|
|
Post by debbie on May 8, 2009 19:18:25 GMT -5
Why where police officers so negligent in this murder. I have always wondered why evidence wasn't kept and more pictures taken of the crime scene. I certainly don't believe it was because it was in the late 20's, there where more horrific crimes committed way before Charlie Lawson came into the picture. I wonder if someone was paid off to keep silent about the murders. This is just an opinion but an issue I have always wondered about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on May 9, 2009 2:21:22 GMT -5
I just assumed it was inexperience, plus they didn't think there was a need for an investigation and record keeping.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 17, 2009 6:51:25 GMT -5
They didn't have policemen back then...it was a rural area and they only had Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs and they aren't trained as well as the police. I really think a more thorough investigation wasn't conducted because Sheriff Taylor truly believed he had his killer and that he had all the proof he needd that the killer was Charlie Lawson.
|
|
|
|
Post by smpyrtle on May 17, 2009 8:11:37 GMT -5
I think you're correct Maria, no one saw a need to investigate they had all the proof they needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by debbie on May 17, 2009 21:24:02 GMT -5
I'm sure they did think they had all the proof they needed, but why in the world did they do such an awful investigation? No evidence collected? I thought a man was proven innocent until proven guilty. They ASSUMED Charlie Lawson did it without further investigation. I'm thoroughly convinced of it too, but they should have collected some evidence at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by smpyrtle on May 18, 2009 6:02:06 GMT -5
That's true too Vickie. They just didn't do what they should have. I think it goes back to what Maria thought it was a small rural area and maybe they just didn't know how to investigate.
That's another thing we will never know as to why things weren't done differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 18, 2009 6:22:30 GMT -5
I can sure see why this complete lack of saved evidence could lead some people to believe in a cover up. Such a cover up would of course have been illegal and would have gotten Sheriff Taylor in serious trouble as well as fired. The only other alternative I can think of for the complete destruction of evidence is that the evidence was saved, is in someone's attic or trunk and we just don't know who it is that has it....................YET.
|
|
|
|
Post by debbie on May 18, 2009 6:34:28 GMT -5
Maybe the sheriff and the other men decided to take the law into their own hands (we discussed this briefly on the old forum). There was much adrenaline, shock and horror that day. It certainly wasn't unusual for the law and for others to lynch someone and get away with it. Perhaps the men caught him alive at the tree writing the notes, asked him about the horrific murders and before he could "finish" writing his suicide note.....he was shot. {Just an observation}. This would certainly explain the lack of evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by sissy on May 20, 2009 7:31:44 GMT -5
I believe that Charlie did in fact kill himself, the notes I have to wonder about the very existence of. Do we have any evidence of the notes other than WC/BC or TMOOT? I'm just wondering because if nobody else ever saw them how do we really know they existed? Do we know for sure that Charlie could read and write? I don't know seems strange to me that nobody other than Marion got to verify the handwriting. Wouldn't they have asked Arthur too? Just a few thoughts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 20, 2009 8:26:46 GMT -5
A mention of the notes was in the newspaper which was published the day after the murders which was a long long time before TMOOT and WC/BC was written but the paper did not of course mention anything about who told them about the notes. This is why I believe there were 2 suicide notes.
|
|
|
|
Post by debbie on May 20, 2009 10:19:47 GMT -5
I wonder why Charlie even bothered to write the suicide notes anyway. Was it because his plans of killing Arthur failed and he didn't want him blamed? I read this from an article about suicide notes: everything2.com/title/suicide%2520note" Most notes are apologetic and frequently attempt to relieve family members and friends of any blame for the act. As well, many notes leave detailed descriptions on what is to be done with body as well as other financial and familial matters." I believe in Charlie's case that he did not plan to write a suicide note. I believe he felt forced into it because he didn't kill Arthur. And he probably wouldn't have left a note if he did kill Arthur. |
|
|
|
Post by Angela on May 20, 2009 10:47:56 GMT -5
I agree Vickie. It always bothered me that he wrote 2 notes...most people only write one note...and they didn't seem to be finished. Something caused him not to finish those notes. Plans that went haywire and threw him off balance? Or what?
|
|
