Justin

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

Postby dmac » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:13 am

Wow, Aussie. Nice post. I was trying to state a case in consideration of the child, on another thread, and this knocks me out of the water. Gladly.

Well done.

It's not too far to ask speculation on a child's memory to be reserved to that person, huh?

As far as hypnosis, it's closer to ghost stories than fact. Just as "lie detectors" are as faulty as the miscreant giving the "test", but at least there is a whisp of science behind the bullshit of lie detectors.

Hypnosis offers doctors and no science. Welcome to Thailand, heal you quick.
Last edited by dmac on Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Postby Ausgirl » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:18 am

Oh- whoops - wanted to add a note about time.

One thing I've noticed - time is very often skewed in recall of traumatic events. Events may not only be 'masked' but also be recalled in all the wrong order. Many survivors of long-term abuse have issues with keeping track of time in general, all their lives, as a result.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Postby dmac » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:22 am

Dammit, now I must look at you contemptuously.

Oh, well, I'm used to doctors lying about their mistakes. Why should I be angered that you amended your intelligent opinion with more intelligent opinion?

OK, lawsuit dropped.
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Postby Ausgirl » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:41 am

Well. There's proper application and improper application. I do not think of hypnosis as quackery. But that doesn't mean quacks do not apply it.

A good and compassionate psychologist, trained to work with PTSD and the like, also trained and experienced with clinical hypnosis could be of great help, in cases like this.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Postby dcheryl83 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:11 am

There"s a thread in here that talks about the hypnosis of Justin......do not believe any transcript was offered. He was hypnotized shortly after the crimes (so I guess he was 12), by a police officer who was not trained or properly trained. What he said was similar to the statements he gave to police. I'll see if I can find the thread so you don't have to search for it.
dcheryl83
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Postby Ausgirl » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:18 am

Forensic hypnosis is recognised by courts and law enforcement agencies around the world as a useful tool for collecting and clarifying eye witness testimony. Opinions notwithstanding, it's accepted practise. Also, a very different animal to therapeutic hypnosis.

And thanks, cheryl!
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Postby dmac » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:28 am

dcheryl83 wrote:There"s a thread in here that talks about the hypnosis of Justin......do not believe any transcript was offered. He was hypnotized shortly after the crimes (so I guess he was 12), by a police officer who was not trained or properly trained. What he said was similar to the statements he gave to police. I'll see if I can find the thread so you don't have to search for it.


to paraphrase, you believe Justin's hypnosis session is flawed and, therefore, untrustworthy?

Sorry, but forensic hypnosis is 100% bullshit. Forensic Somnambulists Dreaming of the Future Past. Dream on.

Ausgirl wrote:
A good and compassionate psychologist, trained to work with PTSD and the like, also trained and experienced with clinical hypnosis could be of great help, in cases like this.


I apply that logically, like a good doctor or good lawyer. An oxymoron.

You can't be a real doctor, as you've already spoken real truths. Therefore, you don't exist under that proclamation. You'd demand money by now.
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Postby Ausgirl » Wed Aug 04, 2010 10:59 am

dmac wrote:You can't be a real doctor, as you've already spoken real truths. Therefore, you don't exist under that proclamation.


I haven't anywhere said that I'm a doctor. I do, however, have knowledge on the particular issue of mental trauma and memory.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Postby dcheryl83 » Wed Aug 04, 2010 1:54 pm

So do I Ausgirl. Please keep posting.
dcheryl83
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:38 am
Location: Virginia
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Postby Night Rider » Wed Aug 04, 2010 2:45 pm

Hypnosis has been used, and abused by LE far longer than most of us realize, do some research on the Hurd and Orne guidelines, they far predate the case.

Then go search out "People v Shirley" That is the decision that would have been used to shoot down ANY testimony offered by Justin.

Then if you want to read a real horror story about "repressed memory," look up the "George Franklin" case. (San Mateo Co. California, early '90s) He was accused of murder by his own daughter, years later.

It's been said that Justin does not want to talk to PCSO until he allowed to see what he supposedly said to investigators back in the day, good idea...
Night Rider
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:10 pm
Location: Sacramento
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Postby Ausgirl » Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:09 pm

I think, regardless of those who'd abuse it, hypnosis -could- be a good investigation tool. In the right hands.

Hurd and Orne were primarily concerned (from memory, kick me if I'm wrong) with not getting forensic hypnosis muddied with therapy and other issues that may compromise accurate recall. And rightly so.

I don't agree with it being used for testimony, for the very reasons you cited. But as a means of finding clues, where all is clueless, and face it, it HAS helped, over the years, in many many cases.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Postby dmac » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:05 am

It has the accuracy rate of psychics, lie detectors, and darts thrown at a map. The lack of science and discipline destroys the tool, if it is even remotely effective, and it makes bloodletting by leech look like a proper LE tool.

Let's leave the surviving victims alone and out of this discourse. If they wish to step forward, so be it as their own decision. It is out of line to debate their state, motive, or knowledge (repressed or otherwise). Sheila is classy and brave enough to stay involved, and we treat her with blatant respect. Why can't we show the same discipline and tact elsewhere?

Justin's statements about books and solutions certainly bring him out of the blanket protection I ask for above, but please temper that with all the crap Justin's been thru.

See? Compassion is easily achieved.
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3223
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 710 times
Been thanked: 2669 times

Postby Ausgirl » Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:27 am

I read somewhere that the cop involved had taken a couple of classes, but I don't know if that's accurate.

It's also entirely possible to lie directly or by omission under hypnosis. It's not like a truth serum or anything. It only, as far as I know, helps people recall in better detail what they percieved, and only what they want to remember.

I do not mean any disrespect to Justin, at all, but to me, at this point, things seem to make far better sense without his statements. The pieces just do not seem to fit.

I am not in any way calling Justin a liar, please don't think I am. But memory, especially traumatic memory, is a strange thing, and not always a reliable reflection of what actually happened as far as linear recollection goes. And he was only a boy, poor kid. I cannot imagine what that was like for him, I really can't.

But then, nothing about that night was sane, and things have obviously become extremely muddled since. I'm really eager to see any whole or part direct transcripts of the first or second hypnosis sessions, if they are available any more, aside from the snippets quoted elsewhere on this board. They may or may not help me get a better grasp on Justin and the events, but I'd like to have the chance, as something about it is bugging me.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Justin

Postby William Lee » Mon Jun 13, 2011 3:42 pm

I just wrote a LONG post in reply to you, BT. I accidentally lost it (due to a nerve-damaged bum right arm/hand that I am having a lot of medical problems with--along with many others these days--& I lost it as I can't seem to press single buttons on my mouse every time). Might just be for the better. I'll try to be more succinct and less edge-of-vitriolic in this reply. Listen, man, I do not feel you are trying to be rude... most of the time. Neither was I nor am I about to be, so take that in mind:

You ask, "Why do people say 'Tina is the key'?" The answer is, for the most part, the ones that do so believe that her abduction is the "wild card' in this case that may hold the most evidence as to what went down in the cabin and why, plus why Tina was the only one taken from the scene. People could be wrong. Doug Thomas said she was the "key" first, publicly, the day of the discovery, to media. His reasoning MAY have been more so based on their (LE) supposed initial theory that Tina was a culprit, not a victim. So, as a "wild card" in the scenario, there's your answer, and here it is again: some feel Tina & her abduction holds clues that are closer to the heart of the reason for this crime AND the culprits; some don't. (Aside: Another "wild card" is that the boys were left alive, so did Justin being there have something to do with this? Does that part hold clues we need to work out this crime as best we can? Many "wild cards", my friends, many.)

But, surely you know this. You claim to have voraciously read the old C28 board, that goddam carnival of vitriol, anger, misinformation, trollish-behavior, fear-mongering, lies, AND kernels of info dire to understanding this case; did you pick up the right parts or were you clouded by the "excitement"? You ought know why "Tina is the key" is a mantra some folks here & there & elsewhere hold as important. I feel some things you've posted--or bumped, as it appears...--are rhetorical, question-wise, and I'm not saying it's not cool to ask questions, no sir, quite the opposite, but as others have tried to tell you, this forum holds the answers ALREADY to most everything you're asking; use the search, use your past knowledge gained from C28 & also what you can get from here, as no one minds answering things that are either not referenced plainly already here, just please understand that IF you've read & retained from this forum ALL the existing threads and the INFO & FACTS they already contain, you'll be better suited to answer your own questions without having to (basically) bump a hundred threads that all of us existing members have to read, often only to find that you need an answer that IS ALREADY HERE, and not that impossible to find on one's own.

I AM NOT saying that we don't wanna answer your legit questions, but you're asking a lot yet professing knowledge of the case that seems contradictory (and thus rhetorical, even if you really are just asking a question). Please also understand this and why I feel respect & credit ought be given where it is due: several on this forum have done independent research that has uncovered previously unknown--and MOST VALUABLE--info on the "elusive Bo" that had NEVER been known to us; info on Marty; Mr. Josh H. has worked his ASS off on this case & provided SO much info, and he continues to do so and it is SO helpful; there has been work done by other members to aide the rest of us AND new members--& those totally new to the case--and INTERACTIVE TIMELINES have been created & honed, MAPS of Keddie and the entire surrounding areas, distances checked, rechecked, ever-evolving contributions that have caused a dare-I-say NEW & IMPROVED perception of the crime scene and Keddie at that time so as to better grasp issues such as closeness of cabins, locations of cabin-dwelling witness reports and where they fit in, plus work on studying the crime scene ITSELF, diagrams, body-placement, correlation & study on the reports available, and all of this work has been done to aide people trying to legitimately do SOMETHING to help the LIVING VICTIMS--Sheila, Rick, Greg, the Wingate's... and no, in my opinion, NOT Justin E., whom I feel IS a "living victim" due to what happened to him as a child but I feel he has lost my respect & concern due to his chosen actions and paths (and pathos) as an adult--Justin nowadays freely admits to "know what really happened and who the killers were", but his lack of concern for Sheila & the others cause me to disregard his being someone I care to help "solve" this for.

People here--by the kindness in their hearts--have & do try to at least drag as much info into the light so as to help the victims... even if in the end the best accomplished is that they can feel they know AS MUCH FACT AS POSSIBLE. HOPEFULLY that can help them get past this evil done to them, by perps that probably escaped justice to eventually die as "innocent until proven guilty" murderers. They DESERVE their names besmirched by the crime they committed--and admitted to, in Marty's case, even in death and posterity.

Sorry for the "rant" (and it isn't one but still), yet I can and am expressing MY view of this conundrum you have occurring, how you bump every thread possible to ask questions it seems you already "know" the answers to OR don't care for the answer to yet ask in order to state your opinion. Which is fine, but I know by some it isn't appreciated. By this I mean your method, not your opinion (that Marty & Bo are innocent). Whatever. But if you have REALLY read this forum's existing threads & info, studied C28 & what it held that was worthwhile (maybe 10% of the non-BS), watched the videos & films, then I can't see you REALLY not knowing the answers to most of these questions you ask: did you REALLY not know why this statement about Tina is what it is? (Rhetorical, as I am sure you do.)

I feel that to not have studied the available info shows a dedication to voice your opinion that Bo & Marty are innocent--which is fine...--yet it insults the FINE WORK SO MANY HAVE PUT INTO THIS CASE, solely because they want to HELP Sheila & her family. If I'm out of line, I'm certain some vocal members--you included--will "set me straight". I read this forum & the new posts regularly, but do not post or interact much these days--health issues--but I still would have liked to have been a better & more productive members, not just an opinion-caster. For that, I do apologize to all here. Still, I appreciate the work done by others & do not clog the system (often) with questions that they've already answered a million times over; the answers can be found but if they absolutely can't, man, ask away. Or do it anyway, as you have. This is just my advice, and this is just my opinion.

Tina and her abduction--alive or dead at that time--is a "wild card" in this case. The boys and whether they were known to be there, whether they were knowledgeable that SOMETHING was going down, Justin and his being there, his statements to LE--AT THE TIME--and since, otherwise & not "officially" to LE...--did the perps return or not, staging, ALL "wild cards". All worth scrutiny.

I hope I've not been out of line... especially after having to "catch up" by reading two hours worth of questions & statements that could've been answered with research and on a silver platter that has ALREADY been worked on & completed by wonderful persons here trying their best to make this case in the least better understandable, thus opening it up for serious opinion as opposed to some odd rigmarole of random pick-&-choose statements or questions that set things back & not forward.

I welcome you as a "new" member, tho you've been here a while. Please don't take my words wrong, if indeed you even take time to read & consider them. No reply necessary, even. But, as you see, we're willing to talk & answer questions & help out, but if you've formed an opinion on the perps already, then, I feel, you ought KNOW why "Tina might be the key"... So get on with stating your opinion as to what REALLY could have happened. Who murdered this family and Dana? Who? Why? And if Marty & Bo ARE guilty, then LE deserves to have their asses set on fire to right the potential wrongs they committed years ago; these crimes LE committed--in my opinion--are worth dragging into the light. Someone, or something, MUST answer to these valid discoveries. Look what has been learned through hard work about Bo; about Marty; all pre- & post-crime. Look at what LE screwed up, and ask yourself "why?"... These people didn't deserve their demise & the living victims do not deserve this blockade of justice.

And THANK YOU to all that have helped in these AMAZING eye-opening discoveries.
William Lee
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:10 pm
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 54 times

Re: Justin

Postby Ausgirl » Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:01 am

I'm bumping this entire thread because there's some truly brilliant posts in it, particularly from Islander:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=104#p909
viewtopic.php?p=910#p910
viewtopic.php?p=979#p979
viewtopic.php?p=1012#p1012

and an excellent suggestion from noom:
viewtopic.php?p=1026#p1026

I thought perhaps it would be interesting to revisit some of the thoughts expressed in this thread in light of the mass of new information this past year.

Those deconstructions of Justin's statements are really good, and very succinct. Thanks Islander, albeit belatedly, for those.
User avatar
Ausgirl
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:35 pm
Has thanked: 236 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: Justin

Postby twinmum » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:00 pm

could justin be more involved and that is one of the reasons he hasn't said more, could it have been his job to get tina round to his own house while the madness was perpetrated and to keep her there til marde and bo came home? i dont think he did anything to her but it would make sense to make the other victims more compliant if they thought she would not be harmed by the person she was with if they did what they were told? it would also account for her coat been in the smartts cellar and how they were able to keep her subdued while they commit the murders, she actually may have felt safe with justin.
twinmum
 

Re: Justin

Postby SLCer » Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:47 am

I've found this discussion fascinating. I've always wondered about Justin's statements and go back and forth between doubting them and wondering if there really is some validity to what he saw.

The fact is, none of us have ever experienced an event as traumatic as Justin potentially witnessed that night (at least, I'm assuming, please correct me if you have and you certainly have my sympathy). So, the direct actions of Justin, his statements, what he said he saw, his memory of what he saw, might be forgiven because of the mess of emotions that would inevitably follow someone who went through this experience.

I guess the part of me who wants to believe Justin can somewhat understand how awful things must've been for him in the days after that night. Maybe he did alter the reality of the events, but not necessarily to cover up the actions of someone he knew, or even to do it because he was terrified, but for other reasons that are beyond our comprehension. Maybe he felt guilty watching this, peering from afar, and changed things so he sounded more heroic - checking on Sue, hiding the kids in the closet. Certainly, for a kid his age, it wouldn't be out of the realm of reality for him to do something like that.

If you had witnessed three people being murdered, and you were too paralyzed by fear to do anything, there might be lingering guilt after the fact - enough to want to potentially make you alter a few things so that you don't look too passive...without directly impacting the overall story.

As for returning to the room after the events, it's entirely possible, at that point, he was in shock and couldn't think right. I think we've all been, at one time or another, convinced something horrible is lurking outside our door, or in our closet or under our bed and to hide from it, survive it, we crawl deep beneath our covers, hoping it's enough to ward off whatever lurks outside.

It's possible Justin did that. In hindsight, we can doubt it, question it, but, again, none of us have ever been in that situation. Sometimes, when the mind is faced with such grim reality, it just shuts down. The person completely loses the ability to think rationally. It's possible Justin experienced that. It's possible Justin's mind shut down. So, completely terrified and in shock, he retreated back to the bedroom.

That's how I find ways to believe what Justin is saying.

That doesn't mean there aren't doubts, though. I do wonder how visible he was to the killer(s). It's hard for me to imagine that two murderers would be indifferent to a watching kid. There is just too much risk at hand for that to happen. He could get away and get help, identify them (even if he didn't know who they were) and you're not going to murder three people, kidnap another and leave a potential witness alive and well.

So, that casts doubt on Justin's story. Unless he wasn't seen, which, I guess, might be possible since we don't know definitively (or we do and I missed it) how out in the open Justin really was.

Unfortunately, it's possible we never know how truthful Justin is being and if he isn't being honest, why he feels the need to falsify the story. Is he hiding something or is it just that, with all the things that happened, his mind couldn't comprehend what had happened?

The most intriguing thing, though, is not necessarily Justin (well, unless somehow there is a breakthrough with his statements) but Tina. Tina has always fascinated me the most because, as I think the prevailing thought here suggests, she might be the missing link. It's possible she came out after hearing a noise, was spotted by the killers and taken so that there weren't witnesses, but why do that? Simple logic will tell you that taking someone from the scene of the crime complicates things far more than just doing away with that victim at the time you're killing everyone else. Unless you want a hostage to extort money or other demands from someone, do you really want someone tagging along with you that could potentially lead to your capture?

