The counselor and the 'confession'

theories and spec; back up posts w/ reasoning and evidence/examples

The counselor and the 'confession'

Postby GothicThylacine » Tue May 14, 2013 10:31 am

I have finished watching part 2 and I must first say marvelous work! But there is one part of it that has me feeling both creeped out and confused. As I listened to Marty's counselor re-tell his alleged confession, there were a few points that did not add up. Especially two. Now please do correct me if I misunderstood something here!

He says Marty claimed that he killed Sue and then Tina because she was a witness, but "had nothing to do with the other two"
Ok to me this makes no sense. The only way this could work is if he was hinting that he killed Sue and Tina but Bo or another person killed Dana and John. Either way he was surely present or aware of it yes? Why not just tell the whole story if you're already confessing? I highly doubt the boys were killed without his knowledge if he killed Sue and Tina. This just seems far fetched.

Second but even more confusing, Marty allegedly said he killed Tina with a hammer. But yet one of the men who examined her skull said there was no sign of blunt trauma or even knife marks. The only thing he did mention was evidence of rodent teeth marks. Seems to me the first way someone would try killing someone with a hammer would be to hit them in the head. I suppose he could have killed her with the hammer without head injury but this would be horrific and much harder. So again this makes little sense to me.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter! I hope I'm not crazy and the only one mulling on this.

Re: The counselor and the 'confession'

Postby dmac » Tue May 14, 2013 2:18 pm

Marty was simply stating he was responsible for the girls' murders, not the boys. He killed them, but someone else, unnamed, killed the other two. It's a stupid claim, and his confession is full of half-truths, just as his interview with Crimley is full of half-truths and full lies. As with the Crimley interview, the truth is somewhere in the mix. Like when Marty told Crimley his hammer is missing (because evidence is consistent with two different size hammers). Like when he explained it would be best to sneak Tina out across the foot bridge, but that couldn't happen because the bridge was locked (it wasn't), and that he want after Sue because Sue was exacerbating his marriage problems with Loon (that's only partial motivation for the crimes).

I posted a photo of Tina's skull somewhere on here, pulled from the documentary, showing damage to what appears to be the zygoma region, which is consistent with wounds other victims suffered. Again, though, how much of what Marty says true, and how much is deflection or misdirection? Wouldn't it have made sense to claim he killed the boys, so he didn't look quite so much like the pussy he was? At least then he could have claimed it was two against one, because his unnamed assistant was too busy dealing with the girls?

The fact is, he and Bo- and others- did this, and were involved with all four victims. If you want a confession from a brain-dead fruitloop like Marty to make 100% sense, you will be disappointed. Just like nothing surrounding the Crimley 'interviews' is believable, you can't take Marty's confession at face value.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 3438
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 756 times
Been thanked: 2958 times

Return to just speculatin'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests