(Possible Fundie?) Family Murders in Tulsa

[Mama Mia]

It doesn't sounds like the family had any real connections to the local community. Maybe the police decided to step in and do a memorial because no on else was.

I think it's pretty common for the police or a local community group who didn't have connections to offer counseling, or a town meeting or candlelit vigil or some sort of town memorial. I think structuring it as a prayer service is unusual - but maybe in Oklahoma it's an expected way to do it.

[solacetea]

Is it a recent post? I had wondered if they had ever had a pet and if it was ever harmed. I don't think it is horrible at all since everyone would like to know any clues about t5he boys that made them do this horrible thing. I think we are all aware of the link between animal abusers and murderers.

It was 7 months ago. I hope the cat is okay.

The mom had a flurry of activity on reddit, I was able to look at all of her posts thanks to freejinger poster lawfulevil. She seemed nice, but desperate for contact and interaction with the outside world (chatting about mundane stuff, eagerly participating in gift exchanges). I wonder if the husband was the force behind the family's lack of interaction with the outside world. If she married him at 15, and he was 8 years older, who do you think was in control of that relationship?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

It was 7 months ago. I hope the cat is okay.

The mom had a flurry of activity on reddit, I was able to look at all of her posts thanks to freejinger poster lawfulevil. She seemed nice, but desperate for contact and interaction with the outside world (chatting about mundane stuff, eagerly participating in gift exchanges). I wonder if the husband was the force behind the family's lack of interaction with the outside world. If she married him at 15, and he was 8 years older, who do you think was in control of that relationship?

h/sameid.net/emails/aokiemom(x)gmail.com/

She had 23 sites with her email above. Also found post on .wickedfire.com/archive/index.php/t-180585.html asking advice about making money from all her sites, social networking is a big part of that kind of thing. Maybe because I saw this stuff before I read her reddit posts it didn't seem like she was desperate for contact as much as she seemed really normal and probably posting and getting involved to help her online "businesses" too.

I don't post a lot on reddit but if something happened to me and people read through my posts you'd get an honest but oddly specific slice of me based on the places I comment.

The the reddit Santa thing and polish exchange could be a great way to get involved with people who by definition are cool with being contacted off site.

Seems like she was throwing a lot of things at the wall to make money hoping something would stick, but this approach doesn't make sense to me. Too scattershot.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

David Bevers was a technology consultant IV with HP, which per glassdoor.com is anywhere from 74k-123k base, but that's for all locations. My free registration won't let me specify Tulsa.

His LinkedIn has a pretty detailed summary of his job and it's possible he was able to do this for years without necessarily working that closely with anyone. Depending on the nature of the specific assignments if they weren't highly collaborative he could easily work with people remotely for many years without a ton of direct contact. There are a couple of co-workers who said he was fine, pleasant, good at his job but no one that really knew him is coming forward.

I know I'm speculating again, but I'm just wondering why he'd choose to work exclusively from home. His specialty is DBA and I know when I'm elbow deep in SQL the last place I'd want to be is in a house with 7 kids and a spouse who was always there. Obviously he could have set up an office sequestering himself so he could work, and I'm an easily sensory overloaded special snowflake so maybe that's doable for other people.

I know this doesn't mean anything, the clues weren't going to be in his job description. I guess my brain keeps pinging at the things that don't make sense about the family overall. I get not knowing the neighbors, I don't get the neighbors not seeing 7 kids out playing every single day in a yard with a pool. 7 kids are noisy - they are a presence. I get some people love working remotely, but with out exception everyone I know who has been happy doing that liked the solitude during the day which doesn't gel with 7 kids.

None of this is any of my business - it's just like a tragic mystery.

[bubblekitty]

There's some weird stories about the boys in this article:

http://savannahnow.com/news/2015-08-02/ ... -stabbings

It's easier to have mental health issues around your family in that people just adapt to you in ways that wouldn't happen at school or work. In a wider social setting you're constantly called upon to relate in ways that fit social expectations.

[Mitz_]

They sure are not releasing much info on this case especially considering that they caught them, have a live witness and they confessed. We can be sure that those two boys have spewed a whole lot of weirdess during the investigation, hopefully they will release it at some point. I think it is our bussiness, there have been an alarming number of young, oddball males males committing mass murders over the last several years. Why is this happening?

