Post by Brian on Jun 9, 2009 23:48:03 GMT -5
01/04/07 at 05:54 PM
sissy
some people think that charlie lawson did not kill his family I was wondering what you all thought about that theory. From what I have read and heard everyone said that he loved his family but he was very bad tempered. You hate to think that someone would really kill their family, I guess everyone has an opinion. I believe he did kill them but for what reason who knows. I'm just looking for others opinions on the matter.
sissy
01/04/07 at 06:42 PM
Maria
Hi SISSY,
Like you. I personally believe it was Charlie Lawson himself who killed his family. Two other scenarios that have been presented are 1. that a black man with whom Charlie Lawson had gotten into a fight with at a tobacco warehouse in Winston-Salem 2 years earlier came out to Charlie's house and killed Charlie and his family out of revenge. And 2. that it was a mob hit by John Dillinger. I have several reasons why I don't believe those 2 theories. One reason is that a member of the mafia would not have stopped after killing everyone and placed pillows under their heads, closed their eyes, and folded their arms across their chests. I've never heard of the Mafia doing that. That MO (method of operation) is not their style. Also, some of the family Fannie, Marie, Carrie, and Maybelle were shot while the baby Marylou and James and Raymond were bludgeoned. But even the ones who were shot were also bludgeoned. But not Charlie. He was only shot. Why was his head not bludgeoned? Probably because after shooting himself he could not sit up and beat his own skull in. Also, it's been proven that John Dillenger was in prison at the time and did not get out until 4 or 5 years later. I don't believe the "a black man did it" theory either. The shotgun and rifle that were used in the killings were found on the ground beside Charlie's body. They were proven to be the weapons used. Why would this black man (and how ironic no one knew his name) come to murder Charlie Lawson and his family and at the same time come empty handed. Apparently he didn't have his own guns or why would he have used Charlie's. Charlie was at home with his family that day so how could a man come up to his house and go get Charlie's guns off the wall and start shooting everyone. Believe me, Charlie would have stopped that man. No way would he have been able to kill all those people then stop and close each ones eyes, put pillows under their heads, and fold their arms across their chests then take Charlie into the woods and take 4 hours to kill him. What? Were they just standing there talking about why he had done it and wait there while over 100 neighbors, friends, and family standing in Charlie's front yard, most of them armed with guns themselves, shoot Charlie? Not bloody likely. Not even in the realm of possibility. Also, 2 unfinished notes that were written by Charlie Lawson were found that day in his coat pocket along with the pencil used to write the notes. One note said: "Blame no one but I." The other one said: "Trouble will cause". A family member told the sherriff that it was Charlie's handwriting. Also found in Charlie's coat pocket was $61.00 in cash. Why would someone plant those notes in Charlie's coat pocket and not take the money? These of course are just my opinions. Why did Charlie do it? I honestly don't know.
Maria
01/04/07 at 08:41 PM
sissy
yes i don't believe someone came in and said i'm gonna kill you all but wait i forgot my gun can i use yours.
sissy
01/05/07 at 07:12 PM
ecalhoun
For me, the piece of evidence that points most to Charlie being the killer is the pillows. If you notice the crime scene photo of the mantle, you'll see a bed to the left. This was Charlie and Fannie's bed. You'll also see the pillows on the ground where they were placed under the children's heads. However, the pillows are still on Charlie and Fannie's bed. This means that whoever got the pillows knew they were specifically getting the children's pillows. If someone else did it, and for some reason wanted to place the pillows under their heads, I would think they would grab the closest pillows available, instead of going upstairs for other pillows.
The ritual of putting the children to "bed" is also one that you do see in domestic violence homicides, and isn't really done elsewhere. It isn't common, but it isn't unknown, and points to a deep personal connection between the killer and the victims.
Eric
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
01/05/07 at 07:21 PM
jackhammer
Very interesting point about the pillows, Ehc. I hadn't noticed that at all. You're right, why wouldn't someone just take the nearest pillows to place under their heads.
I guess that fact just sealed it in my head as to whether it was Charlie or not.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis_
jackhammer
01/05/07 at 07:26 PM
Maria
Love your reply Eric. Great point made
MARIA
01/05/07 at 10:53 PM
Matt32
That's what sealed the deal for a lot of us during production. It's interesting because it isn't readily noticeable, (and nere's a world exclusive secret revealed for the 1st time!) and it was only when we discovered that there wasn't one rjicture taken of the crime scene, but Two. the reason for the confusion is because the photographer only turned his lead slightly between the 2 shots to capture just a little bit more on each side (wait'll you hear the proof on the Right side revelation that confirms our suspicions, but for now we'll stick to the Left side 'extra portion'), and it's my belief :hat the reason he did this was specifically to capture the pillows, since the composite's edges neatly bracket the Dloody pillows on the floor to the bottom right in the picture you see in the film, which is a composite overiap of the 2 [thanks, TBI) to the untouched pillows on Charlie and Fannie's bed on the Left, i've Never had the slightest Hint of a 'eeling that that placement or framing was accidental. My limited experience shooting photos for newspapers backs :hat up; you pay attention to what all you're framing and shoot Nothing outside of what's necessary to convey the ?nost relevant info to the viewer instantly, the photographer, IMO, was intelligent enough to capture and convey Precisely what Charlie intended when he placed the pillows where he did, whether Charlie was conscious of the pillow angle' so common to domestic violence homicides when he was comitting the crimes or not. The 2nd part I've ret to reveal merely confirms this.
many can do what no One can-
together, we Can beat domestic violence-
Matt32
01/06/07 at 07:13 PM
ecalhoun
Ah, the magic of film, and what we did for y'all! When you watch the film again, the main crime scene pic we used is a digitally merged photo that splices the 2 crime scene photos together, so you can see both the bed and the pillows on the floor. Look for it next time, something you won't see anywhere else...
ecalhoun
D 01/12/07 at 10:14 PM
JANE
I am really interested in Dillinger. Seems funny that everyone keeps calling Dillinger a "mobster" or a member of the "mafia". The mafia was and is made up of Italian Crime families who were organized and operated mostly out of Chicago and that geographic area. Dillinger was just a gangster bank robber whose crime spree only lasted a short time after he got out of prison. There isn't found any record anywhere that he killed anybody but law enforcement officers that were chasing him. Doesn't anyone realize how silly it is to call Dillinger a mobster or act like he was member of any Italian organized crime family when speaking of him? Seems like people should research stuff like this before trying to speak on it. It seems pretty easy to understand to me. A "mob hit" is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of" LOL
JANE SCHARVER
01/12/07 at 11:45 PM
epdj
John Dillinger. Somewhere someone said that John Dillinger had went through the house. Well, I have said this before, when Patrick Boyles and I started presenting a program on the Lawson Family 3 years ago, we didn't know that much about them or what happened. But, we wanted to do a program in memory of the family and to help other people understand that things happen in all families. I think Matt, Eric, Maria and The Break Of Dawn Gang felt the same way when they did the film. It has been something more than we could have ever hoped to happen. I never dreamed I would get to meet all of the Lawson and Manring Family members that I have met. Then to think of all the good things that have happened for the Break Of Oawn Gang. So maybe John Dillinger was not there. That is the kind of thing that people like to talk about and now they have had a chance. So many things have been learned from getting to talk to the family members, but yet it is still a mystery what happened on Christmas Day 1929. As one historian said, "So I made a mistake. If I am corrected, then it only means I have learned something new today."
Esther Johnson
01/13/07 at 02:53 AM
ecalhoun
Actually, talking about John Dillinger in connection to the murders falls under a long standing tradition we have here in the south in regards to story telling. It's one of the main differences between an urban Myth and a Rural Myth.
In the Urban Myth, you generally want to tell an outrageous, unbelievable story that stretches what the listener can believe. But in a Rural Myth, there is often an impulse to connect the story back to the larger wodd, to connect with other famous stories that the people have heard of. It adds importance to the whole community to be connected to larger events that people have heard of.
The Dillinger connection to the story fits right in with this tradition. And whether it's true or not, well, it's the south! But on a more serious note, a big lesson from the film for me is that there are real consequences to changing the stories, and let's not forget there are real people and families at the center of all tragic stones, next time we're tempted to add a bit on to our story to make it sound better...
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
01/13/07 at 09:03 AM
Maria
John Dillinger has been described down through the years as a member of organized crime. So has the mafia. John Dillinger has long been synonymous with the mafia...whether right or wrong that's how he is seen and portrayed by many, whatever his official tide...be it mafia, gangster, or just plain common criminal was not and is not the defining part of that story by Stokes County residents, who by the way are not stupid people. And neither is referring to him as a member of the mafia due to bad or inadequate research. It is simply what some of those who have lived through the Lawson murder tragedy refer to as a mob hit by John Dillinger and as such is addressed and discussed that way. The story originated because some people claimed to have seen a note in the Sheriffs office at that time signed by John Dillinger saying that he had been at the lawson funeral that day. Of course John Dillinger could not have been there at that time because it has been proven that he was still in prison at that time (a topic already addressed and discussed in this forum). The point is that when that person or persons saw that note they believed and stated that the murders were a mob hit by John Dillinger and that story took on a life of its own and is still alive today. This was a belief that comforted some of the residents of Stokes County at that time because they could not bear to believe that Charlie Lawson, their relative, their friend, their neighbor, could have done such a terrible thing. It was much easier on them to believe an outsider did it. They were not concerned with whether they had his official title correct or not. Far be it from me to go in and tamper with their comfort zone by saying "that's the silliest thing I've ever heard."
Maria
01/13/07 at 10:46 AM
ladebug
Jane, I am taking a quote from your last post
"It seems pretty easy to understand to me. LOL
We all have different levels of understanding and that is why a message board is so much fun..(earning something new. At this board we try and be tolerant of each other and respect each opinion. So your quote to me is a bit humorous since you added those same words about not understanding our layout on the message board. LOL
Ladebug
01/13/07 at 11:03 AM
Maria
Right on Ladebug. What a delight it is when you're in here.
Maria
01/13/07 at 06:06 PM
Hymes
No matter how you describe John Dillinger, he was a criminal. Ouring his short crime wave, he was considered the FBI's most wanted man & Public Enemy # 1, From what I read, he visited the Lawson's farm on or about Sunday Dec. 12th, 1933 on his way to a trip to Florida. Marion Lawson was at the cabin collecting money for the tour of the farm when Deputy Sheriff Hill Hampton stopped by. Three well dressed men & three females visited the farm together, when Hill Hampton returned home that night, he found a note on his door. The note made a reference to Dillinger's visit to the farm that day & that Hill did not recognize him. The note was signed by John Dillinger. Some people do not believe that Dillinger was killed by Melvin Purvis & the FBI after being setup by 'The Lady in Red". A link to wikipedia about Oillinger is below. The first paragraph of the trivia section is a story that I've have heard before except this glass jar was at the Smithsonian Institute.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger
Hymes
01/13/07 at 08:06 PM
cephus
just a thought i think we could all agree Al Capone was in the mob Baby Face Nelson who was in Dillinger's gang also worked for Capone as a mob enforcer.
cephus
01/13/07 at 08:09 PM
Maria
way to go Cephus. That's the connection to the mafia. Even though John Dillinger was not a member of the mafia he hung with someone who was. Thanks
Maria
01/15/07 at 04:35 PM
lilred1984
i dont know if any of u had herd the thing going around about people believeing that Charlies oldest son author had killed the family?..i know a few people that say the reason they think author killed the family was becouse l.marie was pregnant by author and Charlie had found out and confrounted him that morning while we was suppost be be going "'hunting'and he killed charlie(where they found his bodyjthen proceeded to kill the others. 2. alot of people think this becouse he was the only one that survived. 3.the last ive herd was people said he done it cause marie was pregnant by charlie and author found out and flipped out on charlie... but u hear a lot of stories about how ironic it was that author lived and the rest died...people argue that if charlie had any intentions on killing his family why dident| he kill author too that morning before he left to go hunting?'??... but when i spoke to mr.browder he said "author left just in time to escape the fate of the others"....but i do think it is kinda odd that author lived becouse in a way if u think about it if charlie wanted his family dead nothing could have stopped him from killing author too that morning all he would have had to do was killed him before he left to go hunting...and one more thing dont u think if charlie wanted his hole family dead he would have waited for author to get back and kill him too before he killed himself'...but mr. browder blames charlie for it all,he says charlie did it and i belive him
Lil Red
01/15/07 at 05:08 PM
Maria
Hi Lilred,
Interesting theory you posted about Arthur. I've heard that rumor about Arthur before but am not sure I buy that one. But to be honest with you lilred, your post has me confused and turned around basackwards. Charlie was the last one to die and he did so while hundreds of people were standing in his front yard when the shot that was fired that killed charlie was heard by them and no one saw or heard anyone else in the woods when they ran in there and found Charlie.
Maria
01/15/07 at 06:42 PM
cephus
in the book from 1990 it tells of a young man that was in the house with Marie when Charlie shot Fannie and he and Marie went to the window when he saw what had happened he went out the back. Does anyone know who he was is he still living he was a witness.
01/15/07 at 07:03 PM
MARIA
Oh gosh Cephus you would have to ask that question. I've heard such conflicting tales about that one that I no longer believe there was someone else there that morning. I've heard 3 different names mentioned. And none of the 3 prove out.The latest being a man still living who was nine years old at the time. His name is Hassell Miller. This man, who was nine years old at the time he was suppose to be the person there, was interviewed 18 years ago and he did not say back then that he was the one. He named Abe Heath who it couldn't possibly have been. So why would this man give another person's name when he was interviewed then. This man now has Alzheimer's and his caretaker supposedly named him as the witness. Or so I've been told. WC/BC said the author knew then who it was but because of the man's age and poor health refused to name him. So why was he named in The Meaning of our tears edition? Which by the way is different than the name I was given by a person who claimed to be the only one who knew. I really don't know and I don't think anyone else does even if they say they do. I could be wrong of course but that's what happens when the same person contradicts their self.
Maria
01/15/D7 at 07:09 PM
sissy
I just don't think there was anyone else there. If so they would have been killed too.
sissy
01/15/07 at 07:20 PM
Maria
Like you Sissy I believe no one else was there or that person too would have been killed. I do know that Sanders Lawson and Abe Heath were there the night before the killings but not the day of. At least that's what I've heard from several people and that is what I believe...whether it's right or wrong.
Maria
01/15/07 at 08:50 PM
cephus
When I first read the book I all ways thought that part was a little thin like sissy said why was he not killed or interviewed at the time. I have not read the second book yet.
cephus
01/15/07 at 10:52 PM
Hymes
When I first read in the W-S Journal about this doc being filmed, there was a picture with the article, with a scene being filmed with a young boy running out of the back door of the cabin & stated that he was a witness to the murders, was this scene kept out of the doc because it could not be verified?
Hymes
01/16/07 at 01:04 AM
Matt32
good eye, hymes! i almost posted earlier saying 'Mystery Boy's' only verified sighting came in the newspaper article, but you beat me to it-
many can do what no One can-
together, we Can beat domestic violence-
Matt32
01/16/07 at 07:13 PM
ecalhoun
I think that someone was there that day, but it is very hard to identify. If the fate of Arthur's children is Stokes County's #1 secret, than this is #2. And I think it's been a secret not because the boy ran away - nobody was stopping Charlie that day - but because the family didn't do anything about it. In the film, there is another report of a family who "heard the screams, heard the gunshots", but didn't come to help either. Remember at this time, what a man did at his house was not supposed to be anyone else's business. But even if this was the social norm, I think a few families had some real guilt to deal with about that day. Please note, this is my PERSONAL opinion here.
As for why it wasn't in the film, part of the problem was verifying it. we didn't want to level hurtful allegations at anyone. We want to create a debate in this (and other) community about domestic violence, but you always have to have compassion for people, and be aware that what you say effects people.
But also, it didn't fit in very neatly. To tell that part of the story, if it was true, we would have to go into why no one did anything about it, which dragged a bit. we went with the more subtle approach, when you hear later that some people did hear, and we left it open by saying that a neighbor was there for target practice, but we never say when or how he leaves...
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
01/19/07 at 01:03 PM
JANE
Eric, I also feel that there was someone else there that day. From reading the second book and from the interview in the film which backs up the Miller story. It must have been a horrible thing to have seen.
JANE SCHARVER
01/19/07 at 01:38 PM
sissy
I guess that will be another thing we will never know for sure.
But it is hard for me to believe that if anyone else was there they made it away alive.
sissy
01/28/07 at 01:15 PM
angiemac4
Hello,
My thoughts on why Charlie Lawson did what he did are these, they can't be verified but they are just what I think. He was a man who liked to be in control of his life and his family. I don't think he had a brain injury at least not one that prevented planning a premeditated murder which is what we have here in my opinion. He bought all new clothes had a picture took, sent the oldest boy to town. Author being the oldest and by all reports stronger than his father could have prevented him killing at least some of the family members. I believe he felt he was losing control of his family with Arther standing up to him and Marie planning to marry, someone he did not approve of and Fanny choosing a church he did not approve of he may have felt he was losing control. I also believe his plan was to also kill Aurthur when he returned form town but the bodies where discovered before his return and then his plan was foiled, thus him taking his own life in order to end it all. I believe his original plan was to kill them all, if he couldn't keep control then no one else was going to have the chance. Just my opinion.
Angie
01/28/07 at 01:28 PM
Maria
Good opinion Angie. I believe he did have those particular stress factors in his life at the time. Although I believe differently on one part of one of those factors, that only serves to make this forum all the more interesting. You made some great points here. Thanks.
Maria
sissy
some people think that charlie lawson did not kill his family I was wondering what you all thought about that theory. From what I have read and heard everyone said that he loved his family but he was very bad tempered. You hate to think that someone would really kill their family, I guess everyone has an opinion. I believe he did kill them but for what reason who knows. I'm just looking for others opinions on the matter.
sissy
01/04/07 at 06:42 PM
Maria
Hi SISSY,
Like you. I personally believe it was Charlie Lawson himself who killed his family. Two other scenarios that have been presented are 1. that a black man with whom Charlie Lawson had gotten into a fight with at a tobacco warehouse in Winston-Salem 2 years earlier came out to Charlie's house and killed Charlie and his family out of revenge. And 2. that it was a mob hit by John Dillinger. I have several reasons why I don't believe those 2 theories. One reason is that a member of the mafia would not have stopped after killing everyone and placed pillows under their heads, closed their eyes, and folded their arms across their chests. I've never heard of the Mafia doing that. That MO (method of operation) is not their style. Also, some of the family Fannie, Marie, Carrie, and Maybelle were shot while the baby Marylou and James and Raymond were bludgeoned. But even the ones who were shot were also bludgeoned. But not Charlie. He was only shot. Why was his head not bludgeoned? Probably because after shooting himself he could not sit up and beat his own skull in. Also, it's been proven that John Dillenger was in prison at the time and did not get out until 4 or 5 years later. I don't believe the "a black man did it" theory either. The shotgun and rifle that were used in the killings were found on the ground beside Charlie's body. They were proven to be the weapons used. Why would this black man (and how ironic no one knew his name) come to murder Charlie Lawson and his family and at the same time come empty handed. Apparently he didn't have his own guns or why would he have used Charlie's. Charlie was at home with his family that day so how could a man come up to his house and go get Charlie's guns off the wall and start shooting everyone. Believe me, Charlie would have stopped that man. No way would he have been able to kill all those people then stop and close each ones eyes, put pillows under their heads, and fold their arms across their chests then take Charlie into the woods and take 4 hours to kill him. What? Were they just standing there talking about why he had done it and wait there while over 100 neighbors, friends, and family standing in Charlie's front yard, most of them armed with guns themselves, shoot Charlie? Not bloody likely. Not even in the realm of possibility. Also, 2 unfinished notes that were written by Charlie Lawson were found that day in his coat pocket along with the pencil used to write the notes. One note said: "Blame no one but I." The other one said: "Trouble will cause". A family member told the sherriff that it was Charlie's handwriting. Also found in Charlie's coat pocket was $61.00 in cash. Why would someone plant those notes in Charlie's coat pocket and not take the money? These of course are just my opinions. Why did Charlie do it? I honestly don't know.
Maria
01/04/07 at 08:41 PM
sissy
yes i don't believe someone came in and said i'm gonna kill you all but wait i forgot my gun can i use yours.
sissy
01/05/07 at 07:12 PM
ecalhoun
For me, the piece of evidence that points most to Charlie being the killer is the pillows. If you notice the crime scene photo of the mantle, you'll see a bed to the left. This was Charlie and Fannie's bed. You'll also see the pillows on the ground where they were placed under the children's heads. However, the pillows are still on Charlie and Fannie's bed. This means that whoever got the pillows knew they were specifically getting the children's pillows. If someone else did it, and for some reason wanted to place the pillows under their heads, I would think they would grab the closest pillows available, instead of going upstairs for other pillows.
The ritual of putting the children to "bed" is also one that you do see in domestic violence homicides, and isn't really done elsewhere. It isn't common, but it isn't unknown, and points to a deep personal connection between the killer and the victims.
Eric
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
01/05/07 at 07:21 PM
jackhammer
Very interesting point about the pillows, Ehc. I hadn't noticed that at all. You're right, why wouldn't someone just take the nearest pillows to place under their heads.
I guess that fact just sealed it in my head as to whether it was Charlie or not.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis_
jackhammer
01/05/07 at 07:26 PM
Maria
Love your reply Eric. Great point made
MARIA
01/05/07 at 10:53 PM
Matt32
That's what sealed the deal for a lot of us during production. It's interesting because it isn't readily noticeable, (and nere's a world exclusive secret revealed for the 1st time!) and it was only when we discovered that there wasn't one rjicture taken of the crime scene, but Two. the reason for the confusion is because the photographer only turned his lead slightly between the 2 shots to capture just a little bit more on each side (wait'll you hear the proof on the Right side revelation that confirms our suspicions, but for now we'll stick to the Left side 'extra portion'), and it's my belief :hat the reason he did this was specifically to capture the pillows, since the composite's edges neatly bracket the Dloody pillows on the floor to the bottom right in the picture you see in the film, which is a composite overiap of the 2 [thanks, TBI) to the untouched pillows on Charlie and Fannie's bed on the Left, i've Never had the slightest Hint of a 'eeling that that placement or framing was accidental. My limited experience shooting photos for newspapers backs :hat up; you pay attention to what all you're framing and shoot Nothing outside of what's necessary to convey the ?nost relevant info to the viewer instantly, the photographer, IMO, was intelligent enough to capture and convey Precisely what Charlie intended when he placed the pillows where he did, whether Charlie was conscious of the pillow angle' so common to domestic violence homicides when he was comitting the crimes or not. The 2nd part I've ret to reveal merely confirms this.
many can do what no One can-
together, we Can beat domestic violence-
Matt32
01/06/07 at 07:13 PM
ecalhoun
Ah, the magic of film, and what we did for y'all! When you watch the film again, the main crime scene pic we used is a digitally merged photo that splices the 2 crime scene photos together, so you can see both the bed and the pillows on the floor. Look for it next time, something you won't see anywhere else...
ecalhoun
D 01/12/07 at 10:14 PM
JANE
I am really interested in Dillinger. Seems funny that everyone keeps calling Dillinger a "mobster" or a member of the "mafia". The mafia was and is made up of Italian Crime families who were organized and operated mostly out of Chicago and that geographic area. Dillinger was just a gangster bank robber whose crime spree only lasted a short time after he got out of prison. There isn't found any record anywhere that he killed anybody but law enforcement officers that were chasing him. Doesn't anyone realize how silly it is to call Dillinger a mobster or act like he was member of any Italian organized crime family when speaking of him? Seems like people should research stuff like this before trying to speak on it. It seems pretty easy to understand to me. A "mob hit" is one of the silliest things I've ever heard of" LOL
JANE SCHARVER
01/12/07 at 11:45 PM
epdj
John Dillinger. Somewhere someone said that John Dillinger had went through the house. Well, I have said this before, when Patrick Boyles and I started presenting a program on the Lawson Family 3 years ago, we didn't know that much about them or what happened. But, we wanted to do a program in memory of the family and to help other people understand that things happen in all families. I think Matt, Eric, Maria and The Break Of Dawn Gang felt the same way when they did the film. It has been something more than we could have ever hoped to happen. I never dreamed I would get to meet all of the Lawson and Manring Family members that I have met. Then to think of all the good things that have happened for the Break Of Oawn Gang. So maybe John Dillinger was not there. That is the kind of thing that people like to talk about and now they have had a chance. So many things have been learned from getting to talk to the family members, but yet it is still a mystery what happened on Christmas Day 1929. As one historian said, "So I made a mistake. If I am corrected, then it only means I have learned something new today."
Esther Johnson
01/13/07 at 02:53 AM
ecalhoun
Actually, talking about John Dillinger in connection to the murders falls under a long standing tradition we have here in the south in regards to story telling. It's one of the main differences between an urban Myth and a Rural Myth.
In the Urban Myth, you generally want to tell an outrageous, unbelievable story that stretches what the listener can believe. But in a Rural Myth, there is often an impulse to connect the story back to the larger wodd, to connect with other famous stories that the people have heard of. It adds importance to the whole community to be connected to larger events that people have heard of.
The Dillinger connection to the story fits right in with this tradition. And whether it's true or not, well, it's the south! But on a more serious note, a big lesson from the film for me is that there are real consequences to changing the stories, and let's not forget there are real people and families at the center of all tragic stones, next time we're tempted to add a bit on to our story to make it sound better...
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
01/13/07 at 09:03 AM
Maria
John Dillinger has been described down through the years as a member of organized crime. So has the mafia. John Dillinger has long been synonymous with the mafia...whether right or wrong that's how he is seen and portrayed by many, whatever his official tide...be it mafia, gangster, or just plain common criminal was not and is not the defining part of that story by Stokes County residents, who by the way are not stupid people. And neither is referring to him as a member of the mafia due to bad or inadequate research. It is simply what some of those who have lived through the Lawson murder tragedy refer to as a mob hit by John Dillinger and as such is addressed and discussed that way. The story originated because some people claimed to have seen a note in the Sheriffs office at that time signed by John Dillinger saying that he had been at the lawson funeral that day. Of course John Dillinger could not have been there at that time because it has been proven that he was still in prison at that time (a topic already addressed and discussed in this forum). The point is that when that person or persons saw that note they believed and stated that the murders were a mob hit by John Dillinger and that story took on a life of its own and is still alive today. This was a belief that comforted some of the residents of Stokes County at that time because they could not bear to believe that Charlie Lawson, their relative, their friend, their neighbor, could have done such a terrible thing. It was much easier on them to believe an outsider did it. They were not concerned with whether they had his official title correct or not. Far be it from me to go in and tamper with their comfort zone by saying "that's the silliest thing I've ever heard."
Maria
01/13/07 at 10:46 AM
ladebug
Jane, I am taking a quote from your last post
"It seems pretty easy to understand to me. LOL
We all have different levels of understanding and that is why a message board is so much fun..(earning something new. At this board we try and be tolerant of each other and respect each opinion. So your quote to me is a bit humorous since you added those same words about not understanding our layout on the message board. LOL
Ladebug
01/13/07 at 11:03 AM
Maria
Right on Ladebug. What a delight it is when you're in here.
Maria
01/13/07 at 06:06 PM
Hymes
No matter how you describe John Dillinger, he was a criminal. Ouring his short crime wave, he was considered the FBI's most wanted man & Public Enemy # 1, From what I read, he visited the Lawson's farm on or about Sunday Dec. 12th, 1933 on his way to a trip to Florida. Marion Lawson was at the cabin collecting money for the tour of the farm when Deputy Sheriff Hill Hampton stopped by. Three well dressed men & three females visited the farm together, when Hill Hampton returned home that night, he found a note on his door. The note made a reference to Dillinger's visit to the farm that day & that Hill did not recognize him. The note was signed by John Dillinger. Some people do not believe that Dillinger was killed by Melvin Purvis & the FBI after being setup by 'The Lady in Red". A link to wikipedia about Oillinger is below. The first paragraph of the trivia section is a story that I've have heard before except this glass jar was at the Smithsonian Institute.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger
Hymes
01/13/07 at 08:06 PM
cephus
just a thought i think we could all agree Al Capone was in the mob Baby Face Nelson who was in Dillinger's gang also worked for Capone as a mob enforcer.
cephus
01/13/07 at 08:09 PM
Maria
way to go Cephus. That's the connection to the mafia. Even though John Dillinger was not a member of the mafia he hung with someone who was. Thanks
Maria
01/15/07 at 04:35 PM
lilred1984
i dont know if any of u had herd the thing going around about people believeing that Charlies oldest son author had killed the family?..i know a few people that say the reason they think author killed the family was becouse l.marie was pregnant by author and Charlie had found out and confrounted him that morning while we was suppost be be going "'hunting'and he killed charlie(where they found his bodyjthen proceeded to kill the others. 2. alot of people think this becouse he was the only one that survived. 3.the last ive herd was people said he done it cause marie was pregnant by charlie and author found out and flipped out on charlie... but u hear a lot of stories about how ironic it was that author lived and the rest died...people argue that if charlie had any intentions on killing his family why dident| he kill author too that morning before he left to go hunting?'??... but when i spoke to mr.browder he said "author left just in time to escape the fate of the others"....but i do think it is kinda odd that author lived becouse in a way if u think about it if charlie wanted his family dead nothing could have stopped him from killing author too that morning all he would have had to do was killed him before he left to go hunting...and one more thing dont u think if charlie wanted his hole family dead he would have waited for author to get back and kill him too before he killed himself'...but mr. browder blames charlie for it all,he says charlie did it and i belive him
Lil Red
01/15/07 at 05:08 PM
Maria
Hi Lilred,
Interesting theory you posted about Arthur. I've heard that rumor about Arthur before but am not sure I buy that one. But to be honest with you lilred, your post has me confused and turned around basackwards. Charlie was the last one to die and he did so while hundreds of people were standing in his front yard when the shot that was fired that killed charlie was heard by them and no one saw or heard anyone else in the woods when they ran in there and found Charlie.
Maria
01/15/07 at 06:42 PM
cephus
in the book from 1990 it tells of a young man that was in the house with Marie when Charlie shot Fannie and he and Marie went to the window when he saw what had happened he went out the back. Does anyone know who he was is he still living he was a witness.
01/15/07 at 07:03 PM
MARIA
Oh gosh Cephus you would have to ask that question. I've heard such conflicting tales about that one that I no longer believe there was someone else there that morning. I've heard 3 different names mentioned. And none of the 3 prove out.The latest being a man still living who was nine years old at the time. His name is Hassell Miller. This man, who was nine years old at the time he was suppose to be the person there, was interviewed 18 years ago and he did not say back then that he was the one. He named Abe Heath who it couldn't possibly have been. So why would this man give another person's name when he was interviewed then. This man now has Alzheimer's and his caretaker supposedly named him as the witness. Or so I've been told. WC/BC said the author knew then who it was but because of the man's age and poor health refused to name him. So why was he named in The Meaning of our tears edition? Which by the way is different than the name I was given by a person who claimed to be the only one who knew. I really don't know and I don't think anyone else does even if they say they do. I could be wrong of course but that's what happens when the same person contradicts their self.
Maria
01/15/D7 at 07:09 PM
sissy
I just don't think there was anyone else there. If so they would have been killed too.
sissy
01/15/07 at 07:20 PM
Maria
Like you Sissy I believe no one else was there or that person too would have been killed. I do know that Sanders Lawson and Abe Heath were there the night before the killings but not the day of. At least that's what I've heard from several people and that is what I believe...whether it's right or wrong.
Maria
01/15/07 at 08:50 PM
cephus
When I first read the book I all ways thought that part was a little thin like sissy said why was he not killed or interviewed at the time. I have not read the second book yet.
cephus
01/15/07 at 10:52 PM
Hymes
When I first read in the W-S Journal about this doc being filmed, there was a picture with the article, with a scene being filmed with a young boy running out of the back door of the cabin & stated that he was a witness to the murders, was this scene kept out of the doc because it could not be verified?
Hymes
01/16/07 at 01:04 AM
Matt32
good eye, hymes! i almost posted earlier saying 'Mystery Boy's' only verified sighting came in the newspaper article, but you beat me to it-
many can do what no One can-
together, we Can beat domestic violence-
Matt32
01/16/07 at 07:13 PM
ecalhoun
I think that someone was there that day, but it is very hard to identify. If the fate of Arthur's children is Stokes County's #1 secret, than this is #2. And I think it's been a secret not because the boy ran away - nobody was stopping Charlie that day - but because the family didn't do anything about it. In the film, there is another report of a family who "heard the screams, heard the gunshots", but didn't come to help either. Remember at this time, what a man did at his house was not supposed to be anyone else's business. But even if this was the social norm, I think a few families had some real guilt to deal with about that day. Please note, this is my PERSONAL opinion here.
As for why it wasn't in the film, part of the problem was verifying it. we didn't want to level hurtful allegations at anyone. We want to create a debate in this (and other) community about domestic violence, but you always have to have compassion for people, and be aware that what you say effects people.
But also, it didn't fit in very neatly. To tell that part of the story, if it was true, we would have to go into why no one did anything about it, which dragged a bit. we went with the more subtle approach, when you hear later that some people did hear, and we left it open by saying that a neighbor was there for target practice, but we never say when or how he leaves...
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
01/19/07 at 01:03 PM
JANE
Eric, I also feel that there was someone else there that day. From reading the second book and from the interview in the film which backs up the Miller story. It must have been a horrible thing to have seen.
JANE SCHARVER
01/19/07 at 01:38 PM
sissy
I guess that will be another thing we will never know for sure.
But it is hard for me to believe that if anyone else was there they made it away alive.
sissy
01/28/07 at 01:15 PM
angiemac4
Hello,
My thoughts on why Charlie Lawson did what he did are these, they can't be verified but they are just what I think. He was a man who liked to be in control of his life and his family. I don't think he had a brain injury at least not one that prevented planning a premeditated murder which is what we have here in my opinion. He bought all new clothes had a picture took, sent the oldest boy to town. Author being the oldest and by all reports stronger than his father could have prevented him killing at least some of the family members. I believe he felt he was losing control of his family with Arther standing up to him and Marie planning to marry, someone he did not approve of and Fanny choosing a church he did not approve of he may have felt he was losing control. I also believe his plan was to also kill Aurthur when he returned form town but the bodies where discovered before his return and then his plan was foiled, thus him taking his own life in order to end it all. I believe his original plan was to kill them all, if he couldn't keep control then no one else was going to have the chance. Just my opinion.
Angie
01/28/07 at 01:28 PM
Maria
Good opinion Angie. I believe he did have those particular stress factors in his life at the time. Although I believe differently on one part of one of those factors, that only serves to make this forum all the more interesting. You made some great points here. Thanks.
Maria