Jump to content

48 Hours Mystery


  • Please log in to reply

2398 replies to this topic

#1

Celina

Celina

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 2, 2005 @ 12:51 AM

I always find this show to be a very well-produced who-dunnit.

Tonight they had the story of Perry and Janet March from Nashville. According to the husband, his wife just took off one night after a fight, for a "12 day vacation." She never came back. They had two small children and an expansive "dream home."

It's been 8 years and they still haven't found her, dead or alive. Nashville cops hope to charge the husband for murder some day, but evidence is sparse and totally circumstantial (he had his car tires changed, the hard drive of his computer went missing, etc.) Because he waited two weeks to inform the authorities, he had plenty of time to dispose of evidence. He's since moved to Mexico with his children and has remarried. There's an ongoing custody/visitation battle between him and Janet's parents, who successfully sued him for wrongful death.

A fascinating case and another well-done show. I hope for the sake of her parents and her children that they do find Janet or her body some day.

eta that I did a little online sleuthing on Perry March and found he's been accused not once, but twice, in Mexico of bilking people out of money down there. In fact, that's why the authorities had picked him up -- one of his accusers has been campaigning to have him deported. Wonder why 48 Hours didn't mention that? Probably because he'd sue them. Sounds like such a nice guy, eh?

Edited by Celina, Jan 4, 2005 @ 6:59 PM.

  • 0

#2

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 2, 2005 @ 9:09 AM

I love this show, it is actually appointment TV for me since I first caught it some time ago. It really is a well done show with very interesting stories that, for the most part, haven't been covered by every other mystery/forensics/detective show.

Perry is one arrogant, cold, heartless person. Even if he didn't do it, he didn't seem to express any remorse for the fact that his childrens' mother is gone without explanation and that they are living without her, however he personally felt about her. He just picked a new wife and replaced her. He spent so much time defending himself badly that it just made him look horrible. "I don't come off well on camera." You got that right, but then, why are you talking to 48 Hours Mystery? On camera? Dolt. Also, why would he run on the very day Janet's parents were going to prevent him from doing so, if he didn't do anything?

Janet's poor parents, I feel so bad for them and hope they really do get the justice they need. His kids are going to be so bitter when they get old enough to question who their father really is and what really happened.
  • 0

#3

jerry

jerry

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 16, 2005 @ 4:03 AM

Unfortunately I missed most of last night's "Where's Baby Sabrina?" episode, because I had to take a phone call. I've always questioned how an intruder broke in undetected, while there was a dog in the house. What do Steve & Marlene say about that?

I had the tv muted during my phone call, and at one point I read the captions saying that police felt the Aisenbergs weren't genuinely hoping to hear from Sabrina's abductor because Steven ignored his call waiting while talking to his brother. Did the Aisenbergs refute that point? Was call waiting w/caller ID available back then? That's the only thing I could think of... maybe he ignored the call because could see who was calling him?

I've always thought the Aisenbergs were guilty. However, after the David Westerfield trial and the Elizabeth Smart abduction, I'm more open to the possibility that a stranger would be bold enough to enter an occupied home to abduct a child.

Still, I want to know more about that dog.

Edited by jerry, Jan 16, 2005 @ 4:07 AM.

  • 0

#4

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 16, 2005 @ 3:33 PM

I watched it, but I can't remember if they said anything about the dog personally or the phone call, I was also in and out of the room. They showed several different friends/neighbors, some of them saying the dog never shut up, some saying the dog never barked, which I found really odd. The garage door was left open apparently and knowing my own garage, someone could easily break in. But without my dogs knowing? Highly doubt it. Anything's possible though.

I really can't get a firm grasp on whether or not the Aisenberg's had anything to do with their missing daughter, but I do know something has always felt off about Marlene. Not only was the lie detector test found inconclusive for her, but she might have failed the second one (which she disputed failing saying the second was inconclusive too, yet the reporter said the police said she failed).

What really irks me about this case is the fact that none of the transcriptionists could verify that what the cops said were on the tapes recorded from a bug in their house were actually said. It all sounded like a bunch of mumbling and noise. How they got those incriminating words from those tapes, I will never be able to figure out. I'm also intrigued by the fact that it was alleged babies were sighted and tips pointing to other people were not followed up. This is Marlene's claim so I'll take it with a grain of salt, but still. It also struck me that they still have a room left for her all this time and still buy her gifts on vacation as if she were just away at boarding school or something.

This whole case smells so fishy on both sides. I just really don't know what to make of it.
  • 0

#5

Major Misfit

Major Misfit

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 17, 2005 @ 11:18 AM

I read the captions saying that police felt the Aisenbergs weren't genuinely hoping to hear from Sabrina's abductor because Steven ignored his call waiting while talking to his brother. Did the Aisenbergs refute that point? Was call waiting w/caller ID available back then? That's the only thing I could think of... maybe he ignored the call because could see who was calling him?

That's an interesting point about the Call Waiting w/Caller ID. I wonder if the technology was available at that time? What I found strange was Steven didn't acknowledge that another call was coming in, something I do when I find myself on the phone when the Call Waiting beep kicks in. Normally, I'd say, "Oh, I have another call, let me see who it is..." or "Oh, someone else is calling, I'll let it go to voice mail." It's possible, maybe, that he didn't hear it because he was engrossed in the call that was actually taking place? I don't know.

This whole case smells so fishy on both sides. I just really don't know what to make of it.

I couldn't agree more. The phony crying always sends off alarm bells in my head -- and Marlene certainly did her best at the phony crying bit when Baby Sabrina had initially gone missing. Their pleading the Fifth at the grand jury proceedings didn't endear me to their cause, but their attorney had good reason for them to maintain their silence. However, those wiretap tapes were beyond atrocious -- as was the transcribing done by the government. How they even got an indictment based on those tapes alone is beyond me.

What I thought was odd during the show was the constant clip they showed with the luminol-enhanced footprints. Did they even mention this as evidence on the program -- or was it just some dramatic insert that had no relevance to the subject at all?
  • 0

#6

Insomniac

Insomniac

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 18, 2005 @ 1:35 AM

For whatever reason, I've always found the Aisenberg's completely credible.

It's unfortunate that if a mother doesn't cry, she's without emotion and must have done it. If a mother cries, it's crocodile tears and she did it. She can't win.

It was my impression that the family cooperated completely with the police until the police pointed fingers at them. I'd also get a lawyer at that point. Too many police forces are notorious for getting confessions when an actual "confession" isn't made. (They tried to do it with the tapes. The transcriptions have them saying all sorts of things that couldn't be heard by anyone.)

If the Aisenbergs did it, they've pulled off one of the best murders ever...no body...no circumstantial evidence. They're better than seasoned criminals. I don't think so.

It's my belief, and this is total speculation, that the baby was kidnapped and is living with a family as if she is their own.
  • 0

#7

sticky

sticky

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 18, 2005 @ 12:19 PM

My recollection on the dog issue is that a friend said the dog always barked, Mrs. A claimed it never did. Hmmm.

If a stranger did it, they probably had to stumble around a strange house in the dark until they found the baby's bedroom. And what a coincidence that the one night they leave their garage unlocked is the exact same night the abducter decides to strike.

The whole "tearless crying" thing always freaks me out. It's just too Susan Smith. I have never seen two more unsympathetic, unlikable people in my life...no wonder the cops were all over them. Oh wait...I just thought of someone more unlikable: that sleazy lawyer of theirs.

It's my belief, and this is total speculation, that the baby was kidnapped and is living with a family as if she is their own.

I hope you're right Insomniac, if only to keep such a cute little girl away from such cold, cold parents.

Edited by sticky, Jan 18, 2005 @ 12:22 PM.

  • 0

#8

lasu

lasu

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 19, 2005 @ 8:41 AM

What I found strange was Steven didn't acknowledge that another call was coming in, something I do when I find myself on the phone when the Call Waiting beep kicks in.


I think he did; he said something right when the phone was beeping about every other call being a reporter.
  • 0

#9

Major Misfit

Major Misfit

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 30, 2005 @ 9:09 AM

The only good thing about last night's show was Katherine Jackson's utter disdain for her husband and Debbie Rowe who'd look 100% comfortable on the stage. The stage of the Jerry Springer show. As for Michael, he needs to go to jail. No matter how much I'm told by the media and his lawyers otherwise.
  • 0

#10

Celina

Celina

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 31, 2005 @ 3:20 PM

Yes, it was fun watching Michael's mom keep telling his dad to stuff a sock in it.

Debbie Rowe is a dispicable, hideous human being who is stinking up way too bleebleeblahblahboo lately. She whores herself out as a baby machine for a freak, basically sells her kids for a cushy lifestyle in return and only now suddenly decides her kids are not safe? Jeebus, Mary and Joseph, woman ... get a fucking clue.
  • 0

#11

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 31, 2005 @ 4:52 PM

MJ's whole family is nuts and I found it disturbing every time the mom would call someone "wicked". She seemed to be the most in denial talking about her kids, they're all freaks because of your husband's ambition! I feel so bad for MJ's poor kids, can you imagine being MJ's child? They're going to turn out the same way. Debbie Rowe seemed like she was really trying to justify giving someone her biological children for millions. She can say whatever she wants, but its still not right.
  • 0

#12

Gael

Gael

    Couch Potato

Posted Apr 25, 2005 @ 10:03 PM

Did anyone watch the most recent episode, about the medical examiner who was supposedly doused with lye, wrapped in barbed wire, and attached to a bomb? It was one of those were I was suspicious from the beginning, because the crime itself was just too weird.
  • 0

#13

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Apr 26, 2005 @ 12:23 AM

Man that was fucked up, wasn't it? I really kind of don't know what to think, but I'm definitely leaning toward he did it to himself or had something to do with it at least. His history of lying about weird crap like that is suspicious enough, but then add the way the injuries came out is kind of too much. There's something about the guy that doesn't sit right with me in the first place. Weird!
  • 0

#14

orion choachly

orion choachly

    Loyal Viewer

Posted May 6, 2005 @ 4:26 PM

i love this show.
  • 1

#15

CitizenKang

CitizenKang

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 7, 2005 @ 3:02 PM

Did anyone see this last night? I don't know why I'm still thinking about it. Here's the story

They kept on focusing on Sebastian Burns, but I could not stop thinking, what kind of sicko was Atif, letting his friend kill his family so they could have the insurance money? It didn't even seem like he hated his family or anything, in fact he said he loved his mother, but that is really cold to do something like that just for money. How do you watch your friend bludgeon your mother to death?

I did like the parallels made between the murders and the play that Sebastian was in- that his character was caught by someone smarter than him, in this case the undercover Canadian police. Too bad it didn't turn out like their stupid screenplay, where the characters are convicted and executed. They deserved nothing less since this was 1st degree premeditated murder.

I was glad at the end where it said the judge ruled that they could never profit from their screenplay.
  • 0

#16

Tarheel

Tarheel

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 7, 2005 @ 5:10 PM

Whether he's guilty or not, Sebastian gave off a super creepy sociopath vibe. Atif seemed screwed up, but hanging with Sebastian seemed to screw him up even more. I thought the judge was right on the money when he said the beginning of the end of Atif's life started when he became friends with Sebastian. For some reason I sort of thought about Girl, Interrupted while watching this. (Only this was Guy, Interrupted). Susanna Kaysen was f*cked up in the first place, but she actually got even more f*cked up while hanging out with Lisa (the sociopath one that Jolie played in the film). I could see a parallel going on here as well, in that I think Atif was a smart, socially awkward somewhat unstable guy who was taken with Sebastian, who was attractive, confident, charismatic, and strong. It seemed like a weaker link being attracted to a strong, dominant personality and going over the edge.

Sebastian's reaction when the jury convicted did more to convice me of his guilt than anything else.

I was particularly disgusted that the public defender was having sex with her client. WTF was she thinking?! I'm assuming she wasn't. Or at least she was thinking with parts of her body other than her freakin' brain! Sebastian is a seemingly amoral horny young guy on a break from prison so he'd probably screw any woman that offered herself up just for the thrill. What has he got to lose? The public defender is a grown-ass woman who should have known better!

I don't believe for a minute that Sebastian was just boasting and playing a role during that videotaped confession. He said he read up on the murders and just did all of that because he was afraid of the mob guy. When a person lies in a situation like that, especially if they are genuinely afraid, I'm thinking they are going to screw up or falter or show non-verbal signs of fear or nervousness. I saw none of that.

Also? I can't be the only one who thought there was a serious HoYay vibe going on with those two!

Edited by Tarheel, Aug 7, 2005 @ 5:12 PM.

  • 0

#17

Rainmaker

Rainmaker

Posted Aug 8, 2005 @ 2:13 AM

A fascinating story. Kind of ruined because I knew they would end up in jail, seeing as how they were interviewed in prison garb.

Sebastian got too cocky for his own good. If he had kept his mouth shut and didn't tell anything to anyone, then the crime may never have been solved.

I didn't really quite understand the whole screenplay timeline. Did they write the screenplay after they committed the murders but before they were sent to jail? Or did they write it during their time in jail?

These were two geeky kids that just went wrong. The words they chose to use during their interviews creeped me out.

Sebastian's sister was quite hot. But I wonder, as a television reporter who is in the public eye, should she really be stating to the public that she thinks her brother is innocent when it's clear to everyone that they're guilty?

My theory on the "third person" - it was Atif all along. I didn't understand the thing about the pillow being moved, but I could see how perhaps the father dragged it as he was being attacked.
  • 0

#18

Sai

Sai

    Just Tuned In

Posted Aug 9, 2005 @ 2:40 AM

I didn't really quite understand the whole screenplay timeline. Did they write the screenplay after they committed the murders but before they were sent to jail? Or did they write it during their time in jail?


After the murders, but before the undercover operation.

My theory on the "third person" - it was Atif all along.


Well the 3rd person was said to have stood in the same place, but Atif said he was staging the break-in during the murders.

But looks like I'm the only one who really doubts their guilt. No forensic evidence, factually inconsistent confessions, people confirming the boys' whereabouts, unknown DNA, and the police ignoring tips all create quite the reasonable doubt. To me, it seemed as if the police were fixated on charging them regardless of evidence and did anything to ensure that.

While confessing to a murder they claim they didn't commit is pretty foolish, I think it's understandable considering the circumstances. They were convinced the cops had evidence against them, if they confessed the evidence would be destroyed, if they don't, they're convicted. They're cornered either way.

Maybe they did it, maybe not, but the entire thing seemed like a mess, with everyone evaluating character instead of evidence. At the very least, I think they should have be granted a retrial.

It's undoubtedly bias, but there's some good information at http://www.rafayburn....com/index.html .
  • 0

#19

CitizenKang

CitizenKang

    Couch Potato

Posted Aug 9, 2005 @ 11:39 AM

I didn't think the evidence was that strong for the third killer being there. All they said was that there was no blood in that one spot on the wall. Sometimes I think, with all the CSI forensic hype the police feel like they can explain every little thing on a crime scene and have it all fit together. It's not going to work- who knows why there wasn't blood on that one portion of the wall? I thought for a second maybe Jimmy Miyoshi was the third guy but I don't think he was involved beyond being there when the others had a conversation.

If they didn't do it, why didn't they tell the "mob boss" we are innocent but we think the police are trying to frame us? Or if they were trying to lie to the "mob boss" because they were afraid, why did everything they said fit what happened? They revealed extra details, like Sebastian killing the family while naked and the order they were killed. They said they snuck out of the movie and drove straight to the house. They even joked that the autistic little sister was still wandering around partway through her beating and needed more "batwork". Why joke about that, unless it really happened? What they should have done, if they were such intelligent guys, is lie about a few details here and there like the timeline or the order of kills or that Sebastian was wearing clothes during the killing and then burned them or something- then the "mob boss" would be puzzled and say wait that part doesn't make sense. They could say back to him- well how do you know, we were the ones there....unless you're a cop.

