Tina as the first victim

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

Postby Neon Bulb » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:12 am

:arrow: .
Last edited by Neon Bulb on Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Neon Bulb
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:51 pm
Location: Sacramento
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby Neon Bulb » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:30 am

:arrow: .
Last edited by Neon Bulb on Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Neon Bulb
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:51 pm
Location: Sacramento
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby the celt » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:41 am

Neon bulb, i also questioned why no one heard Tina screaming when being taken out of the cabin against her will. Justin claims that she was yelling help, help. Now they could have covered her mouth , knocked her out. And what door did they take her out of the front or the back? It was mentioned that there was blood on the railing on the back stairs. What they went down the back stairs went all around the cabin carrying a 12 year old? And no one saw a thing? It was also mentioned that there was blood on sues truck. Where there bloody footprints going down the back stairs? With all that blood the perps surely got blood on there shoes or boots.?
kathy
the celt
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:27 pm
Location: ohio
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Postby islander » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:09 pm

Neon i have a tendency to believe your idea she was taken outside of the cabin. As for Justin so much of his story doesnt make a lot of sense. He claims to have seen it yet he also claims to have gone back to bed. He claims to have seen Tina taken as well, but he thought it was all a dream. Thats stretching the limits of believability to the breaking point. I dont believe he was the instigator of the crimes, but i believe he knows FAR more than hes saying. He just has too many inconsistencies and leaps of logic for me to accept what he says without question.

Taking Tina as a bargaining chip makes more sense than anything else. Having her out of the cabin before all of this happens makes the bargaining chip theory more plausible but it requires her to actually be outside of the cabin which from the killers perspective was nothing more than pure chance. My feeling is Tina wasnt likely the main target, she was a bonus to them. We got your kid behave or else. After the murders why take her ? They have shown they have no issues with murdering children, in fact Tina herself was murdered later. Why take her at all ? why not kill her on the spot ? She had something of value to them, that they could only get if she was alive for a time. She had value alive while the murders were taking place. To me she has become the key to it. Find out why she was taken and you find out who took her.

The other sleeping children is an issue for me. I personally believe the killers knew who was in the cabin, and knew the family. They didnt want the young boys. They are willing to take considerable time to perpetrate this crime, but not take 1.2 seconds to poke their heads in a door and see who is in the bedroom. Doesnt make sense to me. They had who they wanted the other kids werent of interest to them. Why ? What, if anything, did Dana, Tina and John have in common ? Getting Tina dressed in all that mayhem is asking a bit much to me. I think if she was home she wasnt in bed. She was still up when the murders occurred.
User avatar
islander
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:36 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 6 times

Postby meankitty » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:37 pm

dcheryl83 wrote:The "Tina taken first" theory makes no sense to me. Why would Justin say she came out of her bedroom with a blanket and ask what was going on? Regardless of all the nit picking everyone has done with Justins statement, I believe it for the most part. Anything that came later could have been from things he heard other people around him say. His initial statement however is very believable.

I also find it interesting that people are expecting so much more from this young boy. Some of you are questioning why he acted or didn't act a certain way. He didn't have the best home life, his step-father was an asshole and he was probably scared out of his mind. Its mind blowing to read some of the stuff thats said about him.
I can't flame a scared little kid, but Justin is grown up now, claims he now remembers, claims the book he's writing will help solve the case, yet he was unwilling to talk to the PCSO without seeing his earlier statements. And as far as I know, he hasn't told the PCSO what he remembered. There are a lot of people who have a problem with this, and not what he did in 1981.
meankitty
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Quincy
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Postby meankitty » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:41 pm

Personally, I think maybe Tina peeked from her bedroom, saw what happened, and got her shoes on to run for help, and she got caught. Since there was blood on the outside of the boys room door, perhaps the perps back was turned and Tina tried to sneak past him and got caught.
meankitty
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 11:17 am
Location: Quincy
Has thanked: 626 times
Been thanked: 50 times

Postby Neon Bulb » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:56 pm

:arrow: .
Last edited by Neon Bulb on Wed Jul 28, 2010 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Neon Bulb
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 5:51 pm
Location: Sacramento
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 0 time

Postby noom » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:04 pm

When I discount every statement Justin has ever made, theory’s become more viable.

