Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

introduce yourself, & tell us how you became interested in the case.

Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby IPO » Sun Jul 22, 2012 11:09 am

I'm a long time reader of any information online regarding this particular case. I've even contacted true crime writer Gregg Olsen to see if he would be interested in doing a story about this fascinating unsolved four-person murder. He did log onto your site and responded back to me. He said he didn't see enough information to write a book. I've read many of his books and see how he was able to find enough factual information to put together a story. This case baffles even an expert crime writer. I see why. Too many people who actually have information have not and will not come forth with truthful statements. This is a mystery that goes round and round and round. Even the actual crime scene photos are only available to a few for viewing (While I'm not a voyeur, I'm also not squeamish and have the intelligence to know that these photos would have a lot of information to anyone observant enough .... (and there are many on this site who are incredibly observant) to have a really good look at what was going on before the photos were taken.

This case is also frustrated by the fact that family members do not seem truly interested in seeing this mystery solved. The information that they share is woefully manipulated. There are definitely some grudges and secrets held by the surviving family members. I remember one instance that has particularly bothered me. When Tina's skull was buried, it lay in an unmarked (no headstone) grave for many years. I believe it was Josh Hancock (please correct me if I'm wrong) who actually bought a headstone to place on her gravesite. Why did Sheila, Ricky and Greg not buy a headstone for their sister's grave. I know that they were children when the skull was found, identified and buried; however, as adults, surely they would want to pay to have a proper headstone put on her gravesite? I realize that the cost might have been somewhat of a personal financial sacrifice, but between the 3 of them I'd have thought that they could have come up with the money. Was she that unimportant to the 3 of them, or was there a grudge hidden in their lack of action.

Anyway I hope to post more and hope that you'll welcome me into your Forum. I think you've got some fantastic fact-finders on this site and I look forward to meeting some of you in Chat.

These users thanked the author IPO for the post (total 4):
CuriousKitty (Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:04 pm) • Chichibcc (Mon Jul 23, 2012 6:38 am) • Indigo (Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:50 pm) • dmac (Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:54 pm)
IPO
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby not sure » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:21 pm

Welcome to the forum, IPO! Its always good to see a long time reader take the plunge. Long time readers are usually well informed about the basics and can add a lot to the discussions. Glad you decided to join us in print! We look forward to more of your input.

NS
User avatar
not sure
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Has thanked: 351 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby IPO » Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:47 am

Thanks for the responses to my intro.

MK, I understand that Tina's siblings didn't have the money to buy a headstone for their sister when her skull was found; however by 2002 Sheila would have been 35 years old, Ricky 31 years old, and Greg 26 years old. Surely, the three of them could have made some financial sacrifices in their lives to buy a headstone. From the newspaper photo, the cemetery where their deceased family members reside are flat headstones. Between three working adults I don't see how this amount of money would have been more than a minor financial inconvenience. If I don't understand the financial hardships this might have imposed on them, please forgive me. As a working professional, I've never felt financial strain. I do know that through making tough financial decisions and squirreling away a little each month, even somebody living on the edge can put a little aside. In our society, many luxuries are taken for granted and considered necessities.

I also believe that the fact that the surviving siblings are unwilling to share details about what was going on in their family at the time of the murders is indicative of not wanting the case solved. Its like they play a game:
- being involved in this forum, and yet not being involved
- taking part in Josh's films, but not really contributing anything of value
- staying/living in the vicinity of the crime scene (as far as I can see through reading information contained within the forum)

Do they talk among themselves about this life-changing event that happened in 1981, or do they ignore the huge elephant that is continually with them whenever they're together. Do they avoid each other as much as possible.

My tragic life story is forever measured as "before and after". I was 9 years old. While mine was no where near as traumatic as triple murder - disappearance (murder?) - I understand how and why I've moved on beyond that point.

Until more family secrets are revealed, this case is doomed to remain unsolved. For family members and other close friends of the family, their lives and consciences cannot really be at peace. In this particular case, like Pandora's Box, the secrets not only involve the living, but also the dead.

Me, as the middle child and after 51 years I can still keep the family secrets. The only one who has to have the nightmares is me. To share the secrets now would destroy other lives, and it is too late for that. I am protecting others, while this family is protecting only themselves.

These users thanked the author IPO for the post (total 7):
Indigo (Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:17 pm) • truthseeker (Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:44 am) • CuriousKitty (Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:07 pm) • Eastern (Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:44 pm) • Chichibcc (Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:07 pm) • dmac (Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:04 pm) • Myrion (Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:16 am)
IPO
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby dmac » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:02 pm

My understanding is there was a similar 2-panel marker for Sue and Johnny prior to Tina's remains being placed adjacent. As for the families coming together to put a new stone together? It didn't happen til Josh and his team made it happen. Personally, I find it odd that the family never cared enough to "Bring Tina Home" until it was paid for by others, and captured on film.

If the family doesn't believe the headstone is worth scrimping for, that's damned a-ok in my book. But then why the big show when someone else foots the bill? Sorry, that tells me a lot about the family dynamic.

This family was dysfunctional, fragmented, and going in separate directions prior to the murders. Sheila seems quite content to stand by her decision to tell the younger siblings to "shut up" about the murders, to "protect them" as she put it. Some protection.

It's not a pretty picture, indeed it's a very ugly family scene, and our harping about it is about as productive as Sheila lying to us. Well, a lot more productive, actually, because it's relative to the case. We are still within reason trying to understand the motives behind the family's behavior and lack of help in the case. In the end, we never will get it, and no difference in our behavior would have or will change that. However, one solitary point is still indelible:

These victims deserved nothing that befell them. The surviving Sharps, the Wingates, Justin- they were all victims.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com

These users thanked the author dmac for the post (total 3):
CuriousKitty (Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:07 pm) • Chichibcc (Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:24 pm) • not sure (Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:09 pm)
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby not sure » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:31 pm

****I was writing this as Dmac was posting his response so this is not based at all on what he had to say. I felt I needed to say these things so I decided to go ahead and post this as written. NS

IPO wrote:...this family is protecting only themselves.


Perhaps it seems so to those of us outside of their family, but maybe not to them. They, too, like you, may feel to discuss their lives prior to these horrific murders would be harmful to others, especially if they feel there is no relevance. I'm not saying I believe there’s no relevance but they may feel differently. Regardless of how I think they should react, these crimes do not define them and therefore they may feel they have the right to move on with their lives. Even if I don’t like it, it is their right.

Based on personal experience and observations, I know that children react differently to situations and often take on guilt for negative family dynamics regardless of whether or not its under their control. Its not the reality that determines their guilt but rather how they perceive it and how they take it on. The dynamics of the Sharp family, whatever the circumstances, must have been very strong for them.

These children were innocents in the midst of their parent's adult world. Uprooted from the home they knew for most of their lives and plopped thousands of miles away, minus one of those parents and all of their friends, must have been devastating. They were ripped from their military-family lifestyle to one of hopping from relative to relative and then, finally, settling in a poverty ridden area where they lived under the scrutiny of a questioning community. Throw in these horrific crimes and you've got a virtual tsunami...their whole world was swept out from under them. Its amazing what the psyche will do to a person during traumatic times and when you're a child the self-preservation is even stronger. Distancing oneself and clamming up is a common reaction. And quite often, without professional help and guidance, clamming up becomes a lifelong occurrence. Especially if there is presumed guilt or shame involved. Let alone fear. I don't know how others would have reacted but I can't pretend if this had happened to me I would have reacted any differently. Truth is, I would have gone stark raving mad! To me, a little eccentricity isn’t too much to expect.

While I wish Sheila, Rick and Greg would be more forthcoming about the family's movements the day of the murders and the family dynamics in general, I can't fault them for wanting to move on with their lives. A lot of people feel these crimes will never be solved. Why should the family feel any different? Maybe they felt it was time to cut their losses. It doesn’t mean they don’t care. It just means they don’t want it to consume them.

Yes, Sheila asked for assistance. But how many of us would be able to withstand the minute scrutiny this family has had to endure? Not me. I would have bailed a lot sooner. I just hope she won’t back out completely.

To end this I’ll lay down this question…why do we hold Sheila and her brothers to a different standard than Dana’s family? Why are they not under the same scrutiny? Why are we not crying out for them to participate? Is it just because Sheila asked for help then backed off? How fair is that? Does it mean they don’t want this resolved and justice to prevail? I highly doubt that. But for some reason we offer them a greater degree of respect than we do the Sharps. I guess silence is golden. But, again, how fair is that?

I say we cut them all some slack. They are victims here just as much as the dead are. We aren't going to get the details we're looking for so I think we just need to back off and work with what we have.

Dismounting my high horse now…

PS IPO, this is just a generalization, not solely directed at what you said. I hope you won't take it as a personal attack. You've got us all thinking. I love it! Welcome to the board!

PPSS Chic...Greg did attend the memorial. He just didn't want his picture taken.

These users thanked the author not sure for the post (total 6):
bigsis (Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:22 pm) • Ausgirl (Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:09 am) • Indigo (Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:23 pm) • gotbier (Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:55 pm) • Chichibcc (Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:43 pm) • dmac (Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:34 pm)
User avatar
not sure
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Has thanked: 351 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby dmac » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:39 pm

Thank you, NotSure, for your dead-certain approach on the subject. You kinda took the words out of my mouth. Actually, you took them, put them in order, added about three tons of invaluable logic and circumspection, re-evaluated it all, and said what you did from a controlled and logical perspective. Thank you.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com

These users thanked the author dmac for the post:
bigsis (Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:22 pm)
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby IPO » Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:55 pm

Thank you everyone for including me in your discussions. Notsure, I appreciate your response. What made me finally post on this forum was dmac's honesty in making statements that took a step away from the "walking on eggs" approach. The victims do include the siblings, other family members (including Dana's family), and friends. Survivors often feel guilt and/or a strong need to distance themselves from traumatic events. Unfortunately, when a crime of this magnitude hits your family, your only way to move on is to move away, and probably even change your name. You'd have to really change your life in order to move on. Otherwise, you're forever tied to the crime whether you like it or not.

I've watched the first dvd made by Josh and have the 2nd in my possession.

I've spent a lifetime working in CID (criminal investigation division) of our Police Department and also in civic politics. I've got a tough skin and don't take offense. While I don't feel personal attacks make for worthwhile personal communication, I encourage shots and discussions over the issues. I also understand and accept that discussions can get heated. This is a forum filled with people who have put a lot of time, effort and thought into a case that has remained unsolved for over three decades. I've got some theories to throw out, but I know that one of them will be very unpopular. But I believe in brainstorming and that means throwing out all possibilities.

Before I throw out my prevocative theory, I'll see if I can find a link to a similar case that comes to mind.

Where I do believe that there was a psychopath involved due to the viciousness of the attacks on the victims, I also believe that there was someone in authority who was much smarter. Otherwise, how do you explain this having gone under the radar for so many years.

I'll throw out one more observation from this case that hasn't sat well with me. Sheila was the first on the scene at around 8 a.m. on April 12th. She went back to the Seabolt's and bought assistance to the boys' bedroom window. Why didn't she also take a ladder to the window where her mother/Tina slept? If my memory serves me, she didn't know whether it was her mother or Tina on the floor of the living room. Why rescue the boys, but not her mother and/or sister? Was it possible that she knew that neither of them were in the back bedroom?

These users thanked the author IPO for the post (total 3):
gotbier (Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:58 pm) • truthseeker (Wed Jul 25, 2012 12:50 am) • Eastern (Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:45 pm)
IPO
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby dmac » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:21 pm

wow, huge step IPO and I will NOT step on your toes, but there is an angle that binds: it is evident that the parties went to ALL the available windows and pulled the boys from the boys bedroom window because that is where living humans were- they did attempt, by all accounts, to find someone in the girls' bedroom via the side window. Do you know the cabin layout? You are talking about something that is huge in the dynamic of what went down but, as it turns out, it is 100% legit by all that were asked.

There are graphic impressions of how the cabin sat on the grounds, etc.

Image Image

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=763&p=9814&hilit=*plan#p9814
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187&p=8917&hilit=*plan#p8917


Image Image

Image

The killers knew the layout of the cabin. So did the cops.

The girls window? I don't buy ANYONE looking into that side girls' bedroom window without them admitting to ladders or piggybacks.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com

These users thanked the author dmac for the post (total 2):
meankitty (Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:33 am) • Eastern (Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:44 pm)
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby Eastern » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:01 pm

IPO wrote:Thank you everyone for including me in your discussions...


Mrs. Seabolt did say (it must have been in one of the deleted scenes for part 1 of the documentary that Josh used to have on his old site) that her son, Jamie, did keep jumping up until he could see into the girl's bedroom window to check if Tina and Sue were in there at Sheila's urging. At that point, they (including Sheila) didn't realize Sue was one of the dead and Tina was missing.

About how the Sharp's and Wingates have handled this all - I understand it on many levels and how hard it is to not let it consume you and wanting to move on with your life, to be under constant scrutiny that you did something wrong to cause the crime, to have rumors swirling about what you may have done to cause a psycho to target you or your loved ones, and how plain shitty all that is when you're the one going through it while others are criticizing every action you take. I haven't been through all that as a child and I haven't had my mother and siblings murdered. I know it has to be much worse for them.

That being said - who is more important? To me, it's the dead victims who had their lives and rights taken away. They can no longer decide they don't want justice or at least acknowledgement of who brutally took their lives from them, so others must do it for them.

These users thanked the author Eastern for the post (total 7):
Indigo (Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:26 pm) • gotbier (Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:01 pm) • Chichibcc (Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:18 pm) • meankitty (Wed Jul 25, 2012 10:34 am) • CuriousKitty (Tue Jul 24, 2012 9:42 pm) • not sure (Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:37 pm) • dmac (Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:12 pm)
User avatar
Eastern
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:24 am
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby not sure » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:17 pm

IPO wrote:What made me finally post on this forum was dmac's honesty in making statements that took a step away from the "walking on eggs" approach.
Okay, taking away the eggshells...I believe Sheila doesn't want to answer the questions because the Sharp girls were sexually abused by their father and since Papa Sharp was absolved of these crimes why bring that painful experience out into the open forum? If he was cleared of the crimes, the sexual abuse, in her eyes, seems irrelevant. (Mind you, this is just my belief. Doesn't make it true.)

I believe its highly relevant because sexual abuse may be what led to these crimes and knowing the sexual history of the victims, living or dead, may help pinpoint or eliminate suspects. However, no matter how much I beg or berate them, the surviving Sharp children probably aren't going to change their minds. But maybe they'll surprise me.
IPO wrote:I'll throw out one more observation from this case that hasn't sat well with me. Sheila was the first on the scene at around 8 a.m. on April 12th. She went back to the Seabolt's and bought assistance to the boys' bedroom window. Why didn't she also take a ladder to the window where her mother/Tina slept? If my memory serves me, she didn't know whether it was her mother or Tina on the floor of the living room. Why rescue the boys, but not her mother and/or sister? Was it possible that she knew that neither of them were in the back bedroom?
1)Jamie Seabolt told Sgt Shaver he went inside the house and did a thorough search to make sure no one else was in there. He later recanted but I'm inclined to believe the first statement because it was given prior to his having time to think over what his actions might suggest.

2)They didn't have a ladder? Mr Seabolt took it with him on his early morning "woodcutting" spree?

3)Of course, Sheila may have known there was no one in the bedroom because she knew precisely who was lying dead in the living room.
Eastern wrote:That being said - who is more important? To me, it's the dead victims who had their lives and rights taken away. They can no longer decide they don't want justice or at least acknowledgement of who brutally took their lives from them, so others must do it for them.
I totally agree but if they think there will never be justice then rather than letting it eat them alive it may be time to walk away from it. Especially if they're convinced they know who the perps were and those perps are dead. And in that case, can't fault them.
Dmac wrote:Thank you, NotSure, for your dead-certain approach on the subject. You kinda took the words out of my mouth. Actually, you took them, put them in order, added about three tons of invaluable logic and circumspection, re-evaluated it all, and said what you did from a controlled and logical perspective. Thank you.
Thank you so much for the kind words. I'll take them at face value. ;-)

These users thanked the author not sure for the post (total 2):
Chichibcc (Wed Jul 25, 2012 1:20 pm) • Eastern (Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:18 pm)
User avatar
not sure
 
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:52 pm
Location: stuck in the middle with you
Has thanked: 351 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby dmac » Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:44 pm

NS, I meant it. you made more sense of what I was trying to say than I could. It wasn't a back-handed compliment. You simply said it from your own voice and conviction.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com

These users thanked the author dmac for the post:
not sure (Tue Jul 24, 2012 5:48 pm)
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby SammieJo » Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:57 am

This probably belongs in Open to speculation rather than here but since we have wandered out of egg shell land reguarding Sheila... (thanks OPI and Welcome!)


This has been something I have pondered in my mind a few times, it may seem far fetched...

I've often wondered is Sheila possibly had anything to do with the murders (not by participating, but possibly by instigation) and the reason she was so adamant about the crimes being solved is guilt, but personal involvement is what holds her back from revealing all.

NS talked about the resentment Tina possibly felt for her mother- all of these things rings true for Sheila also,one the thing that stands out to me the most is the adoption, where Tina may have been upset about the adoption for different reasons, Sheila actually carried the child - I say this because I was in a similar situation as a teen & I remember how I felt about my mother after how the situation was handled. It's not even that far fetched in my mind to think that the adoption could have driven Sheila to hate her mother (edited to add: atleast temporarily. I'm not saying Sheila hated her mom but it is a possibility that she thought she did at that young age where just about everything that goes wrong is blown into some great injustice slanted towards them). I realize it's hard to imagine because Sheila was only 13 at the time, but it wouldn't be the first time a child took this route when they felt wronged by a parent. Maybe she hoped in her young irrational mind that she would be able to go live with her dad even if her mother was out of the way.

These users thanked the author SammieJo for the post (total 2):
mls1970 (Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:29 pm) • not sure (Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:34 am)
User avatar
SammieJo
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:23 pm
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby meankitty » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:21 am

Tina having resentment for her mother was just speculation that happened on the cabin 28 board. There is no real proof of anything like that, and I don't see how Sheila would have a part in this crime even peripherally.
meankitty
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Quincy
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby SammieJo » Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:55 am

Could you please add a little more detail MK as to why exactly you believe that to be improbable (enlighten me please after all I just wanna know all that there is to know & you have been here longer than me ;-) ), I've never actually spoken with Sheila on these boards, she stopped posing a month or 2 before I joined. From what I've read though on the forums she seems to be just as much of an obstacle in this case as PCSO.

I know Sheila wants this case solved it just confuses me as to why she asks for help & then constantly acts like she is annoyed by probing quesions.

While Tina (&/or Sheila's) possible resentment for their mother is just speculation, I really don't find it that outlandish of an idea, after all what young girl living in a single parent home at that age doesn't have some resentment towards their mother (the mother in this case was the only one around to play "good cop, bad cop", Sue had to play both parts which I imagine often pinned her as "the bad guy" - whether it's reguarding the mother leaving the husband & kids or the mother leaving the father with the kids, kids that age tend to blow things out of proporion & we aren't talking about the brady bunch here we are talking about a broken family & town that was full of disfunction

I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass, I just wish you would elaborate more sometimes with your answers :grin:

These users thanked the author SammieJo for the post (total 2):
meankitty (Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:37 am) • mls1970 (Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:30 pm)
User avatar
SammieJo
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:23 pm
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby dmac » Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:30 pm

The "animosity" angle is not pulp fiction . MK's post is uneducated, though. If she could print and study, her backpack would be the size of Saturn, and just as gaseous. The Sharps were the walking wounded BEFORE 4-11-81, and Sheila took charge? That's pretty messed up in and of itself. Just plain simple: Sheila had no adult skills, yet she admittedly called a lot of the shots?
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby SammieJo » Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:17 am

So D are you saying it makes no sense or are you saying it may make sense? You confuse me too sometimes lol

Has anyone else ever given it consideration or has it been an off limits thought since the get-go?
User avatar
SammieJo
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:23 pm
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby SammieJo » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:09 pm

MK- there is really nothing that indicates BO was involved either- other than Marty confessing & Bo happened to live with him - my point is, we need to find motive, it was oviously pre planned- they had a fucking kill kit- & and Sheila is one person that is trying to hide things & keep secrets & there are several things that could give her motive and all of those things- she refuses to talk about

#1 Her mom left her father (we don't KNOW how Sheila felt about this, she hasn't told us, but she could have resented her mom for this)
#2 Her mom sent her off to Oregon to have her baby (AGAIN, whe don't know how she felt about this, she hasn't told us) I know if someone took my child I had carried & bonded with for 9 months from me I would have some SERIOUS issues with that person, I've been there. I don't know all the circumstances surrounding that situation but seeing how fast this 13 y/o stepped up to play mommy after her family members were killed tells me she probably didn't hate the idea of raising her baby, hell she is still playing mommy to her little brothers by not letting them speak up about what they saw that night. I find it strange Sheila was the ONLY one out of the house that night & Justins presence in that cabin is what kept the younger boys safe, surely Marty & Bo didn't care about the boys to insert Justin into the situation & Loon leaves her younges at the house so she can go out drinking so she DAMN SURE didn't care about the younger kids.
#3 Her mom was dating- another common thing that causes resentment for parents if the kids didn't want their parents to break up - No matter how much of an ass her dad may have been his career was able to provide something Sue was clearly unable to provide- stability
#4 by all accounts Sue was unable to control her kids (how can you blame her, she was a single woman with 5 kids, single parens have a hard enough time handling 1 or 2 kids)

These users thanked the author SammieJo for the post:
not sure (Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:13 pm)
User avatar
SammieJo
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 11:23 pm
Has thanked: 46 times
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: Second post - Now I'll introduce myself

Postby Eastern » Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:59 pm

Sheila and Richard both had posted on the cabin 28 forum how everything was hunky dory feelings wise towards Sue about the baby being given up for adoption. Other people have said there was a lot of animosity between the Meeks and Sue, because the Meeks wanted to keep the baby and raise her. Either way, it's a very hard thing for a 14 year old to go through and very hard emotion's wise, so there were probably some issues.

Other family members have described the Sharp's family life as Sue couldn't control the kids, they ran wild and she didn't know where they were half the time, Johnny ran away and also pulled a knife on Sue, etc.

I'm not disparaging Sue by bringing that up. The family was going through a rough time and I'd say it's more the norm than not in similar family situations. It didn't mean they didn't love each other; just means they had common problems many families have.

These users thanked the author Eastern for the post (total 3):
Chichibcc (Fri Jul 27, 2012 4:45 pm) • not sure (Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:14 pm) • frida (Fri Jul 27, 2012 1:05 pm)
User avatar
Eastern
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:24 am
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 267 times


Return to intros

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest