Johnny Wearing Sheila's Gym Shorts

theories and spec; back up posts w/ reasoning and evidence/examples

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby Ausgirl » Sat May 19, 2012 3:54 am

But my understanding is Sheila said they lived in MS prior to moving west. I don't think her dad went to Connecticut until after the family left.


Okay. I'm super tired and stuff. But if it's relevant, the shorts Johnny was (inexplicably) wearing over his undies and below his jeans after getting changed at home and leaving again were Sheila's sport shorts from Groton, Connecticut, where her dad was living at the time of the murders. Which means she went to school there at some point.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Johnny Wearing Sheila's Gym Shorts

Postby not sure » Sat May 19, 2012 10:07 am

Oh, snap. Good catch. I totally missed that in the description of the shorts. Now I'm wondering when?

From what I've learned James kicked Sue out the first time around March '78 and she took the kids to Oregon. Her sister said she was there for about a year and a half which puts that around Aug-Sept '79. Then she went back to James (I assumed it was to Mississippi but it must have been to Connecticut) for 6 mos. I'm thinking she went back before school started. Don't know about Connecticut but around here school started after Labor Day in Sept back then. Her sister said she stayed there for about 6 mos then moved to Quincy. That places them in Quincy around March or April 1980. They then moved to Keddie in Sept or Oct of '80. Mrs Meeks said her family moved to Quincy in late '79 and Sue and her family moved there after they did.

Connecticut may hold some very bad memories for Sheila. I don't want to presume but she told us the family came from Mississippi. As far as I know she has mentioned living in Connecticut. I may be wrong.
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: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby krazykat » Sat May 19, 2012 12:57 pm

I find it interesting that we'd discuss where the shorts came from. Not why Johnny was wearing them. No pun intended but when I was Johnny's age I wouldn't be caught dead wearing my sisters clothes. Even something as unisex as gym shorts.
krazykat
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:53 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby not sure » Sat May 19, 2012 1:25 pm

True krazy. But those type unisex shorts really were unisex. Couldn't tell the difference if they were the same color/size.

Btw, in the above I meant to say hasn't mentioned Connecticut not has.
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: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby krazykat » Sat May 19, 2012 1:41 pm

You're right I could see wearing girls gym shorts and no one would know. But then again Sheila's name was written on them so they obviously would be hers. It would be interesting to know if this was a common occurrence for him to wear them. If not then it adds questions like, did he get dressed in a hurry and didn't realize what he put on or was he told to get dressed by someone and was nervous and not paying attention. Could be an innocent reason for it but in this case......
krazykat
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:53 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby azucena » Sat May 19, 2012 3:58 pm

I remember when I met Sue in 198o in the fall, she said the family came to Quincy from Conn
azucena
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby ache » Sat May 19, 2012 4:32 pm

Going on memory, it was Missouri that Sue spent a couple of weeks in, staying with her mother-in-law. She was most likely en route from Connecticut to Oregon at the time.
I found
after all the searching,
life was only what I made it
User avatar
ache
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby Ausgirl » Sun May 20, 2012 4:19 am

KK - the other thing that struck me as strange was -- do boys usually wear jockey shorts, then a pair of sports shorts, under their jeans? I don't get why he'd do that, at all. I can understand somebody mixing up/not caring about whose they were if they fit and no-one was going to see them anyhow.

But why wear them under jeans, in the first place? Nobody I've ever known has done that unless they were sport mad and planning a run after work or something. I can't begin to think of a good reason for Johnny to need shorts over his underwear and under his jeans.

Not a big deal, it's just another aspect that's never made sense to me.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby krazykat » Sun May 20, 2012 8:32 am

Actually it was warm up pants not jeans. Which is probably why not much attention has been paid to why he would be wearing his sisters shorts.

The thing is if you look at the picture of Sheila's bloody shorts you can tell they are girls gym shorts by the shape and piping. If the pair Johnny was wearing were similar then why would he be wearing them on a night he and Dana are out cruising the town?
krazykat
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:53 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby Ausgirl » Sun May 20, 2012 9:51 am

Ah, sorry - lack of good sleep's making me loopy... It was Dana in corduroy jean-like pants, not John. And yes, good question. It always seems to get blown off, "Oh it was a mistake/etc" - but to me it doesn't sit right, and never has.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby SGRider » Sun May 20, 2012 11:20 am

If Johnny and Dana had already retired for the night when the trouble began, then the boys may have been told to "get up and get dressed." If that was the case, I can see Johnny grabbing the wrong clothes in the terrified state of mind he would have been in.
User avatar
SGRider
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby not sure » Sun May 20, 2012 11:26 am

That type unisex gym shorts had the same shape and piping for both sexes. It was an 80s thing. Not saying it was a good style. But boys and girls wore the same style shorts. Usually the only way to tell the difference would be color...most boys wouldn't have worn the more "girly" colors...e.g. pink or light blue or anything pastel. Just going by experience and how my own kids dressed. Another part of the "style" was to wear tighty whities with gym shorts or boxers over them then sweats on top. Again, not saying it was a good style. It was the 80s.
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: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby Chichibcc » Sun May 20, 2012 1:00 pm

SGRider wrote:If Johnny and Dana had already retired for the night when the trouble began, then the boys may have been told to "get up and get dressed."


I think that killers were already in the cabin prior to them coming home that night, and that things really escalated as soon as they entered, considering that Johnny was found with his jacket still on.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:08 am
Has thanked: 656 times
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby krazykat » Sun May 20, 2012 1:11 pm

Ausgirl wrote: but to me it doesn't sit right, and never has.


Exactly the way I feel. After seeing the crime scene photo's for the first time in the the other threads a lot doesn't sit right. Johnny wearing his sisters shorts, pristine white tube socks in a room covered in blood and covered by a body. The same for that damn ball. I've blown up photo's of it as best I could and I don't see a speck on it. How can that be? An opened pack of camels sitting where the cushion should be. Perfectly tapped out, laid out. They didn't fall out of anyone's pocket, they were placed there. Johnny and Dana tied together in death six feet apart by a white extension cord. Sue under a blanket that is "tented" enough from the angles I've seen that Dana's face is pointing directly at her. Johnny's laying on the floor with the TV facing him and his hands tied very closely in a position of prayer. I could go one and on, double or triple gags on Sue,,,

To me there's a real possibility that they weren't staged to look like some helter skelter or macdonald type killing. to me they look posed. Just to clarify staging is meant to look like something else. Posing is to covey a message.
krazykat
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:53 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby krazykat » Sun May 20, 2012 1:32 pm

not sure wrote:That type unisex gym shorts had the same shape and piping for both sexes. It was an 80s thing. Not saying it was a good style. But boys and girls wore the same style shorts. Usually the only way to tell the difference would be color...most boys wouldn't have worn the more "girly" colors...e.g. pink or light blue or anything pastel. Just going by experience and how my own kids dressed. Another part of the "style" was to wear tighty whities with gym shorts or boxers over them then sweats on top. Again, not saying it was a good style. It was the 80s.


My problem with that is I was a college student in Northern California at that time and did have physical ed classes. My shorts didn't have piping and came down to almost my knees. My girlfriend was still in High School on track and her shorts did have piping and were cut quite a bit higher.

From Johnny's Autopsy:

Beneath these pants are a red pair of athletic shorts
stating "Groton Physical Ed." beneath a shield, and in the shield in ink
is the name "Shiela Sharp".
Beneath these red P.E. pants is a pair of
jockey shorts which are also pulled up. They are white in color and show
a blue band about their top.

They were clearly girls shorts whether they looked unisex or not. That's all I'm saying.
krazykat
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:53 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 85 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby Cheshire » Sun May 20, 2012 6:30 pm

I can't imagine any boy that age wearing shorts that had his sister's name written on them, whether they were unisex style or not.
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby SGRider » Mon May 21, 2012 2:29 am

Unless his wearing those shorts were part of the staging/posing? Just maybe?
User avatar
SGRider
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 4:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby azucena » Mon May 21, 2012 9:19 am

This probably belongs on another thread, as this started out concerning Marilyn's statements, howver, I will proceed.

The issue with the shorts is interesting. I remember from the Documentary, discussion by Dana'a sisters about "dressing him up " when he was little in a rather feminine manner. Not to offend anyone, but some pictures of Dana do suggest a feminine countenence. This whole crime reeks of having some pretty strong sexual components and overtones; from the staging of Sue,her rather chaotic and unstable relationships with men, to Johnny in his siters shorts, whatever that may or may not mean, Tina's sexual molest and possible pregnancy. The physical evidence does leave one to ponder the sexual nature of the crime, thus also makes me wonder further about some sexual issue being at least part of the MOTIVE. Perhaps it was no more than to humilate the victims even in death. Perhaps the killers viewed Dana and Johnny as weak and therefore feminine, and expressed their dislike of this in how they killed them.Perhaps even venting their homophobia on the two boys. The treatment of Sue and Tina also suggests rage, humiliation and the killers need to demonstrate they had control over all the victims. For this reason, I wish we had more information about Sue's boyfriends, who she was involved with at the time of the murders, who she had perhaps spurned, and why and to what degree Bo was rejected by her...
azucena
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 75 times
Been thanked: 125 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby Ausgirl » Mon May 21, 2012 12:06 pm

not sure wrote:That type unisex gym shorts had the same shape and piping for both sexes. It was an 80s thing. Not saying it was a good style. But boys and girls wore the same style shorts. Usually the only way to tell the difference would be color...most boys wouldn't have worn the more "girly" colors...e.g. pink or light blue or anything pastel. Just going by experience and how my own kids dressed. Another part of the "style" was to wear tighty whities with gym shorts or boxers over them then sweats on top. Again, not saying it was a good style. It was the 80s.


.. sorry NS, I meant to mention this in my last post...

Yep, the 80's.. much the same here, only the fashion was to wear the gym shorts OVER the sweat pants. :? ttly hawt..

tbh, I'd not think much of the shorts thing at all, were this crime a simpler one. But because it isn't simple at all, I think nothing that even vaguely seems weird to someone ought to be overlooked as being potentially very relevant.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements

Postby Chichibcc » Mon May 21, 2012 12:08 pm

SGRider wrote:Unless his wearing those shorts were part of the staging/posing? Just maybe?


That's certainly possible-since there was already laundry tossed all over the floor, perhaps the shorts were taken from that pile.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:08 am
Has thanked: 656 times
Been thanked: 239 times

Next

Return to just speculatin'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron