Post by Brian on Jun 22, 2009 1:38:09 GMT -5
02/02/07 3t 02:38 PM
linda
I have read both books and it said they thought Marie was pregnant with Charlie's baby, why has no one brought this subject up on this forum? I would like to know how Fannie couldn't see that something like this was happening in her house with this family being so close. Could this baby be the boyfriend's that she was to see on Christmas Day? If the doctors looked at the bodies when they were shot could they not tell if she was with child or not? Just wondering?
??
linda smith
02/02/07 at 02:57 PM
Maria
We "have' brought this up before Linda. Several times. Some people say Marie was pregnent with her father's baby. Some people say she was pregnent but not by her father but by her boyfriend. And some people say that while all the women folke knew the truth none of the men did. And others say they don't believe Marie was pregnent at all. We can never know for certain because too many years have passed since her death for any DNA to be useful in determing if she was or wasn't. Our goal in the documentary was not to prove if she was or wasn't and if so by whom. Our goal was to let anyone who was close to the story have a voice in the documentary if they wanted to. And though opinions and beliefs differed among those interviewed it was our goal to let the audience hear EACH of them speak their belief and then let the audience make their own decisions. Even so, whatever any of us believe about this part of the tragedy based on what we hear, we can still never know FOR CERTAIN. No proof exists one way or the other.
Maria
02/02/07 at 03:16 PM
sissy
In my opinion, Marie was pregnant, and if it was the boyfriends, Charlie would not have killed his whole family. He would have killed the boyfriend and maybe Marie. I think she was pregnant by Charlie and the guilt not of what he had done but from getting caught drove him to murder.
sissy
02/02/07 at 03:26 PM
Maria
Oh my Sissy, you ARE the brave one in here.
Maria
02/02/07 at 03:28 PM
sissy
Since I found out I was kin I feel like I have the right to say what I feel.
sissy
02/02/07 at 03:31 PM
Maria
Jackhammer, you wanna come give Sissy a talking to. I can't take her anywhere.!! Maria
MARIA
02/02/07 at 05:55 PM
jackhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
Since I found out I was kin I feel like I have the right to say what I feel.
Sissy, I think because you are kin, you definitely have more right to say what you do, than I do. I agree with what you said about Charlie. I have nothing whatsoever to base my "opinion" on, about this subject, other than what Marie's cousin Stella said, what some rumors at the time were, and how Marie looks in the family portrait (she has no waistline at all). With that said, I think that if we're looking for a motive, I think the pregnancy is about as good a motive as any, and actually it may just be the most logical motive. If we try to make a pregnancy work into a motive, we have to look at it a couple of ways. If it were her boyfriend's baby, and Charlie found out, he may kill the boyfriend, kill Marie, and then kill himself. Why kill the whole family if he was upset or angry at his daughter? If it was indeed Charlie's baby, well he had a bit of a deadline (no pun intended) here. If he was the father of his new grandchild, how could he explain that to his wife, his mother, or his brothers? It would have to weigh on him tremendously, and I can see where it would make him lose sleep, and be just a plain wreck trying to figure out what to do. As she was starting to "show", the pressure of what to do had to be mounting. One thing that I thought about when I saw the portrait was, I wondered if Charlie had gone to have the portrait made to give as a Christmas present to his mother and other family members. Perhaps when he saw just how pregnant Marie looked on the photos, he realized that he couldn't do that (maybe the portrait made her look more pregnant than she did in real life). Anyway, now he was kind of stuck as to getting a present for them, and here it was Christmas Day. So perhaps the pressure in the last couple of days prior to Christmas led him to come up with the answer to kill them all, and take the secret of his fatherhood with him, and save the rest of his family the shame of having a murderer in their family. Perhaps far-fetched, but I believe that anyone that is capable of murdering his whole family, is not thinking very logically. All of what I just wrote is pure speculation. None of it is based on any known facts (other than the fact that he killed his family. And there are some that would dispute that). Just my speculation, fueled by a desire to try to understand how and why a man would kill his wife and children, and then himself.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/02/07 at 06:23 PM
Maria
I certainly agree with you all the way on this one Jackhammer. And I am very impressed with your methods of reasoning and deduction. Very good. Thanks for your wonderful insight on this sad and terrible part of the story.
Maria
02/02/07 at 07:50 PM
ladebug
I would think from reports of domestic violence over the years, it would be more the norm to hear a mother knew about a daughter being molested and not say a thing about it. in a situation with this scenario I guess the mother would be terrified to confide her fears to friends or family. Would she feel the husband would hurt her for telling or maybe the thought that somehow she was not enough for her husband? Wow.so many questions. I would like to hear from anyone who might know from experience If any of my ideas might be true.
ladebug
02/02/07 3t 08:59 PM
angiemac4
Hello everyone,
Marie may have been with child, she does look a little big in the picture. It may have been Charlie's, but I don't feel this was the reason he killed the family. If she where with child he could have easily denied it being his, even if it looked just like him, after all it could look like him even if he wasn't the father, he would still be the grandfather, and DNA testing wasn't thought of in those days, the father could be who ever the mother said he was no real way to prove paternity. My youngest is the spiting image of my grandmother, because they are related not for any other reason. As I stated in another thread, I feel he planned to kill the entire family including Arthur before he took them into town for the portrait. He sent Arthur away, killed the family and was waiting for his return so he could finish the job, but the hunting party that found the bodies came by the house before Arthur returned. Marie being pregnant was irrelevant. And besides that, women back in those days where not viewed the same as they are today, they where, for lack of a better word, treated by a lot of men as property, and they took love, honer and OBEY to the extreme sometimes, not all men mind you, but a lot. Also incest was more common as well, in my opinion. We will never know the why of his actions, only the results of them. Domestic violence is serous, the Lady in the video, who's daughter was killed, that is real. My son is a volunteer fire and rescue member of our local dept. he was second on the seen of this murder, the one at the end of the video. They didn't know where the guy was, if he was still in the house or not, my son was not armed and neither was the paramedics who responded. The guy was found hiding in a tree not far from the house. And my son said he will never forget the scene, she was stabbed repeatedly, and was dead at the scene, he said momma I've seen a lot, heart attacks wrecks suicides, overdoses, but this was the worst call I ever ran, the blood was everywhere. He said people are stupid to do this kind of thing. I said yes they are.
Angie
02/02/07 at 09:04 PM
Maria
From relatives I've spoken with Ladebug and also from other sources, Fannie did know about Marie's pregnancy and the identity of the Father and confided this to several female relatives. "All the women folk knew" is what I was told. But the women said nothing to the men because as I heard from someone in the know that in those days and time if the men knew about what Charlie did to his daughter they would have lynched him and this the women all knew. The men were told only after Charlie had killed his family and himself. And I believe what the man told me. There is much more to this part of the story but this is all I feel comfortable revealing.
Maria
02/02/07 at 09:26 PM
capshsb
I have just found this site, due to the film being sent to my family, and as I read i see sissy you must be related to me somehow, I in fact am Charlies great granddaughter. I find it very unsettling how there are forums set up about a tragedy that no one has ever proven the killer but all think Charlie was a monster. Arthur was my grandfather, and he told his family he never thought his daddy did it or he wouldnt have sent him off that day. But some people like the morbid fasination of death it seems.
capshsb
02/02/07 at 09:45 PM
jackhammer
Hi capshsb.
I was wondering if you might share with us any thoughts on who you might think had done this to your great- grandparents, and your aunts and uncles. Was there much talk about this story when you were growing up?
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/02/07 at 10:07 PM
sissy
Hello capshsb,
I'm not fascinated with death I'm fascinated with this story. Yes I believe that Charlie killed his family that day and exactly for the reason that you stated he sent Arthur away. He knew that Arthur was the only one who could stop him. No other evidence has ever been found that he did not do it. Even the sheriff who was on the scene that day pronounced Charlie as the killer. As for Charlie being called a monster I have never heard him called that, everyone said that he loved his family, I am sure in his own sad sick way he did.
sissy
02/02/07 at 10:35 PM
Matt32
Hi Caps,
Thanks for finding me and contacting me.
You're right; you do have many relatives in this area who would Love to hear from you. I'll be happy to pass along their contact info if you're interested. Which brings me to the next point; why we never contacted you before. Believe me when I tell you that out of all the secrets and mysteries surrounding this legendary tragedy that befell your family, your precise whereabouts and those of all of Arthur 'Buck' Lawson's children was the most well guarded secret in Stokes County for the last 61yrs. In other words, we were never given a chance to contact you, hard as we tried to discover how to. Stokes County protected you from any prying eyes successfully. The story that we received from Everyone was that after Arthur died, Nina took the children and got as far away from Stokes County as she could go, because she was tired of being asked questions they hadn't any answers for. Everyone begged us to respect your privacy, and so we did.
But that doesn't mean that the family remaining here didn't still suffer the enduring legacy of the media's fascination with this story, and that's a lot of what you'll hear in our film; their feelings, thoughts, opinions, and recollections based on the story they grew up with being whispered all around them in their community and handed down from each generation to the next by their family. Both the Lawsons and the Manrings, the Branches, Hamptons, Watts, Montgomerys, and more, many more on down through many lines now...
Which brings me to the next point; why won't we let this story die? We are far from the first to report on this story and we're not the ones who put it in the history books, insuring the story's immortality, but so far as I know, we Are the first to take a significant percentage of the profits Of our reporting and put them toward a worthy cause, which you can find out more about from the link on our front page saying Domestic Violence 3 Steps. In short, our immediate goal is the first battered women's shelter up and operational in Stokes County before the beginning of the 2007 school year.
But to answer your question as to 'proof Charlie committed the crime, the first responders, Dr. Helsabeck convened a jury on the spot consisting of Sheriff Taylor and others who declared Charlie guilty of the crime, and thus you'll find there was never any investigation. In every subsequent article written about the subject over the next 77yrs, Charlie was pronounced guilty by the reporter, author, or TV news anchor, not to mention in the ballad written by Walter 'Kid' Smith and the Carolina Buddies in 1930. Since the song went on to become a classic covered by many legendary performers over the years, it's virtually guaranteed that as long as there's bluegrass, this story will survive. However, that being said, we did interview a member of the Lawson family who believed Charlie didn't commit the crimes and we gave them room in our film to explain their thoughts and opinions. We tried diligently all the way through this to respect every opinion voiced by anyone demonstrably affected by this story and to treat everyone equally. We didn't come here to solve the mystery, but to report on it in such a way as to reframe the debates surrounding it into ones that can prevent future tragedies.
Again, if there's any family we can put you in touch with, we'd be more than happy to, and we have more pictures than we got into the film, so if you're interested, we'd love to share them with you. Please believe me when I say it's truly an honor to finally hear from you, and I look forward to hearing back from you when you get a chance, and again, thank you for contacting me.
Matt Hodges
02/02/07 at 10:49 PM
jackhammer
This is just my opinion, but I feel that the majority of the people that have posted on this message board believe that Charlie was responsible for the deaths of his family. Not everyone here, but the majority. However, I know that folks here would like to know the opinion/s of other family members as well. I believe that all of the evidence in this case is circumstantial. And while it is pretty overwhelming, we'll probably never be 100% sure. I, for one, would welcome any theories brought forth by decendants of this family.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/03/07 at 10:32 AM
ladebug
Quote:
Originally Posted by capshsb
I find it very unsettling how there are forums set up about a tragedy that no one has ever proven the killer but all think Charlie was a monster.
If you search all over the Internet you will find a zillion blogs and true crime sites talking about any number of stories. This forum was set up to explore the many facets of your family story and how it still effects so many in the rural community. If you moved to a whole different part of the country this story could not possibly touch you as it has those smack dab in the middle of everyday life. I would encourage you to begin a search for your roots and embrace it, good or bad, this is your history so it may never be repeated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capshsb
Arthur was my grandfather, and he told his family he never thought his daddy did it or he wouldn't have sent him off that day. But some people like the morbid fascination of death it seems. As for this quote..if you do a search under Ladebug and my posts.you will find I had an experience where my mom told me all my life that she had been abandoned at birth so her mom could get away. When I began my family genealogy and found records with facts I realized my mom was never given up. Her mom was in an abusive relationship and for a time left my mom with her grandparents for safely reasons. See how for my moms 60+ years she never looked to find HER real truth. Good hunting and get back with us here.
Ladebug
02/03/07 at 06:55 PM
douglasboulding
DEAR CAPSHSB hope this finds you all well. I am Doug my father was Hill Boulding Charlie was his uncle, he and my mom spent a lot of time with uncle Charlie aunt Fannie and the kids. I myself stayed and worked with uncle George and aunt Nina Lawson till there deaths he was Charlies brother, my dads mom was Etta Lawson Charlies sister, my grandmother. I am glad to hear you all are doing good . We often wondered what ever happened to you all. You know I have never thought of Charlie as a monster, he was just a very sick man. People back then did not know about mental illness, and if they did it wasn't much. You know we will never know what really happened that day, but god knows and that is all that really means anything. I know what my mom and dad said about uncle Charlie and family. They loved them very much they were very close, they went up to see them very often spending a week at a time helping work the fields. My dad has told me many times of the last time they were with them. It was about 3 weeks before the murders dad went up to help uncle Charlie stay up in the barn and cure the tobacco. Back then the heaters had to be kept on a study heat, which meant staying up all night. Aunt Fannie had ask my dad to come up and help cause Charlie was never sleeping. He and Charlie stayed in the barn that night and mom at the house with aunt Fannie. She told my mom how strange charlie was acting, how he walked around crying day and night, always praying never sleeping . I remember my dad telling me how sorry he felt for him. It just broke there hearts to see him that way. He was a sick man, his brother Marion came there to take him for help about 3 wks before the murders to see a doctor in Winston Salem. When it came time for him to leave the house he came out to the car suite case in hand all the family came running out crying and begging him daddy don't go please don't go. You see they loved him very much. That book tries to say he was mean to them, all that's just not true. He was like my dad he meant what he said he never took any fooling around. Kids now aren't brought up like that anymore. They did not play, but that did not mean he did not love them. I just hope that people will take what has happened to our family and learn and to share what we know, In hope that this never happens to another family again. Its not the point of who did it or why, its the point of helping others so let everyone talk if it will one day help someone. This is a good and fair forum to express how you feel and I Hope you all will do this.
Thanks,
Doug Boulding
02/04/07 at 09:05 PM
capshsb
Doug, Thank you for your words, we are all well, we have suffered losses recently but we were raised to be strong and true to our faith which we have, no we didnt live in the area and didnt have to grow up with the stories, but never think we knew nothing of what occured, my granny made sure we all knew what my gramps had told her in word and pen and never will anyone ever convince us that Charlie killed his family. My mama is maybell, the third of Arthurs children, there are only three left. But he has many grandchildren and great grandchildren. It truly amazes me though the stories that I have heard over the last few weeks, my granny didnt just up and leave, her home and family never ever to return, she was forced to go and that is gods own fact. Im sure there are people who would balk at that as well, but this is where being a grownup means you decide what to believe and how to react. Know this we have all had a wonderful childhood and we are all close, we grew up knowing the story and never were we lied to when we asked questions. I also knew of yer granny, she was one that was always kind to my gran.
capshsb
02/05/07 at 09:59 AM
douglasboulding
Dear capshsb its good to hear from you all. Sorry to hear of your lose I hope we can stay in touch, may god bless you all Doug
keneth d boulding
02/05/07 at 10:36 AM
freespirit27284
YOU ARE SPOT ON WITH YOUR ANALYSIS, IN MY OPINION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
In my opinion, Marie was pregnant, and if it was the boyfriends, Charlie would not have killed his whole family. He would have killed the boyfriend and maybe Marie. I think she was pregnant by Charlie and the guilt not of what he had done but from getting caught drove him to murder.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 10:45 AM
freespirit27284
Hi Jackhammer and Sissy,
I am finding I agree with both of you. I just discussed this yesterday at lunch with a friend. It must take a powerfully bad event to cause a man to do what this man did. The speculation about him getting Marie pregnant, in my mind, would be a very plausible "reason" for his actions. It wast stated in the book that loud arguments had been going on at that household for several months. I feel this was probably fights between Fannie, Marie, and Charlie.. Imagine poor Marie's state of mind trying to keep her secret. The book reads like Charlie was a controlling, chauvanistic, ill tempered man. All things considered, I think for a man of that nature, it is possible this is the true story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhammer
...capable of murdering his whole family, is not thinking very logically. All of what I just wrote is pure speculation. None of it is based on any known facts (other than the fact that he killed his family. And there are some that would dispute that). Just my speculation, fueled by a desire to try to understand how and why a man would kill his wife and children, and then himself.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 11:10 AM
ecalhoun
Y'all, I just have to say that part of creating good out of this tragedy is to see long lost family meet again, and people making new friends. I big thanks to everyone, I'm honored to have played my part in bringing this together.
Eric
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
02/05/07atll:46AM
jackhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by freespirit27284
Hi Jackhammer and Sissy,
I am finding I agree with both of you. I just discussed this yesterday at lunch with a friend. It must take a powerfully bad event to cause a man to do what this man did. The speculation about him getting Marie pregnant, in my mind, would be a very plausible "reason" for his actions. It wast stated in the book that loud arguments had been going on at that household for several months. I feel this was probably fights between Fannie, Marie, and Charlie.. Imagine poor Marie's state of mind trying to keep her secret. The book reads like Charlie was a controlling, chauvanistic, ill tempered man. All things considered, I think for a man of that nature, it is possible this is the true story.
Hi Freespirit
Nice to see more new faces here.
I am only basing my "opinion" on what I have read or seen in just this last month or so. As you see, there are some family members here that feel their relative was capable of the murders, and some that don't. I'm not sure that how I would feel if it were an ancestor of mine.
For those that have said that there is no way that Charlie could have committed these murders, I wish that they could explain who they thought did kill the family. Certainly if Arthur didn't believe that his father did it, he must have had some opinion as to who could have.
Perhaps there is never going to be any definitive evidence one way or another, but by just discussing the possibilities here, I think that we can use this sad story as a way to possibly prevent another story like this from happening. For instance, what if Marie was pregnant by her father, as some here speculate. What actions could she have taken to maybe change the outcome? Had she told other family members right away, perhaps there would be no reason for Charlie to feel he needed to do something drastic to hide it.
Another thing that I was thinking about recently (and others probably were as well), was that depending "how pregnant" Marie was at the time of her death, might coincide with Fannie's recent childbearing (I believe her baby was 4 months old). Perhaps having a nine-month pregnant wife was a factor in an incestuous encounter (not trying to justify it, just trying to understand it).
Anyway, I think that this board welcomes all opinions, and I would hope that any view would not be met with "You're wrong", as none of us here really know exactly what happened.
jackhammer
02/12/07 3t 03:03 PM
iluvnumber3
This is in response to Maria being "examined".
The body (or remains) can still be exhumed and testing can indeed prove pregnancy and/or other "things". The
problem is that there is a cost (of course).
Who would give permission on the disturbance of the burial site? The family? The state? Probably no body. Right?
Science has come along way. Someone could indeed find out the real truth if the funds and grant were established for
such a task.
Also, (not meaning to sound morbid) If Maria was indeed pregnant (at least 4 months), the fetus would be
"somewhat" present.
Do we know if Maria was embalmed?
iluvnumber3
02/12/07 3t 03:34 PM
ecalhoun
Hey there -
This has been covered elsewhere, but when making the film we inquired to University experts about exhuming the body and what that would tell us about Marie being pregnant or not. The consensus is that since this was so long ago, and due to the burial methods used (no embalming) then and how early in her pregnancy she would have been, this would prove nothing. Also, a DNA test wouldn't tell if she was pregnant either.
This part of the mystery is lost to the past, and without a stunning piece of evidence (what this could be, I don't know), we'll never know. It's amazing to me how divided even the people very close to the tragedy are on her pregnancy.
Thanks for the question!
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
02/12/07 at 03:43 PM
iluvnumber3
Thank you for your reply. I was not sure the burial methods, which included embalming. So that would destroy most eveidence.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I have one more question. Did anyone question Marie's close friends and/or doctor? At that age, she had to go to the doctor.
iluvnumber3
02/12/07 at 03:45 PM
Maria
Thank you Eric for clearing up that question again. You are right that Marie was not embalmed and also their caskets were made from a cheap material so I was told and their caskets were not placed in vaults either. Therefore the caskets would have disintegrated pretty quickly which in turn would have left their bodies exposed and vulnerable to the elements which in turn would have caused total decomposition a good while back. One other thing is that even if there were any test to determine if Marie was pregnent it would not have revealed who the father was without testing her father and a couple of others. Therefore the cost for multiple procedures like that would be astranomical to say the least, but like you said, and i agree, that part of the story is lost forever to the past.
Maria
02/12/07 at 03:52 PM
Maria
Hi iluvnumber3,
I'm not real sure about this but I kind of doubt back then that most women went to see a doctor when they got pregnent, unless of course they had a problem with their pregnency. From what I heard they usually didn't even call the doctor when they went into the delivery stage. I heard more than one woman say...so and so was a midwife and she delivered my baby. They knew when they were pregnent and just went on and then gave birth at home and then went on back to their normal routine.
Maria
02/12/07 at 04:00 PM
iluvnumber3
I should have known that about the doctor. It is indeed a small town.
Sorry about the embalming questions......I should have read all of the past topics.
HLS
iluvnumber3
02/12/07 at 04:10 PM
Maria
All 979 of em? Would have taken a very long time. One suggestion if I might make is that you can click on the search button and type in a word...like pregnency, and it will bring up all posts with that word in them. But rest assured no apology is needed for asking a question even if it's been asked before.
Maria
02/16/07 at 12:27 AM
mcpepper
In response to Caps... I think she is trying to find answers to an old and "unanswered" question. It's been a long time and because it involves her grandfather she has every right to want to know the answers to all of her questions. We all have speculation, but she wants to know! At this point, I believe she doesn't want to think that it could be true. That is so understandable. I wouldn't want to believe my Grandfather could do such a thing either. But more importantly she needs to know the facts and not so much the opinions that we may have. However, it's hard because the silence that has lingered for so long here just seems to hang in the air like a fog. Nobody seems to want to commit to the truth because according to all reports "Charlie was a good man." Well, that is appreciated, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't do this. I really hate to have to come the conclusion that he did, but let's face it, it is written. More importantly, everyone is human and he must have made some mistakes. That in and of itself is conjecture. At some point, it becomes facing reality. Which brings us back to Caps reaching out for the truth. It's a pretty bold move and she deserves to know the whole truth. So anyone that can give her the solid, no-nonsense, PURE truth...well, you owe her that. So give her the real story and let her put this to rest in her life. I know I would need that much.
mcpepper
02/16/07 at 06:52 AM
Hi Mcpepper
I agree with you completely. The way I read the post from Capshsb I understand it to mean she says no one has shown "proof" that her great grandfather killed his family and why. I think if proof were presented that he did do those things then eventually she could come to terms with it. As long as proof is not presented then those closest to the accused can still have hope that the person is innocent. I know I would cling to that hope and belief as long as it was not proven someone I loved committed such a deed. And even then, when proof has been shown that the person accused is guilty as charged, some people still cannot accept it. They will say "he or she was framed." Or in spite of a person's confession in some cases there are those who have been known to say that he or she was just covering up for someone else. I think Capshsb is upset that her relative is accused of a crime that has never been proven he was guilty of committing. In my opinion (and I can't state that loud enough or often enough) no one has proof that Charlie Lawson is not guilty of these crimes or for the reason given or they certainly would have rushed forward by now to clear his name. I cannot imagine why they wouldn't. And so we continue to trudge along trying to understand a crime that cannot be understood. Looking for proof that doesn't exist because we cannot accept not knowing and understanding exactly what happened that Christmas Day so long ago.
Maria
02/16/07 at 09:59 AM
jackhammer
I think that the fact that most people at the time said that Charlie was a good man, yet within a few hours at the scene, the conclusion seemed to be that it was indeed Charlie. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I felt that my brother or uncle or neighbor were being falsely accused of killing his family, I'll be so vocal about it that the sheriff would have to look a tittle deeper into it. I wouldn't rest until I found out who DID kill my family/neighbor. Law enforcement would have to put up with me bugging them, the newspapers would have to put up with me sending letters to the editor about this false accusation.
So, now if everyone thought that Charlie was a good man and could not do this, where was their outrage? I think that in hindsight, they remembered those "red flags". That strange behavior. And thought to themselves that indeed, it was probably him.
Just my opinion here.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/16/07 at 10:02 AM
Maria
Hi Jackhammer,
I read in a newspaper dated in January of 1930 that school was now back in session from the Christmas holiday break in Stokes County.
Maria
02/16/07 at 08:41 PM
mcpepper
Maria,
I agree with the proof of the matter. But as we know there is no trial for the dead. Well, not on earth anyway. All of the would be witnesses were killed or committed suicide. So without witnesses we are left with the remaining facts. Among those facts are that Charlie killed himself AFTER the murders of his family members. Their blood was on his gun. Whether or not any tests were conducted on Marie to see if she was pregnant, the photo shows a very "plump" girl, who considering the fact that she was only 17, and worked on a farm is odd to say the least. None of the other family members appear to be anything but thin. Even Fannie, after having eight children is very gaunt and thin. Although no one but the victims and the murderer were present at the time the pieces of the puzzle seem to fall together when you look at the facts that remain. Not to mention the courage of Stella Lawson who did come forward and provide some facts and insight into this horrible event. Then there's lackhammer's point and I agree: I would have been so vocal, loud and the biggest pest they ever saw that if there were any other suspects or theories — they would have had no choice but to investigate. I think the silence speaks for itself and it's very sad no matter how you look at it. I can only wish Caps peace and peace of mind.
mcpepper
linda
I have read both books and it said they thought Marie was pregnant with Charlie's baby, why has no one brought this subject up on this forum? I would like to know how Fannie couldn't see that something like this was happening in her house with this family being so close. Could this baby be the boyfriend's that she was to see on Christmas Day? If the doctors looked at the bodies when they were shot could they not tell if she was with child or not? Just wondering?
??linda smith
02/02/07 at 02:57 PM
Maria
We "have' brought this up before Linda. Several times. Some people say Marie was pregnent with her father's baby. Some people say she was pregnent but not by her father but by her boyfriend. And some people say that while all the women folke knew the truth none of the men did. And others say they don't believe Marie was pregnent at all. We can never know for certain because too many years have passed since her death for any DNA to be useful in determing if she was or wasn't. Our goal in the documentary was not to prove if she was or wasn't and if so by whom. Our goal was to let anyone who was close to the story have a voice in the documentary if they wanted to. And though opinions and beliefs differed among those interviewed it was our goal to let the audience hear EACH of them speak their belief and then let the audience make their own decisions. Even so, whatever any of us believe about this part of the tragedy based on what we hear, we can still never know FOR CERTAIN. No proof exists one way or the other.
Maria
02/02/07 at 03:16 PM
sissy
In my opinion, Marie was pregnant, and if it was the boyfriends, Charlie would not have killed his whole family. He would have killed the boyfriend and maybe Marie. I think she was pregnant by Charlie and the guilt not of what he had done but from getting caught drove him to murder.
sissy
02/02/07 at 03:26 PM
Maria
Oh my Sissy, you ARE the brave one in here.
Maria
02/02/07 at 03:28 PM
sissy
Since I found out I was kin I feel like I have the right to say what I feel.
sissy
02/02/07 at 03:31 PM
Maria
Jackhammer, you wanna come give Sissy a talking to. I can't take her anywhere.!! Maria
MARIA
02/02/07 at 05:55 PM
jackhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
Since I found out I was kin I feel like I have the right to say what I feel.
Sissy, I think because you are kin, you definitely have more right to say what you do, than I do. I agree with what you said about Charlie. I have nothing whatsoever to base my "opinion" on, about this subject, other than what Marie's cousin Stella said, what some rumors at the time were, and how Marie looks in the family portrait (she has no waistline at all). With that said, I think that if we're looking for a motive, I think the pregnancy is about as good a motive as any, and actually it may just be the most logical motive. If we try to make a pregnancy work into a motive, we have to look at it a couple of ways. If it were her boyfriend's baby, and Charlie found out, he may kill the boyfriend, kill Marie, and then kill himself. Why kill the whole family if he was upset or angry at his daughter? If it was indeed Charlie's baby, well he had a bit of a deadline (no pun intended) here. If he was the father of his new grandchild, how could he explain that to his wife, his mother, or his brothers? It would have to weigh on him tremendously, and I can see where it would make him lose sleep, and be just a plain wreck trying to figure out what to do. As she was starting to "show", the pressure of what to do had to be mounting. One thing that I thought about when I saw the portrait was, I wondered if Charlie had gone to have the portrait made to give as a Christmas present to his mother and other family members. Perhaps when he saw just how pregnant Marie looked on the photos, he realized that he couldn't do that (maybe the portrait made her look more pregnant than she did in real life). Anyway, now he was kind of stuck as to getting a present for them, and here it was Christmas Day. So perhaps the pressure in the last couple of days prior to Christmas led him to come up with the answer to kill them all, and take the secret of his fatherhood with him, and save the rest of his family the shame of having a murderer in their family. Perhaps far-fetched, but I believe that anyone that is capable of murdering his whole family, is not thinking very logically. All of what I just wrote is pure speculation. None of it is based on any known facts (other than the fact that he killed his family. And there are some that would dispute that). Just my speculation, fueled by a desire to try to understand how and why a man would kill his wife and children, and then himself.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/02/07 at 06:23 PM
Maria
I certainly agree with you all the way on this one Jackhammer. And I am very impressed with your methods of reasoning and deduction. Very good. Thanks for your wonderful insight on this sad and terrible part of the story.
Maria
02/02/07 at 07:50 PM
ladebug
I would think from reports of domestic violence over the years, it would be more the norm to hear a mother knew about a daughter being molested and not say a thing about it. in a situation with this scenario I guess the mother would be terrified to confide her fears to friends or family. Would she feel the husband would hurt her for telling or maybe the thought that somehow she was not enough for her husband? Wow.so many questions. I would like to hear from anyone who might know from experience If any of my ideas might be true.
ladebug
02/02/07 3t 08:59 PM
angiemac4
Hello everyone,
Marie may have been with child, she does look a little big in the picture. It may have been Charlie's, but I don't feel this was the reason he killed the family. If she where with child he could have easily denied it being his, even if it looked just like him, after all it could look like him even if he wasn't the father, he would still be the grandfather, and DNA testing wasn't thought of in those days, the father could be who ever the mother said he was no real way to prove paternity. My youngest is the spiting image of my grandmother, because they are related not for any other reason. As I stated in another thread, I feel he planned to kill the entire family including Arthur before he took them into town for the portrait. He sent Arthur away, killed the family and was waiting for his return so he could finish the job, but the hunting party that found the bodies came by the house before Arthur returned. Marie being pregnant was irrelevant. And besides that, women back in those days where not viewed the same as they are today, they where, for lack of a better word, treated by a lot of men as property, and they took love, honer and OBEY to the extreme sometimes, not all men mind you, but a lot. Also incest was more common as well, in my opinion. We will never know the why of his actions, only the results of them. Domestic violence is serous, the Lady in the video, who's daughter was killed, that is real. My son is a volunteer fire and rescue member of our local dept. he was second on the seen of this murder, the one at the end of the video. They didn't know where the guy was, if he was still in the house or not, my son was not armed and neither was the paramedics who responded. The guy was found hiding in a tree not far from the house. And my son said he will never forget the scene, she was stabbed repeatedly, and was dead at the scene, he said momma I've seen a lot, heart attacks wrecks suicides, overdoses, but this was the worst call I ever ran, the blood was everywhere. He said people are stupid to do this kind of thing. I said yes they are.
Angie
02/02/07 at 09:04 PM
Maria
From relatives I've spoken with Ladebug and also from other sources, Fannie did know about Marie's pregnancy and the identity of the Father and confided this to several female relatives. "All the women folk knew" is what I was told. But the women said nothing to the men because as I heard from someone in the know that in those days and time if the men knew about what Charlie did to his daughter they would have lynched him and this the women all knew. The men were told only after Charlie had killed his family and himself. And I believe what the man told me. There is much more to this part of the story but this is all I feel comfortable revealing.
Maria
02/02/07 at 09:26 PM
capshsb
I have just found this site, due to the film being sent to my family, and as I read i see sissy you must be related to me somehow, I in fact am Charlies great granddaughter. I find it very unsettling how there are forums set up about a tragedy that no one has ever proven the killer but all think Charlie was a monster. Arthur was my grandfather, and he told his family he never thought his daddy did it or he wouldnt have sent him off that day. But some people like the morbid fasination of death it seems.
capshsb
02/02/07 at 09:45 PM
jackhammer
Hi capshsb.
I was wondering if you might share with us any thoughts on who you might think had done this to your great- grandparents, and your aunts and uncles. Was there much talk about this story when you were growing up?
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/02/07 at 10:07 PM
sissy
Hello capshsb,
I'm not fascinated with death I'm fascinated with this story. Yes I believe that Charlie killed his family that day and exactly for the reason that you stated he sent Arthur away. He knew that Arthur was the only one who could stop him. No other evidence has ever been found that he did not do it. Even the sheriff who was on the scene that day pronounced Charlie as the killer. As for Charlie being called a monster I have never heard him called that, everyone said that he loved his family, I am sure in his own sad sick way he did.
sissy
02/02/07 at 10:35 PM
Matt32
Hi Caps,
Thanks for finding me and contacting me.
You're right; you do have many relatives in this area who would Love to hear from you. I'll be happy to pass along their contact info if you're interested. Which brings me to the next point; why we never contacted you before. Believe me when I tell you that out of all the secrets and mysteries surrounding this legendary tragedy that befell your family, your precise whereabouts and those of all of Arthur 'Buck' Lawson's children was the most well guarded secret in Stokes County for the last 61yrs. In other words, we were never given a chance to contact you, hard as we tried to discover how to. Stokes County protected you from any prying eyes successfully. The story that we received from Everyone was that after Arthur died, Nina took the children and got as far away from Stokes County as she could go, because she was tired of being asked questions they hadn't any answers for. Everyone begged us to respect your privacy, and so we did.
But that doesn't mean that the family remaining here didn't still suffer the enduring legacy of the media's fascination with this story, and that's a lot of what you'll hear in our film; their feelings, thoughts, opinions, and recollections based on the story they grew up with being whispered all around them in their community and handed down from each generation to the next by their family. Both the Lawsons and the Manrings, the Branches, Hamptons, Watts, Montgomerys, and more, many more on down through many lines now...
Which brings me to the next point; why won't we let this story die? We are far from the first to report on this story and we're not the ones who put it in the history books, insuring the story's immortality, but so far as I know, we Are the first to take a significant percentage of the profits Of our reporting and put them toward a worthy cause, which you can find out more about from the link on our front page saying Domestic Violence 3 Steps. In short, our immediate goal is the first battered women's shelter up and operational in Stokes County before the beginning of the 2007 school year.
But to answer your question as to 'proof Charlie committed the crime, the first responders, Dr. Helsabeck convened a jury on the spot consisting of Sheriff Taylor and others who declared Charlie guilty of the crime, and thus you'll find there was never any investigation. In every subsequent article written about the subject over the next 77yrs, Charlie was pronounced guilty by the reporter, author, or TV news anchor, not to mention in the ballad written by Walter 'Kid' Smith and the Carolina Buddies in 1930. Since the song went on to become a classic covered by many legendary performers over the years, it's virtually guaranteed that as long as there's bluegrass, this story will survive. However, that being said, we did interview a member of the Lawson family who believed Charlie didn't commit the crimes and we gave them room in our film to explain their thoughts and opinions. We tried diligently all the way through this to respect every opinion voiced by anyone demonstrably affected by this story and to treat everyone equally. We didn't come here to solve the mystery, but to report on it in such a way as to reframe the debates surrounding it into ones that can prevent future tragedies.
Again, if there's any family we can put you in touch with, we'd be more than happy to, and we have more pictures than we got into the film, so if you're interested, we'd love to share them with you. Please believe me when I say it's truly an honor to finally hear from you, and I look forward to hearing back from you when you get a chance, and again, thank you for contacting me.
Matt Hodges
02/02/07 at 10:49 PM
jackhammer
This is just my opinion, but I feel that the majority of the people that have posted on this message board believe that Charlie was responsible for the deaths of his family. Not everyone here, but the majority. However, I know that folks here would like to know the opinion/s of other family members as well. I believe that all of the evidence in this case is circumstantial. And while it is pretty overwhelming, we'll probably never be 100% sure. I, for one, would welcome any theories brought forth by decendants of this family.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/03/07 at 10:32 AM
ladebug
Quote:
Originally Posted by capshsb
I find it very unsettling how there are forums set up about a tragedy that no one has ever proven the killer but all think Charlie was a monster.
If you search all over the Internet you will find a zillion blogs and true crime sites talking about any number of stories. This forum was set up to explore the many facets of your family story and how it still effects so many in the rural community. If you moved to a whole different part of the country this story could not possibly touch you as it has those smack dab in the middle of everyday life. I would encourage you to begin a search for your roots and embrace it, good or bad, this is your history so it may never be repeated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by capshsb
Arthur was my grandfather, and he told his family he never thought his daddy did it or he wouldn't have sent him off that day. But some people like the morbid fascination of death it seems. As for this quote..if you do a search under Ladebug and my posts.you will find I had an experience where my mom told me all my life that she had been abandoned at birth so her mom could get away. When I began my family genealogy and found records with facts I realized my mom was never given up. Her mom was in an abusive relationship and for a time left my mom with her grandparents for safely reasons. See how for my moms 60+ years she never looked to find HER real truth. Good hunting and get back with us here.
Ladebug
02/03/07 at 06:55 PM
douglasboulding
DEAR CAPSHSB hope this finds you all well. I am Doug my father was Hill Boulding Charlie was his uncle, he and my mom spent a lot of time with uncle Charlie aunt Fannie and the kids. I myself stayed and worked with uncle George and aunt Nina Lawson till there deaths he was Charlies brother, my dads mom was Etta Lawson Charlies sister, my grandmother. I am glad to hear you all are doing good . We often wondered what ever happened to you all. You know I have never thought of Charlie as a monster, he was just a very sick man. People back then did not know about mental illness, and if they did it wasn't much. You know we will never know what really happened that day, but god knows and that is all that really means anything. I know what my mom and dad said about uncle Charlie and family. They loved them very much they were very close, they went up to see them very often spending a week at a time helping work the fields. My dad has told me many times of the last time they were with them. It was about 3 weeks before the murders dad went up to help uncle Charlie stay up in the barn and cure the tobacco. Back then the heaters had to be kept on a study heat, which meant staying up all night. Aunt Fannie had ask my dad to come up and help cause Charlie was never sleeping. He and Charlie stayed in the barn that night and mom at the house with aunt Fannie. She told my mom how strange charlie was acting, how he walked around crying day and night, always praying never sleeping . I remember my dad telling me how sorry he felt for him. It just broke there hearts to see him that way. He was a sick man, his brother Marion came there to take him for help about 3 wks before the murders to see a doctor in Winston Salem. When it came time for him to leave the house he came out to the car suite case in hand all the family came running out crying and begging him daddy don't go please don't go. You see they loved him very much. That book tries to say he was mean to them, all that's just not true. He was like my dad he meant what he said he never took any fooling around. Kids now aren't brought up like that anymore. They did not play, but that did not mean he did not love them. I just hope that people will take what has happened to our family and learn and to share what we know, In hope that this never happens to another family again. Its not the point of who did it or why, its the point of helping others so let everyone talk if it will one day help someone. This is a good and fair forum to express how you feel and I Hope you all will do this.
Thanks,
Doug Boulding
02/04/07 at 09:05 PM
capshsb
Doug, Thank you for your words, we are all well, we have suffered losses recently but we were raised to be strong and true to our faith which we have, no we didnt live in the area and didnt have to grow up with the stories, but never think we knew nothing of what occured, my granny made sure we all knew what my gramps had told her in word and pen and never will anyone ever convince us that Charlie killed his family. My mama is maybell, the third of Arthurs children, there are only three left. But he has many grandchildren and great grandchildren. It truly amazes me though the stories that I have heard over the last few weeks, my granny didnt just up and leave, her home and family never ever to return, she was forced to go and that is gods own fact. Im sure there are people who would balk at that as well, but this is where being a grownup means you decide what to believe and how to react. Know this we have all had a wonderful childhood and we are all close, we grew up knowing the story and never were we lied to when we asked questions. I also knew of yer granny, she was one that was always kind to my gran.
capshsb
02/05/07 at 09:59 AM
douglasboulding
Dear capshsb its good to hear from you all. Sorry to hear of your lose I hope we can stay in touch, may god bless you all Doug
keneth d boulding
02/05/07 at 10:36 AM
freespirit27284
YOU ARE SPOT ON WITH YOUR ANALYSIS, IN MY OPINION.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
In my opinion, Marie was pregnant, and if it was the boyfriends, Charlie would not have killed his whole family. He would have killed the boyfriend and maybe Marie. I think she was pregnant by Charlie and the guilt not of what he had done but from getting caught drove him to murder.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 10:45 AM
freespirit27284
Hi Jackhammer and Sissy,
I am finding I agree with both of you. I just discussed this yesterday at lunch with a friend. It must take a powerfully bad event to cause a man to do what this man did. The speculation about him getting Marie pregnant, in my mind, would be a very plausible "reason" for his actions. It wast stated in the book that loud arguments had been going on at that household for several months. I feel this was probably fights between Fannie, Marie, and Charlie.. Imagine poor Marie's state of mind trying to keep her secret. The book reads like Charlie was a controlling, chauvanistic, ill tempered man. All things considered, I think for a man of that nature, it is possible this is the true story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackhammer
...capable of murdering his whole family, is not thinking very logically. All of what I just wrote is pure speculation. None of it is based on any known facts (other than the fact that he killed his family. And there are some that would dispute that). Just my speculation, fueled by a desire to try to understand how and why a man would kill his wife and children, and then himself.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 11:10 AM
ecalhoun
Y'all, I just have to say that part of creating good out of this tragedy is to see long lost family meet again, and people making new friends. I big thanks to everyone, I'm honored to have played my part in bringing this together.
Eric
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
02/05/07atll:46AM
jackhammer
Quote:
Originally Posted by freespirit27284
Hi Jackhammer and Sissy,
I am finding I agree with both of you. I just discussed this yesterday at lunch with a friend. It must take a powerfully bad event to cause a man to do what this man did. The speculation about him getting Marie pregnant, in my mind, would be a very plausible "reason" for his actions. It wast stated in the book that loud arguments had been going on at that household for several months. I feel this was probably fights between Fannie, Marie, and Charlie.. Imagine poor Marie's state of mind trying to keep her secret. The book reads like Charlie was a controlling, chauvanistic, ill tempered man. All things considered, I think for a man of that nature, it is possible this is the true story.
Hi Freespirit
Nice to see more new faces here.
I am only basing my "opinion" on what I have read or seen in just this last month or so. As you see, there are some family members here that feel their relative was capable of the murders, and some that don't. I'm not sure that how I would feel if it were an ancestor of mine.
For those that have said that there is no way that Charlie could have committed these murders, I wish that they could explain who they thought did kill the family. Certainly if Arthur didn't believe that his father did it, he must have had some opinion as to who could have.
Perhaps there is never going to be any definitive evidence one way or another, but by just discussing the possibilities here, I think that we can use this sad story as a way to possibly prevent another story like this from happening. For instance, what if Marie was pregnant by her father, as some here speculate. What actions could she have taken to maybe change the outcome? Had she told other family members right away, perhaps there would be no reason for Charlie to feel he needed to do something drastic to hide it.
Another thing that I was thinking about recently (and others probably were as well), was that depending "how pregnant" Marie was at the time of her death, might coincide with Fannie's recent childbearing (I believe her baby was 4 months old). Perhaps having a nine-month pregnant wife was a factor in an incestuous encounter (not trying to justify it, just trying to understand it).
Anyway, I think that this board welcomes all opinions, and I would hope that any view would not be met with "You're wrong", as none of us here really know exactly what happened.
jackhammer
02/12/07 3t 03:03 PM
iluvnumber3
This is in response to Maria being "examined".
The body (or remains) can still be exhumed and testing can indeed prove pregnancy and/or other "things". The
problem is that there is a cost (of course).
Who would give permission on the disturbance of the burial site? The family? The state? Probably no body. Right?
Science has come along way. Someone could indeed find out the real truth if the funds and grant were established for
such a task.
Also, (not meaning to sound morbid) If Maria was indeed pregnant (at least 4 months), the fetus would be
"somewhat" present.
Do we know if Maria was embalmed?
iluvnumber3
02/12/07 3t 03:34 PM
ecalhoun
Hey there -
This has been covered elsewhere, but when making the film we inquired to University experts about exhuming the body and what that would tell us about Marie being pregnant or not. The consensus is that since this was so long ago, and due to the burial methods used (no embalming) then and how early in her pregnancy she would have been, this would prove nothing. Also, a DNA test wouldn't tell if she was pregnant either.
This part of the mystery is lost to the past, and without a stunning piece of evidence (what this could be, I don't know), we'll never know. It's amazing to me how divided even the people very close to the tragedy are on her pregnancy.
Thanks for the question!
Break of Dawn Productions
"Bringing Light to the Darkest Night"
ecalhoun
02/12/07 at 03:43 PM
iluvnumber3
Thank you for your reply. I was not sure the burial methods, which included embalming. So that would destroy most eveidence.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I have one more question. Did anyone question Marie's close friends and/or doctor? At that age, she had to go to the doctor.
iluvnumber3
02/12/07 at 03:45 PM
Maria
Thank you Eric for clearing up that question again. You are right that Marie was not embalmed and also their caskets were made from a cheap material so I was told and their caskets were not placed in vaults either. Therefore the caskets would have disintegrated pretty quickly which in turn would have left their bodies exposed and vulnerable to the elements which in turn would have caused total decomposition a good while back. One other thing is that even if there were any test to determine if Marie was pregnent it would not have revealed who the father was without testing her father and a couple of others. Therefore the cost for multiple procedures like that would be astranomical to say the least, but like you said, and i agree, that part of the story is lost forever to the past.
Maria
02/12/07 at 03:52 PM
Maria
Hi iluvnumber3,
I'm not real sure about this but I kind of doubt back then that most women went to see a doctor when they got pregnent, unless of course they had a problem with their pregnency. From what I heard they usually didn't even call the doctor when they went into the delivery stage. I heard more than one woman say...so and so was a midwife and she delivered my baby. They knew when they were pregnent and just went on and then gave birth at home and then went on back to their normal routine.
Maria
02/12/07 at 04:00 PM
iluvnumber3
I should have known that about the doctor. It is indeed a small town.
Sorry about the embalming questions......I should have read all of the past topics.
HLS
iluvnumber3
02/12/07 at 04:10 PM
Maria
All 979 of em? Would have taken a very long time. One suggestion if I might make is that you can click on the search button and type in a word...like pregnency, and it will bring up all posts with that word in them. But rest assured no apology is needed for asking a question even if it's been asked before.
Maria
02/16/07 at 12:27 AM
mcpepper
In response to Caps... I think she is trying to find answers to an old and "unanswered" question. It's been a long time and because it involves her grandfather she has every right to want to know the answers to all of her questions. We all have speculation, but she wants to know! At this point, I believe she doesn't want to think that it could be true. That is so understandable. I wouldn't want to believe my Grandfather could do such a thing either. But more importantly she needs to know the facts and not so much the opinions that we may have. However, it's hard because the silence that has lingered for so long here just seems to hang in the air like a fog. Nobody seems to want to commit to the truth because according to all reports "Charlie was a good man." Well, that is appreciated, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't do this. I really hate to have to come the conclusion that he did, but let's face it, it is written. More importantly, everyone is human and he must have made some mistakes. That in and of itself is conjecture. At some point, it becomes facing reality. Which brings us back to Caps reaching out for the truth. It's a pretty bold move and she deserves to know the whole truth. So anyone that can give her the solid, no-nonsense, PURE truth...well, you owe her that. So give her the real story and let her put this to rest in her life. I know I would need that much.
mcpepper
02/16/07 at 06:52 AM
Hi Mcpepper
I agree with you completely. The way I read the post from Capshsb I understand it to mean she says no one has shown "proof" that her great grandfather killed his family and why. I think if proof were presented that he did do those things then eventually she could come to terms with it. As long as proof is not presented then those closest to the accused can still have hope that the person is innocent. I know I would cling to that hope and belief as long as it was not proven someone I loved committed such a deed. And even then, when proof has been shown that the person accused is guilty as charged, some people still cannot accept it. They will say "he or she was framed." Or in spite of a person's confession in some cases there are those who have been known to say that he or she was just covering up for someone else. I think Capshsb is upset that her relative is accused of a crime that has never been proven he was guilty of committing. In my opinion (and I can't state that loud enough or often enough) no one has proof that Charlie Lawson is not guilty of these crimes or for the reason given or they certainly would have rushed forward by now to clear his name. I cannot imagine why they wouldn't. And so we continue to trudge along trying to understand a crime that cannot be understood. Looking for proof that doesn't exist because we cannot accept not knowing and understanding exactly what happened that Christmas Day so long ago.
Maria
02/16/07 at 09:59 AM
jackhammer
I think that the fact that most people at the time said that Charlie was a good man, yet within a few hours at the scene, the conclusion seemed to be that it was indeed Charlie. I don't know about the rest of you, but if I felt that my brother or uncle or neighbor were being falsely accused of killing his family, I'll be so vocal about it that the sheriff would have to look a tittle deeper into it. I wouldn't rest until I found out who DID kill my family/neighbor. Law enforcement would have to put up with me bugging them, the newspapers would have to put up with me sending letters to the editor about this false accusation.
So, now if everyone thought that Charlie was a good man and could not do this, where was their outrage? I think that in hindsight, they remembered those "red flags". That strange behavior. And thought to themselves that indeed, it was probably him.
Just my opinion here.
Much of the evil in the world is brought about by people believing they are acting for good and righteous reasons. -
Margaret Weis
jackhammer
02/16/07 at 10:02 AM
Maria
Hi Jackhammer,
I read in a newspaper dated in January of 1930 that school was now back in session from the Christmas holiday break in Stokes County.
Maria
02/16/07 at 08:41 PM
mcpepper
Maria,
I agree with the proof of the matter. But as we know there is no trial for the dead. Well, not on earth anyway. All of the would be witnesses were killed or committed suicide. So without witnesses we are left with the remaining facts. Among those facts are that Charlie killed himself AFTER the murders of his family members. Their blood was on his gun. Whether or not any tests were conducted on Marie to see if she was pregnant, the photo shows a very "plump" girl, who considering the fact that she was only 17, and worked on a farm is odd to say the least. None of the other family members appear to be anything but thin. Even Fannie, after having eight children is very gaunt and thin. Although no one but the victims and the murderer were present at the time the pieces of the puzzle seem to fall together when you look at the facts that remain. Not to mention the courage of Stella Lawson who did come forward and provide some facts and insight into this horrible event. Then there's lackhammer's point and I agree: I would have been so vocal, loud and the biggest pest they ever saw that if there were any other suspects or theories — they would have had no choice but to investigate. I think the silence speaks for itself and it's very sad no matter how you look at it. I can only wish Caps peace and peace of mind.
mcpepper
