Stockdale family murders

[TisaWee Farm]

Oh man, I love how everyone jumps to conclusions.  When I said I tempted the kids with things they couldn't eat, I didn't mean it like as if I was wearing an overcoat stuffed with forbidden goodies and tempting them when their parents weren't around.  Geesh.   There were always others that COULD eat other things, and I always packed food when we traveled together.  We all shared whatever we had.  They shared their homemade soups, ice creams, etc.  I shared homemade cakes, cookies, sandwiches, whatever I had.  The boys always turned down things made with sugar or milk (for awhile...until milk was reintroduced to their diet).  No one made a big deal about it.  For awhile, Tim ate whatever he wanted and loved my chocolate cake until more recently when he decided to encourage the others and be on the same leaky gut diet.   Why do people seem to grab onto every nuance and turn it sinister?

As for me "pretending" to be in the know... think what you want.  I've already been mentioned in this string previously many pages earlier... no one has put two and two together yet.  

Oh...and where did I mention that the Wife Swap producers contacted the kids first????  Another example of taking something and blowing it all out of proportion.  Of course they contacted the parents!   Their idea was to pit a rock-n-roll (or rap) band against a very wholesome, Christian country band.  Google searching gave them Stockdale Family.  They contacted the family.  Of course the parents discuss things with their children when it involves the children.  Why wouldn't they???  Like I said, they really weren't as controlling as everyone seems to think.  

But, you are going to think negative things because that is more fun.  I should have realized that when I saw "snarky" in the title.  My sole concern was trying to set straight some misconceptions, but I can see that isn't going to happen because it isn't as much fun.  

 

[Destiny]

21 hours ago, TisaWee Farm said:

I'm pretty darned sure the boys followed the diet even when their parents weren't around.  I was always the one tempting them with forbidden foods when I was around them, and they always turned them down.   They understood their diet and they knew they needed to be strict with it in order for the best outcomes.   They encouraged each other to be healthy.  

Wait, wtf? This is a SEVERELY dick move. No one should do this. Ever.

[VVV]

2 hours ago, TisaWee Farm said:

 Oh...and where did I mention that the Wife Swap producers contacted the kids first???? 

From your first post on page 14: "The boys knew about Wife Swap only when the producers contacted them about doing the show.  I'm sure they had never even heard of it before and had no clue what it was about.  They were young boys and thought it would be fun.  Tim and Kathy decided it would be an educational experience for them, so went along with it. "

If that's not what you meant, perhaps you should have worded it differently. At any rate, the parents were under no obligation even to mention the offer to their sons, who presumably had no idea what Wife Swap even was, right?

The only conclusion I am jumping to is the conclusion that there was something terribly wrong in that family for Jacob to have done what he indisputably did. You cannot argue that there was nothing wrong in a family where one member murdered two other immediate family members in cold blood.

[Coconutwater]

23 hours ago, TisaWee Farm said:

I'm pretty darned sure the boys followed the diet even when their parents weren't around.  I was always the one tempting them with forbidden foods when I was around them, and they always turned them down.   They understood their diet and they knew they needed to be strict with it in order for the best outcomes.   They encouraged each other to be healthy.  

I grew up on a strict diet and this was a dick move on your part. Mine was for health reasons and when I would go stay with a friend my mother would give the parents what I could and couldn't eat (within reason as not everyone ate like I did at the time) I was constantly tempted and told "it's okay, I won't tell" I thought it was a trick or I would just eat it and get sick. I didn't grow up in strict environment, but shit like that is wrong to do to kids because your body isn't used to it and can make you very ill. 

[hoipolloi]

3 hours ago, TisaWee Farm said:

Oh man, I love how everyone jumps to conclusions. 

We can read even if you canʻt write.

3 hours ago, TisaWee Farm said:

But, you are going to think negative things because that is more fun.  I should have realized that when I saw "snarky" in the title.  My sole concern was trying to set straight some misconceptions, but I can see that isn't going to happen because it isn't as much fun.  

Re: bolded. Then again, maybe you also have reading comprehension problems.

Did you bother to read our guidelines & related material before commenting?

Quote

 

Why are you so mean, gossiping, ect?

What you call gossip, we call keeping our eyes on a dangerous religious movement. We believe that criticism, snark and laughter is the best way to call attention to some serious problems such as child abuse, rape, oppression of women, loss of rights, and the groups who perpetrate these things. We are shining a light, because it burns away the darkness.

Keep your flame lit, and you will never feel darkness. ~J. Parker

 

ETA: Yes, tempting kids or anyone on a restricted or special diet with forbidden foods is something an asshole does. Youʻre an asshole.

[TisaWee Farm]

2 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

ETA: Yes, tempting kids or anyone on a restricted or special diet with forbidden foods is something an asshole does. Youʻre an asshole.

Did you even bother to read the rest of the posts?  If so, you will see my explanation of "tempting".  If you go to a picnic and there is something that YOU personally shouldn't eat, but everyone else can, is it a "dick move" on the part of the person that brought that food?  Yup, didn't think so. 

[Destiny]

Did you even bother to read the rest of the posts?  If so, you will see my explanation of "tempting".  If you go to a picnic and there is something that YOU personally shouldn't eat, but everyone else can, is it a "dick move" on the part of the person that brought that food?  Yup, didn't think so. 

But that’s not what you said. Words mean things. If you say something that is different than what you mean, you are going to be misunderstood. Clear communication requires that you choose your words properly.

[TisaWee Farm]

You know, I'm tired of having to defend everything I write, and having every word misconstrued.  It isn't worth my time and effort to try to educate someone that really doesn't give a darn...you just want something to criticize.  It really doesn't matter what I say because no one believes me...they'd rather pick apart my sentences and read things into them that isn't there.  SOOOO not worth my time.  You will believe what you want, anyway.   Sorry I stirred up your nice little happy home.  Outta here.

2 minutes ago, Destiny said:

But that’s not what you said. Words mean things. If you say something that is different than what you mean, you are going to be misunderstood. Clear communication requires that you choose your words properly.

I will agree with that.  I probably used inappropriate words.  "Tempting" could be misconstrued by those that are used to jumping on every word and figuring every nuance of what is said and unsaid.   I'm used to talking to "real" people that don't analyze every sentence and word.   But like I said earlier, it isn't worth my time because I see it is going no where.  I will remember your advice, however, if I ever decide to take part in this type of exchange again in the future.   (Which is highly unlikely.... LOL)

[snarkopolis]

Oh, look, another person who is splaining to us. S/he is upset we analyze EVERY SENTENCE AND WORD. You came to us selling a story. Did you think we would just believe it? Sorry we were not worth your time. There are no sheeple here. Please see yourself to the door. Maybe you could wait until FundieflounceFriday? No. Ok.

[Lillymuffin]

1 hour ago, TisaWee Farm said:

 I will remember your advice, however, if I ever decide to take part in this type of exchange again in the future.   (Which is highly unlikely.... LOL)

At the risk of violating the "no short posts" rule....  Bummer. 

[VVV]

2 hours ago, TisaWee Farm said:

 I'm used to talking to "real" people that don't analyze every sentence and word.  

Words have meanings and syntax is important, especially in written communication where tone of voice and body language are not present.

Signed, a real person who can read for comprehension and who writes for others who do the same.

[Snarkle Motion]

@TisaWee Farm

Reading between the lines, you were VERY close to the family. Possibly even a close relative based on some of your details? And in that case you are likely suffering and confused and trying to make sense of things. And it's probably extremely hard to read the speculation/discussion on here as you are still grieving. I'm so sorry for your loss and apologize for your experience with this community at FJ.

I think some of the responses to your posts were excessive, especially given that you know the family. I believe people may be suspicious of newcomers and also easily defensive of those they see defending a person who committed an atrocious act against his family. It's hard for us all to make sense of these things and this community is about the dangers of religious fundamentalism so it's logical for us to speculate that religion/upbringing played a role. But the truth is mental health issues and family violence happens in all types of homes.

Frankly I'm really surprised by what the site considers acceptable in terms of "speculation" and for whom it's allowed. This family appeared on one TV episode and otherwise had minimal mass public exposure prior to the tragedy. They count as private citizens in my book. None of us can truly know what their situation was like or why this happened. Most people are basing their views of these people on one TV show and a manual, even though this show is known to encourage sensationalizing and editing footage to fit the most compelling storyline. We don't have all the facts and never will.

A woman died. She is a victim! But for some reason it's totally acceptable to victim blame and speculate that it was somehow her fault or that she "deserved" this. Im rethinking some of my own comments and perspectives and considering what is appropriate or morally acceptable to post.

I'm not saying we should stop discussing it or rule out any speculation regarding this case. But maybe we as a community could be a bit nicer and more sensitive to someone who knew this family well and is likely still grieving.

This site is very quick to shut down or criticize speculation about the Duggars (sometimes related to relatively trivial rumors). But the Duggars choose to repeatedly plaster themselves all over magazine covers for profit - which in  mind means they are willingly putting themselves out there as fodder for gossip in tabloids and on the internet. Why is a deceased private citizen not awarded the same dignity, compassion, and protection of the site? She is a victim of abuse (domestic violence). It's somehow fine to speculate and critize a murder victim we really know very little about in real life? Why no concern at how this impacts the surviving family, community, and close friends? Honestly, I don't understand this place sometimes.

[CrazyMumma]

are you freaking kidding me?!  .... I don't as a habit swear.... but as an adult who grew up in a very strict home..  From what TisaWee is saying.. those kids were controlled.  we were raised very conservative and our Mum didn't allow us to have sugar, eggs, dairy etc.  Most of my siblings would have happily sneaked those things behind Mum's back.  Despite the discipline.. despite anything.. leaky gut? BS!!!!!!!!! oh my ....... goodness!  if it was "IBS...'Coealic'  those have clear consequences if you don't follow those diets.  LEAKY GUT?!  you can't be ....... serious.  that is SUCH FREAKING BS.  Leaky gut is a fad thing and she was merely restricting their diet because she wanted to.  

I feel sorry for those kids.  I really do.  Not even my Mum managed to brainwash us/control us int that kind of implicit obedience.   Oh and they did whatever they wanted as teens?  yep.. whatever.  Controlling parents know how to word it all as the kids choice/make it look just right.  My Mum did.

[Palimpsest]

7 hours ago, TisaWee Farm said:

Sorry I stirred up your nice little happy home.  Outta here.

Bye bye.

It tends to amuse me when an outraged "insider" unearths a thread that went dormant 2 months ago (except for 1 simple update) just to draw attention to it again.  And I'm not going to look back over this thread to see where TisaWee thinks they were mentioned.  

4 hours ago, CrazyMumma said:

LEAKY GUT?!  you can't be ....... serious. 

My mind was running along similar lines.  "Leaky Gut" is not an official diagnosis.  It is the name for a collection of symptoms that could be caused by food allergies, lactose intolerance, IBS, Crohn's or Celiac Disease, or even chronic stress.  And, yes, the above can all be relieved by dietary changes and avoiding stress.  

One wonders whether the Stockdale children ever saw an allergist or gastroenterologist or if mom put them on this incredibly restrictive diet all by herself.  If they never saw a doctor, I'd be considering medical neglect as well as abuse.  

And before our communication challenged fly-by gets their hackles raised again, I have the right to discuss the possibility that hyper-controlling mommy did put them on this fad diet all on her own.  

[laPapessaGiovanna]

4 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

think some of the responses to your posts were excessive, especially given that you know the family.

She SAYS she knows the family, personally I take the claims strangers make on the internet with a big pinch of salt. She's also not the first to come here and demand we stop applying critical thinking skills to their stories.

4 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

But the truth is mental health issues and family violence happens in all types of homes.

True, but never out of the blue as she wants us to believe. Even if as close as she might have been to the family she probably wasn't privy to what the problems were.

4 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

Frankly I'm really surprised by what the site considers acceptable in terms of "speculation" and for whom it's allowed. This family appeared on one TV episode and otherwise had minimal mass public exposure prior to the tragedy. They count as private citizens in my book.

FJ rules are crystal clear, if you don't like them or how we enforce them you're under no obligation to endure it here. As you know no topic is forbidden, Stockdale murders were reported by the press and the family was known to be very religious and strict, it makes sense that we discuss the topic here. Many people were private citizens before tragedy struck their families and then willing or not they became very public figures, because when something like this happens it affects the whole society and is of public interest. So discussion and speculation are going to happen, of course in the limits of our rules about not posting private material, no real people fan fiction, no speculation on minors or adults still living with parents sexuality.

4 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

None of us can truly know what their situation was like or why this happened. Most people are basing their views of these people on one TV show and a manual, even though this show is known to encourage sensationalizing and editing footage to fit the most compelling storyline. We don't have all the facts and never will.

I might remind you of this the next time you board the wild speculation train as you often do in Duggarville.

4 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

A woman died. She is a victim! But for some reason it's totally acceptable to victim blame and speculate that it was somehow her fault or that she "deserved" this.

I don't think anyone disagreed with this or posted that she deserved it. My memory may fault me though so please point me to the posts you're referring at.

4 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I'm not saying we should stop discussing it or rule out any speculation regarding this case. But maybe we as a community could be a bit nicer and more sensitive to someone who knew this family well and is likely still grieving.

We do not police tone here. I guess you'd be the first to know if we did. Especially not to save the feelings of someone who comes here saying they know things better that anybody, contradics herself and demands we acritically accept her version of facts.

 

4 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

This site is very quick to shut down or criticize speculation about the Duggars (sometimes related to relatively trivial rumors).

You probably have a personal grudge here. Rules are the same for the Duggars and the Stockdales. As long as the rules are followed people can comment as they please. Unfortunately people often say things that are in poor taste but as you should know very well they usually get lots of push back from the community.

Your theory that the Duggars deserve the worst and not a minimum of respect because of their big TV presence is bullshit.

[Curious]

I'd like to remind people that we did have a person verify earlier in this thread. 

I would bet that for every person that is shocked that this tragedy happened, there are just as many people who shook their heads and said "it was just a matter of time."  The only people that REALLY know what was going on in that house were the people that lived there.

It's easy to hide what is going on from people that don't live there.  I know because I've done it several times in my life.

I also find it somewhat hard to believe that ALL the children had "leaky gut."

[Snarkle Motion]

Wow, people here can be mean and touchy. Which is fine, I never said that we should be "policing tone." Or that we shouldn't be discussing this topic critically.  I recommended we be kinder to commenter potentially grieving and maybe more reflective, myself included, of how our discussion affects people in real life.

 @Palimpsest if you've read this thread you'd know I'm hardly a "fly by" as I've been commenting on this thread for months and have been following the news closely since it occurred. But as you said you didn't care to look back and read the rest of the thread.

2 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

It tends to amuse me when an outraged "insider" unearths a thread that went dormant 2 months ago (except for 1 simple update) just to draw attention to it again.  And I'm not going to look back over this thread to see where TisaWee thinks they were mentioned.  

That's exactly why I'm suspect that this person was real. What is their motivation in unearthing this to defend the family? Why now? The only people I can see who would be that invested at this point are close family members who have been avoiding the web due to grief. And likely did a deep google to read what people were saying and unearthed this thread. These people aren't really famous or that big a name in the Christian community, only someone with close ties would really be this defensive at this point. I think potentially even the brother or father. It's telling that the person signed up for this discussion alone and only commented here. And the user name suggest it ''tis a wee farm", something I'd suspect a Christian-type farmer to pick for a name.

@Curious but was this person given the chance to be verified? Was it explained to him the process and was he reached out to? Do we only do that for people we agree with?

To the moderators and @Palimpsest, I am genuinely trying to figure out the rules and culture here. Maybe it's hard for me to see the Duggars as real people the same way I see commenters or private citizens, who I would never treat the same  way, because of their fame - I'm exploring whether I look at them more like actors in my mind who aren't real and attempting to come to terms with that. Ironically, seeing this person and imagining what it would be like to be a family member who suffered tragedy to read here has actually made me less likely to comment on the Duggars as I'm seeing how this can cause real harm in real life to people. And maybe the Duggars are "real" as I tend to forget.

I saw someone who had no real motivation to lie about his connection or bring up this topic, other than wanting to defend his own family. The details are very specific. Instead of respectfully engaging someone new he was excessively bullied and told he was a liar and should leave. That doesn't mean abuse/control weren't happening in the house and that we shouldn't explore the topic. But maybe give someone claiming to have contradictory info a chance to be verified and tell their side.

[Lurky]

7 hours ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I'm not saying we should stop discussing it or rule out any speculation regarding this case. But maybe we as a community could be a bit nicer and more sensitive to someone who knew this family well and is likely still grieving.

Unless a poster gets verified by the mods, we have no idea if they are a grieving close relative, or just some random stirring shit, which we've seen 10000 times. 

I also don't understand why you jump to assuming this is a close family member.  I know that if I cook for my family members, I cook food that they can eat, just as 1 example. They haven't even claimed to be family.

Anyway, co-signing that if you don't like the threads talking about certain things, no one is forcing you to read them.  Everyone on FJ does this - I don't like the Naugler threads eg, so I don't comment there.

[Snarkle Motion]

23 minutes ago, Lurky said:

Unless a poster gets verified by the mods, we have no idea if they are a grieving close relative, or just some random stirring shit, which we've seen 10000 times. 

I also don't understand why you jump to assuming this is a close family member.  I know that if I cook for my family members, I cook food that they can eat, just as 1 example. They haven't even claimed to be family.

Anyway, co-signing that if you don't like the threads talking about certain things, no one is forcing you to read them.  Everyone on FJ does this - I don't like the Naugler threads eg, so I don't comment there.

I get people stirring up shit for the famous people. There are plenty of leg humpers out there and I know PR people also must comment to deflect/control narrative. And I understand when people are skeptical when there is clear link to being critical of the homeschool community for example or Christianity more generally. But that usually happens immediately after news breaks and then unaffiliated people lose interest/motivation. Was this someone defending the leaky gut movement? Maybe? 

But I can see no reason for a person to sign up and defensively comment on a relatively obscure story that was mostly buried unless they have a connection to it. And a desire to defend the deceased and their own parenting/family choices. And if you go back and read the person's comments with this in mind you see things a bit differently, including genuine confusion about why this tragedy happened.

This person was never given a chance to be verified. He/she was basically begging for someone to reach out for verification and I was shocked this didn't happen. He was new and likely had no idea to request it.

[Curious]

47 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

@Curious but was this person given the chance to be verified? Was it explained to him the process and was he reached out to? Do we only do that for people we agree with?

If they read the thread, as they said they did, all the information for verification is right in it.  We also have it in the documentation for the site.  Plenty of people have managed to figure out how to get verified without hand holding.  A number of them email before they even register.

 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

20 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

This person was never given a chance to be verified. He/she was basically begging for someone to reach out for verification and I was shocked this didn't happen. He was new and likely had no idea to request it.

@Curious forgot to tell us helpmeets that we have to reach out to random posters claiming to be related to fundies to offer to verify them/sarcasm

We do not go around pming people to verify them, if people want to be verified they just contact us, it's not that difficult.

[Curious]

50 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

Instead of respectfully engaging someone new he was excessively bullied and told he was a liar and should leave.

No one was bullied in this thread and certainly not excessively.   We have people come here all the time that claim they know stuff they obviously don't.  We have had any number of emotional vampires.  We have a couple of them around right now, but they haven't gone far enough for us to really call them out yet.

Everyone on the internet is "real," just for the record.  There is always a real live, breathing human being behind the keyboard.  Something that should be kept in mind when posting on all threads here and elsewhere on the internet.

I don't see anyone telling anyone they should leave.  AFTER they posted they were leaving there was some don't let the door hit you on the way out type comments, but that is not the same as telling people to get the fuck out.

31 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

But I can see no reason for a person to sign up and defensively comment on a relatively obscure story that was mostly buried unless they have a connection to it.

You apparently haven't been here long enough to know this happens ALL THE TIME.  We just had someone do it recently, but I can't recall the thread off the top of my head.  It was like a 3 year old thread that someone was suddenly horribly upset about and necroed it from the depths of the forum.

I am rarely surprised by what people will do on the internet anymore.

[Palimpsest]

46 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

 @Palimpsest if you've read this thread you'd know I'm hardly a "fly by" as I've been commenting on this thread for months and have been following the news closely since it occurred.

Oh, FFS.  I wasn't referring to you.  I was talking about @TisaWee Farm as a fly-by.  It should be bloody obvious.

As you participated in this thread earlier it makes your sanctimonious post above rather ironic.  By the way, I offered condolences to both our supposed insiders.

And stop shit-stirring.  It is not attractive.

[calvinball]

Quote

A woman died. She is a victim! But for some reason it's totally acceptable to victim blame and speculate that it was somehow her fault or that she "deserved" this.

Okay, so I think people are really quick to throw out "victim blaming" without stopping to think about the context in which that phrase is normally used. The fight against victim blaming arose because there are certain contexts in which the victim's character is always assassinated. Think of a rape victim, or a woman murdered by her significant other. People will say that the rape victim deserved it for "leading him on" or that a wife deserved to be murdered because she didn't put out or was a nag. 

This situation is different. I'm admittedly not an expert, but isn't it super rare for children to kill their parents unless there's abuse in the home? (Not that it never happens.) I think when a child kills a parent, it is always worth questioning whether the parent was abusive, because that's often the common thread in these stories. It'd be a different story if, say, Tim had been the one to kill Kathy. 

Surely you can see the difference between the arguments re: victim blaming in the context of a rape victim (i.e. not abusive) and in the context of an abusive parent. The phrase doesn't exist in a vacuum.

[Curious]

32 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

He/she was basically begging for someone to reach out for verification and I was shocked this didn't happen. He was new and likely had no idea to request it.

Someone "begging to be verified" would say something like "how can I be verified?"   We aren't mind readers here.   The way to be verified was actually covered in the thread because another member asked how to be verified.

They alluded to having been mentioned previously in the thread, so they obviously read it.  The helpmeets are too busy to trying to figure out when people vaguely mention things like that.  It's not our job to make sure people are verified.