|
|
Post by Angela on May 23, 2009 3:37:55 GMT -5
If, as we have read, Charlie Lawson told Marie that he would kill his whole family if she told anyone that she was pregnant, and if, as we have read, she told her mother and one of her best friends Ella Mae Johnson that she was pregnant by her father, did she tell them about the threat he made? If so, why would Fannie tell her sister-in-laws about it? Did Ella Mae tell anyone? It just seems strange to me that if she did tell them about the threat he made towards her and the rest of the family that they would tell anyone else, after all that would endanger her life. If they did know about the threat, especially Fannie, why did Fannie nor anyone else do something to protect them? Makes me wonder if Charlie ever made that threat.
|
|
|
|
Post by smpyrtle on May 23, 2009 17:31:17 GMT -5
Maria, It's quite possible that he did not make this threat. It seems that I read somewhere that Arthur had taken to sleeping in his clothes shortly before the murders I wonder if the threat could be the reason for that. Of course, I don't know if this was true that he slept in his clothes or not would he have told someone that he was sleeping in his clothes because he was afraid for his family?
|
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 24, 2009 5:42:00 GMT -5
I think he did tell someon he was sleeping in his clothes at night. He "might" have started doing that because of how strangely Charlie had begun acting those last three weeks before the murders. But if Charlie really did make that threat then either Marie did not relay the threat to anyone or no one took the threat seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by debbie on May 24, 2009 6:07:22 GMT -5
How does anyone know Charlie made that threat if they were not there? If Fannie nor Maria told anyone, how could it have gone any farther? I'm with you Maria, I don't believe Charlie made the threat either. Another example of artistic license.
|
|
|
|
Post by smpyrtle on May 24, 2009 11:33:59 GMT -5
You're probably correct Vickie. I believe as you do unless someone in the family told someone else how could anyone know if a threat was made.
|
|
|
|
Post by angel71242 on May 24, 2009 21:55:36 GMT -5
Yes, there were other things written that no one could have ever known unless they were there - which they weren't. Artistic license was used to make the story more "exciting", "intriguing", whatever you want to call it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Jun 4, 2009 8:38:08 GMT -5
The author of any book wants to present their story in such a way as to capture the reader's attention and to make it interesting enough in the presentation of it to not only capture but to maintain their interest in it. But with a true crime story the truth in as much as you know or believe it to be is the most important thing. Artistic licensing should be used sparingly and each instance of when it used should be written with an identifying mark beside it showing it to be just that...artistic license. Never ever ever should it be told in such a way that it comes across as a fact or a truth. It should also be presented with it's main source and backed up with more than one source.
|
|
|
|
Post by angel71242 on Jun 4, 2009 8:40:57 GMT -5
AMEN!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sherann on Aug 8, 2016 5:10:07 GMT -5
We are approaching this from a modern day standpoint. Today's society is all about interventions regarding abuse. It wasn't like that back then. My great grandmother was born in 1908. She became aware that her granddaughter was being abused. Her solution? She just had my mom spend more time with her at her house and less time at home. She did not go to the police. She did not suggest that my mother move in with her. These were people that believed things of this nature were to be talked about in hushed tones and one didn't get involved if they could possible help it
|
|
