|
Post by Angela on May 28, 2009 12:34:12 GMT -5
I'm curious about the pillows tht Charlie Lawson placed under the heads of some of his children after he killed them. He placed rocks as a substitute for pillows under he 2 daughters heads that he killed at the tobacco barn. But what about Fannie and Marie? Did he put a pillow under their heads? We know from the photo of the murder scene that there were only 2 pillows soaked with blood on the floor. Both of the pillows on Charlie and Fannie's bed were still on the bed. They were not used. The 2 pillows on the floor we've been told were under james and Raymond's heads. Tht leaves Fannie and Mare without a pillow. Why? Maria
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 28, 2009 12:37:27 GMT -5
Interesting question Maria. I can't remember if I read about which family members had the pillows beneath their heads. As you said, it could have been the small children or it could have been the 4 female members of the family. Obviously from the photo he had more pillows to use if he had wanted to. Jackhammer
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 28, 2009 12:41:27 GMT -5
It's hard to say where little Raymond was killed. My opinion is that Charlie killed them where he found them. This particular question is hard for me to even think about since I have a little boy myself. It just breaks my heart to think of those little children. Why would he take time to put pillows under some of them but not all of them? Sissy
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 28, 2009 12:45:24 GMT -5
About the whole pilow thing, is it possible that Charlie may have gotten scared away when his brother went to the house and discovered their bodies before he had a chance to finish putting everyone's pillow in place? Or maybe it was a sense of some kind of status. Those he put pillows under their heads were the ones he felt guilty about...hmmmm? Dramafem
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 28, 2009 12:47:43 GMT -5
Oh godness, had not thought about that but chances are from known statistics if he molested the oldest daughter, why not the 12 year old as well? This is a question for the experts. Ladebug
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 28, 2009 12:50:44 GMT -5
I'm really not sure I want to go there Ladebug. No mention has ever been made to my knowledge of Charlie molesting 12 year od Carrie. I don't understand your leap from pillows under their heads to Charlie molesting Carrie. Some caution needs to be taken with this. Maria
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 28, 2009 13:36:58 GMT -5
The pillows were described to us by an expert in Domestic Violence Homicides as a classic example of "undoing", which isn't precisely the same as Charlie denying he did it through actions he barely understood. It's common in these sorts of murders for the killer to 'lay his victims to rest as if they were merely asleep; which to me argues that Charlie was the killer, but gives NO hint of meaning as to the underlying motive For the killings. It just says he cared about those he killed and wanted them to be as comfortable as they could be for a very long trip. It's been described as a "bizzare ritual but it's bizzare only to those unfamiliar with this sort of crime. It follows a well established pattern tht further indicts Charlie Lawson since no one else was close enough to the victims to feel compelled to make them comfortable in death. I have to agree with Maria here that we need to be VERY careful in making assumptions like the one about Carie's potential molestation. Remember, it's been a huge bone of contention as to Charlie molesting Marie, and there have been rumors, theories, and whispered stories for 77 years on this subject. Part of what angered so many about the book was that by not interviewing dissenting viewpoints from those at least as close to the story as Stella Lawson was, there was irreprable damage done to the claim that Charlie HAD molested Marie, by not nailing that claim down with more than one source, it leaves more than a shred of doubt about his guilt on that particular issue, which is inexcuseable if UNTRUE, but even worse if it is true, because then the unimaginable suffering Marie went through is called into question, and considering how terrible her pain must have been if she'd been molested, it's paticularly horrible to expose her pain to our doubt at the expense of protecting a shred of Charlie's reputation s a fine and decent man who would never do something like that; even though we know he killed 8 people on that Christmas Day in 1929. That's why we've been so very careful about any of the claims made, by not corroborating this (which is nearly impossible), we expose doubt to it, and I don't feel like questioning the children's pain at the expense of propping up the reputation of a mass murderer. It might be safer to assume the worst in order to fully sympathize with the suffering of the children, but considering how many of Charlie Lawson's family remains, making claims we can't prove only emboldens those who'd prefer to refuse to face the horrid facts of what we know Charlie DID do by claiming that our accusations are unsubstantiated. This cuts to the core of so much that was vital to us in the way we presented this story and I hope that unless we ever get proof of his guilt there, we can refrain from advancing theories that can only cause more pain for the living without advancing our understanding of what the children went through. This isn't a rebuke to anyone, just a cautious reminder that we're discussing something that still has a powerful effect on many people still living and everything we say will be held against us at some time or another. Matt32
|
|
|
Post by sissy on Jun 3, 2009 7:42:46 GMT -5
That's a great post Matt, one of the best explanations I've ever heard. That's one thing that really bothered me too about the book, the claims were not nailed down by more than one source, in some cases no source at all was given.
|
|
|
Post by Angela on Jun 4, 2009 6:45:38 GMT -5
I agree Sissy, Matt's post was a really great post. I liked what he said as to why we should be VERY cautious about accusing him of getting his daughter pregnant. That part I always understood and agreed with. However, as he said, if Charlie Lawson did indeed get his daughter Marie pregnant it undermines her pain and suffering if we say he wasn't capable of doing something like that. That's the side of it I had never thought of before.
|
|