Stockdale family murders

[laPapessaGiovanna]

1 hour ago, Snarkle Motion said:

hat's exactly why I'm suspect that this person was real. What is their motivation in unearthing this to defend the family? Why now?

What was Burris motivation? Why after years of no different than average membership? Personally I don't recommend imagining meanings and stories behind people's own words. Imho it's better to critically analyse their words and ask questions instead of imagining things that are just wild speculation and then confusing them with reality. You have decided for your own reasons that this person was trustworthy and her words were true and you didn't bother to critically think about them any further. 

[Lurky]

@Snarkle Motion I don't understand why, if you think they were begging to be verified, and as you say, you've been contributing to this thread for months, you didn't suggest it to them? 

[Snarkle Motion]

4 minutes ago, Lurky said:

@Snarkle Motion I don't understand why, if you think they were begging to be verified, and as you say, you've been contributing to this thread for months, you didn't suggest it to them? 

I should have, you are right. I almost called the person out as a family member as the person specifically mentions being discussed in the thread and is surprised people haven't put 2 and 2 together. I guess I didn't know if I had that authority. I just felt comments were excessively critical of a person whose words were assumed to be trolling but if you look at them really do seem genuine at least in my mind and actually not that unreasonable.

I apologize for my "shit stirring," and will reconsider my actions/comments. But I do genuinely believe this commenter is worth looking at or at least engaging respectfully to hear what they have to say.

[Palimpsest]

9 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

What was Burris motivation?

Rufus knows.  All I can say is that they were sick.   And weren't your very first posts on FJ in that thread?  Talk about a trial by fire!  

12 minutes ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

You have decided for your own reasons that this person was trustworthy and her words were true and you didn't bother to critically think about them any further. 

@Snarkle Motion is not known for critical thinking.  I'm still appalled that she thought "Alice" was doing the right thing by naming under-age victims of sexual abuse on the internet.  She thought it was the right thing to do because Duggars don't count as real people because they are on TV.

I really think she's only stirring shit here because she got called out elsewhere.  

[really rookie]

You can be officially verified and still be doubted.

Google, by the way, is pretty good at locating this site. Very minor families discussed here have had customers say that when they googled business information that this site comes up. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

17 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.  

 

I can tell you right now there is nothing "fun" about murder. What you see on this thread is very basic and normal human behavior. A group of people are given a certain amount of info (wife swap episode, manual online, police reporting of the incident, and statements made by the family) and they are trying to figure out what went wrong. When it comes to murder, humans have this insatiable need to know why. If you watch any and all true crime shows, you will always hear someone ask WHY? Why did they do this? This is because humans want to know what went wrong and how we can avoid it in the future. It's not about fun. It never was. 

I understand you were shocked and upset by this. But you have to understand no one on FJ is gleefully posting about murder. This is an absolute tragedy and no one deserves to go through something like this in the family. I wish the best for the remaining family members as I imagine this is the worst thing that has ever happened to them and will affect them until the day they die.

[church_of_dog]

On July 9, 2017 at 2:37 PM, livinginthelight said:

I think part of the issue in this denial is that each of us desperately wants to believe that it's always possible to recognize bad people by looking at them.

I think this is key to what's happening in this thread (even though @livinginthelight said it before the latest family-defender joined the thread).

Anecdote time:  Last year, a man I had dated briefly several years before, committed a horrific murder [er, allegedly, since he hasn't been to trial yet].

When I dated him I saw no violence and have only positive, if odd, memories of my time with him.  I stopped seeing him after a few months because there were gaps in his story that made me uncomfortable, but I thought they were "doesn't communicate well enough for my liking" gaps, not "I'm secretly an ax-murderer"...(!!)

When I first heard of the murder and his arrest, I found myself thinking sympathetically about HIM, not about his victim!  I was surprised at that, even though I had never met the victim or her family so didn't have any emotional connection other than the intellectual horror of being aware of what had happened to her.

Then there was another friend of mine who had only moved to town a few months before (was a tenant in a rental of mine, actually), who had met my ex and liked him, and saw him occasionally at a community activity.  After the murder, my tenant friend decided he wanted to go visit the alleged murderer in jail, and he did so, twice I believe.  According to him he just wanted the prisoner "to know he's not a bad person, that not everyone hates him."

I initially found myself empathizing with this, but at the same time I was upset because the tenant friend was aware of my history of having dated this man, and yet didn't seem to think that his visiting him in jail might be 1) upsetting to me, or 2) even potentially dangerous to me, depending on whether the prisoner had any fixation on me as a past girlfriend (no matter whether it's anger over the fact I broke up with him, or positive feelings as in he might try to come to me for help if he made bail or was somehow acquitted, doesn't really matter to me, I don't need him knowing any current details about me, even inadvertent, that might get passed along by acquaintances who feel the need to go a-visiting to prisoners).

