Post by Brian on Sept 3, 2013 0:52:23 GMT -5
12/29/07 at 03:00 AM
shealy
I just found about the Lawson murders earlier today, but I read several hundred topics (admittedly, I skipped over the ones about showings- can't go to them now, can I?) and I have a couple of questions/comments. If I'm way off, I'm sorry- like I said, I just found out about this today, and I'm just curious. And I'm sorry about typing this all in one post- I'm not sure what topics these go with and it's 2 am and I want to go to bed, not search through the hundreds of topics. By the way- you seem like amazing people, I wasn't going to join but you seem so nice and you won't yell at me for not knowing a whole lot.
1) Have any of you heard of post concussion syndrome (might have a fancier name?). Any head wound, even a slight concussion can cause an area of bleeding on the brain and can leave a bruise on the brain. This injury can lead to behavior changes, it can make mental conditions much worse, and can basically cause all kinds of havoc on the brain. Could Charlie have gotten this from his accident the year before? My brother got a very slight head wound and now sees things that aren't there and has severe OCD.
2) Fun fact about lobotomies (someone mentioned that could have been the outcome had Charlie gotten mental help)- they're still preformed on violent people. Your emotions are contained in the frontal lobe and when you sever the connection between the front and rear lobes you become completely apathetic. I think they do it on schizophrenics.
3) Looking at the family portrait, I don't think Charlie looks smug at all- he looks proud. Whether or not he was planning the murders, it seems like he's saying "remember us now, together as a family". If his mind snapped and he killed his family, to me it looks like he loved his family on that day.
Sarah
shealy
12/29/07 at 05:16 AM
Maria
Hi Shealy and welcome to the forum. That's a good theory you've put forth here and I can vouch for the post concussion syndrome as I suffered an episode of that very thing around 15 years go. When I had that it only lasted about 6 weeks though and didn't cause me to become violent. It did cause me to become severely depressed and my arms would suddenly stiffen and go out in front of me at odd times. Charlie was said by people we interviewed that knew him personally, not just of him, that he'd always had a violent temper. And of course there's the story we were told about when he was called "that crazy man" back in his much younger years. And there's the autopsy report saying that there was nothing showing on his brain to cause him to go berserk and kill his family. So we're still left pretty much high and dry as to what made him choose to kill his family and himself. Personally I believe very strongly that it was fear of being taken away from his family that caused him to do what he did. Coupled with the sleep deprivation and headaches he was suffering he chose that way out. but your point is a good one as Charlie had some of the symptoms of that syndrome, especially the headaches and insomnia.
Maria
12/29/07 at 01:56 PM
shealy
The thing I'm saying is that in 1929 they wouldn't know about subdural hematomas, much less where/how to look for the dried up remains of one left on the brain. And couldn't a concussion syndrome with severe depression combined with his already "crazy" personality, violent tendencies, and the fear of being taken from his family be a legit reason? Obviously, it can never be proven, but could it be possible?
shealy
12/29/07 at 02:02 PM
Maria
I'd say it's very possible. The injury to the head with the mattock occurred 2 and a half years before the murders and his behavior change seems from all we've heard to have begun approximately 3 weeks before the murders. That's the reason I am not totally satisfied with that theory. His headaches and insomnia could have come from stress and anxiety.
Maria
12/29/07 at 03:34 PM
Michael818
He does look rather imperious in that photo. I've always thought he looked like a grown-up, deranged Alfalfa! Minus the hair sticking up, of course!
Michael R.
12/29/07 at 03:41 PM
Maria
Alfalfa, now that is a good description Michael.
Maria
12/29/07 at 03:45 PM
Michael818
Hi Maria. Just tried to PM you. Been out of commission for a while. Diabetes and what I think was flu. Haven't got up to the cemetery yet to put flowers, but will asap. Sis checked in for me a couple of times while I was down, but she wasn't sure how to work things. Anyway, yep, I really did think he looked like the famous "Little Rascal." Incidentally, HE was killed as a young man in a drug related shooting. 1959, I think.
Michael R.
12/30/07 at 03:29 PM
shealy
He really DOES look like Alfalfa!
Here's another theory (still incorporating the other one, because I still think it's possible!)
Alright, so Charlie was obsessed with control. After he hits his head he becomes depressed, but no one knows because he doesn't tell anyone. So he's suffering with this for two years, in addition to being "crazy", but he keeps a handle on everything because he can't NOT be in control of the situation. Then in 1929 the stock market crashes- it might not have had a direct affect on Charlie but it must have weighed on his mind- any kind of industry could get into trouble now, including the tobacco business, and then where would he be? So he's thinking about that and then Arthur stands up to him. Not only that, he starts interfering with his abuse of the other children (physical or sexual, take your pick). Now he's lost control of his oldest boy and some of his power has been taken away over the younger children. So he's inching closer and closer to insanity. Marie starts going steady with a man that Charlie doesn't approve of, but she doesn't care, she still dates Charlie Wade. So his control over her is slipping too. All of this is building up. Three weeks before the killings it becomes too much, he starts pacing, checking his guns (in case Arthur gets really violent with him?), crying out asking what to do. They come to take him to the mental institution, he willingly goes to the car but is overruled by his family. Another slippage of control. The morning of the killings he's in a foul mood, like normal, so he sends Arthur out, then pushes Marie around (verbally or physically) about Charlie Wade, she retorts that Charlie Wade loves her and she loves him, and there's nothing Charlie can do about it. His wife steps in for Marie as well, and Charlie grabs up his guns and goes outside to shoot at trees or hunt or something like that. He doesn't leave one inside the house because he's already so paranoid about being attacked he can't leave his family alone with the guns. So then Fannie bundles up the little girls and sends them out to get away from the hostile attitude. When Charlie sees the girls going off, after he already told his wife NOT to let them go (or at least thought they had agreed to not let them go), his sense of control is lost, his already weak mind snaps and he kills the two girls. Everybody was expecting gunshots, so no one looked out the window to see why or where Charlie shot. Charlie, in a blind rage, stalks up to the house, shoots his wife and Marie then the boys and the baby. Then he snaps out of it, and realizes what he's done. He goes out and pulls the girls into the shelter of the barn, and makes them comfortable. He gets the boys their pillows and makes them comfortable. For Fannie and Marie, he does nothing- after all, it's their fault (in his mind) that all this happened. He runs out to the group of trees to figure out what to do next. He thinks about killing Arthur too, but he's not in the right position to do that. He paces, maybe he can run. But he'd just get caught. He writes "trouble will cause" in order to explain how the two women brought this upon themselves, but then realizes no one will believe him. Then he writes blame no one but I. That WAS the whole note- he didn't care if Arthur was blamed or not, he just wanted people to think he did, and look kindly on him for it. When enough people where around, he shot and killed himself, because he didn't want to be left in the cold too long.
I thought of this as I drove two hours today
shealy
12/30/07
Angel71242
Welcome to the forum.
Wow, what a post...you've got it all figured out!
I just have to disagree about the head injury tho -I mean if that injury was enough to cause him to kill his family I don't see how it's possible he held it under control for 2 1/2 years. And even though back then they didn't know much about subdural hematomas, the autopsy said the brain looked normal. Seems like there would have been some kind of dark spot on it or something if the injury was that serious.
And like LuvMyDog, you're saying he snapped that day -I strongly feel he was planning these murders for at least 2-3 weeks before they occurred. I feel the family portrait was part of his "planning". It just cost too much to buy everyone new clothes, get them all to town, and get that portrait made.
Angel71242
12/30/07 at 05:09 PM
Angel71242
Oh and Michael....he DOES look like Alfalfa!!
Angel71242
12/30/07 at 05:56 PM
Maria
That's the part Angel that confuses me too. Why it would take two and a half years for that injury to have a violent effect. I've racked my brain and I can't recall anyone at any time saying that Charlie even had to have stitches for that wound. I'm sure it hurt like heck and probably bled some and he had a bad headache from it for awhile but for the violent behavior to take that long to catch up with him just doesn't add up to me.
Maria
12/31/07 at 04:08 PM
Michael818
Being that far away in his past, it seems improbable to me that that pick injury had anything to do with it. If it were only a week or two before, then maybe. But not that long before. And, as we have already established, the crash didn't really affect the rural areas til later.
Michael R.
Michael818
D 12/31/07 at 04:32 PM
Michael818
I just went back and read those two rather ample posts again, and a true sense of deja vu pounced on me. Hey shealy, are you related to Luvmydog? Because a whole lot of that sounds EXACTLY like her. Heck, some of it is almost verbatim. I d almost think it was the same person, its so close. Anyway, I'm glad everybody can finally see that Alfalfa resemblance!
Michael R.
Michael818
12/31/07 at 06:51 PM
sissy
I have to go with the majority here, I don't believe that his head injury caused him to kill his family. I believe that he had been planning this murder for at least three weeks. The family portrait was a way to immortalize the family. To me that picture is his smug way of saying look at them they are mine and I can do as I please to them. He was a controlling, abusing, nut case. And I don't believe he killed his family because of a head injury, lack of sleep, or anything else. I have said it before, Charlie Lawson killed his family because of shame. Shame of being caught. He realized that with Marie being pregnant (and I believe she was) that the truth about who the daddy was would come out and that is why he killed his family.
sissy
12/31/07 at 06:59 PM
Maria
Right on Sissy.
Maria
01/10/08
Michael818
Seems like the head injury theory just won't die. It's like Dracula in the movies... just keeps rising for one more strike. And it seems like some people latch onto it like a pit bull, or other very determined "dog." Think we'll ever put this one to rest?
Michael R.
Michael818
01/01/08 at 07:15 PM
shealy
The reason I think it COULD have affected the man is personal experience. Everyone thinks that you deal with a head trauma in a few weeks and everything goes back to being hunky-dory. It doesn't. My brother had a slight concussion 7 years ago and has been suffering ever since with the after effects. Maybe it didn't happen with Charlie- maybe he was just a very sick man, but don't just say "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that." Matt (my brother) can control his symptoms reasonably well until a trigger hits when I have to move out of our house for awhile (we live together) because we're afraid of what he'd do. So, please, don't discount my knowledge of head injuries.
Also-the molestation case has very little evidence as well, by what I've read on this forum (and I'm nearly through the 6,000 odd posts at this point). Mine isn't provable, but neither is the theory that he was hurting Marie. I'm just saying- it's possible.
I didn't say the crash affected him directly- it did so indirectly. If I found out all of the Northern states (or even just Charlotte or Spartanburg/Greenville) had a huge economic crash, you can bet I'd be heading to the bank, worrying about when it'll hit down here.
I have no idea who luvmydog is, though I do love my dog, and she sounds very intelligent and articulate.
shealy
01/01/08 at 09:48 PM
hillbillyghosthunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by shealy
The reason I think it COULD have affected the man is personal experience. Everyone thin! -. that you deal with a head trauma in a few weeks and everything goes back to being hunky-dory. It doesn't. My brother had a slight concussion 7 years ago and has been suffering ever since with the after effects. Maybe it didn't happen with Charlie- maybe he was just a very sick man, but don't just say "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that." Matt (my brother) can control his symptoms reasonably well until a trigger hits when I have to move out of our house for awhile (we live together) because we're afraid of what he'd do. So, please, don't discount my knowledge of head injuries.
Also- the molestation case has very little evidence as well, by what I've read on this forum (and I'm nearly through the 6,000 odd posts at this point). Mine isn't provable, but neither is the theory that he was hurting Marie. I'm just saying- it's possible.
I didn't say the crash affected him directly- it did so indirectly. If I found out all of the Northern states (or even just Charlotte or Spartanburg/Greenville) had a huge economic crash, you can bet I'd be heading to the bank, worrying about when it'll hit down here.
I have no idea who luvmydog is, though I do love my dog, and she sounds very intelligent and articulate.
End quote.
My first husband was in a bad wreck when we were about 17. The roof caved in on him. The injury to his head was so bad he lost his short term memory for a real long time. From that day on he was not quiet the same person. Even after 13 years from the accident he would have severe mood swings and bouts of rage for no reason. He was a bad alcoholic so I am sure that helped his behavior a lot...but he was not always one! I honestly feel that the head injury caused changes in him. He died 3 months before his 30th b day of an anerism.
My husband today " Barry" told me that he felt like my 1st husband just needed an excuse to be mean and a person just can't become that way over night. He says it was something in him all along and he was just waiting for a chance to let it surface. This could have very well been the case with Charlie.
HillBillyGhostHunter
01/01/08 at 11:38 PM
Train
Wasn't sure where to post my message so brand new sounded good to me. Just wanted to let all you know that I really like this message board and I think it was put together really well. I have really enjoyed reading (and still am), all the post. I got the documentary for Christmas from my sis, but I still haven't read the book yet. Maybe 1 will get it for my B'day. Anyway just wanted to say Hi to everybody and all the good work they did on the film and all the good it is doing for domestic violence.
Train
01/01/08 at 11:47 PM
Train
Thank you, I have been reading the post for quite awhile, I must admit. There's a lot to be said about what that Charlie guy did to his family and it has bothered me for quite awhile. I am glad that this forum helps folks in putting some of the grief to rest.
Train
01/01/08 at 11:56 PM
shealy
Hillbilly-
You have a really good point. I have a question though- do you mean that he was always a bad person who could control the badness and used the accident as an excuse for his behavior, or that he was a good person with a lot of potential to be bad and the hit on the head tipped it over? Either way-1 never thought of it like that.
Sarah
P.S- Hi Train!
shealy
01/01/08 at 11:58 PM
Train
Hi to you too shealy and everybody here. Got to get some shut eye. Hope to talk to you people tomorrow.
Train
01/02/08 at 11:20 AM
Maria
The injury from the mattock could well have been involved with causing Charlie to kill his family. But I believe it was at best a contributory or secondary factor like the incest accusation. Those 2 things as well as the headaches, insomnia and loss of control over his wife and Arthur and Marie contributed to causing Charlie to snap and murder his family. The fight with Arthur indicated to Charlie he had lost control over him. Marie's refusal to quit seeing Charlie Wade Hampton whom Charlie disliked and Fannie's decision to attend church when Charlie was opposed to it told him that he had lost control over them too. Add to that mix the fear of being seperated from his family and you have the perfect recipe for murder and suicide. All of these things combined, rather than just one single thing I believe set it all in motion.
Maria
01/02/08 at 02:39 PM
Angel71242
Quote:
Originally Posted by shealy
The reason I think it COULD have affected the man is personal experience. Everyone thinks that you deal with a head trauma in a few weeks and everything goes back to being hunky-dory. It doesn't. My brother had a slight concussion 7 years ago and has been suffering ever since with the after effects. Maybe it didn't happen with Charlie- maybe he was just a very sick man, but don't just say "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that." Matt (my brother) can control his symptoms reasonably well until a trigger hits when I have to move out of our house for awhile (we live together) because we're afraid of what he'd do. So, please, don't discount my knowledge of head injuries.
So was your brother fine until 2 1/2 years after his slight concussion?? Because this is what you are theorizing happened to Charlie. And not one person here said "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that. We are just stating our opinions, like you.
Angel71242
01/03/08 at 12:30 AM
shealy
I'm not saying that Charlie was fine for 2 1/2 years- you are. I'm saying he had it under control for 2 1/2 years. Two completely different things.
Secondly, I didn't write a direct quote from anyone, and I didn't say you shouldn't air your opinions. I said what I said in reaction to my perceived tone of comments on this thread. Made mostly by Michael818, to be honest. Sorry if it made you mad.
shealy
01/03/08 at 04:36 PM
sissy
Hi shealy welcome to our forum. Let's just say for arguments sake that you are right, his injury caused him to snap. How can you say he had it under control? We have heard stories of Charlie's crazy actions well before the murders. Like dumping the popcorn out on the ground, the story of the lady who did not want her daughter going out with Charlie because he was "crazy". Sounds to me like he had problems long before the mattock incident. By the way why do you have such a problem with Michael. All this bickering!!!
sissy
01/04/08 at 06:18 PM
Michael818
The brain was examined, not only by Dr. Helsabeck, but by a BRAIN EXPERT. Don't recall his name (Maria, HELP?), but he was out of state-based I think. Their professional medical opinion was that the brain showed no sign that the mattock injury had caused significant damage, or even permanent damage to Charlie's brain. Maria, I think, is right! If it had anything to do with the attack, it was secondary.
Michael R.
Michael818
01/04/08 at 06:45 PM
Maria
Hi Michael,
The brain expert was a Pathologist from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. He was Sheriff John Taylor of Stokes County's brother and was visiting him over Christmas when the murders occurred. His name was Dr. Spotiswood Taylor. He and Dr. Helsabeck examined Charlie's brain while in Stokes County, then Dr. Taylor removed the brain and took it back with him to Johns Hopkins for a more in-depth autopsy.
Maria
01/05/08 at 10:32 AM
Maria
I checked back over my files this morning and according to a written account I read Charlie Lawson purchased his house in the spring (April)of 1927. He, Arthur, Fannie and Marie immediately began fixing up and making repairs to the inside as well as outside of the house. And that the task was soon completed and attention was immediately turned to the barns and other outbuildings. That was when the accident occurred with the mattock, the same year he bought the house, 1927. It goes on to say that according to Dr. Chester Helsabeck, when Charlie went to his office to have the injury looked at by Dr. Helsabeck, that Dr. Helsabeck said that Charlie's injury was not as bad as it had first appeared. Dr. Helsabeck was quoted as saying that several blood vessels had been severed in his scalp which caused profuse bleeding and that both of his eyes were black for two weeks. No mention of any stitches or anything else. This leads me to believe that Charlie's wound from the mattock was a superficial wound. A lot of bleeding but not a deep enough wound for stitches.The account goes on to say that after the murders (which was 2 and a half years) Dr. Helsabeck examined Charlie's brain and said he did not believe the wound Charlie received from the mattock had been severe enough to have contributed to Charlie's actions Christmas Day. Dr. Spotiswood Taylor, a specialist in forensic pathology examined the brain in a more detailed and thorough autopsy and reached the same conclusion. I can only speak for myself but the opinion of those two experts is good enough for me.
Maria
01/06/08 at 11:43 AM
Michael818
Thanks Maria. Perhaps this will be the stake that finally lays this theory to rest.
Michael R.
Michael818
01/07/08 at 11:52 AM
Angel71242
I certainly hope so because I believe the experts as well!
Angel71242
01/08/08 at 05:32 PM
doodlebug
You know, it's funny how timing is....a few days ago, my boss and I were discussing epilepsy (a friend's daughter was recently diagnosed). I mentioned two adults that I know with epilepsy, he told me that both of them developed the condition AFTER head injuries. Both were after car accidents, one was pretty massive, the other was really not bad. Granted, she cracked the windshield with her head, but other than a big lump and a cut, no one thought it was that bad. After a few months, she started having seizures. In his words "I've seen it over and over...if you ever have a head injury, *something* isn't right afterward..."
My own personal experience was being hit in the head multiple times with a hammer as an infant (that explains a lot doesn't it? lol) After I was released from the hospital, I started having insomnia and have had it my entire life. A recent CT scan showed abnormal activity in areas of my brain that shouldn't have been active, decreased activity in areas that should have been active. The first question the nuerologist asked me was if I'd ever suffered from a head injury. I never really thought to ask him to clarify that....will have to make a note to ask at my next appt.
Not trying to revive an old theory, but it is interesting that someone in the medical field, although not a nuerologist, has seen what seemed to be mild head injuries consistently cause later issues and that was the first thing the doc
doodlebug
shealy
I just found about the Lawson murders earlier today, but I read several hundred topics (admittedly, I skipped over the ones about showings- can't go to them now, can I?) and I have a couple of questions/comments. If I'm way off, I'm sorry- like I said, I just found out about this today, and I'm just curious. And I'm sorry about typing this all in one post- I'm not sure what topics these go with and it's 2 am and I want to go to bed, not search through the hundreds of topics. By the way- you seem like amazing people, I wasn't going to join but you seem so nice and you won't yell at me for not knowing a whole lot.
1) Have any of you heard of post concussion syndrome (might have a fancier name?). Any head wound, even a slight concussion can cause an area of bleeding on the brain and can leave a bruise on the brain. This injury can lead to behavior changes, it can make mental conditions much worse, and can basically cause all kinds of havoc on the brain. Could Charlie have gotten this from his accident the year before? My brother got a very slight head wound and now sees things that aren't there and has severe OCD.
2) Fun fact about lobotomies (someone mentioned that could have been the outcome had Charlie gotten mental help)- they're still preformed on violent people. Your emotions are contained in the frontal lobe and when you sever the connection between the front and rear lobes you become completely apathetic. I think they do it on schizophrenics.
3) Looking at the family portrait, I don't think Charlie looks smug at all- he looks proud. Whether or not he was planning the murders, it seems like he's saying "remember us now, together as a family". If his mind snapped and he killed his family, to me it looks like he loved his family on that day.
Sarah
shealy
12/29/07 at 05:16 AM
Maria
Hi Shealy and welcome to the forum. That's a good theory you've put forth here and I can vouch for the post concussion syndrome as I suffered an episode of that very thing around 15 years go. When I had that it only lasted about 6 weeks though and didn't cause me to become violent. It did cause me to become severely depressed and my arms would suddenly stiffen and go out in front of me at odd times. Charlie was said by people we interviewed that knew him personally, not just of him, that he'd always had a violent temper. And of course there's the story we were told about when he was called "that crazy man" back in his much younger years. And there's the autopsy report saying that there was nothing showing on his brain to cause him to go berserk and kill his family. So we're still left pretty much high and dry as to what made him choose to kill his family and himself. Personally I believe very strongly that it was fear of being taken away from his family that caused him to do what he did. Coupled with the sleep deprivation and headaches he was suffering he chose that way out. but your point is a good one as Charlie had some of the symptoms of that syndrome, especially the headaches and insomnia.
Maria
12/29/07 at 01:56 PM
shealy
The thing I'm saying is that in 1929 they wouldn't know about subdural hematomas, much less where/how to look for the dried up remains of one left on the brain. And couldn't a concussion syndrome with severe depression combined with his already "crazy" personality, violent tendencies, and the fear of being taken from his family be a legit reason? Obviously, it can never be proven, but could it be possible?
shealy
12/29/07 at 02:02 PM
Maria
I'd say it's very possible. The injury to the head with the mattock occurred 2 and a half years before the murders and his behavior change seems from all we've heard to have begun approximately 3 weeks before the murders. That's the reason I am not totally satisfied with that theory. His headaches and insomnia could have come from stress and anxiety.
Maria
12/29/07 at 03:34 PM
Michael818
He does look rather imperious in that photo. I've always thought he looked like a grown-up, deranged Alfalfa! Minus the hair sticking up, of course!
Michael R.
12/29/07 at 03:41 PM
Maria
Alfalfa, now that is a good description Michael.
Maria
12/29/07 at 03:45 PM
Michael818
Hi Maria. Just tried to PM you. Been out of commission for a while. Diabetes and what I think was flu. Haven't got up to the cemetery yet to put flowers, but will asap. Sis checked in for me a couple of times while I was down, but she wasn't sure how to work things. Anyway, yep, I really did think he looked like the famous "Little Rascal." Incidentally, HE was killed as a young man in a drug related shooting. 1959, I think.
Michael R.
12/30/07 at 03:29 PM
shealy
He really DOES look like Alfalfa!
Here's another theory (still incorporating the other one, because I still think it's possible!)
Alright, so Charlie was obsessed with control. After he hits his head he becomes depressed, but no one knows because he doesn't tell anyone. So he's suffering with this for two years, in addition to being "crazy", but he keeps a handle on everything because he can't NOT be in control of the situation. Then in 1929 the stock market crashes- it might not have had a direct affect on Charlie but it must have weighed on his mind- any kind of industry could get into trouble now, including the tobacco business, and then where would he be? So he's thinking about that and then Arthur stands up to him. Not only that, he starts interfering with his abuse of the other children (physical or sexual, take your pick). Now he's lost control of his oldest boy and some of his power has been taken away over the younger children. So he's inching closer and closer to insanity. Marie starts going steady with a man that Charlie doesn't approve of, but she doesn't care, she still dates Charlie Wade. So his control over her is slipping too. All of this is building up. Three weeks before the killings it becomes too much, he starts pacing, checking his guns (in case Arthur gets really violent with him?), crying out asking what to do. They come to take him to the mental institution, he willingly goes to the car but is overruled by his family. Another slippage of control. The morning of the killings he's in a foul mood, like normal, so he sends Arthur out, then pushes Marie around (verbally or physically) about Charlie Wade, she retorts that Charlie Wade loves her and she loves him, and there's nothing Charlie can do about it. His wife steps in for Marie as well, and Charlie grabs up his guns and goes outside to shoot at trees or hunt or something like that. He doesn't leave one inside the house because he's already so paranoid about being attacked he can't leave his family alone with the guns. So then Fannie bundles up the little girls and sends them out to get away from the hostile attitude. When Charlie sees the girls going off, after he already told his wife NOT to let them go (or at least thought they had agreed to not let them go), his sense of control is lost, his already weak mind snaps and he kills the two girls. Everybody was expecting gunshots, so no one looked out the window to see why or where Charlie shot. Charlie, in a blind rage, stalks up to the house, shoots his wife and Marie then the boys and the baby. Then he snaps out of it, and realizes what he's done. He goes out and pulls the girls into the shelter of the barn, and makes them comfortable. He gets the boys their pillows and makes them comfortable. For Fannie and Marie, he does nothing- after all, it's their fault (in his mind) that all this happened. He runs out to the group of trees to figure out what to do next. He thinks about killing Arthur too, but he's not in the right position to do that. He paces, maybe he can run. But he'd just get caught. He writes "trouble will cause" in order to explain how the two women brought this upon themselves, but then realizes no one will believe him. Then he writes blame no one but I. That WAS the whole note- he didn't care if Arthur was blamed or not, he just wanted people to think he did, and look kindly on him for it. When enough people where around, he shot and killed himself, because he didn't want to be left in the cold too long.
I thought of this as I drove two hours today
shealy
12/30/07
Angel71242
Welcome to the forum.
Wow, what a post...you've got it all figured out!
I just have to disagree about the head injury tho -I mean if that injury was enough to cause him to kill his family I don't see how it's possible he held it under control for 2 1/2 years. And even though back then they didn't know much about subdural hematomas, the autopsy said the brain looked normal. Seems like there would have been some kind of dark spot on it or something if the injury was that serious.
And like LuvMyDog, you're saying he snapped that day -I strongly feel he was planning these murders for at least 2-3 weeks before they occurred. I feel the family portrait was part of his "planning". It just cost too much to buy everyone new clothes, get them all to town, and get that portrait made.
Angel71242
12/30/07 at 05:09 PM
Angel71242
Oh and Michael....he DOES look like Alfalfa!!
Angel71242
12/30/07 at 05:56 PM
Maria
That's the part Angel that confuses me too. Why it would take two and a half years for that injury to have a violent effect. I've racked my brain and I can't recall anyone at any time saying that Charlie even had to have stitches for that wound. I'm sure it hurt like heck and probably bled some and he had a bad headache from it for awhile but for the violent behavior to take that long to catch up with him just doesn't add up to me.
Maria
12/31/07 at 04:08 PM
Michael818
Being that far away in his past, it seems improbable to me that that pick injury had anything to do with it. If it were only a week or two before, then maybe. But not that long before. And, as we have already established, the crash didn't really affect the rural areas til later.
Michael R.
Michael818
D 12/31/07 at 04:32 PM
Michael818
I just went back and read those two rather ample posts again, and a true sense of deja vu pounced on me. Hey shealy, are you related to Luvmydog? Because a whole lot of that sounds EXACTLY like her. Heck, some of it is almost verbatim. I d almost think it was the same person, its so close. Anyway, I'm glad everybody can finally see that Alfalfa resemblance!
Michael R.
Michael818
12/31/07 at 06:51 PM
sissy
I have to go with the majority here, I don't believe that his head injury caused him to kill his family. I believe that he had been planning this murder for at least three weeks. The family portrait was a way to immortalize the family. To me that picture is his smug way of saying look at them they are mine and I can do as I please to them. He was a controlling, abusing, nut case. And I don't believe he killed his family because of a head injury, lack of sleep, or anything else. I have said it before, Charlie Lawson killed his family because of shame. Shame of being caught. He realized that with Marie being pregnant (and I believe she was) that the truth about who the daddy was would come out and that is why he killed his family.
sissy
12/31/07 at 06:59 PM
Maria
Right on Sissy.
Maria
01/10/08
Michael818
Seems like the head injury theory just won't die. It's like Dracula in the movies... just keeps rising for one more strike. And it seems like some people latch onto it like a pit bull, or other very determined "dog." Think we'll ever put this one to rest?
Michael R.
Michael818
01/01/08 at 07:15 PM
shealy
The reason I think it COULD have affected the man is personal experience. Everyone thinks that you deal with a head trauma in a few weeks and everything goes back to being hunky-dory. It doesn't. My brother had a slight concussion 7 years ago and has been suffering ever since with the after effects. Maybe it didn't happen with Charlie- maybe he was just a very sick man, but don't just say "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that." Matt (my brother) can control his symptoms reasonably well until a trigger hits when I have to move out of our house for awhile (we live together) because we're afraid of what he'd do. So, please, don't discount my knowledge of head injuries.
Also-the molestation case has very little evidence as well, by what I've read on this forum (and I'm nearly through the 6,000 odd posts at this point). Mine isn't provable, but neither is the theory that he was hurting Marie. I'm just saying- it's possible.
I didn't say the crash affected him directly- it did so indirectly. If I found out all of the Northern states (or even just Charlotte or Spartanburg/Greenville) had a huge economic crash, you can bet I'd be heading to the bank, worrying about when it'll hit down here.
I have no idea who luvmydog is, though I do love my dog, and she sounds very intelligent and articulate.
shealy
01/01/08 at 09:48 PM
hillbillyghosthunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by shealy
The reason I think it COULD have affected the man is personal experience. Everyone thin! -. that you deal with a head trauma in a few weeks and everything goes back to being hunky-dory. It doesn't. My brother had a slight concussion 7 years ago and has been suffering ever since with the after effects. Maybe it didn't happen with Charlie- maybe he was just a very sick man, but don't just say "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that." Matt (my brother) can control his symptoms reasonably well until a trigger hits when I have to move out of our house for awhile (we live together) because we're afraid of what he'd do. So, please, don't discount my knowledge of head injuries.
Also- the molestation case has very little evidence as well, by what I've read on this forum (and I'm nearly through the 6,000 odd posts at this point). Mine isn't provable, but neither is the theory that he was hurting Marie. I'm just saying- it's possible.
I didn't say the crash affected him directly- it did so indirectly. If I found out all of the Northern states (or even just Charlotte or Spartanburg/Greenville) had a huge economic crash, you can bet I'd be heading to the bank, worrying about when it'll hit down here.
I have no idea who luvmydog is, though I do love my dog, and she sounds very intelligent and articulate.
End quote.
My first husband was in a bad wreck when we were about 17. The roof caved in on him. The injury to his head was so bad he lost his short term memory for a real long time. From that day on he was not quiet the same person. Even after 13 years from the accident he would have severe mood swings and bouts of rage for no reason. He was a bad alcoholic so I am sure that helped his behavior a lot...but he was not always one! I honestly feel that the head injury caused changes in him. He died 3 months before his 30th b day of an anerism.
My husband today " Barry" told me that he felt like my 1st husband just needed an excuse to be mean and a person just can't become that way over night. He says it was something in him all along and he was just waiting for a chance to let it surface. This could have very well been the case with Charlie.
HillBillyGhostHunter
01/01/08 at 11:38 PM
Train
Wasn't sure where to post my message so brand new sounded good to me. Just wanted to let all you know that I really like this message board and I think it was put together really well. I have really enjoyed reading (and still am), all the post. I got the documentary for Christmas from my sis, but I still haven't read the book yet. Maybe 1 will get it for my B'day. Anyway just wanted to say Hi to everybody and all the good work they did on the film and all the good it is doing for domestic violence.
Train
01/01/08 at 11:47 PM
Train
Thank you, I have been reading the post for quite awhile, I must admit. There's a lot to be said about what that Charlie guy did to his family and it has bothered me for quite awhile. I am glad that this forum helps folks in putting some of the grief to rest.
Train
01/01/08 at 11:56 PM
shealy
Hillbilly-
You have a really good point. I have a question though- do you mean that he was always a bad person who could control the badness and used the accident as an excuse for his behavior, or that he was a good person with a lot of potential to be bad and the hit on the head tipped it over? Either way-1 never thought of it like that.
Sarah
P.S- Hi Train!
shealy
01/01/08 at 11:58 PM
Train
Hi to you too shealy and everybody here. Got to get some shut eye. Hope to talk to you people tomorrow.
Train
01/02/08 at 11:20 AM
Maria
The injury from the mattock could well have been involved with causing Charlie to kill his family. But I believe it was at best a contributory or secondary factor like the incest accusation. Those 2 things as well as the headaches, insomnia and loss of control over his wife and Arthur and Marie contributed to causing Charlie to snap and murder his family. The fight with Arthur indicated to Charlie he had lost control over him. Marie's refusal to quit seeing Charlie Wade Hampton whom Charlie disliked and Fannie's decision to attend church when Charlie was opposed to it told him that he had lost control over them too. Add to that mix the fear of being seperated from his family and you have the perfect recipe for murder and suicide. All of these things combined, rather than just one single thing I believe set it all in motion.
Maria
01/02/08 at 02:39 PM
Angel71242
Quote:
Originally Posted by shealy
The reason I think it COULD have affected the man is personal experience. Everyone thinks that you deal with a head trauma in a few weeks and everything goes back to being hunky-dory. It doesn't. My brother had a slight concussion 7 years ago and has been suffering ever since with the after effects. Maybe it didn't happen with Charlie- maybe he was just a very sick man, but don't just say "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that." Matt (my brother) can control his symptoms reasonably well until a trigger hits when I have to move out of our house for awhile (we live together) because we're afraid of what he'd do. So, please, don't discount my knowledge of head injuries.
So was your brother fine until 2 1/2 years after his slight concussion?? Because this is what you are theorizing happened to Charlie. And not one person here said "oh, well, it's impossible- a hit on the head and you get better in a week. Everyone knows that. We are just stating our opinions, like you.
Angel71242
01/03/08 at 12:30 AM
shealy
I'm not saying that Charlie was fine for 2 1/2 years- you are. I'm saying he had it under control for 2 1/2 years. Two completely different things.
Secondly, I didn't write a direct quote from anyone, and I didn't say you shouldn't air your opinions. I said what I said in reaction to my perceived tone of comments on this thread. Made mostly by Michael818, to be honest. Sorry if it made you mad.
shealy
01/03/08 at 04:36 PM
sissy
Hi shealy welcome to our forum. Let's just say for arguments sake that you are right, his injury caused him to snap. How can you say he had it under control? We have heard stories of Charlie's crazy actions well before the murders. Like dumping the popcorn out on the ground, the story of the lady who did not want her daughter going out with Charlie because he was "crazy". Sounds to me like he had problems long before the mattock incident. By the way why do you have such a problem with Michael. All this bickering!!!
sissy
01/04/08 at 06:18 PM
Michael818
The brain was examined, not only by Dr. Helsabeck, but by a BRAIN EXPERT. Don't recall his name (Maria, HELP?), but he was out of state-based I think. Their professional medical opinion was that the brain showed no sign that the mattock injury had caused significant damage, or even permanent damage to Charlie's brain. Maria, I think, is right! If it had anything to do with the attack, it was secondary.
Michael R.
Michael818
01/04/08 at 06:45 PM
Maria
Hi Michael,
The brain expert was a Pathologist from Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, Maryland. He was Sheriff John Taylor of Stokes County's brother and was visiting him over Christmas when the murders occurred. His name was Dr. Spotiswood Taylor. He and Dr. Helsabeck examined Charlie's brain while in Stokes County, then Dr. Taylor removed the brain and took it back with him to Johns Hopkins for a more in-depth autopsy.
Maria
01/05/08 at 10:32 AM
Maria
I checked back over my files this morning and according to a written account I read Charlie Lawson purchased his house in the spring (April)of 1927. He, Arthur, Fannie and Marie immediately began fixing up and making repairs to the inside as well as outside of the house. And that the task was soon completed and attention was immediately turned to the barns and other outbuildings. That was when the accident occurred with the mattock, the same year he bought the house, 1927. It goes on to say that according to Dr. Chester Helsabeck, when Charlie went to his office to have the injury looked at by Dr. Helsabeck, that Dr. Helsabeck said that Charlie's injury was not as bad as it had first appeared. Dr. Helsabeck was quoted as saying that several blood vessels had been severed in his scalp which caused profuse bleeding and that both of his eyes were black for two weeks. No mention of any stitches or anything else. This leads me to believe that Charlie's wound from the mattock was a superficial wound. A lot of bleeding but not a deep enough wound for stitches.The account goes on to say that after the murders (which was 2 and a half years) Dr. Helsabeck examined Charlie's brain and said he did not believe the wound Charlie received from the mattock had been severe enough to have contributed to Charlie's actions Christmas Day. Dr. Spotiswood Taylor, a specialist in forensic pathology examined the brain in a more detailed and thorough autopsy and reached the same conclusion. I can only speak for myself but the opinion of those two experts is good enough for me.
Maria
01/06/08 at 11:43 AM
Michael818
Thanks Maria. Perhaps this will be the stake that finally lays this theory to rest.
Michael R.
Michael818
01/07/08 at 11:52 AM
Angel71242
I certainly hope so because I believe the experts as well!
Angel71242
01/08/08 at 05:32 PM
doodlebug
You know, it's funny how timing is....a few days ago, my boss and I were discussing epilepsy (a friend's daughter was recently diagnosed). I mentioned two adults that I know with epilepsy, he told me that both of them developed the condition AFTER head injuries. Both were after car accidents, one was pretty massive, the other was really not bad. Granted, she cracked the windshield with her head, but other than a big lump and a cut, no one thought it was that bad. After a few months, she started having seizures. In his words "I've seen it over and over...if you ever have a head injury, *something* isn't right afterward..."
My own personal experience was being hit in the head multiple times with a hammer as an infant (that explains a lot doesn't it? lol) After I was released from the hospital, I started having insomnia and have had it my entire life. A recent CT scan showed abnormal activity in areas of my brain that shouldn't have been active, decreased activity in areas that should have been active. The first question the nuerologist asked me was if I'd ever suffered from a head injury. I never really thought to ask him to clarify that....will have to make a note to ask at my next appt.
Not trying to revive an old theory, but it is interesting that someone in the medical field, although not a nuerologist, has seen what seemed to be mild head injuries consistently cause later issues and that was the first thing the doc
doodlebug
