As you can see, Misskelley arrived at the station at 10am, and confessed at 2:20 pm. http://callahan.8k.com/wm3/jmtl.html Even ignoring the time he was taken to visit his father to get permission for the polygraph, that gives us an "interrogation" of just over 4 hours before the confession. What did Misskelley's interrogation expert Warren Holmes have to say about this? http://www.callahan.8k.com/wm3/warrenh.html Q: Mr. Holmes, my name is Brent Davis. I met you, previously, at another hearing. If I ask you any questions that you dont understand, please ask me to rephrase them and I will be glad to do so. A: All right, sir. Q: And its my understanding that, primarily, what you do now is lecture to police agencies, law-enforcement agencies on interrogation tactics, is that correct? A: True. Q: Okay. And would it be fair to say that youre basically training officers on how to conduct an interrogation? A: True. Q: Okay. And would it be accurate to say that when you train officers to conduct interrogations that you tell them that, at a minimum, in an important case, that you want them to go 4 hours, uninterrupted, with a suspect? A: True. Q: Okay. So, in this particular case, the time period that the officers were with the suspect doesnt pose a problem for you, does it? A: No. Q: That would be what you recommend them to do if you were advising them, correct? A: I would have done exactly what they did. This begs the question - if so many supporters demand they have studied the trial transcripts, then why does their "information" directly contridict the testimony so often? I believe the answer is simple.