Post by Angela on Apr 19, 2009 13:40:29 GMT -5
Q: Why wasn't Arthur Lawson a suspect, and why wasn’t there more of an investigation?
A: As far as Arthur, he was at the house and with everyone when Charlie shot himself in the woods, so I think it was pretty clear that he wasn't involved in that death. Also, he had his cousin Sanders as a witness to his whereabouts for the entire time, as well as the store keeper.
But for me, it's pretty amazing how little of an investigation was done at all. At the time, the coroner had the power to convene a jury of 12 men at the crime scene, which he did, and the men declared Charlie the killer pretty much right after the suicide, and since he was dead there was no further investigation needed. Hard to believe now that there was nothing worth looking into, eh?
The only thing I know of that they did that could be called investigative was the Sheriff showed the two notes found in Charlie's pocket to one of his brothers who verified that it was Charlie's handwriting. Beyond that… nothing. End of story. Killer identified. It's a shame because if they had saved some of the evidence like the notes something more perhaps could have revealed his state of mind, etc. I wish also they had made out a written account of everything they did from the moment they were advised of the murders til the moment the bodies were taken away. Perhaps a list of everyone there that day, what each of the victims were wearing, the position the bodies were in, whether the house was in disarray due to the struggles of the victims, any statements from witnessess, bullet casings, blood splatter, etc. But alas they didn't. At least not that we know of. These things could have told us so much more. But that was 1929 and this is 2007. Things are different now. But that oh so valuable evidence remains the same now...LOST FOREVER. It's all those lost things that puts the "umph" into this mystery.
Maria
A: As far as Arthur, he was at the house and with everyone when Charlie shot himself in the woods, so I think it was pretty clear that he wasn't involved in that death. Also, he had his cousin Sanders as a witness to his whereabouts for the entire time, as well as the store keeper.
But for me, it's pretty amazing how little of an investigation was done at all. At the time, the coroner had the power to convene a jury of 12 men at the crime scene, which he did, and the men declared Charlie the killer pretty much right after the suicide, and since he was dead there was no further investigation needed. Hard to believe now that there was nothing worth looking into, eh?
The only thing I know of that they did that could be called investigative was the Sheriff showed the two notes found in Charlie's pocket to one of his brothers who verified that it was Charlie's handwriting. Beyond that… nothing. End of story. Killer identified. It's a shame because if they had saved some of the evidence like the notes something more perhaps could have revealed his state of mind, etc. I wish also they had made out a written account of everything they did from the moment they were advised of the murders til the moment the bodies were taken away. Perhaps a list of everyone there that day, what each of the victims were wearing, the position the bodies were in, whether the house was in disarray due to the struggles of the victims, any statements from witnessess, bullet casings, blood splatter, etc. But alas they didn't. At least not that we know of. These things could have told us so much more. But that was 1929 and this is 2007. Things are different now. But that oh so valuable evidence remains the same now...LOST FOREVER. It's all those lost things that puts the "umph" into this mystery.
Maria
