TX - Unidentified victims of Dean Corll, Houston Serial Killer, 1970-1973

[lieber32]

Ramsland likely fell for all of Henley's . You can see it in Lise Olsen's new book, about Mark Scott's death. I will take the liberty of drawing up an approximate plan of the entire murder on the basis of this statement with some quotes. The words in square brackets are my additions, which I thought were important comments on the case.

—"Corll thought Mark had been 'talking too much,'' Henley said.

—Mark was tied up and taken to Corll's bedroom.

—Corll held Mark for two nights and one day to torture and repeatedly rape him, Henley said.

—At Corll's command, Henley and Brooks both got high and participated in the sessions.

—"Mark Scott was messed with. He was beaten and burned with cigarettes. All three of us did it. Dean hated him,"

—Henley shaved him because he knew he liked his hair.

—Later, Mark picked up a small knife that his captors had used to cut him.

—There was that famous scuffle when Mark almost cut Corll.

—After that, all three took turns shooting Scott with a pellet gun, and Corll raped Scott again. [This is an important detail, because on the one hand it is a kind of reference to the case when Brooks accidentally shot Mark with a pellet gun even earlier, and on the other hand it finally shows which case led to the appearance of this terrifying detail in the memories of District Attorney Vance]

—Corll decided that Henley needed to "pop his cherry" and do the killing.

—At one point, Mark begged Henley to shoot him.

—Instead, at Corll's insistence, Henley tied a noose around Mark's neck and pulled as hard as he could. Corll ordered Henley to stand on Mark's back and use his leverage to tighten the rope.

—"It’s much harder than you think to kill someone," Henley told Derrick.

—Finally, Henley shot him twice in the head at point-blank range.

—After Mark Scott's murder, Wayne began to enjoy killing. “I killed them because Dean said to. I guess I enjoyed it or just didn’t care anymore or I was just trying to please Dean. It was not something I was forced to do." [A statement that is consistent with Henley's earlier statements (a 1976 interview), but in many ways contradicts his statements for Ramsland's book]

This description opens up new possibilities for analyzing the criminal behavior of all three during the murders, because previously many details of torture and abuse remained unclear. The most important, it seems to me, is the fact that all three participated in the commission of the crime, none were merely present (as Brooks claimed in his confessions).

Whats the name of the book?

 

[SpeedwellStalactite]

Ramsland likely fell for all of Henley's . You can see it in Lise Olsen's new book, about Mark Scott's death. I will take the liberty of drawing up an approximate plan of the entire murder on the basis of this statement with some quotes. The words in square brackets are my additions, which I thought were important comments on the case.

—"Corll thought Mark had been 'talking too much,'' Henley said.

—Mark was tied up and taken to Corll's bedroom.

—Corll held Mark for two nights and one day to torture and repeatedly rape him, Henley said.

—At Corll's command, Henley and Brooks both got high and participated in the sessions.

—"Mark Scott was messed with. He was beaten and burned with cigarettes. All three of us did it. Dean hated him,"

—Henley shaved him because he knew he liked his hair.

—Later, Mark picked up a small knife that his captors had used to cut him.

—There was that famous scuffle when Mark almost cut Corll.

—After that, all three took turns shooting Scott with a pellet gun, and Corll raped Scott again. [This is an important detail, because on the one hand it is a kind of reference to the case when Brooks accidentally shot Mark with a pellet gun even earlier, and on the other hand it finally shows which case led to the appearance of this terrifying detail in the memories of District Attorney Vance]

—Corll decided that Henley needed to "pop his cherry" and do the killing.

—At one point, Mark begged Henley to shoot him.

—Instead, at Corll's insistence, Henley tied a noose around Mark's neck and pulled as hard as he could. Corll ordered Henley to stand on Mark's back and use his leverage to tighten the rope.

—"It’s much harder than you think to kill someone," Henley told Derrick.

—Finally, Henley shot him twice in the head at point-blank range.

—After Mark Scott's murder, Wayne began to enjoy killing. “I killed them because Dean said to. I guess I enjoyed it or just didn’t care anymore or I was just trying to please Dean. It was not something I was forced to do." [A statement that is consistent with Henley's earlier statements (a 1976 interview), but in many ways contradicts his statements for Ramsland's book]

This description opens up new possibilities for analyzing the criminal behavior of all three during the murders, because previously many details of torture and abuse remained unclear. The most important, it seems to me, is the fact that all three participated in the commission of the crime, none were merely present (as Brooks claimed in his confessions).

No she didn't - she approached the case clinically and reported facts. And you fell for it. More fool you. Olsen has obviously made up shallow lies easily disprovable, like claiming when Henley first came to prison he joked he was a serial killer and inmates would leave cereal everywhere Really? The term serial did not exist and from the 1970s onward he has disputed that claim. Wonder where inmates placedd cereal whereverhe was too. She also claims in her book, contrary to all other accounts of the case, that Henley and Brooks were not present at High Island on the last day of the search to lead police to the last four bodies. Yet apparently Henley told Derrick he had told officers on the last day of the search to stop looking. Thought he wasn't there.

Don't get me started on the bull he wanted to surpass Gacy's record and regain the title of most victims. Even some journalists saw through that crap. You fell for her crap. Ramsland's book is much more neutral.

 

[SpeedwellStalactite]

Whats the name of the book?

The best book is The Serial Killer's Apprentice.

 

[Bored_To_Death]

No she didn't - she approached the case clinically and reported facts. And you fell for it. More fool you. Olsen has obviously made up shallow lies easily disprovable, like claiming when Henley first came to prison he joked he was a serial killer and inmates would leave cereal everywhere Really? The term serial did not exist and from the 1970s onward he has disputed that claim. Wonder where inmates placedd cereal whereverhe was too. She also claims in her book, contrary to all other accounts of the case, that Henley and Brooks were not present at High Island on the last day of the search to lead police to the last four bodies. Yet apparently Henley told Derrick he had told officers on the last day of the search to stop looking. Thought he wasn't there.

Don't get me started on the bull he wanted to surpass Gacy's record and regain the title of most victims. Even some journalists saw through that crap. You fell for her crap. Ramsland's book is much more neutral.

The term serial killer was coined in 1974. Henley was making a joke about the cereal lol. Are you suggesting Derrick was wrong about that and Mark Scott's murder? He at first claimed he killed Scott and then told Ramsland it was Corll, obviously to lessen his participation. Not to mention his lack of remorse in his 1976 interview, where he literally laughed. He had years to reflect on his actions and memories of the murders before Derrick interviewed it, so it's likely the most accurate about his recollection of Scott's murder and his tasteless jokes to Derrick almost definitely happened.

 

[Nadal]

I disagreed a lot with some of Ramsland's ideas, for instance the idea that Brooks may be a psychopath because he was much more guarded, less openly emotional either way and talked less than Henley did. As Ramsland herself said Brooks was very shy, insecure and had been groomed and abused for far longer than Henley including being tortured by Henley and Corll which would suggest serious emotional and mental damage partially at the hands of her main source who was portraying him as a potential psychopath. I think if we are taking this as an objective look at the case then she definitely leaned way too heavily into Henley.

On the other hand though every single other narrative leans way too heavily into Brooks and largely dismisses Henley as a source (despite him talking way more) unless he corroborates Brooks. I don't think either approach is good or very scientific but Ramsland's book was definitely welcome since it was at least the opposite side of the coin.

I think there's plenty of truth and lies on both sides and the most valuable part of Ramsland's book from an objective standpoint is the portayal of how Corll groomed Henley and Brooks which is something that there's quite a bit of agreement on them over.

Actually, just one other thing i don't like because it's somewhat related to what i mentioned before (there's plenty) is Ramsland highlighting Henley's accusation that Brooks was asking Corll to get him female victims to rape and kill because he was straight. I have no issue with this claim being mentioned in general because it's possible. However Henley is the one who brought a female to Dean's when Dean asked him to bring a male victim to kill (which he also did) despite knowing that Corll would not have been happy with it. It's debateable why he did that but i'd more readily believe Henley was trying to force the female victim issue when you consider everything else mentioned even in Ramsland's book and Henley's admission. Dean outright rejected Brooks, Henley was far more of an extrovert than Brooks and also Dean and was much more capable of getting over on Dean than Brooks was, Henley hadn't been tortured by Dean so didn't fear him as much. Maybe both or neither did but if i had to say which one looks more likely to have tried to get female victims of their own i'd easily say Henley with Rhonda that night.

 

[Nadal]

No she didn't - she approached the case clinically and reported facts. And you fell for it. More fool you. Olsen has obviously made up shallow lies easily disprovable, like claiming when Henley first came to prison he joked he was a serial killer and inmates would leave cereal everywhere Really? The term serial did not exist and from the 1970s onward he has disputed that claim. Wonder where inmates placedd cereal whereverhe was too. She also claims in her book, contrary to all other accounts of the case, that Henley and Brooks were not present at High Island on the last day of the search to lead police to the last four bodies. Yet apparently Henley told Derrick he had told officers on the last day of the search to stop looking. Thought he wasn't there.

Don't get me started on the bull he wanted to surpass Gacy's record and regain the title of most victims. Even some journalists saw through that crap. You fell for her crap. Ramsland's book is much more neutral.

Let's not get this twisted, she told Henley's narrative just as Olsen told Brook's narrative. Both are largely uncorroborated as neither agree on much and the only other person who can give his version was killed. I'd agree Ramsland's book is better and Olsen may have included some sensationalist newspaper accounts but the crux of each of their versions rely on a largely unsubstantiated story from an unreliable person with reason to lie.

 

[SpeedwellStalactite]

Let's not get this twisted, she told Henley's narrative just as Olsen told Brook's narrative. Both are largely uncorroborated as neither agree on much and the only other person who can give his version was killed. I'd agree Ramsland's book is better and Olsen may have included some sensationalist newspaper accounts but the crux of each of their versions rely on a largely unsubstantiated story from an unreliable person with reason to lie.

Thx. Look I am not trying to stick up for Henley here but I saw right through the author's petty vendetta here. Those claims (I can show you, Mr Prosecutor, were more bodies are as I want to surpass Gacy's record and get a deal / I told the officers to stop searching because I did not want them to find more bodies / Hey I'm a glorifying serial killer) are shallow fabrications and fly in the face of the way he has conducted himself and the way he has portrayed himself since the 1980s at least. If anything he portrays himself as a victim largely acting at Dean's control, and these shallow statements of gloating and mockery (some of which as I say even some journalists have seen through) are transparent fabrications.

The book is good in areas but the author's petty, puerile and obvious attempts to invoke disgust and hatred of Henley, probably because he is the only one of the trio still alive to direct anger at, are a major pitfall.

 

[Nadal]

Thx. Look I am not trying to stick up for Henley here but I saw right through the author's petty vendetta here. Those claims (I can show you, Mr Prosecutor, were more bodies are as I want to surpass Gacy's record and get a deal / I told the officers to stop searching because I did not want them to find more bodies / Hey I'm a glorifying serial killer) are shallow fabrications and fly in the face of the way he has conducted himself and the way he has portrayed himself since the 1980s at least. If anything he portrays himself as a victim largely acting at Dean's control, and these shallow statements of gloating and mockery (some of which as I say even some journalists have seen through) are transparent fabrications.

The book is good in areas but the author's petty, puerile and obvious attempts to invoke disgust and hatred of Henley, probably because he is the only one of the trio still alive to direct anger at, are a major pitfall.

I'll have to reread The Man With The Candy. What were the context they were mentioned and did he mention the source? If the source was Brooks then it just sounds like him attacking Brooks as Henley clearly did on the opposite end plenty himself over the years and i think Ramsland was extremely generous in leaving much of that out. I'm surprised "I want to surpass Gacy's record" hasn't stuck in my mind because that's ludicrous. Is there any chance some of this was in other accounts and not Olsen's book?

You seem to be confused, Olsen wrote that book in 1974. Brooks was very much alive for another like 50 years. I think Henley's actions invoke all of those things without needing Olsen, i got that from even reading Henley's heavily self-serving account.

What do you think of the Charles Cobble and Marty Ray Jones murders? Marty picks on Henley in front of some kids (and notably girls), Henley is embarrassed. Later witnesses before knowing about his involvement and before Dean's death, have Henley as the last person seen with Marty and Charles. He took them to Dean so he would kill them because Marty embarrassed him.

 

[SpeedwellStalactite]

I'll have to reread The Man With The Candy. What were the context they were mentioned and did he mention the source? If the source was Brooks then it just sounds like him attacking Brooks as Henley clearly did on the opposite end plenty himself over the years and i think Ramsland was extremely generous in leaving much of that out. I'm surprised "I want to surpass Gacy's record" hasn't stuck in my mind because that's ludicrous. Is there any chance some of this was in other accounts and not Olsen's book?

You seem to be confused, Olsen wrote that book in 1974. Brooks was very much alive for another like 50 years. I think Henley's actions invoke all of those things without needing Olsen, i got that from even reading Henley's heavily self-serving account.

What do you think of the Charles Cobble and Marty Ray Jones murders? Marty picks on Henley in front of some kids (and notably girls), Henley is embarrassed. Later witnesses before knowing about his involvement and before Dean's death, have Henley as the last person seen with Marty and Charles. He took them to Dean so he would kill them because Marty embarrassed him.

I am talking about Lise Olsen's book The Scientist and the Serial Killer (released about three weeks ago). Jack Olsen's '74 book is good but he uses his imagination in some areas in addition to relying on newspaper accounts.

The sources for these claims were (as for the Gacy claim) one of the prosecutors at Henley's retrial in 1979; the claims regarding Henley not wanting police to find more bodies (despite source after source after source claiming to the contrary) and "I'm a cereal killer lol and I revel in my notoriety" are both what the author claims he told the forensic anthropologist trying to ID the victims. This also flies in the face of how he has assisted investigators and portrays himself as acting out of fear mostly. He was actually scared of Corll in ways but equally wanted to please him.

Cobble and Jones. Cobble was Jones's shadow in ways. Jones tried picking a fight with Henley shortly before he was abducted. According to Rhonda Williams, Jones cheated Corll on a drug deal and that is why they were selected as victims. Henley tried resuscitating Cobble after he went into Cardiac arrest watching them both strangle Jones., then gave up and shot him.

 

[Nadal]

I am talking about Lise Olsen's book The Scientist and the Serial Killer (released about three weeks ago). Jack Olsen's '74 book is good but he uses his imagination in some areas in addition to relying on newspaper accounts.

