Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

gotta love how the cop that "cracked" the case 8 years later is still insisting that all the evidence the 4 arrested guys provided proved that they had to be there.... when we are literally shown the fucking confession tapes where the confessor is trying to give the detail of how the girls were tied up.

shoestring?   No come on now... you know better than that....

electrical cord?  come on man, give me a break

Napkins? [side note, lol] Napkins???? NO!!!

their clothes... SEE THERE YOU GO!!!! and if you used their clothes to tie them up... what did they look like.... [naked implied but not aired]

 

I have no idea if the potheads did it, but that confession should have been broken down by the defense over and over and over during the trial.

 

hey cops, how come you told the confessor when he was wrong on a detail and then told him when he was right.... you dont think that maybe you just fucking gave him details of the crime that maybe he didnt fucking know?

 

again this was a fucking clown show investigation led by idiots.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)

There's no way that a person(or people) that rapes and murders 4 teenage girls execution style is going to go the rest of their lives without committing more violent crimes. These dudes were just idiot potheads who had no history of violence. They did not seem like guys who were savvy enough to get away with something like this. This was a crime committed by someone who probably had experience doing it.

 

The police insistence that they had the right guys is fuckin shameful.

Edited by Pam Cummings
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Message Board User said:

"We found our own fire expert that can fit our narrative to the evidence"  gtfo

1 hour ago, AUS-97HORN said:

again this was a fucking clown show investigation led by idiots.

31 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

The police insistence that they had the right guys is fuckin shameful.

Agreed on all counts 

Posted

As I’ve said before, the robbers were morons, but they were smart enough to start a fire and the flames/water was enough to destroy all physical evidence. 
 

Am I missing anything? Jones said even if they found the gun it wouldn’t help because a revolver was used (no casings) and the slugs broke apart in the victims’ skulls.

Posted (edited)
On 8/5/2025 at 11:19 PM, MissingInAction said:

IMO everything about this case points to a serial killer. Of the four victims there was one he had to have, and the others were just in his way. 

He wasnt alone either. The two different calibres used tell us that. 

 

On 8/7/2025 at 9:31 AM, Dennis Taylor said:

Don't most serial killers act alone? 

Most do work alone, but some don’t. One serial killer who consistently roped in accomplices was Kenneth Allen McDuff, who was in Austin at the time and abducted and murdered Colleen Reed at the car wash on West 5th street three weeks after the yogurt shop murders. McDuff was also a rapist who frequently bound his victims with their clothes.

He also confessed to the murders in 1998, but it’s possible that he was just trying to get his execution stayed. At any rate, he was executed and his DNA did not match what was recovered, although it could have been his accomplice. 

10 hours ago, bschoolprof said:

she used to live in Austin?

She still does, but she used to, too.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

Most do work alone, but some don’t. One serial killer who consistently roped in accomplices was Kenneth Allen McDuff, who was in Austin at the time and abducted and murdered Colleen Reed at the car wash on West 5th street three weeks after the yogurt shop murders. McDuff was also a rapist who frequently bound his victims with their clothes.

He also confessed to the murders in 1998, but it’s possible that he was just trying to get his execution stayed. At any rate, he was executed and his DNA did not match what was recovered, although it could have been his accomplice. 

She still does, but she used to, too.

Was the second caliber a semi auto on a revolver? Do they know? 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

 

She still does, but she used to, too.

She just sold her house. $23.5 M.  I could have pulled the trigger at 22.5, but 23.5 was just a bridge too far for me.  

Edited by bschoolprof
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Gourmand said:

this was just as funny as the cool punk chick in last night's episode describing Robert Springsteen as creep and weird,  "the kind of guy who'd show you his dick in a parking lot."

lol.

Springsteen posts on Surly?

Edited by Deej
Posted
17 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

There's no way that a person(or people) that rapes and murders 4 teenage girls execution style is going to go the rest of their lives without committing more violent crimes.

To me, that statement feels perfectly analogous to "no one would ever confess to something they didn't do."  Both declarations *feel* like they must be true, but they're just not.

In this era of DNA evidence solving decades-old crimes, we have seen MANY examples of guys being brought to justice after they had gone on to lead simple and nondescript lives.  Many of the murderers who were ultimately discovered and convicted had committed horrific crimes... even family annihilations (John List comes to mind).  Many of them later married, attended church, worked stable jobs, raised good kids, etc.

The fact that these four guys didn't get convicted of anything violent in the next 20-30 years... I don't think that proves anything one way or another - *especially* for whoever was the stupid "follower(s)" under the influence of an actual sociopath.     

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
18 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

There's no way that a person(or people) that rapes and murders 4 teenage girls execution style is going to go the rest of their lives without committing more violent crimes.

 

Dennis-Rader-sentencing-hearing-2005.webp

Posted
24 minutes ago, Deej said:

 

Dennis-Rader-sentencing-hearing-2005.webp

Raider would be an example of "violent people are going to continue to do violent things," right?  Maybe that's the point you were making(?).

I'm just saying:  Sometimes when even the most horrific of crimes is solved, it turns out that the murderer went on to lead a law-abiding life.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

Raider would be an example of "violent people are going to continue to do violent things," right?  Maybe that's the point you were making(?).

I'm just saying:  Sometimes when even the most horrific of crimes is solved, it turns out that the murderer went on to lead a law-abiding life.

No, he quit killing for quite some time, but couldn't resist popping his head up when the news started doing stories about the anniversary of his killings. He'd still be walking free today, probably, and nobody would have been the wiser. 

Posted
52 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

To me, that statement feels perfectly analogous to "no one would ever confess to something they didn't do."  Both declarations *feel* like they must be true, but they're just not.

In this era of DNA evidence solving decades-old crimes, we have seen MANY examples of guys being brought to justice after they had gone on to lead simple and nondescript lives.  Many of the murderers who were ultimately discovered and convicted had committed horrific crimes... even family annihilations (John List comes to mind).  Many of them later married, attended church, worked stable jobs, raised good kids, etc.

The fact that these four guys didn't get convicted of anything violent in the next 20-30 years... I don't think that proves anything one way or another - *especially* for whoever was the stupid "follower(s)" under the influence of an actual sociopath.     

They were all exonerated anyway by the DNA evidence.

 

There's a post in the other yogurt shop murder thread that suggests an interesting conspiracy theory about a certain local businessman who ran a brothel with some local cops on his payroll. Underage girls were involved. One goes to the FBI and the brothel is raided and the owner arrested. Another underage girl that had had sex with cops was a potential witness who's testimony could have brought down some powerful people. The cop running protection corners the girl and her friends in the yogurt shop and kills them with a .22 and stacks the bodies up. He then sends a lackey to clean up the evidence. When cop #2 starts the fire he discovers one of the girls trying to crawl away and has to shoot her again.

 

Again, it's all just conspiracy. But it makes more sense than 4 teenage losers doing it and getting away with it.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

They were all exonerated anyway by the DNA evidence.

 

There's a post in the other yogurt shop murder thread that suggests an interesting conspiracy theory about a certain local businessman who ran a brothel with some local cops on his payroll. Underage girls were involved. One goes to the FBI and the brothel is raided and the owner arrested. Another underage girl that had had sex with cops was a potential witness who's testimony could have brought down some powerful people. The cop running protection corners the girl and her friends in the yogurt shop and kills them with a .22 and stacks the bodies up. He then sends a lackey to clean up the evidence. When cop #2 starts the fire he discovers one of the girls trying to crawl away and has to shoot her again.

 

Again, it's all just conspiracy. But it makes more sense than 4 teenage losers doing it and getting away with it.

Whatever it took for those cops to make it home safely. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Again, it's all just conspiracy. But it makes more sense than 4 teenage losers doing it and getting away with it.

Really?  I don't know anything about that theory, and maybe you know a lot more about this case than I do (which is admittedly not much).  But that doesn't ring true to me.  It's way more shocking, way more titillating, way more seductive in the way that conspiracies are seductive.  But that would be a *big* conspiracy which would require the silence/complicity of a lot more people, which, to me, makes it way less likely than the  much simpler theory that "teenage losers" did it and got away with it.  

Posted
11 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

Really?  I don't know anything about that theory, and maybe you know a lot more about this case than I do (which is admittedly not much).  But that doesn't ring true to me.  It's way more shocking, way more titillating, way more seductive in the way that conspiracies are seductive.  But that would be a *big* conspiracy which would require the silence/complicity of a lot more people, which, to me, makes it way less likely than the  much simpler theory that "teenage losers" did it and got away with it.  

Here's the Statesman article about the businessman and his police friends. This was the day after the murders. And you're right, the conspiracy has some holes. Why would cop #1 need cop #2 to clean it up? Why not just do it all himself? I also don't like the implication that one of the victims was involved with the brothel or the cops that were running protection without serious evidence. APD was kind of a shit show in the 90's though, who knows.

 

There's also the Kenneth McDuff theory, but I think the partial DNA may have exonerated him, and he's dead now anyways.

8s6zp0r8gjp31.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

A few random thoughts after episode 3:

1.  In a case with both incriminating and exonerating evidence, the filmmaker has a lot of power to influence your opinion.  In this case, it seems like Margaret Brown had a shit ton of hours of "confession" footage to pick from, and she could show either the most absurd moments (things that objectively couldn't have been true) or the most incriminating moments to push us either way.  

2.  The fact that two of the suspects in completely separate interviews told a story about one of them (Scott?) attempting to rape a girl but being unable to "perform".... I mean, that seems like a HIGHLY specific and consistent anecdote where it strikes me as EXTREMELY unlikely that each of them just came up with that detail independently.  

3.  It occurs to me that this might be a case study of the failures of the Reid interview techniques:  it generates confessions (often false) from the weaker and arguably less-culpable suspects, but fails to obtain one from a the ringleader/sociopath.  There doesn't seem to be any dissent from either these four suspects or from law enforcement or from the "creek people" who casually knew them that Maurice was the "alpha" among these four (though lately that term is wildly overused).

4.  My observations in both #2 and #3 might be wholly due to #1.   

Edited by Paul Wesley
Posted

I cracked up each time they identified those guys as "creek people" under their name when talking.

And why the hell is anyone talking to anyone, even 20-30 years later.  STFU

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

"Creek people" is such ominous shorthand for "kids who lived in the neighborhood and used to sneak out and meet up to drink alcohol."

(edit) If that is the criteria, then pretty much everyone on this thread was a member of "vacant lot people," "local park people," "undeveloped wooded area people," etc.  

Edited by Paul Wesley
Posted

So why did 3 or 4 of the suspects all tell the police in their interviews that the first they heard about the murders was when they stopped at a gas station on the way to San Antonio where Springsteen thought he was going to hookup w/ another girl? Why would anyone think a bunch of juvenile delinquents joyriding in a stolen car on a booty call hunt are going to stop to buy a newspaper?

Posted
2 hours ago, Jerry Callo said:

I cracked up each time they identified those guys as "creek people" under their name when talking.

And why the hell is anyone talking to anyone, even 20-30 years later.  STFU

Nobody ever learns

 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Deej said:

This hasn't added any info that numerous 48 Hours episodes hasn't covered over the years. 

According to the film maker it’s not a who dunit, its a documentary about false confessions. Not sure she’s trying to add more detail to the investigation as a primary objective.

Edited by troph

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...