That's bugged me for a while now. Tina wasn't very old, but still old enough to potentially get away, or be seen by someone in the night or the next day. You just don't risk that. You don't do it. I don't care how sloppy a killer is, they're not going to risk capture by taking a needless victim.

Which suggests a few things...

1) Something spooked the killers to the point where they felt they were running out of time. Maybe they heard something outside or saw something or sensed something. But they knew, at that point, they needed to get out of the house and they didn't have time to kill Tina, who maybe had just come out of her bedroom moments before, before they left, so they grabbed her and took off. Did they kill her shortly after that or did they panic and not quite know what to do with her?

2) They had reservations about killing a young girl, but didn't want to leave her there. This is plausible, especially if you're dealing with a situation where the suspects have never killed before and things just got really out of a hand. Maybe they were fighting with Sue and Dana & John walked in on it as it was just escalating. One thing led to another and, in the heat of the moment, unexpectedly, John was killed. Well, now you can't just walk away from that. Whether you want to or not, you've got to finish the job. So, they do. Tina walks out, sees what's going on and is quickly scooped up and kept indisposed until they were ready to leave the cabin. Like I said, maybe they didn't want to kill her. While obviously someone who kills is capable of doing anything - but who knows how emotionally challenged the killers were to doing that to a 12 year old girl.

Of course, if this is true, as someone mentioned, it does seem like overkill. If things got out of hand quickly, and someone was killed, but that was never the intent, why go to the length they did? This was a brutal murder.

3) Tina was potentially the target. I think this was mentioned and it's a good theory. Why take her? Why not kill her? If the first suggestion is the case, then that might explain it away, but if it's not, you've got to wonder why they didn't do to Tina as they did to John, Dana and Sue. But why did they want Tina? Maybe they didn't want Tina until after the fact? If they did take her, did she die a year later, maybe trying to escape? I cringe at the thought of what Tina went through and hope, for her sake, she did die shortly after the murders of her brother and mother and wasn't subjected to beatings, raping, torture and other awful experiences.

When dealing with crimes like this, you've got to enter with the mindset that ANYTHING is possible - even if it seems beyond the pale. Sure, no one likes to drag the name of the dead through mud, but sometimes you have to to clear all motives. Sue had a history. Sue had a reputation. Did that reputation lead to these murders? Did she promise someone something and didn't deliver? Did she get mixed up with the wrong people? It happens all the time. Lowlifes, sadly, can do the most unthinkable, heinous crimes. Did Sue cross someone's path that had no conscience, no soul?

Or is it entirely unrelated to Sue?

It's a shame, after all these years, we still don't know.
SLCer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:10 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Justin

Postby Chichibcc » Sat Jan 07, 2012 6:11 am

SLCer wrote:I do wonder how visible he was to the killer(s). It's hard for me to imagine that two murderers would be indifferent to a watching kid. There is just too much risk at hand for that to happen. He could get away and get help, identify them (even if he didn't know who they were) and you're not going to murder three people, kidnap another and leave a potential witness alive and well.


Well, if Marty was involved, killing Justin would've been a big no-no, considering his relationship with Marilyn, so that was just totally out of the question. I think that Ricky and Greg were also left alive as a way of "throwing off" the authorities-by leaving only Justin alive, it might have been too obvious who may have been responsible. So the other boys had to be left alive as well, as a way of pointing suspicion in another direction. Plus, the other two boys didn't see anything, so it would've been a "win-win" situation for Marty and Bo.

SLCer wrote:When dealing with crimes like this, you've got to enter with the mindset that ANYTHING is possible - even if it seems beyond the pale. Sure, no one likes to drag the name of the dead through mud, but sometimes you have to to clear all motives. Sue had a history. Sue had a reputation. Did that reputation lead to these murders? Did she promise someone something and didn't deliver? Did she get mixed up with the wrong people? It happens all the time. Lowlifes, sadly, can do the most unthinkable, heinous crimes. Did Sue cross someone's path that had no conscience, no soul?

Or is it entirely unrelated to Sue?


I think the gossip and rumors surrounding Sue were just that, nothing more. There's been absolutely no proof at all that she was involved in drugs or prostitution. I think she was just a quiet woman with limited resources who was trying to take care of her five kids the very best she could with the little that she had.

Yes, she dated several men while in Keddie, but that in itself doesn't make someone promiscuous, or mean they're a prostitute. She was an adult-she had the right to date as many people as she wanted, and it was really shouldn't have been anyone's business but hers.

As for drugs, if that was really her "scene", why weren't any found in the cabin? Just total nonsense to me. Plus, her ex-husband was an alcoholic....I just don't see herself putting herself in that situation again-by not being with him anymore, she was trying to get away from all that, anyway.

I still don't get what people had against her....were they jealous of her, for some reason? Or just tired of the boredom that comes with small-town life and decided to spread a few rumors "just for fun?" Were they threatened by her because she was new to the area, an "outsider," too "different" for them? I think it's a mixture of all three, actually.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:08 am
Has thanked: 656 times
Been thanked: 239 times

Re: Justin

Postby SLCer » Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:41 pm

Chichibcc wrote:
Well, if Marty was involved, killing Justin would've been a big no-no, considering his relationship with Marilyn, so that was just totally out of the question. I think that Ricky and Greg were also left alive as a way of "throwing off" the authorities-by leaving only Justin alive, it might have been too obvious who may have been responsible. So the other boys had to be left alive as well, as a way of pointing suspicion in another direction. Plus, the other two boys didn't see anything, so it would've been a "win-win" situation for Marty and Bo.


Good point. Certainly, if Marty was involved, Justin would have gone untouched. You'd hope no parent would ever do that to a kid, put them in a position like that, but I guess if they're capable of murder, they're capable of doing anything. Plus, I've never trusted Marilyn, so it's entirely possible...even if it makes this event that much more sad.

Chichibcc wrote:
I think the gossip and rumors surrounding Sue were just that, nothing more. There's been absolutely no proof at all that she was involved in drugs or prostitution. I think she was just a quiet woman with limited resources who was trying to take care of her five kids the very best she could with the little that she had.

Yes, she dated several men while in Keddie, but that in itself doesn't make someone promiscuous, or mean they're a prostitute. She was an adult-she had the right to date as many people as she wanted, and it was really shouldn't have been anyone's business but hers.

As for drugs, if that was really her "scene", why weren't any found in the cabin? Just total nonsense to me. Plus, her ex-husband was an alcoholic....I just don't see herself putting herself in that situation again-by not being with him anymore, she was trying to get away from all that, anyway.

I still don't get what people had against her....were they jealous of her, for some reason? Or just tired of the boredom that comes with small-town life and decided to spread a few rumors "just for fun?" Were they threatened by her because she was new to the area, an "outsider," too "different" for them? I think it's a mixture of all three, actually.


Yup. And I hope I didn't come off sounding like I wanted to blame Sue, because I don't. But in a situation like this, unfortunately, you have to ask questions and rule everything out.

But in small towns, rumors spread - especially small communities like Keddie. It's possible she had an active social life, met many guys, had some fun, but that doesn't make her a prostitute or a whore - just a human being.

This whole situation is just sad and perplexing.

Thanks for the reply!

Still would like to know about Tina, though. Even if Justin is telling lies to cover someone's ass, why take Tina? What was Tina worth to them? I don't know. Like I mentioned in my original post, it's extremely risky leaving the scene of the crime with a victim in a situation like this. It rarely happens. So, it makes me wonder if they were spooked and had to get out faster than expected or if they had strong reservations about killing a 12 year old girl. Either way, what happened with Tina has left me with a lot of questions. Did the killers want her? Did she really walk in on them? If she did, why risk taking someone who could escape or yell or be seen?
SLCer
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:10 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: Justin

Postby Chichibcc » Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:12 pm

SLCer wrote:Still would like to know about Tina, though. Even if Justin is telling lies to cover someone's ass, why take Tina? What was Tina worth to them? I don't know. Like I mentioned in my original post, it's extremely risky leaving the scene of the crime with a victim in a situation like this. It rarely happens. So, it makes me wonder if they were spooked and had to get out faster than expected or if they had strong reservations about killing a 12 year old girl. Either way, what happened with Tina has left me with a lot of questions. Did the killers want her? Did she really walk in on them? If she did, why risk taking someone who could escape or yell or be seen?


I still don't really know what to make of the Tina aspect of the case, but I also agree that taking her from the cabin, alive, was pretty risky, just making things more complicated for the killers. Yet, they thought it was worth the risk, for some reason. It is truly mystifying. I'm wondering if they decided to keep her alive to do something devious to her, as far as sexually, but that's the only reason I can see her being taken alive. I really, really hope I'm wrong on that.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:08 am
Has thanked: 656 times
Been thanked: 239 times

PreviousNext

Return to just speculatin'

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest