Tina as the first victim

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

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby dmac » Sun May 11, 2014 1:11 am

EDIT:
I really shouldn't be so pissed about Stoy's report. Despite the wrong conclusions re: sitting/kneeling, the rest of the report brings up things otherwise ignored or forgotten. Overall, the sitting/kneeling conclusion is a huge fail, but the rest of the document is quite prescient.

Stoy concluded Dana was sitting or kneeling. Wrong. Otherwise, Stoy was bringing up great stuff- ZERO defensive wounds on the males who supposedly interfered in a crime-in-progress, yet multiple defensive wounds on Sue. That is still a huge issue.
BLOOD on Sue's feet, showing she was up and moving, even alive, after others were down/dead.

Hesitation wounds near probable postmortem wounds, indicating some may have been forced to participate in the crimes by abusing the corpses.

When I look at it now, I see one massive fail and several huge wins. Stoy failed with the Dana/seating assessment, and I failed by not seeing the rest of his otherwise-valid report.

More importantly, I do not understand how Sue had so many defensive wounds, but the boys has ZERO. If the boys were downstairs in Johnny's room, they would have run upstairs. If the boys really walked in and were caught off-guard, where the f were they all night? 2 damned AM and you walk in?

There is so much bs about this case, the obvious is rarely the answer.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 2700 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Cheshire » Sun May 11, 2014 4:56 am

No defensive marks, but maybe Johnny was able to grab someone's hair?

From "Johnny Sharp's Autopsy Report, Complete":
Caught up on the tape, on the dorsal and on the ventral surface of the
hands as well as within the palms of both hands are multiple hairs or
hair—like structures, generally light tan in color, sometimes somewhat
brown in color, and in one instance one of the hair—like structures is
whitish in color.

Attached to the right anterior sleeve of the subject's jacket are
several more hairs. They are attached in portions of blood clot in this
location.
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Cheshire » Sun May 11, 2014 7:04 am

I'm going back to the beginning and re-reading everything, and it just occurred to me that it's very odd that Tina's bloodied jacket was found. Why would she have been wearing a jacket if she was attacked in bed? If she was dead when she was taken from the cabin, why bother putting a jacket on her? And if she ever really was wearing that jacket, why would it have been taken off and left behind? Leaves me wondering if the blood on the jacket is hers, or if it's all part of the staging. And if it is, and *if* it was really found at the Smartt's cabin, why would it have been there?
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby dmac » Sun May 11, 2014 1:19 pm

Josh is very unclear in how he put that post together, and it smacks to me of more BS from Josh. If the red jacket was found, and I was told by LE it had been found, I would have REMEMBERED it, and I would also recall WHERE it was found, and if it had blood on it. Josh never can quite seem to get over simple hurdles like those, which makes several of his assertions very dubious. The jacket, the bloody fingerprint, etc etc etc.

Also, when PCSO thawed out the block of ice known as the evidence freezer:

    "No hairs were observed in the plastic bag labeled "hair from left hand" or the plastic bag labeled "hair from right hand."

Also, if she was being taken from the cabin, why put a RED jacket on her? Was the neon green jacket not available? Seems to me something dark would be more appropriate.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 2700 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Cheshire » Sun May 11, 2014 1:31 pm

Ugh - so maybe we'll get the answers in Part 3? I hadn't realized how much information was controlled and leaked out in small doses coinciding with Part 2, but I've spent the day going back and re-reading the forum and it's infuriating.
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby dmac » Sun May 11, 2014 1:53 pm

First, that felonious bastard stole as many case documents as he could. Now he sits on them. He is 100% about milking this case, squeezing every dime he can from the victims. Josh is a sick PoS in my book- and every other.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 2700 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Chichibcc » Sun May 11, 2014 4:19 pm

dmac wrote:More importantly, I do not understand how Sue had so many defensive wounds, but the boys has ZERO. If the boys were downstairs in Johnny's room, they would have run upstairs. If the boys really walked in and were caught off-guard, where the f were they all night? 2 damned AM and you walk in?


Perhaps Sue was restrained after the boys, giving her more time to try to defend herself? Or perhaps her restraints weren't as tight (at least initially) and she managed to break free before being possibly restrained again?