I spoke to a few friends, including mental health professionals, who made it clear that a man who felt the need to go visit a violent prisoner he knew only superficially, had his OWN issues, because that's not normally a healthy thing to do.

My assessment is that both I, and my prisoner-visiting friend, were experiencing some degree of this "he can't be all bad, because he was nice to me and I would just know if he was secretly horrible".  I knew better than to take any action based on that feeling, where my tenant friend apparently did not (or perhaps fancies himself some kind of counselor or pastor).  The tenant has since moved away so hopefully no more prison visits will take place.

[EowynW]

I grew up in the bluegrass family band world. 

 

There are lots of nice families. 

There are lots of very nice but very odd families. 

There are lots of crazy families that people think look nice on the outside. 

You won't know this stuff unless you are in the world  

Honestly, I now view family bands like I do churches. When shit hits the fan about one of them I don't even blink an eye anymore. Ugly stuff can and does hide underneath the pretty surface. 

[laPapessaGiovanna]

9 minutes ago, really rookie said:

You can be officially verified and still be doubted.

Google, by the way, is pretty good at locating this site. Very minor families discussed here have had customers say that when they googled business information that this site comes up. 

Do you mean Ken Alexander orthodontist consultant in California who thinks that incest and child abuse are no big deal?

[really rookie]

No.

[Palimpsest]

1 minute ago, really rookie said:

No.

@really rookie was verified earlier in this thread as a person in the area who knew the family.

Thanks for coming back.

I haven't changed my opinion that however shocked the community is about this whole tragedy, no-one knows for sure what was going on in that house.

If this should ever go to trial we may get an inkling if Jacob has an adequate defense.

[Lurky]

The difference between @really rookie and this latest one is that Really Rookie didn't come into the thread suggesting Jacob didn't actually do it, and talking about how they tried to tempt the kids into eating foods their parents believed they shouldn't eat.

I can't even imagine how a community deals with such a tragedy, let alone the family.  But I don't think suggesting that there was a different shooter, with no evidence whatsover, helps anyone.

[quiversR4hunting]

1 hour ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Do you mean Ken Alexander orthodontist consultant in California who thinks that incest and child abuse are no big deal?

You forgot his transformed wife who is always learning, Lori Alexander, who thinks women are to be blamed for their own abuse and rape.

[Snarkle Motion]

1 hour ago, Palimpsest said:

@Snarkle Motion is not known for critical thinking.  I'm still appalled that she thought "Alice" was doing the right thing by naming under-age victims of sexual abuse on the internet.  She thought it was the right thing to do because Duggars don't count as real people because they are on TV.

That is completely misrepresenting me. I said that I disagreed with naming victims but believed Alice was trying to make people aware that children were being sexually abused and the system was failing to protect them from ongoing abuse. I don't find that repulsive. If she believed that drawing awareness could prevent abuse or protect children in home with their abuser, even if her method/approach was flawed, that's not the same as repulsive morally repugnant gossip.

My point about the Duggars is that I tend to give more leeway with speculating about their personal lives (not abuse btw) because they are profiting from making their personal lives public. This is more in regards to tabloid rumors that Joy had premarital sex. My moral system may not make sense to you or always align with this site but I have one, I try not to "gossip" about private citizens or body shame anybody.

54 minutes ago, Lurky said:

The difference between @really rookie and this latest one is that Really Rookie didn't come into the thread suggesting Jacob didn't actually do it, and talking about how they tried to tempt the kids into eating foods their parents believed they shouldn't eat.

I never read this person to be saying he literally believed Jacob didn't do it. Rather that it's so hard to accept for him that he can't believe he did it. Maybe I just read it differently, but I never assumed he was actually arguing Jacob was innocent but suggesting he still has love for Jacob and can't imagine him doing this. 

[Lillymuffin]

@Snarkle Motion Maybe this "Twee Farm" person knew the family, maybe not. That wasn't the issue for me. What chapped my ass was their assertion (boldly and proudly) that they were the ones offering the boys foods they  knew they weren't supposed to have, then retracting the statement when they got pushback and blaming our collective lack of comprehension. 

Whether their restrictive diet was truly for health reasons, or because their mother was hyper-controlling, we don't know, but doing that to kids is a serious dick move. It's just cruel, and I speak from experience as someone who grew up with terrible (SEVERE, even!) food allergies. 

As for the poster's choice of name lending validity to their words, I don't give that much credence. Just from the top of my head I can think of two other posters w/ "farm" in their name, fundiefarmer and dpndtfarm. I'm sure a look at the "who's online" list could've given inspiration for any sort of alias. 

Maybe I was a touch harsh using the wanker smiley, but when tweefarm went all Flouncy McFlouncerton, it felt right. Sorry, not sorry. 

[HarryPotterFan]

2 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

Anecdote time:

More anecdotes to show that you can think you know someone, but that doesn't mean you know what goes on behind closed doors or what secrets they hide:

- I had a teacher, whom I liked and liked making the class laugh, who got into a big argument with her husband and ended up shooting him. This was in the middle of the semester when I was in her class.

- A man I knew growing up, who was viewed as a pillar of the community and trusted by many, was arreted for soliciting a boy he believed to be 13. In reality it was an adult, posing undercover to catch online predators. This was incredibly shocking and devastating to the community. People didn't want to believe it happened, people wanted to believe maybe he knew it was really an adult, or that he never actually hurt a child. Because the reality that this man, who was liked by many and people trusted with their children, did something horrible. And no parent wants to face the fact that their child was exposed to someone who would hurt another child.

2 hours ago, laPapessaGiovanna said:

Do you mean Ken Alexander orthodontist consultant in California who thinks that incest and child abuse are no big deal?

Is he the one that blogged about how to abuse your child to avoid leaving marks and tips on avoiding CPS? 

[hoipolloi]

Have had sufficient coffee to reflect & respond.

For our latest flouncee:

[Seahorse Wrangler]

6 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

Is he the one that blogged about how to abuse your child to avoid leaving marks and tips on avoiding CPS? 

No..this one is a doctor which makes it worse.

[Palimpsest]

13 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

Is he the one that blogged about how to abuse your child to avoid leaving marks and tips on avoiding CPS? 

There's more than one of those.  Sadly.

[HarryPotterFan]

4 minutes ago, Palimpsest said:

There's more than one of those.  Sadly.

Well, fuck. That's awful.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

24 minutes ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

No..this one is a doctor which makes it worse.

He isn't a doctor just a consultant, he graduated in some sort of theology thing.

[Snarkle Motion]

1 hour ago, Lillymuffin said:

Maybe this "Twee Farm" person knew the family, maybe not. That wasn't the issue for me. What chapped my ass was their assertion (boldly and proudly) that they were the ones offering the boys foods they  knew they weren't supposed to have, then retracting the statement when they got pushback and blaming our collective lack of comprehension. 

Agreed that's not okay. But I also think people misinterpreted the person's intention. My understanding they were not following a medically necessary diet but chose to follow a diet they believed optimized their health. Lots of people follow fad diets, breaking the rules isn't life threatening, it's just deciding to break the rules. I don't think the person meant they were trying to endanger them but offering them a chance to cheat their strict diet rules. Like offering someone on Atkins a cookie.

But I agree that the diet stuff concerns me. Any excessive control of food, that is not medically necessary, for children is suspect in my opinion. And this commenter seemed pretty quick to defend this life choice as really belonging to the children. But I was surprised that people interpreted the food stuff they way they did. Leaky gut diet isn't an "official" medical diet if I understand, but something people try to follow to potentially optimize health (like eating organic) based on some science and other pseudoscience/fad trends. People can choose how strictly they want to adhere to it and whether to break it.

 

[hoipolloi]

1 hour ago, Lillymuffin said:

What chapped my ass was their assertion (boldly and proudly) that they were the ones offering the boys foods they  knew they weren't supposed to have, then retracting the statement when they got pushback and blaming our collective lack of comprehension.

This times a million.

@TisaWee Farm behaved in the classic manner of many other flouncees. S/he's just the latest but surely won't be the last.

 

 

[Lurky]

@Snarkle Motion It sounds like you're suggesting we should disregard what someone's words actually say, because they are telling us they are nebulously involved in real life. 

I'm sorry, but I don't believe people when they turn up claiming to be close to things we discuss, unless they've been verified.  Remember the Birdy person last year (I forget the exact) name, who was totally close with the Duggars and the Bates, and had all kinds of scandal to tell us?  Except it was all fanfic?  Or the person who, when Jeremy Vuolo was first announced, knew the Vuolo parents intimately because her aunt was besties with Mrs Vuolo, and knew for a fact Mrs V is a classic Italian Catholic mother, and totally horrific by Jeremy's involvement with the Duggars?  Or Burris?  or Razing Ruth?  Or the more banal people who have a story to fit everything we ever talk about? (million pound constipated fish and all).  At this point, going on the history of the site it's far more likely that someone is just yanking our chains for a laugh, than it is a close family member.

And what baffles me is even they aren't saying they're a family member, you just decided they are.  I just don't understand why you want us to both take them at their word that they're close, without verification AND ignore what they're actually saying (when they said they thought there was another explanation than the son killed his family; when they said they deliberately tempted the boys with foods their parents believed would make them ill) and translate it into something else.

[TheOneAndOnly]

Some kids, if "micromanaged" enough when they're small, will be so certain that the ideas of their parents are the right ones that even as adults they will "choose" to do things that way.