Post by Brian on Jan 4, 2014 18:43:37 GMT -5
10/06/07 at 04:31 PM
NascarLover
Every day there is so much more new information in here that I can't keep up with it all. It is so interesting to read everything though. I have been thinking about something a whole lot lately. About women who suffer from some kind of depression after they have a baby but 1 can't remember what it is called. But Andrea Yates suffered from it. These women get real depressed after they give birth and some of them kill their children because of it. Is it possible Fannie Lawson suffered from it and that she killed her children? This has been bothering me so I thought I would ask you. I saw the documentary and Maria talks a lot about it but i still don't know very much about it.
T.c. Bowman
NascarLover
10/06/07 at 04:59 PM
Maria
WOW. Oh my gosh Tim, your question almost made my heart stop. Whew. Okay, let's take this apart. First off, the depression you speak of is called Postpartum Depression. And you're right, some mothers do suffer from this like the case you mentioned of Andrea Yates. Unfortunately it is not uncommon. Not all new mothers go through this, I didn't. Postpartum depression occurs when a woman's hormones go hay wire after giving birth. So your question here is quite understandable. I'm just amazed that such a thing as this never crossed my mind. © But I can assure you that Fannie Lawson was not the one who killed her children. I say this because Charlie Lawson was said to have been the one acting strange and out of character for a number of weeks before the murders. Never has this been said about Fannie. Also you have to remember that Charlie Lawson was heard saying he wouldn't mind dying if he could take his family with him. That was not never attributed to Fannie. Also Marion went to take Charlie, not Fannie, to Winston-Salem to see a Psychiatrist 3 weeks before the murders. No matter how many times I take this story apart, no matter how many ways I look at all the facts of this story, the signs ALWAYS point to Charlie Lawson as being the person who killed his family. And ONLY Charlie Lawson. And last but not least, if Fannie had killed her children I don't for one minute believe she would have killed them in such a violent and brutal manner. She would never have wielded a shotgun against them. Guns are more often a man's weapon of choice. I hope this helps clarify some things for you.
Maria
10/06/07 at 06:40 PM
LuvMyDog
I agree Maria, I suffered post part em depression with both my girls and they are 28 and 20. I was depressed but not to the point where I would want my children's life to end. There was NEVER a thought there! I just felt depressed and happy at the same time if anyone can understand that. It seemed to pass quickly for me (thank God!), but the thoughts of killing your children is totally insane to me, I never went there. This was Charlie Lawson's act, pure and simple. He planned, and contemplated these murders to the end. There was something he could not live with and for some god forsaken reason felt he had to take his entire family with him (minus Arthur). I certainly don't believe for one minute that Fannie had anything to do with the murders, but this is an interesting concept like a the other suggestions brought to this board.
LuvMyDog
10/08/07 at 10:22 AM
Angel71242
It is an interesting concept - but I agree that Charlie was the one who did all the killing. But that thought gives you something new to think about"
Angel71242
10/08/07 at 10:44 AM
Maria
Isn't that the truth Angel. That's why it startled me so much when I first saw Tim's question. There's no shortage of women/mothers who have done just that. And for someone like Tim who has only recently been made aware of this story and therefore doesn't know a lot of the details, I can see how he could wonder about just such a thing.
Maria
10/08/07 at 04:38 PM
Michael818
Hey guys! This idea, I have to admit, gave me pause for a second. But, looking at all the known facts, Charlie HAD to be the killer.
It seems that women who do commit this type of crime usually use a less "messy" method, too. Carbon monoxide from a tailpipe, or drowning, or suffocation. Brutal acts with blades or bullets do occur, but they are extremely rare.
There were several cases of "blood atonement," where the parents shed the blood of a sinful child to "save their immortal soul," in certain sects of the LDS Church, but these were fringe groups; not fully in line with Mormon doctrine. And, I believe, the Lawsons were Primitive Baptists, right, Maria?
Michael R.
Michael818
10/08/07 at 04:58 PM
Maria
Charlie did not go to church at all from what I've heard and Fannie only started going to church a year before her death but I don't know which which church she attended. Some of the Lawsons, Stella for one, attended the Primitive Baptist Church.
Maria
10/08/07 at 06:20 PM
NascarLover
Thank you everyone for answering my question about Fannie Lawson. Your answers have given me knowledge about this story I didn't know. It does sound like Charlie Lawson was the one who killed his children. Maybe one day I will know almost as much as everyone else in here knows. I am really interested in what happened and why and this forum is the best place I've found to help me learn.
T.C. Bowman
NascarLover
10/08/07 at 06:30 PM
Maria
You're welcome Tim. Asking questions is how most of us came to learn as much as we have. And remember, there is no such thing as a stupid question.
