Ayleen Conway and Terri McClure

[PunkyP0WER]

After watching these segments I've been wondering about a couple of things. When Ayleens husband arrives home and finds the house in disarray was fingerprints taken? i don't think it was mentioned. also, the terri mcclure case - i'm not sure if this has been brought up before or if its even relevant or not however in the reenactment when they show terri mcclure dead in the car i see a pillow behind her head. was that some mistake by um or was there actually a pillow at the crime scene.

[synthisislab]

I doubt UM would have put the bloody pillow behind her head like that unless it was there at the crime scene.

I was wondering if Terri McClure had been shot in that parking lot and why no one noticed the gun shot or noticed her laying propped up with a bloody pillow behind her head like that for days. It wasn't like she was in an isolated part of the parking lot either. She looked as if she was in the middle of it in plain view. I think she was taken out to the desert, shot, then returned not too long before she was found, so as to not quickly arouse suspicion. I wonder what Tim's motive could have been if he had killed her. Did she not approve of his wife? Was his mom trying to interject herself too much into his life?

As far as the Ayleen Conway case, I think it was burglars that got surprised by her when she was taking a bath and since they were connected to many other burglaries, they were looking at a massive amount of prison time, so they killed her and tried to make it look like an accident. I would think that they wore gloves in the house since they went through such length to cover up Ayleen's murder.

[PunkyP0WER]

i just found it odd in regards to the pillow detail because i don't remeber um mentioning a pillow and they usually include little details like that. i agree that ayleen interrupted a burglary, i can't picture another plausible scenario where she would leave the house in that manner.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by PunkyP0WER

i just found it odd in regards to the pillow detail because i don't remeber um mentioning a pillow and they usually include little details like that. i agree that ayleen interrupted a burglary, i can't picture another plausible scenario where she would leave the house in that manner.

There was a thread about this a few months back that got pretty in depth as far as theories go. Someone came up with the suggestion that Aileen could have suffered a stroke or some other medical emergency and attempted to drive herself to a hospital yet became disoriented and crashed the car. An impressive theory I must say. It was not something that occurred to me despite seeing the segment numerous times over the years. I always assumed there was foul play, but now I'm not so sure.

[PunkyP0WER]

now that you say that, i could see that too. my dad suffered a minor stroke, left the house disoriented and crashed into an emergency vehicle that was en route to help him.

[synthisislab]

Originally Posted by justins5256

There was a thread about this a few months back that got pretty in depth as far as theories go. Someone came up with the suggestion that Aileen could have suffered a stroke or some other medical emergency and attempted to drive herself to a hospital yet became disoriented and crashed the car. An impressive theory I must say. It was not something that occurred to me despite seeing the segment numerous times over the years. I always assumed there was foul play, but now I'm not so sure.

Wow, that never occurred to me either, and seems plausible until you examine the evidence that they presented in the segment. One thing that wouldn't fit for me with that theory is how her car's interior got torched as if an accelerant was used. That could explain why the house was left and the car wreck itself.

So she watered her pool, drew a bath, and was about to iron some clothes, when she collapsed. She woke up, tried to call for help, but lost her ability to speak. Then she jumped in her car and headed to the hospital? I think another inconsistency with that would be that she could have just dialed 911 and left the receiver off the hook and help would have been there in moments. But the receiver was left off the hook, and no 911 call was made.

My theory is that a couple of abductors with the intention of random murder approached the house and snuck through the back screen entrance. They surprised her when she was trying to draw the bath and wait for the iron to heat up. Then they subdued her when she was trying to call for help on the phone. One of them drove her and her car with the other of them following in their car to that isolated road and killed her. Then they brought out a can of gas from their car, put her body in the driver's seat, and crashed the car into the guardrail. After that they poured the gasoline in the car, set it ablaze, then made their escape.

Random thrill killings happen a lot more than you would think and it fits all the evidence. It couldn't have been burglars, because nothing was taken, and it was obvious that someone was home. Burglars that work during the day usually do it so they won't get surprised by the occupants of the home. Plus they can knock on someone's door to see if the house is unoccupied without raising suspicions from the occupants or neighbors like they would at night. No, this felt like a hit or thrill kill, but you can rule out a hit unless there was someone that wanted her dead. I'm sure if there was a hit angle to the case, they would have mentioned it on UM. So this is why I say random thrill kill with 2 killers. If the Conways had a gas can in their car or garage, then it may have been one killer on foot.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by synthisislab

Wow, that never occurred to me either, and seems plausible until you examine the evidence that they presented in the segment. One thing that wouldn't fit for me with that theory is how her car's interior got torched as if an accelerant was used. That could explain why the house was left and the car wreck itself.

So she watered her pool, drew a bath, and was about to iron some clothes, when she collapsed. She woke up, tried to call for help, but lost her ability to speak. Then she jumped in her car and headed to the hospital? I think another inconsistency with that would be that she could have just dialed 911 and left the receiver off the hook and help would have been there in moments. But the receiver was left off the hook, and no 911 call was made.

My theory is that a couple of abductors with the intention of random murder approached the house and snuck through the back screen entrance. They surprised her when she was trying to draw the bath and wait for the iron to heat up. Then they subdued her when she was trying to call for help on the phone. One of them drove her and her car with the other of them following in their car to that isolated road and killed her. Then they brought out a can of gas from their car, put her body in the driver's seat, and crashed the car into the guardrail. After that they poured the gasoline in the car, set it ablaze, then made their escape.

Random thrill killings happen a lot more than you would think and it fits all the evidence. It couldn't have been burglars, because nothing was taken, and it was obvious that someone was home. Burglars that work during the day usually do it so they won't get surprised by the occupants of the home. Plus they can knock on someone's door to see if the house is unoccupied without raising suspicions from the occupants or neighbors like they would at night. No, this felt like a hit or thrill kill, but you can rule out a hit unless there was someone that wanted her dead. I'm sure if there was a hit angle to the case, they would have mentioned it on UM. So this is why I say random thrill kill with 2 killers. If the Conways had a gas can in their car or garage, then it may have been one killer on foot.

I would have to go back and find the thread to be sure, but I believe that it was mentioned in the thread that skidmarks were found. Skidmarks only occur if someone is pressing the brakes. Not only that, but the speed of impact was estimated around 55mph I believe. Also, keep in mind that Aileen's body was found in the driver's seat. Those facts suggest to me that Aileen was driving and in control of the vehicle prior to impact. Most of the proponents of the murder theory fail to explain how this fake accident could have been set up while still accounting for everything I just mentioned. I mean really, how would someone have set this up? A brick on the accelerator? Someone drives the car and jumps out just before impact?

Also, the accelerant experiment done for UM was very informal. I don't think they actually tested her car's carpeting for traces of accelerants.

[synthisislab]

It didn't mention in the segment about skidmarks (I would think that would be mentioned, since it would be such a major clue.) The skidmarks (if there were some at the scene), would present a problem for the murder theory.

If it was a murder, the killer could have put on a seatbelt while in the driver's seat, and driven into the guardrail himself to cause the crash (he wouldn't need a wedge to put on the accelerator or have to jump out to do this). Then he could have placed her in the driver's seat, doused the car with gas (or other accelerant), and lit it. Cars don't just explode on impact like in the movies. In the segment, I believe they said the gas cap was removed. That means the killer(s) could have syphoned her gas into the interior of her car and ignited it or just put a cloth in the gas tank and lit it. That would explain how it went up in a fireball.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by synthisislab

It didn't mention in the segment about skidmarks (I would think that would be mentioned, since it would be such a major clue.) The skidmarks (if there were some at the scene), would present a problem for the murder theory.

Just double checked on a popular site and the segment did mention skidmarks. Skip to around the 1:10 mark. If you need specifics, PM me.

Originally Posted by synthisislab

If it was a murder, the killer could have put on a seatbelt while in the driver's seat, and driven into the guardrail himself to cause the crash (he wouldn't need a wedge to put on the accelerator or have to jump out to do this). Then he could have placed her in the driver's seat, doused the car with gas (or other accelerant), and lit it. Cars don't just explode on impact like in the movies. In the segment, I believe they said the gas cap was removed. That means the killer(s) could have syphoned her gas into the interior of her car and ignited it or just put a cloth in the gas tank and lit it. That would explain how it went up in a fireball.

I suppose. It justs seems pretty risky and like a lot of trouble to go through. I think Occam's Razor can be applied here, and it is easier for me to believe there was no foul play.

[CanadianUMFan]

Originally Posted by synthisislab

Random thrill killings happen a lot more than you would think ...

Really? I don't think that random thrill killings happen anywhere near as much as most people think.