hole I could overlook. But not two.

Quote:

He could have been confused about which slot machines she was on (once again his age possibly being a factor).

I wonder if he remembered other factors about during the interview. To make sure it wasn;t "selective amnesia"/

I tend to hate it when "old age" because the excuse for a bad alibi.

Guardian · 12-01-2010, 04:34 AM

This case is troubling. I agree with crystaldawn that there doesn't seem to be a motive for Al to kill her. He was already rich. They weren't married yet so spouse life insurance would not factor in. I have always wondered if its possible that the casino security made a mistake as to the area in question on the surveillance tapes. UM never showed Al confirming that the machines shown were indeed where he was referring to. There were no references in the segment to any other tapes being looked at. Although I would hope they would review them all.

I feel that Al is innocent, but there is a lot pointing against him. Very strange indeed.

cocytus · 12-01-2010, 10:08 AM

As useless as this statement is to make, I think that Al did do it.just finished watching the segment and here's why I think it:

1) Only a single person in the Laughlin area actually saw Jean with Al.Given the number of security cameras in and around the casinos in that area, there should be more visual proof that Jean was in Laughlin when Al says she was.

2) Al gave precise times for where he was and and exact details what he was allegedly doing.usually the only people that do that are guilty ones as they have to account for all of the details of their day.

3) According to the segment, Jeane Moore had no known enemies,and no reason to disappear on her own.since the last person to see her, was Al he's the most likely person to know what happened to her.

4) When you when you watch Al on the segment, you can see that he's attempting to be precise in what he's saying. However he slips near the end, when he describes his net worth as dropping, apparently trying to link that drop to Jeane Moore's disappearance.

If or when you watch that portion of the segment again, take note of his noticeable lack of affect when he makes this statement.

5) Neither the segment nor any later accounts show Al making any serious efforts ( hiring an investigator, placing ads in the newspaper, etc.) towards locating Jeane Moore. It seems that if you were truly concerned about missing loved one that you would spare no expense in trying to find them. Unless for some reason you didn't believe them to be missing or knew the reason why they were.

There are many more reasons why I believe Al is the guilty party, but the above are the primary reasons.

Apostapler · 12-01-2010, 10:10 AM

I don't think there had to be any motive. Supposing that her children's interpretation of their relationship was accurate, and he did treat her rather badly. It's not too far of a stretch to think that it may have been abusive, and one time he simply went too far. Then it was a crime of passion.

TheCars1986 · 12-01-2010, 11:11 AM

IMHO an innocent persons alibi would be checked out and that person would be cleared immediately. Henderson should have been cleared if he were seen on the cameras where he said he playing slots, but he wasn't. While there is a possibility that he was mistaken, didn't he also say he checked or played near where Jean's favorite machine was? Again the tapes do not show Henderson. I think he definitely knows more than he's letting on, and I think it's a strong possibility that he had hired someone to kill Jean.

Guardian · 12-01-2010, 03:28 PM

Unless it was a in the heat of the moment thing, I still don't think here is motive. They were not married yet. Hiring someone to kill her would be premeditated. However, they had been together for years before he proposed. I wonder if he was concerned about common law marriage being an issue if he did plan to leave her.

I have mixed feelings on this case. On one hand, the evidence just doesn't add up. On the other hand, I believe what Al is saying. If he is lying, and is smart enough to have so far gotten away with it, why say he last saw her at the casino? He strikes me as smart enough to know that every square inch of a casino is under surveillance. Why not pick a place with little or no surveillance?

I almost feel that all parties are telling the truth as they see it, but there is some missing element here that would explain the whole thing and tie all these inconsistencies together.

Al might well be guilty. If he is, he is both dumb, and one hell of a liar.

As far as him mentioning the net worth thing, I wonder what the question was that was posed to him by the interviewer. It is easy to forget how interviews for shows like UM are done when viewing them. They have an interviewer asking questions, but as the viewer we don't here those questions. The questions are worded so that theanswers are given in a way that seems the person being interviewed is just talking directly to the person watching the show. When edited for a show, these are occasionally seen out of context and can seem strange if one doesn't realize the person is answering a direct question given to them. I can't imagine Al just decided to bring up his financial status without provocation. I think that comment is seen out of context.

Does anyone know if there have been ANY developments in this case? Even if Jean is no longer with us, which seems very probable, if her body or anything else was found, it could blow the whole thing wide open.

cocytus · 12-01-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guardian

Unless it was a in the heat of the moment thing, I still don't think here is motive. They were not married yet. Hiring someone to kill her would be premeditated. However, they had been together for years before he proposed. I wonder if he was concerned about common law marriage being an issue if he did plan to leave her.

I have mixed feelings on this case. On one hand, the evidence just doesn't add up. On the other hand, I believe what Al is saying. If he is lying, and is smart enough to have so far gotten away with it, why say he last saw her at the casino? He strikes me as smart enough to know that every square inch of a casino is under surveillance. Why not pick a place with little or no surveillance?

I almost feel that all parties are telling the truth as they see it, but there is some missing element here that would explain the whole thing and tie all these inconsistencies together.

Al might well be guilty. If he is, he is both dumb, and one hell of a liar.

As far as him mentioning the net worth thing, I wonder what the question was that was posed to him by the interviewer. It is easy to forget how interviews for shows like UM are done when viewing them. They have an interviewer asking questions, but as the viewer we don't here those questions. The questions are worded so that theanswers are given in a way that seems the person being interviewed is just talking directly to the person watching the show. When edited for a show, these are occasionally seen out of context and can seem strange if one doesn't realize the person is answering a direct question given to them. I can't imagine Al just decided to bring up his financial status without provocation. I think that comment is seen out of context.

Does anyone know if there have been ANY developments in this case? Even if Jean is no longer with us, which seems very probable, if her body or anything else was found, it could blow the whole thing wide open.

I don't think that Al hired anyone to kill her. He may have lost his temper and struck her or even accidentally run over her with his car. Maybe he even panicked and made up the story that he did.

Al may have been a bad guy, but he also struck me as a tired old man.Perhaps the thought of spending his remaining years behind bars for murder was too much for him to bear and he came up with this story. not a particularly brave thing to do nor honorable one, but he was at the end of his life, and who knows what that might cause some people to do?

I am surprised they have been unable to find Jeane's body but perhaps I shouldn't be as I have first-hand knowledge about the level of competence of the Laughlin Police Department. If you have out-of-state tags, you'll get stopped. If you commit a murder, you'll probably get away with it in Laughlin.

TheCars1986 · 12-01-2010, 05:38 PM

I think Al mentioned his net worth to either show that he wouldn't have a motive to kill or harm Jean since he didn't need the money, or to show that what he initially had and how much it dropped because of his efforts to find Jean. If he truly was spending thousands of dollars trying to locate Jean then that would certainly make me lean towards him being innocent. There's obviously something missing from the UM segment. From what the children say about Al "verbally abusing" her certainly doesn't seem like a motive for murder. Maybe he had a gambling addiction and she confronted him about it and threatened to leave him and that made him snap. Who knows?

Guardian · 12-01-2010, 06:07 PM

If he had anything to do with it, it would almost have to be accidental.

As far as verbal abuse could mean anything as it is all open to interpretation. He might just be brutally honest; "does this make me look fat?" "why yes it does Jean. Maybe you should think about a diet". That could be called verbal abuse, bit is nowhere near "you are a dumb bitch". Without knowing the things he said to her I don't think that can be taken without a grain of salt.

If the local police are that incompetent, it also means that an innocent man could be easily accused of something like this. So long as his car tabs were not expired, the killer could get off Scott free.

Based on evidence presented in the segment, Al looks guilty. Based on Al's interview in the segment, he seems innocent. I would love to see his entire united interview. I think I could decide for sure then.

01-02-2007, 12:57 AM	#1
mikem7715 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Aug 30, 2005 Posts: 87	Jean Moore..went missing from a casino..any news? Jean Moore UM favorite vol. 6 went missing from a casino.Her fiance was an older man who was a millionaire,he was suspected in her dissapearance.He seemed very nice,and very genuine,my gut feeling was,he wasnt involved.Any news or updates?

05-19-2010, 03:12 PM	#5
brianh333 Member Occasional Poster Join Date: Apr 15, 2010 Posts: 98	Pretty interesting discussion, previously: http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/...d.php?t=259005 I lean a lot more to the guilty side than it seems that others do. The only thing that seems to be going 'for' him is that he "seems like such a nice old man". The discrepancy with the surveillance video, the existence of her jewelry, the comments made by her family - I feel like if he had come off in his interview like a Jule Caylor or a Paul Pollis, we'd be naming him in the "guiltiest person in the history of UM" thread.
	__________________ The above post was about unsolved mysteries. Whenever possible, the actual author (not a police official) has participated in re-creating the events. What you just got done reading was NOT a news broadcast.

12-01-2010, 04:34 AM	#8
Guardian Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 19, 2010 Location: WA Posts: 522	This case is troubling. I agree with crystaldawn that there doesn't seem to be a motive for Al to kill her. He was already rich. They weren't married yet so spouse life insurance would not factor in. I have always wondered if its possible that the casino security made a mistake as to the area in question on the surveillance tapes. UM never showed Al confirming that the machines shown were indeed where he was referring to. There were no references in the segment to any other tapes being looked at. Although I would hope they would review them all. I feel that Al is innocent, but there is a lot pointing against him. Very strange indeed.
	__________________ For every mystery there is someone, somewhere, who knows what happened. Perhaps... it's you...

01-09-2007, 06:05 PM	#2
crystaldawn Member Forum 4000 Club Member Join Date: Dec 17, 2002 Location: Illinois Posts: 4,261	I totally agree with you. My gut feeling is that Al Henderson was a sweet old man and had nothing to do with her disappearance. I mean what in the world would his motive had been? He had just proposed to her and therefore didn't have a big life insurance policy on her or anything. Her kids apparently didn't like him but were really grasping at straws trying to convince us of his guilt. He had said some not so nice things to her in the past (as her daughter claims) so that means he's capable of killing her? Plus not to mention he wasn't exactly a spring chicken so would he even have been physically capable of killing her and then disposing of her body which if he's guilty he would have had to do. I really can't imagine what could have happened to her though. The only thing I can possiby think of was maybe someone saw her in the casino and she had a lot of money on her and quietly forced her into their car or perhaps she suffered from something like a stroke and wandered off not remembering who she was but even that doesn't sound too likely its just the only thing that comes to mind about how she could have went missing in a casino in broad daylight.

05-19-2010, 01:03 PM	#3
kamy UM Fanatic Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 25, 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 625	Just watched this one for the first time. Anyone know of any updates? I also thought that Al Henderson came off as genuine and I feel he had nothing to do with her disappearance. But I am troubled by the descrepencies (sp) in the casino video that disproves what Al told the police; he nor Jean was spotted at her favorite slot machine, but he continues to claim he played it while waiting for her and so forth. It's also interesting that the missing flyer says "possible amnesia" but we are told nothing about this in the segment. What could that be all about? Anyone have any ideas of this case?

05-19-2010, 02:08 PM	#4
Gelatinous Goo Member Forum Regular Join Date: Apr 14, 2010 Posts: 575	Henderson did appear to be genuine to me as well. The one thing that got to me was what Jean's son said about Al's capability of being convincing enough to put up a charming facade. Despite any bias, he did personally know Henderson. That, coupled with the lack of evidence of Jean's presence on security cameras still leaves me without the basis to express an opinion one way or the other.

12-01-2010, 10:08 AM	#9
cocytus Member Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 15, 2010 Location: NE Indiana Posts: 781	As useless as this statement is to make, I think that Al did do it.just finished watching the segment and here's why I think it: 1) Only a single person in the Laughlin area actually saw Jean with Al.Given the number of security cameras in and around the casinos in that area, there should be more visual proof that Jean was in Laughlin when Al says she was. 2) Al gave precise times for where he was and and exact details what he was allegedly doing.usually the only people that do that are guilty ones as they have to account for all of the details of their day. 3) According to the segment, Jeane Moore had no known enemies,and no reason to disappear on her own.since the last person to see her, was Al he's the most likely person to know what happened to her. 4) When you when you watch Al on the segment, you can see that he's attempting to be precise in what he's saying. However he slips near the end, when he describes his net worth as dropping, apparently trying to link that drop to Jeane Moore's disappearance. If or when you watch that portion of the segment again, take note of his noticeable lack of affect when he makes this statement. 5) Neither the segment nor any later accounts show Al making any serious efforts ( hiring an investigator, placing ads in the newspaper, etc.) towards locating Jeane Moore. It seems that if you were truly concerned about missing loved one that you would spare no expense in trying to find them. Unless for some reason you didn't believe them to be missing or knew the reason why they were. There are many more reasons why I believe Al is the guilty party, but the above are the primary reasons.

