Post by Brian on Jun 12, 2014 1:45:42 GMT -5
01/20/07 at 10:16 AM
sissy
Do you think that when Charlie took his whole family to have there picture made he was planning to kill them? Or was the picture a Christmas present for Fannie?
sissy
01/20/07 at 10:30 AM
Maria
Just my opinion you understand but I think it was a sign that he planned to kill them. I think that although he knew he was going to kill them, that what he planned was a terrible thing to do, I think that in his warped way of loving, that he did indeed love them, albeit in a sick way, and as such wanted his wife and children and himself to forever be remembered and a family portrait would go a long way in memorializing them.
Maria
01/20/07 at 11:06 AM
jackhammer
I know that at this point it's all speculation. Your idea of Charlie wanting the portrait because he was planning on killing them makes sense. Something to remember them all by. I guess that i have a hard time with the fact that he took the portrait, and then killed all but one. If it was just to carry on the family name, why not leave all the males and have a better chance? Or as some have speculated, maybe he was waiting for Arthur's return. I suppose there are any number of reasons that he spared one of his children. And I guess that Arthur gave thought to that probably every day for 16 years until he joined them in death.
jackhammer
01/20/07 at 11:33 AM
lilred1984
i agree.... i think he had it all planned out from the beginning.and had the family pic made because he had plans on killing them....but i find the look on his face to be creepy because if we are right about htm already having this planned out and that is the reason he had the family pic made then why does he have that proud- no remorse look on his face? but if u look, it looks like he isn't even looking at the camera, kinda like he couldn't look at the camera...hes just staring off into space... one other thing that gets to me about this pic is no one was smiling except for maybell. i wonder why?...is there any other pics of them together?and did they smile?.....
Lil Red
01/20/07 at 05:24 PM
sissy
My grandparents had a picture of the family. But I was little and don't remember if it was the exact same one or not.
sissy
01/20/07 at 07:05 PM
cephus
I think he had planed it all out for a long time don't think he woke up that Christmas morning and said to himself i think i will kill my family and myself. Most pics I have seen taken before 1940 most people are not smiling think you had to stay still longer than you do today.
cephus
01/20/07 at 07:11
Maria
I've always heard that in those times it was thought of as a sin to smile when your picture was taken. I have photos of a lot of my ancestors from the 1880's through the 1940's and not one of them was smiling.
Maria
01/30/07 at 07:05 PM
iluvnumber3
My grandmother never smiled in any of their family pictures growing up. She also had said it was bad to wear makeup unless you were a certain age. I notice Marie looks to have a touch of make up. Fannie does not have any "coloring" but Marie does. I am surprised that Charlie let that happen. The only reason I say that is that my great grand father restricted the use of make up in those times and "after".
I also noticed that Arthur's eyes were beautiful! He was tall dark and handsome, with "ice blue" looking eyes. Someone also mentioned about Charlie not looking into the camera, Fannie is looking at the same "thing" off camera. Something must have distracted them both. Wonder what?
iluvnumber3
01/30/07 at 07:48 PM
Maria
Fannie had an eye condition called wall-eyed. It's the opposite of cross-eyed. She was probably looking straight at the camera but because she was wall eyed it looks as if she is looking to the side.
Maria
01/31/07 at 10:26 AM
Maria
Hi Muvenumber3,
You mentioned in your post that Arthur had ice blue eyes. How did you come up with that since the photo is in black and white. Just curious is all because I can't tell by the photo what color they are. And you're right.he was a very handsome man.
Maria
01/31/07 at 10:34 AM
ladebug
My first thought when seeing the family was how handsome Arthur was and would be even today from my point of view. I bet he was a catch to the local girls back then. How did he meet the gal he married?
Ladebug
01/31/07 at 11:03 AM
Maria
Hi Ladebug,
Nina Bibey, the gal Arthur married was a beautiful girl, in my opinion and as such was probably a great catch herself. Nina and her family lived in the same area as Arthur and his family. Nina had a sister named Eunice, also a beautiful gal, and several brothers, Leonard Bibey being one of them. Leonard and Nina and Eunice were the children of William Powell Bibey and Dessie Lawson Bibey. Nina's grandfather was Joe Lawson. Joe Lawson was Charlie Lawson's uncle, via of being one of Gus Lawson's brothers. Gus was Charlie Lawson's father. So these two families (Arthur's and Nina's) were distant relatives and also lived in the same community so they must have known each other all their lives. Arthur was around 5 years older than Nina.
Maria
01/31/07 at 11:10 AM
ladebug
I am curious how one says Arthur's wife's name. Where I grew up we would say Nina with a short a sound so it would be or sound like neena
In the south I notice it could be ni long I . Any family who would know this?
Ladebug_
01/31/07 at 11:36 AM
Maria
Several people I've spoken with in Stokes County all pronounce it Nina with a long i. I always thought it would be pronounced as if spelled Neena because my middle name is Christina and a lot of my relatives still call me by my childhood nick name Tina as if it is spelled Teena. Tina and Nina are alike except for mine has a t and hers had an N therefore I was surprised mine is pronounced as Teena and hers as Nina as with a long i.
But please don't anyone call me Tina with a long Mill I had an aunt Jessie who pronounced it TAINER and others who called me Teener as in weiner and others who called me Tiny, as in small body size. By the way..Nina is Spanish and means "SHINE". Tina and or Christina is greek and means "ANNOINTED". Wonder what I was annointed for.
Maria
01/31/07 at 01:03 PM
iluvnumber3
In response to Maria.
You can tell in the photo that they are "light colored" eyes. So that means they were either light blue or green, unless the flash did it. Which I highly doubt it was the flash, because their equipment was different then. Flash bulbs were not available to U.S. photographers until 1930. So the studio for the Lawson Family shoot either used natural light or homemade lighting. I have seen recent pictures done in black and white that are the same way. with people with light colored eyes. His eyes are lighter than anyone in the photograph. His eyes are very striking and pretty. I agree that he was a "looker".
iluvnumber3
01/31/07 at 01:16 PM
cephus
anyone know of other pictures of the Lawson family like school pics of the children? I see in the picture of the living room there is a pic on the dresser anyone know who that is?
cephus
01/31/07 at 01:32 PM
cephus
Don't know where the authors of wc/bc got there info at but it says in book Arthur had pale grey-blue eyes.
cephus
02/01/07 at 01:52 PM
JANE
The eye discussion... I wonder if it might be good if several of you read The Meaning of Our Tears. It answers some of the questions that have been posed and does give evidence about Fannie and Arthur's eyes. The author put close up photos of the victims in the book. You can see Fannie's eyes quite clearly. She was in no way "wall-eyed." Her eyes were obviously quite normal-very pretty actually. Who told you that she was wall-eyed Maria? Anyway, the author's interview with Beulah Smith Robbins (who said she knew Arthur quite well) has her saying he had beautiful pale blue eyes, like the sky on a summer day. This tends to settle the eye question for me although it is only a small point.
JANE SCHARVER
02/01/07 at 02:34 PM
cephus
Guess i will have to get me a copy of Meaning of our Tears can't stand it no longer. I found something out today i didn't know my uncle by marriage his parents are buried in browder cemetery.
cephus
02/01/07 at 03:02 PM
Matt32
I agree, Jane, she had lovely eyes. One could even say stunning. She definitely passed that on to her son, known for his 'slate grey' or sometimes 'pale blue' eyes. I think what we're referring to here isn't known as wall eyed (you're right), there's another name for whatever slight exoticness people notice, which Evelyn Manring noticed right off in some of the pictures of Arthur's children (her direct cousins), and she referred to it as 'the Manring eye', saying that she also has that, and pointed it out to Maria in our interview. As you can tell in the film, Evelyn isn't wall eyed by any stretch of the imagination either, but her eyes Are arresting and do contain a familiar quality that their family's well aware of.
Thanks for clearing that up though, because yes, I keep coming back to her eyes in that picture and in others...and they're haunting as ever. Enjoy your day, and please hurry back.
Matt32
02/01/07 at 04:50 PM
iluvnumber3
I may be starting something here, but here it goes...
I just received my book yesterday and viewed the pictures first. The family portrait picture of Fannie does look like she is looking in another direction (or
something that is oil camera). When you turn to the "death certificate" page with the close up of her (which is taken from the same portrait)and her eyes are
wider and also looking forward. I believe someone did some type of "doctoring" with the portrait. Of course the pictures up close a<e more revealing, but
Fannie's looks different I must say. Her eyes are also more piercing.
I read the first Trudy Smith book when I was 15 years old, and I always thought this portrait to be "haunting" and intriguing. Especially their eyes.
Just my opinion.
iluvnumber3
02/01/07 at 05:03 PM
sissy
I noticed that too. The picture did look like it had been doctored. To JANE I have read all three books and I did not care for them. In the end it does not matter if Fannie was wall eyed, or the location of the beds, all that matters and all we know for certain is that Charlie killed his family and that is a fact.
sissy
02/01/07 at 08:51 PM
epdj
I don't know that much about making pictures in 1929 and I wish someone who knew about this could answer the questions that some of you have ask about, but I do know this. Years ago making a picture was different from the way a picture is made now. At one time, people had to wait so long when they had a picture made that their muscles would start relaxing and they would have that hung dog look (Droopy look), in other words their mouth hung down more and their eyes also. That is the reason I think the little boy on the front got tired and was moving around when they made the picture.
Esther Johnson
epdj
02/05/07 at 11:21 AM
freespirit27284
In the first book by Smith, it states Arthur had those type of blue eyes that kinda captivate you. I assumed Stella, or some other family member mentioned Arthur's memorable eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maria:
Hi iluvenumber3,
You mentioned in your post that Arthur had ice blue eyes. How did you come up with that since the photo is in black and white. Just curious is all because I can't tell by the photo what color they are. And you're right..he was a very handsome man.
Maria
End quote.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 11:25 AM
freespirit27284
Sorry but I tend to disagree. In any reenactment or criminal investigation it would seem prudent to preserve any and all details, no matter how minute. I personally would like to see a retroactive investigation, just to prove out all theories, but this would be selfish on my part and hurtful to the family. The tools at our disposal today in the forensic lab, would have quite a tale to tell about this crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
I noticed that too. The picture did look like it had been doctored. To JANE I have read all three books and I did not care for them. In the end it does not matter if Fannie was wall eyed, or the location of the beds, all that matters and all we know for certain is that Charlie killed his family and that is a fact.
End quote.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 03:15 PM
sissy
Yes but there is no criminal investigation going on. And my point was to stop arguing about such trivial things.
sissy
02/10/07 at 10:49 PM
SassyGirl24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
Do you think that when Charlie took his whole family to have there picture made he was planning to kill them? Or was the picture a Christmas present for Fannie?
End quote.
No one in the family knew they were going to be kill my their own father and husband.
SassyGirl24
02/11/07 at 05:05 AM
Maria
You're right, I'm sure Fannie nor the children knew they were going to be killed by Charlie. But I believe the question here was: Do we believe Charlie knew he was going to kill them. Did he already have such a plan in his mind at that time. No one can know with absolute certainty what's in another person's mind or heart at any given time, but a person's actions prior to an incident can be a strong indicator of what he was thinking and planning. Especially when those actions before hand are uncharacteristic of that person as I've been told it was of Charlie Lawson.
Maria
02/15/07 at 10:27 PM
mcpepper
In response to the retroactive investigation theory... What a concept! It would truly be interesting to see this story on Court TV or A&E. Having this crime committed in our times would truly be a different type of event. Certainly this would prove to a more conclusive crime scene with DNA identified throughout the cabin as well as all outdoor facilities that Charlie may have transported his family's DNA to and from. However, this is not a modern day crime, hence the discussions continue. It's fascinating to say the least. The speculation is what drives the book, or in this case books and the DVD. It also fuels interesting discussions here in this forum. Life before technology is what interests us to the point of joining and participating in this forum and other forums of research and discovery.
mcpepper
01/16/08 at 01:29 PM
laurie1125
I am sure that you noticed, but no one is smiling in the photo
laurie1125
01/16/08 at 02:33 PM
Angel71242
Carrie seems to have a slight smile and Arthur an even slighter smile.
As Maria says in the first page of this thread:
"I've always heard that in those times it was thought of as a sin to smile when your picture was taken. I have photos of a lot of my ancestors from the 1880's through the 1940's and not one of them was smiling. Maria"
It was also said in previous posts about the family not smiling, that back then you had to sit in the position a long time when getting your picture made. Camera's had to do their things and it took a while - nothing like today - push the button and instantly the picture is taken.
Angel71242
01/18/08 at 07:46 AM
Maria
Fannie and the children didn't have much if anything to smile about when that photo was taken. It would have taken a lot more than a new set of clothes to off set the fear and anxiety they had been enduring for several weeks. They were being kept awake at night by Charlie's erratic and frightening behavior, their close call with losing their father (the almost trip to the hospital in Winston-Salem), his obsession with his guns„.that's the thing that would have frightened and worried me the most...his headaches...they probably weren't allowed to play or make noise because of Charlie's headaches, a new baby...more of Fannie's time and attention would have been focused more on the baby and less on them, and all the other scary and abusive behavior we haven't heard about, all combined was a "nothing to smile or feel good about situation. Plus, if the reports we've heard about Fannie finding out that her oldest daughter Marie was pregnant and her husband was the father of their daughter's baby were true, she and Marie definitely had nothing and I do mean nothing to smile about.
Maria
01/18/08 at 12:28 PM
Angel71242
I bet if he was having headaches, then little Marylou's crying probably really got to him. At four months, she had probably done a lot of crying by then. And Fannie looks really sad in that photo. At least the children had a chance of eventually getting away from Charlie, but she was stuck with him forever.
Angel71242
01/18/08 at 03:31 PM
laurie1125
Fannie could have left Charlie, but where would she go and what could she do.
laurie1125
01/18/08 at 03:40 PM
Maria
Fannie had no where to go, especially someone to take not only her in but her 7 children as well. There was probably no where she could have gone anyway that Charlie would not have known where she was and turned up there and not only killed her and their children but probably the relatives who had taken her in as well. She probably had no money of her own to support herself and her children if she had say, just struck out on her own, telling no one where she was going.
Maria
sissy
Do you think that when Charlie took his whole family to have there picture made he was planning to kill them? Or was the picture a Christmas present for Fannie?
sissy
01/20/07 at 10:30 AM
Maria
Just my opinion you understand but I think it was a sign that he planned to kill them. I think that although he knew he was going to kill them, that what he planned was a terrible thing to do, I think that in his warped way of loving, that he did indeed love them, albeit in a sick way, and as such wanted his wife and children and himself to forever be remembered and a family portrait would go a long way in memorializing them.
Maria
01/20/07 at 11:06 AM
jackhammer
I know that at this point it's all speculation. Your idea of Charlie wanting the portrait because he was planning on killing them makes sense. Something to remember them all by. I guess that i have a hard time with the fact that he took the portrait, and then killed all but one. If it was just to carry on the family name, why not leave all the males and have a better chance? Or as some have speculated, maybe he was waiting for Arthur's return. I suppose there are any number of reasons that he spared one of his children. And I guess that Arthur gave thought to that probably every day for 16 years until he joined them in death.
jackhammer
01/20/07 at 11:33 AM
lilred1984
i agree.... i think he had it all planned out from the beginning.and had the family pic made because he had plans on killing them....but i find the look on his face to be creepy because if we are right about htm already having this planned out and that is the reason he had the family pic made then why does he have that proud- no remorse look on his face? but if u look, it looks like he isn't even looking at the camera, kinda like he couldn't look at the camera...hes just staring off into space... one other thing that gets to me about this pic is no one was smiling except for maybell. i wonder why?...is there any other pics of them together?and did they smile?.....
Lil Red
01/20/07 at 05:24 PM
sissy
My grandparents had a picture of the family. But I was little and don't remember if it was the exact same one or not.
sissy
01/20/07 at 07:05 PM
cephus
I think he had planed it all out for a long time don't think he woke up that Christmas morning and said to himself i think i will kill my family and myself. Most pics I have seen taken before 1940 most people are not smiling think you had to stay still longer than you do today.
cephus
01/20/07 at 07:11
Maria
I've always heard that in those times it was thought of as a sin to smile when your picture was taken. I have photos of a lot of my ancestors from the 1880's through the 1940's and not one of them was smiling.
Maria
01/30/07 at 07:05 PM
iluvnumber3
My grandmother never smiled in any of their family pictures growing up. She also had said it was bad to wear makeup unless you were a certain age. I notice Marie looks to have a touch of make up. Fannie does not have any "coloring" but Marie does. I am surprised that Charlie let that happen. The only reason I say that is that my great grand father restricted the use of make up in those times and "after".
I also noticed that Arthur's eyes were beautiful! He was tall dark and handsome, with "ice blue" looking eyes. Someone also mentioned about Charlie not looking into the camera, Fannie is looking at the same "thing" off camera. Something must have distracted them both. Wonder what?
iluvnumber3
01/30/07 at 07:48 PM
Maria
Fannie had an eye condition called wall-eyed. It's the opposite of cross-eyed. She was probably looking straight at the camera but because she was wall eyed it looks as if she is looking to the side.
Maria
01/31/07 at 10:26 AM
Maria
Hi Muvenumber3,
You mentioned in your post that Arthur had ice blue eyes. How did you come up with that since the photo is in black and white. Just curious is all because I can't tell by the photo what color they are. And you're right.he was a very handsome man.
Maria
01/31/07 at 10:34 AM
ladebug
My first thought when seeing the family was how handsome Arthur was and would be even today from my point of view. I bet he was a catch to the local girls back then. How did he meet the gal he married?
Ladebug
01/31/07 at 11:03 AM
Maria
Hi Ladebug,
Nina Bibey, the gal Arthur married was a beautiful girl, in my opinion and as such was probably a great catch herself. Nina and her family lived in the same area as Arthur and his family. Nina had a sister named Eunice, also a beautiful gal, and several brothers, Leonard Bibey being one of them. Leonard and Nina and Eunice were the children of William Powell Bibey and Dessie Lawson Bibey. Nina's grandfather was Joe Lawson. Joe Lawson was Charlie Lawson's uncle, via of being one of Gus Lawson's brothers. Gus was Charlie Lawson's father. So these two families (Arthur's and Nina's) were distant relatives and also lived in the same community so they must have known each other all their lives. Arthur was around 5 years older than Nina.
Maria
01/31/07 at 11:10 AM
ladebug
I am curious how one says Arthur's wife's name. Where I grew up we would say Nina with a short a sound so it would be or sound like neena
In the south I notice it could be ni long I . Any family who would know this?
Ladebug_
01/31/07 at 11:36 AM
Maria
Several people I've spoken with in Stokes County all pronounce it Nina with a long i. I always thought it would be pronounced as if spelled Neena because my middle name is Christina and a lot of my relatives still call me by my childhood nick name Tina as if it is spelled Teena. Tina and Nina are alike except for mine has a t and hers had an N therefore I was surprised mine is pronounced as Teena and hers as Nina as with a long i.
But please don't anyone call me Tina with a long Mill I had an aunt Jessie who pronounced it TAINER and others who called me Teener as in weiner and others who called me Tiny, as in small body size. By the way..Nina is Spanish and means "SHINE". Tina and or Christina is greek and means "ANNOINTED". Wonder what I was annointed for.
Maria
01/31/07 at 01:03 PM
iluvnumber3
In response to Maria.
You can tell in the photo that they are "light colored" eyes. So that means they were either light blue or green, unless the flash did it. Which I highly doubt it was the flash, because their equipment was different then. Flash bulbs were not available to U.S. photographers until 1930. So the studio for the Lawson Family shoot either used natural light or homemade lighting. I have seen recent pictures done in black and white that are the same way. with people with light colored eyes. His eyes are lighter than anyone in the photograph. His eyes are very striking and pretty. I agree that he was a "looker".
iluvnumber3
01/31/07 at 01:16 PM
cephus
anyone know of other pictures of the Lawson family like school pics of the children? I see in the picture of the living room there is a pic on the dresser anyone know who that is?
cephus
01/31/07 at 01:32 PM
cephus
Don't know where the authors of wc/bc got there info at but it says in book Arthur had pale grey-blue eyes.
cephus
02/01/07 at 01:52 PM
JANE
The eye discussion... I wonder if it might be good if several of you read The Meaning of Our Tears. It answers some of the questions that have been posed and does give evidence about Fannie and Arthur's eyes. The author put close up photos of the victims in the book. You can see Fannie's eyes quite clearly. She was in no way "wall-eyed." Her eyes were obviously quite normal-very pretty actually. Who told you that she was wall-eyed Maria? Anyway, the author's interview with Beulah Smith Robbins (who said she knew Arthur quite well) has her saying he had beautiful pale blue eyes, like the sky on a summer day. This tends to settle the eye question for me although it is only a small point.
JANE SCHARVER
02/01/07 at 02:34 PM
cephus
Guess i will have to get me a copy of Meaning of our Tears can't stand it no longer. I found something out today i didn't know my uncle by marriage his parents are buried in browder cemetery.
cephus
02/01/07 at 03:02 PM
Matt32
I agree, Jane, she had lovely eyes. One could even say stunning. She definitely passed that on to her son, known for his 'slate grey' or sometimes 'pale blue' eyes. I think what we're referring to here isn't known as wall eyed (you're right), there's another name for whatever slight exoticness people notice, which Evelyn Manring noticed right off in some of the pictures of Arthur's children (her direct cousins), and she referred to it as 'the Manring eye', saying that she also has that, and pointed it out to Maria in our interview. As you can tell in the film, Evelyn isn't wall eyed by any stretch of the imagination either, but her eyes Are arresting and do contain a familiar quality that their family's well aware of.
Thanks for clearing that up though, because yes, I keep coming back to her eyes in that picture and in others...and they're haunting as ever. Enjoy your day, and please hurry back.
Matt32
02/01/07 at 04:50 PM
iluvnumber3
I may be starting something here, but here it goes...
I just received my book yesterday and viewed the pictures first. The family portrait picture of Fannie does look like she is looking in another direction (or
something that is oil camera). When you turn to the "death certificate" page with the close up of her (which is taken from the same portrait)and her eyes are
wider and also looking forward. I believe someone did some type of "doctoring" with the portrait. Of course the pictures up close a<e more revealing, but
Fannie's looks different I must say. Her eyes are also more piercing.
I read the first Trudy Smith book when I was 15 years old, and I always thought this portrait to be "haunting" and intriguing. Especially their eyes.
Just my opinion.
iluvnumber3
02/01/07 at 05:03 PM
sissy
I noticed that too. The picture did look like it had been doctored. To JANE I have read all three books and I did not care for them. In the end it does not matter if Fannie was wall eyed, or the location of the beds, all that matters and all we know for certain is that Charlie killed his family and that is a fact.
sissy
02/01/07 at 08:51 PM
epdj
I don't know that much about making pictures in 1929 and I wish someone who knew about this could answer the questions that some of you have ask about, but I do know this. Years ago making a picture was different from the way a picture is made now. At one time, people had to wait so long when they had a picture made that their muscles would start relaxing and they would have that hung dog look (Droopy look), in other words their mouth hung down more and their eyes also. That is the reason I think the little boy on the front got tired and was moving around when they made the picture.
Esther Johnson
epdj
02/05/07 at 11:21 AM
freespirit27284
In the first book by Smith, it states Arthur had those type of blue eyes that kinda captivate you. I assumed Stella, or some other family member mentioned Arthur's memorable eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maria:
Hi iluvenumber3,
You mentioned in your post that Arthur had ice blue eyes. How did you come up with that since the photo is in black and white. Just curious is all because I can't tell by the photo what color they are. And you're right..he was a very handsome man.
Maria
End quote.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 11:25 AM
freespirit27284
Sorry but I tend to disagree. In any reenactment or criminal investigation it would seem prudent to preserve any and all details, no matter how minute. I personally would like to see a retroactive investigation, just to prove out all theories, but this would be selfish on my part and hurtful to the family. The tools at our disposal today in the forensic lab, would have quite a tale to tell about this crime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
I noticed that too. The picture did look like it had been doctored. To JANE I have read all three books and I did not care for them. In the end it does not matter if Fannie was wall eyed, or the location of the beds, all that matters and all we know for certain is that Charlie killed his family and that is a fact.
End quote.
freespirit27284
02/05/07 at 03:15 PM
sissy
Yes but there is no criminal investigation going on. And my point was to stop arguing about such trivial things.
sissy
02/10/07 at 10:49 PM
SassyGirl24
Quote:
Originally Posted by sissy
Do you think that when Charlie took his whole family to have there picture made he was planning to kill them? Or was the picture a Christmas present for Fannie?
End quote.
No one in the family knew they were going to be kill my their own father and husband.
SassyGirl24
02/11/07 at 05:05 AM
Maria
You're right, I'm sure Fannie nor the children knew they were going to be killed by Charlie. But I believe the question here was: Do we believe Charlie knew he was going to kill them. Did he already have such a plan in his mind at that time. No one can know with absolute certainty what's in another person's mind or heart at any given time, but a person's actions prior to an incident can be a strong indicator of what he was thinking and planning. Especially when those actions before hand are uncharacteristic of that person as I've been told it was of Charlie Lawson.
Maria
02/15/07 at 10:27 PM
mcpepper
In response to the retroactive investigation theory... What a concept! It would truly be interesting to see this story on Court TV or A&E. Having this crime committed in our times would truly be a different type of event. Certainly this would prove to a more conclusive crime scene with DNA identified throughout the cabin as well as all outdoor facilities that Charlie may have transported his family's DNA to and from. However, this is not a modern day crime, hence the discussions continue. It's fascinating to say the least. The speculation is what drives the book, or in this case books and the DVD. It also fuels interesting discussions here in this forum. Life before technology is what interests us to the point of joining and participating in this forum and other forums of research and discovery.
mcpepper
01/16/08 at 01:29 PM
laurie1125
I am sure that you noticed, but no one is smiling in the photo
laurie1125
01/16/08 at 02:33 PM
Angel71242
Carrie seems to have a slight smile and Arthur an even slighter smile.
As Maria says in the first page of this thread:
"I've always heard that in those times it was thought of as a sin to smile when your picture was taken. I have photos of a lot of my ancestors from the 1880's through the 1940's and not one of them was smiling. Maria"
It was also said in previous posts about the family not smiling, that back then you had to sit in the position a long time when getting your picture made. Camera's had to do their things and it took a while - nothing like today - push the button and instantly the picture is taken.
Angel71242
01/18/08 at 07:46 AM
Maria
Fannie and the children didn't have much if anything to smile about when that photo was taken. It would have taken a lot more than a new set of clothes to off set the fear and anxiety they had been enduring for several weeks. They were being kept awake at night by Charlie's erratic and frightening behavior, their close call with losing their father (the almost trip to the hospital in Winston-Salem), his obsession with his guns„.that's the thing that would have frightened and worried me the most...his headaches...they probably weren't allowed to play or make noise because of Charlie's headaches, a new baby...more of Fannie's time and attention would have been focused more on the baby and less on them, and all the other scary and abusive behavior we haven't heard about, all combined was a "nothing to smile or feel good about situation. Plus, if the reports we've heard about Fannie finding out that her oldest daughter Marie was pregnant and her husband was the father of their daughter's baby were true, she and Marie definitely had nothing and I do mean nothing to smile about.
Maria
01/18/08 at 12:28 PM
Angel71242
I bet if he was having headaches, then little Marylou's crying probably really got to him. At four months, she had probably done a lot of crying by then. And Fannie looks really sad in that photo. At least the children had a chance of eventually getting away from Charlie, but she was stuck with him forever.
Angel71242
01/18/08 at 03:31 PM
laurie1125
Fannie could have left Charlie, but where would she go and what could she do.
laurie1125
01/18/08 at 03:40 PM
Maria
Fannie had no where to go, especially someone to take not only her in but her 7 children as well. There was probably no where she could have gone anyway that Charlie would not have known where she was and turned up there and not only killed her and their children but probably the relatives who had taken her in as well. She probably had no money of her own to support herself and her children if she had say, just struck out on her own, telling no one where she was going.
Maria