But I've always believed the boys walked into the commotion, since Johnny's jacket was still on. Or, at the very least, they heard what was going on immediately from downstairs if they entered from the basement door, and immediately headed upstairs.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:08 am
Has thanked: 656 times
Been thanked: 240 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Cheshire » Tue May 13, 2014 4:48 pm

My theory is that Tina was probably used as leverage to control the others. While one or both of the men went after Sue, someone (Loon maybe?) took Tina out the back door, perhaps telling her to keep quiet or they would kill her mother. If Sue was told to keep quiet or Tina would be harmed, that would have kept her quiet 'til she was gagged. Justin was friends with Tina, and was probably told that she was being brought "down by the river", but she'd be okay and brought home later if everyone cooperated.

Johnny and Dana walked in, probably from outside judging from their clothing, and were taped up without a struggle or too much noise, because they were told Sue and/or Tina would be killed if they didn't cooperate.

From the way that swinging bridge has been described, it sounds like it would be kind of dangerous to try to carry someone across it, especially in a rush. Maybe "down by the river" meant she was either taken to a cabin down there or to a vehicle that was down that way. I don't think she was dead when she was removed, because if Justin knew that (and I think he saw a lot of what happened), he wouldn't have been so insistent that they search for her.

I believe the motive had something to do with drugs or information. I get the sense that the killers were looking for something and getting increasingly frustrated that they weren't finding (or getting) it. Marty's being pissed at Sue for supposedly messing with his marriage may have added fuel to the fire, but I don't think it was the primary motive.
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby sarajean79 » Wed May 14, 2014 4:40 am

I just read snippets from the old forum where loon states she had just found out from her daughter-in-law that her youngest son revealed he was molested as a boy. She then stated that Bo was a pedophile. Now, I take everything I read from her with a grain of salt knowing the discrepancies in her stories but who knows, maybe Bo saw Tina and just had to have her. I do not think that was the motive for the murders but I do think she was Taken from the scene alive to be raped and killed. And who knows, Marty could have been a pedophile. The son didn't say who molested him or when and I doubt loon would admit to knowing something like that. Just a possible scenario. What do you think?
sarajean79
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 5:56 am
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Cheshire » Wed May 14, 2014 6:06 am

People have speculated in the past about the possibility of Tina being the target, but the general consensus seems to be that there were many easier opportunities to grab her outside the home, and without killing a bunch of other people.
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby azucena » Wed May 14, 2014 6:18 am

I think it is a real possibility. The thing is, not all people who molest children are exactly the same, Some are true pedophiles who cannot have any sort of an adult sexual relationship and are solely attracted to children. There are others who are more opportunistic, and if the chance arises they will take advantage of a child. Tina had already been molested, and often children who have been previously molested are at greater risk of being molested again. If you add drugs and/or alcohol into the mix, which acts as as a disinhibitor, people who might not usually molest a child will do so, especially if those kinds of tendencies exist, such as being molested themselves as a child or suffering ongoing trauma during childhood. These people are more on the sociopathic end of the scale as they are focused solely on their own self gratification and have no empathy for who they victimize. These individuals will use anyone, adult or child to meet their needs with no remorse.These individuals often have a history as a child of torture of animals, early criminal activity, poor social skilss, and the lack of empathy can be seen at an early age.

Shelia may well have also been molested, given her early sexual activity and becoming pregnant at a young age.

As well, the family appears vulnerable on many different levels:

A mother who was overwhelmed and unable or unwilling to give her children the attention they needed, nor provide appropriate supervision. Johnny basically ran wild and was out of control. Shelia was engaged in a sexual relationship, which says to me she was starved for attention and affection. Tina had been molested previously, was learning disabled, and easy prey. She also was starved for attention and like many victims had no boundaries, ie sitting in men's laps.. The family was out of control.

I am not intending to malign Sue, but her kids were all over the map. She had no real idea where Johnny was that night, and I am sure countless others. He was already getting involved in petty crime. She had very little support and I think she just could not manage the needs of all of her children.

To me , the motives in this case reek of sexually charged issues, along with drug running and a local LE who were involved, or at the very least knew what was going on and turned a blind eye.
azucena
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby azucena » Wed May 14, 2014 6:20 am

I also don't believe Tina was the target. I think Sue was. BUT what was happening in the family as a whole may well have had something to do with the murders.
azucena
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Princess » Wed May 14, 2014 7:34 am

Where is any documented back up or facts remotely close to this theory. Bo has never been accused of being a Pedo other than what Loon states, and we all know that Loon has been discredited time and time again. I will say this again and for the last time, Bo did bank robberies, jewel heist's and buried bodies in the desert but HE has NEVER been accused of being a pedo of ANYKIND! Don't you think that people would of have already come up out of the woodwork if this was true or close to being true? That goes for the same for Marty, I don't believe he was a PEDO, I think other people would of already came out and accused him of doing so.

A Pedo of any kind is not going stop at 1 child. So until you all have proof or factual information to back this up, I am asking to PLEASE don't mention Pedo and Bo again. My family has been upright and honest abt everything Bo was involved in and everything that Bo has done. I have shared all information abt him and will continue doing so for the sake of this murder being solved. However, I will NOT put up with bullshit being said abt him that is not true!
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
User avatar
Princess
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:49 pm
Has thanked: 272 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby dmac » Wed May 14, 2014 7:45 am

right, I agree that we cannot pull spec out of our butts, particularly something as dramatic and heavy as this, with nothing but scattered BS from Loon as qualifiers. The fact a creep like Keller pulled the Grimes case out of his ass in order to try to squeeze info from Deb was meant to discredit the theory. People are shooting from the hip when they talk pedo without anything whatsoever remotely close to proof, and this case has grown beyond needlessly shooting from the hip.

I'm not trying to sound harsh, but a theory is only viable if there is a smattering of proof to it. Hell, by the same unproved logic, Kennedys were all shot because of the same pedo ring in Keddie.

I think the family was in huge trouble, and that is a a focus anyone should have. Very fractured, and I do believe certain behaviors are a key to this case, but we really have very little clue about any of the multiple motives behind the actual murders. As for the ongoing LE coverup, that's become blatantly clear. I also want to make it abundantly clear, for the 1000th time, before apologies are demanded: No victim earned their fate and, to date, no killer has been properly fated.

When looking at troublesome behaviors, we know Sue, Johnny, & Sheila were doing stuff considered "high-risk". We have so little info on Tina, we can't even come close to realistically and honestly discussing any troubling behaviors from her. It's entire speculation, and that just does not wash with me. Az has been our best source on Tina, and remains so, but I believe I can state with some certainty that she would be the first to say her experiences with the family were limited. Az is a very important frame of reference, and a crucial source of insight into the Sharps, Keddie, Plumas, and the politics involved in the low social rungs of the victims and killers.

I feel it's very important to field all ideas, but conjecture needs to follow evidence. My beliefs constantly change on several matters in this case, but I always try to use logic based on reliable information as the guiding path. It's important to state my earliest beliefs have either been proved or completely discredited. I didn't go in trying to prove a connection between Bo and Chicago, mainly because I initially thought Bo and Marty were a plausible setup/scapegoats. To a degree, they still are, despite being completely involved in the murders. I eventually had a hunch Bo's background is crucial to understanding nearly every aspect of the case, and have been quietly researching that multifaceted history, to a very limited audience. In April of 2014, it became very clear there is a full circle between Chicago 59 and Keddie 81. CIA/Bush/Reagan cocaine is why Bo was in Keddie, and why PCSO/DOJ covered up the crimes. That is no longer spec, because the trail of facts is as solid as the rails going through Keddie.

Sorry for this disjointed post.I want to clarify that spec is important, but unqualified spec is mostly BS. It's why some fools still assign Keddie to a passing trucker or trainhopper. That is simply insane, given the wealth of info we now have, so to even bear witness to such insipid beliefs is a major distraction. Spec is hugely important, I'm not poo-pooing anyone, but there has to be a thread of evidence to entertain ideas. Posting spec should be well done- and Az has done a great job= but damn I cannot stress enough that there is zero to prove any PoI is a pedo. If Loon had even THOUGHT of it when she was throwing Bo and Marty under the bus, do you think she wouldn't have been screaming it at the top of her lungs for the last 30 years? Pedo never even occurred to her, or it would have been a key chord in her repertoire.

Not that I believe Loon, but pedo never entered her lexicon, other than vague refs to Bo's wives... Marty called Sue and Tina 'whores', but we know from another source he was a bible freak, and that zealotry/bigotry is a common cause for murder. If anyone wants to claim any PoI was after Tina sexually, there are major hurdles such as opportunity, and you need to have a PoI with a proclivity towards raping kids. None of my PoIs have that. It's very interesting to me that Joel Lipsey was seemingly grooming Tina and was pissed someone got to her before him. The way PCSO screwed Tina after she'd been molested? And the way Sue ignored her? Jeez! Tie that to a PoI because it's a solid and lonely thread.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 2700 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby azucena » Wed May 14, 2014 1:17 pm

Deb

I most certainly meant no offense to you or your family with my post. My point is that while there is enough out there to possibly tie Bo and Marrty to the murders, I believe strongly they were NOT the only ones involved. In my thoughts about Tina, I am looking at a family in trouble, with the kids engaging in high risk behaviors, an overwhelmed mother who could not provide adequate supervision. Any number of people could have crossed any one of the family members path and it could have created lots of trouble.

I think it is really important to look at how this family was functioning and what behavior patterns can be observed. Something that cannot be ignored is the fact we have one young girl pregnant, her sister with problems of her own and a previous molest victim, and a boy spinning out of control.

Please be clear, I was not accusing Bo of being a pedophile, nor even Marty, but there are plenty of other people that could have been, that also could have been involved in this murder. Many people on the periphery of this crime have some serious problems.
Also, I was trying to make a distinction regarding true pedophiles and what i will refer to as opportunistic ones. In both cases secrecy is power and if a child does not disclose the abuse no one ever may know. This is what makes sexual victimization of children so insidious.

I don't think what was going on in the family can be ignored because it may be directly relevant as to why the murders happened. Did it directly relate to the murders? I cannot say yes, absolutely it did, but I don't think anyone of us can say no it absolutely did NOT. It is and was not my intent to make blind speculation, but I see somewhat of a pattern here that I cannot ignore.
azucena
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby dmac » Wed May 14, 2014 1:36 pm

Let's put it in the open, let's name names. I strongly believe the following people were involved in the murders:

Martin Ray Smartt
Marilyn Smartt
Severin John Boubede
Tony Garedakis
Dee Lake

and strongly indicated in the "afterwards"

Wade Meeks
Glenna Meeks
Mike Davis

Then, of course

PCSO
DOJ

I don't think I need to explain why any name is on my list, due to the wealth of info, but if you have names that are worth bringing up, please do. And, to keep this on-thread, not a single name I've listed had any known issues with Tina. In all my years of following the case, there is a silence over Tina, and it's disturbing that nobody breaks it.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 2700 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby azucena » Wed May 14, 2014 2:37 pm

I am going to try to talk to Tina's teacher. She has retired, but I think I can find her. I know she will remember Tina.
azucena
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Princess » Wed May 14, 2014 4:39 pm

Azucena I was not directing my post at you. I agree with you about others being involved. I agree that we need to look at how the family was functioning and what behaviors were going on with each of them and believe me when I tell you I have.

In your post above, are you not sure Sheila had been molested? We know that she had been molested by her father. Sheila states that in her book. Although she denied it on the board. I also found this link showing were her father was a convicted child molester. Here is the link: http://www.sexoffenderrecord.com/zipdir ... arp_214321
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
User avatar
Princess
 
Posts: 268
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:49 pm
Has thanked: 272 times
Been thanked: 358 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby dmac » Wed May 14, 2014 6:54 pm

I think the teacher is a great opportunity, and she's always been near the top of my list for people I want to contact. It's clear from what little is in the fockumentaries that she has a lot to say, and is very emotionally connected to Tina and the case. Josh, as usual, squandered the opportunity.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3122
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 714 times
Been thanked: 2700 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby sunnyday » Sat May 17, 2014 3:54 pm

This is more to the staging of the murders. How did "they" know they had so much time to kill and stage maybe even hours apart.

It's like someone handed them a clock and said you have all the time you need. You don't think that someone in le knew ahead of time and that is why the killers had no fear of time limit.

Gosh that sounds bad a time limit to murder sorry.
Tamara
No child's murder should go unsolved.
sunnyday
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 11 times

PreviousNext

Return to just speculatin'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron