Cabin28 Forum IndexCabin28
Cabin 28, The Keddie Murders
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in
                Calendar

Movie parts 1&2
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cabin28 Forum Index -> Cabin 28
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
adamant




Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Based upon what I’ve read on some old posts/threads and what I just watched in the first segment of the documentary, I am left with the question: was the neighbor, Mr. Seabolt ever considered a suspect? There is some indication (in posts) that there is evidence/proof that Mr. Seabolt was a child molester who pursued little girls (I have not independently verified this, and was hoping that someone on the board may have some additional information on this). If the posts linking Mr. Seabolt to child molestation are erroneous, then what I include in the remainder of this post is most likely improbable. On the other hand, if he is/was known to have committed crimes associated with molestation, then it seems obvious to consider him as a suspect.

In addition, when I watched the video (note: I wrote this before I read this thread and the fact that many others have already commented on Mrs. Seabolt's comments), it seemed that Mrs. Seabolt was very critical of Sue’s household, and actually indicated that she welcomed the Sharp children into her home as a sort of “refuge” from their own home, a place that she felt was not a safe place for children. If, indeed Mr. Seabolt had a record of molesting children, it makes the comments particularly strange (not to mention hypocritical and downright ludicrous). In fact, the comments seem to be a suspicious overcompensation and could be an attempt to deflect any attention potentially directed toward her own household back at the unfortunate, deceased mother. If he was known to have committed sex crimes against children, how could she have the audacity to claim that HER home would be a safer place for CHILDREN than that of their own mother – even if she didn’t have a positive impression of Sue and her prowess as a parent. It seems that there is a great deal of negativity directed at Sue that has not been effectively substantiated, and that (at least in the opening of the documentary) she is scorned and looked down upon for being a single parent who was on welfare (highly unfair, but not uncommon) and that this neighbor is capitalizing on this notion and some stories churned in the local rumor mill to pass the murders off as something that was bound to happen sooner or later (or at least, not something that was way out of left field). If this was indeed the perception that the Seabolts had of the Sharps, and that these situations (whether real or perceived) are attractive to bad men, then it not only seems a means of justifying what happened for outsiders/observers after the fact, but it could also be perceived as an opportunity by a bad man. He would perceive this situation to be a good opportunity for him to commit a crime against a child.

Now, if it can be substantiated that Mr. Seabolt was/is indeed a child molester with a proclivity toward young girls, then I can propose a reasonable theory that considers the perpetrator’s motivation to commit the crime, his proximity to the crime, and an opportunity to commit the crime, as well as a possible explanation as to why/how the situation spiraled out of control (even from the perspective of a depraved child molester who would have, as a matter of course, been out of control) and devolved into a quadruple homicide. If Sheila was staying at the Seabolts’ house, then she obviously had interaction with them on the night of the murders, making it highly likely that the neighbors had substantial information about who was and who was not home that April evening (or at least who was not supposed to be home on that night). Additionally, Tina was presumably at the Seabolts’ house for a part of the night (again, something I remember from reading past posts). If the perpetrator had prior interaction with Tina that night, and knew/thought that her older sister and brother (and perhaps her mother, as well) were not home that evening, he may have seen this as his chance to do something that he had wanted to do for a while. So, perhaps Mr. Seabolt put his plan into action just after Tina left his home, and either took advantage of her before she got home, or decided to wait until she got into her home, expecting no one was there. Upon entering the home, Mr. Seabolt is confronted with the reality that Sue IS home. He ties her up, but is then surprised when John and Dana enter the home. He uses Tina and Sue as a way to convince John and Dana to cooperate with him, and he ties John up, but Dana sees and opportunity and tries to escape. Mr. Seabolt manages to get to Dana before he makes it out the back door, and uses an excessive amount of force to subdue and murder him. Then he turns his attention to John and Sue. He takes Tina with him and does what he had planned to do originally. Maybe he keeps her somewhere for a period of time, maybe he doesn’t. But ultimately, he murders her as well.

Of course, if it comes back that Mr. Seabolt was erroneously accused of being a child molester then this all really falls apart. Additionally, I think there are too many variables associated with the actual murders and crime scene to really hone in on the actual order of events as I have presented here (they are just plausible, in my mind). The key idea is that, if Mr. Seabolt was indeed a child molester, then Tina and her older sister were in the house of, and possibly with, a child molester on the night of the crimes. He was privy to information about Tina’s family that night that made it feasible, in his mind, to assault her at that time. He may not have intended to actually kill anyone that night, but it all went further than he had anticipated. Whether Mrs. Seabolt was aware of what was going on, or if there was some level of premeditation to the crime (i.e. they invited Sheila to stay the night, but not Tina, although she was permitted over for a while and expected to leave alone, thereby isolating her – this could have been the actual reason for the sleepover to begin with; at the same time, in the documentary, Sheila actually indicates that it was her idea to stay at the Seabolt’s without Tina), I’m not sure. But this all would certainly explain why no one heard anything that night. But if the above theory seems at all feasible, then it also seems to me that Mrs. Seabolt knows/knew more than she is letting on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Jhancock




Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 16





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:55 pm    Post subject: scenes Reply with quote

Hi all,

More deleted scenes, new photos in the archives, at www.keddiemurdersmovie.com. You might have to cut and paste the link or retype it...

Hope to see you in the forums there, too....

The next deleted scene will be the site where Tina was found, which I think some people have wanted to see for a while.

Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
BlueSkeyes




Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 249

Location: California



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Josh,

Thanks for sharing. Your videos are great. I look forward to any new stuff. I've been involved in these discussions for some time. And I have to say my theories and supects are always changing.

It's an interesting case.

And I am hopeful that it will be resolved some day soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Redemption




Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 12

Location: Midwest



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets stick to the facts:

#1. The first lady claiming that Sue Sharp was rumored to be doing drugs or having many men over was in fact a reporter. In other words this reporter gathered information from various other people and "NOT" the source. A reporter like the reporters who said the 2 of the 3 boys that lived through this ordeal were toddlers. Reporters don't always report fact or gather informational facts, they gather things from other people (eg. hearsay, rumors, and any small talk they can find). Their job is to report things that captures an audience.

#2 Mrs. Seabolt has been stated to be a devout Mormon. In her eyes Sue could have easily been in bad light because she was not a devout Mormon like her. I have met a great deal of Mormons that have this ideal. I won't paint this off as only a Mormon thing either, as I have seen it in Catholics, Baptists, Southern Baptist, etc. To top it all off Mrs. Seabolt did "NOT" say that her kids were not allowed to play at the Sharps. She said they were not allowed to spend the night at the Sharps home, but the Sharps were allowed to spend the night at her home. She would definitely know her children were at the Sharps playing since they lived right next door to each other within spitting distance.

#3 Dana Wingate was staying with the Doris family. Even Mr. Wingate himself stated that Dana spent more time away from home. That would tell me that Mr. Wingate knew very little about Sue Sharp to make that claim. Heck he rarely even seen his own son and I sensed major disention. He may not have even known John very well. My guess would be Mr. Wingate came to that assumption from hearing rumors in a small town.

#4 While we point out the nasty things 2 people had to say, there were those whom had great things to say about Sue Sharp Including 2 cousins. the school teacher stated that Tina didn't get much help from home with school work. Having dealt with kids in thsi situation that points to the most common theme. A single Mother who has multiple kids, works, and goes to school. Still a common thing to this day.

#5 Looking at the pictures of Sue I will state right now she looks NOWHERE near looking like a heroin addict. They look very distinct and you can tell a heroin addict. They devote their life to this drug. They get heavy eyes, prominant bags under them, they get scary thin. They almost always devote their life to the drug and do not go to college, work a regular job, nor take care of kids. Aside from that needle marks would have been all over her body (not just arms). Smoking heroin wears thin after so many times. Getting a bigger high is the goal so they start to inject. When veins collapse they find a new spot including under nails etc. These woul;d be very visible to anyone.

#6. I took it that some felt very adamant about the perps being the person who drove them home (picking them up as hitchhikers). Craig has stated that he was the one to drive them. I don't want to pick on you Craig not my intention at all. If you did drive them to Keddie, your coming forward from the get go could have eliminated the time wasted on that. So that was a very important detail. I could see why you didn't (fear, being a possible suspect with possibly a not very good alibi), But the PCSO obviously didn't consider you as a suspect.

Last but not least I agree no matter what those that were victim (murdered or alive) didn't deserve this no matter what. I will pose to you though msmartt, your Uncle Marty definitely has not come off as a very god person and I know you have stated this. The difference between the light of nastiness shed on Marty and the nastiness you want to point out on Sue is, that stuff about Sue was hearsay the incidents of nastiness with Marty were backed up with factual evidence by both those threatened and the police. Again I stress that doesn't make him guilty nor innocent. Just providing the difference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Seeker67




Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 66

Location: Eastern U.S.



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="adamant"]Based upon what I’ve read on some old posts/threads and what I just watched in the first segment of the documentary, I am left with the question: was the neighbor, Mr. Seabolt ever considered a suspect? There is some indication (in posts) that there is evidence/proof that Mr. Seabolt was a child molester who pursued little girls (I have not independently verified this, and was hoping that someone on the board may have some additional information on this). If the posts linking Mr. Seabolt to child molestation are erroneous, then what I include in the remainder of this post is most likely improbable. On the other hand, if he is/was known to have committed crimes associated with molestation, then it seems obvious to consider him as a suspect.


Adamant, I once made that remark about Seabolt and it went nowhere. I wouldn`t necessarily place him in the cabin killers role, but I certainly would say he could have been responsible for Tina. He heard the commotion and saw Tina either running from the location or she may very well have already been in his control and he saw a great opportunity to keep her awhile. I mean just because people say no one heard a thing, doesn`t make it so, correct? Why would he say he heard anything, then he`d have to explain things, so just say I never heard a peep and go on w/his activities. The guy also had the means to keep and hide Tina at another location until he tired of her. Justin supposedly said to look near the river or whatever for her, maybe he knew she was there and who with. Several have mentioned the possibility of the cabin and Tina being seperate crimes committed the same night, a scenario such as this certainly would fit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
msmartt




Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 49





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Redemption wrote:
I will pose to you though msmartt, your Uncle Marty definitely has not come off as a very god person and I know you have stated this. The difference between the light of nastiness shed on Marty and the nastiness you want to point out on Sue is, that stuff about Sue was hearsay the incidents of nastiness with Marty were backed up with factual evidence by both those threatened and the police. Again I stress that doesn't make him guilty nor innocent. Just providing the difference.


I agree there is a difference. And I have clarified that I don't think Sue was involved in those activities. I hold absolutely no judgment over her or her character. I'm sure she was a great mother who struggled hard to raise her children. I understand the struggles single mother have. In fact I understand it so well that my college senior thesis was on the effects divorce has had on the America family and in particular, the hurdles single-mothers had to face throughout the 1970's and 80's. And in particular in California since it was the first state to institute No-Fault divorce on Jan. 1 1970.

But I just want to focus on one thing you said. Just because he could be a mean person at times does not make him guilty of murder. And it is wrong to want to condemn a man on that principal alone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Redemption




Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 12

Location: Midwest



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="msmartt"]
Redemption wrote:


But I just want to focus on one thing you said. Just because he could be a mean person at times does not make him guilty of murder. And it is wrong to want to condemn a man on that principal alone.


You are correct it doesn't make him guilty of murder. Without being insensitive towards you and the Smartt family it also does not make him innocent of murder. One thing I will say is there definitely had to be a strong reason for the PCSO to consider him a suspect. I highly doubt (knowing how investigators work) they would just take him in for questioning based solely off of hearsay. There had to be something that red flagged any suspect in a strong way.

I just want you to understand that just because he was released and not arrested doesn't implicate that he is not a suspect any longer. If evidence on the person in question isn't strong enough to build a case they can't hold on to him. He is innocent until proven guilty. The prrof was not there, but that doesn't mean the ties were not there. They might on one hand have hoped he would stumble. When I say stumble I mean eiether done something that shows he was guilty, or said or done something that pointed to the guilty party. On the same token they could have totally felt he was innocent. I also want to stress that the PCSO may not have felt he was ever the actual murderer, but rather knew who the murdered was and/or had a hit put out in mafia terms.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Redemption




Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 12

Location: Midwest



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sassy,

I have a couple of questions for you if you don't mind my asking (you don't have to answer if you don't want to and your more than welcome to PM me if you would rather not discuss it on the board). Did Marty Smartt come off as threatening towards you prior to this unfortunate event (be it saying different things or trying to scare you)? Did he come off as threatening towards you after the unfortunate event? Had Marty and your mother or any of your other family members had incidents or exchange of words with each other prior to the incident?

I only ask because of reading Richard stating that he was doing that to his family, and it seems (without stating it as fact just my personal POV) this was a common thing for Marty to do, and he definitely wasn't concerned about the police knowing about it.

If this has been asked an answered before I appologize as I am still going through old posts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
msmartt




Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 49





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Redemption"]
msmartt wrote:
Redemption wrote:


But I just want to focus on one thing you said. Just because he could be a mean person at times does not make him guilty of murder. And it is wrong to want to condemn a man on that principal alone.


You are correct it doesn't make him guilty of murder. Without being insensitive towards you and the Smartt family it also does not make him innocent of murder. One thing I will say is there definitely had to be a strong reason for the PCSO to consider him a suspect. I highly doubt (knowing how investigators work) they would just take him in for questioning based solely off of hearsay. There had to be something that red flagged any suspect in a strong way.

I just want you to understand that just because he was released and not arrested doesn't implicate that he is not a suspect any longer. If evidence on the person in question isn't strong enough to build a case they can't hold on to him. He is innocent until proven guilty. The prrof was not there, but that doesn't mean the ties were not there. They might on one hand have hoped he would stumble. When I say stumble I mean eiether done something that shows he was guilty, or said or done something that pointed to the guilty party. On the same token they could have totally felt he was innocent. I also want to stress that the PCSO may not have felt he was ever the actual murderer, but rather knew who the murdered was and/or had a hit put out in mafia terms.


I won't dispute you one way or another. Your are right it sheds no light at all on innocence or guilt. I can't tell you why they picked him up for questioning. I could only guess a couple reasons.
a. He wasn't around the day the bodies were found. That probably raised an eyebrow by the police. So when he came back they brought him in for questioning. It may have been that they were following up. Having had the opportunity to question others at the scene but him.
b. Someone who didn't like him pointed him as a possibility so the police were following up on that.

I don't know. What we do know is that the PCSD told our family he was released because they felt he was not involved. That comment will be disputed as well. I'm sure ValleyGirl or Magnum PI will have some quick witted words about that comment. But it is what we told by the PCSD.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
MP281




Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 810





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote from marty's Brother:

"As it turns out Marty was not the perpetrator of these crimes, but was in fact the target! It seems that Marty had came across the perpetrators car loaded down with marijuana, saw an opportunity to make a score, stole the car and the pot and booked!

As a result of their loss, the perpetrators seeking revenge, broke into the wrong cabin thinking that they had came upon Marty's family and killed these innocent people in retaliation for Marty ripping them off."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
msmartt




Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 49





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MP281 wrote:
Quote from marty's Brother:

"As it turns out Marty was not the perpetrator of these crimes, but was in fact the target! It seems that Marty had came across the perpetrators car loaded down with marijuana, saw an opportunity to make a score, stole the car and the pot and booked!

As a result of their loss, the perpetrators seeking revenge, broke into the wrong cabin thinking that they had came upon Marty's family and killed these innocent people in retaliation for Marty ripping them off."


That could very well be another possibility Magnum PI. Maybe he was the target. Maybe Sue was. Maybe Dana or John or Tina. Maybe Richard did it. Maybe Bo. Maybe it was Mr. Seabolt. Maybe it was Col. Mustard in the conservatory with the candlestick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
justin usmc




Joined: 03 Jun 2008
Posts: 28

Location: quantico va



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think some one needs to step up and tell the truth. stop all this bickering. be a man or a woman and say hey i was involved i know who did it and thats that. either which way you are going to pay if its through god when you get up there to see him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
Nor.Cal.Gal




Joined: 30 May 2008
Posts: 68

Location: North Bay California



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a theory on why the Mrs Seabolt may not have liked her children to stay the night at the Sharp's:

1. She had her own personal views on things she may not have agreed with that Sue allowed.

2. She felt that since Sue was a single mother of 5, it might be a break for her and the children to get to stay away from home. Fun for the kids and since Sue had 5 of her own, why add another. Especially if she was working and going to school.

3. This I hope not to offend or hurt Sassy by mentioning, but it has been covered several times and I think it might fit. If it was known by Mrs Seabolt that Sheila had become pregnant and given the baby up for adoption that she did not want her children over at the Sharps. I am in NO WAY saying that Sue had allowed this to happen. No parent does. Things happen and I think Sue did what she thought was best for everyone. However, lots of people, and maybe Mrs Seabolt, may have felt it was in someway the mothers fault that it happened. That point of view has been around for ages. If the children do something it is a direct reflect of the parents. Not always so. Kids don't always do what they are supposed to, do they?

Just some thoughts. Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Heather




Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 36

Location: East Coast



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject: Re: scenes Reply with quote

Jhancock wrote:
Hi all,

More deleted scenes, new photos in the archives, at www.keddiemurdersmovie.com. You might have to cut and paste the link or retype it...

Hope to see you in the forums there, too....

The next deleted scene will be the site where Tina was found, which I think some people have wanted to see for a while.

Josh


Thank you.
Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
sunflwr8668




Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 181

Location: KS



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with that NorCal. Some people would claim she was too permissive and that she musn't have been doing her job as a mother since Sheila became pregnant as such a young age. Never mind the circumstances she had to deal with. I can see that happening.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
ValerieIN627




Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 1





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have been reading on this site and the old for quite awhile now and decided to sign up. I am not related too anyone here just interested and curious about reasoning for these murders. I have a few police detectives in my family, so this interests me. But I too would be interested in seeing Josh's video.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Carolyn2008




Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 39





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sunflwr8668 wrote:
I agree with that NorCal. Some people would claim she was too permissive and that she musn't have been doing her job as a mother since Sheila became pregnant as such a young age. Never mind the circumstances she had to deal with. I can see that happening.


If that's the case than I'm a bad mother. I am somewhat permissive, but not stupid. My son is a good kid and while I know anything can happen, I trust him as much as I can at this point. I know moms who won't let their kids go to a mall with a group of friends. My son has been doing that since age 12. Different people have different methods.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
sunflwr8668




Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 181

Location: KS



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Carolyn2008 wrote:
sunflwr8668 wrote:
I agree with that NorCal. Some people would claim she was too permissive and that she musn't have been doing her job as a mother since Sheila became pregnant as such a young age. Never mind the circumstances she had to deal with. I can see that happening.


If that's the case than I'm a bad mother. I am somewhat permissive, but not stupid. My son is a good kid and while I know anything can happen, I trust him as much as I can at this point. I know moms who won't let their kids go to a mall with a group of friends. My son has been doing that since age 12. Different people have different methods.


Yes, I'm just saying that it makes sense that if some people think that way it would explain why Mrs. Seabolt said what she did. Too bad she didn't elaborate so we could know what the problem was.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Carolyn2008




Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 39





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sunflwr8668 wrote:
Carolyn2008 wrote:
sunflwr8668 wrote:
I agree with that NorCal. Some people would claim she was too permissive and that she musn't have been doing her job as a mother since Sheila became pregnant as such a young age. Never mind the circumstances she had to deal with. I can see that happening.


If that's the case than I'm a bad mother. I am somewhat permissive, but not stupid. My son is a good kid and while I know anything can happen, I trust him as much as I can at this point. I know moms who won't let their kids go to a mall with a group of friends. My son has been doing that since age 12. Different people have different methods.


Yes, I'm just saying that it makes sense that if some people think that way it would explain why Mrs. Seabolt said what she did. Too bad she didn't elaborate so we could know what the problem was.


Some people just think they are better at raising their kids than others. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Jhancock




Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 16





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:53 pm    Post subject: updates Reply with quote

Hope people here don't mind the updates. Just want to keep those in the loop who want to be.

Some new deleted scenes on our Youtube site (link at www.keddiemurdersmovie.com). One is with Cynthia, Dana's sister, and the other with the sheriff at the time of the murders. He describes the crime scene in the clip.

New-to-both-sites nformation we learned from the timeline is posted in the forums.

-Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
bliss




Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 110

Location: northern cali



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

New-to-both-sites nformation we learned from the timeline is posted in the forums:

did you just get this info? or was it old and you just released it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Too Close to Home




Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 166

Location: Oregon



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

msmartt wrote:
sassy wrote:
she didn't even drink.


Yet Marilyn asked her to go to the Keddie Bar with Marty and Bo. I have a freind who doesn't drink either. He's a health nut. Puts nothing unnatural, or unorganic in his body. Because I know this I wouldn't ask him if he wanted to go to a bar with me. It's kind of like offering a cigarette to a non-smoker, why bother?

Does anyone else with first-hand knowledge have answers to these questions?


Just because she was asked to go to a bar doesn't mean that they thought she drank.. maybe they PRESUMED because they did it, everyone did.

I am constantly asked if I would like a cup of coffee.... I politely say "no thank you, I like my caffeine cold." Just like Sue could have (and probably did) say "no thank you, I don't drink."
_________________
Love people and use things ~ not love things and use people
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger  
Too Close to Home




Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 166

Location: Oregon



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nor.Cal.Gal wrote:
honeybell wrote:
I think in many horrific cases like this, there is a tendency to blame the victim. "She must have brought this upon herself", because otherwise we would have to admit something like this could happen to anyone, at anytime, for no good reason. We are admitting our own vulnerability unless we can say SOMEONE did SOMETHING to cause such a tragic, violent thing to happen to them.

In addition, as Mrs. Seabolt herself said, she was being judgmental. In the eyes of a devout Mormon, simply by virtue of being divorced could correlate to being "not a good environment" for kids.

In any case, it really doesn't matter what rumors where fact or fiction--NO ONE deserved this.


Sorry, Nor Cal Gal... but a lot of mormons believe just this way (no offense to mormons...) Mrs. Seaboldt probably didn't know Sue all that well, nor wanted to because of "association". If you know your bible, it says we are not to be unequally yoked. Associating with "someone like Sue" would have been just that for Mrs. Seaboldt. You really have no idea the arrogance (for lack of better term) that she exuberated. My friend was also the child of a divorced mom, and although she would say Hi to them, they did not associate(except at school). Keddie is a small area (think of an 80 person camp ground), there is no way you can keep the children seperate. They don't understand "social classes" unless they are taught that.

I agree with the first part. Like you see in trials, most you see the defense attorney in most cases put the "victim on trial".
Its sad, but so do communities for the exact reason you stated.

However on the second part I have to disagree. Being divorced is not looked down upon at all. I believe that that is more of a personal issue by an individual.
I think that Mrs Seabolt might have had other issues in regards to Sue.
Maybe it was her own personal feeling.
Or sometimes people just dont mesh.

_________________
Love people and use things ~ not love things and use people
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger  
Jhancock




Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 16





Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:12 pm    Post subject: update Reply with quote

Hi all,

Part Three of "Cabin 28: The Keddie Murders" is now posted at www.keddiemurdersmovie.com.

Also, you can check out new information from PCSO and the time in the forums. And as always check out the deleted scenes, too.

Josh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Nor.Cal.Gal




Joined: 30 May 2008
Posts: 68

Location: North Bay California



Digg It
Del.icio.us
Slashdot It!
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Too Close to Home wrote:
Nor.Cal.Gal wrote:
honeybell wrote:
I think in many horrific cases like this, there is a tendency to blame the victim. "She must have brought this upon herself", because otherwise we would have to admit something like this could happen to anyone, at anytime, for no good reason. We are admitting our own vulnerability unless we can say SOMEONE did SOMETHING to cause such a tragic, violent thing to happen to them.

In addition, as Mrs. Seabolt herself said, she was being judgmental. In the eyes of a devout Mormon, simply by virtue of being divorced could correlate to being "not a good environment" for kids.

In any case, it really doesn't matter what rumors where fact or fiction--NO ONE deserved this.


Sorry, Nor Cal Gal... but a lot of mormons believe just this way (no offense to mormons...) Mrs. Seaboldt probably didn't know Sue all that well, nor wanted to because of "association". If you know your bible, it says we are not to be unequally yoked. Associating with "someone like Sue" would have been just that for Mrs. Seaboldt. You really have no idea the arrogance (for lack of better term) that she exuberated. My friend was also the child of a divorced mom, and although she would say Hi to them, they did not associate(except at school). Keddie is a small area (think of an 80 person camp ground), there is no way you can keep the children seperate. They don't understand "social classes" unless they are taught that.

I agree with the first part. Like you see in trials, most you see the defense attorney in most cases put the "victim on trial".
Its sad, but so do communities for the exact reason you stated.

However on the second part I have to disagree. Being divorced is not looked down upon at all. I believe that that is more of a personal issue by an individual.
I think that Mrs Seabolt might have had other issues in regards to Sue.
Maybe it was her own personal feeling.
Or sometimes people just dont mesh.


Just a note, the red highlighted section was not a quote from me. I believe this was your answer Too Close To Home?

Im sorry to hear that. I think no matter your background or religion, you should treat people "the way you would like to be treated". I know so many people forget this very common childhood lesson. It always saddens me to hear when others use their religion as their own personal shield to hide behind or to use to put down others. This was NOT what I or so many others I knew were taught. This was also in a very small, not too wealthy town. Just makes me think that this could have been Mrs Seabolt way to feel surperior?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
   Cabin28 Forum Index -> Cabin 28 All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Cabin28 topic RSS feed 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

create free phpbb forum hosting now!

view our free phpbb forum hosting directory now!

Please report Acceptable Use Policy violation on our support forum!