The mystery of Sabrina Aisenberg

I don't think there's been a mention of this case before - sounds very similar to that of Lisa Irwin.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/a/aisenberg_sabrina.html

Has anyone ever heard of this little one, Sabrina Aisenberg? Very similar to the mcs. If anyone watches this, keep an eye out for the recording, the part where the writing comes up, so many professionals didn't hear what the police heard but I did.

Freedom wrote:I don't think there's been a mention of this case before - sounds very similar to that of Lisa Irwin.

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/a/aisenberg_sabrina.html

This is my post from December 2015.

Sounds an intriguing one, DDL.

Will have a watch of the video at a later point but was just reading this after a quick google:

Almost exactly 19 years ago, 4-month-old Sabrina Aisenberg vanished from her crib in the dead of night, never to be seen again.

Around 6:42 a.m. on November 24, 1997, Marlene Aisenberg awoke in her Florida home to check on Sabrina, only to find that she was not in her crib.

When the Aisenbergs called for help, they told authorities that their garage door had been unlocked, and investigators discovered a footprint and a blonde hair next to Sabrina’s crib.

Authorities soon questioned the Aisenbergs’ story, seeing as they claimed not to wake up when Sabrina was allegedly being abducted, even though they had two other children and a dog.

It didn’t take long before police began to suspect that Marlene and her husband, Steve, were involved in their daughter’s disappearance.

About three weeks after Sabrina went missing, authorities obtained permission to wiretap the Aisenbergs’ house.

Nearly two years after their daughter vanished, the Aisenbergs were indicted on conspiracy charges, but those charges were later dropped when it was revealed that authorities had lied about allegedly incriminating conversations that they’d heard during wiretap recordings that were secretly set up in the family’s home.

In 2003, the Aisenbergs filed a civil lawsuit against the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and federal prosecutors, seeking millions of dollars.

The suit, which alleged malicious prosecution, was dropped in 2004, according to CNN.

Although they have never been ruled out as suspects in their daughter’s mysterious disappearance, both Marlene and Steve claim they passed a polygraph more than a decade ago. Authorities, however, have never confirmed their claims.

According to reports, the Aisenbergs held out hope that their daughter was still alive in 2003, when her DNA was tested against a child who had been abandoned in 1998.

Although the little girl, referred to as “Paloma Unknown,” matched Sabrina’s description, DNA testing proved that they were not a match.

Steve and Marlene took their children to start a new life in Maryland after Sabrina’s disappearance, and to this day they maintain they innocence in her case.

I've got as far as about 16 minutes in and the sound has gone. I presume that didn't happen with you, DDL, so I'll try again later.

I don't know why the programme is captioned Dateline 2017 when it's from 2004 or 2005.

No Freedom, the sound was ok for me. I'll see what the minutes are for the recording and stick up.

Listen closely at 29mins in, I can still hear it

It's okay, I sorted out the problem with the sound.

I can't hear anything other than the words on the screen. No wonder that the tape was thrown out as evidence.

I don't know what to make of the parents. In some ways they seemed genuine - particularly regarding their hope that the child who was illegally adopted might be their daughter - but then the circumstances of how she came to be missing are so suspicious.

A recent article about the case.

http://wfla.com/2017/05/24/what-happened-to-baby-sabrina-aisenberg-who-vanished-in-1997/

Oh, can't wait to see that s/a! Freedom, so you also heard those words? They say it was thrown out because no one heard it on the recording, but I did and you too That's what has me confused.

I think we're at cross purposes. I heard the words about the baby being dead and buried etc but I thought you meant something other than that.

The transcript of other passages in the tapes was totally unreliable - it sounded like something off a television programme that the microphones could have picked up but there was nothing actually on the tapes which matched it.

It wasn't stated if this was the first time they had ever left the garage door unlocked and not used an alarm though they had one, but if it was, then it is too much of a coincidence that their baby disappeared then. A story is always suspicious when there is a sudden change of normal routine. Was Sabrina sleeping through the night I wonder? It seems odd that she wasn't checked on at any point before the morning.

So though I don't accept that the tape evidence is sufficient, I believe on the whole that, like a certain other couple, the Aisenbergs know exactly what happened to their daughter.

That's right, those words that we heard on the recordings, weren't supposed to be clear enough and the reason charges were dropped. Don't know what to make of it.