Cases where you think there is a conclusion that gets underrated

[Clockworkhigh]

Just what the title says. What cases have a theory that gets more underrated than you would like to see? Or brushed off when you don't think it should be ruled out?

#1 Larry Gibson - Not that there isn't something fishy about Larry, but I have never thought that the whole kidnapping theory was impossible. In the segment, Larry's wife hears the gunshot that killed the cat and then claims to still hear Tommy in the yard. Larry claims to be gone jogging for 47 minutes. His wife would have surely checked on two year old Tommy sometime in the 47 minutes. But if she would have found him dead that would be the end of it. If she just couldn't find him it means that he either was A) kidnapped or B) found earlier by Larry accidentally shot dead and then disposed of. The problem with this is that there was no blood found anywhere, not on Larry and not in his patrol car. Larry is an odd duck, but there was a time when Jaycee Dugard's stepfather was a suspect (probably up until she was found alive even) and some didn't believe his story. I'm just saying Tommy being kidnapped doesn't get brought up enough.

#2 Charlotte Pollis - Another popular case with a villain - Paul Pollis. Lately I have opened my mind up a bit more to this one. Maybe Paul isn't involved, who knows? I don't think the home invasion scenario gets enough credit. Charlotte could have been abducted for the sake of someone's sexual pleasure. Or anything, who knows. The lack of evidence that a crime was even committed is something that I feel is underrated.

#3 Tara Calico - That the picture is actually her

#4 Tim McClure - I usually fall into the camp that he did not kill his mother. I've often said that a Casino is a rotten place to be filled with some potentially shady people. There is no evidence that she actually went HOME the last time Tim saw her. She could have gone to a Casino and gotten mugged and killed there. It could happen. I mean would a person who by all accounts was close to his mother have the heart to shoot her right in the head. Even in the re-enactment it just looked awful

#5 Ashley Freeman and Laura Bible are alive. Probably are not in on what happened at all, but since there is no evidence that they have been murdered I often wonder if them being held at their will and used for sexual pleasure (they weren't bad looking girls) could be possible. We've seen times when a girl has mothered children while being held hostage.

#6 Dottie Caylor left on her own. There was evidence she stored some money and it didn't seem like she had a lot of friends or what close to her family either. Jule Caylor is a popular target, I can understand why, but there isn't a shred of proof that implicates him and I think that the simplest option is what happened. She took off.


What theories do you think get underrated that you are most likely in the minority to believe in, or at least NOT rule out

[Hambone2421]

Nice subject, I like it!

1. Eric Tamiyasu - My favorite UM case. While I am a firm believer that Don Dixon was in some way involved in Eric's murder, I am surprised that the "jealous ex boyfriend" theory doesn't have more support. Eric was dating Diana, who, rumor has it, had a very jealous ex boyfriend named Carter. The Tapping Eric heard on his door and windows could have very easily been Carter, waiting for Diana to leave and then killed Eric.

2. Arnold Archambeau & Ruby Bruguier - It seems like the growing popular theory is that the bodies were dumped there after being abducted. I disagree as I believe they were there the whole time and just overlooked. After all, the cause of death is exposure, which is exactly what would have happened if you were left outside in that weather for an extended period of time. Plus, to believe that the bodies were dumped there would be to beleive that they were killed. Who kills someone by methods of exposure. It doesn't make sense.

3. The Circleville Letters - I personally believe Paul Freshour COULD be the culprit. I'm not saying it is him, but it could be. Just because letters were still being sent while he was in prison does not mean anything. He could have had his wife or a friend do it while he was in prison to make it look like he is innocent. Also, this is something that is rarely discussed but I believe it to be important, when Stack is talking about the case, he reads a letter sent by the writer to UM and warns them against coming. In my opinion, it seems likely that someone who was involved in the segment (Freshour perhaps) wrote the letter since he knew they would be filming in the town. I'm just surprised that more people don't think it was Freshour.

[TheCars1986]

In the Circleville writer case, I didn't like how they never revealed the man they initially thought was responsible for the letters. Remember Ron and Mary Gillespie, Paul Freshour, and other relatives all sat down and wrote a letter to the person they thought was responsible. Then the letters ceased. So obviously if this guy was completely innocent of any wrong doing or letter writting, don't you think he would have came forward and said, "I'm not the one writing them, stop accusing me." The fact that the letters stopped tell me this guy was responsible and at first got the hint. Why all of a sudden years later Mary starts accusing Paul Freshour is beyond me. The fact that this person who the Gillespie's thought initially responsible was never looked into thorough enough is "underrated", I think.