Also, I tried taking his count of events and applying the complete opposite of what he said……was interesting.
noom
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:46 am
Location: California
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time

Postby dcheryl83 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:23 am

Neon Bulb wrote:dcheryl83,



"Who said they didn't tell her to grab her jacket and shoes?" In a word....Justin. Justin said she came out of her room dragging her blanket asking 'what's going on?' when BOTH men grabbed her and carried her out the back door while she was yelling for help (Timeline #24). Where would there be time for one of them to demand she grab her shoes and jacket? Are you suggesting some new evidence based upon changing Justin's story because you don't believe it?

You might want to consider what sort of life he had to lead rather than nit pick or embellish his story....right????

Your observation about this all being speculation.........have you noticed the title of the forum????



LMAO. You seem to have a problem with people who don't agree with you. I did notice the title of the forum. You are speculating and I don't agree with your speculation. Get over yourself dear, we are ALL entitled to our own opinion.
dcheryl83
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Postby dcheryl83 » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:29 am

meankitty wrote:I can't flame a scared little kid, but Justin is grown up now, claims he now remembers, claims the book he's writing will help solve the case, yet he was unwilling to talk to the PCSO without seeing his earlier statements. And as far as I know, he hasn't told the PCSO what he remembered. There are a lot of people who have a problem with this, and not what he did in 1981.



Is it possible he's just pretending to remember so that he can make a buck or two off this book? Seems to me if he actually knew anything he would want the crime to be solved and get on with his life. Kind of strange that he wants to see his earlier statement. If he doesn't remember what he said how the hell does he remember what happened? The more I learn about this guy the more suspicious he becomes to me.
dcheryl83
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby 7Scarlet » Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:24 pm

I'm not really of the opinion that Tina was the "first" victim, but I have come to think that the entire event began in her bedroom.

I think Sue took her glasses off and set them on her bedside tray and went to bed, with Tina either asleep (or awake) beside her or in the other bed. I think the killers walked right in through an unlocked door and knew exactly where they were going when they came into her bedroom and caught her off guard.
'Confirmation Bias:' Find the evidence that supports your contention, and explain away or ignore that which doesn't.
User avatar
7Scarlet
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:01 am
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby sarajean79 » Thu May 08, 2014 6:08 pm

I feel Tina was definitely taken for sexual reasons. Doesn't anyone find it funny that M&B send loon to get Sue out of the house the same night knowing Sue doesn't normally go out to bars? With the older kids gone that would leave Tina with the younger ones if Sue had gone out. Maybe to make it easy for someone to take her? I think its possible there were more people Involved than just M&B. Taking Tina was a huge risk if they just wanted to kill her they would have just left her there. They had time to stage the scene, then they definitely had time to kill Tina. If neither one of them had a history pedophilia then its clear that either someone else was involved or they decided during the crime to take Tina with the intentions of raping her. This crime was so horrible and for it to stay unsolved is another tragedy in itself. My sincere appreciation to everyone here trying for justice for this family.
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 dmac » Fri May 09, 2014 4:00 am

Maybe it's logic, maybe its from what Marty said in his confession, maybe it's because I don't believe any intended death walked out of that systematic murder chamber (Cabin 28) alive. I do NOT believe Tina was alive when she left.

I and many others find Loon's story impossible. For years she says she knocked on Sue's door (not cabin 28's door, she always says 'Sue's door') and Sue magically opened the door, even tho Loon always says Sue "was working on something by the couch". Loon goes on to explain all the kids were asleep cuz only Sue was there, "werkin on sumphin" How can the kids be asleep, Sue working on something by the couch? Who the hell opened the door? A ghost? Marilyn Smartt's story about knocking on Sue's door smacks me as 100% bs lie alibi. It makes no sense and she defends it tirelessly. PURE LIE- SHE NEVER KNOCKED ON SUE'S DOOR How can kids be asleep from Loon's first version (7 pm) to her later version (11 pm)? They watched Love Boat and Fantasy Island, and Marilyn is LYING about knocking on 28's door. She never did that, folks, it's a setup to make her seem friendly with Sue.

I have reason to believe Sue was afraid of Marilyn and Marty and Bo the night she was killed.

Exactly how do you change a story about when you went to a bar, with a shift of 4 hours in the pot? Loon says she went to the bar at different times throughout the night to fit the alibi needed- always later. It never pans out because even her co-conspirators screw the pooch. But Loon says she left her adorable son, Casey, at home in a closet while leaving Justin, the Keddie Bully, alone with the Sharps kids. Wow, that's real magic, cuz it makes no sense, but it happened. Yet she always knocked on Sue's door, the kids were always asleep, and Sue was always "working on something by the couch" BULLSHIT Impossible in any real world, folks.

I think you should look at Marilyn Smartt as a participant, and I believe once we see who was REALLY involved, only then will motives POSSIBLY come forward. And they will be multi-faceted. As for the coverup, PCSO are still scum. Ask Gamberg, he's a good ol' boy.

Please explore what you want to, but keep in mind that facts have been tabled dozens of times in dozens of ways, and Marilyn Smartt was inside Cabin 28 that night. I believe she is worthy of a Capital Murder charge. Some members of PCSO should be swinging from trees instead of living off the teat they continue to drain.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Cheshire » Fri May 09, 2014 5:48 am

I've always believe the story about knocking on the door was Loon's way of trying to give herself some cover if someone saw her going up to the house (which I also believe she did, during the murders) and/or to cover for her fingerprints being there.

Dmac- is it your theory that Tina was killed but taken from the scene as part of the staging?
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby dmac » Sat May 10, 2014 1:04 am

Tony the Greek places himself at Cabin 28 the day of the murders, delivering non-existent wood for Sue to use in her non-existent wood stove. Marty Smartt says he's been in Cabin 28, and describes the hammers they used: The wooden handled hammer from 28, and his own (missing) hammer. He also confides he wished he'd used his hatchet, instead.

I do believe the staging was meant to misdirect LE away from the true target of the murders, which appears to be Sue. Sue was originally posed with her legs spread, a meaningful and sexually humiliating pose. She was in that position long enough for her legs to go rigid in that position, before being moved onto her right side and, eventually, covered. The corpses of both boys were abused. Johnny's chest wounds were postmortem, and possibly his neck wound. The Weapon 4 blows that crushed Dana's head were also postmortem. I believe this was done in an attempt to 'equalize' the damage of the victims, making the boys wounds seem more in line with the abuse inflicted on Sue. And, of couorse, Tina being missing clearly had the desired effect: Once LE realized she was missing, they focused on her whereabouts, with Doug Thomas even trying to name her as a participant in the murders.

Some believe Tina was a focus, and may have been pregnant. It's a viable enough theory, but there simply aren't enough supporting facts or evidence to give it the legs for me to support it. Were she a target, who involved in the murders is a pedophile? If Marty was a pedo, Loon would have screamed about it for the last 35 years. Her daughter would have mentioned it, had Marty done anything. Loon mentioned Bo had photos of very young 'wives' in his wallet, but other than that, only Dave Keller has tried to tie Bo to 'girls' by trying to convince Deb he had proof Bo did the Grimes murders in Chicago. He lied to her, saying CPD considered Bo their main suspect. This is complete Keller BS, and is easily debunked because those at CPD and Cook Cty SO have no references to Bo in their files, much less anything supporting Keller's claims that Bo was the last one seen with the Grimes, and that Bo was living in the area where they disappeared at that time. In fact, Bo's military records prove he was living thousands of miles away. Strike Three for Keller!

Dee Lake? That sick scum would have been busted by now if he was a pedo. Tony Garedakis? Many of the women he shacks up with and abuses have children, yet nobody's ever claimed he physically abused any of them. The closest Marilyn is tied to molestation is her current pervo husband, Charles Musgrove, a registered sex offender. Wade Meeks? Well, apart from a pretty lame alibi, there is still a very odd dynamic between the Sharps and Meeks- and Smartts, too.

