Consagra innocent from day one?

[justins5256]

"now, nine years later, he says he is innocent"

Does this phrase narrated by Karl Malden imply that Consagra's claim of innocence is only a recent claim? Or, are we to believe that Glenn has been fighting for freedom since his conviction?

Am I reading into the phrasing too much?

[DarkDante]

Well they did say prior to the UM segment airing that Glenn had made a number of appeals and lost them all correct?

So he had to be at this for quite awhile before UM came along.

I watched this again last night and they say your first instinct is your best and I just can't see Glenn Consagra as a criminal mastermind, one who would invite his two friends to an isolated location on the pretext of a party only to have them set up to be murdered either by himself or by an accomplice.

[justins5256]

Along those lines, I wonder how UM found out about Consagra's case.

I've raised the issue before, and as much as I love the old specials and UM in general, I have to say that the "quality" of some of the early cases isn't up to par with later stories that UM did. It seems, at least to me, that the producers became a lot more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast.

Some examples of "poor" (IE. unsolvable and/or probably solved already "officially") type stories - Don Kemp, Frances Mealbach, Kyra Cook, Aileen Conway, Grand Canyon disappearances, Kurt McFall, Beale's Lost Treasure, and dare I say....Glenn Consagra. Contrast Consagra's final appeal to others like Patricia Stallings, Johnny Lee Wilson, John Purvis. It's hardly a slam dunk, and seems a lot like a "filler" story to me.

Here is a guy who says he's innocent despite a guilty plea and "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence and he gets a chance to appear on a then ad hoc "mystery" special to proclaim his innocense. Why not give him the airtime?

Yeah, I realize how highly subjective this all is. But someone has to play devil's advocate.

[DarkDante]

I dunno Justin, I'll agree with you for the most part on some of the cases you mentioned with the obvious exception of Aileen Conway. I admit it might be one of the tougher cases to solve but if in fact she was the victim of a robbery (and it was noted there had been several in the area at the time of her death) - its possible that someone could've come forward and identified who these people were.

As for Glenn Consagra and Kyra Cook, you have to remember that these were the first cases that profiled an appelant and an amnesia victim respectively. It was UM dipping a cautious toe in those waters to see if those cases would generate an audience and in the case of the "Final Appeals" segments, I dare say it became one of the most popular segments of the entire series.

I also question UM's becoming "more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast" especially as the series wore on. In my experience one thing that hurts the show in a lot of people's mind is "The Unexplained" segments. While these might have been interesting to watch at the time (and some are quite entertaining or baffling) I cannot tell you the many times when I've brought the show up in conversation and the other party has said something like "Oh thats the show that was always talking about aliens" and this is usually not said in a complimentary tone.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by DarkDante

I dunno Justin, I'll agree with you for the most part on some of the cases you mentioned with the obvious exception of Aileen Conway. I admit it might be one of the tougher cases to solve but if in fact she was the victim of a robbery (and it was noted there had been several in the area at the time of her death) - its possible that someone could've come forward and identified who these people were.

While I agree that there probably was something more sinister afoot in the Aileen Conway case, I suppose I lumped it in there because, if we follow the official version, it was a traffic accident, pure and simple. I suppose it is worth mentioning that the cause of Aileen's death was eventually changed to "unexplained", but were/are leads being pursued, or was it a cold case, even back then?

Originally Posted by DarkDante

As for Glenn Consagra and Kyra Cook, you have to remember that these were the first cases that profiled an appelant and an amnesia victim respectively. It was UM dipping a cautious toe in those waters to see if those cases would generate an audience and in the case of the "Final Appeals" segments, I dare say it became one of the most popular segments of the entire series.

I won't argue with you about the interest in "Final Appeal". I mean, it spawned it's own show for awhile. I understand what you're saying, but the Kyra Cook case still seemed a little unnecessary to me. Had it aired **before** we knew her identity, it would have been very much inline with "Tyler", "Pierre", etc. However, we knew who she was. How she lost her memory was a mystery, but one that I can't see being solved any time soon. This is especially true if she had been hit by a motor vehicle or bashed over the head by a mugger and there were no other witnesses. It just seemed like a filler segment with little hope of a resolution.

Originally Posted by DarkDante

I also question UM's becoming "more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast" especially as the series wore on. In my experience one thing that hurts the show in a lot of people's mind is "The Unexplained" segments. While these might have been interesting to watch at the time (and some are quite entertaining or baffling) I cannot tell you the many times when I've brought the show up in conversation and the other party has said something like "Oh thats the show that was always talking about aliens" and this is usually not said in a complimentary tone.

True, but I wonder if they wanted to go the paranormal route originally. Notice how there were no "paranormal" reports during the specials. I often wonder if they needed the paranormal angle to differentiate themselves from America's Most Wanted. I am also reminded of the Jacob Wetterling abduction which UM's producer's allegedly turned down because they felt there was no chance of solving it - an accurate example of the type of "conservatism" and bias towards stories that I was referring to.

I think it's a crying shame that the paranormal aspects of the show seemed to overshadow the rest of the segments and almost tarnish the show's reputation in the public eye. Your story reminded me of a discussion I had with a representative from Court TV a few years back. I used to work for a criminal defense attorney who was handling a somewhat high profile murder case here in Palm Beach County. (You want to discuss cases that should be on TV if UM was resurrected - this case would have been perfect for it. We had two guys who were facing triple murder charges involving an armed robbery at a restaurant and each defendant accused the other of being the trigger man. My boss said his client was the innocent party, but I don't know). Anyhow, Court TV was interested in covering the case, and had some talk about it with our office. On one occasion, I asked the the Court TV rep if the network would ever consider purchasing the rights to UM (a lame question, but what the Hell?). His response was "isn't that the show about aliens?" Truly sad.

As to the original topic of Consagra - I was convinced the first time I saw this segment that he was innocent. But, the more that I think about, and the more times I watch it, the more doubts creep in.

If I may ask you a personal question, DD, what do you think makes Consagra's case so compelling? I'm assuming you too are haunted by this case just as I am, as you have posted your comments and opinions about it on numerous occasions. Why is this one just so hard to forget? I'll post my opinion on that later, as I feel I have typed enough for one evening.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Originally Posted by justins5256

"now, nine years later, he says he is innocent"

Does this phrase narrated by Karl Malden imply that Consagra's claim of innocence is only a recent claim? Or, are we to believe that Glenn has been fighting for freedom since his conviction?

Am I reading into the phrasing too much?

You are probably reading into it a bit but it's sure worth noting. He did plead guilty so maybe that's why it's phrased how it is?

Originally Posted by DarkDante

I just can't see Glenn Consagra as a criminal mastermind, one who would invite his two friends to an isolated location on the pretext of a party only to have them set up to be murdered either by himself or by an accomplice.

Why do you think that? I don't see how or why one or more unknown persons would stumble upon a random spoilbank in the middle of the night, bring guns with them and kill two people just for the heck of it.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by justins5256

Along those lines, I wonder how UM found out about Consagra's case.

I've raised the issue before, and as much as I love the old specials and UM in general, I have to say that the "quality" of some of the early cases isn't up to par with later stories that UM did. It seems, at least to me, that the producers became a lot more conservative about the types of cases they would accept for presentation and broadcast.

Some examples of "poor" (IE. unsolvable and/or probably solved already "officially") type stories - Don Kemp, Frances Mealbach, Kyra Cook, Aileen Conway, Grand Canyon disappearances, Kurt McFall, Beale's Lost Treasure, and dare I say....Glenn Consagra. Contrast Consagra's final appeal to others like Patricia Stallings, Johnny Lee Wilson, John Purvis. It's hardly a slam dunk, and seems a lot like a "filler" story to me.

Here is a guy who says he's innocent despite a guilty plea and "overwhelming" circumstantial evidence and he gets a chance to appear on a then ad hoc "mystery" special to proclaim his innocense. Why not give him the airtime?

Yeah, I realize how highly subjective this all is. But someone has to play devil's advocate.

sorry, but I disagree. While I certainly enjoy some cases more than others, I think all of them are intriguing to a certain extent. Cases like Kyra Cook and others contribute to the shows variety. By having a wide array of topics, it just goes to show how much of the world is unexplained.

For me, Kurt McFall ranks among my favorite segments. It was classic Unsolved, because there was numerous things that supported each side (suicide and murder). That's what I really love about UM, it was a thinking show. Kind of like Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents. You couldn't just watch Unsolved Mysteries, you had to watch it and then think about it. Perhaps that's why Unsolved didn't get as much due as it should have. A lot of people just like to be entertained when they watch television, but with Unsolved, you had to watch and think.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Space Invaderz

Why do you think that? I don't see how or why one or more unknown persons would stumble upon a random spoilbank in the middle of the night, bring guns with them and kill two people just for the heck of it.

I can't speak for Dante, but I think the popular theory that some of us believe is that Consagra and his drug dealing friend "Ted" conspired to kill Freddie because Freddie was a police informant. Consagra lured Freddie and Mary Lou to the secluded spoilbank knowing that Ted and company would show up later.

I don't know where this spoilbank is, but I wonder what the chances were of Ted and company finding it that night if they didn't have some idea ahead of time that this particular spoilbank was the specific location where Consagra and his friends would be. You also have to keep in mind that the trio's original destination that night was Honeymoon Island. They ended up on the spoilbank because of mechanical trouble.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

sorry, but I disagree. While I certainly enjoy some cases more than others, I think all of them are intriguing to a certain extent. Cases like Kyra Cook and others contribute to the shows variety. By having a wide array of topics, it just goes to show how much of the world is unexplained.

For me, Kurt McFall ranks among my favorite segments. It was classic Unsolved, because there was numerous things that supported each side (suicide and murder). That's what I really love about UM, it was a thinking show. Kind of like Twilight Zone and Alfred Hitchcock Presents. You couldn't just watch Unsolved Mysteries, you had to watch it and then think about it. Perhaps that's why Unsolved didn't get as much due as it should have. A lot of people just like to be entertained when they watch television, but with Unsolved, you had to watch and think.

No offense taken. As I said, it's subjective. But yes, the show does make you think, and I believe that is why most of us are here and still remember and have an interest in the cases.

[SP4CE INV4DERZ]

Originally Posted by justins5256

I can't speak for Dante, but I think the popular theory that some of us believe is that Consagra and his drug dealing friend "Ted" conspired to kill Freddie because Freddie was a police informant. Consagra lured Freddie and Mary Lou to the secluded spoilbank knowing that Ted and company would show up later.

I don't know where this spoilbank is, but I wonder what the chances were of Ted and company finding it that night if they didn't have some idea ahead of time that this particular spoilbank was the specific location where Consagra and his friends would be. You also have to keep in mind that the trio's original destination that night was Honeymoon Island. They ended up on the spoilbank because of mechanical trouble.

Exactly!
The original destination was Honeymoon Island if you believe Consagra. I personally believe he had the whole thing planned out. He also says Freddie and Mary Lou were drunk/drinking alot so it might not have been that difficult for Consagra to make them believe the boat had 'mechanical trouble'.

Also, if I read correctly, you guys think this is a poor Final Appeal case when compared to those other ones mentioned? Odd, because I find this one to be one of the best ones.

[crystaldawn]

Well no doubt the PSS were a test of different types of cases to see if there was an interest in seeing them. Lets see on them you have bank robbery, lost heirs (Marsh & Mealbach would both qualify in that one), missing persons, unexplained death, amnesia, murder, conwomen, bigamist and a few others. Apparently they thought the mixture was good because UM went on to profile a lot of segments related to all of the above topics. I still think the Kyra Cook segment wasn't worth profiling because it was never proven that she was assaulted and she was reunited with her family.

As for Consagra I'm still not sure what I think. I think the more I watch the segment the more I think he could be guilty. The main reason is where the two were shot...an isolated spoilbank. That makes me wonder if Consagra lured them there. I wish UM would have mentioned if the three had a history of going to that particular location to "party". I also think its possible that if Consagra did commit the murders, he didn't act alone.

[DarkDante]

As far as Consagra goes basically everything CD has said goes for me too - there is a lot of evidence against Consagra but there are still some issues regarding his guilt that concern me, I think the most likely scenerio may be that Consagra was not the triggerman but possibly was some sort of accomplice who in the end his buddies had take the fall for them. Its just a gut reaction to the segment and nothing more.

As for why I like this case? - Well I'm a huge fan of the "Final Appeals" segments to begin with and the Consagra case is so complexing for me as well as some other people around here as we all keep going back and forth on his guilt. That makes for some compelling television in my mind. I wish we could find out just why Consagra was given parole in the early 90s, I know he did plead down to lesser charges but even those charges were pretty severe charges carrying stiff penalties. If Consagra hadn't died and we knew nothing of his parole I would think most here would assume that he was still in jail.

Regarding Francis Mealbach: I've always viewed this case as a strange hybrid between a lost heirs and a lost loves case myself, Crystaldawn.

Regarding Kyra Cook: Well I have to come out in defense of UM here, again it was their first time out at bat with this type of story and at the time maybe they were just looking for anything different to profile besides a straight "true crime" story.

Also in retrospect while the Kyra Cook segment is not as strong as some of the other segments on the show, the end line always gets to me where Kyra says something like "When I hear friends talking about memories, I'm envious of them - I look forward to the day when I can look back on 20 years and think about all those things"

I can't help but thinking its been over 20 years now (1986-2007) and wonder exactly what Kyra Cook is up to or has done with her life. So yeah I think its a worthy addition.

[wiseguy182]

I agree with others in that the first time I saw this case I thought Consagra was innocent, but a subsequent viewing pulled me into 50/50 status. I do admit the evidence is definitely not stacked in Glenn's favor.

I think what UM was shooting for in the Kyra Cook segment was not so much a mystery as to who she was, but rather a mystery of how the body and mind works.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by Space Invaderz

Exactly!
The original destination was Honeymoon Island if you believe Consagra. I personally believe he had the whole thing planned out. He also says Freddie and Mary Lou were drunk/drinking alot so it might not have been that difficult for Consagra to make them believe the boat had 'mechanical trouble'.

Some things really do not wash with this case:

If Consagra was the sole killer, why would he bring two guns?

If Consagra was the sole killer, how did he drag Freddie and Mary Lou's corpses AND the boat engine into the water by himself? All totaled, the combined weight was in excess of three hundred pounds.

If Consagra was the sole killer, why did he sink his own boat and leave himself stranded on the spoilbank?

If Consagra was truly innocent, why didn't he tell the police from day one that Ted was the killer? He gave two different conflicting accounts of what happened on the spoilbank. Neither version specifically implicated anyone, BUT if Glenn was laying a few feet away and out of sight from where the carnage was ensuing, certainly he would have recognized Ted's voice and been able to tell the police that Ted was on the spoilbank. He NEVER implicated Ted.

Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is that Consagra and Ted were conspiring together. Consagra couldn't tell the truth because in doing so he would implicate himself. Ted was in the same boat, but had an advantage over Glenn - the cops never placed Ted on the spoilbank. In fact, no one did until Donna came forward.

Instead, Ted ended up implicating Glenn. Glenn takes the fall for the entire thing and is bitter because his partner in crime double crossed him and got away.

I suppose I like this case because it was one of the first "Final Appeals". It also occurred in my home state. I also like the fact that it was on the last special that Karl Malden hosted before Stack took over. The presentation was excellent in my opinion. Did anyone watch the ending credits on special 3? The music was so haunting, and even though they were showing scenes from the Lutter story, my mind is always transfixed on Consagra's case when I see this and hear the music. I wonder if Glenn ever got to watch the special or if he saw it the night it aired from prison. Finally, I feel a bit empty now, because I never got a chance to write to Consagra. He is really the only person from UM I have ever considered writing to.

Here's hoping we have some answers someday...

[robbieasbury]

Originally Posted by justins5256

Some things really do not wash with this case:

If Consagra was the sole killer, why would he bring two guns?

If Consagra was the sole killer, how did he drag Freddie and Mary Lou's corpses AND the boat engine into the water by himself? All totaled, the combined weight was in excess of three hundred pounds.

If Consagra was the sole killer, why did he sink his own boat and leave himself stranded on the spoilbank?

If Consagra was truly innocent, why didn't he tell the police from day one that Ted was the killer? He gave two different conflicting accounts of what happened on the spoilbank. Neither version specifically implicated anyone, BUT if Glenn was laying a few feet away and out of sight from where the carnage was ensuing, certainly he would have recognized Ted's voice and been able to tell the police that Ted was on the spoilbank. He NEVER implicated Ted.

Why? The only answer that makes sense to me is that Consagra and Ted were conspiring together. Consagra couldn't tell the truth because in doing so he would implicate himself. Ted was in the same boat, but had an advantage over Glenn - the cops never placed Ted on the spoilbank. In fact, no one did until Donna came forward.

Instead, Ted ended up implicating Glenn. Glenn takes the fall for the entire thing and is bitter because his partner in crime double crossed him and got away.

I suppose I like this case because it was one of the first "Final Appeals". It also occurred in my home state. I also like the fact that it was on the last special that Karl Malden hosted before Stack took over. The presentation was excellent in my opinion. Did anyone watch the ending credits on special 3? The music was so haunting, and even though they were showing scenes from the Lutter story, my mind is always transfixed on Consagra's case when I see this and hear the music. I wonder if Glenn ever got to watch the special or if he saw it the night it aired from prison. Finally, I feel a bit empty now, because I never got a chance to write to Consagra. He is really the only person from UM I have ever considered writing to.

Here's hoping we have some answers someday...

Karl Malden said something like Donna said she went to the spoil bank with two of Glen's cronies one of them named Ted and they went there to take care of business. The word cronies seems to imply Glen knew who the killers were but Glen didn't say he knew them in the interview.