[Hambone2421]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

In the Circleville writer case, I didn't like how they never revealed the man they initially thought was responsible for the letters. Remember Ron and Mary Gillespie, Paul Freshour, and other relatives all sat down and wrote a letter to the person they thought was responsible. Then the letters ceased. So obviously if this guy was completely innocent of any wrong doing or letter writting, don't you think he would have came forward and said, "I'm not the one writing them, stop accusing me." The fact that the letters stopped tell me this guy was responsible and at first got the hint. Why all of a sudden years later Mary starts accusing Paul Freshour is beyond me. The fact that this person who the Gillespie's thought initially responsible was never looked into thorough enough is "underrated", I think.

Good points. I need to rewatch this segment as I have forgotten alot of it.

[rhzunam]

Originally Posted by Hambone2421

3. The Circleville Letters - I personally believe Paul Freshour COULD be the culprit. I'm not saying it is him, but it could be. Just because letters were still being sent while he was in prison does not mean anything. He could have had his wife or a friend do it while he was in prison to make it look like he is innocent. Also, this is something that is rarely discussed but I believe it to be important, when Stack is talking about the case, he reads a letter sent by the writer to UM and warns them against coming. In my opinion, it seems likely that someone who was involved in the segment (Freshour perhaps) wrote the letter since he knew they would be filming in the town. I'm just surprised that more people don't think it was Freshour.

Wasn't Paul's wife the sister of mary and somebody who he later divorced and didn't look like they were amicable at all? There is no doubt it wasn't her at least with compliance by Paul because then there will be no question she would have ratted him out.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by rhzunam

Wasn't Paul's wife the sister of mary and somebody who he later divorced and didn't look like they were amicable at all? There is no doubt it wasn't her at least with compliance by Paul because then there will be no question she would have ratted him out.

I've always thought Paul's ex-wife may have had a hand somehow in the whole Circleville letter writer thing to frame Freshour. By all accounts both were bitter, and if Freshour's story is true someone had to have stolen or given his gun away. I've always thought the ex-wife was responsible for the gun being missing.

[cocytus]

I believe that in another thread someone pointed out that Paul Freshour pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. That's an affirmative defense meaning that he essentially admitted to his role in the crime.

[VikingsGal]

I believe that in another thread someone pointed out that Paul Freshour pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. That's an affirmative defense meaning that he essentially admitted to his role in the crime.

I don't think Paul pled guilty to anything - I believe he was found guilty by a jury. I can do some research but I don't think there was a plea involved.

Arnold Archambeau & Ruby Bruguier

I believe they were in a bad accident. No foul play, just some bad choices by some teens and a sad ending.

Tim McClure

Not sure about his guilt but he dhould haev been charged with something for that hideous mullett.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by cocytus

I believe that in another thread someone pointed out that Paul Freshour pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. That's an affirmative defense meaning that he essentially admitted to his role in the crime.

Actually it was a fairly common tactic used by some people back in the 70's and 80's to plead not guilty by reason of a mental defect/insanity. Let's just assume that Freshour is innocent of the attempted murder of Mary Gillespie, and the letter writing (beyond Freshour's admittal that he and the Gillespie's suspected someone and they wrote letters to him telling him to stop). First when he was initially arrested he plead innocent. Only after he got an attorney did he seek an affirmative defense, so that leads me to believe it was his lawyer's advice which lead to his affirmative defense. His gun was used in the booby trap. They had an apparent "match" from his handwriting to the Circleville letters. It seemed like an open and shut case for the prosecution. While I personally wouldn't agree to basically admitting my involvement in the crime by using an affirmative defense, I could see how some people could have perceived that being their only way out of being railroaded. And I think that's the case with Freshour.

Obviously whoever set this booby trap for Mary Gillespie was pretty sloppy about it all. We have a witness say she saw a man fiddling around with something in the same area Mary would find the trap later that day driving an El Camino. Freshour had no ties to anyone with an El Camino. Why would Freshour use his own gun and not completely erase the serial number? That tells me someone wanted it to be known that it was Freshour's gun used in the booby trap. If Freshour is guilty, he's an idiot. The trap was crudely made, and it seems like it was never actually intended to kill anyone. Just seems like a sick way to set up Freshour as the fall guy IMO. Lastly, what exactly did Freshour plan on doing by setting up this booby trap? Obviously if Freshour set the trap and actually succeeded in murdering Mary Gillespie, the gun would easily be traced back to him in no time. It's not like Freshour was waiting in the wings so he could hurry up and dispose of the booby trap and then Mary's body. And what guarantee did Freshour have that Mary would be the one tearing down the sign? It all just seems too contrived to me, it definitely seems like a set up.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Actually it was a fairly common tactic used by some people back in the 70's and 80's to plead not guilty by reason of a mental defect/insanity. Let's just assume that Freshour is innocent of the attempted murder of Mary Gillespie, and the letter writing (beyond Freshour's admittal that he and the Gillespie's suspected someone and they wrote letters to him telling him to stop). First when he was initially arrested he plead innocent. Only after he got an attorney did he seek an affirmative defense, so that leads me to believe it was his lawyer's advice which lead to his affirmative defense. His gun was used in the booby trap. They had an apparent "match" from his handwriting to the Circleville letters. It seemed like an open and shut case for the prosecution. While I personally wouldn't agree to basically admitting my involvement in the crime by using an affirmative defense, I could see how some people could have perceived that being their only way out of being railroaded. And I think that's the case with Freshour.

Obviously whoever set this booby trap for Mary Gillespie was pretty sloppy about it all. We have a witness say she saw a man fiddling around with something in the same area Mary would find the trap later that day driving an El Camino. Freshour had no ties to anyone with an El Camino. Why would Freshour use his own gun and not completely erase the serial number? That tells me someone wanted it to be known that it was Freshour's gun used in the booby trap. If Freshour is guilty, he's an idiot. The trap was crudely made, and it seems like it was never actually intended to kill anyone. Just seems like a sick way to set up Freshour as the fall guy IMO. Lastly, what exactly did Freshour plan on doing by setting up this booby trap? Obviously if Freshour set the trap and actually succeeded in murdering Mary Gillespie, the gun would easily be traced back to him in no time. It's not like Freshour was waiting in the wings so he could hurry up and dispose of the booby trap and then Mary's body. And what guarantee did Freshour have that Mary would be the one tearing down the sign? It all just seems too contrived to me, it definitely seems like a set up.

I've never heard of "mental disease or defect" as ever being a "popular defense." Since anybody who uses is essentially claiming that they committed the offense(s) they are being accused of,it would likely only be used a "last ditch" defense or in cases where it could garner the defendant the best possible sentence. What's the source of your information on that?

As far as the "booby trap", that seems to be one more ridiculous (although deadly) element in this farce. It wasn't an effective device (it didn't go off) and it was easily traceable to someone,although perhaps not the person who set the trap. Unless Freshour had experience in making booby traps or was known for setting similar traps, it doesn't seem that he would be the perpetrator.

[WishfulDreamer]

Definitely Tim McClure's innocence.

The possibility that the killer of Laura Burbank killed other children (it was mentioned in the broadcast that he possibly was, but then never discussed again once he was caught and haven't heard much mention of it)

Bobby Parker being kidnapped by Dial and actually staying out of genuine fear that he would get someone to go after her family due to connections he would have had.

That the Hansen case had nothing to do with the license plate. What if it was sexually motivated and the killer was pointing at Jean and not necessarily her license? If he had said anything smutty about her, Dick's reaction before getting shot would have been understandable.
(Not that I believe all of this, but they are possibilities). What if he was just out for a thrill?

And how about conclusion (that we definitely know of from solved cases) that are rarely discussed? I randomly thought of the last UM case last night, of the two missing girls (one was barely a teenager, the other a year away) and it was solved rather quickly when they found the scum who did it. I'm just surprised it hasn't been talked about more.

[Clockworkhigh]

Originally Posted by WishfulDreamer

That the Hansen case had nothing to do with the license plate. What if it was sexually motivated and the killer was pointing at Jean and not necessarily her license? If he had said anything smutty about her, Dick's reaction before getting shot would have been understandable.
(Not that I believe all of this, but they are possibilities). What if he was just out for a thrill?

If it was a sexual thing, you get the feeling he'd have sexually assaulted her right there. You are right, that is an extremely underrated opinion around here. Most of us figure it is a professional hit since it has all the earmarks for one.

[cocytus]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

If it was a sexual thing, you get the feeling he'd have sexually assaulted her right there. You are right, that is an extremely underrated opinion around here. Most of us figure it is a professional hit since it has all the earmarks for one.

Never got the "vibe" that Hansen's murder was a "professional hit." A pro wouldn't have left a witness and he wouldn't have shot such a large man as Hansen in the chest as a body shot may not have killed or incapacitated him quickly enough.

A pro also wouldn't have chased Mr. Hansen's date as this would have attracted attention to him which he would have been trying to avoid. To my mind, this was a random attack/thrill killing.

[rhzunam]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I've always thought Paul's ex-wife may have had a hand somehow in the whole Circleville letter writer thing to frame Freshour. By all accounts both were bitter, and if Freshour's story is true someone had to have stolen or given his gun away. I've always thought the ex-wife was responsible for the gun being missing.

But by writing while he was in jail, like the poster wondered, she would not be framing the guy but actually provided proof that he wasn't the guilty party since he couldn't write the letters from jail.

[WishfulDreamer]

Originally Posted by Clockworkhigh

If it was a sexual thing, you get the feeling he'd have sexually assaulted her right there. You are right, that is an extremely underrated opinion around here. Most of us figure it is a professional hit since it has all the earmarks for one.

I definitely buy the professional hit over the 49er theory.