The case of a teenage girl at the time, she was home sick when she heard someone trying to break in one of the people who broke in felt sorry for what his friends were doing when the leader of the people came in and said something to her like "OH we"re all friends Now" and then hit her over the head and she woke up hrs later with amnesia.

She got loose and pressed redial which called her moms work,all she said was help me or something like that,and her mom recognized her voice and went home,Police arn't sure if they believe her story due to nothing was taken just thing were thrown around. Then when she went back to school she began having seizures and said "I didn't let them in".

I believe her 100% i just don't think she could make up a story like that.It happened in Texas

i dont know, thats exactly the story you would make up. a cult was involved, hippies, two black guys ran that way.

were the seizures confirmed by doctors as being caused by something, or did they say they had no explanation.

This is the case of Sarah Powell. I thought it was very interesting, I think I remember after her house was broken into, she started to have seizures at school. At one point, the police suspected she might have staged the whole thing, maybe to get out of school.

First Look Media was supposed to include this segment on the "Best of DVD" set, but at the last second, replaced it with a ghost segment.

Something about this case seems dodgy. I think she faked the whole amnesia thing. Then after a few months she got tired of lying and began pretending the seisures as a way of coming clean. If she really did have amnesia, could it have been a sign of post traumatic stress as well as the issues raised in the segment?

This episode was on LRW yesterday. I had seen it before, but after watching it again, I can't help but to be skeptical.

The Cops have this one right. Like they said, it makes no sense for a group of strangers to break into a house and not steal anything. From the girl's accounts, their motive did not seem to be her, so that leaves a big question -- WHAT, then, was their motive? The house was ransacked and nothing was taken. This is odd. The only thing I can imagine would be that they found out they had the wrong house, but this seems inconsistent since it seems they would have figured this before ransacking the place. Maybe they were just dumb criminals and did hit the wrong house, but if this was a planned and premeditated robbery, then it seems logical they would know WHAT house to hit!

Also, the fact that the guy pointed the gun at her and fired it (and it jammed) just seems contrived to me. Also, the fact that she said she tried to escape the house and couldn't find the keys to get out seems hard to believe.

But, on the flip side, what would be her motive for lying? If she had some sort of trouble with a shady group of peers, then why not just admit it? If she was making the whole thing up, it seems hard to believe she would take it as far as going on national TV. Maybe her amnesia was real and she really did know her attackers but forgot she knew them after she was beaten.

I think that she was the target and probably was involved in something she didn't want her parents to know about. This is the only logical explanation I can think of.

There has been some discussion of this segment in the least believable case thread.

She certainly wasn't faking anything. I would throw that out immediately. You don't take that to extremes like forgetting your entire family, subjecting yourself to training like relearning how to write, not knowing how to tie your shoes, special tutelage in school, etc. And it's not merely taking it to extremes, it's faking it well enough to fool your own family members and specialists.

I'm frequently frustrated by things UM leaves out, or law enforcement leaves out. They focus on supposed lack of evidence and footprints by intruders. That works both ways, you know. If Sarah ransacked her own home then her fingerprints should be everywhere, on all those items tossed around and broken. Perhaps her footprints also. Every open drawer should have her fingerprints on them, fresh fingerprints. And don't tell me she lives there so it's natural her fingerprints would be everywhere. A 14-year-old girl isn't going to be touching everything in a multi story home. Her finger prints should be in unusual places, things she touched quickly and sloppily while throwing them around.

Plus if she trashed the entire house then fibers or bits of broken glass or something suspicious should have stuck to the clothing she was wearing.

If they think she tied herself up, then Sarah's fingerprints should be all over the outside of that duct tape, particularly on the final sections before they were secured to the wrists. The segment showed Sarah's hands without gloves while she was tied up. And whatever type knot was used to tie the rope should be one she was familiar with and could easily tie herself. I'd like to wager her fingerprints would have been merely on the outside of the bottle of medicine, the same medicine she said she took before the event occurred.

This was sudden and lasting significant mental change. Two options; it happened on its own without warning, or intruders caused it. I'll default heavily toward the latter. For one thing, a young girl of that age and apparently no vices like drugs or alcohol is statistically extremely unlikely to suffer a sudden and otherwise unexplainable mental freefall. It's got to be every bit as unlikely as four intruders at 8:30 AM, if not moreso.

Awsi,

Well it depends on how you define "mental freefall." Amnesia? No. Onset of amnesia out of the blue is rare. But, most mental illnesses, on the other hand, usually DO have their onset during adolescence.

Do I think she is mentally ill? Nah.

As I said, I think that she was the target of some sort of peer oriented attack (maybe drug dealers) and after she was attacked, she forgot who her attackers were. I think the amnesia is real, but I don't think the situation was totally as innocent as she claims either.

I just cannot buy the notion that it was a random act carried out by complete strangers who had no interest in stealing a single thing. This just doesn't make any sense.

To further expound on this one. I can find only three scenarios that could possibly explain what happened to Sarah.

1) Robbery was the motive of a group of people who had staked the house out. It was in an affluent neighborhood afterall.

2) A person that lived in the house was the target of a violent assault.

3) There was no method to the madness; that is, the invaders were just out looking for trouble and randomly picked a house to ransack.

#1 can be logically ruled out because nothing was stolen. If this was a premeditated robbery, then surely the robbers would know what was in the house and where to find it.

#3 we can never know about for sure, but this type of thing would be extremely rare. I think #3 can be considered after all possibilities are ruled out, but they aren't because....

#2 seems to be the most logical one. If a member of the household was the target, then I can assume that the target was Sarah. This leads me to believe that Sarah knew the attackers and that she was involved with something she probably should not have been. I think the amnesia was real and that she is now oblivious to the fact that she once knew who they were.

I don't know if it was somebody on this forum, or on YouTube, but somebody raised an interesting theory.

Sarah may have had a big party the night before without her parents knowledge. Something may have happened at that party which freaked her out, like something may have been broken by the partygoers, so to cover it up, she ransacks her own house, manages to tie herself up, then fake a case of amnesia so that she doesn't have to give a false statement. She may have done this because she was afraid of her parents, probably because they were strict. After a few months of coming up with a perfect alibi, her memories come back whenever she has a seisure. She then makes up a phony crim. She is put under hypnosis. I personally believe hypnosis to be as real as Pamela Anderson's breasts. She could have pretended to be hypnotised.

Some points worth mentioning:

1. She suffered amnesia despite never being physically assaulted. One of the guys attributed her amnesia to being due to her being suffocated by the pillow, and the whole traumatic nature of the event

2. If the party theory is true, then her parents must not have been home. Is it known if her parents were home the night before?

3. This could also be just a big hoax and an attempt to appear on the best show ever.

4. She claims she heard a noise as she was letting the dog out, but then when she was trying to escape, she couldnt find the keys. Why didn't she just use the door she used to let the dog out.

1. She suffered amnesia despite never being physically assaulted. One of the guys attributed her amnesia to being due to her being suffocated by the pillow, and the whole traumatic nature of the event

This isn't accurate based on the segment. She was first smothered and then she was pistol whipped, which knocked her out. This will cause a concussion, and can cause seizures if the right part of the brain is effected.

I agree with you on some of the other points. Like I said in my previous post, I agree that the fact that she could not escape her own house seems silly. Parts of her story are very suspect, and I agree that she knew exactly what happened. I differ with the party theory because this seems a bit too tame for someone to create such an elaborate story to merely cover up a party. I think she knew what was going on, but it was a bit more serious than a party. I think someone she knew attacked her. Perhaps she really does have amnesia, I wont rule that out. I also agree that hypnosis is very suspect and is considered my many professional psychologists as a pseudo-science.

I wouldn't put full faith in everything from those visions. UM depictments are shaky enough when they deal with known situations, ones seen and described by multiple people. Television has a motive to exaggerate for dramatic impact.

In this case it's not even known facts, but a young girl partially reliving a traumatic event over time, and not through direct memory, but visions brought upon by seizures. So when you get to something like the burglars hiding in the closet or the gun jamming I wouldn't use that as an absolute, and use it to judge her claims and the truth of the story. She never even describes the gun jamming, it's thrown in by UM.

No one addressed the issue that Sarah's fingerprints should have been all over the place, if she ransacked the house. I hope authorities checked that angle carefully, instead of implying via a national television segment that she could have done it herself. Also, if Sarah was responsible then you would think items she used and liked would not have been damaged, as opposed to things she didn't particularly care about.

Another basic angle: if Sarah was sick it follows that she was in a weakened state, not at her best. That probably makes it less likely she could trash a large house. It also might explain why she had trouble finding keys and escaping from the house.

Awsi,

But if she didn't do it, then WHO did? Nothing stolen, no fingerprints, no apparent forced entry.

I will maintain that she knew her attackers and that she is hiding something from the police and her parents. Perhaps, as one poster said, it was a party gone bad, or perhaps she had shady friends who came over that day which ended up in her being assaulted. Who knows. But I don't think it was just some random group of people like she claims. I think she knew them.

I believe in the segment it was said she called her mom at work as the attackers were trying to get in and this really does not make a lot of sense I mean you would think she would have called 911 right away but its hard to judge having never been in such a situation. She also mentions that some girls were also in the house with the guys and she heard female laughing. I have a feeling she was involved in something and this happened as a result.

Awsi,

But if she didn't do it, then WHO did? Nothing stolen, no fingerprints, no apparent forced entry.

I will maintain that she knew her attackers and that she is hiding something from the police and her parents. Perhaps, as one poster said, it was a party gone bad, or perhaps she had shady friends who came over that day which ended up in her being assaulted. Who knows. But I don't think it was just some random group of people like she claims. I think she knew them.

I don't know who or why. We really don't have enough information on this case. Like where the window was or if any neighbors saw or heard anything. Maybe there was no need for forced entry if the upstairs window was unlocked but merely stuck, and difficult to open from the outside.

The mothers comments were very revealing, IMO. She seemed to think it might be a hoax also. Until the police left and Sarah did not come around. She said it was like someone had kidnapped her daughter's mind but the body remained. She said the movements and characteristics of her daughter had changed. The segment says it took two months just for Sarah to relearn most basic skills. I don't understand why posters give those aspects so little weight and prefer to insist it was a scam simply because the story is so unusual.

I thought the investigators were inept. I doubt they thoroughly explored this case from the standpoint of unknown perpetrators. The one named Gary Gladden was a joke, saying they assumed Sarah would know who it is and eventually tell them, and that would solve the case as soon as she is able to deal with it. I wanted to scream. If that's the caliber of the investigation no wonder nothing was uncovered. When I see ineptitude like that I tend to discount claims that there were no outside fingerprints or other evidence. The Keystone Cops simply might have overlooked them.

And it amazes me the party aspect keeps coming up. This was early in the morning, a day she stayed home from school sick. No indication the parents weren't in the house the night before. No indication Sarah's friends similarly stayed home from school and trashed the house in the morning. That would have been uncovered in a flash.

Awsi,

I am not discouting the possibility that her amnesia was real. It may very well be, but even if it is, it doesn't suggest that the attackers must have been strangers. Again, I think she knew them, invited them in, and something went awry. She probably did receive a head injury and probably did have seizures.

This attack does not appear to be a home invasion robbery like that UM segment where those guys from TN hit several lavish houses and stole jewelry and cash. Those dudes were pros and knew exactly what was in the house before they hit it (often times even knowing where the safe was hidden).

Again, it is possible that they were total strangers, but since I can find no motive, then I find this unlikely. Unless you posit the motive of the intruders getting their kicks out of invading homes and ransacking them, then I don't see how the strange intruder theory can be given much merit. And if they did have this motive, then surely they would have hit another house and the cops would know about it.

No doubt she had seizures and amnesia but I feel the motive in this incident was her. I think she either did something in the past that got her in some type of trouble or she faked being sick and invited some people over and things went bad. I lean more towards the idea that she had been involved in some type of situation in the past that got her in some type of trouble and possibly the attackers were around the house and realized she was home alone. Another thing that was interesting is that it was said that at one point during the incident some girls were also in the house. I feel that she probably knew her attackers but obviously after the incident does not remember them.

Lyndi,

I agree. The fact that there were girls along suggests it was some sort of personal vendetta. It also suggests that these people were problably under the age of 20 (they were probably a bunch of teenagers). The target was probably Sara and the ransacking was probably just vandalism -- an extra way of getting back at her for something.

I dont know, I think people are giving this 14 year old girl too much credit here. I mean do you honestly think that she would ran sack her own house, have the mind to wipe all her finger prints clean off everything, and do all this other stuff? I mean I cannot imagine anyone let alone a 14 year old doing this to cover up a party or wanting to get out of school that bad to actually do that and then on top of it subject themselves to months of rehab and stuff.

Again, it is possible that they were total strangers, but since I can find no motive, then I find this unlikely. Unless you posit the motive of the intruders getting their kicks out of invading homes and ransacking them, then I don't see how the strange intruder theory can be given much merit. And if they did have this motive, then surely they would have hit another house and the cops would know about it.

I don't like to guess at motives. But there are many possibilities. Previous owners may have been known, or rumored, to have something of value in a particular place and these burglars heard about it and went after it. Or similar could have been told about Sarah's family itself. Teenagers or early 20s can be incredibly gullible. Someone could have spread a stupid rumor that drugs or large amounts of cash were in a specific spot in that home. It hardly had to be a group who targeted other homes as well.

I'd find it much more unlikely they were people Sarah knew. The more people you get involved, the more likely it is someone will screw up or fail to keep the secret. Four people in the house and all apparently speaking and allowing Sarah to hear their voices. That doesn't sound like they were concerned she could identify them, other than covering their faces which is common. And I don't think they would have threatened her with a gun and belted her with it if they knew her. Plus, I think it's likely they were older than Sarah, probably out of high school. Four kids out of school on the same day as that event would have drawn suspicion, unless they were from out of the area.

I'd find it much more unlikely they were people Sarah knew. The more people you get involved, the more likely it is someone will screw up or fail to keep the secret. Four people in the house and all apparently speaking and allowing Sarah to hear their voices. That doesn't sound like they were concerned she could identify them, other than covering their faces which is common. And I don't think they would have threatened her with a gun and belted her with it if they knew her. Plus, I think it's likely they were older than Sarah, probably out of high school. Four kids out of school on the same day as that event would have drawn suspicion, unless they were from out of the area.

Awsi,

I think you might be misunderstanding me here. I am not saying that the people knew Sarah and then came in trying to hide their identity. I am saying she voluntarily let them in, not expecting an assault. I think once they were there, something went wrong and she ended up being punched in the head a few times. This may also explain the ransacking, if the group of kids/young adults acted in a frenzy of anger.

I just cannot see robbery as a motive in any form or fashion. Sure, it is possible they had the wrong house (which would put them on the top 10 list of stupid criminals in history), and it is possible they had the right house but the wrong family. However, even if one of these were true, this doesn't explain the fact they overlooked expensive jewelry and other valuable items. Even if you have the wrong house, once you are there and done taken the risk, you may as well take what you can, right? I would if I were a burglar who had just made a stupid blunder.

If robbery can be ruled out totally (and I think it is), then what other motives are there? I can think of two, which I have already stated:

They were targeting someone who lived in the house or

They were just random house ransackers who destroyed houses for the fun of it without ever stealing anything.

Which of the above is the most parsimonious explanation? I vote for A.