The main things I disagree about the Haunted Castle post... 

"No one realized that lives had been lost until later that night, when firefighters searching one of the burnt-out trailers discovered the bodies, thought at first to be mannequins."

This is not true. This was reported in our local papers as well. The night of the fire, the media were told almost nothing, and had to go by rumor. I spoke to the fire chief, as well as numerous others on the scene that night. You see, except for the extreme rear portions of the back of the trailers, where the walls were not made of plywood, everything except metal had been disintegrated to ash. The bodies were discovered before dark, as soon as the fire was extinguished, not much later in the night.
The firefighters knew that what they were dealing with were human remains: bones, blood, jewelry and even unburned clothes and wallets inside pockets on those insulated on the bottom of the pile. (I've seen the photos) Additionally, the stench of burned flesh was overpowering, being noticed by patrons exiting the park from the main exit, separated only by a chain link fence from the Haunted Castle trailers. Wax mannequins would have been long-since melted. 
The truth is that the management at first claimed (and might have believed) to firefighters that they had evacuated all patrons from the HC, and there was no reason to close the park. The  castle was isolated, so the fire couldn't spread to other buildings. The fire was out by 7:45, and the park closed at 8:00 p.m. I've never heard of SFGA kicking everybody of the park during an otherwise fairly busy night, with fair weather with a free return pass. An unprecedented decision was made and implemented in 15 minutes. Given this time frame, they clearly found the bodies instantly, and there wasn't time to think that they were "mannequins".    

"Eight days after the fire, a statement by the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office said a 13-year-old boy had called the police after hearing radio reports that investigators were looking for witnesses. The boy told the police that he had been befriended by a 14-year-old boy at the castle's entrance. He said the older youth, who appeared to be familiar with the castle, offered to guide him through. He said the older youth used a cigarette lighter to find his way down a long corridor that was dark because of a malfunctioning strobe light, and eventually bumped into and ignited a foam-rubber wall pad. The prosecutor exonerated the older youth, who has never been identified, of any criminal wrongdoing."
Police knew the identities of both boys by very early the next morning, and interviewed both Saturday May 12th.  The younger boy's parents had called authorities without being prompted by any radio broadcast. The older boy was turned in by his teacher, who had seen him unattended, exit a burning Haunted Castle, and alerted police as soon as he could. This boy set numerous fires. Bumping up against the strobe pad could not have accidentally ignited it. Try to reproduce such a thing. It takes about 30 seconds to set fire to polyurethane foam. It is unclear why the prosecutor didn't go after him.

"According to news reports of the trial, no such boy was ever found, and no other witness testified to seeing such a boy. Under cross-examination by the defense, the witness denied starting the fire himself."

Although its true as it is quote from the article, the identity of the boy was well known to investigators.

I think there should be added also be added mention of the name of the ninth person who lived from the ill-fated group, the legacy of exploitation and disrespect that has been associated with the property, as well as numerous other facts.

Thanks!
````