12-01-2010, 10:10 AM	#10
Apostapler Member Forum Regular Join Date: Mar 06, 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 872	I don't think there had to be any motive. Supposing that her children's interpretation of their relationship was accurate, and he did treat her rather badly. It's not too far of a stretch to think that it may have been abusive, and one time he simply went too far. Then it was a crime of passion.

12-01-2010, 11:11 AM	#11
TheCars1986 #VLSKMS Forum Fanatic Join Date: Nov 22, 2008 Location: Maryland Posts: 8,625	IMHO an innocent persons alibi would be checked out and that person would be cleared immediately. Henderson should have been cleared if he were seen on the cameras where he said he playing slots, but he wasn't. While there is a possibility that he was mistaken, didn't he also say he checked or played near where Jean's favorite machine was? Again the tapes do not show Henderson. I think he definitely knows more than he's letting on, and I think it's a strong possibility that he had hired someone to kill Jean.

12-01-2010, 03:28 PM	#12
Guardian Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 19, 2010 Location: WA Posts: 522	Unless it was a in the heat of the moment thing, I still don't think here is motive. They were not married yet. Hiring someone to kill her would be premeditated. However, they had been together for years before he proposed. I wonder if he was concerned about common law marriage being an issue if he did plan to leave her. I have mixed feelings on this case. On one hand, the evidence just doesn't add up. On the other hand, I believe what Al is saying. If he is lying, and is smart enough to have so far gotten away with it, why say he last saw her at the casino? He strikes me as smart enough to know that every square inch of a casino is under surveillance. Why not pick a place with little or no surveillance? I almost feel that all parties are telling the truth as they see it, but there is some missing element here that would explain the whole thing and tie all these inconsistencies together. Al might well be guilty. If he is, he is both dumb, and one hell of a liar. As far as him mentioning the net worth thing, I wonder what the question was that was posed to him by the interviewer. It is easy to forget how interviews for shows like UM are done when viewing them. They have an interviewer asking questions, but as the viewer we don't here those questions. The questions are worded so that theanswers are given in a way that seems the person being interviewed is just talking directly to the person watching the show. When edited for a show, these are occasionally seen out of context and can seem strange if one doesn't realize the person is answering a direct question given to them. I can't imagine Al just decided to bring up his financial status without provocation. I think that comment is seen out of context. Does anyone know if there have been ANY developments in this case? Even if Jean is no longer with us, which seems very probable, if her body or anything else was found, it could blow the whole thing wide open.

12-01-2010, 05:38 PM	#14
TheCars1986 #VLSKMS Forum Fanatic Join Date: Nov 22, 2008 Location: Maryland Posts: 8,625	I think Al mentioned his net worth to either show that he wouldn't have a motive to kill or harm Jean since he didn't need the money, or to show that what he initially had and how much it dropped because of his efforts to find Jean. If he truly was spending thousands of dollars trying to locate Jean then that would certainly make me lean towards him being innocent. There's obviously something missing from the UM segment. From what the children say about Al "verbally abusing" her certainly doesn't seem like a motive for murder. Maybe he had a gambling addiction and she confronted him about it and threatened to leave him and that made him snap. Who knows?

12-01-2010, 06:07 PM	#15
Guardian Member Forum Regular Join Date: May 19, 2010 Location: WA Posts: 522	If he had anything to do with it, it would almost have to be accidental. As far as verbal abuse could mean anything as it is all open to interpretation. He might just be brutally honest; "does this make me look fat?" "why yes it does Jean. Maybe you should think about a diet". That could be called verbal abuse, bit is nowhere near "you are a dumb bitch". Without knowing the things he said to her I don't think that can be taken without a grain of salt. If the local police are that incompetent, it also means that an innocent man could be easily accused of something like this. So long as his car tabs were not expired, the killer could get off Scott free. Based on evidence presented in the segment, Al looks guilty. Based on Al's interview in the segment, he seems innocent. I would love to see his entire united interview. I think I could decide for sure then.