Their speeches at the sentencing were very telling. Sebastian rambled on angrily for two hours- to me he sounded like an intelligent guy who couldn't handle the fact that he was caught. Atif just had a brief statement about how he was sorry about what he said in his confession and that he was ashamed. He sounded like he regretted the whole thing but still didn't want to admit guilt for Sebastian's sake (or for potential appeals).
  • 0

#20

Rainmaker

Rainmaker

Posted Aug 9, 2005 @ 12:29 PM

Sebastian rambled on angrily for two hours- to me he sounded like an intelligent guy who couldn't handle the fact that he was caught. Atif just had a brief statement about how he was sorry about what he said in his confession and that he was ashamed. He sounded like he regretted the whole thing but still didn't want to admit guilt for Sebastian's sake (or for potential appeals).

The whole two hour speech had me puzzled too. What possibly could he say that would have changed everyone's mind after such a lengthy trial? He just seemed like an intelligent smart-alec kid who was trying to talk his way out of something after getting his hand caught in the cookie jar. For some reason, he reminds me of Mark Paul Gossalear's character Zach in "Saved by the Bell". Sort of similar in looks, but it's mainly the same demeanor. A priviliged punk ass kid who gets into trouble.

Atif is no saint either. What sane individual thinks they will be better off killing his entire family because "it was something that just had to be done"? I find Atif perhaps even more deplorable than Sebastian, even though he didn't do the actual killing. I hope he has a lonely remainder of his life in prison with not a single extended family visitor to see him.

I thought Jimmy Miyoshi may have been involved also, but it didn't seem like he was in the area at the time of the killings. He also seemed like a punk. Why run to Japan and live under a different name if you have nothing to hide?
  • 0

#21

Tarheel

Tarheel

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 13, 2005 @ 2:51 PM

Wasn't Miyoshi the only one who was smart enough not to confess anything to the mob boss undercover guy? He just played verbal chess with him for awhile and refused to give up any info.

No forensic evidence, factually inconsistent confessions, people confirming the boys' whereabouts, unknown DNA, and the police ignoring tips all create quite the reasonable doubt.

I think they probably deserve an appeal, sure, why not? It's very doubtful that it will get overturned, though. Unknown DNA evidence at a scene is quite common, especially if that father was a doctor. I'm assuming the police followed up on those unknown hairs they found at the scene. It's just not that uncommon for a random hair to get into a house. Some guy installed a new thermometer in my place a few days ago. There could be a hair here from that. If there were a bunch of hairs there, all with the same DNA profile, and if they didn't match either of the boys, I'd definitely hope they followed up on that. If not, that was sloppy and they should get an appeal.

Edited by Tarheel, Aug 13, 2005 @ 2:52 PM.

  • 0

#22

Celina

Celina

    Fanatic

Posted Aug 21, 2005 @ 10:14 AM

Three things convinced me of these guys' guilt -- that they were renting videotapes the day after the murder (yeah, yeah, everyone handles grief differently, but your whole freaking family is brutally murdered and you're out renting movies? puh-leeze); Sebastian's past lies and movie theatre alibi related to his car accident (leopard never changes its spots) and Sebastian's speech to the jury (sociopathic much?). Guilty as sin.

Also, Sebastian's family was, in my opinion, very weird. His sister looked and talked like a programmed robot, as did the mother. The father came off as being cold and arrogant. Agree with others here that the judge got it right ... Atif's life was doomed when he came under the spell of Sebastian.
  • 0

#23

minky

minky

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Nov 27, 2005 @ 7:47 PM

Did anyone watch last night's episode? There seemed to be so many things that happened that they obviously couldn't pack into an hour, but I am ambivalent about the prosecution. If twelve jurors all saw it the same way though...I just don't know. I tend to lean more toward Leiterman being the killer though.
  • 0

#24

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 27, 2005 @ 9:42 PM

I saw it and this was the most baffling thing ever. The guy was the appropriate age, lived near the area and his DNA was all over the stockings. But I cannot for the life of me reason why that other guy, who was 4 at the time of the murder, had his DNA there too. I mean WTF? I tend to agree though, why would all that DNA be there if he was innocent firstly, and secondly, Leiterman's attitude just didn't seem right at all. I would really like to know more. Great job, 48 Hrs. Mystery, they always bring the interesting.
  • 0

#25

Theresa

Theresa

Posted Nov 28, 2005 @ 10:24 PM

why would all that DNA be there if he was innocent


Exactly. How would that be possible?? They said he could have sneezed on her. Or, maybe he and the victim were at the same laundromat together and that's how his DNA got on her stockings.

It's plausible, but I don't believe it. I think he was sweating, and that's how it got there.

I think they can only show the viewer so much in a 60-minute show. The jurors, in contrast, heard hours and days of evidence. They probably wouldn't have convicted him if it was just the DNA. They must have heard/saw other evidence that pointed to his guilt.

(BTW, I didn't know this thread existed and I'm sure glad I found it. I never miss 48 Hours Mystery. They do indeed always bring the interesting).
  • 0

#26

gaPeach

gaPeach

    Fanatic

Posted Nov 29, 2005 @ 6:51 AM

I feel asleep so I missed the end. So they found the guy guilty of the murder but gave no motive or other evidence other than his DNA on her stockings? How radom is that? Coupled with the fact that the other DNA found on her was from a 4 year old? If I had been his attorney I would have pounded that fact hard. Too weird. I think if that is all they had to present and I was on the jury I would have had a hard time finding him guilty. Did they even know each other? Had he ever been in trouble before? Are we to believe that one day he just decided to kill a random student?
  • 0

#27

lyz2814

lyz2814

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 1, 2005 @ 11:05 AM

Anyone see the one a couple of weeks ago? It was about a girl that moved to Napa and was killed. Since I am moving to NoCal, I thought I'd pay attention.
Anyway, the girl was a beauty queen, dated a lot of guys who became obsessed w/ her. Bought her a car and trips and all that stuff.
Turns out that the husband of one of her friends killed her (I forget why).

I was struck by how much they focused on her relationships--kind of judgy. Like she was a coquette who frustrated men and brought it on herself. Granted I wish guys would call me back, let alone shower me with gifts....
  • 0

#28

JessicaLovejoy

JessicaLovejoy

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 11, 2005 @ 1:58 AM

I was struck by how much they focused on her relationships--kind of judgy.


I was glad that the mother of the other girl called her up and apologized. If I, in my (understandable) grief, had more or less said "Your slutty daughter got my good daughter killed!" I might be far too mortified to ever apologize. But she did.

I was put off by everyone thinking that the roommate who dated a lot was thought to have brought the danger in. It makes me wonder how many other cases involve a girl who is popular (I'm not using that as a synonym for promiscuous, by the way) and her heartbreaking ways are thought to be the reason she's dead when it might be something totally different.

I just saw the episode that this topic started with. The Levine's are my new heroes.

Edited by JessicaLovejoy, Dec 11, 2005 @ 2:00 AM.

  • 0

#29

SheBuys

SheBuys

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 11, 2005 @ 2:33 PM

I just saw the episode that this topic started with. The Levine's are my new heroes.

No way are they heros, they put the kids in the middle of a nasty custody battle that has gone on for years. Unless you know the kids are being hurt, don't hurt them more with a custody battle. That certainly doesn't help the kids at all no matter how "well intentioned" the grandparents may have been.
  • 1

#30

Miss Steph

Miss Steph

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 11, 2005 @ 6:21 PM

I know this is pretty random, but I couldn't get over how much the little girl (Zippy?) looked like her mother and how much Sammy looked like his father and yet to me the kids looked nothing like each other.

I found the grandfather (not Mr. Levine, the one in Mexico) extremely creepy.

Edited by Miss Steph, Dec 11, 2005 @ 6:21 PM.

  • 0