The sources for these claims were (as for the Gacy claim) one of the prosecutors at Henley's retrial in 1979; the claims regarding Henley not wanting police to find more bodies (despite source after source after source claiming to the contrary) and "I'm a cereal killer lol and I revel in my notoriety" are both what the author claims he told the forensic anthropologist trying to ID the victims. This also flies in the face of how he has assisted investigators and portrays himself as acting out of fear mostly. He was actually scared of Corll in ways but equally wanted to please him.

Cobble and Jones. Cobble was Jones's shadow in ways. Jones tried picking a fight with Henley shortly before he was abducted. According to Rhonda Williams, Jones cheated Corll on a drug deal and that is why they were selected as victims. Henley tried resuscitating Cobble after he went into Cardiac arrest watching them both strangle Jones., then gave up and shot him.

Oh damn, apologies. I wasn't aware of Lise Olsen's book, that's a crazy coincidence as both of them have the same surname resulting in a very understandable mixup. I've not read it so wasn't commenting on that. I probably agree with your objections then but would have to read it myself to be sure.

Rhonda said that in later years she wasn't reliable at all by that point she was desperately trying to get Henley released and said nothing about it at the time. Regardless, it's not relevant as i misinterpreted what you were saying because i thought you were talking about Jack Olsen's book.

 

[SpeedwellStalactite]

Oh damn, apologies. I wasn't aware of Lise Olsen's book, that's a crazy coincidence as both of them have the same surname resulting in a very understandable mixup. I've not read it so wasn't commenting on that. I probably agree with your objections then but would have to read it myself to be sure.

Rhonda said that in later years she wasn't reliable at all by that point she was desperately trying to get Henley released and said nothing about it at the time. Regardless, it's not relevant as i misinterpreted what you were saying because i thought you were talking about Jack Olsen's book.

It is okay. I did communicate with Rhonda. She sent me early drafts of sections of the book she was in the process of writing when she died. She mentioned knowing Cobble and Jones and them playing pranks on her like one of them (I think Jones) locking her in a bathroom with a snake in a cage for a short while as she was petrified of snakes. She said Cobble was timid and "really cute but he didn't seem to realize it." They let her out after laughing at her distress for a few minutes.

She did suffer from PTSD and saw Henley as having saved her life. Maybe it was part of the healing process for her. Catharsis. (She was physically and s xually abused as a child and teen.) She also said her son and granddaughter would not be alive if it wasn't for Henley.

 

[Nadal]

It is okay. I did communicate with Rhonda. She sent me early drafts of sections of the book she was in the process of writing when she died. She mentioned knowing Cobble and Jones and them playing pranks on her like one of them (I think Jones) locking her in a bathroom with a snake in a cage for a short while as she was petrified of snakes. She said Cobble was timid and "really cute but he didn't seem to realize it." They let her out after laughing at her distress for a few minutes.

She did suffer from PTSD and saw Henley as having saved her life. Maybe it was part of the healing process for her. Catharsis. (She was physically and s xually abused as a child and teen.) She also said her son and granddaughter would not be alive if it wasn't for Henley.

I feel really badly for Rhonda she had a terrible upbringing but i don't find her reliable whatsoever in her last years and i think there's a good chance Henley took her there to rape and kill her and it didn't go as planned.

According to Rhonda and Kerley (Henley too but he's irrelevant as he's intensely biased here), Dean kept taking Henley elsewhere alone to talk to him and they didn't know what was being said all we have is Henley's claims for what was being said. Then the three of them huff paint that Dean gives them until they pass out and all three wake up tied up. Why would Henley have huffed the paint unless he believed or had some assurance that he wouldn't be harmed? Are we claiming that he also had that assurance for Rhonda? In that case were they bringing Rhonda on as an accomplice because otherwise surely she'd say something about what Dean did to Kerley?

I don't know what happened but I think it's very possible Henley was telling Dean to incapacitate both Rhonda and Kerley, he'd take Rhonda, Dean would take Kerley. It's never made sense why he brought Rhonda when by his own admission Dean contacted him almost like a rattling junkie telling him to bring a male victim, and he did he brought him Kerley but also Rhonda. He also claimed Brooks was asking Dean if he could get female victims to rape and kill and Dean outright rejected him. Then he admitted Dean was extremely awkward around females. Who knows maybe it was just misjudgement but as mentioned earlier if i had to believe which one (could have been both though) was trying to get female victims i'd go with Henley doing so that night with Rhonda. Especially since Henley admits he was an extrovert and Dean was an introvert, and that he was talented at calming Dean down and getting around him.

 

[Bored_To_Death]

I would rather say you fell victim, but not to Henley's bs, but to the well-established pattern of basing a systematic investigation on an irrelevant question, or in this case a succession of wildly confusing reasonings.

Btw, i tried several times with some goodwill to distillate something, but it only got worse. First of all, what on earth could adding minutiae details to a single murder case possibly help you in "opening up new possibilities for analyzing the criminal behavior" for a serial murder case this sprawling?

All you get is more awful details about the ordeal this poor guy suffered - and there's virtually nothing new here but added details from police reports (which were in essence published long before). Instead you find it necessary to single out lots of incidental details as if they mean something: 'Mark was tied up and taken to Corll's bedroom' - i mean, what's next, the color of Corll's doormat?

You can't just line up lots of newly published incidental stuff and proclaim its mere presence a gamechanger - and then say it contradicts a wildly different psychiatric evaluation spanning 50 years and involving highly complicated concepts like trauma or memory corruption.

But it's not even this, it seems all you took out from this very evaluation (you recall, an examination of grooming dynamics and the unformed brain was a major topic) is to use it as springboard for ripping quotes out of conversations that were never contextualized like you suggest.

'Dean made me do awful things' is not attached to any literal course of action or as a blanket guilt remover, it's a Henley statement loosely used by the author as a bracket term in particular spots of the book to describe a dynamic (it vaguely connotes the sexual sadism, as i recall). We could make a point that she does use such stuff to Henley's advantage a trifle too often, yes.

But what we categorically cannot do is inventing a new bogus case against 'EWH, the Liar' as if you found him saying he didn't strangle Scott or didn't participate in all that torture crap - it's literally all in his 1973 statement - or as if you found a completely new explanation for his behaviour, like EWH was born bad (the most commonly interpretation of the 70's, the decade where they didn't even professionally examine either living participant).

So, after this long diatribe, i am genuinly curious: what do you think is your own motivation to devalue a rather well-reasoned new psychiatric insight (even if you would object to certain phrasings)? Does it bother you the guy may become too humanized by its findings as a result?

>I would rather say you fell victim, but not to Henley's bs, but to the well-established pattern of basing a systematic investigation on an irrelevant question, or in this case a succession of wildly confusing reasonings.

I'm not even trying to be snarky, but could you clarify what u mean?

>All you get is more awful details about the ordeal this poor guy suffered - and there's virtually nothing new here but added details from police reports (which were in essence published long before.
Henley never mentioned that he came up with idea to torture victims on his own (the headshaving). I've never seen the pellet gun (aside from Vance's unreliable descriptions) or the cigarette burning be talked about. Brooks also conveniently never admitted to his own participation in the torture. I read in a police report that Henley admitted to raping those poor kids, he castrated them, put the glass rods in them which is rape. He wasn’t scared of Corll's sexual sadism or cruelty he participated in their rapes and pulled out their pubic hair, as did Brooks. I've also read an account of Brooks being a vicious bully and cruel to animals (he tortured lizards to death). They probably had Conduct disorder at best and ASPD at worst. Animal cruelty, bullying and the crimes Brooks and Henley used to commit prior to meeting Corll are big indicators of lack of remorse and empathy. Brooks also wanted to rape girls and there were rumors that he was the last guy seen with Marjorie Buys the night of her murder. Prior to Kimberly Raye Pitchford's abduction, a green '69 Corvette was seen several times near her school (as far as I know, this was noted in police reports prior to Brooks' arrest and all the events of August 1973). Ramsland also ignored all the negative accounts of Henley pre-Corll (I've seen plenty) and just used all the good accounts by biased friends and family members. Even acting like a good person pre and post Corll doesn't mean much necessarily, there is such a thing as the Mask of Sanity. Ramsland also implied that Brooks was worse than Henley, just bc he was getting paid and made cold statements (smth Henley did as well). There's also an unsettling police report where a guy named Paul Gale talk abt how Henley could've been involved in a missing girl's dissappearance.

>But what we categorically cannot do is inventing a new bogus case against 'EWH, the Liar' as if you found him saying he didn't strangle Scott or didn't participate in all that torture crap - it's literally all in his 1973 statement - or as if you found a completely new explanation for his behaviour, like EWH was born bad (the most commonly interpretation of the 70's, the decade where they didn't even professionally examine either living participant)

My main issue is how Henley contradicts his earlier statements (not including his 70s ones). He told Vargas and Derrick he killed Mark Scott, now he's pretending he didn't and Ramsland just goes with it. Same for Aguirre. He killed his own friend just to date the guy's girlfriend and dumped the missing person's flyers for him. He was upset he lost the record of highest body counts. And he pretends as though he just did it because Corll said to, but it was more than that. He lured his own friends to die (Scott, Kerley, Aguirre and Lawrence). He also didn't want to release Ridinger from the board.

And Ramsland was biased. In general, I would also like to note that different specialists may view the psychological pathology of a person in different ways. We have cases where experts could not agree on the sanity/insanity of a suspect, and this is usually a simpler conversation. Well, a textbook case of diagnosis can be seen in the case of Bundy, who was diagnosed by specialists from DID to ASPD during the trial. Retrospective analyses, I know, have shown different results. I mean, Henley's analysis by another specialist may lead to different conclusions, and I can allow myself to remain critical of her analysis. (A "funny" association came to mind: the way Henley's testimony changes reminds me of a similar process for Bundy, who kept changing everything from the description of his childhood to the number of victims, the details of the crimes, and other things.
Here's are a few unsettling remarks about Brooks I've found. Those who knew both the boys said that Brooks, lean and angular at six feet two, was dominant physically and morally. A confidential memo from a police reporter noted, “Of three, Brooks probably stronges personality…. Meaner than other two, Brooks kept .38 revolver in possession, had said that if any policeman ever walked in on parties he would shoot him.”
An acquaintance of Brooks had this to say abt him: I knew David Brooks. When I was a kid, he terrorized me. I'm talking terrorized... I was a favorite target of his from Dick Dowling elementary to SF Austin jr. High.Whenever I moved from one school to another, for whatever reason, there he was.He hung out with a kid named Robbie Fuller.Together, they used to corner me and do whatever they could to humiliate or intimidate me.My wife was his sisters best friend back then.His mother was one of those hard tough love types. Maybe too tough.If he wasn't home on time, he didn't get back in.Mom taught him a lesson.I remember him torturing animals and lizards. He would catch a lizard, flip his bike upside down and run the lizard through the chain a little at a time.He'd watch it like a cat would a mouse. I remember him burning one with a butane lighter he stole from a store near Austin jr high while a dozen kids watched right on the school grounds during lunch.No one said a word to him. In spite of all the people I told about all the things I'd seen him do, no one listened. No teachers, parents, no one...This guy loved... I mean loved to watch things hurt.I was a favorite target of his for several years. Sometimes, the only person he knew at a new school...I can't think of anyone I ever really hated. Except him.I can tell you this though. He was hurt. His mother was his source of misery. And, he wanted everyone else to hurt as much as he did.There is a difference between tough love, and cruelty. I don't think she knew what it was. But, I know he only knew cruelty.And, couldn't get enough out of doing it to others.I often thought he was going to kill me long before he went to Houston. I'm sure he would have if he could.

 

[SpeedwellStalactite]

I feel really badly for Rhonda she had a terrible upbringing but i don't find her reliable whatsoever in her last years and i think there's a good chance Henley took her there to rape and kill her and it didn't go as planned.

According to Rhonda and Kerley (Henley too but he's irrelevant as he's intensely biased here), Dean kept taking Henley elsewhere alone to talk to him and they didn't know what was being said all we have is Henley's claims for what was being said. Then the three of them huff paint that Dean gives them until they pass out and all three wake up tied up. Why would Henley have huffed the paint unless he believed or had some assurance that he wouldn't be harmed? Are we claiming that he also had that assurance for Rhonda? In that case were they bringing Rhonda on as an accomplice because otherwise surely she'd say something about what Dean did to Kerley?

I don't know what happened but I think it's very possible Henley was telling Dean to incapacitate both Rhonda and Kerley, he'd take Rhonda, Dean would take Kerley. It's never made sense why he brought Rhonda when by his own admission Dean contacted him almost like a rattling junkie telling him to bring a male victim, and he did he brought him Kerley but also Rhonda. He also claimed Brooks was asking Dean if he could get female victims to rape and kill and Dean outright rejected him. Then he admitted Dean was extremely awkward around females. Who knows maybe it was just misjudgement but as mentioned earlier if i had to believe which one (could have been both though) was trying to get female victims i'd go with Henley doing so that night with Rhonda. Especially since Henley admits he was an extrovert and Dean was an introvert, and that he was talented at calming Dean down and getting around him.

Henley was having sex with Rhonda anyway even though he was dating a girl named Lisa. Corll wanted him to bring Kerley there to have s x with him, but they left midway through the huffing and moonshine session. I think it was an oversight on Henley's drug-addled mind when he heard Rhonda's distress and invited her to Dean's. When Corll snapped, Henley's fast-talk persuaded him to release him. He may have initially intended to go ahead and ra pe her as promised but her survivor mindset and kowing how to minimize violence from male ra pists in her situation broke through to him as he had desensitized himself to harming males but not females.

I am sure some of Rhonda's recollections may have been selective as to what happened that night, and her role in it, but bringing a girl there was a no-no for Dean.

Everything about the crimes was escalating by the summer of '73. All three woke up to find themselves bound and we all know what happened afterward as Kerley and Williams' accounts corroborate Henley's.

 

[Bored_To_Death]

I disagreed a lot with some of Ramsland's ideas, for instance the idea that Brooks may be a psychopath because he was much more guarded, less openly emotional either way and talked less than Henley did. As Ramsland herself said Brooks was very shy, insecure and had been groomed and abused for far longer than Henley including being tortured by Henley and Corll which would suggest serious emotional and mental damage partially at the hands of her main source who was portraying him as a potential psychopath. I think if we are taking this as an objective look at the case then she definitely leaned way too heavily into Henley.

On the other hand though every single other narrative leans way too heavily into Brooks and largely dismisses Henley as a source (despite him talking way more) unless he corroborates Brooks. I don't think either approach is good or very scientific but Ramsland's book was definitely welcome since it was at least the opposite side of the coin.

I think there's plenty of truth and lies on both sides and the most valuable part of Ramsland's book from an objective standpoint is the portayal of how Corll groomed Henley and Brooks which is something that there's quite a bit of agreement on them over.

Actually, just one other thing i don't like because it's somewhat related to what i mentioned before (there's plenty) is Ramsland highlighting Henley's accusation that Brooks was asking Corll to get him female victims to rape and kill because he was straight. I have no issue with this claim being mentioned in general because it's possible. However Henley is the one who brought a female to Dean's when Dean asked him to bring a male victim to kill (which he also did) despite knowing that Corll would not have been happy with it. It's debateable why he did that but i'd more readily believe Henley was trying to force the female victim issue when you consider everything else mentioned even in Ramsland's book and Henley's admission. Dean outright rejected Brooks, Henley was far more of an extrovert than Brooks and also Dean and was much more capable of getting over on Dean than Brooks was, Henley hadn't been tortured by Dean so didn't fear him as much. Maybe both or neither did but if i had to say which one looks more likely to have tried to get female victims of their own i'd easily say Henley with Rhonda that night.

Ramsland calling Brooks a psychopath had much more to do with his lack of emotion, undermining his role and blaming Henley for everything, and admitting that Billy Lawrence's torture did not bother him. Brooks literally even said the world was better off without those kids.

Henley was also groomed and raped by Corll. He claims it only happened once at Brooks loading but there are two quotes of his in the book that imply otherwise, plus what he said in the 1976 interview. I just think he doesn't like to talk about it. I find it very hard to believe that Corll handcuffed Henley and tied him up (by his own admission), and didn't sexually abuse him.

I highly doubt Henley brought Rhonda there to rape her. She had a fight with her abusive dad and brought her there to protect her. He and Brooks would bring girls there a lot, to block Corll from killing sometimes. This was hardly the first time, or the first time Corll attacked Henley. Henley also claimed he brought her there to protect Kerley, which I believe because there is corroboration and circumstantial evidence pointing to it. Also, Henley had the opportunity to rape Rhonda and chose not to do so. He even asked Corll to let him take Rhonda to another room so she wouldn't see what was happening. It's in the book.

 

[Bored_To_Death]

Let's not get this twisted, she told Henley's narrative just as Olsen told Brook's narrative. Both are largely uncorroborated as neither agree on much and the only other person who can give his version was killed. I'd agree Ramsland's book is better and Olsen may have included some sensationalist newspaper accounts but the crux of each of their versions rely on a largely unsubstantiated story from an unreliable person with reason to lie.

Ramsland's book had much more corroboration and more reason to be trustworthy. Jack Olsen's book had a few statements from Brooks but it was not based on anyone's narrative lol. Brooks barely ever opened up about anything. Jack Olsen's book was good but mostly anecdotal and he didn't ever even interview the accomplices or ppl who knew them. Ramsland's book is not unsubstantiated lol it at least gives you the full picture about the timeline and while it sugercoats what Henley says, she does point out the flaws in his narrative in a roundabout way. I think u have your facts completely mixed up or half-read the books.

 

[Nadal]

Henley was having sex with Rhonda anyway even though he was dating a girl named Lisa. Corll wanted him to bring Kerley there to have s x with him, but they left midway through the huffing and moonshine session. I think it was an oversight on Henley's drug-addled mind when he heard Rhonda's distress and invited her to Dean's. When Corll snapped, Henley's fast-talk persuaded him to release him. He may have initially intended to go ahead and ra pe her as promised but her survivor mindset and kowing how to minimize violence from male ra pists in her situation broke through to him as he had desensitized himself to harming males but not females.

I am sure some of Rhonda's recollections may have been selective as to what happened that night, and her role in it, but bringing a girl there was a no-no for Dean.

Everything about the crimes was escalating by the summer of '73. All three woke up to find themselves bound and we all know what happened afterward as Kerley and Williams' accounts corroborate Henley's.

This is all stuff Rhonda claimed decades later. Henley having sex with Rhonda does not have anything to do with him wanting to rape/torture/kill her after his experience with Dean, they aren't the same thing. Ted Bundy getting consensual sex from a victim would not have erased the desire for him to harm her.

According to Henley's initial account Rhonda didn't convince him of anything, he saw the gun that Dean carelessly left lying and grabbed it then shot Dean when he lunged at him. According to Rhonda's initial account she was so drugged out of her mind that she didn't realize what was happening, when she realized she was tied up she said "stop playing Wayne!" and only realized the gravity of the situation when she heard gunfire. Neither situation works with the version they told decades later after numerous meetings.

Kerley and Rhonda's account only backs Henley's up as much as they could give relevant accounts. They couldn't tell us anything about what Henley and Dean said to each other before they came there that night or what they said to each other before they all ended up tied up. What we know is he was asked to bring a male victim and he did alonside a female.

 

[Bored_To_Death]

Henley was having sex with Rhonda anyway even though he was dating a girl named Lisa. Corll wanted him to bring Kerley there to have s x with him, but they left midway through the huffing and moonshine session. I think it was an oversight on Henley's drug-addled mind when he heard Rhonda's distress and invited her to Dean's. When Corll snapped, Henley's fast-talk persuaded him to release him. He may have initially intended to go ahead and ra pe her as promised but her survivor mindset and kowing how to minimize violence from male ra pists in her situation broke through to him as he had desensitized himself to harming males but not females.

I am sure some of Rhonda's recollections may have been selective as to what happened that night, and her role in it, but bringing a girl there was a no-no for Dean.

Everything about the crimes was escalating by the summer of '73. All three woke up to find themselves bound and we all know what happened afterward as Kerley and Williams' accounts corroborate Henley's.

Henley was not having sex with Rhonda, it's in the Vargas letters. Both Henley and Rhonda stated they were just friends and had a sibling type relationship. I think people just started assuming they were dating through the unsubstantiated grapevine, because after Frank Aguirre died, Henley tried to look out for Rhonda as he got her boyfriend killed. Henley was dating Lisa Reid and was even engaged to her. Apparently, both Henley and Brooks were faithful to their girlfriend and Henley was dating Lisa way before he got involved in the murders. They had an on and off relationship for years.

I think Rhonda is at her core a good person, she became a social worker to help kids like herself but she also sensationalized the story (probably for trauma related psychological reasons).

 

[Bored_To_Death]

This is all stuff Rhonda claimed decades later. Henley having sex with Rhonda does not have anything to do with him wanting to rape/torture/kill her after his experience with Dean, they aren't the same thing. Ted Bundy getting consensual sex from a victim would not have erased the desire for him to harm her.

According to Henley's initial account Rhonda didn't convince him of anything, he saw the gun that Dean carelessly left lying and grabbed it then shot Dean when he lunged at him. According to Rhonda's initial account she was so drugged out of her mind that she didn't realize what was happening, when she realized she was tied up she said "stop playing Wayne!" and only realized the gravity of the situation when she heard gunfire. Neither situation works with the version they told decades later after numerous meetings.

Kerley and Rhonda's account only backs Henley's up as much as they could give relevant accounts. They couldn't tell us anything about what Henley and Dean said to each other before they came there that night or what they said to each other before they all ended up tied up. What we know is he was asked to bring a male victim and he did alonside a female.

Henley and Rhonda never had sex. Henley actually did say she was part of what helped him get the courage to kill Corll. In their initial statements Rhonda didn't giggle she just yelled at Henley for help after he killed Corll.

 

[Nadal]

Ramsland calling Brooks a psychopath had much more to do with his lack of emotion, undermining his role and blaming Henley for everything, and admitting that Billy Lawrence's torture did not bother him. Brooks literally even said the world was better off without those kids.

Henley was also groomed and raped by Corll. He claims it only happened once at Brooks loading but there are two quotes of his in the book that imply otherwise, plus what he said in the 1976 interview. I just think he doesn't like to talk about it. I find it very hard to believe that Corll handcuffed Henley and tied him up (by his own admission), and didn't sexually abuse him.

I highly doubt Henley brought Rhonda there to rape her. She had a fight with her abusive dad and brought her there to protect her. He and Brooks would bring girls there a lot, to block Corll from killing sometimes. This was hardly the first time, or the first time Corll attacked Henley. Henley also claimed he brought her there to protect Kerley, which I believe because there is corroboration and circumstantial evidence pointing to it. Also, Henley had the opportunity to rape Rhonda and chose not to do so. He even asked Corll to let him take Rhonda to another room so she wouldn't see what was happening. It's in the book.

Half of Houston said the kids deserved it, it was all over newspaper accounts. It was clearly the prevailing narrative in the immediate aftermath and you could argue Brooks was trying to court public opinion and especially court favour with his father considering the circumstances.

When was Henley raped by Corll unless you mean statutorily? Henley said Corll paid him to give him oral sex, as in Dean gave Henley oral sex and it happened once. That's not dismissing that, it's horrific and Dean was a monster needless to say. But that's a far cry from Dean grooming and abusing Brooks since he was 12 years old and Henley himself participating in a torture session of him. I really don't care what you believe i'm going by the evidence.

Except, Rhonda's initial narrative was she fell and hurt her foot and none of her friends came and visited her so she was hiding out in her home in a bad mood. Then Henley came and saw her and offered to take her to Dean's to cheer her up. That's very different and removes the sense of urgency that the "protecting from abusive dad" narrative that was cooked up later suggests. Why would he bring Kerley or Rhonda there in the first place LMAO? This is getting so ludicrous. I'm going to bring this person to Dean's as a victim for no reason and also bring a girl to protect him.