Fly on the Wall Answer

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

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby dmac » Mon Sep 21, 2015 4:57 pm

I wasn't screeching at you or kmik or anyone. It's becoming apparent that info on the Sharps will lead a lot of asshats to conclude "they got what's coming." I don't know where else I can say it's a complete pantload of BS. Sue deserved NONE of this, period. Nor did Dana, Johnny, Tina. Nor Sheila, Rick, Greg, Justin, Casey, etc. Even my own treatment of Sue's brother, over concerns about the couch and how he should spend his money, is completely out of line in the Big Picture. I'm utterly ashamed of the way I've guttered people over the years in the name of 'free discourse'. I've clearly abused the true meaning of free speech countless times.

Sorry to meander right back to my point, but I'm trying to address a core issue by example: I'm a badass moron hypocrite who doesn't want the path to tread around the victims as culprits. Sure, it's a logical course of investigation, but Sue was sexually active. Deservedly so. As I stated above, the sole contradictory behavior was direct neglect of her own kids, and that's where the line deserves to be drawn.

Yeah, I'm a hypocrite and I'm a cunt. I'm trying my best to be better.

There's a great line from a show I saw recently, "we owe nothing to the living. Our job is to represent the dead". It's a two-way street. I hope to learn my own skill at proper, calm wording can represent an idea without unintended grief.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 709 times
Been thanked: 2667 times

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby IPO » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:08 pm

dmac, you expressed what I've been thinking for a long time. Nothing Sue might have seen, heard, done or whatever her lifestyle choices meant she deserved the horrible torture and death she suffered. However, those children (all underage and vulnerable) should have been removed from her care. She was, for whatever reason, unable to care for them. I know she had gone through an abusive marriage, was uneducated, struggled financially, and had a family support system that was not sufficient for her children's needs. To have put her children into Social Services would have been far kinder. While not perfect, perhaps some of the children would have fared better. Certainly both Tina and John would probably have at least lived to reach the age where they could make their own choices. With the children in foster care, Sue could have had the freedom and time to upgrade her job skills and experience a life free of a poor marriage and five children. As she married young, had five children in a short period of time, she didn't have the freedom to discover who she was and what she wanted to do with her life. It didn't mean she would have had to abandon her children as a mother, but could have had a happier and healthier relationship with them.
IPO
 
Posts: 87
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby dmac » Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:16 pm

So good to see you, IPO. You do kick ass when you show up.

Keep in mind, in a Perfect Plumas World, the guy judging homes was a serial rapist who gave moms a choice: have sex with him or go hungry. That's Cosby power, and rape isn't about sex but power. The Keddie coverup wasn't about sex or drugs or money, but POWER.

Feeding her family is a reality that faced Sue, who certainly loved her kids enough not to totally give up. She was a lost child, in a forest of wolves. I'd think if she ran into the serial rapist guy who judged welfare cases, she'd grow more concerned about her own family. No sign of that, to be blunt. Her denial of attention towards Tina after the July 1980 abuse speaks volumes.

Addition: if you look at fundamental info, nine out of ten families in Keddie met requirements for Reagan's wrath where all kids went to non-existent Dickensian 'care', and the tricky situation of mental institutions was solved by Raygun turning the mentally ill out on the streets, and proclaiming a race war falsely named 'war on drugs'. 1981 <Reagan> is a nadir in American history.

I'd fight to my death to protect my kids and family, and as reluctant a parent as Sue may seem, Sue actually fought to her death. Check Mate: Sue wins.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 709 times
Been thanked: 2667 times

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby dmac » Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:24 pm

something else to ponder is the myth of military wives. According to lore, they have wonderful families, the kids are always perfect, and the wife has all the skills and tools to survive were something awful to happen to the hero husband.

It's a fallacy. US govt routinely murders its own people. I grew up in the military and every one of us 'kids' has bizarre cancers from my dad's fucked career. Every place I lived as a kid is now a Big Dig site because military routinely dumped chemicals in the back yards of the serving families. We drank poison, and the govt still doesn't give a shit.

Another thing is to consider the psych damage. I see Sue's life in Plumas akin to a newly-sober alcoholic. The idea that alcoholism stunts mental development is pretty clear. If an alcoholic quits drinking, they emerge mentally underdeveloped, closer to the age when they began getting routinely pissed. Same goes with military wives, aka Sue. Same goes with sexual abuse victims. Trust in society is out the window, which is probably why Sue was withdrawn.

Sue had three strikes against her: Military, alcohol, sex abuse. A withdrawn mother who still fought to the end.

Sue earned and deserves our respect. Couch that.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 709 times
Been thanked: 2667 times

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby Chichibcc » Sat Sep 26, 2015 12:52 pm

At least she did try, even if her choices were misguided at times.

Dmac, you make an excellent point about the trust issues...had she trusted/gotten to know more people, her web of potential resources may have been more substantial, but it's certainly understandable why she preferred keeping to herself, given everything she had been through in the past.

Hypothetically speaking, If I had to chose her or Marilyn for a mother, Sue would get my vote each time, hands down.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:08 am
Has thanked: 656 times
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby dmac » Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:59 pm

Hypothetically speaking, If I had to chose her or Marilyn as the person truly guilty of the things Sue's been accused of (and far more) by the 'she had it coming' group mentality of many idiots, Loon would get my vote each time, hands down. Yet Loon's, hypothetically, a murderer and still alive, walking free, married to another perv.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 709 times
Been thanked: 2667 times

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby budrfligh » Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:43 pm

For the record I don't find it fair to judge Sue's parenting. By todays standards it's better than average. By the standard then, with the lingering stigmas of single parent home,people may have judged here ruthlessly. In statements some did. I wasn't in any way insinuating any such judgment. A single mother of five in school is today quite an accomplishment. Nobody should take that away from her.
budrfligh
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:51 am
Has thanked: 230 times
Been thanked: 87 times

Re: Fly on the Wall Answer

Postby dmac » Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:21 pm

I think it's pretty fair to say very few people on this forum can be accused of 'judging' Sue. For years, we've heard talk and rumors and bullshit testimonials claiming Sue was everything from a saint to a whore. Sheila and Mama Meeks claimed close to the former, Marty and others the latter, and it's very important to understand both sides are disingenuous in their claims.

No matter the assertions, we're trying to cut through decades of conflicting BS. When I'm talking about Sue leaving her kids unattended and letting them roam the countryside, or being absent in the aftermath of Tina's molestation (even letting her go right back to where it happened, unaccompanied!), or leaving the kids alone in the nights prior to the murders to attend to her new beau, I directly call her a crap mother. That's not a judgement, and it's doesn't waver by community mores or eras: it's a plain fact Sue was often a crap mother, FULL STOP. Others parents plainly knew it, not allowing their kids to stay at 28 on Saturday.

That is something we need to understand and clarify if we hope to comprehend the layers of crap going on in this case. It's not a judgement on Sue or her family, and NOBODY is claiming "they got what they deserved". In fact, just the opposite: we're trying to uncover and piece together every facet to better understand circumstances, opportunities, motives. We can't afford to bury our heads in the sand about the facts of the case, even if it causes embarrassments, if we hope to unmask the multiple killers and others involved. I, for one, want them all to die in prison.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3212
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 709 times
Been thanked: 2667 times

Previous

Return to just speculatin'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron