Ok, I checked and I don't see much in the way of discussion on this one. I am just curious, what does everyone think? Is she full of crap or legit? The seizure and then recalling the memory would seem at least somewhat difficult to fake on her own, yet the police found no evidence of anyone actually breaking in as I recall. I go back and forth on this one all the time. I think it is probably some sort of hoax. But then again who knows?

I think its pretty legit. I mean, she has really mothing to gain by making it all up. Maybe the experience of being tied up and bound was to much for her mind to bare and thats why she only remembers after a seizure.

I've always believed her. She had violent seizures and amnesia to the point where she didn't recognize her own family. I would think both conditions would be pretty difficult to fabricate. Fraud would have been easily recognized by any doctors or psychiatrists she was treated by after this incident. She was a teenager, afterall.

The real mystery here is why this incident occurred in the first place. The segment didn't really dwell much (or at all) on Sarah's family or siblings (if she had any). It also seems from the reenactment (and her recollections) that the intruders were searching the house for something specific. I also don't believe that these were professional burglars, as I doubt pros would have attempted a break-in if someone was home.

This all leads me to believe that there is more going on than meets the eye. Perhaps the intruders were searching for drugs, money, weapons, or something they knew or were told would be in the house. They could have had a beef with Sarah, or perhaps another member of the family. The incident could have even been gang related (considering the young age of the offenders and Sarah herself) or some kind of retribution aimed at another family member, like a sibling.

All that being said, I have no doubt this incident occurred; the "why" is the question.

Ok, I checked and I don't see much in the way of discussion on this one. I am just curious, what does everyone think? Is she full of crap or legit?
let me first answer this, i think she is somewhat legit, i will give a reason in a momenet.
The seizure and then recalling the memory would seem at least somewhat difficult to fake on her own,
that's why i think she's legit, i think she was attacked and almost killed and i believe in the seizures and i kinda believe the memory loss.
yet the police found no evidence of anyone actually breaking in as I recall. I think it is probably some sort of hoax.
that's where i run into problems, there are things missing. i think she knows more than she's telling and maybe when she remembered, she didnt tell all she knew. I think she is in fear of her life and that's why she didnt reveal much. i think she was threatened.

Possibly. I have always been back and forth on this one. The first time I saw it, I believed her. I think part of me still does, but I do have my doubts.

I find it kind of strange though that people on the board seem to not believe in stories such as the Wackers, or Cindy James, where in my opinion there had to be at least some difficulty in fashioning a hoax. Yet in the Powell case, we have a teenager home alone. No signs of forced entry, not even footprints on a rainy day (I am thinking mudd tracks in easy) and as I recall nothing missing from the home, and yet people believe her.

Don't misunderstand me here. I am not saying she is lying. I honestly don't know. I am just saying it seems kind of odd to lean so heavily one way in one case and not the other. Sarah may be telling the truth, but to me the Wackers or Cindy James seem more believeable. Just an observation though.

Don't misunderstand me here. I am not saying she is lying. I honestly don't know. I am just saying it seems kind of odd to lean so heavily one way in one case and not the other. Sarah may be telling the truth, but to me the Wackers or Cindy James seem more believeable. Just an observation though.

I understand. I pretty much feel the same way. Personally I think at least part of her story is true. A substantial amount, however, was definitely left out I think.

I find it kind of strange though that people on the board seem to not believe in stories such as the Wackers,
the Wackers is a hard case for me. some think the husband did it, i think it was a family friend or family member.
Yet in the Powell case, we have a teenager home alone. No signs of forced entry, not even footprints on a rainy day (I am thinking mudd tracks in easy) and as I recall nothing missing from the home, and yet people believe her.
i think she isnt telling us everything, i think she does know something, but is too afraid to speak.









I understand. I pretty much feel the same way. Personally I think at least part of her story is true. A substantial amount, however, was definitely left out I think.

i think she isnt telling us everything, i think she does know something, but is too afraid to speak.I feel the same way

I don't believe her. She comes across, to me, like a girl who likes attention and/or drama.

I don't believe her. She comes across, to me, like a girl who likes attention and/or drama
i dont think she made the WHOLE thing up, but i think she maybe hiding something, maybe out of fear.

I tend to believe that this did actually happen to Sarah, but I do agree with the people who have said she is hiding something. If you watch the case, the supposed antagonists all appear to be in the same vicinity,agewise,give or take a year or two, as Sarah herself. Also,it was mentioned that at least one girl was with the burglars. I think its possible that Sarah may have known one or more of the burglars,and this happened because she got on the bad side of at least one of these people, for whatever reason, and this was their retaliation.

I tend to believe that this did actually happen to Sarah, but I do agree with the people who have said she is hiding something. If you watch the case, the supposed antagonists all appear to be in the same vicinity,agewise,give or take a year or two, as Sarah herself. Also,it was mentioned that at least one girl was with the burglars. I think its possible that Sarah may have known one or more of the burglars,and this happened because she got on the bad side of at least one of these people, for whatever reason, and this was their retaliation.

That actually sounds like the most plausible thing to me too. There's no question she was traumatized by this whole thing (who wouldn't be), and I do believe her. Like Justin said, if she was keeping any information, it's probably out of fear.

I don't think she would've done anything "bad" enough to warrant the burglary, but it could've been something simple (i.e. flirting with some other girl's boyfriend at school) that just rubbed one of the kids the wrong way. I'm also on the fence as to whether they just went there to scare her and ransack the house a bit, but it's entirely possible they were looking for money.

The main burglars were older dudes (compared to everyone else), probably 25 or 30...but they could've been friends of one of the kids' older siblings or something, so I think you could be onto something there. It's possible Sarah was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it wasn't intended for her at all, since she was home sick from school.

That actually sounds like the most plausible thing to me too. There's no question she was traumatized by this whole thing (who wouldn't be), and I do believe her. Like Justin said, if she was keeping any information, it's probably out of fear.

As manipulative as a 14-yr old girl can be, I find it hard to believe she made her injuries up and successfully fooled professionals, her family, faking amnesia, seizures, etc. It's possible, but I'm going to have to go with the professionals who said it was real.

I don't think she would've done anything "bad" enough to warrant the burglary, but it could've been something simple (i.e. flirting with some other girl's boyfriend at school) that just rubbed one of the kids the wrong way. I'm also on the fence as to whether they just went there to scare her and ransack the house a bit, but it's entirely possible they were looking for money.

The main burglars were older dudes (compared to everyone else), probably 25 or 30...but they could've been friends of one of the kids' older siblings or something, so I think you could be onto something there. It's possible Sarah was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and it wasn't intended for her at all, since she was home sick from school.

That's the biggest problem, though. Based on Sarah's story, there is certain forensic evidence you'd expect to find. That NONE of it was, to me, says her story was false. There's no evidence of forced entry, no fingerprints, no footprints, no ladder (Sarah said they were forcing their way into a second-story window), no mud, no rain, no evidence, in fact, that ANYONE else was there besides Sarah, let alone the sizable gang of people she claims.

Moreover, the story as told in the segment makes no sense. Why would a gang of youths break into the house? What were they looking for? Why didn't they take anything? How could a group break into a second story window in broad daylight wholly unobserved? I think it's telling that LE has serious doubts about her story that why don't even seem to give it any credence, not even to hypothesize a possible motive.

If I had to express a theory on this one, I suspect either Sarah and one or more friends were playing around (perhaps staging a fake burglary for the sympathy/attention), and it resulted in a real injury or Sarah suffers from Münchausen syndrome and inflicted the injuries upon herself (likely not intending to injure herself so severely).

It's hard to imagine a 14 year old girl in the suburbs making enemies with people dangerous enough to break into her house with guns.

And if these people were doing a revenge thing on Sarah, how were they to know that she was going to be home sick from school that day? Or how did they know that both Sarah's parents worked and that she would be alone?

According to Sarah, the people broke into her room around 8:30 a.m. That means her parents and sister probably left not long before. You factor that in with Sarah calling her mom at work while she was tied up, whatever happened, that house was trashed in a hurry.

This was always a strange case. I could never figure out what to believe.

I get a weird vibe about the family. Sarah's mother keeps calling her "that child", "this child", "my child" and "the child". Is that normal? I would think she'd would say "my daughter" more than "that child".

The mother suspected Sarah was lying about her attack induced amnesia and tried to trick her into admitting that she really did remember her family. She worked at it for 3 days before accepting that the amnesia was real. If there weren't problems in the family before this event, why would the mother have any reason to think that Sarah was faking?

If I were as close to my daughter as Sarah's mom claims to be with her, I wouldn't need to trick or test her for three days to determine if she was faking amnesia. "After three days, I knew something was wrong." Holy cow! What if something was really, really, really, wrong. Three days is a long time to let your child suffer in order to satisfy your curiosity.

I'm also wondering about the seizures caught on tape at her grandparents house. She had a total of 9 seizures with one being caught on video. How could they predict that it would happen again, and have their camera ready, when she had only a few of these episodes?

We had a video camera back then, but it was a pain to get ready (big battery, get it all out of the case, etc) in time to catch something spontaneous on film. It's not like today where you can just grab your cell phone and take a quick video without any preparation.

In the seizure event filmed at her grandparents house, they are holding Sarah down while she convulses and thrashes around, moaning and grunting. Would a traumatic memory resurface like that, in such a physical display?

When Sarah called her mom's work for help, she couldn't identify herself, but knew what a "redial" button was. She described her room to the person on the phone by saying that everything was pink and there were teddy bears everywhere. This is when her mother knows that the child on the phone is Sarah. It's just another thing that I think is odd. How many female children have pink bedrooms and teddy bears? Seems like a broad description. If I heard someone at work saying there was a child on the phone with a pink bedroom and teddy bears, I wouldn't be thinking of a teenager. I would first assume that it was a little girl, most likely under 10 years of age.

In the reenactment, her mother is the first person to enter her room, where she finds her daughter tied up. Sarah keeps screaming for the mom to not hurt her and to leave her alone, but she's just fine when the strange man (a cop) cuts the tape off of her with a pocket knife. If this is anything like what really happened, I think there's some issues between the mother and daughter. Sarah's fear and mistrust of people seems aimed at her relatives and no one else.

There was no forced entry and no fingerprints left at the scene, yet Sarah claimed to have seen intruders breaking into the 2nd story window. IIRC, they don't say how the intruders got up to the window. What did they climb on to get there? Was there a ladder, did they climb on the top of their car, was there a 1st story roof under the window that they easily climbed and then stood on to open the window? And out of all the possible entry points in the house, why did they come through Sarah's bedroom window? Apparently, the front door was double dead bolted, but there had to be other windows, a glass door, a back door, etc, on the first floor that would be easier to get into than Sarah's 2nd floor bedroom window.

They don't mention if or how they suspect that the intruders got up to the 2nd story window. It was a rainy day and there were no wet or muddy footprints in or around the house.

After the attack, it took Sarah 2 months to learn basic things like how to tie her shoes and brush her teeth. What caused this? Was it from a blow to the head or because she endured such an enormously stressful event?

After the attack, she's too disabled to attend school, but when it's time for the homeschooling to begin, about two months later it seems, Sarah starts exhibiting a new symptom of seizures. Right after the first seizure, she says, "I didn't let them in". Why would seizures be immediately followed by comments regarding her innocence in the break in?

Why would two men break into a 14 year old girl's room, get caught trying to open the window, keep trying to open the window while she stands in that room dialing the phone, then when she leaves the room, they get inside and hide in her closet? Why were they in the closet? If they were really there to steal something wouldn't they have just went in and done that? Why would they hide in her bedroom closet waiting for her to return to the room? For all they knew she'd gotten out the front door and had left the house. Yet there they sit, waiting for her to return to the room? That part sounds really fishy to me.

Was the hypnotism scene shown in the segment the original, taped at the time it was performed, or was that reenacted? Her hypnotized behavior looks faked, imo. She's slouched in her chair and appears to me that she's trying to look like what she thinks a hypnotized person looks like. AND, the hypnotism was done at the request of the police because they didn't believe she was telling the whole story. I didn't know cops put so much trust into the fairly unproven field of hypnotism. Did the police do this because they trust this method and hoped to elicit real memories or did they set it up thinking that she'd finally tell everything she was keeping from them?

Regarding the seizures, she recounts the part of the attack where she passed out. She says, "and that's what I remembered in my first seizure". Robert Stack narrates that Sarah gets more of her memory of the event back with each seizure.

I've never heard of people who suffer seizures from a brain injury (or epilepsy or anything else) experiencing a recovery of memory with each event. Does that happen in people who have something like a post traumatic stress disorder? The psychiatrist called what Sarah was experiencing "a unique amnesia presentation" that was caused by a combination of head injury, terror, and suffocation.

The four intruders, two males and two females, left the house the same way they entered, through the 2nd story window in Sarah's bedroom. Why didn't they just walk out the back door? It had to be easier than climbing out of a 2nd story window in the rain.

In the reenactment, Sarah says, "You have to be my mother, but I have no feelings for you." So much of this whole thing seems like a teenage girl with emotional problems or attention issues.

Wow, excellent points. I hadn't watched the full thing in awhile so I forgot about some of that, but I think you might be onto something. I'm not saying she faked it, but there's definitely more going on than meets the eye.

Yeah, her mom struck me as weird. She seemed to have been babying Sarah, it's like come on she was 14 not a little 5 year old kid anymore...although I guess I attributed that to her perhaps being old fashioned, religious or generally just more conservative. That still doesn't explain how she kept referring to her as "that child" as opposed to by name though. Almost made her seem more distant, like she didn't love her as much.

In the reenactment I was always screaming at the tv like "WTF are you doing calling your mom! Call 911!" but I figured she was just scared or not thinking straight. I never noticed how she was calm for the male cop, but not her mom but that's an excellent point too.

Do you think this could be anything like what some people believe about The Wackers (i.e. making it up themselves)? For all I know the mom or other relatives could've done something horrible to Sarah and masqueraded it as amnesia after the breakin? I'm not suggesting her relatives are criminals or anything, but I definitely believe something traumatic happened to her, just maybe not the way the segment plays it out.

Yeah in 1993 people were almost still totally using 80s technology (even 70s for older people) and I remember those full size VHS camcorders were still around then. I guess it could've been a lucky break they had it ready, but it does seem a little too perfect.

I really don't know what to think. I sure hate to accuse a 14 year old of lying about being a victim, but there are some strange things in this case.

Whether she was throwing a fit and tearing up the house, then needed a reason to explain the mess,

or had friends over when she was supposed to be home from school sick and then needed an explanation in case neighbors saw people at the house,

or was desperate for attention and made the whole thing up,

or if she took cold medicine (which she did at 8:30 that morning, I wonder what kind of medicine it was) and then had some kind of reaction to it,

or if strangers or acquaintances decided to terrorize her.... I don't know.

It would be nice to have more info. Photos of the crime scene would probably tell us a lot about if the people just threw things around the house or if it looked more like thieves were really looking to steal something. One thing that bothers me is the lack of fingerprints, footprints, and other evidence. If there were really 4 intruders in the house, it seems like at least one of them is bound to goof up and leave evidence.

Although, come to think of it, if friends were over, and she was trying to cover that up, why weren't their footprints or fingerprints found in or around the house?

Gah! idk... I just keep talking myself in circles on this one.

Tracy, I think you elaborate on all the many things that are odd about this case very well. I just can't believe Sarah's story, myself. It just doesn't make sense. Beyond that, I can only guess at what actually happened.

I really don't know what to think. I sure hate to accuse a 14 year old of lying about being a victim, but there are some strange things in this case.
Whether she was throwing a fit and tearing up the house, then needed a reason to explain the mess,
i dont know if she threw a fit, i just cant see it.

or had friends over when she was supposed to be home from school sick and then needed an explanation in case neighbors saw people at the house,
i cant say that one, why tie her up??

or was desperate for attention and made the whole thing up,
still cant believe it.

or if strangers or acquaintances decided to terrorize her.... I don't know.
again, i dont agree, i think Sarah knew who these people were, BUT she didnt speak because she was threatened.

One thing that bothers me is the lack of fingerprints, footprints, and other evidence. If there were really 4 intruders in the house, it seems like at least one of them is bound to goof up and leave evidence.
that's the confusing part, did they clean up the house of their muddy footprints before they left?? this is a strange case and one that i think Sarah knows more answers than she is giving.

Regarding the points I made earlier....

I can see the possibility (but only a small possibility) of her being angry with her mom or someone else, and then once she was alone, making a huge mess out of the house in some kind of an outburst.

I brought up that idea because I've seen people do it. When my dad was in his thirties, he went on more than one rampage, destroying things in the house, punching holes in the walls and doors, throwing all the glasses and dishes onto the floor and breaking them, just because he was angry with my mom over something very trivial (maybe the checkbook didn't balance perfectly or some other minor thing) and wanted to make her clean it all up. However, Sarah did not really seem to have that kind of personality. I thought she seemed like a fairly calm person who would be easy to get along with, but then you never really know what someone is capable of, or what will make them snap, I guess.

If she had friends over when she wasn't supposed to and thought the neighbors may have seen people in or around the house, so may have panicked and thought she'd need an excuse for why they were there. The only reason I could see her being tied up would be to make the "intruder" scenario seem real. Of course, it's another remote possibility.

Being desperate for attention and making the whole thing up, I can really see. Again, people do some really weird things. My sister in law was about 14 years old when she tried to commit "suicide". She ended up in the hospital and got a lot of the attention that she was seeking. She is deathly allergic to aspirin. She chose to overdose on tylenol. If she really wanted to die, she would have overdosed on the aspirin, which was sure to kill her.

She's in her 40s now and still does a lot of crazy crap for attention. For example, when our two youngest sisters in law got married in 1998 and 2000, she couldn't stand someone other than her being the center of attention. She immediately held a 12 year vow renewal ceremony for her husband and herself, complete with wedding gown and the whole deal. Then, our sisters in law had babies. That means lots of attention for the new moms, plus baby showers, etc. This particular SIL's children were teenagers and she didn't plan on having more kids. Again, she couldn't deal with other people getting the attention she wanted, and actually had another child on purpose, just so she could have a baby shower and get all that "new mommy" attention. She created another human being just so SHE could be the center of attention.

About the strangers or acquaintances deciding to terrorize her, intimidate her, rough her up... if this is what happened, I wonder what the motive could have been. According to her, there were two males and two females. I wonder if one of the girls got jealous of Sarah for some reason. Maybe she was prettier than that girl, get better grades, was more popular, idk.

Back when I was 13, one 15 year old girl's boyfriend (I knew of her, but had no idea who the guy was) said that he thought I was pretty. That was it. She and her two friends jumped me at the school bus stop. I had no idea what the motive was at the time. That came out later. Three 15 year olds beating up a 13 year old naive, innocent kid who hadn't even done anything against any of them. I wonder if maybe the same thing happened to Sarah. She could have been a target for a reason that she was unaware of.

There are so many odd things in this case. I really wish we could get more info that would help narrow down our speculations.

If she had friends over when she wasn't supposed to and thought the neighbors may have seen people in or around the house, so may have panicked and thought she'd need an excuse for why they were there. The only reason I could see her being tied up would be to make the "intruder" scenario seem real. Of course, it's another remote possibility.
you know this could be a possible now that i think of it, have her friends tie her up and clean up, ransack the house than leave.
Being desperate for attention and making the whole thing up, I can really see.
my issue with this though is, how did she get so tied up??? was one of her friends helping her out???? that's why i think the attention thing is harder for me to believe.
About the strangers or acquaintances deciding to terrorize her, intimidate her, rough her up... if this is what happened, I wonder what the motive could have been.
if that's what happened, that's harder to prove too, until we find out the truth.
According to her, there were two males and two females. I wonder if one of the girls got jealous of Sarah for some reason. Maybe she was prettier than that girl, get better grades, was more popular, idk.
that's a good motive, that could happen. a Jealous girl and wanting payback.
There are so many odd things in this case. I really wish we could get more info that would help narrow down our speculations.
yeah, i wish they had a more updated Unsolved Mysteries show where the victims (or families) are older and know more. i hate not being able to find any info on this case, the case of Blair Adams, the case of Angela Hammond, the Circleville Letters and others that i cant think of right now.

Oh yeah... there are so many cases that I know we'd love to see updates or more info on, but there's so little information available online about them.

You mentioned the circleville letters. I just watched that one today. It would be great to find out more details on that one. I thought the first letter looked like it had been written on kindergarten or first grade type lined paper. The kind where the top line and bottom line are solid and far apart, with a dashed line in the center. Since a bunch of school people were involved in this, the officials must have checked out the source of that paper.

Then there were all the misspellings and uses of phrases that I would think would be fairly unique to just a few people in a town as small as that. One phrase that stands out is "homebreaker". I don't know anyone who uses that word. I've heard of someone being called a "homewrecker" but never homebreaker. I thought that could be an interesting lead.

Then there was the odd way the letter "G" was formed in those letters and the repetitive use of the word "pig". I would think a linguistics specialist could look at those letters and narrow down the list of suspects fairly quickly.

I need to go look up the circleville threads now and see what everyone was discussing.... :)

I need to go look up the circleville threads now and see what everyone was discussing.... :)
yeah, you do that, if you find any big info tell us about it, i wish i knew what's going on today in Circleville, i wish i knew if the letter writer still writes.

Great analysis TracyLynnS. Thorough and thought provoking. You broke down and put into words all great majority of the things I thought while watching the segment. The forensic evidence (or more to the point the lack of forensic evidence) regarding the alleged intruders and Sarah's subsequent behavior are the main reasons I think she has faked up the whole thing.

Subsequent to that, I just go on common sense and that tells me you have summed it up perfectly right here:
In the reenactment, Sarah says, "You have to be my mother, but I have no feelings for you." So much of this whole thing seems like a teenage girl with emotional problems or attention issues.

I'd bet that there were attention seeking incidents, or at the least attention seeking behavior above and beyond "the norm", previous to this incident.






In the seizure event filmed at her grandparents house, they are holding Sarah down while she convulses and thrashes around, moaning and grunting. Would a traumatic memory resurface like that, in such a physical display?

I honestly do not know but I suspect that would be a very infrequent occurrence. In my opinion this was just an example of her attention seeking behavior. The family pays attention to her and cares for her when these "seizures" happen and her "memories" surface.


In the reenactment, her mother is the first person to enter her room, where she finds her daughter tied up. Sarah keeps screaming for the mom to not hurt her and to leave her alone, but she's just fine when the strange man (a cop) cuts the tape off of her with a pocket knife. If this is anything like what really happened, I think there's some issues between the mother and daughter. Sarah's fear and mistrust of people seems aimed at her relatives and no one else.

Great point. Its as if she wants to pointedly express to her mother that she doesn't know her, won't acknowledge her, and is fearful of her being close to her.

There was no forced entry and no fingerprints left at the scene, yet Sarah claimed to have seen intruders breaking into the 2nd story window. IIRC, they don't say how the intruders got up to the window. What did they climb on to get there? Was there a ladder, did they climb on the top of their car, was there a 1st story roof under the window that they easily climbed and then stood on to open the window? And out of all the possible entry points in the house, why did they come through Sarah's bedroom window? Apparently, the front door was double dead bolted, but there had to be other windows, a glass door, a back door, etc, on the first floor that would be easier to get into than Sarah's 2nd floor bedroom window.

They don't mention if or how they suspect that the intruders got up to the 2nd story window. It was a rainy day and there were no wet or muddy footprints in or around the house.

Why would two men break into a 14 year old girl's room, get caught trying to open the window, keep trying to open the window while she stands in that room dialing the phone, then when she leaves the room, they get inside and hide in her closet? Why were they in the closet? If they were really there to steal something wouldn't they have just went in and done that? Why would they hide in her bedroom closet waiting for her to return to the room? For all they knew she'd gotten out the front door and had left the house. Yet there they sit, waiting for her to return to the room? That part sounds really fishy to me.

100% agree with all the suspicion here. It just doesn't make any sense. Neither scientifically, "theoretically, or "real worldy"(lol). What it sounds like is a story that sounds scary to a 12 year old. Its complete with scary men in masks breaking in and she remembers more and more as time goes on, yet the story possesses as 12 year old's understanding of police procedure and medical treatment. She couldn't fathom the depths of the investigation by the police. Its quite possible she didn;t expect the police to even be called just for her mom to come home and find her. Therefore she couldn't make any neighbors see men in masks carrying a ladder on a rainy day outside the home, why the intruders would need masks, how they knew to enter her 2nd story window as the only accessible point of entery, couldn't account for the intruder's watery footprints, why nothing was taken, etc.


I didn't know cops put so much trust into the fairly unproven field of hypnotism.

This is the only part of your breakdown I would disagree with. I don't think police regard hypnotism as "fairly unproven". LE's have used hypnotism for quite a long time, on willing witnesses, to try and get memories that aren't readily recalled but may lurk somewhere in the recesses of the brain.

I get a weird vibe about the family. Sarah's mother keeps calling her "that child", "this child", "my child" and "the child". Is that normal? I would think she'd would say "my daughter" more than "that child".

The mother suspected Sarah was lying about her attack induced amnesia and tried to trick her into admitting that she really did remember her family. She worked at it for 3 days before accepting that the amnesia was real. If there weren't problems in the family before this event, why would the mother have any reason to think that Sarah was faking?

If I were as close to my daughter as Sarah's mom claims to be with her, I wouldn't need to trick or test her for three days to determine if she was faking amnesia. "After three days, I knew something was wrong." Holy cow! What if something was really, really, really, wrong. Three days is a long time to let your child suffer in order to satisfy your curiosity.

I'm also wondering about the seizures caught on tape at her grandparents house. She had a total of 9 seizures with one being caught on video. How could they predict that it would happen again, and have their camera ready, when she had only a few of these episodes?

We had a video camera back then, but it was a pain to get ready (big battery, get it all out of the case, etc) in time to catch something spontaneous on film. It's not like today where you can just grab your cell phone and take a quick video without any preparation.

In the seizure event filmed at her grandparents house, they are holding Sarah down while she convulses and thrashes around, moaning and grunting. Would a traumatic memory resurface like that, in such a physical display?

When Sarah called her mom's work for help, she couldn't identify herself, but knew what a "redial" button was. She described her room to the person on the phone by saying that everything was pink and there were teddy bears everywhere. This is when her mother knows that the child on the phone is Sarah. It's just another thing that I think is odd. How many female children have pink bedrooms and teddy bears? Seems like a broad description. If I heard someone at work saying there was a child on the phone with a pink bedroom and teddy bears, I wouldn't be thinking of a teenager. I would first assume that it was a little girl, most likely under 10 years of age.

In the reenactment, her mother is the first person to enter her room, where she finds her daughter tied up. Sarah keeps screaming for the mom to not hurt her and to leave her alone, but she's just fine when the strange man (a cop) cuts the tape off of her with a pocket knife. If this is anything like what really happened, I think there's some issues between the mother and daughter. Sarah's fear and mistrust of people seems aimed at her relatives and no one else.

There was no forced entry and no fingerprints left at the scene, yet Sarah claimed to have seen intruders breaking into the 2nd story window. IIRC, they don't say how the intruders got up to the window. What did they climb on to get there? Was there a ladder, did they climb on the top of their car, was there a 1st story roof under the window that they easily climbed and then stood on to open the window? And out of all the possible entry points in the house, why did they come through Sarah's bedroom window? Apparently, the front door was double dead bolted, but there had to be other windows, a glass door, a back door, etc, on the first floor that would be easier to get into than Sarah's 2nd floor bedroom window.

They don't mention if or how they suspect that the intruders got up to the 2nd story window. It was a rainy day and there were no wet or muddy footprints in or around the house.

After the attack, it took Sarah 2 months to learn basic things like how to tie her shoes and brush her teeth. What caused this? Was it from a blow to the head or because she endured such an enormously stressful event?

After the attack, she's too disabled to attend school, but when it's time for the homeschooling to begin, about two months later it seems, Sarah starts exhibiting a new symptom of seizures. Right after the first seizure, she says, "I didn't let them in". Why would seizures be immediately followed by comments regarding her innocence in the break in?

Why would two men break into a 14 year old girl's room, get caught trying to open the window, keep trying to open the window while she stands in that room dialing the phone, then when she leaves the room, they get inside and hide in her closet? Why were they in the closet? If they were really there to steal something wouldn't they have just went in and done that? Why would they hide in her bedroom closet waiting for her to return to the room? For all they knew she'd gotten out the front door and had left the house. Yet there they sit, waiting for her to return to the room? That part sounds really fishy to me.

Was the hypnotism scene shown in the segment the original, taped at the time it was performed, or was that reenacted? Her hypnotized behavior looks faked, imo. She's slouched in her chair and appears to me that she's trying to look like what she thinks a hypnotized person looks like. AND, the hypnotism was done at the request of the police because they didn't believe she was telling the whole story. I didn't know cops put so much trust into the fairly unproven field of hypnotism. Did the police do this because they trust this method and hoped to elicit real memories or did they set it up thinking that she'd finally tell everything she was keeping from them?

Regarding the seizures, she recounts the part of the attack where she passed out. She says, "and that's what I remembered in my first seizure". Robert Stack narrates that Sarah gets more of her memory of the event back with each seizure.

I've never heard of people who suffer seizures from a brain injury (or epilepsy or anything else) experiencing a recovery of memory with each event. Does that happen in people who have something like a post traumatic stress disorder? The psychiatrist called what Sarah was experiencing "a unique amnesia presentation" that was caused by a combination of head injury, terror, and suffocation.

The four intruders, two males and two females, left the house the same way they entered, through the 2nd story window in Sarah's bedroom. Why didn't they just walk out the back door? It had to be easier than climbing out of a 2nd story window in the rain.

In the reenactment, Sarah says, "You have to be my mother, but I have no feelings for you." So much of this whole thing seems like a teenage girl with emotional problems or attention issues.
Ok,first of all,I completely disagree with most everyone on this. She is telling the truth,100% to the best of her ability. I think she was hiding nothing.
I did not think her mother was "weird" for calling her a child,since,oh,I don't know.....that's what she was!

Now,on to actual factual information (haha,actual-factual,funny,I have no life).
Anyway,having been in the medical profession for a long time,and also being an epileptic,I can cover many angles,brought up by your posting.
I developed epilepsy 3 years ago,at 26,which is considered "adult onset",and like Sarah's,it's usually the result of a physical insult to the brain.
You said "how would they know when she was going to have a seizure?"
I usually get what we epileptics call an "aura" anywhere from 1 to 15 minutes before the seizure occurs. It's distinct and it gives me the ability to let people know that I'm going to have a grand-mal (or tonic-clonic). I also have a service dogs that warns me too,but that's got nothing to do with this.
So anyway,after he first couple seizures,it is completely believable that the family knew she was going to have one. Sometimes,there isn't an aura,but often,there is.
Also,a grand-mal seizure,can last anywhere from 60 seconds to 5 minutes,and that's normal,it can go on longer,at which point it would be considered much more dangerous,because of the lack of oxygen entering the brain. 5 minutes of a scary looking grand-mal seizure,can seem like an hour to anyone witnessing it. And it's certainly enough time,even if she had no idea one was coming (but again,she likely did),they could take out a camcorder,no matter how heavy and bulky,and tape some of it,I mean we only saw 2-5 seconds of it in the episode,so that argument cannot possibly hold water.
Also,the person having the seizure knows nothing,is completely out of it,and after they wake up,have amnesia for anywhere from 10 minutes on up. I always know nothing when I wake up. Don't know what happened,don't know who the people are around me,where I live,or who the president is (which for now,I'm happy to forget). I can tell you exactly what happened.
After the psychological trauma,blunt force trauma,and then an oxygen-starved brain,she had a seizure,when she woke up,she had the amnesia that all of us have when we have a grand-mal (as opposed to pettit-mal,or absence seizures where we don't lose consciousness). For me, my "amnesia" last only about 2-3 hours,after which I start to remember things pretty quickly.
Well not everyone's the same. Some have the amnesia for 10 minutes after they come to,and others,it can be long-term,even permanent,especially if the brain was starved of oxygen for a lengthier time than 5 minutes. We weren't there,she could have been seizing for 5 minutes or longer.
Now,the reason I know she's telling the 100% truth,is because of how she explains things. How she felt when she "came to",what she was thinking,and the "flashbacks" that she gets after a seizure. And let me tell you,I did not go through what she went through,and even my "flashbacks",are very,very scary,just because of the feeling that comes over you. If you have never experienced a grand-mal seizure,then you cannot possibly understand the line of thinking (or lack there of),that accompanies one. Everything she says is spot on to how I think,and feel after one.I would never question her sincerity. I always believed her in this story,ever since the first time I saw it over 10 years ago,before I developed epilepsy,or had any medical training.
The whole thing makes perfect sense to me.
Now as for no fingerprints,nothing taken,etc. There's a saying we use in medicine, and I've found it's often true when it comes to crime and the law "When you hear hoofs...think horse,not zebras". Meaning,it's usually the simplest,most common,and logical answer. Your arm is sore? Well sure,there's always a change it could be some rare genetic disorder,but more than likely,it's just a muscle strain.
Same goes for this circumstance. I think that for whatever reason,the house,or the family was targeted,they came in to make "a point",and then left.
You see,the fact that two girls were also in there,sets something off in me right away. It's not unheard of,of course, but most of the time,burglars tend to be male,again,thats not always the case,but is true most of the time.
Also,two teen-young adult women aren't likely to go into a house with their two male friends,boyfriends,whatever,to steal. No,the guys do that,the chicks wait. The fact that two chicks were in there,talking,ransacking leads me to think it was either gals who knew Sarah,or someone else in the family,and asked the guys to help get her/the family "back" for something they did,or they perceived they did. Or,they came in to that house,looking for something they did not find,and then swiftly left.
No fingerprints? GLOVES. No footprints? CARPET. Just a couple of examples out of many reasons why there was no "physical evidence left behind. Lest we forget how many cases we see,where there was no physical evidence left/ And this was just a burglary,as opposed to a rape or murder,where physical evidence should be there for sure,but sometimes,still isn't.
I can tell just by watching her facial movements,the way she speaks,the manner in which she speaks,her eye contact and lack of "rapid blinking",that she's telling everything she knows,do deception. Plain and simple.

So,that's my take on the case,now I could be completely wrong about this whole story,but I'm not....

Oh wow! Thanks for all that info. :) The seizures were one of the points of her story that I didn't understand.

I'm so glad you are able to give us insight into this part of her case. I've known a few people with different types of seizure problems but I never knew them well enough to ask any personal health questions. I appreciate you sharing your experiences with us.

If Sarah's seizures happened like that, it makes much more sense about why she would have a period of amnesia and then recall the memories.

Yeah,that's why I don't doubt her sinserity. I certainly admit that from a laymans point of view (and by laymans,I only mean those who do not have a seizure disorder,or are not medical professionals),it certainly does seem quite odd,the whole story in general. The one thing that I did find to be a little bewildering,is why no one else in her family was mentioned. She did have a sister,and a father,but there is no mention of them. In a case like this,the sister especially,could be pertinant to the story. No mention of how old the sister was,if she herself ahd any known enimies,or any troubles.
That part I did find odd.

The fact that two chicks were in there,talking,ransacking leads me to think it was either gals who knew Sarah,or someone else in the family,and asked the guys to help get her/the family "back" for something they did,or they perceived they did. Or,they came in to that house,looking for something they did not find,and then swiftly left.
No fingerprints? GLOVES. No footprints? CARPET. Just a couple of examples out of many reasons why there was no "physical evidence left behind. Lest we forget how many cases we see,where there was no physical evidence left/ And this was just a burglary,as opposed to a rape or murder,where physical evidence should be there for sure,but sometimes,still isn't.
I can tell just by watching her facial movements,the way she speaks,the manner in which she speaks,her eye contact and lack of "rapid blinking",that she's telling everything she knows,do deception. Plain and simple.

i cant answer on if she's telling the truth or not, i personally feel that she did get some amneisa, but in the back of her mind (if she gets it back) i think she knows who did it, the fact that nothing was taken and Sara got beaten leads me to believe that this crime was just to hurt a family member which means someone they know did this in my book.

I don't understand why people think it so hard to believe that she was making everything up. The first problem I have with her story is she dialed the last number on the phone instead of dialing 911. I can see how it's easier to press the redial button instead of pressing three, but if you woke up tied up with no recollection of what happend what's the first number you dial? I've seen a story where a man had some sort of logging accident where he lost both of his arms and he managed to use his tongue to dial 911. Obviously 911 is imbedded in everyone's memories from a very young age, but if she was suffering from amnesia wouldn't it be less likely for her to press the redial button? She couldn't even remember to brush her teeth or write out her own name, but she remembers the redial function on the telephone? The next problem I have is what are the odds that these intruders decide to break into the Powell residence on the day that Sarah stays home from school? And 9:30 in the morning is a hell of a time for a burglary. And I believe someone else brought this up but why would she be so terrified of her mother when she approached her, but then has the complete opposite reaction to the police officer? There was no physical evidence left behind from FOUR different people who were allegedly trashing the place, and there was nothing taken from the house? What motive would these intruders have to ransack the house and not take anything? If they were trying to send a message to someone what would the point be in trashing the house? Why not just assault Sarah and leave her tied up? Wouldn't that be enough of a message to send? I really don't believe the whole intruder scenario. While I do believe it's possible that she could have some weird medical condition that causes her to black out and not remember anything, and maybe in this "blank state" she trashed the house herself and tied herself up. But I doubt that's the case. The biggest reason why is while she was seeing these people attempt to break in she runs to the phone and tries to call her mother at work? WHY? She had the perfect opportunity to call 911 (the intruders weren't even in the house yet) but instead she calls her mother at work? And after one busy signal she flees and tries to go out the front door? Even if all of this was true and she was just in a state of panic, why would she go back upstairs to her room knowing that just minutes before people were trying to break in? So IMO this leaves three possibilities:

1. As stated before, Sarah has some freak medical condition that causes her to blank out for extended periods of time and she herself trashed the house and tied herself up, and her seizures are real. (Perhaps these are dreams she's remembering as this alleged attack?)

2. She's doing this all for attention. She's faked the break in, made up the story of the intruders, and she's faking her seizures.

3. She may have been doing something she shouldn't have been doing with some other teens (possibly ransacking the house looking for drugs or money) then things got out of hand and someone actually did assault her and tie her up and out of fear for repercussions she made the whole "intruder" story up. If she let these people in it would explain why there where no signs of forced entry or footprints found in the house.

I tend to lean more towards her seeking attention, but if she was witholding information out of fear why would she give police a composite sketch of the suspect? There are just way too many holes in this girls story and unless she has a freaky medical condition, IMHO the signs are pointing to her making it all up.

I will say its possible that this really happened, but I think she knows more than she is saying. I have never bought into the whole "tying one's self up" issue that comes up in some of these cases. I just don't think it is that easy to do for most people. At least not while making it look convincing.

During her interview on the show, she seemed to almost laugh when talking about the incident. I am begining to wonder if she knows her attackers, and is either afraid of retaliation, or possibly is just not wanting to turn them in for some reason. The laugh of course could be chalked up to being nervous on camera but I think she is hiding something.

The seizure info is interesting and it does make me wonder a bit if the whole thing might be true as she says. But something just isn't right here. I wonder if once these attackers got in, they removed their shoes to keep from leaving muddy foot prints. Then all you would have to do is find out how they got in and what they wanted.

Good point with mentioning the other family members. I wonder if any of them could have something to do with it somehow.

I don't understand why people think it so hard to believe that she was making everything up. The first problem I have with her story is she dialed the last number on the phone instead of dialing 911. I can see how it's easier to press the redial button instead of pressing three, but if you woke up tied up with no recollection of what happend what's the first number you dial? I've seen a story where a man had some sort of logging accident where he lost both of his arms and he managed to use his tongue to dial 911. Obviously 911 is imbedded in everyone's memories from a very young age, but if she was suffering from amnesia wouldn't it be less likely for her to press the redial button? She couldn't even remember to brush her teeth or write out her own name, but she remembers the redial function on the telephone? The next problem I have is what are the odds that these intruders decide to break into the Powell residence on the day that Sarah stays home from school? And 9:30 in the morning is a hell of a time for a burglary. And I believe someone else brought this up but why would she be so terrified of her mother when she approached her, but then has the complete opposite reaction to the police officer? There was no physical evidence left behind from FOUR different people who were allegedly trashing the place, and there was nothing taken from the house? What motive would these intruders have to ransack the house and not take anything? If they were trying to send a message to someone what would the point be in trashing the house? Why not just assault Sarah and leave her tied up? Wouldn't that be enough of a message to send? I really don't believe the whole intruder scenario. While I do believe it's possible that she could have some weird medical condition that causes her to black out and not remember anything, and maybe in this "blank state" she trashed the house herself and tied herself up. But I doubt that's the case. The biggest reason why is while she was seeing these people attempt to break in she runs to the phone and tries to call her mother at work? WHY? She had the perfect opportunity to call 911 (the intruders weren't even in the house yet) but instead she calls her mother at work? And after one busy signal she flees and tries to go out the front door? Even if all of this was true and she was just in a state of panic, why would she go back upstairs to her room knowing that just minutes before people were trying to break in? So IMO this leaves three possibilities:

1. As stated before, Sarah has some freak medical condition that causes her to blank out for extended periods of time and she herself trashed the house and tied herself up, and her seizures are real. (Perhaps these are dreams she's remembering as this alleged attack?)

2. She's doing this all for attention. She's faked the break in, made up the story of the intruders, and she's faking her seizures.

3. She may have been doing something she shouldn't have been doing with some other teens (possibly ransacking the house looking for drugs or money) then things got out of hand and someone actually did assault her and tie her up and out of fear for repercussions she made the whole "intruder" story up. If she let these people in it would explain why there where no signs of forced entry or footprints found in the house.

I tend to lean more towards her seeking attention, but if she was witholding information out of fear why would she give police a composite sketch of the suspect? There are just way too many holes in this girls story and unless she has a freaky medical condition, IMHO the signs are pointing to her making it all up.


I have no dog in this hunt, and I'll be honest, I didn't read your whole post, but one thing you have to remember is that a lot of places still didn't have 911 in the mid-nineties. Today, it's a given, "You have an emergency, call 911," but not so long ago, that wasn't the case. I remember, up here, that we still had to have numbers for State Police, Ambulance, and Fire up near the phone until the late nineties. It's possible her area did not have 911 at that time, and rather than dial a long number (which she may not have remembered, IF she did, in fact, get amnesia) it's much easier to simply hit redial.

Just my two cents...

Good point on the 911 issue. That is possible.

Another observation that has been brought up but most folks seem not to think much of it, doesn't anyone other than TheCars1986 and myself think it is weird that in her memory of what happened, when Sarah notices someone trying to break into her window, she grabs the phone and calls her mom's work number instead of 911?

I really am back and forth on this case, but that fact really does turn me more and more towards thinking that at least parts of this story were made up.

But as I said earlier, I have never bought into the people tying themselves up crap that is slung around so much in many of these cases.

Something else I am curious about, I wonder if the police looked in to any unexcused absenses from Sarah's school that day. If it was people her own age, then they too should have been in school that day. Any that were not and didn't have an alibi, should be at least questioned briefly.

Even if 911 was difficult to reach in her area, after she was attacked she lacked even the most basic motor skills (had to re-learn how to write her name and brush her teeth) but she rememberd the redial function on a telephone?

This case is ludicrous.

1) She had amnesia...and yet she remembers what happened to her? Really? It's really not supposed to work like that.

Amnesia w/o a major stressor,brain damage or drug or alcohol abuse is extremely rare. It also has to be diagnosed as being as such by physician. Telling someone that you have amnesia is almost certainly a sign that you do not.

2) Four people were in the house, on a rainy day and yet left no wet or muddy footprints? Inside or outside?

3) Burglars (more than one) broke into the house using a second story window and left using the same window? All of them? Why? Wouldn't it have been prudent for one to enter the house and then let the other ones in using a lower door or window?

4) They tied her up...but didn't otherwise harm her or take any valuables from the home? Why tie her up then? Why not lock her in the closet? What exactly was the point of the break-in?

5) With no prior symptoms, she suddenly collapses and undergoes a seizure when her mother mentions plans to homeschool her?

I know I had seen this segment before, but I didn't realize how fraudulent this entire story was. This is obviously the case of a disturbed young woman who for whatever reason decided to damage her home, tie herself up and then pretended to have memory loss.

The way I view it is that the only unsolved mystery here would be if family counseling, and perhaps a short stay in a mental institution, wouldn't have resolved this issue better been airing this ridiculous segment.

Telling someone that you have amnesia is almost certainly a sign that you do not.

That's what Arthur Paul Beal (aka Tyler) told the cops when he was arrested after appearing on UM in an attempt to discover his identity.

Cops: Are you that dude who ran away and stole that whole truck load of frozen chicken wings?

Beal: No man, I got amnesia.

.....or something like that. lol

If she were actually knocked unconscious by the butt of a revolver, wouldn't there be signs of blunt force trauma on her? I don't think they found any marks on her. I'd still like to know the exact reason why she did this (at least I think she's making it up) be it for attention or to cover up something that she thought she was going to be in big trouble over.

If she were actually knocked unconscious by the butt of a revolver, wouldn't there be signs of blunt force trauma on her? I don't think they found any marks on her. I'd still like to know the exact reason why she did this (at least I think she's making it up) be it for attention or to cover up something that she thought she was going to be in big trouble over.

That's another thing right there: when you are rendered unconscious, you almost never remember what happened before you became unconscious. I passed out before and I didn't remember what happened just before it happened. All I remember is coming to much later.

And why did they bring a gun to a house burglary? The majority of burglars do not bring weapons with them as that will add additional time to their sentence if they are caught with a weapon. Also, there were four of them according to her; why would they need to have displayed a gun?

I think her getting hit on the head with the gun, combined with being terrorized and slightly suffocated, is what her doctor said caused her to have the seizure episodes.

But.... is it normal to suffer a head injury and not show symptoms (the seizures) until two months later?

The symptoms she exibited soon after the incident included memory loss (did not recognize her family, etc) and inability to perform basic functions such as tying her shoes and brushing her teeth.

It was about two months after the attack that she started having seizures the were accompanied by resurfacing memories.

I can understand memories resurfacing over time. That kind of thing even happens to people who have never suffered a head injury. But what I really want to know is does a head injury or attack such as the one Sarah suffered, ever cause the very delayed symptom of seizures?

I think her getting hit on the head with the gun, combined with being terrorized and slightly suffocated, is what her doctor said caused her to have the seizure episodes.

But.... is it normal to suffer a head injury and not show symptoms (the seizures) until two months later?

The symptoms she exibited soon after the incident included memory loss (did not recognize her family, etc) and inability to perform basic functions such as tying her shoes and brushing her teeth.

It was about two months after the attack that she started having seizures the were accompanied by resurfacing memories.

I can understand memories resurfacing over time. That kind of thing even happens to people who have never suffered a head injury. But what I really want to know is does a head injury or attack such as the one Sarah suffered, ever cause the very delayed symptom of seizures?

Unfortunately, since everyone only has Sarah Powell word that she was struck in the head by the the butt of a gun, there's no way of knowing whether or not her symptoms were real or just another thing that she was faking.

There's another thing:in the time that has passed since this incident took place from there has never been a confession by anyone and there've been no arrests for this? Out of four people allegedly involved, no one got jammed up in court or pissed off at anyone else and decided to drop a dime?

I just thought of some other oddball aspects to this case.

After the attack, it took Sarah two months to re-learn basics like brushing her teeth and tying her shoes.

Yet her mom didn't think the amnesia was real, and for three days, tried to trick her into admitting that the amnesia was faked.

If Sarah was so physically or mentally traumatized/disabled because of this event that she could not even perform the basics of self care, why would the mom accept that Sarah had a real disability, but was faking amnesia?

How do you forget how to brush your teeth, yet she knew how to a. use a phone and b. knew what the redial button was used for? She gave a pretty generic description of the ONE attacker, along with the tattoo the man allegedly had. No one in that town recognized the fairly distinct tattoo by now? And just what exactly where those people doing there? And all four of these people entered and exited through the second story balcony which just so happened to lead into Sarah's room? And the odds that she breaks into seizures moments after her mother plans to take her out of school and home school her? Sounds to me like a girl with some excess baggage, not the victim of a brutal attack.

I may just be guessing this, but during the production meeting that the UM staff had when they were creating this segment there had to be quite a few snickers and a great deal of eye rolling over this story. I just can't see given the fact that they know even more information than was broadcast, how they were able to do this story with a straight face.

Not saying that Ms. Powell's obvious mental and emotional issues aren't serious; it's just that to believe this story you basically have to forget everything you know about criminal activity, medical issues and teenagers. Fortunately, most UM stories have more credibility than this one did.

One point I should clarify on my previous post. Just so I don't appear a complete moron. While I think its possible that as suggested maybe they did not have 911 in her area at the time what I was trying to say was that I think its odd that while these people were breaking into her house, she calls her mom instead of 911 or the police. Why not call and order a pizza while at it? I mean she might get hungry waiting for the police to get there.

Anyway, if she is telling the truth, I would have to say that the blow to the head and suffocation would be more than enough to cause even temporary amnesia. As I have said repeatedly though, I don't feel it is possible to tie yourself up that easily in the manner the segment showed.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that her story consists of 2 guys and 2 girls breaking in. This seems weird doesn't it? I mean, wouldn't 2 scary masked men be enough for the story? Why add 2 girls? That almost gives weight to the story.

While I still feel that at the least she is holding back info, whether it is that the whole thing is made up, or that she just knows more than she has said. I can't find any info on this online so far but I would love to see an update on this. Has it aired in the Farina's segments yet? Say what you will about those but at least they are giving more current updates.

One point I should clarify on my previous post. Just so I don't appear a complete moron. While I think its possible that as suggested maybe they did not have 911 in her area at the time what I was trying to say was that I think its odd that while these people were breaking into her house, she calls her mom instead of 911 or the police. Why not call and order a pizza while at it? I mean she might get hungry waiting for the police to get there.

Anyway, if she is telling the truth, I would have to say that the blow to the head and suffocation would be more than enough to cause even temporary amnesia. As I have said repeatedly though, I don't feel it is possible to tie yourself up that easily in the manner the segment showed.

One thing that strikes me as odd is that her story consists of 2 guys and 2 girls breaking in. This seems weird doesn't it? I mean, wouldn't 2 scary masked men be enough for the story? Why add 2 girls? That almost gives weight to the story.

While I still feel that at the least she is holding back info, whether it is that the whole thing is made up, or that she just knows more than she has said. I can't find any info on this online so far but I would love to see an update on this. Has it aired in the Farina's segments yet? Say what you will about those but at least they are giving more current updates.

I agree about the 9-1-1 part. It may not have been available in her area at that time.

1) The amnesia - Amnesia is a very rare and a very complex thing. If she truly had "amnesia" to the point where she couldn't even remember how to tie her own shoes, why wasn't she hospitalized?
And,as I was saying earlier, if you tell people that you have amnesia, you almost certainly DON'T.

2) The number of assailants is very odd. Why so many? And then they didn't take anything of value or seriously injure a young woman,home alone? Huh???

3) I don't think that there's an update for this unless it would be how she is currently under serious psychiatric counseling and is doing well.

4) IMHO, this particular segment was definitely one of the low points in the entire UM series.

I can remember back in the 70s/80s there was no 911 service where my grandparents lived in TN.

Either the local phone book people or the city or someone sent each household special heavy duty stickers to place on/near the phone with the emergency numbers on it. My grandparents had theirs on the phone handset so that when it was hanging on the wall, the stickers were the first thing you saw.

If Sarah's family didn't have 911 service, maybe they did the same thing. I suppose it's still possible that in a state of panic and confusion, a 14 year old would be thinking to call her mom for help, rather than dialing the number for city offices.

I can remember back in the 70s/80s there was no 911 service where my grandparents lived in TN.

Either the local phone book people or the city or someone sent each household special heavy duty stickers to place on/near the phone with the emergency numbers on it. My grandparents had theirs on the phone handset so that when it was hanging on the wall, the stickers were the first thing you saw.

If Sarah's family didn't have 911 service, maybe they did the same thing. I suppose it's still possible that in a state of panic and confusion, a 14 year old would be thinking to call her mom for help, rather than dialing the number for city offices.

I find it hard to believe that in 1993 in a upper-middle class town that was a suburb of Houston did not have 911 service. And she gave up calling her mother after only one attempt! It was busy, why not call her father, or neighbor, or anyone else!? She admits to running downstairs to go out the front door, and then waits around for several minutes because she hears silence. So she obviously would have had plenty of time to call another number for help.

The 911 is the biggest hole in my opinion. That to me seems more odd than any other aspect of the case. This girl is within a year of my age, and I can guarantee that the first thing I would have done at that age would be to dial 911.

I can argue 4 intruders might not leave foot or finger prints and its possible that they were looking for something that simply was not there. Wrong house maybe?

Also, I think that partial amnesia is possible. People with true amnesia always still remember how to communicate verbally but can also forget everything in their personal life, including simple things like brushing teeth or something like that. I figure, if she did have amnesia, and can remember the English, language, she might remember how to hit a redial button.

I agree that seizures would be difficult, but not impossible to fake.

Her mother does seem convinced that she did indeed have amnesia, and her other was skeptical of that to start with. Sarah should be in movies if she is that good an actress.

However, the fact that there was reportedly nothing taken from the house, is a red flag too. I wonder if this could be drug related, maybe Sarah or her sister had a stash and just haven't reported that missing for obvious reasons. So officially nothing was taken, but it doesn't mean there wasn't.

The 911 is the biggest hole in my opinion. That to me seems more odd than any other aspect of the case. This girl is within a year of my age, and I can guarantee that the first thing I would have done at that age would be to dial 911.

I can argue 4 intruders might not leave foot or finger prints and its possible that they were looking for something that simply was not there. Wrong house maybe?

Also, I think that partial amnesia is possible. People with true amnesia always still remember how to communicate verbally but can also forget everything in their personal life, including simple things like brushing teeth or something like that. I figure, if she did have amnesia, and can remember the English, language, she might remember how to hit a redial button.

I agree that seizures would be difficult, but not impossible to fake.

Her mother does seem convinced that she did indeed have amnesia, and her other was skeptical of that to start with. Sarah should be in movies if she is that good an actress.

However, the fact that there was reportedly nothing taken from the house, is a red flag too. I wonder if this could be drug related, maybe Sarah or her sister had a stash and just haven't reported that missing for obvious reasons. So officially nothing was taken, but it doesn't mean there wasn't.

Actually 9-1-1 doesn't bother me as much as everything else. Hitting the redial button in a panic could be an explanation,although why was her Mom's work number on the redial?

1) The excessive number of "burglars" for a daytime break bothers me as, even if they were on drugs, they would have known that they need to attract as little attention as possible.
That would have near impossible had they all climbed to a second story house window.

2) Climbing in through the window bothers me. While the "burglar show" on Discovery showed a ex-burglar entering a house in this manner, he was alone and used an area of concealment to do as such. The most logically way a large number would illegally enter a home is either forcing a lower floor door or window or one member entering the house and opening a door for the rest.

3) The fact that it was a rainy day (see the segment) and there were footprints inside nor outside bothers me. Even assuming that they didn't want to leave evidence and removed their shoes ( which seems implausible) when there be some sign of where the shoes were sitting inside the home?

4) Nothing of obvious value being taken bothers me. Four people aboard to break in your home, risk arrest, ransack the home and then steal nothing of obvious value? even if they were looking for drugs stash, if they encountered things that could be easily pocketed and sold, they would've stolen them.
This leads me to number five, which is:

5) The lack of serious harm inflicted upon Ms. Powell bothers me the most. After breaking into a home that that was occupied, taking enough time to completely ransack it and and then barely harming the single occupant? If they were looking for drugs ( a possibility posited by another poster) what may have conducted a more "aggressive interrogation" of Ms. Powell?

And frankly, why would they even leave her alive? She had seen all of their faces and could easily identify them. Even if she couldn't why would they take the chance? if for no other reason than to at least have slowed her from calling the police, why did they pull the phone out of the wall? Or cut the outside line?

Another big problem I have with her story is first these intruders try to suffocate her and she plays "unconscious". Then for some unknown reason she suddenly pops up and gets a look at her intruders, and that infuriates the bigger male to hitting her on the head with the butt of a revolver. Why didn't she just "play dead" to risk further injury? And she just so happens to awaken when they're about to exit? She remembers the little guy plugging the phone back in and setting it in the bed close to her right before they all exited the residence.

All good points but if I may add a correction, she didn't see any of their faces. The one composite sketch shown on the segment was what one intruder may look like without his mask (he appeared to be wearing a nylon stocking over his head) the other intruder was wearing a rubber Halloween mask (freddy krueger as shown in the segment). Also the reason the mothers number was on redial is simply because she was the last number called from that phone. Sarah even said that in the segment.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that they were on drugs while breaking in. Merely that they possibly could be looking for a drug stash, or some other item that may not have been legally in the home.

The other possibility that occurred to me would be that the wrong house was entered. They may have been looking for something that just wasn't even there and found Sarah.

I really don't know. There are holes in any theory. While a lot points to her making the whole thing up, I just don't think that is the whole story. I think if there were indeed intruders, that Sarah either knows who they were or at least why they were there. Here is a thought, suppose the parents (the dad was strangely absent from the segment) were involved in something illegal. If Sarah at first recognised these people, that might explain why she attempted to contact her mother first before the police.

Either way, I think she knows more han she is telling. But I still don't know what I really believe in this story.

All good points but if I may add a correction, she didn't see any of their faces. The one composite sketch shown on the segment was what one intruder may look like without his mask (he appeared to be wearing a nylon stocking over his head) the other intruder was wearing a rubber Halloween mask (freddy krueger as shown in the segment). Also the reason the mothers number was on redial is simply because she was the last number called from that phone. Sarah even said that in the segment.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that they were on drugs while breaking in. Merely that they possibly could be looking for a drug stash, or some other item that may not have been legally in the home.

The other possibility that occurred to me would be that the wrong house was entered. They may have been looking for something that just wasn't even there and found Sarah.

I really don't know. There are holes in any theory. While a lot points to her making the whole thing up, I just don't think that is the whole story. I think if there were indeed intruders, that Sarah either knows who they were or at least why they were there. Here is a thought, suppose the parents (the dad was strangely absent from the segment) were involved in something illegal. If Sarah at first recognised these people, that might explain why she attempted to contact her mother first before the police.

Either way, I think she knows more han she is telling. But I still don't know what I really believe in this story.

Ok...I stand corrected. But four masked intruders is actually WORSE for her. Why would a daytime burglar break into a home wearing a mask? One of the "advantages" for a burglar of operating in the daytime is that they are unlikely to encounter residents in the homes. Plus a mask limits your vision and would be very uncomfortable for anything other than short periods of time.

The redial also doesn't work for me because whose work number leads directly to their desk? Unless,of course, you owned the company or were the receptionist.

Here's another thing: The materials that they used to bind her. Did they bring that w/ them and take it when they left? If they did, why would they? Were they expecting someone to be at home? Wouldn't that have increased their level of danger (possible armed homeowner) and also the chances that somebody would have called the police?

IMHO, the father's absence from the segment tells me that he had some serious issues w/ the entire tale, Not saying that he didn't believe the story, but most parents in this type of situation would have at least been on air to support their spouse and children.

That's part of the reason that I doubt that this was drug-related. The father would want as little publicity as possible ( no publicity would be preferable) as this would bring law enforcement attention to any type of drug "activity."
Even if he wasn't part of the segment, the filming and production itself would have brought unwanted attention to him.

The redial also doesn't work for me because whose work number leads directly to their desk? Unless,of course, you owned the company or were the receptionist.

Not sure about the rest, but I think the redial button called Sarah's mom's work (the post office, IIRC) and not directly to her mom's desk or work station.

Sarah said she did not know her name and could not identify herself. She told the person who answered the phone that she was in a pink bedroom with a lot of teddy bears.

Since the woman answering the phone didn't know who the caller was, she began telling her co-workers that there was a girl on the phone who couldn't give her name but was describing the room she was in.

Upon hearing the description of the room, Sarah's mom realized that it was her daughter on the phone. I forgot exactly what happened after that. Seems like her mom called police and went home, with her and the cops arriving at about the same time.

While it's entirely possible that a blow to the head would cause someone to have a deficiency in motor skills, there were no known bruises or abrasions on her so how are we to explain her having to "re-learn" brushing her teeth and spelling her name? There was no evidence of any trauma (except being found tied up which would cause emotional trauma) so they only evidence we have is Sarah's word. In my opinion, if LE is skeptical then in all likelihood there was no evidence of a break in or any intruders. I wonder what she's up to now anyway.

Nothing was said in the segment as to if she actually had any detectable physical injuries. Seems like that would have been an important point to bring up either way. I tend to think that she must have had at least a bump on the head or they would have completely discounted her story from the start. Her doctor and hypnothearapist seem to think she was being truthful.

The segment didnt say exactly why she had trouble brushing her teeth and such. It didnt say if it was lack of motor skills, or simply that she forgot how to.

It is strange that in her story the intruders pick that upstairs window. As cocytus stated that seems an unlikely entry point. I wonder what the geography of the area is like. That could shed some light on it. It could also be that if Sarah just wanted attention and made the story up, it some how makes the threat centering even more on her. With not only everything that may have happened to her, they pick her window to climb in through. At least i assume it was here room. I don't think the segment said that for certain either.

If her story is true these points (using only info in the segment and not conjecture) still bother me:
-Why did she call her mom at work instead of 911/police when she saw them breaking into the window?

-Why would intruders pick an upstairs window to break in? (Downstairs would have been quicker and easier to get in and out)

-Why were no muddy footprints left in the home? (gloves could have been used to not leave fingerprints so I leave that out)

-What or who were the intruders looking for? (remember that in the egment one intruder says "get the job done" this could imply something more than a plain robbery)


If she is making it all up, these points bother me:
-Why go with the whole amnesia/seizure angle to BS everyone? Seems like that would be harder to fake than just going with the story she did.

-On the same note, why wait for months to have the flashbacks? If this was for attention, I don't know if the length of time would get her more attention. She could just as easily have PTS from the incident to get attention.

-Why have the intruders be on a double date? I still think that 2 or even 4 masked men breaking in and terrorizing her would be much more scary than if they brought 2 girls with them.

-Why give the police enough description for a composite of one person? Why not simply say he had a mask on and I couldnt see his face?


I really have not chosen a side here. Most cases I am on the fence about I generally have a feeling one way or another, but this one really stumps me. Seems like facts point in both directions.

One other thing i was gonna mention, there is nothing about this online anywhere except for UM related sites. No newspaper articles or anything that I could find. Weird.

If she is making it all up, these points bother me:
-Why go with the whole amnesia/seizure angle to BS everyone? Seems like that would be harder to fake than just going with the story she did.

-On the same note, why wait for months to have the flashbacks? If this was for attention, I don't know if the length of time would get her more attention. She could just as easily have PTS from the incident to get attention.

-Why have the intruders be on a double date? I still think that 2 or even 4 masked men breaking in and terrorizing her would be much more scary than if they brought 2 girls with them.

-Why give the police enough description for a composite of one person? Why not simply say he had a mask on and I couldnt see his face?


I really have not chosen a side here. Most cases I am on the fence about I generally have a feeling one way or another, but this one really stumps me. Seems like facts point in both directions.

-I think the seizures started when Sarah's mom was going to pull her out of school. If she is making this whole thing up the seizures can easily be explained as whenever there's something that comes up in Sarah's life that she doesn't want to do, she has a "seizure". Similiar to when a toddler has a hissy-fit. Seizures wouldn't be all that hard to fake, and doesn't anyone else find it odd that they had a video camera ready when she had one at her grand parents house? What did they do, start carrying a camera around everywhere they went just hoping to capture the seizure on camera? Why? And wouldn't you think someone should put the damn camera down and call 911 or something?

-Again I think she belted something out in the middle of her first "seizure" to take whatever focus her mother had in taking her out of school or even questioning if what Sarah said happened was real away. Each time she had an episode she let a little more information out. So she obviously had time to a. make the story up as she went along and b. cover any possible holes she would have. (This would explain why the "intruders" didn't leave behind any muddy or wet footprints...perhaps Sarah forgot that on the date in question it was raining when she "remembered" what actually happened.)

-Highly unlikely that out ALL four of these intruders would have kept quiet for so long. One of them would have had to have blabbed about what they did to one of their friends and then the story would have spread like wildfire. Remember the case of Kurt Sova? Just look at how many kids in that town had many different scenarios of what happened to him and where he was at the time of his disappearance. The same thing should have happened here as Sarah herself said the "little guy" had some sympathy towards her, don't you think he would have wanted it off of his conscience by now? I'm sure the statue of limitations would be up.

-If the intruder on the composite sketch was real, he obviously had to be from around the area. If her story is true, these four people tore the house up and down looking for something...so he obviously had to know someone in Sarah's family, or if perhaps they had the wrong house, someone in Sarah's neighborhood. Why would someone who was not a local man go through all of this trouble to not take anything, let alone involve three other people? Yet no one comes forward and recognizes this man? The tattoo would have been easily distinguishable, and as I've said before at least one of these alleged intruders would have bragged to someone and still not one person has come forward. If they were afraid of retribution the fear should be gone by now considering nothing else has happened similiar to these attacks over the years. The most likely explanation is that this person is not real, Sarah made him up.

Nothing was said in the segment as to if she actually had any detectable physical injuries. Seems like that would have been an important point to bring up either way. I tend to think that she must have had at least a bump on the head or they would have completely discounted her story from the start. Her doctor and hypnothearapist seem to think she was being truthful.

The segment didnt say exactly why she had trouble brushing her teeth and such. It didnt say if it was lack of motor skills, or simply that she forgot how to.

It is strange that in her story the intruders pick that upstairs window. As cocytus stated that seems an unlikely entry point. I wonder what the geography of the area is like. That could shed some light on it. It could also be that if Sarah just wanted attention and made the story up, it some how makes the threat centering even more on her. With not only everything that may have happened to her, they pick her window to climb in through. At least i assume it was here room. I don't think the segment said that for certain either.

If her story is true these points (using only info in the segment and not conjecture) still bother me:
-Why did she call her mom at work instead of 911/police when she saw them breaking into the window?

-Why would intruders pick an upstairs window to break in? (Downstairs would have been quicker and easier to get in and out)

-Why were no muddy footprints left in the home? (gloves could have been used to not leave fingerprints so I leave that out)

-What or who were the intruders looking for? (remember that in the egment one intruder says "get the job done" this could imply something more than a plain robbery)


If she is making it all up, these points bother me:
-Why go with the whole amnesia/seizure angle to BS everyone? Seems like that would be harder to fake than just going with the story she did.

-On the same note, why wait for months to have the flashbacks? If this was for attention, I don't know if the length of time would get her more attention. She could just as easily have PTS from the incident to get attention.

-Why have the intruders be on a double date? I still think that 2 or even 4 masked men breaking in and terrorizing her would be much more scary than if they brought 2 girls with them.

-Why give the police enough description for a composite of one person? Why not simply say he had a mask on and I couldnt see his face?


I really have not chosen a side here. Most cases I am on the fence about I generally have a feeling one way or another, but this one really stumps me. Seems like facts point in both directions.

It took place in Clear Lake,Texas. That's a suburb of Houston and is mostly pan-flat.

1) The upper level is out for more than one person. Why? Nobody apparently fell either entering nor exiting. On a rainy day? W/ wet shoes? And as you and I have both stated,lower entrance and egress is the preferred method of entry.

2) Most crooks actually don't wear gloves. They are usually kind of stupid and gloves aren't easy to work if you don't wear them a lot.

3) I don't hold much stock in a hypnotherapist and apparently neither does the legal system as their testimony hold far less "weight" than it used to. As for the doctor, he (or she) basically can only work w/ what they discover and what their patient tells them happened.

4) The amnesia actually works out well if you think about it. You can always fall back on the old "I don't remember" when the questioning gets too rough for you and really only an expert in amnesia/brain injury (which there aren't many) could tell if you are "faking" it.

My guess is that she saw a television program or old movie where a character had amnesia and that influenced her...umm..."perceptions." I left out reading it in a book as amnesia was so overused as a plot device that few works of written fiction after 1970's use it.

That also partially explains the "flashbacks." People were forgetting what had "happened" and a "flashback" is a simple to bring attention back on to her. She "remembers" more details,she garners more attention and she has the added benefit of seeming to "return" to normal.

All of these events COULD have happened. The evidence that they did,however, seems pretty scant.

All very good points.

I have to wonder though if anything else has ever come up in this case one way or another. If Sarah faked the whole thing, she got a lot of the attention she was craving, especially with the UM broadcast. One would think that she might get hungry for that much attention again and do something to get that attention. Of course, I would think that it would have to be quite a bit as it probably wouldn't be as satisfying if she didn't make it onto TV with another stunt. I am gonna keep looking online to see if anything pops up related to this.

I watched this segment again recently. While I am not as sure as I am in the case of the Wackers and Cindy James (I think both were fakers), I think here is about a 90% chance that there were no intruders at Powell's house that day.

1) Nothing was stolen.

2) No footprints on a rainy day. The assailants came in the upstairs bedroom window, which means they very likely had to walk through grass and/or mud.

3) If the culprits were after her specifically, why the ransacking of the house? Why did they only tie her up and not "rough her up" more than they did? If there was a sexual motive, why no rape or attempted rape? If you rule out burglary (we can), rape (definitely can) and revenge (up in the air), we are getting pretty thin on motives. The revenge scenario seems the most likely (Sarah said two girls were with them), but it still doesn't really fit. I mean the girl was 14. These people didn't act like 14 year olds to me.

4) It's very hard to believe someone could be locked in their own house. Remember, she said that she was able to move around the house for a couple of minutes before they knew she was there. If that one door had a dead bolt with no latch, then she could have easily went to another door. Are they all locked with dead bolts that have no inside turn latch?

5) Why pick the upstairs window? I mean it was 8:30 in the day and people surely were around somewhere in the neighborhood which means any intruders would want the quickest way in. Couldn't they find an easier and less conspicuous way in the house? Wouldn't they have rattled her doors and downstairs windows before they tried the upstairs?

6) Witnesses. Where are they? It looks like a pretty well to do neighborhood and I am sure someone would have either seen a getaway car or a bunch of people walking down the street. For the length of time they were in the house, one would think a neighbor would see the car parked in the driveway or the intruders walking down on the street or around the house looking for entry.

7) When Sarah awoke from her attack she claims she got a hold of the phone and simply hit redial. This just so happened to be the number to her mother's work. I don't know about you, but the first number I am dialing is 911. The reason being is that she had no idea if her attackers were still in the house, thus 911 would be a much safer bet than calling mom. I find this part of her story very suspicious. It seems to me that she did not want to involve the Police.

8) Sarah actually had time before they broke into the window to call someone. The segment shows her dialing her mom at work. I dunno about you, but I am dialing 911 when I see 4 people at my window ledge with Halloween masks on. Either that or I am getting my gun ready. ;) But in all seriousness, this once again leads me to believe that she did NOT want the cops involved.

9) Why did her dad not appear on camera for the segment? All indications are that her parents were married at the time. Something tells me he does not believe her as much as the mother.

Conclusion:

I think one of four things happened:

1) Sarah made the story up to get at her parents out of some adolescent rebellion. This would explain why there was nothing missing from the house, why Sarah was not seriously beaten up, why there was no sexual assault, and why she called her mom and not 911. I give this about a 70% chance of being what happened.

2) Sarah had some friends over while she was out sick. This would explain why girls were there. I think at some point it's possible that there was a fight about something amongst the girls, which would explain why the downstairs was ransacked. Perhaps it was over a guy (which might explain the guys being there). Sarah made up the intruder story so that she wouldn't get in trouble with the parents or she took a lick on the head during the fight and really does have amnesia about the event and has falsely remembered exactly how it happened. I give this a 20% chance.

3) Sarah had some sort of accident in the house (hit her head on something) and then had a hallucination (or a dream) about intruders when she was unconscious. When traumatized, the brain does some very strange things that still puzzle neurologists. This would explain why she was able to fool the shrinks and would also explain her amnesia. However, let me say, this wouldn't really explain how she got tied up. Therefore, I give this about a 5% chance.

4) Everything happened as Sarah claims. If this is the case, then I can see only one of two scenarios. The first scenario is that they were burglars who got an erroneous tip about something very valuable in the house. But, if this were true, it is doubtful there would be 4 of them come along. It's just too risky. The second possibility is the revenge scenario. That is, some kids at school were mad at her about something. This better explains the two girls being with the other intruders, but still doesn't really explain all the ransacking. Moreover, wouldn't Sarah have some idea about who they were? She says she heard all of their voices rather plainly. I will say the chances of there really being a break-in by unknowns is about 5%.

So:

70% that Sarah is lying all together and she herself ransacked the house during a fit of some sort.
20% chance that she had friends over and something went amiss (a fight would explain the ransacking).
5% Sarah had an accidental head injury and dreamnt the whole thing up.
5% that it really happened as she described.

Disclaimer: I am basing my opinion only on the segment, but we all know UM leaves stuff out of segments. I would like to know if Sarah's parents had enemies. I would like to know if they ever did have anything extremely valuable in the house. I would like to know who called the cops -- the segment said Sarah hit redial to call her mom, but then said the cops were there when her mom got there. I would like to know if anyone recognized the description of the assailants and if there had been burglaries in the area. And, oh yeah, I would like to know if there was any duct tape or rope found in the house that matches what she was tied up with.

Other thoughts: The whole break-in scene UM did was pretty frightening visually. It was one of their scarier segments, imo.

Disclaimer: I am basing my opinion only on the segment, but we all know UM leaves stuff out of segments. I would like to know if Sarah's parents had enemies. I would like to know if they ever did have anything extremely valuable in the house. I would also like to know who called the cops -- the segment said Sarah hit redial to call her mom, but then said the cops were there when her mom got there. I would like to know if anyone recognized the description of the assailants and if there had been burglaries in the area. And, oh yeah, I would like to know if there was any duct tape or rope found in the house that matches what she was tied up with.

Other thoughts: The whole break-in scene UM did was pretty frightening visually. It was one of their scarier segments, imo.

Yeah the reenactment was very creepy, especially with the little guy wearing the Freddy Krueger mask. cocytus brings up an interesting point, in an earlier post about someone in the family (possibly the father) being involved in drugs. While I'm still under the firm belief that she made everything up, if Sarah's story is true, it would explain why the "intruders" broke into the house and ransacked everything. But if she's making everything up, maybe she herself was the one ransacking the house (she may have also had her friends over) in search of the drugs. But that's only if the drug angle is credible. If drugs are not involved in any way, I don't see this as anything other than a kid pulling an "adolescent stunt" (as Michael Scott Martin would say) trying to get attention or to get back at their parents.

When I was in high school, I had a friend that was a compulsive liar. She'd make up the most ridiculous stories, and stick to them no matter how much you challenged her about it. Some of the better ones were; she was a stripper (she was 14), she hung out with the Crips and/or the Bloods (we were from an upper middle class area) and she'd had at least two back alley abortions (these were apparently done surgically, just like a C-section. This was in 2000, when we lived about two miles from a Planned Parenthood, no less).

She was a nice enough kid, and I don't think there was any malicious intent behind her behavior, she just obviously had some need for attention and to impress people. I wouldn't have put it past her to go to ridiculous lengths to convince people that she was telling the truth about one of her stories.

Do I think Sarah had a similar personality? I can't say for sure. But I can picture a young girl making up a story for whatever reason, and then when things escalate (law enforcement gets involved) she's afraid to own up to what she did. So she just keeps on going, and the web keeps getting more and more tangled.

If Sarah truly was a victim, I feel sorry for her and I hope she's doing well in her adult life. But something about this just doesn't sit right with me.

Is she doing well now? I remember she had seizures, have they stopped? Mabye she is a compulsive liar. Are there any leads or updates on this case? Sorry so many questions but this case is filled with them.

I believe her. I think it would be hard for this girl to keep her lies straight enough to convince her family of this. There has to be more to this story that was not shown if it is true. Like a family member involved with drugs or something else. Maybe that is why the police don't believe the story, because the family is hiding stuff.

I believe her. I think it would be hard for this girl to keep her lies straight enough to convince her family of this. There has to be more to this story that was not shown if it is true. Like a family member involved with drugs or something else. Maybe that is why the police don't believe the story, because the family is hiding stuff.

The fact that every time a "seizure" occurred something new to the story suddenly came up seems to indicate she was making elements of the attack up as she went along. So she really wouldn't need to keep her story straight, she could just keep claiming amnesia.

Does anybody know how she's turned out?

I heard this story and I thought total BS, but then again, there were probably elements that UM left out of the story. Does she have an older sibling/brother, because that might account for some of the things in the story (bunch of older people looking for drugs).

But, I'm sorry, I can't help but think this was just an elaborate cry for attention from a troubled teen, and nothing more. Too much of the story just doesn't make sense.

When I was in high school, I had a friend that was a compulsive liar. She'd make up the most ridiculous stories, and stick to them no matter how much you challenged her about it. Some of the better ones were; she was a stripper (she was 14), she hung out with the Crips and/or the Bloods (we were from an upper middle class area) and she'd had at least two back alley abortions (these were apparently done surgically, just like a C-section. This was in 2000, when we lived about two miles from a Planned Parenthood, no less).

She was a nice enough kid, and I don't think there was any malicious intent behind her behavior, she just obviously had some need for attention and to impress people. I wouldn't have put it past her to go to ridiculous lengths to convince people that she was telling the truth about one of her stories.

Do I think Sarah had a similar personality? I can't say for sure. But I can picture a young girl making up a story for whatever reason, and then when things escalate (law enforcement gets involved) she's afraid to own up to what she did. So she just keeps on going, and the web keeps getting more and more tangled.

If Sarah truly was a victim, I feel sorry for her and I hope she's doing well in her adult life. But something about this just doesn't sit right with me.

I had a friend in high school who did the same thing. In fact, I had an opportunity to meet up with her months ago when she and I were both back in town, and she really hasn't changed in that regard. Her stories border on the ludicrous.

Like ms_bate's friend, mine certainly isn't a "bad" person. For whatever reason, she simply feels the need to exaggerate or completely fabricate stories for some sort of emotional payoff. I think she probably craves the concern and sympathy that are often given her. It seems her emotional needs often went unmet in childhood, as her parents separated in a heated, messy divorce when she was quite young. At least that's what I think.

I don't think Sarah is telling the truth. There are details of her story that don't sit at all well with me.

The fact that every time a "seizure" occurred something new to the story suddenly came up seems to indicate she was making elements of the attack up as she went along. So she really wouldn't need to keep her story straight, she could just keep claiming amnesia.

I guess that is possible, but I was including the fact that she had to fake amnesia as well. It would be difficult to not slip up. The story said she could not take care of basic needs. I just don't see why someone would fake all of this. She would have had to fake through hypnotism as well. Maybe I am gullible, but I just don't see why she would do this.

When I was in high school, I had a friend that was a compulsive liar. She'd make up the most ridiculous stories, and stick to them no matter how much you challenged her about it. Some of the better ones were; she was a stripper (she was 14), she hung out with the Crips and/or the Bloods (we were from an upper middle class area) and she'd had at least two back alley abortions (these were apparently done surgically, just like a C-section. This was in 2000, when we lived about two miles from a Planned Parenthood, no less).

She was a nice enough kid, and I don't think there was any malicious intent behind her behavior, she just obviously had some need for attention and to impress people. I wouldn't have put it past her to go to ridiculous lengths to convince people that she was telling the truth about one of her stories.

Do I think Sarah had a similar personality? I can't say for sure. But I can picture a young girl making up a story for whatever reason, and then when things escalate (law enforcement gets involved) she's afraid to own up to what she did. So she just keeps on going, and the web keeps getting more and more tangled.

If Sarah truly was a victim, I feel sorry for her and I hope she's doing well in her adult life. But something about this just doesn't sit right with me.

I have a friend like that who is also a compulsive liar and has been all the time I've known him. It gets to the point that he even end up destroying his work career and such but he's just out there. That is one of the reason I love the Ricky Gervais show and Karl Pilkington. The stories he says and how he totally believe them is something I relate to a lot. Many people think Pilkington is a joke and not real but I can totally belief him because of my friend. I can definitely see Powell doing so but there is a big difference to me and it's the fact that nobody would believe my friend. I mean it's to the point that only he gets fooled and everybody else just laugh behinds his back. Powell is being treated like she was serious and I that lets me too believe that she may have some credibility in normal life with his parents that I don't see somebody like my friend having.

I found this while looking for Sarah Powell online. Apparently, she claims to have had a near-death experience during her attack when she was knocked unconscious.

It's in the very first post where it says "Sarah Powell's NDE and Guardian Angel encounter".

http://www.thc-ministry.org/forum/showthread.php?p=52931

I found this while looking for Sarah Powell online. Apparently, she claims to have had a near-death experience during her attack when she was knocked unconscious.

It's in the very first post where it says "Sarah Powell's NDE and Guardian Angel encounter".

http://www.thc-ministry.org/forum/showthread.php?p=52931

Thanks for posting that link. Makes her story that less likely to have occurred. I couldn't even read the whole thing because it seems like total BS. Why didn't she make these claims on camera when her story was featured on UM? That would make the segment even more "mysterious" and I'm sure producers of UM would have loved to include that little tidbit.

I'm sorry,but I'm completely sure that everything she says is true. I can explain every if,and,and butt that everyone is coming up with,but at this moment,I don't have the time. But once again,as a woman with both adult onset epilepsy,and being in the medical profession,I can guarantee you that; YES,you can have trauma,be it to the brain,or even tot he body,and not only have seizure onset starts weeks,moths,and even years later. YES,amnesia has so many different aspects,and there are so many different kinds,and the fact still remains that amnesia is still shrouded in some mystery,as far as the medical communities knowledge of how it all works,and displays itself.
If you do not have an integral knowledge of neurology,the nervous system,as well as the endocrine system,you simply cannot comment to the oddities,or what you perceive to be oddities,to her story in regards to her actions/memories after the attack. The brain is the most complex and yet least understood organ in the body. You would be surprised what the brain is capable of,while simultaneously being void completely of certain function (like memory,and neurological responses,including body movement,thought process,and emotions). Regaining more and more of her lost memory over time,is not only believable, but happens to hundreds of people all the time. As far as her injuries,and what would,or would not have caused certain things like seizures and amnesia,I'll tell you the simplest way I know how.
Myself,I'm 29,and up until a few years ago,did not have any sort of neurological disorder or any major medical problem at all. At 26,I had a TOTAL hysterectomy....uterus,ovaries,and all. And for the guys (and women who aren't as familiar with their reproductive system),a total hysterectomy,puts you into menopause in a matter of a few minutes. Most women get years for their bodies to adjust to the onset of menopause,and even then,theres problems,and annoyances in the body. For a 26 year old female,to lose all of her hormones in a matter of moments,is a HUGE blow to the body. I wake up, and I'm basically a neut. Leave the hospital a week later. 3 more weeks go by,and all of a sudden WHAM my very first Grand-mal (tonic-clonic),seizure. So you have something that wasn't even a physical insult to the brain in any way,no injury,simply hormone flux,and bam...you're now an epileptic. 3 years later,and every single grand-mal seizure I have,is totally different,different things happen,my memories (or lack there of),are different.
My point is,that as far as the speculation about what can/did or did not not cause her amnesia and/or seizures,the possibilities,are endless. Blow to the head with the ass-end of a gun,being suffocated by the pillow for as long as she was,and even the fear she experienced,can all cause mental breakdown,and result in amnesia,as well as seizure activity. Fear induced amnesia,is not at all uncommon.
I'm tellin' ya,this girl is sincere!
I guess for me,what I don't understand,is why it's so hard for everyone to believe it's all true. I mean,to me...it makes no sense,it's all there in black and white,to me. Someone had brought up a point (or what they perceived to be a point)asking "why press redial,instead of 911?" LOTS OF REASONS. "why is it,that if she cannot remember how to brush her teeth,she could know to press redial?" Again,here we are with the complexities of the brain. It's 150% possible,for certain parts of her memory,to be gone,be it temporarily,or permanently,but others,still be present. This,is medical fact.
Sometimes,with cases like these,it comes down do peoples take on the situation,the evidence,things like that,comes down to how people read the suspects or victims in these different stories,and sometimes,it's just really a matter of opinion. But in this case,for me anyway,my hypothesis,take away even my own experience with seizures,trauma,and amnesia being the way I can tell she's telling the truth,by what she says......there's just plain,and simple scientific,medical fact here. Sorry,but it's the truth.
Oh yeah,and the one who asked "why would she be so scared of her own mom,but not of the police that came to help her?" Do we really need to explain? SHE'S GOT AMNESIA OF SOME SORT. She doesn't recognize her mother,but recognizes a police uniform of the man coming toward her (and telling her "it's ok Sara,I'm a cop"). I think that's a pretty understandable situation.
I'm set in stone on this one. Others,yes,I like to think my hypothesis,or gut feelings are correct,but in reality,I don't know,and points can be made to rebuke my opinion. But with this one,it's just plain black and white. There's no if,and or butt's about it.

Thanks for posting that link. Makes her story that less likely to have occurred. I couldn't even read the whole thing because it seems like total BS. Why didn't she make these claims on camera when her story was featured on UM? That would make the segment even more "mysterious" and I'm sure producers of UM would have loved to include that little tidbit.

Maybe I didn't look hard enough but I don't see anywhere that says Sarah posted that. I even took a little of the text and googled it. I see where it says it's her story but I don't see anywhere where it says I'm Sarah and this is my story.

I guess for me,what I don't understand,is why it's so hard for everyone to believe it's all true.

She seemed sincere to me. Do you think it's possible she isn't remembering everything exactly right but thinks she is?

Some people speculate that Sarah is a pathological liar. Why, other than you don't believe this one thing she says happened? I think it would have been hinted at in the segment if she always lied, or the cop who said he thought she was covering something would have said they asked around and found she lied a lot. No one in the segment said she was know to lie. To my knowledge no one who knew her has posted here and said she lied a lot. I'm not going to assume she did. Her mother says her first impression was that Sarah had been threatened, not that she lied.
The police officer says his first impression was that she was a teenager up to something that day and didn't want her parents to find out. Not much of that day had passed. It was only approximately 9:30 a.m. when she hit redial and even if you figure she tied herself up after that (and I don't) that still isn't much time to have done something that needed a stunt that big to cover up.
No fingerprints is not an issue for me when it comes to believing Sarah. Did she ever have friends over? How would they know who to discount? Why wouldn't the people have made sure they left no prints?
They say it was a rainy day. They didn't say it had rained all night. When did the rain start? Could it have started after the people broke in? Just saying it was a rainy day isn't enough for me to say no one was there.
They say nothing was taken. Maybe they just never figured out what was missing, didn't want to admit what was missing or stealing something was not the purpose of the whole thing.
Maybe they ransacked the house looking for the keys to get out :) .
They said she never changed her story. She didn't alter or embellish she kept saying the same thing. That's why I think she is telling the truth, or what her brain is telling her is the truth.

3 more weeks go by,and all of a sudden WHAM my very first Grand-mal (tonic-clonic),seizure. So you have something that wasn't even a physical insult to the brain in any way,no injury,simply hormone flux,and bam...you're now an epileptic. 3 years later,and every single grand-mal seizure I have,is totally different,different things happen,my memories (or lack there of),are different.

I don't believe Sarah was ever referred to as epilieptic in the UM segment. Nor was there any indication that she did in fact sustain any wounds from any sort of attack. Also, what you had happen was something well documented (being that it was medical) by you and the hospital. We only have Sarah's word to go on for her attacks. It's quite possible that Sarah may be epileptic, but could still be making the whole attack up.

I guess for me,what I don't understand,is why it's so hard for everyone to believe it's all true. I mean,to me...it makes no sense,it's all there in black and white,to me. Someone had brought up a point (or what they perceived to be a point)asking "why press redial,instead of 911?" LOTS OF REASONS. "why is it,that if she cannot remember how to brush her teeth,she could know to press redial?" Again,here we are with the complexities of the brain. It's 150% possible,for certain parts of her memory,to be gone,be it temporarily,or permanently,but others,still be present. This,is medical fact.

I believe the point being made was she allegedly forgot the simplicity of brushing her teeth, yet moments after one of the most traumatic experiences one could ever encounter, she knows the function of a redial button on the telephone. Because of our lack of knowledge on how the brain works we can use the medical facts for just about anything. If Sarah began claiming she was reincarnated shortly after the attack there would be no 100% way to discredit her, since the whole argument of "we don't know how the brain works" could be brought up. But we can form an opinion based off of the cold hard facts surrounding this case, and there was never any sufficient evidence brought forward to show that these four people who broke into her home ever even existed.

Sometimes,with cases like these,it comes down do peoples take on the situation,the evidence,things like that,comes down to how people read the suspects or victims in these different stories,and sometimes,it's just really a matter of opinion. But in this case,for me anyway,my hypothesis,take away even my own experience with seizures,trauma,and amnesia being the way I can tell she's telling the truth,by what she says......there's just plain,and simple scientific,medical fact here. Sorry,but it's the truth.
Oh yeah,and the one who asked "why would she be so scared of her own mom,but not of the police that came to help her?" Do we really need to explain? SHE'S GOT AMNESIA OF SOME SORT. She doesn't recognize her mother,but recognizes a police uniform of the man coming toward her (and telling her "it's ok Sara,I'm a cop"). I think that's a pretty understandable situation.
I'm set in stone on this one. Others,yes,I like to think my hypothesis,or gut feelings are correct,but in reality,I don't know,and points can be made to rebuke my opinion. But with this one,it's just plain black and white. There's no if,and or butt's about it.

To sum it all up, I give you Sarah Powell's own words:

"After I left my body, I found myself waking up underneath a tree in a place that seemed to be the best place that anyone could possibly be. It's the place I call heaven. It is definitely the place where I want to spend eternity. As I began to look around, I saw a figure approaching me and it turned out to be a good friend of mine. He had passed away four days before. Brian walked up to me and simply explained to me what was happening to me. He said I was going to be ok and that I was going to be spared for a certain reason. I had something to do. He said he had someone to introduce to me. Shortly after, someone else walked up. It was a tall man in a white suit and white top hat who spoke in a British accent.
"He said, ‘I am going to be with you for a long time. I've known you all your life and I've been your guardian angel all of your life.'
"He said he didn't want me to be afraid because of what was happening to me. I wasn't dying. I would have to go back. Then he told me that I was brought there to rest to gain the courage and energy to go on and finish what I'm supposed to finish.
"It seemed like everything then started to kind of fade out and then I was back in my room before I knew it. When I woke up again, my dog was licking me in the face and I didn't know where I was or who I was or how I got there or why I was tied up."

You can read more if you click the link a couple of posts above this one.

To sum it all up, I give you Sarah Powell's own words:



I posted this earlier:
Maybe I didn't look hard enough but I don't see anywhere that says Sarah posted that. I even took a little of the text and googled it. I see where it says it's her story but I don't see anywhere where it says I'm Sarah and this is my story.
I'm not convinced Sarah wrote or told that story.

I posted this earlier:
Maybe I didn't look hard enough but I don't see anywhere that says Sarah posted that. I even took a little of the text and googled it. I see where it says it's her story but I don't see anywhere where it says I'm Sarah and this is my story.
I'm not convinced Sarah wrote or told that story.

It was from an article that quotes Sarah Powell. I just don't see why someone (other than Sarah) would make it up. They get the details of the story right, and they even quote her mother in the article. Why make it all up?

It was from an article that quotes Sarah Powell. I just don't see why someone (other than Sarah) would make it up. They get the details of the story right, and they even quote her mother in the article. Why make it all up?


I'm not convinced they did, I'm just not convinced they didn't and here's why:

I didn't find that story posted anywhere where it said the post was by Sarah as I said but also Sarah's original story was on a national program and airs in reruns. People wanting to see if there is any info on how she is now or if it was ever solved google her. It brings traffic to the site.

That's why I'm not taking the post about her NDE into consideration when deciding if I believe her original story or not.

I found this while looking for Sarah Powell online. Apparently, she claims to have had a near-death experience during her attack when she was knocked unconscious.

It's in the very first post where it says "Sarah Powell's NDE and Guardian Angel encounter".

http://www.thc-ministry.org/forum/showthread.php?p=52931

Good grief. Talk about a little off her rocker. How come I don't have a British guardian angel in a white top hat? I'm jealous.

Good grief. Talk about a little off her rocker. How come I don't have a British guardian angel in a white top hat? I'm jealous.


Amen to that. Mine just insists I drive on the wrong side of my car and has bad teeth.





I'm sorry,but I'm completely sure that everything she says is true....

@ UnsolvedMFanatic: I'm not sure I understand your position. Because you yourself have epilepsy condition and/or there is documented evidence that brain injuries are hard to define, that automatically makes the story of the break-in true?

I've looked through your refutation of the lack of evidence of any break-in happening but I'm not sure I found you explaining:


No wet muddy footprints, on any surface, be it: hardwood floor, linoleum, carpet, from 1 intruder let alone 4.
No wetness inside her room from the place where the attackers must have spent a considerable amount of time tying her up and beating her and had at least one window open.
No neighbors noticing a group of 4 carrying a ladder during a time of the morning when there would be traffic on the street.
No impressions in the mud and grass outside of the intruders or a ladder sitting in the ground.
You mentioned that girls wouldn't accompany guys on a break-in and would wait in the car. No neighbors reported seeing any car, no girls waiting in there, while 2 guys in masks carry a ladder to a house. And since when don't stupid girls commit the same crimes stupid guys do? Using your opinion that since girls would wait in the car while guys go break into houses as proof that Sarah must be telling the truth that there were young girls in the house is flimsy.
How did the intruders know to bring a ladder to the house? A ladder is not a part of the usual burglar kit. How did they know to go to her window with masks on?
Nothing was taken. I know this wasn't you but someone conjectured that stuff probably WAS taken but the family just didn't want to admit it. How do you refute something like that?


Take out all of the alleged amnesia, alleged epilepsy, and later seizures. Remove all of that and really look at just the alleged break-in. There is just nothing there for me to believe Sarah Powell’s version of the events of that morning. As Sherlock Holmes brilliantly stated, “...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth…”. To co-opt that quote I would argue that once we eliminate the improbable from this whole story we are left with the truth. The improbable for me would include: 4 masked intruders break-in to a house and leave zero evidence, the intruders take nothing yet brutalize a young teenage girl, they are not seeing coming and going even though the time of the morning and their get-ups and ladder would be memorably noticeable, the police are negligent enough to not find a shred of evidence or witnesses to corroborate EVEN ONE ASPECT of Sarah Powell’s story.

I find it infinitely more probable that Sarah Powell made the entire thing up.

You mentioned that girls wouldn't accompany guys on a break-in and would wait in the car. No neighbors reported seeing any car, no girls waiting in there, while 2 guys in masks carry a ladder to a house. And since when don't stupid girls commit the same crimes stupid guys do? Using your opinion that since girls would wait in the car while guys go break into houses as proof that Sarah must be telling the truth that there were young girls in the house is flimsy.

This point is laughable, and I agree with Corky. Why would four people remain silent after all of these years? Especially the "little guy" who according to Sarah, felt some sympathy for her.

Good grief. Talk about a little off her rocker. How come I don't have a British guardian angel in a white top hat? I'm jealous.

That part just about killed me. Her guardian angel is british. :angel: And wears an oversized top hat. lol

Totally unrelated, but the Angel of Death on the tv show Charmed has a british accent. No top hat tho.

And now on to the best part.... Her near death experience is posted on some obscure "Find Jesus in a Cloud of Pot Smoke and Incense, Just Like in the Bible!" message board.

Totally random fact of the day:

I just clicked on this post while listening to Marc Maron's WTF podcast interview with the author Sarah Vowell. Pretty weird. She's smart & funny & was the voice of Violet in The Incredibles.

Totally random fact of the day:

I just clicked on this post while listening to Marc Maron's WTF podcast interview with the author Sarah Vowell. Pretty weird. She's smart & funny & was the voice of Violet in The Incredibles.


This case has never made sense to me. I just watched it again. Ok, if she is lying....which she could be, WHY?? I know some people say that she wrecked the house and had friends over and didn't want to get in trouble. At 8:30am?? All her friends skipped school, came over, threw **** around and left? Sooooo, instead of cleaning it up.....she came up with this? Wouldn't her mom be at work until 4 or so? Even is she came home for lunch, that would be 11-12......shwe could have cleaned a mess.

This case has never made sense to me. I just watched it again. Ok, if she is lying....which she could be, WHY?? I know some people say that she wrecked the house and had friends over and didn't want to get in trouble. At 8:30am?? All her friends skipped school, came over, threw **** around and left? Sooooo, instead of cleaning it up.....she came up with this? Wouldn't her mom be at work until 4 or so? Even is she came home for lunch, that would be 11-12......shwe could have cleaned a mess.

She could be lying simply to get attention. Maybe her parents grounded her or took something of hers as part of a punishment and she tore the entire house apart looking for it, and then made up the intruder theory to cover it up after she realized she'd be in even more trouble?

Did they ever verify if Sarah had a bruise on her head, after she claimed she was struck by the intruders?

People can keep silent about murder for decades, I don't see why ones can't keep silent about attacks.

Is she telling the truth or not? Hard to tell. In my line of work I've met with a lot of people severely traumatized whose bodies do bizarre things to cope with the severity of what happened to them. She acts very much like many of the people I have met with. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt unless there is more evidence to swing a different direction.

whether this case was real or not. The reenactment was creepy as hell, I was afraid to stay at home by myself after watching it

Yes the renactment was freaky. especially the guys who broke in wearing masks. I was like WTF?? :/ and I'm 27! ugh...

Yes the renactment was freaky. especially the guys who broke in wearing masks. I was like WTF?? :/ and I'm 27! ugh...

Especially the little guy wearing the Freddy Krueger mask...that always creeped me out.

Something that I think tends to get overlooked in this case is the fact that before Sarah claims to have been attacked, she actually saw these intuders trying to break into her window, and then she reached out for the phone and....called her mother at work? And after one failed attempt, she stops and then tries to run out the front door but since the door is a double bolt lock, she needs her key to open it. So after she can't find her key, she then decides to go back up into the room where she saw intruders trying to break into her house? WTH!? There are several problems with just this one aspect of her story.

-We all do not know how we'd react in any given situation, but I'd bet most people would have known to dial 911. And she gives up on her mother and/or anyone else for help after one attempt?
-She then claims that after the failed phone call she tries to run out of the house through the front door but it's locked. This is actually the most logical point in her entire story, but I don't see how or why she didn't try any other doors or windows in her house.
-She actually looked around for a key to unlock the front door while there were (if you believe her story) men trying to break into her house, and during this entire time she never once thought to retry her mother at work or dial 911!?
-And then the noises stop, so Sarah decides to go back up to the room she just saw the men trying to break into? She had several minutes to either attempt an escape, call for help, or at the very least hide somewhere in her house, but instead of doing any of these things she goes back to the room where there's almost going to be a certain confrontation with the intruders? She knows she's outnumbered, she knows she can't escape through the front door, and she doesn't have any weapon of any kind to protect herself, yet she still goes blindly back into the room?

Well.. she was a teenager. most of us on the board are adults. so of course we would think logically... break a window... call 911. but Sarah calling her Mom? it seems logical to me given her age. if she thought the intruders were gone maybe she wanted to hide in her room or under her covers. of course I'm just trying to think of how I would react if I was a young teen. when I used to stay home alone as a young teen and heard a weird noise or got scared the first person i'd call was my Mom. *blushes* there I said it.

If the noises stopped why would she try to go out of the house? maybe she thought the intruders were outside and she was safer inside the house. I dunno. it makes for a very unsettling scenario though.

Also wasn't Sarah home sick from school? this could also explain some of her not so mart choices. just a thought.

Well.. she was a teenager. most of us on the board are adults. so of course we would think logically... break a window... call 911. but Sarah calling her Mom? it seems logical to me given her age. if she thought the intruders were gone maybe she wanted to hide in her room or under her covers. of course I'm just trying to think of how I would react if I was a young teen. when I used to stay home alone as a young teen and heard a weird noise or got scared the first person i'd call was my Mom. *blushes* there I said it.

If the noises stopped why would she try to go out of the house? maybe she thought the intruders were outside and she was safer inside the house. I dunno. it makes for a very unsettling scenario though.

Also wasn't Sarah home sick from school? this could also explain some of her not so mart choices. just a thought.

I actually do see how likely it would be for a teenager to call their mother if something went wrong. I just don't see how she stopped trying to get help after one failed attempt, especially after she couldn't leave through the front door and (presumeably) in a panic couldn't find her key. But the last place anyone would go in that situation is back where they saw people breaking into their house, especially a frightened teenaged girl home alone.

-She then claims that after the failed phone call she tries to run out of the house through the front door but it's locked. This is actually the most logical point in her entire story, but I don't see how or why she didn't try any other doors or windows in her house.


Actually, this makes no sense to me. If she's on the inside of the house, and the door is bolted, why would she need a key to open it? Why can't she just slide the bolt back? Maybe I just don't understand the type of lock they're talking about.

Actually, this makes no sense to me. If she's on the inside of the house, and the door is bolted, why would she need a key to open it? Why can't she just slide the bolt back? Maybe I just don't understand the type of lock they're talking about.

It was a "double bolt lock" type of lock, meaning there was one on the outside (which is the only one on most doors on houses), but there was also one on the inside as well, which both required a key to open (kind of like something for extra security I guess). Basically two deadbolt locks, one on the outside, one on the inside is what I got from the segment.

As far as the phone call she pushed a redial button with her hands still tied. She didnt even get her mother at first she got her co-worker and she didnt know were she called cause all she said was help into the phone. It was her moms co-worker that recgonized Sarahs voice and gave the phone to her mother. She was trying use the last call on the phone to get help.

I don't remember anything about a ladder in the seggment. I just saw these kids climb out a tree and through her bedroom window. They climbed the tree and went through her bedroom window , nothing uncomon about that.

If the Unsolved Mysteries segment protrade the kids by Sarahs description. Then I can see why they didnt leave foot prints. Grass and Trees don't hold foot prints. Only if the grass had mildew on it and that's only temporary. And the way they were dressed dosent come out as it being that wet out. No dripping wet people , and no heavy coats.

As for no one seeing them this was school and work day. And not the best weather to stay out in long being it was winter time.

I disagree with that person who say boy and girl teens do not rob houses together. Why not they commit murder together and beat their class maits up together. Its in the news all the time. There is no doubt in my mind that a group kids would try robbing house too.

It was raining on the day this alleged break in occurred. I would say it's almost astronomical for not one of four people to have left behind a foot print in that house. Just how crafty were these four teenagers to cover their tracks so well so that LE couldn't even determine that they were their? If you believe Sarah, all four of them touched several different things in the house, but they left behind no fingerprints? They obviously weren't professional, or they would have had a better way to get into the house.

It was raining on the day this alleged break in occurred. I would say it's almost astronomical for not one of four people to have left behind a foot print in that house. Just how crafty were these four teenagers to cover their tracks so well so that LE couldn't even determine that they were their? If you believe Sarah, all four of them touched several different things in the house, but they left behind no fingerprints? They obviously weren't professional, or they would have had a better way to get into the house.

To play devil's advocate, that would play into the story of when Sarah later broke down and cried "I didn't let them in."

Perhaps a group of kids came over to her house, "identity and motive unknown" (as Robert Stack used to say), and either asked or demanded to come in. They walk up the front steps (not leaving a footprint), argue with her, she tries to shut the door, and they whack her on the head. I'm not saying that's what I think happened, but certainly a possibility.

Head injuries and trauma can do weird things to people. As I've said before, I'm not sure what to believe but all along I think the answer to this story is somewhere between random act of violence and Sarah made it up. Either she knew the intruders, or they knew her or her parents, or they made up a story to try and get in, but I always keep going to back to her crying "I didn't let them in." That's always bothered me.

So, a very LONG way of explaining why there may be no footprints. :lol:

I watched this again,and I think Sarah had this whole thing planned out well in advance.For whatever reason,IDK.But I found it odd one of the 'perps' was kind enough to plug the phone back in and put it where she could get to it.She said she thought he felt sorry for her.Really? and that would come above giving her a chance to call police before they could get very far?
also---she claimed they hit her over the head and she passed out.BUT,she recalls them leaving,even plugging the phone back in.SO-which is it???
and WHY did she not dial 911,but instead called her mother the first time? because she had this planned out,and she knew she was going to hit 'redial' and get her mom-not police,nor anyone else,when she called for real.
I also find it odd that Sarah knew what a redial button was,yet couldn't even recall how to brush her teeth.her memory was a bit too 'selective' for me.
JMO.

So, a very LONG way of explaining why there may be no footprints. :lol:

Hell you could even make the argument that they all took their shoes off before coming in. But they still ruffled through several drawers and ransacked the house completely and didn't leave any fingerprints or physical evidence at all. More of a reason to think Sarah made it all up.

also, if you notice in the reenactment, Sarah had her hands tied in FRONT of her. Not behind her back. Thus making it easier (if not easy) to tie herself up. Though I do have a feeling someone did tie her up though, but that doesn't mean it was an attacker, it was someone she knew

I wonder if she was looking for something and didn't find it.perhaps something she'd hidden and forgot where it was (drugs?) and didn't want anyone to come across it.what better way to find something than to fake being sick and stay home all day to look for it.
the house was quite a mess...not difficult to think it was too overwhelming for her to pick up alone,so she made up the story.

also, if you notice in the reenactment, Sarah had her hands tied in FRONT of her. Not behind her back. Thus making it easier (if not easy) to tie herself up. Though I do have a feeling someone did tie her up though, but that doesn't mean it was an attacker, it was someone she knew
I noticed they didn't state where the items used to tie her up came from.Like in any other crime,if they came from the person's own house,then odds are very high the crime was committed by the person themselves.
My guess is it was some rope and tape that were already around the house somewhere.

As for the finger prints , do we know the things they touched? did they were gloves? Someone close to me had two teenage girls break in go through a bunch stuff and leave no finger prints. No foot prints either. Suprising with thr muddy grass around the house,were they got in at. The only reason she new it was two teenager girls is because a neighbor saw them.

As for the rain , the segment said it rainied the night before. No rain storm goes on during thw day and does not stop for a period of time. Just look at the kids in the segment they were not dripping wett , nor were they wereing heavy coats. Shoot the sun comes out off and on , on rainy days. I can go out during one of these rain breaks to the store when things are wet from the rain and come back to the house and walk on my carpet and not make it wet.

The kids didnt haven't to go to Sarahs school. Even my neighbor hood has more than one high school around. Shoot these kids could hace come to visit some one in neighbor hood and decided to come back and rob the house cause they thought it looked like they were rich. who knows but thats what makes it difficult to find them.

i wonder what the police report had in it.

To expand on your post Jennifer I once worked with someone who's friend was robbed. now this was in a fairly nice area of town. decent neighborhood not very far from a Sub shop. (Alot of people and traffic) well the house was robbed in broad daylight!! they broke in and were seen taking things out of the house and loading them into a truck.

I'm kinda shocked they had the balls to rob the place in broad daylight. but I have feeling they knew it would be empty and saw the oppurtunity. wouldn't surprise me if it was teenagers.

Someone made a post about her making everything up and while i could consider it, i just dont think she would tie herself up and make it all up. i do think either she is leaving things out or cant remember things, like the break in. someone said something about going through the front door and i could agree with that one.

Someone made a post about her making everything up and while i could consider it, i just dont think she would tie herself up and make it all up. i do think either she is leaving things out or cant remember things, like the break in. someone said something about going through the front door and i could agree with that one.
her hands were tied in front,so that would be an easy self-do.and out of ALL the windows in that house...they just hapened to come into hers. and how lucky she was that the last person she'd called on the phone (when she said no one answered,bf the alleged attack) was the PO where her mother worked.

she had this all thought out in advance.

I also think she may have had some problems at school that motivated her to do this.She stayed home from SCHOOL sick,she was homeSCHOOLed after that,and she had a so-called seizure at SCHOOL when her mother took her back there.anybody see a connection???
It would then be easy for her to say "I can't go back to school...that's where I had the flashbacks and the seizure!"

..and so it goes.

I don't believe this case. She seems like she made it up for attention. The lack of any evidence or witnesses (the break in was in broad daylight and nobody noticed anything?) just makes this hard to believe. I can believe she faked the seizures, there really are crazy people like that out there. Also, the fact she was remembering more after every seizure leads me to believe she was making it up as she went along. If there were intruders I think she knows who they are

Attention hound. Yeah.......made up.

Wow. Hello. I joined the forum just to write this...

Forgive me some of this was already pointed out:

Sarah couldn't open her front door?? Seriously?

She tried to make a phone call with "burglars/vandals" breaking in THE SAME ROOM.

She went back upstairs....THINKING THEY MAGICALLY LEFT?!?

There's NO PHONE DOWNSTAIRS????

One Entrance Door?? No Side, Back Door?

All windows downstairs were not DEAD-BOLTED like the door.

Guys, don't overanalyze...think fast. In basic human terms, it's a flight or fight response....FLIGHT (aka run) or FIGHT (aka confrontation).

The "mother" is at work. The "mother" is told I don't remember you. The "mother" now realizes her daughter's existence a lot more on a daily basis...

In my mind, there's a few possibilities....

1. Dream sequence > Complete Isolation and Loneliness into a huge burst of "attention".

2. Friends that she had betrayed her....she didn't fit in a much wanted social circle.

Any head trauma? I watched it, but I don't remember her being treated.

Again I say about this case; Don't be so quick to discount her.
Speaking as an epileptic,who never had a seizure in her life until about 6 years ago at 24,I can tell you that many aspects of her story sound right on target to me.
If you've ever seen a real grand mal (tonic-clonic) seizure,you'd know that "faking" one,isn't as easy as you make it sound. Doctors know the difference,they weren't born yesterday.
And being someone who has lost a great deal of her memory over the past 6 years ago due to my seizures,every time I "come to" from one,something new comes to mind that I had previously forgotten. Also,each time I have one,it takes away memories,usually short term,but some long term. So you're incorrect in thinking she was simply making it up as she went along,it's very common for epileptics and those with other types of seizure disorders.
My epilepsy was adult-onset,brought about by trauma as well. Not trauma like hers,but her account is very much in line with how she would develop these seizures.
Hog tying herself in that way,is not easy to do,no matter what a misguided Canadian reporter likes to think.
I believe her 100% To go so far as for her to go on national television,in all likelihood,she's telling the truth.
And I don't know where you get your; "Any head trauma? I watched it, but I don't remember her being treated",I myself don't remember you being there. Were you? They aren't going to give you a minute by minute account of everything she was treated for in the hospital.
She had 2 traumas to her head; the blunt force hit and the lack of oxygen from being smothered. That was fact.
I just don't understand the disbelief most people seem to have about her story. Believe me,I can spot a lie from a mile away,and can see through peoples bull****.
I simply did not get that from her.:woohoo:

Again I say about this case; Don't be so quick to discount her.
well I am not discounting her. my stance has not changed. I just don't see her doing all of that to herself for attention. it makes no sense and I don't think she could've tied herself up or would've done that for attention. knock herself out, maybe, but beat herself up and tie herself up, no. my guess is she is hiding something though. if I had to guess, maybe it was some friends of hers that did it to her.

Lifetime just aired this segment. The composite looks like every teenage girl's dream boyfriend. Liar.

Yeah, I saw it too. The story doesn't have any sort of cohesion or proper motive. I think she was just making it up for attention.

I could get behind some kind of prank/bullying incident. To a teen it may have made sense to lie about it to avoid backlash? I'm know I'm being naive, but I just can't believe she could do all of that herself.

for all we know Sarah Powell has revealed to her parents that she made the whole thing up

I don't remember any specific injuries being mentioned in this segment. Had she been hit over the head and knocked unconscious, there would have been signs of it. The whole thing just seems like a scream for attention.

Again I say about this case; Don't be so quick to discount her.
Speaking as an epileptic,who never had a seizure in her life until about 6 years ago at 24,I can tell you that many aspects of her story sound right on target to me.
If you've ever seen a real grand mal (tonic-clonic) seizure,you'd know that "faking" one,isn't as easy as you make it sound. Doctors know the difference,they weren't born yesterday.
And being someone who has lost a great deal of her memory over the past 6 years ago due to my seizures,every time I "come to" from one,something new comes to mind that I had previously forgotten. Also,each time I have one,it takes away memories,usually short term,but some long term. So you're incorrect in thinking she was simply making it up as she went along,it's very common for epileptics and those with other types of seizure disorders.
My epilepsy was adult-onset,brought about by trauma as well. Not trauma like hers,but her account is very much in line with how she would develop these seizures.
Hog tying herself in that way,is not easy to do,no matter what a misguided Canadian reporter likes to think.
I believe her 100% To go so far as for her to go on national television,in all likelihood,she's telling the truth.
And I don't know where you get your; "Any head trauma? I watched it, but I don't remember her being treated",I myself don't remember you being there. Were you? They aren't going to give you a minute by minute account of everything she was treated for in the hospital.
She had 2 traumas to her head; the blunt force hit and the lack of oxygen from being smothered. That was fact.
I just don't understand the disbelief most people seem to have about her story. Believe me,I can spot a lie from a mile away,and can see through peoples bull****.
I simply did not get that from her.:woohoo:


Me either. The cops in the segment don't seem to bright to me. They don't seem to get the consept of when rain makes things wet. The day was wet out from previos rain the night before. They only way the robbers could make the carpets or floors wet is if it was activley raining on their heads. Then the water drips down all over you and leaves puddles at your feet. It was simply just wet out from a rain the night before , meaning the outside was in the process of drying out. you would not leave wet prints from simply walking on damp cement. because their is no excess water to drip anywhere.


As for the lock. I can belive she cold not get it open . She was frantic and didn't know were the key is. You know how many people have those security bars installed on their windows of their houses and end up dieing in fires casue thy can not get them open.

There was a doctor who talked on this story , but I do not know if he was Sarah's or not. He pretty much agreed to the complications from her enjuries. Even if he was hired by unsolved mysteries . he still could debunk the story if he thought she was not telling the truth , specialists on the show have done it before. But he did not so he must have belived her injuries were real.

The thang that bothers me is know one is talking? Sence when does a bunch of teenagers or college students not talk about , or brag about doing omething like this. All I can think of is there part of some gang or group of some kind their loyal too. Very strange that know one has talked.

The clincher for me is her allegedly not remembering how to brush her teeth yet immediately after her attack she knew what the redial function of a telephone was.

The clincher for me is her allegedly not remembering how to brush her teeth yet immediately after her attack she knew what the redial function of a telephone was.


Redial isn't a function on a phone , it's merrily just a button on the phone that you push. So she had trouble with the maual dexterity of brushing her teeth at first, but could do something as simple as pushing a button on a phone. Does not seem so mysterious to me.

Redial isn't a function on a phone , it's merrily just a button on the phone that you push. So she had trouble with the maual dexterity of brushing her teeth at first, but could do something as simple as pushing a button on a phone. Does not seem so mysterious to me.

Redial is a function one can access by pushing a key on a phone. Keys represent functions on telephones. The point is, her pushing a key indicates she understood WHAT that key actually did.

The problem with brushing her teeth didn't come as a loss of motor skills--which would complicate dexterity. It came, allegedly, as a result of amnesia. That is, she would have certainly retained the physical ability to brush her teeth--but wouldn't remember HOW to do it, or what a toothbrush is used for, or what "brushing one's teeth" even is.

I'm in agreement with Cars. Amnesia IS complicated, but it seems highly unlikely that one would immediately recall an abstract such as the concept of redial, but be unable to tie one's shoes or brush one's teeth.

I do think it is entirely possible that Sarah believed her own story, and that she did NOT just make it up out of thin air to gain attention. What might have caused her to believe it, I don't know.

Redial isn't a function on a phone , it's merrily just a button on the phone that you push. So she had trouble with the maual dexterity of brushing her teeth at first, but could do something as simple as pushing a button on a phone. Does not seem so mysterious to me.

Yes it is. Of all the buttons on the phone she could have pushed, she pushes the redial button which dials her mother's work. Her mother says she had to relearn how to brush her teeth. Meaning it wasn't something physical, but mental like she couldn't remember. There were also no mention of any injuries to Sarah in the segment. Had she been viciously attacked, it surely would have been mentioned. IIRC, the law enforcement official interviewed mentioned how there were no signs of a break in and nothing was stolen from the residence. That's another clincher. What was the motive for these four people to break in and hogtie a 14 year old and then leave?

Redial is a function one can access by pushing a key on a phone. Keys represent functions on telephones. The point is, her pushing a key indicates she understood WHAT that key actually did.

The problem with brushing her teeth didn't come as a loss of motor skills--which would complicate dexterity. It came, allegedly, as a result of amnesia. That is, she would have certainly retained the physical ability to brush her teeth--but wouldn't remember HOW to do it, or what a toothbrush is used for, or what "brushing one's teeth" even is.

I'm in agreement with Cars. Amnesia IS complicated, but it seems highly unlikely that one would immediately recall an abstract such as the concept of redial, but be unable to tie one's shoes or brush one's teeth.

I do think it is entirely possible that Sarah believed her own story, and that she did NOT just make it up out of thin air to gain attention. What might have caused her to believe it, I don't know.


Her enjury to her head caused her to have loss of memory of the motorskills needed to brush her teeth. Meaning ther brain controls your ability, and the manuel dexterity to be able to connect a tooth brush with your mouth. Its a bit more compicated then just pushing buttons on a phone till a redialing happens. Which is what she did. Doesn't mean she was in deep thought of what redial mint at all.

Yes it is. Of all the buttons on the phone she could have pushed, she pushes the redial button which dials her mother's work. Her mother says she had to relearn how to brush her teeth. Meaning it wasn't something physical, but mental like she couldn't remember. There were also no mention of any injuries to Sarah in the segment. Had she been viciously attacked, it surely would have been mentioned. IIRC, the law enforcement official interviewed mentioned how there were no signs of a break in and nothing was stolen from the residence. That's another clincher. What was the motive for these four people to break in and hogtie a 14 year old and then leave?

Your brain controls ther motor skills , the know how, the maniel dexterity is controled by your brain. There for her brain enjury casued her not to be able to or know how to brush your teeth. Brushing your teeth is a bit more complicated then just pushing button a phone till it redials , which is what she did. No serious thught into what redial is with that.

As for no evidence of break in, that becasue they entered and exited through her bedroom window. A window she left open.

And nothing was stollenbecasue they did not find wha they were looking for or were not intended to stela anything just scare Sarah.

Her enjury to her head caused her to have loss of memory of the motorskills needed to brush her teeth. Meaning ther brain controls your ability, and the manuel dexterity to be able to connect a tooth brush with your mouth. Its a bit more compicated then just pushing buttons on a phone till a redialing happens. Which is what she did. Doesn't mean she was in deep thought of what redial mint at all.

Simply put, no.

Memory and motor skill are stored and controlled, respectively, in different areas of the brain. You don't "lose memory" of how to move. You already have the capacity for movement in utero, provided you're normally developed. Take, for example, Jennifer Pratt. That is someone who sustained a brain injury and lost motor skills. She did NOT, however, lose memory of her attack.

Sarah Powell--and her doctors--contend that her memory loss was caused by amnesia, but not necessarily as result of a head injury. In fact, none of her supposed injuries were ever mentioned on the segment. It's unknown whether she sustained a brain injury or not.

the problem is the segment never says that she was officially diagnosed with amnesia or have a doctor in the segment mentioning that her symptoms were real. It also doesn't mention any treatment she is getting. Or about the injury she got on her head. That is why is it easy to assume she is making it up. If they gave more detail on everything going on people would probably have more sympathy

Simply put, no.

Memory and motor skill are stored and controlled, respectively, in different areas of the brain. You don't "lose memory" of how to move. You already have the capacity for movement in utero, provided you're normally developed. Take, for example, Jennifer Pratt. That is someone who sustained a brain injury and lost motor skills. She did NOT, however, lose memory of her attack.

Sarah Powell--and her doctors--contend that her memory loss was caused by amnesia, but not necessarily as result of a head injury. In fact, none of her supposed injuries were ever mentioned on the segment. It's unknown whether she sustained a brain injury or not.


The Doctor said on the show two things insulted her brain. Insult also means injured or harms. The lack of oxygen to her brain while being smothered with the pillow and the hit on the head with that gun. Yes she had enjuries to her brain. Causeing the seizurs she had and the memory loss. People get hit on head all the time and exeprence memory loss tempory and perminit. Weather you get hit on head with an object or its in internal thing in the brain that causes it, it still a brain injury. The seizurs are complication of brain injury and trama. And she was oviously not born with a condition that caused seizures. And just because you have a brain injury does not mean you end up like Jennifer Pratt. Brain injuries are all diffrent and people are all different , we all heal or are scarred differently.


And were not born with motorskills they are developed as

The Doctor said on the show two things insulted her brain. Insult also means injured or harms. The lack of oxygen to her brain while being smothered with the pillow and the hit on the head with that gun. Yes she had enjuries to her brain. Causeing the seizurs she had and the memory loss. People get hit on head all the time and exeprence memory loss tempory and perminit. Weather you get hit on head with an object or its in internal thing in the brain that causes it, it still a brain injury. The seizurs are complication of brain injury and trama. And she was oviously not born with a condition that caused seizures. And just because you have a brain injury does not mean you end up like Jennifer Pratt. Brain injuries are all diffrent and people are all different , we all heal or are scarred differently.


And were not born with motorskills they are developed as

You are definitely born with the ability to move.

Loss of the ability to coordinate movement and loss of memory are not the same thing. You have maintained that Sarah was allegedly unable to brush her teeth because of a loss of motor ability, when in fact the reason provided for her inability was amnesia--that is, not remembering the very act of brushing one's teeth. It's not the same thing. And it's an extremely important difference in the context of this case.

You are definitely born with the ability to move.

Loss of the ability to coordinate movement and loss of memory are not the same thing. You have maintained that Sarah was allegedly unable to brush her teeth because of a loss of motor ability, when in fact the reason provided for her inability was amnesia--that is, not remembering the very act of brushing one's teeth. It's not the same thing. And it's an extremely important difference in the context of this case.


Motors skills and just simple movement are two different things. Motor Skills : A learned sequence of movements that combine to produce a smooth efficent action in order to mast a particluar task. So she forgot the motor skills , the learned sequence to pick up a tooth brush and put it in her mouth. Brushing your teeth is one of the many motor skills we learn as we grow , like cutting with scissors. The enjuries to her brain caused her to forget the sequence of this particular motor skill. She had to be reminded or shown how to do it again. Our brain guides every part of us. Yes memory loss and motor skills are to diffrent things. But are brain is are main center . if it is disrupted any number of things can go wrong . even if we can still have movement doesn't mean she would know what to do with certain skills unless reminded or shown .

Even if she did make up the attack, she was 14 years old. It could have been a way to cover for something she did that snowballed so quickly beyond her wildest imagination. The cops. Doctors. Media. Unsolved Mysteries. If (and it's a big if) she did make it up, I think she was caught in a lie and didn't know how to get out of it.

We were all young teenagers once. We all did stupid things. Heck, the prefrontal cortex doesn't fully develop until a person is about 25, so we're biologically designed to do stupid things. Hers may just have gotten more publicity than ours did.

As for her hitting redial... the definition of the word 'redial' would have been held in a different place than all of the necessary actions for brushing one's teeth. Or, maybe she just hit a bunch of buttons.

Motors skills and just simple movement are two different things. Motor Skills : A learned sequence of movements that combine to produce a smooth efficent action in order to mast a particluar task. So she forgot the motor skills , the learned sequence to pick up a tooth brush and put it in her mouth. Brushing your teeth is one of the many motor skills we learn as we grow , like cutting with scissors. The enjuries to her brain caused her to forget the sequence of this particular motor skill. She had to be reminded or shown how to do it again. Our brain guides every part of us. Yes memory loss and motor skills are to diffrent things. But are brain is are main center . if it is disrupted any number of things can go wrong . even if we can still have movement doesn't mean she would know what to do with certain skills unless reminded or shown .

You keep referencing injuries to her brain, when there is simply no evidence that such injuries even existed. The doctor on the segment was speculating as to what caused her amnesia, and he referenced the smothering and the hit on the head from the gun as possibilities. Law enforcement said they found no evidence of a break in (it was raining that day, yet there were no wet prints found anywhere in the house), and that they found it odd that the break-in happened in broad daylight. I'm not trying to demonize the girl or anything, because she was only 14 at the time, but I just don't believe her story. There was never any reason given as to why 4 people would break into a house (through an upstairs window that just so happened to be left unlocked), tear it apart, assault a young girl and then leave. And the whole seizure bit seemed so made up, IMO.

And the whole seizure bit seemed so made up, IMO.

And probably would not have truly happened without a pre-existing condition(s) or said brain injuries that are in question of even existing.

It is also unusual to speak during a seizure, whether it was caused by epilepsy or not--much less convey a sensical, coherent thought in that speech. People do on occasion talk during some types of seizures, but rarely do they blurt out things like, "I didn't let them in."

I think the "seizures" were panic attacks. I've seen people have panic attacks that could be described as "seizure like" especially to someone unfamiliar with neurological and psychiatric disorders.

And probably would not have truly happened without a pre-existing condition(s) or said brain injuries that are in question of even existing.

It is also unusual to speak during a seizure, whether it was caused by epilepsy or not--much less convey a sensical, coherent thought in that speech. People do on occasion talk during some types of seizures, but rarely do they blurt out things like, "I didn't let them in."

The doctor said two things insulted her brain. insulted means the same thing as injury. The oxygen problem and the hit on the head. A hit on the head casues injury to her brain the seizurs prove it. Sence she did not have a conditon that starts the seizurs before hand, the direct cause would be an brain injury or inult to her brain as the doctor said. A Seizur can be caused by head injury: a direct hit on the head causing injury to the brain such as a bullet wound or being hit with an object or just hitting your head on something. It's on every seizur page out there. Like I said the fact she is having seizurs and has said she hit in the head with a gun proves she had injury to her brain. Injury and damge are two sperate things. She is not brain damaged just incouraed enjured to were she has seizurs and temporary memory loss in some areas. And I never said she talked during a seizure , and the video of her having a seizur did not show her talking during one. And I did say it was two different things her brushing teeth is a lot more complicated then just pushing a bunch of buttons till she gets the phone to redial. glad it is understood now.

The doctor said two things insulted her brain. insulted means the same thing as injury. The oxygen problem and the hit on the head. A hit on the head casues enjury to her brain the seizurs prove it. Sence she did not have a conditon that starts the seizurs before hand, the direct casue would be a brain injury or inult t her brain. Same thing. And I never said she talked during a seizure , and the video of her having a seizur did not show her talking during one. And I did say it was two different things her brushing teeth is a lot more complicated then just pushing a bunch of buttons till she gets the phone to redial. glad it is understood now.

Law enforcement was skeptical of her story from day one. There was nothing stolen, no fingerprints, no signs of forced entry, and no muddy or wet foot prints found anywhere in the house. If LE was skeptical, that would give Sarah and her mother perfect rebuttal material for saying that she suffered such and such injuries to her head, etc. Yet they were never mentioned in the segment. And apart from other (more credible) "amnesia" cases, Sarah actually regained her memory. Here's an interesting little tidbit from Sarah that UM had left out of the segment:

http://www.near-death.com/angels.html

ETA: I think what others have brought up previously about the seizures makes sense. As Meg pointed out, Sarah blurted out "I didn't let them in!" at the end of her first seizure to her mother. This seizure also just so happened to have triggered immediately after Sarah's mother said she was considering home schooling her. Nothing in this case seems credible. Even the one seizure that is captured on camera. Why on Earth would the family record it in the first place instead of calling 911?

Law enforcement was skeptical of her story from day one. There was nothing stolen, no fingerprints, no signs of forced entry, and no muddy or wet foot prints found anywhere in the house. And apart from other (more credible) "amnesia" cases, Sarah actually regained her memory. Here's an interesting little tidbit from Sarah that UM had left out of the segment:

http://www.near-death.com/angels.html

The reason for no wet foot prints is because there was no run off on the intruders. It was simply wet from the night befores rain , not pooring rain. Wet spots come from exces run off. With out the rain repeatedly beating down on you would not make wet spots or prints. The ground was wet but already dring out. As for know break in. They came through her open bedroom window and out of it again. So there was know need to break in they found an easy access. And they did not take anything cause either they did not find what there looking for or they just did it to scare Sara. And she never remain her complete memory according to the segment she gained pieces of it everytime she has a seizur. As of today I do not know. And the article , if she had anything to do with it about her beliveing in angels doesn't have anything to do with the break in. And does nothing nothing to her credibility. A lot of people believe in angels looking over them. So what.

I think the "seizures" were panic attacks. I've seen people have panic attacks that could be described as "seizure like" especially to someone unfamiliar with neurological and psychiatric disorders.

That may well be the case--and that's what I tended to suspect--but I think there is a definite, pointed reason the word "seizure" was used: it sounds "worse" than panic attack. And many people aren't going to know the difference.

The reason for no wet foot prints is because there was no run off on the intruders. It was simply wet from the night befores rain , not pooring rain. Wet spots come from exces run off. With out the rain repeatedly beating down on you would not make wet spots or prints. The ground was wet but already dring out. As for know break in. They came through her open bedroom window and out of it again. So there was know need to break in they found an easy access. And they did not take anything cause either they did not find what there looking for or they just did it to scare Sara. And she never remain her complete memory according to the segment she gained pieces of it everytime she has a seizur. As of today I do not know. And the article , if she had anything to do with it about her beliveing in angels doesn't have anything to do with the break in. And does nothing nothing to her credibility. A lot of people believe in angels looking over them. So what.

People make footprints when the ground is wet. It doesn't have to be pouring rain for that to happen.

There's still no motive for four people to have tied up a teenage girl and just left the house without even so much as disturbing it.

That may well be the case--and that's what I tended to suspect--but I think there is a definite, pointed reason the word "seizure" was used: it sounds "worse" than panic attack. And many people aren't going to know the difference.

A panick attack and seizure are two diffrent things. You can not mistake one for the other. I know because i;ve suffred panick attacks. I had a friend whpo had seizurs. They are completely diffrent.

And does nothing nothing to her credibility. A lot of people believe in angels looking over them. So what.

You do realize that she's claiming to have been approached by an angel wearing a top hat speaking in an English accent after being knocked unconscious by one of the intruders, wakes up and remembers the incident with the angel but has no memory of who she was or how she was knocked unconscious, and this doesn't damage her credibility? Yes people believe in angels. But most people don't go into elaborate detail about visits from angels their whole lives and actually quote them verbatim. The point being, she's telling a strange and extraordinary story about the home invasion and then adds an even more strange and supernatural story within the story...it just defies logic to believe this girl.

A panick attack and seizure are two diffrent things. You can not mistake one for the other. I know because i;ve suffred panick attacks. I had a friend whpo had seizurs. They are completely diffrent.

Without having medical personnel around during these seizures, there's no real way to know if Sarah was in fact having them or not. It wouldn't be that complicated to fake a seizure.

You do realize that she's claiming to have been approached by an angel wearing a top hat speaking in an English accent after being knocked unconscious by one of the intruders, wakes up and remembers the incident with the angel but has no memory of who she was or how she was knocked unconscious, and this doesn't damage her credibility? Yes people believe in angels. But most people don't go into elaborate detail about visits from angels their whole lives and actually quote them verbatim. The point being, she's telling a strange and extraordinary story about the home invasion and then adds an even more strange and supernatural story within the story...it just defies logic to believe this girl.

Hell after being hit on the head with a gun and deproved of oxygen i probably be seeing things too. I'm sure she was pretty daised and confused probably thought she saw something. You know how many can get hit on head see stars or birds or think they do.

Hell after being hit on the head with a gun and deproved of oxygen i probably be seeing things too. I'm sure she was pretty daised and confused probably thought she saw something. You know how many can get hit on head see stars or birds or think they do.

Yes but most people just say that they saw stars or bright lights. They don't go into vivid details about top hat wearing british angels.

A panick attack and seizure are two diffrent things. You can not mistake one for the other. I know because i;ve suffred panick attacks. I had a friend whpo had seizurs. They are completely diffrent.

Panic attacks are not the same for everyone.

I know someone who projectile vomits. I know someone who rocks and shakes. They present in very different ways depending on the person. And if someone witnessed the first one and thought it was a seizure, it may have lead to a subconscious shift towards more seizure like behaviors.

Panic attacks are not the same for everyone.

I know someone who projectile vomits. I know someone who rocks and shakes. They present in very different ways depending on the person. And if someone witnessed the first one and thought it was a seizure, it may have lead to a subconscious shift towards more seizure like behaviors.



Your talking to someone who has had panick attacks , they are very diffrent from seizurs.

Your talking to someone who has had panick attacks , they are very diffrent from seizurs.

Everyone posting here is more than aware of that.

You definitely can mistake a seizure for a panic attack, however. You do know there are different types of seizures, right? They're not all the grand mal-type epileptic seizures most people think of when they're presented with the word.

ETA: Interestingly, an article was published in British Medical Journal in 2000 on the very topic of partial seizures being misdiagnosed as panic attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118775/

From the abstract, emphasis mine:

A 68 year old man presented with a four year history of stereotyped attacks that occurred 10 to 14 times daily. These began with the sensation of pins and needles in his head, spreading to his torso and limbs. His breathing became rapid, and he developed a dry mouth, nausea, and a feeling of unease. The symptoms developed and receded gradually. He would be pale, sweaty, agitated, and tearful during the attacks, which lasted between one and four minutes.

After initial presentation to a cardiologist, he was referred to a psychiatrist who diagnosed panic attacks. Attendance at an anxiety management group and treatment with diazepam were without benefit...

Partial seizures were diagnosed four years after onset of his symptoms. He started taking antiepileptic drugs, resulting in a 90% decrease in frequency of seizures.

So, apparently, physicians can certainly mistake one for the other.

From http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1184846-differential

"Not all “spells” are seizures. See the Differentials section, below.

Other conditions that should be considered include the following:

Syncope (eg, cardiac arrhythmia, vasovagal syncope, dysautonomia)
Metabolic conditions (eg, hypoglycemia)
Migraine (eg, migrainous aura, migraine equivalent)
Vascular conditions (eg, transient ischemic attacks)
Sleep disorder (eg, cataplexy, narcolepsy, night terror)
Movement disorder (eg, paroxysmal dyskinesia)
Gastrointestinal conditions (eg, esophageal reflux in neonates and infants)
Psychiatric conditions (eg, conversion, panic attacks, breath-holding spells, malingering, secondary gain)"

In trying to provide a scientific response to Jennifer's assertion that it cannot be panic attacks, I ran across another really good option...


Perhaps Sarah was suffering from conversion disorder.

Everyone posting here is more than aware of that.

You definitely can mistake a seizure for a panic attack, however. You do know there are different types of seizures, right? They're not all the grand mal-type epileptic seizures most people think of when they're presented with the word.

ETA: Interestingly, an article was published in British Medical Journal in 2000 on the very topic of partial seizures being misdiagnosed as panic attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1118775/

From the abstract, emphasis mine:

A 68 year old man presented with a four year history of stereotyped attacks that occurred 10 to 14 times daily. These began with the sensation of pins and needles in his head, spreading to his torso and limbs. His breathing became rapid, and he developed a dry mouth, nausea, and a feeling of unease. The symptoms developed and receded gradually. He would be pale, sweaty, agitated, and tearful during the attacks, which lasted between one and four minutes.

After initial presentation to a cardiologist, he was referred to a psychiatrist who diagnosed panic attacks. Attendance at an anxiety management group and treatment with diazepam were without benefit...

Partial seizures were diagnosed four years after onset of his symptoms. He started taking antiepileptic drugs, resulting in a 90% decrease in frequency of seizures.

So, apparently, physicians can certainly mistake one for the other.

Sara was not having partial seizures they were full out , you saw the video. Apparenlty this person had two diffrent things wrong with him. It does not say one was a cause of the other. Or a mistake was made only that they found more than one thing wrong with them and treated him for both Panick attacks are mential caused by an anxiety disorder. Seizurs are physical caused by an abnormal electrical current in the brain. Two diffrent things.

Sara was not having partial seizures they were full out , you saw the video.

Seeing a reenactment--or even a video--of a supposed seizure is not conclusive evidence of an actual seizure. Plus, I have no idea what a "full out" seizure is, unless by that you mean a tonic-clonic seizure.

Apparenlty this person had two diffrent things wrong with him. It does not say one was a cause of the other. Only that they found more than one thing wrong with them.

Um...no. His "panic attacks" were misdiagnosed partial seizures. That was my point.

In trying to provide a scientific response to Jennifer's assertion that it cannot be panic attacks, I ran across another really good option...


Perhaps Sarah was suffering from conversion disorder.

I thought about that, too. I still don't know why there would still be this story about masked intruders and what-have-you, but conversion disorder could be a viable explanation if she was actually having "episodes".

Seeing a reenactment--or even a video--of a supposed seizure is not conclusive evidence of an actual seizure. Plus, I have no idea what a "full out" seizure is, unless by that you mean a tonic-clonic seizure.



Um...no. His "panic attacks" were misdiagnosed partial seizures. That was my point.

They are still to diffrent things he was treatred difrretnly for each It says nothing about a misdiagnoses. only that they did not know yet he was having seizurs too. When they did they teated that too.

She was having a seizur on film, with her doctor right there with her. How can you say that was not seizure? And there was evidence, she been hit on the head with gun which the special list said casued injury nay insulted her brain . which means the hit casued the seizurs . Not to mention her teacher was on tv saying she saw her have one right in front of her.

I thought about that, too. I still don't know why there would still be this story about masked intruders and what-have-you, but conversion disorder could be a viable explanation if she was actually having "episodes".

I doubt it. And because the people actually came into her house and it happened.

With all sincerity, Jennifer, do you know Sarah?

They are still to diffrent things he was treatred difrretnly for each It says nothing about a misdiagnoses. only that they did not know yet he was having seizurs too. When they did they teated that too.

I don't know how to simplify this any further.

The man's symptoms were diagnosed initially as panic disorder. He was then given treatment--group therapy and diazepam--and there was no change in his condition. In fact, it grew worse.

For space's sake, the testing procedures and findings were omitted. Here they are:

He was admitted for video electroencephalography telemetry with 20 channel scalp electroencephalography and 2 channel electrocardiography.

A video of the attacks showed them to be stereotyped and to last up to one minute. The patient appeared anxious, hyperventilated, remained partially aware throughout, and indicated when an episode had occurred. During the attacks the electroencephalogram showed repetitive epileptiform discharges over the right hemisphere.

These are the SAME symptoms he presented years ago, the ones that were originally diagnosed as panic attacks. The EEG showed that these symptoms were caused by PARTIAL SEIZURES, NOT panic attacks.

When he was treated for this, his seizures were reduced by 90%. He never had panic disorder. He had epilepsy. Yet the two conditions were confused with one another, contrary to your claim.

She was having a seizur on film, with her doctor right there with her. How can you say that was not seizure?...Not to mention her teacher was on tv saying she saw her have one right in front of her.

The same way I can say a magician pulling a quarter out of someone's ear doesn't mean there was actually a quarter in that person's ear, or that someone who said they saw Elvis in 1993 at a truck stop in Ringgold, GA might have just seen a trucker with a great likeness to the boy from Tupelo.

An EEG of Sarah's brain activity during these episodes would definitively prove whether or not she was actually experiencing a seizure. Was one ever presented on the segment?

I don't understand why there were no footprints or tracks in the house since the break-in happened during a downpour and there was mud everywhere outside. That's the biggest red flag to me.

I don't understand why there were no footprints or tracks in the house since the break-in happened during a downpour and there was mud everywhere outside. That's the biggest red flag to me.

Exactly! Constantly bringing up the severity of her "seizures" is a moot point, IMO. The easiest way to see if this girl made the whole thing up is to look for any evidence whatsoever of intruders. Fingerprints? No. Footprints? No. Mud, water, any signs of someone coming from a wet outside on the inside? No. Eyewitnesses besides Sarah? No. Forceable entry? No. Anything stolen from the residence? No. See where I'm going here?

And FWIW, I don't think Sarah's doctor was with her during the filmed seizure. I believe it was her family. And if I'm mistaken about the doctor not being there during the seizure, how convenient is it that he brings a camera around and actually catches one of his patients "seizures" on film?

I don't understand why there were no footprints or tracks in the house since the break-in happened during a downpour and there was mud everywhere outside. That's the biggest red flag to me.

The break in did not happend during a down poor. It was just simply wet out. Causing know run off from there shoes or bodies , and ground would already be drying out then. When did they say there was mud outside? Never heard anything about mud in the segment.

Exactly! Constantly bringing up the severity of her "seizures" is a moot point, IMO. The easiest way to see if this girl made the whole thing up is to look for any evidence whatsoever of intruders. Fingerprints? No. Footprints? No. Mud, water, any signs of someone coming from a wet outside on the inside? No. Eyewitnesses besides Sarah? No. Forceable entry? No. Anything stolen from the residence? No. See where I'm going here?

And FWIW, I don't think Sarah's doctor was with her during the filmed seizure. I believe it was her family. And if I'm mistaken about the doctor not being there during the seizure, how convenient is it that he brings a camera around and actually catches one of his patients "seizures" on film?


I'm not going to argue anymore about her seizurs. It is exsausting. Let just agree to disagree. :) And no i'm not related to her and I just simply believe her. As for no foot prints. Simply because it was simply wet out from a nights rain and already drying out . Not pooring. There for no run off on these people no puddles or foot prints. As for finger prints, did she not say they had gloves on? As for mudd I don't re call there being anything said about mud being around this house in the segment. I would however like to know if there was a sidewalk near were this tree was at. If they climbed from the sidewalk into the tree , then that explains no grass or debree on their shoes. And as for no witnesses , apparently it was during the day people were at work, and how many people do you know that stand out in a cold damp day.

The thing is, there was no sign that anyone had entered the house. Nothing was taken. This just makes me think she had an extremely intense and realistic dream and confused it for something that really happened.

Of course, I can't be sure, but her story has many holes it shouldn't have.

I'm not going to argue anymore about her seizurs. It is exsausting. Let just agree to disagree. :) And no i'm not related to her and I just simply believe her. As for no foot prints. Simply because it was simply wet out from a nights rain and already drying out . Not pooring. There for no run off on these people no puddles or foot prints. As for finger prints, did she not say they had gloves on? As for mudd I don't re call there being anything said about mud being around this house in the segment. I would however like to know if there was a sidewalk near were this tree was at. If they climbed from the sidewalk into the tree , then that explains no grass or debree on their shoes. And as for no witnesses , apparently it was during the day people were at work, and how many people do you know that stand out in a cold damp day.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to argue (I love good debates on the board), but you must either be very young, or very naïve. Even if it rained the night before, the grass would still be wet. Dew, moisture, etc. would all have made the grass damp. You do not need a puddle to create wet prints. All one would have to do is walk outside and take 3 steps in the grass and then walk back inside, guarantee there will be evidence of prints or debris from the outside. And there were no prints found in the house. Even if we were to throw out the footprints, there's no plausible explanation for a lack of fingerprints. As for the witnesses, how on Earth did the intruders gain access to her bedroom window? Did they climb a tree? Unlikely. Maybe one or two people, but I have a hard time believing that four people would all be ok with climbing a tree to gain access to the house. Why not have one scale it and unlock the front door for the others? If there was no tree, did they bring a ladder? If they brought a ladder, why was there no evidence uncovered that showed it's existence (divots in the ground where the ladder was pressed down when someone climbed it)? These are all rhetorical questions of course, but my point is simply how stupid would these 4 intruders be to plan a crime (in broad daylight) and be dumb enough to either:

A. Climb a tree right in the middle of someone's front yard in the morning, and then try to break into a window.
B. Bring a ladder with them as they're walking up to someone's house, in the morning, and then plant the ladder and scale it to try and break into a window.

See how implausible both of those scenarios are? Not only implausible but very risky. What if anyone drove down the street and glanced over at Sarah's house and saw four people climbing a tree or ladder? Now if there was only one alleged intruder, then Sarah's story would become more believable. But four? I'm all for agreeing to disagree, but there has to be some sort of evidence in Sarah's favor. But there's really nothing that supports her story other than her word.

I'm sorry I'm not trying to argue (I love good debates on the board), but you must either be very young, or very naïve. Even if it rained the night before, the grass would still be wet. Dew, moisture, etc. would all have made the grass damp. You do not need a puddle to create wet prints. All one would have to do is walk outside and take 3 steps in the grass and then walk back inside, guarantee there will be evidence of prints or debris from the outside. And there were no prints found in the house. Even if we were to throw out the footprints, there's no plausible explanation for a lack of fingerprints. As for the witnesses, how on Earth did the intruders gain access to her bedroom window? Did they climb a tree? Unlikely. Maybe one or two people, but I have a hard time believing that four people would all be ok with climbing a tree to gain access to the house. Why not have one scale it and unlock the front door for the others? If there was no tree, did they bring a ladder? If they brought a ladder, why was there no evidence uncovered that showed it's existence (divots in the ground where the ladder was pressed down when someone climbed it)? These are all rhetorical questions of course, but my point is simply how stupid would these 4 intruders be to plan a crime (in broad daylight) and be dumb enough to either:

A. Climb a tree right in the middle of someone's front yard in the morning, and then try to break into a window.
B. Bring a ladder with them as they're walking up to someone's house, in the morning, and then plant the ladder and scale it to try and break into a window.

See how implausible both of those scenarios are? Not only implausible but very risky. What if anyone drove down the street and glanced over at Sarah's house and saw four people climbing a tree or ladder? Now if there was only one alleged intruder, then Sarah's story would become more believable. But four? I'm all for agreeing to disagree, but there has to be some sort of evidence in Sarah's favor. But there's really nothing that supports her story other than her word.


They sertainly did climb a tree. They show that in the segment. And it is a matter were this tree is , weather mudd or grass sticks to the shoes. I blieve she said they had gloves on or was shown wereing them in the segment. Explains perfectly why know prints. And I walk on drying out cement from rain plenty and then go in my house and do not leave so much as print. you have to have enough mosture or run off to make it. wet cement or drying out cement will not do that. And her room was in the back of the house. You can hide plent traveling in back of houses and through alleys. and not all streets have running traffic in them all day long. expecally ones that do not lead to a main traveled road. I don't know her neighbor hood. There is know reason not to believe her story. She was not in trouble. she was getting along with her parents. friends, no bully problem. All she had was a cold that day.

There is no reason to believe her story.

We agree on something!

Every 14 year old has friend trouble and/or bully trouble. Every single one. It's a terribly frightening age. Trying to make the transition from child to teen, jr high to high, toys to boys (or girls, but boys rhymed)

I don't think Sarah set out to deceive. I'm not even entirely sure that she isn't telling HER truth. I just don't know that HER truth is the empirical truth.

Either way, something was wrong in her world and it hurt her deeply.

We agree on something!

Actually the it is there is know reason not to believe her story.

Every 14 year old has friend trouble and/or bully trouble. Every single one. It's a terribly frightening age. Trying to make the transition from child to teen, jr high to high, toys to boys (or girls, but boys rhymed)

I don't think Sarah set out to deceive. I'm not even entirely sure that she isn't telling HER truth. I just don't know that HER truth is the empirical truth.

Either way, something was wrong in her world and it hurt her deeply.

The fact is you can not talk for every teenager girl in america any more than I could. Thats not fair to her or anyone else. She is the only one who could say what was going on in her life at that time. And like I said we will just have to agree to disagree. cause we are just going in circles. And I do not wish toi get into arguments with anyone. Peace:)

No. But I can speak from 20+ years of childcare and education at that age level. And extensive education on the matter. Something DID hurt her. Whether it was people coming into her home and attacking her or making her life painful in some other way, I don't know. I am not being unfair to Sarah. I think she was genuinely hurt in some manner. Nowhere have I called her a liar. On the contrary, my concern for her well-being is quite deep. Several things could have happened.

-friends or acquaintances could have perpetrated the attack either as a prank or as a cruel way to scare her
-strangers did it
-she could have had some sort of organic disorder that led to hallucinations OR vivid dreams
-something more horrible happened to her and her brain blocked it out
-she needed help and didn't know how to ask for it and it manifested as amnesia and a conversion disorder or panic attacks

In all of these scenarios, Sarah is a victim. She was a young woman who obviously endured something horrible. The fact that I think what she experienced might not be what she remembered does nothing to detract from that fact.

And for someone who says they don't want to argue, you keep arguing.

The fact is you can not talk for every teenager girl in america any more than I could. Thats not fair to her or anyone else. She is the only one who could say what was going on in her life at that time. And like I said we will just have to agree to disagree. cause we are just going in circles. And I do not wish toi get into arguments with anyone. Peace:)

Actually the it is there is know reason not to believe her story.

This whole thread has a number of reasons why you shouldn't believe her.

This may be a stretch, but do you think it's possible that Sarah could have suffered a night terror? There not as common for kids her age, but they can happen. It is not uncommon for people suffering from a night terror to do odd things. When I was in college, I studied them as part of a psych class and I read about kids who would run around their house at night, screaming I also read about adults who suffered from night terrors and one of them actually drove while in a state of sleep.

The ransacked house could have been Sarah "fighting" whoever she thought was there, the phone call and her being tied up could have all been part of her night terror, as well.

Just a thought.

is it common belief, even from the police that Sarah Powell made this all up?

She looks like a complete attention seeker to me.
all this JUST SO happens on the day she calls in sick to school?
she notices people trying to climb in her bedroom window, rings her mothers work ONCE and doesnt even try again or try anyone else? it seems like she rang it once and hung up just so she could use the redial part of the story.
And also the fact she cant get out the front door so just gives up? what? what about the back door or one of the windows? Also what about the downstairs phone.
Or is the only phone in the entire house the one in her bedroom?
If you just so happened couldnt possibly get out of your own house, why not hide downstairs? why go back upstairs to the exact room they were climbing in. why not grab something as a weapen if you indeed insisted on going to check.
I cant seem to find the video online to rewatch it so there is lots of things i want to rewatch before commenting. but why would FOUR people in masks climb one tree and then all have to climb in the window. why not one climb in and let the others through the back door if the motive was rob an empty house? and then once in WHY climb back OUT the window?
i havent seen the video in a while but i gather from comments, they climbed in she went downstairs, came back up in her room, the knocked her out/tied her up, went downstairs and trashed the house, then came back up and climbed back out the window??

I think shes a attention seeking little girl who didnt fully understand the scale her lie would evolve to.
she probably thought as far as getting her mum to rush home and comfort her but didnt really consider the fact once the police were involved it would turn into statements and sketches and no evidence.

Also one last thing, it says her mother didnt believe her for THREE DAYS. yet she claims she couldnt brush her teeth or tie her laces.
what did she do for 3 days? just lay in bed or something?
and it mentions her mother trying to trick her out of her lie so she was obviously talking and doing things if her mother was trying to catch her out.

sounds like she is reverting back to when her mummy would baby her and brush her teeth for her and tie her laces and tuck her into bed. im suprised she didnt forget how to drink so mummy could bring her a bottle

I also have a friend who lies constantly, she doesnt have seizures or anything, but she CONSTANTLY has stories about medical conditions she supposedly has. apparently allergic to a million different things and conveniant illnesses and stories of hospital stays, yet no one can ever confirm a single thing. her stories go WAYYY beyond health issues too and its quite obvious she has some pathalogical lying problem.
Sarah though seems more like it was a big attention seeking spur of the moment story that she has had to play along with to keep it going
14 years old, most DONT want to go to school, most fake sick and injuries to get out of doing sport or something. i remember having many days off just by telling mum i had a fever, one of my tricks was the heat up my hand near a lamp and then hold my hand to my head so it was warm when she checked my temperature LOL. this was literally just so i didnt have to go do a test or a speech or i just didnt want to go that day for no reason. she probably thought up something that was sure to get her at least a few weeks off and then be the poor little thing, fawned all over and being the center of attention. im guessing the seizures started when she had to go back to school as a new way not to go, or she went back and no one believed her and she was bullied or too embarrased to go back.
also the sketch it realllyyyy general, no distinguishing features, conveniantly good looking and well thought out considering he was wearing some sort of mask?

why not one climb in and let the others through the back door if the motive was rob an empty house? and then once in WHY climb back OUT the window?

This is a great point that I've never noticed before. Why have 4 people climb up (making the risk of being seen even greater) when one person could do this and let the others in?

exactly :) 4 grown adults climbing a tree in masks...nothing suss about that if someone saw them lol!

plus if they were intending to steal things...wouldnt they need to go out a door instead of trying to get their stolen things down a tree lol. but it seems they all climbed up a tree just for the little joke of messing up a house slightly, then allll climbing back down it...seems wayyyy too inconveniant. when they could mess it up and then all quickly run out a back door while laughing about what they just did.

even if they were a group of teens doing it solely for the purpose of scaring specifically her. how did they know she was off from school alone? they would of had to have realised she wasnt there somehow and wasnt off for another reason with her family, maybe she wasnt in roll call or her first class, but then they would have to have organised all 4 of them to either skip out of class, or if they werent even in school all meet at her house and do all of this BEFORE she came to after being knocked out and call her mother at 9.30 AM!. school wouldnt even usually start til what 8 or 8.30?

every single thing about the story just seems conveniant.

the only way it could possibly be a genuine robbery, would be if they had specifically picked that house without knowing who lives there and saw the mother leaving for work and just assumed no one else was home. or they were just walking past and saw the mother leaving and saw an oppurtunity. BOTH of which i honestly dont see 4 people climbing a tree before actually checking if no one was home.

to be fair, I could believe that this break in happened, it is actually all that amnesia stuff after words that suddenly made me question everything.

I don't know if they climbed a tree to get into the second story window or what. The segment doesn't say how they got up there.

The story that four people climbed into and left through a second story window is ridiculous in itself. But there's a lot of other weird stuff she claims happened, including that these home invaders had nothing better to do than hang out in her bedroom closet for a while.

She says that she was in her room when they tried to get in, she caught them at the window, and even when they saw she was dialing the phone, they still kept at it and finally entered her room, after she had left it.

While she's out of the room, and has presumably made a phone call for help, the bad guys get inside her bedroom closet and hide. What were they waiting for in there? Do they really think she's going to return to the room where she saw them breaking in? Chances are that she'd ran out of the house by that point. The closet thing really doesn't make sense.

If intruders actually were at her window and saw her dialing the phone, they would either leave before the police got there, or they would get inside the house and chase her down to keep her from getting out and screaming for more help. They wouldn't just sit in her bedroom closet, not knowing if she escaped from the house or not, and wait for the cops or neighbors to arrive.

If intruders actually were at her window and saw her dialing the phone, they would either leave before the police got there, or they would get inside the house and chase her down to keep her from getting out and screaming for more help. They wouldn't just sit in her bedroom closet, not knowing if she escaped from the house or not, and wait for the cops or neighbors to arrive.

Another excellent point I failed to catch when watching the segment.

That's an excellent point, Tracy. While it makes for a nightmarish scenario, it really doesn't make sense that they would hide in the closet. They would have had no way of knowing that she'd doublelocked her door and would be unable to find her keys; and they certainly wouldn't wait around for the police to show up.

Another excellent point I failed to catch when watching the segment.

i completely forgot about the cupboard part too! another reason to add to highly unlikeliness! plus how did 4 people fit in her closet lol. and exactly! in pretty much every scenario but this one, the person would have rang the police, or help, or ran out the front of back door.
i highly highly doubt they considered she would not call for help not leave the house and then walk back up into her room about 3 minutes later so they could jump out the closet and get her lol

also i have no idea if they did climb a tree, thats just the main thing ive read on this thread. the only other way would be that they brought a big ladder with them lol and then ran off with it.

also i have no idea if they did climb a tree, thats just the main thing ive read on this thread. the only other way would be that they brought a big ladder with them lol and then ran off with it.

Yeah the segment didn't specify, but it's still ludicrous to think that 4 people would all climb something to break into the second story of a house.

Wow. Hello. I joined the forum just to write this...

Forgive me some of this was already pointed out:

Sarah couldn't open her front door?? Seriously?

She tried to make a phone call with "burglars/vandals" breaking in THE SAME ROOM.

She went back upstairs....THINKING THEY MAGICALLY LEFT?!?

There's NO PHONE DOWNSTAIRS????

One Entrance Door?? No Side, Back Door?

All windows downstairs were not DEAD-BOLTED like the door.

Guys, don't overanalyze...think fast. In basic human terms, it's a flight or fight response....FLIGHT (aka run) or FIGHT (aka confrontation).

The "mother" is at work. The "mother" is told I don't remember you. The "mother" now realizes her daughter's existence a lot more on a daily basis...

In my mind, there's a few possibilities....

1. Dream sequence > Complete Isolation and Loneliness into a huge burst of "attention".

2. Friends that she had betrayed her....she didn't fit in a much wanted social circle.

Any head trauma? I watched it, but I don't remember her being treated.

YES! YES! YES! I wanted to bump this post up because I think it got sadly overlooked. I watched this yesterday for the first time in like 7 years and these were my sentiments exactly. I had originally leaned towards her telling the truth, but now I realize she's full of it. Great points, but I wanted to expand on them.

She claimed the intruders were coming into her bedroom window. She wasn't in the room at the time, but went in there when she heard the noise. She sees people trying to break in and makes a dive for the phone, which causes her to move TOWARD the intruders. Nobody would move TOWARD the intruders, they would move AWAY from them.

I'm not sure why she couldn't unlock the front door, why on Earth would it lock somebody IN? But even if there's an explanation for that, Sarah should have known that it would have been locked. Is she not familiar with her own house?

Then she goes back up to her room because she hadn't heard any noise for a few minutes, and not only that, but she doesn't take any sort of weapon with her to protect her with? The hell?

I'm sorry, but the only people who are this dumb are characters in a bad horror movie, no real person would be this dumb in these circumstances.

And even if she couldn't get out through the front door, why does she make no attempt to a) hide, b) exit from some other means, c) use another phone in the house, d) LOCK herself in a room where they can't get in. If the one robber was as muscular as she said he was, she would have been terrified of him.

And why didn't she grab the gun when she had the opportunity to? The one robber put it right there on her bed! She could have easily grabbed it.

And the little dog doesn't bark, but it licks her face? Those little, yappy, toy dogs like the one they had would have barked their heads off. I've been around them.

Her story of the nice male robber seems a little too convenient. He leaves the phone on her bed? How convenient!

My God, her story is full of poop.

more:

Burglars at 8:30 a.m.? Too likely that somebody would still be in the house at that time (which there was). Given that a lot of people work 9 to 5, some wouldn't have left for work by that point.

A 12 year old girl is not going to stand idly by while FOUR burglars break in, 2 of whom are MALE, one of which is very muscular.

So the one burglar wears a Freddy Kreuger mask, completely covering his face, while the other wears a stocking or whatever? And she sees enough of his face to make a composite sketch? Plus he doesn't cover his tattoo? She was certain he was caucasian, but the sketch actually looked Hispanic to me. And why did the girls apparently not wear masks? The segment depicts them as coming and going rather lackadaisically.

Something else to consider:

Sarah says that the larger man attacked her and tried to smother her with a pillow. She plays dead so the larger man lets up, but then instead of continuing to play dead, she sits up and looks right at the guy...WTH!? Then, instead of going back and suffocating her again, he hits her over the head with a gun? Why did this guy not use the gun in the first place? If his intention was to subdue or kill Sarah, why would he use a gun instead of a pillow?

Am I the only person that is bothered by the fact her mother left her home alone with a dead bolt that needs a key for the inside.. Like WTF I'm sorry but based off the segment it seems like her mother hid the key too. Or either didn't tell Sara where it would be incase of emergencies. Another thing is that in the segment it showed Sara letting her dog out through a side door or backyard door. If two men did come through the window and she seen it why not run out that door after you couldn't find the key.. Could have hopped the fence got help and a lot could have been avoided.

Going back and reading some of my old posts, I came off like such a jerk, and I didn't want to sound that harsh on Sarah. But I still don't believe her story. The UM segment is vague about the time that passed between the date of the alleged attack, November in 1993, and the time of her first seizure. The segment simply says, "gradually over time" Sarah began to regain her memory. I believe the first seizure happened after her mother threatened to take her out of school (again UM is vague and doesn't specify why, but it's possible she was a troubled teen at the time). What I'd like to know is how long did it take before she began to "regain" her memory? Was it a couple of weeks, months, days? The quicker she got her memory back, the less believable her story is, IMO.

the whole seizure and regaining memory thing doesn't make much sense. Seems like something out of a movie

Something else to consider:

Sarah says that the larger man attacked her and tried to smother her with a pillow. She plays dead so the larger man lets up, but then instead of continuing to play dead, she sits up and looks right at the guy...WTH!? Then, instead of going back and suffocating her again, he hits her over the head with a gun? Why did this guy not use the gun in the first place? If his intention was to subdue or kill Sarah, why would he use a gun instead of a pillow?

It sounds like a dream. You know how you dream really dangerous things that don't make sense and in real life would get you killed? I just think Sarah had a vivid dream while sick and possibly sleepwalked (people have done weirder things), tied herself up, messed with the phone, thought the whole thing happened but it didn't really.

It sounds like a dream. You know how you dream really dangerous things that don't make sense and in real life would get you killed? I just think Sarah had a vivid dream while sick and possibly sleepwalked (people have done weirder things), tied herself up, messed with the phone, thought the whole thing happened but it didn't really.

I'd rather believe this than her totally making everything up.

Fwiw I saw this tonight and no update.

Story makes no sense so I assume she made this up or she wasn't telling full truth.

It's a pity we don't know what happened to her. She would be in late 30's now so you think she would admit if she did have a part to play in this.

Fwiw I saw this tonight and no update.

Story makes no sense so I assume she made this up or she wasn't telling full truth.

It's a pity we don't know what happened to her. She would be in late 30's now so you think she would admit if she did have a part to play in this.

Welcome! :wave:

Yeah, the Sarah Powell story has always been one that shot up a huge red flag for me. I *do* like the theory that she may have done it to herself while sleepwalking. I agree with Cars-- it's better than thinking she made the whole thing up...

Not complicated. If it's an extremely strange story and the piece-by-piece types are desperately trying to denounce as pure invention, I'm going to accept it.

More than anything I'd love for videos of these episodes to surface. I know which way I'd wager, and heavily.

Then watch the point by point types scramble to rationalize. After all, they used all those infallible crime scene reconstruction methods to decipher exactly who was there and what happened or didn't happen.

Every year in the Kentucky Derby I'm saddened when one of the entrants is not named Glorified Guesswork.

I think, she let them in. She stayed home from school and mybe was going to have a (get together) and it turned out bad for her. Maybe it was some people she went to school with and they told her not to come back so she had the (I cant remember nothing) to stay away from school.

I think something happen to her, but it was more of a teaching her a lesson then strangers braking in and doing this to her. She had to come up with a story becuase she is 14 and did not want her parents to know she lied to stay home from school.

Also one other point, if it was other teenagers, like I think why dont they check the roll call at school and see who was missing are late?

Redial isn't a function on a phone , it's merrily just a button on the phone that you push. So she had trouble with the maual dexterity of brushing her teeth at first, but could do something as simple as pushing a button on a phone. Does not seem so mysterious to me.


Funny thing about the redial button is

If you push any other number but that redial button it would not call back the last number called. So she picked up the phone and hit the only button (most of the time in the lower right corner of the phone) to get help. YET she can not remember how to brush her teeth and why she needs to YET she knew what a phone was for?

The break in didn't happen. It doesn't make sense.

IF anything is true, then she has a mental illness and was doing this herself. Kind of like Cindy James. Unless she was just lying for attention. But the fact that they found no DNA, evidence, etc it's a pretty clear cut case that no one broke in.

Oh boy. I keep confusing her with that girl who claimed she could move things with her mind (there's a famous photo of her "moving" a telephone with her mind.

I know this thread is old, but I'm at home with the flu today, and saw this case again. I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking she made it all up for attention. She even looks like one of those. :lol:

I agree with the general consensus that she did it to herself, but still that is an impressive amount of time and energy to devote to a ruse. I understand the faking a break-in part, but faking not knowing what a toothbrush is...

I must say, I've found most of Season 8's segments pretty uninteresting (compared to previous seasons), but I had to comment on the Sarah Powell segment simply because of how cringeworthy it is. Most of my thoughts have already been shared by others. Too many nonsensical aspects and unanswered questions. I'm usually the one defending victims from accusations of lying or exaggerating -- but this case is an insult to common sense.

My doubts started in the first few seconds, where you can only hear her narrating her story. My first thought was, "Is this a bad voiceover actress or the alleged victim?" She didn't sound sincere at all. And it just got more unbelievable from there.

There are a few things that could make it more believable...

Perhaps the cops just didn't sweep the home as thoroughly as we assume. Agencies mess up evidence all the time. It was a big house (according to the reenactment), so maybe something was missed. And it could be that since their first impression was that she was lying, they kinda skimped on the forensics. (Also, it isn't unusual to not find fingerprints. Hello, intruders like to wear gloves.) Shoe prints on a supposedly rainy day should've been there, on the inside and outside. But again, maybe the police just didn't look hard enough.

Those were my initial thoughts about the lack of evidence. But then they mentioned four intruders climbing through the second story window and hiding in her closet. LOL! None of that makes sense -- and it sounds like a scenario that a dramatic but naive child would make up.

Also, the whole thing about not being able to open the front door from the inside? I guess it's possible, but seems awfully convenient for the narrative. And what about the back door? Side doors? Windows? Who in their right mind (especially a frightened teen girl) would simply give up and go back upstairs? And why did she lock the dog in the laundry room? That also seems kind of odd, but convenient for the narrative.

Finally, the fact that she called her mom's work both times speaks volumes. I've heard of people dialing close by neighbors and such instead of 911, but your mom at the post office -- while you're supposedly face-to-face with masked intruders? What on earth is she going to do -- except maybe give you the much needed attention that you've been seeking? If it were a 5-year-old, I could believe such a dangerous misstep. But a teenager? Nah.

She struck me as a brat in need of attention!

She struck me as a brat in need of attention!

Yep, it was very telling she told her mother she had no feelings for her-seems like she felt her mother had little feelings for her & this was her way to get attention. Lost her memory but knew the post office phone number where her mother just happened to work. When the people were supposedly trying to break in does she call 911 or does she call the post office? the latter of course.

I am sure nobody in a street going to work, walking their dog, jogging etc in daylight would notice two guys-one wearing a Freddy mask & one wearing pantyhose like a bank robber climbing up to her window & trying to break in. Of course there were no signs of a break-in so we have to assume that aside from not calling 911 & wasting her time trying to exit the front door where they could have now been she elected not to check any of the other upstairs rooms for unlocked/open windows. If the reconstruction is to be believed she actually opened her bedroom window & had her head stuck out which is incredibly bizarre behaviour for somebody who has witnessed two guys trying to break in.

As for the fits-the recorded one just looks like somebody playing at having a fit-I have witnessed a couple of people fitting in person & seen real fits on television & this didn't resemble them at all. I have also seen drunks etc putting them on for the camera on television shows & that is exactly what this resembled & was just more attention seeking. So there are two scenarios-she trashed the house herself for attention, or she invited a boy/friends over & they wrecked the house & she concocted this elaborate scenario to cover. What exactly was the point of it for them? They trash the house & assault her but don't steal anything-they seemed to be older than her by some way so was hardly going to be school kids she knew getting revenge.

Smart people here.
Yeah, the whole thing struck me as b.s. from the jump.
If you guys have watched "The Staircase" you probably remember that they played the recording of the guy's 911 call very early in the first episode. During that horrible acting work, I had the exact same feeling of b.s. that I had with this segment.

The only good thing about this segment was the one intruder's hot bod.

The only good thing about this segment was the one intruder's hot bod.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Matthew McConaughey didn't satiate your thirst?

The only good thing about this segment was the one intruder's hot bod.

:lol::lol::lol:

The only good thing about this segment was the one intruder's hot bod.

Amen. I'd let him tie me up.

I'm going to hell

The big red flag is that the members of law enforcement interviewed didn't outright say it, but they heavily implied that they thought either Sarah was making everything up, or she wasn't telling the entire story. I think another red flag is the use of the 2 girls in Sarah's story. It's almost as if she ransacked her house with the hopes that someone she knew would have been implicated.

Amen. I'd let him tie me up.

I'm going to hell

Ranting and raving about this guys below average body. Have any of you walked into a gym and seen men with muscular bodies? I am about to be 40 and there is zero comparison between myself and this thug. Not being arrogant, just shocked that because a guy with a mask on who looks like he may have done a few sets of curls before filming has the attention of 3 separate women on this board. Just wondering but are you guys from sparsely populated areas where people don't go to the gym or anything? For me it is a way of life to work out, its just something I've always done. Sorry if this sounded mean or judgemental, I would be the first one to compliment a decent physique if I saw one on UM but I have not.

Ranting and raving about this guys below average body. Have any of you walked into a gym and seen men with muscular bodies? I am about to be 40 and there is zero comparison between myself and this thug. Not being arrogant, just shocked that because a guy with a mask on who looks like he may have done a few sets of curls before filming has the attention of 3 separate women on this board. Just wondering but are you guys from sparsely populated areas where people don't go to the gym or anything? For me it is a way of life to work out, its just something I've always done. Sorry if this sounded mean or judgemental, I would be the first one to compliment a decent physique if I saw one on UM but I have not.

- Not ranting and raving, just having some fun.
- Not in a rural area (Toronto).
- Not a woman.
- Feel free to post a pic.
:lol:

- Not ranting and raving, just having some fun.
- Not in a rural area (Toronto).
- Not a woman.
- Feel free to post a pic.
:lol:

Check out my attachment. Got A LOT MORE.

Mercy, you look awesome! Good for you for the dedication it takes to hitting the gym and for taking good care of yourself. Bravo bud!

Just wanted to add one more pic to show that thug who was a figment of Sarah Powell's imagination is an amateur at best. Also wanted to point out that EVERYTHING I do in the gym is for my wife Angel and her enjoyment.

She's hotter than you! :) It's funny, a buddy of mine years ago who is a total gym rat once said to me "Of course my girlfriend is hot, I don't go to the gym every day to have an ugly girlfriend". LOL, clearly you agree!

Sarah Powell - since the good hot intruder didn't exist in the first place, it's all a moot point....unless it was you Mercy in your first year working out? ;)

She's hotter than you! :) It's funny, a buddy of mine years ago who is a total gym rat once said to me "Of course my girlfriend is hot, I don't go to the gym every day to have an ugly girlfriend". LOL, clearly you agree!

Sarah Powell - since the good hot intruder didn't exist in the first place, it's all a moot point....unless it was you Mercy in your first year working out? ;)

Of course she is hotter than me. And she is the single best human being I hAve ever met. She is my wife and she has me wrapped around her finger but she never takes advantage of me.

Thank you for the kind words.

I just thought of something and I can't believe it took me this long to consider it. I don't know if it has been mentioned before in the thread, but is it possible that Mom and sis were in on the whole thing too? I just can't imagine a 14-year-old making this up and then keeping the lie going for so long that it becomes a segment on a national television show.

The part about Sarah hitting the re-dial button (she has to relearn how to write her name, but in a moment of alleged terror right after being hit in the head, she knows what a re-dial button is? Come on!) and getting her mother's place of employment makes me wonder if that could have been the signal to her mom that the job was done so to speak. The fact that this took place on a day when Sarah just so happened to be home "sick" from school also makes me think everything was planned.

I just can't imagine a 14-year-old making this up and then keeping the lie going for so long that it becomes a segment on a national television show.

This is my thought too. And how big of an investigation was (going all the way to hypnotization), it's surprising whoever tied her up was never found or talked to someone about it. I thought it was a school day and most other friends would be in school. If not, the police likely would have picked-up on one of them being unaccounted for at that time. I just don't believe she tied herself up. If she had used her teeth, there would have been marks. If she had used her feet, the police would've noted how unrestrained it was (not that the show went into the entire case file). And as we all know, Unsolved Mysteries would often make things more mysterious.

Here's the main issue I have with part of Sarah's story: She says she remembers not only getting hit with a gun in the head, but she says the last thing remembered was passing out.

Why that's a huge red flag is because a board certified neuropathologist Mary Case said on Forensic Files that it is impossible to remember being knocked unconscious in such detail because when an individual is hit hard enough to cause unconsciousness, the soft brain tissue collides with the hard inner surface of the cranium—creating a brain injury. This disrupts the electrical activity in the outer areas of the brain where memories are stored. It's this disruption which prevents memory from forming not only of the traumatic event but several minutes preceding the traumatic event. This explains why individuals knocked unconscious, in an automobile accident for example, remember very little about the accident OR the events leading up to the accident.

So for Sarah to say she not only remembers being hit on the head with a gun but she remembers passing out, according to her.

I am not saying she is lying about the whole event. She may have embellished some details and mixed truth in with others to give more details to the police.

According to medical literature, it is typical for those with PTSD to remember more of the traumatic event as time goes by and I'm note sure that is something Sarah would know at that age.

I'm note sure about this case.

Side note, Sarah's FB page: https://www.facebook.com/sarah.estes.397

This is my thought too. And how big of an investigation was (going all the way to hypnotization), it's surprising whoever tied her up was never found or talked to someone about it. I thought it was a school day and most other friends would be in school. If not, the police likely would have picked-up on one of them being unaccounted for at that time. I just don't believe she tied herself up. If she had used her teeth, there would have been marks. If she had used her feet, the police would've noted how unrestrained it was (not that the show went into the entire case file). And as we all know, Unsolved Mysteries would often make things more mysterious.

Here's the main issue I have with part of Sarah's story: She says she remembers not only getting hit with a gun in the head, but she says the last thing remembered was passing out.

Why that's a huge red flag is because a board certified neuropathologist Mary Case said on Forensic Files that it is impossible to remember being knocked unconscious in such detail because when an individual is hit hard enough to cause unconsciousness, the soft brain tissue collides with the hard inner surface of the cranium—creating a brain injury. This disrupts the electrical activity in the outer areas of the brain where memories are stored. It's this disruption which prevents memory from forming not only of the traumatic event but several minutes preceding the traumatic event. This explains why individuals knocked unconscious, in an automobile accident for example, remember very little about the accident OR the events leading up to the accident.

So for Sarah to say she not only remembers being hit on the head with a gun but she remembers passing out, according to her.

I am not saying she is lying about the whole event. She may have embellished some details and mixed truth in with others to give more details to the police.

According to medical literature, it is typical for those with PTSD to remember more of the traumatic event as time goes by and I'm note sure that is something Sarah would know at that age.

I'm note sure about this case.

Side note, Sarah's FB page: https://www.facebook.com/sarah.estes.397


Sarah said she didnt remember anything till she was having seizures.

Sarah said she didnt remember anything till she was having seizures.

But to remember "passing out" like Sarah stated is absurd (even after the seizures).

She definitely either ransacked the house herself for reasons unknown, and then in a panic decided to invent the intruder scenario for fear of getting in trouble, or she ransacked the house with the intention of pinning the intruders on people she knew. I've always been a bit skeptical of the little tidbit about the 2 women being with the 2 masked men in this story. According to Sarah, neither one of them were masked or hid their identities. The women being involved, unmasked, never sat well with me. Adding more people to this home invasion makes the story less believable, but if she was purposely trying to pin this on someone she knew, it would make more sense, IMO.

She definitely either ransacked the house herself for reasons unknown, and then in a panic decided to invent the intruder scenario for fear of getting in trouble, or she ransacked the house with the intention of pinning the intruders on people she knew. I've always been a bit skeptical of the little tidbit about the 2 women being with the 2 masked men in this story. According to Sarah, neither one of them were masked or hid their identities. The women being involved, unmasked, never sat well with me. Adding more people to this home invasion makes the story less believable, but if she was purposely trying to pin this on someone she knew, it would make more sense, IMO.

After watching this segment a few more times, I realized that the man was telling Sarah "DON'T LOOK UP" as those girls were walking by. I used to think they were just saying not to look up at them despite the fact they are wearing mask—this is because Sarah took her head from out of the covers and that's what made him irate because Sarah would see the girls (but she was looking at him when he said "you just had to get a look, didn't you?)" At least that's what I think the segment was implying—maybe not Sarah in her imagination though. I also noticed those girls walking past her really fast as an indication they didn't want Sarah to see their faces.

Something also of note: Sarah falls asleep after the intruders book it out the window? Why? And since she hadn't been hit in the head when they exited the window, she should have remembered everything from waking-up after being struck by the gun—all the way to these intruders exiting the window and even falling asleep. That's a major hole in her story because when she woke up she claimed she couldn't remember ANY of the experience but she should have at least remembered the intruders leaving. I think that's another thing Sarah messed up on.

If she did ransack the house, I believe her motive was attention-seeking.

The tape in the segment seemed loose, torn and unkept as if someone used their teeth. It was definitely a bad taping-job.

After watching this segment a few more times, I realized that the man was telling Sarah "DON'T LOOK UP" as those girls were walking by. I used to think they were just saying not to look up at them despite the fact they are wearing mask—this is because Sarah took her head from out of the covers and that's what made him irate because Sarah would see the girls (but she was looking at him when he said "you just had to get a look, didn't you?)" At least that's what I think the segment was implying—maybe not Sarah in her imagination though. I also noticed those girls walking past her really fast as an indication they didn't want Sarah to see their faces.

Something also of note: Sarah falls asleep after the intruders book it out the window? Why? And since she hadn't been hit in the head when they exited the window, she should have remembered everything from waking-up after being struck by the gun—all the way to these intruders exiting the window and even falling asleep. That's a major hole in her story because when she woke up she claimed she couldn't remember ANY of the experience but she should have at least remembered the intruders leaving. I think that's another thing Sarah messed up on.

If she did ransack the house, I believe her motive was attention-seeking.

The tape in the segment seemed loose, torn and unkept as if someone used their teeth. It was definitely a bad taping-job.

I wonder if it was a gang initiation type of crime.

I just thought of something and I can't believe it took me this long to consider it. I don't know if it has been mentioned before in the thread, but is it possible that Mom and sis were in on the whole thing too? I just can't imagine a 14-year-old making this up and then keeping the lie going for so long that it becomes a segment on a national television show.

The part about Sarah hitting the re-dial button (she has to relearn how to write her name, but in a moment of alleged terror right after being hit in the head, she knows what a re-dial button is? Come on!) and getting her mother's place of employment makes me wonder if that could have been the signal to her mom that the job was done so to speak. The fact that this took place on a day when Sarah just so happened to be home "sick" from school also makes me think everything was planned.

The problem is that still leaves us with the same questions and lack of evidence. What job was done? They didn't take anything. Also, we still have the same problem of these perpetrators not leaving behind one single shred of even the flimiest evidence such as a fingerprint, a muddy footprint in the yard, the neighbors seeing a person or car in the neighborhood they never saw before, a ladder out of place in the garage. Something.

It just doesn't make any sense and without any evidence to support the story, I'm forced to conclude it's made up.

Such an odd case...I always felt she knew more then she was telling. Someone mentioned gang initiation...i won’t be shocked if that was it. It was always an odd case and one that likely never gets solved

Gang initiation? She doesn't really fit somebody joining a gang & was there any evidence of her hanging out with a gang?

Gang initiation? She doesn't really fit somebody joining a gang & was there any evidence of her hanging out with a gang?

I think that's just another poster mocking my post a few comments back. I was rambling about why someone doesn't remember "passing out"—not in the way Sarah describes.

None of this story makes sense.

She suffered a blow to the head so hard that she can't remember things and has to learn how to rewrite her own name yet no evidence of injury at the scene? A gun was used so hard it knocks her out but doesn't leave a laceration? I think the real mystery is why Sarah lied about all this, IMO.

However, I'm glad it made it onto Unsolved Mysteries—this one always made me want to lock the doors when it came on TV when I was a kid! The story did make for a really good segment and I wouldn't trade it for another.

Gang initiation is just a theory. Really in my book this case all depends on Sarah and I think k she is not telling all her information or possibly really can’t remember. This case may never get solved

Wonder how embarrassed she is of this nonsense over 35 years later? These shows-or at least the reboots are still getting shown over here in the UK, so must be on even more over there & she must get recognised by people.

Gang initiation is just a theory. Really in my book this case all depends on Sarah and I think k she is not telling all her information or possibly really can’t remember. This case may never get solved

No doubt as a married woman with kids she would like to just forget about it. We all did silly things/make up stuff as kids/adolescents, just that her cry for attention was a lot bigger & ended up being seen around the world on a popular show.

No doubt as a married woman with kids she would like to just forget about it. We all did silly things/make up stuff as kids/adolescents, just that her cry for attention was a lot bigger & ended up being seen around the world on a popular show.
I dont even think it was a cry for attention, if it was some type of gang initiation, she may truly not remember if the beating was that bad

I just recently saw this. Made-up or not, it's a pretty weird, creepy segment.

Haven't seen this segment in years, although the re-enactment segment did frighten the heck out of me when I first saw it. Kudos to the production team on that one, I think that was perhaps the creepiest re-enactment I've seen on this show and that's saying something

I'm inclined to think that something did happen with Sarah Powell, although probably not to the extent that she made it out to be. I think the most likely scenario was that she was skipping school and was hanging out with some local teenagers or other people she wasn't supposed to be with and had invited them into her home. Perhaps they took advantage of the fact that she was alone to rob and tie her up or perhaps some disagreement arose among them which ended in violence but, somehow, things got out of control and she ended up in the predicament she found herself in. I don't believe she had amnesia per se but it is possible she was severely traumatized and disoriented when she woke up and pressed redial and that could account for her strange behaviour in the immediate aftermath. I am sceptical of the seizures, though.

The SP "amnesia" case is an especially puzzling one. I know it's one of the more famous ones discussed on this board, so glad I was finally able to see this.

I hate to think that this teen made up this whole story in order to escape the consequences of getting in trouble with her parents - but she may have. Going along with this, she may also have had some kind of mental "break" with reality to avoid coming to terms with what she did - i.e., possibly letting some people she knew into her house while her parents were away, when she knew she wasn't supposed to have anyone over & was actually supposed to be home sick.

And, were her "seizures" real?! They never interviewed any doctors in the segment to either verify or disprove them.

The main issue I have with the alleged home invasion/burglary "story" is that if this did actually occur, why was nothing stolen from the home, and why was there no evidence that anyone (other than the family) was in the house?! Burglars/robbers would almost certainly steal something if they bothered to break in; and, they would probably leave some trace of themselves behind.

Just rewatched this one today for the first time in awhile and noticed two important unanswered questions which have never been addressed...

1. Who actually called the police? We know that Sarah called her mother, Deborah, at work by using the redial button on the phone, but by the time Deborah rushed back to the house, the police were already waiting outside. I guess it's possible that Deborah called the police before she left work, but it's never made clear.

2. Did no one take Sarah to the hospital for a medical exam following the incident? We have her mother stating that once the police left, she thought Sarah might tell her the truth about what happened, but even if they disbelieved her, you'd think they would have at least had her checked out by a medical professional, considering that she was found hog-tied. To make a comparison, in the Kyra Cook case, doctors at the hospital found a lump on the back of her head to support the idea that she had been violently attacked to cause her amnesia, but I see no indication that anything like that happened with Sarah.

Just rewatched this one today for the first time in awhile and noticed two important unanswered questions which have never been addressed...

1. Who actually called the police? We know that Sarah called her mother, Deborah, at work by using the redial button on the phone, but by the time Deborah rushed back to the house, the police were already waiting outside. I guess it's possible that Deborah called the police before she left work, but it's never made clear.

2. Did no one take Sarah to the hospital for a medical exam following the incident? We have her mother stating that once the police left, she thought Sarah might tell her the truth about what happened, but even if they disbelieved her, you'd think they would have at least had her checked out by a medical professional, considering that she was found hog-tied. To make a comparison, in the Kyra Cook case, doctors at the hospital found a lump on the back of her head to support the idea that she had been violently attacked to cause her amnesia, but I see no indication that anything like that happened with Sarah.

I've always assumed that Sarah's mother was the one who called the police after she deduced it was her daughter on the phone talking to someone at the post office. But if the mother wasn't the one who called the police, you would have to wonder how someone allegedly suffering from amnesia would have been able to give out the address for the police to arrive at.

As for point 2, I've always thought the police never took the incident seriously enough and were skeptical of it at the onset. I have a theory about why UM even did this segment in the first place, and I always think back to one of the creators (Cosgrove, IIRC) who said that the more narration that went on in a segment with dialogue in the background meant that the acting was horrendous. There's a ton of dialogue in the Sarah Powell segment with good acting. Maybe that's why they went ahead with it.

It's been a while since I've seen this one, and I realize there's been a lot of discussion about the "redial" part of the story, but I swear I remember that they said she had to learn how to read again after the assault. If that was the case, how was she even able to read the redial button, much less process it?

Then again, I recognize it's probably difficult to fool a team of doctors with amnesia claims and I'm far from a doctor, so *shrug*

I do not believe her story.

No sign of forced entry, no fingerprints, no muddy footprints from the rain, she calls her mom instead of 911, the intruders break-in through a second story window instead of the ground floor? How much more ridiculous can this get? She's so obviously full of crap.

Haven't seen this segment in years, although the re-enactment segment did frighten the heck out of me when I first saw it. Kudos to the production team on that one, I think that was perhaps the creepiest re-enactment I've seen on this show and that's saying something

I'm inclined to think that something did happen with Sarah Powell, although probably not to the extent that she made it out to be. I think the most likely scenario was that she was skipping school and was hanging out with some local teenagers or other people she wasn't supposed to be with and had invited them into her home. Perhaps they took advantage of the fact that she was alone to rob and tie her up or perhaps some disagreement arose among them which ended in violence but, somehow, things got out of control and she ended up in the predicament she found herself in. I don't believe she had amnesia per se but it is possible she was severely traumatized and disoriented when she woke up and pressed redial and that could account for her strange behaviour in the immediate aftermath. I am sceptical of the seizures, though.

Recently saw this segment again and my theory is pretty much this, word for word. I do not believe she was lying or pulling a hoax but the evidence does not line up either.