Maria
10/08/07 at 08:58 PM
LuvMyDog
That is the greatest thing about this message boards Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And I think it was a great question Tim. There has been so much past history about women killing their own children that it would certainly be plausible to ask. I'm always open for a good debate anyway!(LOL)!
LuvMyDog
10/09/07 at 09:00 AM
sissy
That is an interesting theory. But I don't believe she did it. It does make you stop and think, I can see how people could believe that and many of the other theories that were flying around.
sissy
10/10/07 at 05:26 PM
Michael818
It would be a complete shock to find out Fannie did this, wouldn't it? As I said, though, USUALLY, when women commit this time of crime, it is with a cleaner method of execution. I think it would have been even more so back then.Charlie's status as the killer seems unassailable right now.
Michael R.
Michael818
10/19/07 at 01:24 PM
Maria
I don't think Fannie could ever have over powered Marie and definitely not Charlie. And Fannie would never have been able to kill little Marylou. I have a hard time understanding how even Charlie could have killed Marylou. But he did.
Maria
10/19/07 at 01:29 PM
Angel71242
I agree - she could not have overpowered them. Also, I would say 99.9% of women could not kill their little 4 month old baby (I know there is that .1% that do tho). And I agree with Michael, when women kill, they almost always do it "cleaner".
Angel71242
10/19/07 at 09:36 PM
doodlebug
If it had been Fannie, it would have been less violent. Maybe the use of poison considering the number of people involved. A lot of toxic chemicals would have been readily available, arsenic, cyanide ...heck, arsenic was at one time considered a "wonder drug" that was used to treat just about everything and I believe it's tasteless. There were also most likely a ton of plants growing within a short walking distance that would have done the job.....
doodlebug
10/24/07 at 06:17 PM
Michael818
I think doodlebug is right here. Fannie would have known of many fatal herbs and plants because she was raised in "Old Timey" conditions, and I'm sure she would have known what to use. Nightshade, oleander, something...
Michael R.
Michael818
10/24/07 at 10:02 PM
doodlebug
Another point is how he killed James, Raymond and Marylou. Bludgeoning them is a killing of rage. For whatever reason, maybe because things weren't going according to plan? Something that was said that we know nothing about?
If there were 3 guns as has pictured, why bludgeon the youngest? Is there any indication of the actual number of shells that Charlie had on him when he was found? While a shortage of shells would explain the difference in killings, it seems to have progressed from something planned out and methodical that spiraled down into total rage.
doodlebug
10/24/07 at 10:08 PM
Maria
I don't know how many bullets he had but he may have been telling Arthur the truth about not having many left. Also 1 think the shotgun would have done a lot more damage to the 3 youngest ones than to the biggest children so maybe he decided to hit them on the head rather than shoot them. I just don't know. Whatever was going on in his mind he meant to kill everyone of them no matter what method he chose. Personally I think he ran out of bullets.
Maria
10/24/07 at 10:56 PM
LuvMyDog
It's always been on the back of my mind whether he really had enough bullets or if he sent Arthur to the store on a pretense, saying he didn't have any shot gun shells?? I personally believe he DID have enough. I think it was planned and in his planning surely he would make sure he had the bullets to kill all of his victims. I also believe the reasoning for two guns was just in case one got locked up and then he would have a back up. He was hell-bent on killing everybody no matter what, he planned this execution and was methodical in his killings. This is just my opinion.
LuvMyDog
10/24/07 at 11:04 PM
Maria
You may well be right. I've been going back and forth for some time as to whether or not he had enough bullets and whether he planned it for that day or that day became the day because a window of opportunity opened for him. The answer to the last part will provide the answer to whether he had enough bullets and just lied to Arthur or whether he really didn't.
Maria
10/24/07 at 11:36 PM
LuvMyDog
I think he did lie to Arthur, to get him out of the way for the time being.....but I still think he planned on killing Arthur on his return home, but was totally sidetracked when Arthur didn't come home at the time he had thought he would.
LuvMyDog
10/25/07 at 01:01 PM
Angel71242
I have to agree...surely he had enough bullets. He had been planning this thing for awhile - checking his guns over
and over at night - he wouldn't have overlooked something like bullets. Even if he didn't plan on the exact day, he
was still planning on it happening and I'm sure he wanted to be fully prepared for whenever it did happen.
Angel71242
10/25/07 at 05:12 PM
Michael818
One weapon seems to have malfunctioned at the barn, since he switched guns there between shooting the girls (at least, I've always heard he switched. We also know he bent the barrel of a rifle trying to shoot the one behind the stove. This would only leave him the shotgun to kill himself if one rifle was locked and the other was bent.
Michael R.
Michael818
01/11/08 at 03:04 PM
laurie1125
I read that after Arthur died, his wife and children moved to California. What became of them?
laurie1125
01/11/08 at 03:21 PM
Maria
Three of the four are still alive and living in California. One, the oldest daughter died.
Maria
NascarLover
Every day there is so much more new information in here that I can't keep up with it all. It is so interesting to read everything though. I have been thinking about something a whole lot lately. About women who suffer from some kind of depression after they have a baby but 1 can't remember what it is called. But Andrea Yates suffered from it. These women get real depressed after they give birth and some of them kill their children because of it. Is it possible Fannie Lawson suffered from it and that she killed her children? This has been bothering me so I thought I would ask you. I saw the documentary and Maria talks a lot about it but i still don't know very much about it.
T.c. Bowman
NascarLover
10/06/07 at 04:59 PM
Maria
WOW. Oh my gosh Tim, your question almost made my heart stop. Whew. Okay, let's take this apart. First off, the depression you speak of is called Postpartum Depression. And you're right, some mothers do suffer from this like the case you mentioned of Andrea Yates. Unfortunately it is not uncommon. Not all new mothers go through this, I didn't. Postpartum depression occurs when a woman's hormones go hay wire after giving birth. So your question here is quite understandable. I'm just amazed that such a thing as this never crossed my mind. © But I can assure you that Fannie Lawson was not the one who killed her children. I say this because Charlie Lawson was said to have been the one acting strange and out of character for a number of weeks before the murders. Never has this been said about Fannie. Also you have to remember that Charlie Lawson was heard saying he wouldn't mind dying if he could take his family with him. That was not never attributed to Fannie. Also Marion went to take Charlie, not Fannie, to Winston-Salem to see a Psychiatrist 3 weeks before the murders. No matter how many times I take this story apart, no matter how many ways I look at all the facts of this story, the signs ALWAYS point to Charlie Lawson as being the person who killed his family. And ONLY Charlie Lawson. And last but not least, if Fannie had killed her children I don't for one minute believe she would have killed them in such a violent and brutal manner. She would never have wielded a shotgun against them. Guns are more often a man's weapon of choice. I hope this helps clarify some things for you.
Maria
10/06/07 at 06:40 PM
LuvMyDog
I agree Maria, I suffered post part em depression with both my girls and they are 28 and 20. I was depressed but not to the point where I would want my children's life to end. There was NEVER a thought there! I just felt depressed and happy at the same time if anyone can understand that. It seemed to pass quickly for me (thank God!), but the thoughts of killing your children is totally insane to me, I never went there. This was Charlie Lawson's act, pure and simple. He planned, and contemplated these murders to the end. There was something he could not live with and for some god forsaken reason felt he had to take his entire family with him (minus Arthur). I certainly don't believe for one minute that Fannie had anything to do with the murders, but this is an interesting concept like a the other suggestions brought to this board.
LuvMyDog
10/08/07 at 10:22 AM
Angel71242
It is an interesting concept - but I agree that Charlie was the one who did all the killing. But that thought gives you something new to think about"
Angel71242
10/08/07 at 10:44 AM
Maria
Isn't that the truth Angel. That's why it startled me so much when I first saw Tim's question. There's no shortage of women/mothers who have done just that. And for someone like Tim who has only recently been made aware of this story and therefore doesn't know a lot of the details, I can see how he could wonder about just such a thing.
Maria
10/08/07 at 04:38 PM
Michael818
Hey guys! This idea, I have to admit, gave me pause for a second. But, looking at all the known facts, Charlie HAD to be the killer.
It seems that women who do commit this type of crime usually use a less "messy" method, too. Carbon monoxide from a tailpipe, or drowning, or suffocation. Brutal acts with blades or bullets do occur, but they are extremely rare.
There were several cases of "blood atonement," where the parents shed the blood of a sinful child to "save their immortal soul," in certain sects of the LDS Church, but these were fringe groups; not fully in line with Mormon doctrine. And, I believe, the Lawsons were Primitive Baptists, right, Maria?
Michael R.
Michael818
10/08/07 at 04:58 PM
Maria
Charlie did not go to church at all from what I've heard and Fannie only started going to church a year before her death but I don't know which which church she attended. Some of the Lawsons, Stella for one, attended the Primitive Baptist Church.
Maria
10/08/07 at 06:20 PM
NascarLover
Thank you everyone for answering my question about Fannie Lawson. Your answers have given me knowledge about this story I didn't know. It does sound like Charlie Lawson was the one who killed his children. Maybe one day I will know almost as much as everyone else in here knows. I am really interested in what happened and why and this forum is the best place I've found to help me learn.
T.C. Bowman
NascarLover
10/08/07 at 06:30 PM
Maria
You're welcome Tim. Asking questions is how most of us came to learn as much as we have. And remember, there is no such thing as a stupid question.
Maria
10/08/07 at 08:58 PM
LuvMyDog
That is the greatest thing about this message boards Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And I think it was a great question Tim. There has been so much past history about women killing their own children that it would certainly be plausible to ask. I'm always open for a good debate anyway!(LOL)!
LuvMyDog
10/09/07 at 09:00 AM
sissy
That is an interesting theory. But I don't believe she did it. It does make you stop and think, I can see how people could believe that and many of the other theories that were flying around.
sissy
10/10/07 at 05:26 PM
Michael818
It would be a complete shock to find out Fannie did this, wouldn't it? As I said, though, USUALLY, when women commit this time of crime, it is with a cleaner method of execution. I think it would have been even more so back then.Charlie's status as the killer seems unassailable right now.
Michael R.
Michael818
10/19/07 at 01:24 PM
Maria
I don't think Fannie could ever have over powered Marie and definitely not Charlie. And Fannie would never have been able to kill little Marylou. I have a hard time understanding how even Charlie could have killed Marylou. But he did.
Maria
10/19/07 at 01:29 PM
Angel71242
I agree - she could not have overpowered them. Also, I would say 99.9% of women could not kill their little 4 month old baby (I know there is that .1% that do tho). And I agree with Michael, when women kill, they almost always do it "cleaner".
Angel71242
10/19/07 at 09:36 PM
doodlebug
If it had been Fannie, it would have been less violent. Maybe the use of poison considering the number of people involved. A lot of toxic chemicals would have been readily available, arsenic, cyanide ...heck, arsenic was at one time considered a "wonder drug" that was used to treat just about everything and I believe it's tasteless. There were also most likely a ton of plants growing within a short walking distance that would have done the job.....
doodlebug
10/24/07 at 06:17 PM
Michael818
I think doodlebug is right here. Fannie would have known of many fatal herbs and plants because she was raised in "Old Timey" conditions, and I'm sure she would have known what to use. Nightshade, oleander, something...
Michael R.
Michael818
10/24/07 at 10:02 PM
doodlebug
Another point is how he killed James, Raymond and Marylou. Bludgeoning them is a killing of rage. For whatever reason, maybe because things weren't going according to plan? Something that was said that we know nothing about?
If there were 3 guns as has pictured, why bludgeon the youngest? Is there any indication of the actual number of shells that Charlie had on him when he was found? While a shortage of shells would explain the difference in killings, it seems to have progressed from something planned out and methodical that spiraled down into total rage.
doodlebug
10/24/07 at 10:08 PM
Maria
I don't know how many bullets he had but he may have been telling Arthur the truth about not having many left. Also 1 think the shotgun would have done a lot more damage to the 3 youngest ones than to the biggest children so maybe he decided to hit them on the head rather than shoot them. I just don't know. Whatever was going on in his mind he meant to kill everyone of them no matter what method he chose. Personally I think he ran out of bullets.
Maria
10/24/07 at 10:56 PM
LuvMyDog
It's always been on the back of my mind whether he really had enough bullets or if he sent Arthur to the store on a pretense, saying he didn't have any shot gun shells?? I personally believe he DID have enough. I think it was planned and in his planning surely he would make sure he had the bullets to kill all of his victims. I also believe the reasoning for two guns was just in case one got locked up and then he would have a back up. He was hell-bent on killing everybody no matter what, he planned this execution and was methodical in his killings. This is just my opinion.
LuvMyDog
10/24/07 at 11:04 PM
Maria
You may well be right. I've been going back and forth for some time as to whether or not he had enough bullets and whether he planned it for that day or that day became the day because a window of opportunity opened for him. The answer to the last part will provide the answer to whether he had enough bullets and just lied to Arthur or whether he really didn't.
Maria
10/24/07 at 11:36 PM
LuvMyDog
I think he did lie to Arthur, to get him out of the way for the time being.....but I still think he planned on killing Arthur on his return home, but was totally sidetracked when Arthur didn't come home at the time he had thought he would.
LuvMyDog
10/25/07 at 01:01 PM
Angel71242
I have to agree...surely he had enough bullets. He had been planning this thing for awhile - checking his guns over
and over at night - he wouldn't have overlooked something like bullets. Even if he didn't plan on the exact day, he
was still planning on it happening and I'm sure he wanted to be fully prepared for whenever it did happen.
Angel71242
10/25/07 at 05:12 PM
Michael818
One weapon seems to have malfunctioned at the barn, since he switched guns there between shooting the girls (at least, I've always heard he switched. We also know he bent the barrel of a rifle trying to shoot the one behind the stove. This would only leave him the shotgun to kill himself if one rifle was locked and the other was bent.
Michael R.
Michael818
01/11/08 at 03:04 PM
laurie1125
I read that after Arthur died, his wife and children moved to California. What became of them?
laurie1125
01/11/08 at 03:21 PM
Maria
Three of the four are still alive and living in California. One, the oldest daughter died.
Maria