[roddma]

I just now read this- how horrible. While it is wrong to lump fundies or anyone else, you cant help but wonder about their beliefs. I think the reason for the increase in male serial killers is not only the increase in media outlets but the 'macho' complex Shooting guns is seen as a 'manly' thing to do. This is not to say there are no female serial killers. However, that's what happens when you regulate girls to playing with dolls telling them to act like ladies while you say 'boys will be boys' and just give them guns, etc. Of course other issues are at play in violent crimes, but genderized behaviors could be a reinforcement.

[bubblekitty]

^they would not be classified as serial killers.

[Whoosh]

^they would not be classified as serial killers.

^^^This exactly. I googled and found a so-so link that describes what I recall learning as the distinctions between mass murderers, spree killers, and serial killers. Based on my understanding, these boys are mass murderers who were stopped before they could become spree killers or serial killers. Such a sad, sad case this is.

Here is a quote (link below)

Mass Murderers: A mass murderer kills four or more people at one location during one continuous period of time, whether it is a few minutes or over a period of days.

An example of a mass murderer would be Richard Speck, who killed eight student nurses in July of 1966, in a single night in their south Chicago townhouse. Killers who murder several members of their family, also fall into the mass murderer category.

Spree Killers: These murderers kill two or more victims, but are more than one location. Although their murders occur in separate locations, their spree is considered a single event, because there is no "cooling off" period between the murders. Robert Polin is an example of a spree killer. In October 1975 he killed one student and wounded five others at an Ottawa high school after earlier raping and stabbing a 17-year-old friend to death.

Serial Killers: Serial killers murder three or more victims, but each is killed on separate occasions. Unlike mass murderers and spree killers, serial killers usually select their victims, have cooling off periods between murders, and plan their crimes carefully. Some serial killers travel widely to find their victims, such as Ted Bundy, but others remain in the same general geographic area.

crime.about.com/od/serial/a/killer_types.htm

[HerNameIsBuffy]

There's some weird stories about the boys in this article:

http://savannahnow.com/news/2015-08-02/ ... -stabbings

It's easier to have mental health issues around your family in that people just adapt to you in ways that wouldn't happen at school or work. In a wider social setting you're constantly called upon to relate in ways that fit social expectations.

Interesting article, and why does every neighborhood have one person who is the "defacto chronicler of comings and goings" of their neighbors.

This quote from the article raises a question for me:

Tamela Massey, David Bever’s sister, described them as a “tight, Christian family†who attended services at several area churches, including Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, where David Bever once studied.

Is this a thing? I'm somewhere between a lazy-sorta-practicing and lapsed Catholic and we tend to stick to the same parish and our masses are fairly interchangeable with the same basic theology. I've known a lot of protestants and the deeper you get into fundy lite and veering toward full on fundy the tighter they cling to their church because everyone else is various stages of wrong. I once witnessed a couple of distant relatives, both having left the Catholicism for different fundy-lite sects, have a rousing disagreement about points of belief and I swear to God it sounded like they were arguing for the exact same thing. There are levels of nuance involved in that stuff fly way over my head.

(I am not a defender of everything Catholic by any stretch but I've always found it odd that one of their big problems with Catholicism is the whole rules outside of the bible thing. Which would me a more valid point to me if they didn't make up just as many rules which they are way more dogmatic about than most lay Catholics. It doesn't keep me up nights but I wonder how that gets reconciled in their heads.)

[HerNameIsBuffy]

That brings up another question though. In my state, California, a juvenile aged 13 ( or maybe 12 or 14 - it's been awhile since I've had to know ) and over has the legal authority to obtain mental health services without their parents knowledge or consent There is also special funding provided by the state so that teens can access treatment independently of their parent's health insurance. For teens in public school there is generally a policy allowing teens to miss school without parents being informed if it's to obtain mental health, substance abuse or reproductive services. Should teens who have that legal ability to access care have an increased legal culpability if they commit a crime, relative to teens in states where they do not have that resource available?

I'm thinking of the fifteen year old boy who just raped and murdered an 8 year old neighbor. Everyone is describing him as sweet and friendly and helpful . His social media account wasn't particularly disturbing. A couple of lonely sounding posts and song lyrics. But mostly videos of goofing around with friends or doing yo- yo tricks.

So overall, presenting to the world as a good kid. But he must have known he was having awful, awful thoughts. He lived literally across the street from an agency that provided mental health counseling. Should he have been responsible for seeking out services? I'm curious as to opinions.

It's still very early in that investigation, it may turn out there were warning signs, or identified issues or he was in treatment. There is now a statement in an article that he was suicidal and killed this little girl just to see how people in the community would react to a child's death :shock: .

Eta: damn it, they released his name and it's a Latino name - which means all the comments on all the spews sites will turn into a racist screed :angry-banghead:

I meant to reply to this the other day as I think this is such an great point and one we (as a society) need to look at.

I think the more people to whom we make good mental health care available, and remove as many obstacles as possible, the better. I think having this on the table as an option for those kids who need it is a great thing. That said, I personally don't think the availability should increase legal culpability. Kids don't have the life experience to necessarily know they need help. A lot of them have no idea at that age that what they are dealing with isn't normal. Many abused kids assume bad stuff happens in most families, a kid hearing other kids talk about hating school or their parents may think their feelings of rage are normal - because they can't differentiate their own issues from typical teenage angst.

So the percentage of kids between 12-14 who may have serious problems but don't know they need help is orders of magnitude higher than an adult with more life experience. No doubt many kids that age absolutely know they need help, but of them not everyone at that age would have the wherewithal to arrange that, get there on their own, etc.

And the Columbine kids had both had mental health treatment prior to the attack. It's hard for therapists to see psychopathy and even in the one that wasn't, no one raised the red flag for potential mass murder iirc. With all health issues including mental there is a level of maturity needed to know when treatment is working, when you need a second opinion, etc. That's hard for a lot of adults never mind kids in the normal developmental stage where they are questioning authority and tend to think they have all the answers. A kid that age managing their treatment well and autonomously is not reasonable to me. I am sure somewhere there is a kid together enough to do it but I certainly couldn't have and I don't think most can.

Not to mention the kids in private or homeschooled - isolated kids like some of the families we discuss here many of who would have no way of knowing this was even an option.

I think it's good that there is this safety net is there for the kids who are able to avail the opportunity. Just like reproductive health - I glad that minors who cannot go to their parents have access to the care they need. I am glad they teach sex ed in school so things like consent, STI protection, pregnancy prevention, etc. are covered for the kids whose parents don't talk about this stuff - but I see it as a safety net for the kids and society which is much better than nothing, but it's not optimal. My kids never heard anything in sex ed for the first time - I had talked to my kids in depth about consent well before it would come up and the door being open led to other, deeper, conversations through the years as they got older. If our daughters (as a society, our collective daughters) felt they couldn't come to their parent(s) to discuss birth control I would be grateful that's it's still available but I do feel bad for the young women who are just getting a hang of this whole woman hood thing who have to do it on their own. Without having a trusted adult woman they can talk to who can help figure out what's normal and what's call the doc about this side effect right now - just like with periods. Great that it's covered in health class, but nothing beats someone at home being able to help gauge when cramps are in the lets get checked out category, when bleeding is atypical, etc.

This is such a critical problem in our legal system and I hope smarter people than I can figure it out because I have no answers. They aren't babies and they know harming people like this is unconscionable. We cannot, as a society, treat them like adorable idiots and ignore how dangerous they are. And yes, how culpable they are - but as the level of culpability has much more variance at this age it's not something we can create a formula for. responsibility = ((Heinousness of crime * number of victims)/((factor of N)*(sum years > 18)) would be great but can never work since you have to solve for all the variables not included. Abuse, neglect, isolation, psychopathy, mental illness...the list is a long one.

We need the best and brightest on this to move more quickly to get this right...both for the kids who need help and their future victims which may be avoided if intervention happens in time.

[FundieFarmer]

It depends. They may be church shopping, which would explain hopping around some. Protestant services are rarely interchangeable, even within the same denomination, so usually if a passionate person finds a church they like, they never move from it. They may just not have found their home church yet.

[Buzzard]

Regarding the charging. They both will likely be charged with each murder, assault, weapons possession etc regardless of who wielded the knife. "Party to a crime" or "accessory" (depending on the jurisdiction the term changes) means that anyone who assists before, during, or after in a material way is guilty of the crime itself. Until we see the actual indictment it will be hard to tell who did what.

I'm strongly against the 911 call, autopsy or crime scene photos being released. This is an active investigation and will taint the jury pool. Like it or not, the defendants deserve a fair trial and while this may bring a paper clicks, it doesnt actually help the case or educate the public.

[bubblekitty]

They have both pleaded not guilty.

What does that mean, that they will claim they were forced to do it or suffering psychosis..?

[Mitz_]

They have both pleaded not guilty.

What does that mean, that they will claim they were forced to do it or suffering psychosis..?

It means their lawyers are doing their jobs, pure legal maneuvers. Everyone pleads not guilty at this stage of the process. The lawyers will try to reduce their sentences and depending on how that goes they will have trials...or not.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

It means their lawyers are doing their jobs, pure legal maneuvers. Everyone pleads not guilty at this stage of the process. The lawyers will try to reduce their sentences and depending on how that goes they will have trials...or not.

Yep, if nothing else it buys the lawyers time as pleas can always be changed and this one gives them the most room in which to work.

I don't think there has even been enough time to have the boys properly evaluated and so no one probably knows what was really going on with them yet.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Regarding the charging. They both will likely be charged with each murder, assault, weapons possession etc regardless of who wielded the knife. "Party to a crime" or "accessory" (depending on the jurisdiction the term changes) means that anyone who assists before, during, or after in a material way is guilty of the crime itself. Until we see the actual indictment it will be hard to tell who did what.

I'm strongly against the 911 call, autopsy or crime scene photos being released. This is an active investigation and will taint the jury pool. Like it or not, the defendants deserve a fair trial and while this may bring a paper clicks, it doesnt actually help the case or educate the public.

As of now they are facing identical charges. Five counts of 1st degree murder and one count of assault with intent to kill. Public defenders office is fighting to seal records and put a gag order (essentially) into effect. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/br ... 10005.html

from the link:

Court records show Nigh and Ramsey appeared in court for their defendants on Friday after filing motions for protective orders regarding pretrial statements and sealing of police reports and other documents in the case. The documents appear to have been filed before Robert and Michael Bever were charged; in addition to requesting discovery material be sealed, they request that the state and attorneys for both sides be ordered not to make statements either orally or in writing to the public, press, media or others who are not a party to the matter.

I don't think crime scene photos, the 911 call, or autopsy photos should ever be released in most cases. If the only reason is public curiosity then absolutely not, if there is a reason the public needs to know about the logistics of the crime scene then diagrams tell the tale fine without having that level of gore out there for loved ones to happen upon.

As much as I would like to know what the motivation was, I fully support keeping it all quiet until after a fair trial, as long as there is no harm to the public in doing so.

As we don't have enough info to speculate on this case I'll use a hypothetical and say that if during an investigation police uncovered potential harm to others (involvement of an abusive cult, areas targeted due to security holes, weapons purchased illegally, etc.) then they need to follow that up immediately even if it means the press gets wind of it and infers what they will. Fair trial and privacy trumps public curiosity but preventing imminent harm to the public/other victims trumps everything (although should still be done with as much discretion as possible.)

I do think that after the fact there is a lot to be learned from experts analysis of crimes like this. If we can inch toward the whys we can maybe prevent some future incidents - not all, but some.

[Rubyroo]

The 911 call won't be released. The DA's office will make an announcement later today according to this article theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/28/broken-arrow-oklahoma-bever-family-stabbings-911-call

[Mama Mia]

It depends. They may be church shopping, which would explain hopping around some. Protestant services are rarely interchangeable, even within the same denomination, so usually if a passionate person finds a church they like, they never move from it. They may just not have found their home church yet.

I had a more general question regarding the religious aspect, maybe people could share their thoughts.

Theis seems to have been a religious, Christian family. I'm wondering if the fact that it gets mentioned in many of the neighbors/ relatives statements means they were extremely, noticeably, " more" strictly religious than was the norm?

I am thinking, in my town, if the people who knew the family were interviewed and they said the victims were a " good Christian family" it would likely mean they were very fervently, visibly religious and talked about it all the time - in a way that stood out - especially if it was neighbors, co- workers and less close relationships. Or they were active members of a congregation, and they were talking to people who knew them from church.

But I kind of get the impression, just in reading various news stories on different issues , that maybe in some areas - like the Bible Belt- that people might use " Christian" as a more general descriptor for a more run of the mill level of religious practice. Like the way other people might throw in the word " nice" or " average" or " good" or " normal" when describing people.

Does that make any sense at all? It just seems like the phrase " Good Christian Family" is used a lot more in some areas than others. Kind of like how in some areas its common to ask what church someone goes to, or if they go to church at all. Or just to know about people's religious beliefs in general. I could totally have just come across a few people in news stories where the phrase was used that way and be totally off base. Just wondering.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I had a more general question regarding the religious aspect, maybe people could share their thoughts.

Theis seems to have been a religious, Christian family. I'm wondering if the fact that it gets mentioned in many of the neighbors/ relatives statements means they were extremely, noticeably, " more" strictly religious than was the norm?

I am thinking, in my town, if the people who knew the family were interviewed and they said the victims were a " good Christian family" it would likely mean they were very fervently, visibly religious and talked about it all the time - in a way that stood out - especially if it was neighbors, co- workers and less close relationships. Or they were active members of a congregation, and they were talking to people who knew them from church.

But I kind of get the impression, just in reading various news stories on different issues , that maybe in some areas - like the Bible Belt- that people might use " Christian" as a more general descriptor for a more run of the mill level of religious practice. Like the way other people might throw in the word " nice" or " average" or " good" or " normal" when describing people.

Does that make any sense at all? It just seems like the phrase " Good Christian Family" is used a lot more in some areas than others. Kind of like how in some areas its common to ask what church someone goes to, or if they go to church at all. Or just to know about people's religious beliefs in general. I could totally have just come across a few people in news stories where the phrase was used that way and be totally off base. Just wondering.

I know from my involvement for years in a forum covering workplace issues that the whole vetting people you meet on if they go to church and rare is very regional. Some people have real issues with being judged in some places which surprised me. The closest anyone came in my work life to inquiring about my religion is passing around the lunch menu and letting me know the pepper and egg sandwich was good if I do that kind of thing (it was lent.) In other parts of the country from what I've come to understand which religious community you are a part of (if any) can really help or hurt you.

I do think that some people may use the phrase "Good Christian Family" to be generic for "regular Americans like us, we had nothing to be suspicious about" and it not being reflective at all on their specific beliefs. Robert saying to a co-worker that his family was very religious, but he was not is the only statement which I'd give any weight at all.

I do find it odd that the family member said they attended multiple different churches. Discussed a little bit up thread that's strange to be seeing as they'd been in the home since 2007 - so in the area for at least eight years. Not saying it's nefarious, but it does seem strange to me since I've never known church goers to vary like that unless as FundieFarmer mentioned people who are church shopping. But that's a long time to not find a church home/family/community if you want one.

Could be nothing, but if they were as isolated as it seems flitting from church to church would be one way to keep interaction superficial.

And if they weren't as isolated as they seem you'd think someone would be talking to the press about how they knew one of the kids from baseball, or dance lessons, or whatever. It's my understanding that most home schoolers are pretty pro-activity for kids and it's hard to imagine that many kids and no one wanted to join any kind of outside activity. Even if the parents didn't think it was necessary to insist, I'd think someone would have had an interest in something along the way outside of the family. And maybe they did, but the only people on the periphery of their lives who've spoken about interacting with them are a former co-worker of Roberts, someone from a junior government activity he did years ago, and a neighbor who'd try to talk to Michael while he was out doing the lawn. No one who knew the 13, 12, or 7 year old from anything outside? It's possible people are respecting the privacy of the family and not talking, but in every group there seems to be someone who wants to talk to the press and talk about how nice they were, or how weird they were...something. So it's possible that everyone they knew even casually is just super discrete, but it's strange.

And he article the other day mentioned the backyard was overgrown with weeds and poison ivy. Seven kids and no one was playing in the yard to the degree they didn't need to clean up the poison ivy? Even leaving the teenagers out of it kids 12, 7, 5, and 2 that yard would have gotten a lot of use in most families daily.

[mebeforee]

Daniel Bever, at least, did want to get involved in activities. He posted a number of karate YouTube videos on his g+ account, saying he learned everything he knew from the videos and that he was trying to talk his mom into signing him up for classes. It may have been a money thing but in my community, even if you can't afford a class at a karate studio itself, there are classes of all kinds offered through the community centers. If they'd wanted to get into sports or art or cooking classes through community centers, I'm sure it'd have been possible. Tulsa would surely have had multiple opportunities for that kind of thing, but it sounds like the kid wasn't sure he'd be able to get his mom to let him participate in the activities he wanted.

[Mama Mia]

Daniel Bever, at least, did want to get involved in activities. He posted a number of karate YouTube videos on his g+ account, saying he learned everything he knew from the videos and that he was trying to talk his mom into signing him up for classes. It may have been a money thing but in my community, even if you can't afford a class at a karate studio itself, there are classes of all kinds offered through the community centers. If they'd wanted to get into sports or art or cooking classes through community centers, I'm sure it'd have been possible. Tulsa would surely have had multiple opportunities for that kind of thing, but it sounds like the kid wasn't sure he'd be able to get his mom to let him participate in the activities he wanted.

And it's hard too, because once people are associated with something THIS horrible, EVERYTHING can seem suspect or creepy or a sign. Like was he a kid who had been begging his parents to join in activities and they wanted to keep him isolated - or had he just not asked yet and was just using a casual phrase. Or was he a kid who was always talking about wanting to do things, then losing interest before he even started?

And we're they isolated because that's what the parents wanted in order to hide things -- or were the older boys disruptive / socially awkward / hostile enough that it made whole family outside activities difficult? The 18 year old who seemed to think he was better than everyone - did he voice that constantly around other people? And I agree, with that many kids you'd think at least one or two were joiner / social types. But very few of my kids were " joiners" , so on the other hand I could see how it could happen.

Or the rapist murderer kid in my town - in a comment someone mentioned their kid saw him at the flea market and he stomped in a puddle and his mom out of proportioned screamed at him. Did that mean she was rage filled all the time and it was a scary home - or had he jumped in a puddle and splashed her and spilled her coffee after she'd already told him to knock it off?

It's so difficult , cause I just so much want it all to make sense, and it just doesn't.

[Howl]

Mama Mia wrote: I know from my involvement for years in a forum covering workplace issues that the whole vetting people you meet on if they go to church and rare is very regional. Some people have real issues with being judged in some places which surprised me. The closest anyone came in my work life to inquiring about my religion is passing around the lunch menu and letting me know the pepper and egg sandwich was good if I do that kind of thing (it was lent.) In other parts of the country from what I've come to understand which religious community you are a part of (if any) can really help or hurt you.

A close relative moved to Lubbock, Texas to go to grad school and worked part time in several nearby school districts to help support her studies. It was common to be asked, "Have you found your church yet?" Church is so interwoven with life that that type of question was just a normal part of social discourse in that area. She's just say she was till looking. :shock:

She also was startled when one of her fellow grad students opened an informal study session with a prayer.

[mebeforee]

I agree, we don't really know. I just had a strong emotional response when I viewed Daniel's account that I didn't expect, because usually these things are quickly made inaccessible when a crime like this happens. I wanted to know more about the kids in the family but I didn't necessarily expect to find out much. Practically every post he'd made hit me in a harsh and unpleasant way because I already knew how he'd died. I don't know that we can totally trust his comments, but there's so little from the community about the family. Usually when a crime of this nature occurs, anyone who had even the briefest contact with the victims comes out to give their piece and get their 15 minutes. It's sad that tragedies are met with that reaction, but it seems to be the case in practically every major crime I've researched. This one is different, people don't seem to know the family at all.

It may be that the older boys were showing signs of mental illness and that made 'extracurriculars' hard or impossible, but the younger children weren't then put into any kind of public learning program, no public school, no community activities. Even if they were trying to deal with severe problems from the older kids, it's unfair that the younger kids were isolated if there's even a little evidence that they didn't want to live that way. And personalities can change, too. When I was very young, I was social. I moved to another state in grade school and became super shy until high school when activities helped me out of my shell, and I got social again. But in college and as an adult I am largely a solitary person - I just don't have a huge social drive. I feel like people, especially young people, have to experiment to find their comfort zone and these kids don't seem to have been getting the opportunity to explore the world in that way. Maybe they would all decide they didn't care for it, but the weird lack of input from their neighbors and community makes me think it wasn't being offered in a significant way.

[FunFunFundie]

I've found Tamela Bever Massey's Facebook page very strange. There are posts about the murders which seem just devastated, but then there are Minion memes and complaints about the weather. She posted something about the not guilty pleas, saying she couldn't believe the "SOB"'s didn't "have the balls" to plead guilty. I've been suspending my judgment because everybody grieves differently, but I just realized that part of what is so weird is that she is so distant from the family. It's like she doesn't know them. I would be destroyed if my nephews did something like this, but as I said, maybe she grieves differently - but there's not a word of "those boys have always been trouble" or "I never saw it coming." Somebody asked if she knew why, and she seemed pissed and said that's what everybody wants to know. But her posts read like she never met the kids, like she is upset about her brother but not so upset that she can't talk about dinner plans. I've taken all the "they were isolated" talk with a grain of salt, because who knows, but I just now realized I don't think the dad's sister even knew the family.