In PCSO's Missing Persons flyer for Tina, they claim Tina was wearing a pair of jeans, a blouse, a red nylon jacket, GASS shoes, and a watch with a white band. Unfortunately, these claims are patently false. A week after the murders, Sheila was asked to walk through the cabin and name anything missing. She named the tool box, the GASS shoes, a pair of pants, and the red jacket. For PCSO to claim Tina was taken from the cabin wearing those clothes is a terribly drawn conclusion, particularly when they were asking anything that moved if they recognized the pink clothes one of the Seabolt girls found in the swimming hole by the swinging bridge. They were fishing, hoping to tie the pink suit to Tina, and evidently someone in the Don Davis household did just that. So was she wearing pink, or the other clothes? If she was made to dress, why wasn't she wearing the rainbow pants she took off to go to bed? They were found near her bed, so they would have been the most convenient choice... Also, Josh loosely, but clearly, claimed:

    "I don't recall any police saying that they did not find Tina's bloodied jacket. I have been told that yes, it was found, and that it is currently in evidence."

Bloody or not, is it in evidence? Horror of horrors, was Loon actually telling the truth when she said it was found in Cabin 26?

With Marty's interview answers and confession, the picture comes together for me that he wanted to get in and out faster, and not spend so much time doing it. He wishes he'd used his hatchet instead of the hammers. He killed 'the girls', not the boys. Had he done the murders, he would have taken Tina out via the swinging bridge, but he lied by saying it was locked, which it clearly wasn't: The bridge was used several times that night by a couple people who were in the bar.

Plus there's a huge problem with the phone call to BCSO, identifying the then-little-known skull as Tina's. I believe the call was made by someone involved in the murders, and the tapes of that call could have been used to identify and prosecute said caller, which is why both the original and the backup copy were checked out on New Years Eve and made to disappear by corrupt LE. Both copies signed out simultaneously on a very busy night, only to completely disappear?! Anyone who still believes LE were not involved in this crime are clueless.

In the days before the murders, Sue spent a lot of time, at all hours, in Dareyl's trailer. To get there, you have to pass in front of 26. If Loon wasn't lying about it, and Bo actually was out roaming around Keddie at night (casing, I figure), did he have any encounters with Sue? Was Sue shagging anybody associated with Cabin 26- other than the high likelhood that Tony the Greek is Avery Schreiber and was a loud, violent boyfriend of Sue's...

In short, I believe it's possible Tina played a bigger role in the motivation behind the crimes, but there simply isn't enough connective tissue on those bones for me to buy into it. Yet. I believe it's quite possible: Sue, Johnny, and Sheila were all detached from this imploding family, trying to live independent lives within the constraints of what little structure remained in the family. The four oldest in the family were highly at-risk, and of them, only Sheila survived that night. It's clear Sue was going around Keddie around supper time (I believe they ate dinner early, around 5, so it would be after that), asking parents of kids who weren't even in the same circle of Keddie friends as the Sharps if they could spend the night at 28. This sounds so completely bizarre, it seems fabricated, but it's not! In a huge move completely out of step with what we know of Sue- detached, reserved, self-absorbed- she was trolling for kids to sleep over. Was she fearful that something was going down? Was it a failed attempt at "safety in numbers" at Cabin 28? The only person to sleep over was a very bizarre choice: One killer's son. Justin, known as the Keddie Bully, was the odd choice, since his younger brother, Casey, was closer to Rick's age and they were known to play together- not Justin. Still, it is Justin's presence in the cabin that insured the survival of the youngest Sharp boys.

Until more evidence is made clear, I do believe Sue was the key motivation and target, and Tina's removal was a red herring- that was quite successful.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby Princess » Sat May 10, 2014 4:40 am

I've said this before, I believe the only reason "Why" Tina was removed from the home was to throw the investigation off. Marty tells on himself allot in his interview and if you read it, he clearly states

"I was thinking. I know this girl is the father's favorite kid. Who I've never met. This is what I've heard through a few conversations, that is he is supposed to been in Connecticut, so they said. Well maybe the father, maybe the boys tried to stop him, so he had to take them out too because or maybe the boys walked in on something. And he took them out because of that. Uh, before they realized who it was, we entertained the thought that maybe it was Dana that did it? Because he is supposed to be mentally disturbed. Both of the boys were experimenting with drugs. This is a known fact."

This states allot to me. I believe from this info that the only reason "Why" Tina was taken from Cabin 28 that night was to throw suspicion on the father.

I also believe the murders were drug related. The reason being is ALL the Key suspects have One thing in common and that is "Drugs". They were all heavily in the scene and all friends with LE.

Now there are different opinions on who was the target. I am still not convinced that Sue was the target. I keep thinking abt how Dana was murdered. He was strangled and then after he was dead the killers bludgeoned him in the head. If you go by what John Douglas states abt strangulation, which is "The use of one's own hands such as strangulation or stabbing is a much more personal crime than that of a gun. The attacker has to be up close and personal to strangle a victim, especially if it is manual strangulation. (hands alone as opposed to ligature strangulation.)"

Another thing is the staging. The killers staged Sue to make it look like a "Sexually motivated" murder. "Why" would they do that? When they were trying so hard to throw the investigation off and make the murders look like something they were not.

Link to Marty's Interview: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=609
Link to John Douglas quote: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... ?#slide=10
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 sarajean79 » Sat May 10, 2014 7:37 am

Maybe Sue DID think she was in danger. Marty was a violent creeper! Sue may have felt safe having Justin there as opposed to the younger brother. She probably thought Marty wouldn't do anything in front of Justin who could rat him out to at least his nutty mother. She obviously seriously underestimated the situation. Unfortunately it didn't matter who was there, M&B were out for bloodshed, and Justin' s mother knew.
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 » Sat May 10, 2014 8:30 am

Whatever happened, the fact that they went to such lengths to stage things mean that they believed that without the staging it would be very obvious who committed the murders and why.
Cheshire
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 8:34 pm
Has thanked: 155 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Tina as the first victim

Postby sarajean79 » Sat May 10, 2014 10:26 am

I have a question concerning Dana's cause of death and the staging of his body. I am a newbie and have read a lot but not everything. I read that there was evidence that Dana was killed in a sitting position and later moved to the floor. Was he on the couch, the chair, when he was choked? I also read that he was beaten with the hammer postmortem, was there blood on the chair or couch? Im trying to get the amount of violence each victim endured to help me decide for myself who the main target was. Anyone who has any info I'd appreciate it.
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 dmac » Sat May 10, 2014 2:35 pm

The "Dana was seated or kneeling" theory came from a report filed long after the murders. Don Stoy made the report, and Don Stoy's name and reputation loom large in this case, and in Plumas corruption.

x

From the scrawl, it looks like this was possibly dated 1983. He claims Dana was kneeling or seated when killed? Complete hogwash. The lividity on Dana's corpse is consistent with being on it's back when the blood settled, then being moved and staged much later, after the blood had set. The reason there was no livor mortis in his 'buttox' is because the shoulders and butt were in contact with the floor, supporting his corpse, and compression kept blood from pooling in those tissues.

Stoy's other notes are okay: The hesitation wounds next to what I suspect are postmortem wounds to bodies (possibly to involve, and silence, a witness- or someone whose hands were not yet bloody); the hair in Johnny's hand; the lack of defensive wounds to the boys; the poor staging of Dana's 'bindings'.

Sorry, the autopsy reports used to be in a common forum area accessible by all, but I moved them to a more secure zone which only members with 15+ posts may access, because there has been a lot of image theft from gorehound scum. The text of the autopsies should be restored to an open section shortly, as I manually transcribed all reports a few years ago. It's the theft of the images of the actual documents, and autopsy diagrams, that concern me. Gorehounds seem to adore the killers, and have no respect for the victims, which is one reason I try to inhibit access to sensitive data. Consideration towards the victims and survivors is paramount. Also, despite the number of names that are in public record, they shouldn't be bandied around as if each person listed in a document is of import, much less a serious source of info, much less a person of interest.

Speaking directly to Dana's death, I know the strangulation murder of Dana was intensely personal, but I don't believe it was towards Dana. I believe his murder- and manual strangulation takes minutes, not seconds- was a personal message to the other victims that everyone was going to die. Dana was chosen specifically because he was the odd man out, who had nothing to do with why the killers were there.

My beliefs shift when better info comes to light, and for years I've believed Dana was collateral damage, used specifically by the killers because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing has yet come to light to shift that view. By that, I'm trying to state loud and clear that, from all the reliable info I've seen, Dana was murdered simply because he was there. I also believe some of the murderers knew of him, but he was no target.

EDITED TO ADD:

All text from the original autopsy reports have been posted in the KEDDIE FILES area. I spent so many huge hours transcribing those files, I believe they are accurate!
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3215
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

PreviousNext

Return to just speculatin'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests