Did the Meeks have motive?

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby jhancock » Wed Aug 07, 2013 11:40 am

The outtake didn't occur at the memorial or the park; it was from an interview done in thee Meeks home, as Glenna sat sandwiched between Walter and LaRhonda. It was very brief--but the subject of the baby came up, and Glenna said sharply, "I was not happy with Sue about that." Mama Meeks has definitely got a snappiness to her, and she said this very harshly. But she also immediately clammed herself up, as if to say, "Nope, not gonna talk about that."

As for the footage you see of the memorial, here's what I have always taken from that clip. I agree with D; you can see Glenna hesitate before she's about to say certain things. Now part of this can stem simply from her not being comfortable in front of a crowd and/or not planning on speaking that day. But when she starts to say that her son and Johnny were best friends, she hesitates, almost as if she wants to take it back. Perhaps she is trying to distance herself from the Sharps, but I also think she hesitates because it simply wasn't true. This whole idea that the Meeks/Sharps were one big happy family unit is clearly a falsehood. I don't think anyone was that close to the Sharp family (they hadn't even been in Keddie that long to begin with). I don't think Sheila really knew Johnny or her mother that well. I question how close anyone knew Tina; after all, if the victims were known well, then we would get more out of the people who knew them than generic statements that you could say about anybody. I'm not saying this to be cruel, but there was clearly a lot of rose-tinting going on from every camp. I think some of the more genuine moments in Part I come from Tammie and Michelle, the Sharp cousins--perhaps because they were more removed from the visceral experience.

I think Indigo and Mag asked in another thread about the footage...most of it is on a different computer and on different media types than the ones I use now. To retrieve all that footage would be really difficult...ah, that sounds terrible. I just don't think there's a lot there that is useful, but with all that's been revealed now...ugh, I need an assistant. :)
jhancock
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:59 pm
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 283 times

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby Magnum PI » Wed Aug 07, 2013 12:40 pm

I know that nobody really believes in Psyhics but I keep thinking about that one who said , that a younger guy with the initial R wearing a red flannel instigated the whole thing. It always made me think of Richard. Again, I'm not saying he took part in the murders but its obvious that the Meeks were closer to the Smartt's than Sue. With the exception of Shelia. Everyone really seemed to be disconnected in the sharp family. I think that Sue was jus trying her best to take care of five kids and feed them . It really is heartbreaking when you think about it! Sue and the kids had been through so much! A abusive relationship, unstable home life, molestation and after surviving all that, they are murdered! Mrs Meeks obviously cared about Shelia, after all she was her grand babies mother. So, in thinking about it Meeks must have known that Shelia wasn't home that night! Makes you wonder..
User avatar
Magnum PI
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 7:33 pm
Has thanked: 21 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby dmac » Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:14 pm

jhancock wrote:Glenna said sharply, "I was not happy with Sue about that." Mama Meeks has definitely got a snappiness to her, and she said this very harshly. But she also immediately clammed herself up, as if to say, "Nope, not gonna talk about that."

No, she knew full-stop she screwed the pooch, so she went silent. She fired off exactly what she meant, and it wasn't a lie. The Meeks and the Sharps- that entire story is a lie made up by the family who fostered the killers, the same family who made Sheila Sharp a mother at 13.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby bkl67 » Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:11 am

Has it ever been established when the kids ball practice was over??? I think that would be something very easy to find out, it would have been rather common knowledge in the community. I'm pretty sure they weren't the only 2 boys in the area that had practice. In doing so it could help clear up the discrepancies in the statements about the timing of things and I think you will find either Shelia or Richard are in line with that indisputable fact. It would also be nice to know if Sue or some one else picked them up.
bkl67
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:00 pm
Location: Federalsburg Maryland
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Sue's car

Postby RogerV » Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:54 pm

DMAC,
Farther down the page, you remark on Sue's "small sedan." In fact, Sue's car was a 1973 Chrysler Newport, and would have been ENORMOUS, designed to accommodate six adults. It would have been possible to squeeze seven people in it, especially if some of them were children, and the distance traveled was short.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3652/345 ... 17f82e.jpg
RogerV
 

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby Chichibcc » Wed Jul 02, 2014 4:31 pm

There is a collection of Mrs. Meeks' posts from the now-defunct "Cabin28" board (2006-2009) available to view/download here:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/118ooc2iipyc26y/Mrs.+Meeks+posts.doc
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:08 am
Has thanked: 667 times
Been thanked: 254 times

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby dmac » Wed Jul 02, 2014 7:59 pm

I think that's mk's document? She had it posted on the old version of this forum, but I deleted that post because the download link wasn't working anymore.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby Chichibcc » Thu Jul 03, 2014 7:47 pm

Yes, she's the one who put all the posts together, but the download link is working now, though-I had no problems when I tried it yesterday.
User avatar
Chichibcc
 
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:08 am
Has thanked: 667 times
Been thanked: 254 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby dmac » Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:57 pm

Just noticed RogerV's post re: the size of Sue's Newport. I don't think he comes to this site (fortunately!), but he's right about the overall size.

I had a 1967 Chrysler Newport Custom Series CC-1 hardtop, and it was a land yacht. It was over 18 feet long and 6 1/2 feet wide, and weighed 4,000 lbs. Both seats were bench seats, but the front seat had a drop-down arm rest in the middle, making it uncomfortable to seat more than 2 in front. The back had three belts and the front only had two. When my nephews wanted to take a ride in it, I was able to squeeze five in: the oldest up front, and four in the back.

Memory told me that the Newport was cut down in size by 73, but that didn't happen until after the OPEC embargo destroyed Chrysler sales. Sue's was a 1973 Newport (CL41), which was almost a full foot longer than my boat (!), and half an inch wider. I remember the doors and sides on my 67 seemed a foot thick, so the seat size is considerably smaller than 6.5 feet overall width. Still, that gives a better idea as to the size of Sue's land yacht.

Here's a funny vid about a 73:



and a better overall look at the interior of Sue's model:

"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby dmac » Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:09 pm

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=725&p=14055&hilit=thrift#p14055

READ THAT POST!

Hello, folks. We have the Meeks taking care of the killers after the murders, we have the Meeks involved with a guy who is believed to have been very involved in the alibi and outcome of the murders, whose car was with the murderers, whose disappeared car (by PCSO?) is believed to have transported Tina's body to Camp Eighteen. Does somebody see why this tangent is not flakey but full of reality?

The Meeks went into BUSINESS with that scum, Dee Lake. Looks like Mama Meeks forgets how much she loved Sue Sharp pretty damned quick, eh? Especially when a killer of Sue is involved!
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Mere Meeks Coincidences

Postby Cheshire » Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:11 pm

dmac wrote:Dale Wade Meeks was born in late 61, making him 19 at the time of the murders.


I hadn't realized how young he was. I can't find Marilyn's DOB on the Persons of Note thread, anyone have it handy? Justin was 12 and his sister was older, so Marilyn had to have been at least 10-15 years older than him? Am I missing something here??
Cheshire
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:34 pm
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby Cheshire » Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:16 pm

And the name Delmas Archuleta was mentioned here so I checked the forum for other mentions and came up with this thread, some of which seems like it fits here too:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=653&p=8310&hilit=Delmas+Archuleta#p8310

From the above:

Looking Closely at Marilyn's Statements
Postby Ausgirl » Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:09 am

It's late here, so I'm not gonna fit all of this in at once, and anyways, I'd really like to see what -other people- see in the Collated Marilyn Posts thread.

Here's just a very few things that stuck out to me:

1. Her incessant whining and epic sulk fit over Wade Meeks refusing to have anything to do with the forum or Marilyn herself.

Just read the entry of collated comments on Wade. First she starts off demanding over and over that he help her 'remember' things - like the whereabouts of her other obsession, her 'little red station station wagon', among other things. THEN she goes to great lengths to link Wade with Marty & Dee, asks about heavy drug use among that group of friends, raises the question of where Wade was that night.

2. The sheer number of people she points the finger at: Marty & Boubede --- first. Then, at various stages of her 'conversion' -- Dee Lake, 'creepy' Lynn Seavey, Jim Seabolt, Robert Silveria, Wade Meeks, "The wild man",Craig Walters, and Delmas Archuleta.

Note that she had recently spoken to several of these people - on one hand she speaks nicely of them, and how helpful they were. On the other, she outright states they ought to be suspects.

3. The emphatic way she distances herself from Sue.

Doesn't know Sue well. Never went to her home. Doesn't know if Sue had a phone. Only knew her through the kids. Etc.

4. The way she distances herself form Mrs. Meeks, too: She states in a quote I haven't posted yet that she went to the Meeks' house on the morning after the murders because she knew Wade.

Biblically, apparently, even at that stage, despite the 'lady protesting' that she didn't. Mrs. Meeks knew Marilyn had her 'hooks in' even that early, she says. Also, denying point blank - to Mrs. Meeks herself - that she and Mrs. Meeks ever studied at Cabin 26. Maybe she was worried over what Nina Meeks remembered...

5. Her various comments about what happened the night of the murders. But I'm hoping that gets a pile of scrutiny from everyone here.

6. The way she hints that John and Dana had it coming, and goes to the effort of making it VERY clear how much Marty hated John - even while protesting Marty's innocence.

It seems that anyone and everyone who has displeased this woman personally in one way or another is on the hit list.


Dmac used a very bad word to describe Marilyn, not long ago. Based on the 60-odd pages of her drivel I have just raked through, I must say I tend to concur.
These users thanked the author Ausgirl for the post (total 4):
dmac (Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:03 pm) • auburngirl (Tue Oct 11, 2011 3:33 pm) • meankitty (Tue Oct 11, 2011 2:35 pm) • Chichibcc (Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:49 pm)
User avatar
Ausgirl

Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:35 pm
Has thanked: 188 times
Been thanked: 320 times
Cheshire
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:34 pm
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby Cheshire » Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:22 pm

One more thing (for now)


From The Gridley Herald - Mar 19, 2004 http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=9 ... 14,2127086


As NightRider said back in 2010, he died in 2009
You must be a member of the Keddie Forum with 15 approved posts to view the files attached to this post.
Cheshire
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:34 pm
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby dmac » Mon Aug 18, 2014 6:35 pm

I've had this in my files for a loooong time, but I guess I never posted- probably because I don't see how he could be involved. Just because he was a Bad Dude who lived near FF (abt 5 miles from Camp 18) doesn't mean he knew anyone involved.

    Obituary

    DELMAS ARCHULETA

    Delmas Archuleta, 68 of Feather Falls, passed away on May 13, 2009. He was born August 4, 1940 in Oroville, CA to Martin and Katie Archuleta.

    Delmas was a heavy equipment operator and a member of Mooretown Rancheria/Feather Falls Casino.

    He is survived by his two sons, Antonio of Feather Falls and Alan of Davis; two brothers, Martin and Donald of Oroville; four sisters, Violet, Betty Jean, Opal and Mamie all of Oroville, CA; four grandchildren, Krystle of Davis, Aaron, Sierra and Hunter of Oroville; and his very special sweetheart, Christine Potts; and many nephews, nieces, cousins and friends.

    A Graveside Service will be held on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at Feather Falls Cemetery. There will be a gathering of family and friends at 12:30 p.m. at the loghouse.
    Published in Chico Enterprise-Record from May 19 to May 20, 2009

It does verify he a member of the Mooretown Rancheria, not the Greenville Rancheria

Delmas-Archuleta-c-2004.jpg


    Attempted murder suspect's competency questioned
    Oroville Mercury-Register (CA) - Tuesday, March 14, 2006

    Trial has been postponed indefinitely to determine if a Feather Falls man accused of the attempted murder of his wife and children is presently mentally incompetent.

    Doctors were appointed Tuesday to examine Delmas Archuleta and report back to the court next month whether he understands the proceedings and can competently assist in his own defense.

    Archuleta, who is in his early 60s, is accused of firing a pistol at his wife, two of his children and a teenage friend in January 2004 at the family home in Feather Falls.

    None of the victims were injured in the incident.

    If convicted of premeditated attempted murder, Archuleta could face life in prison.

    He is also charged in the same case with child abuse, assault with a firearm, making criminal threats and shooting at an occupied vehicle, according to deputy district attorney Elizabeth Norton.

    Archuleta had been scheduled to stand trial March 20 in Butte County Superior Court.

    But on Tuesday, his attorney Dennis Hoptowit, told Judge William Lamb he had questions about his client's present mental competence.

    If a Yuba City doctor appointed by the court to evaluate Archuleta agrees that he is incapable of assisting in his defense, the Feather Falls man would likely be committed to a state hospital until he is capable of standing trial.
____________________________________________________________________________
    Man found incompetent to stand trial in attempted slaying of family members
    Chico Enterprise-Record (Chico, CA) - Tuesday, April 25, 2006

    OROVILLE -- Based on a doctor's examination, a Feather Falls man Tuesday was found mentally incompetent to stand trial for allegedly trying to kill members of his family.

    Delmas Archuleta , who is in his early 60s, will likely be committed to a locked state hospital until he is deemed capable of competently assisting in his own defense.

    "Psychotropic medication is needed to restore you to competency," Judge William Lamb said Tuesday, as he ordered Archuleta held pending a placement hearing in the case in two weeks.

    Archuleta is accused of firing a pistol at his wife, two of his children and a teenage friend in January 2004 at the rural family home in Feather Falls.

    None of the victims were injured in the incident.

    If convicted of deliberate, premeditated attempted murder, Archuleta could face life in prison.

    He is charged in the same case with additional counts of child abuse, making criminal threats and firing at an occupied vehicle, according to deputy district attorney Elizabeth Norton.

    Archuleta had been scheduled to stand trial in March, but his lawyer, Dennis Hoptowit, questioned his client's ability to competently assist in his own defense.

    Tuesday, the attorneys submitted the issue of the suspect's present mental competence based on a court-appointed psychiatric evaluation ordered last month.
____________________________________________________________________________
    Two competent for trial in separate cases
    Chico Enterprise-Record (Chico, CA) - Tuesday, November 21, 2006

    OROVILLE -- Doctors Tuesday declared two Oroville men mentally competent to stand trial for unrelated felony crimes.

    Delmas Archuleta , who is in his 60s, was returned from a state hospital after doctors there determined he has been sufficiently restored to competency to allow him to be tried for attempted murder and other charges.

    The Oroville man is accused of firing a pistol during a family altercation in January 2004, at his rural Feather Falls home. No one was injured in the alleged assault.

    On Tuesday, Butte County Superior Court Judge William Lamb reinstated criminal charges against Archuleta and set a Feb. 5 jury trial in his case.

    In an separate criminal case, the same judge ruled Dwight Kent Fisher, 49, is mentally competent to stand trial on charges of firebombing the Oroville residence where he was staying.

    A doctor appointed by the court to examine Fisher declared in a written report to the judge Tuesday that although the accused arsonist "suffers from a mental disorder," he is able to understand the criminal charges against him and competently assist in his defense.

    Fisher remains held on $275,000 bail, pending a preliminary hearing next month to determine if there is sufficient evidence to try him on a felony arson count involving an incendiary device, which could carry up to 13 years in prison upon conviction.

    The defendant is accused of throwing a lit bottle filled with paint thinner down the interior stairwell of a residence at 1507 Montgomery St. in Oroville Sept. 11.

    The two-story residence was heavily damaged in the fire, but other tenants living there escaped without injury.

    Prosecutors allege Fisher was angry with some of the tenants and feared they were going to have him evicted.

____________________________________________________________________________
    Man enters insanity plea in attempted murder case
    Chico Enterprise-Record (Chico, CA) - Tuesday, April 24, 2007

    OROVILLE — A Feather Falls man charged with the attempted murder of one or more members of his family, entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity Tuesday.

    Delmas Archuleta , who is in his 60s, had been scheduled to stand trial next month in Butte County Superior Court.

    Over the prosecutor's opposition Tuesday, Judge William Lamb allowed the change of plea, vacating the trial date and agreed to appoint doctors to examine Archuleta.

    The defendant is accused of firing a pistol during a family altercation in January, 2004, at his rural Feather Falls home. No one was injured in the alleged assault.

    Last year, Archuleta was committed to Napa State Hospital after a court-appointed doctor determined that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial.

    The defendant was subsequently found to be restored to competency and criminal proceedings were reinstated.

    He was scheduled to stand trial May 7 on the attempted murder charge.

    Tuesday, defense attorney Dane Cameron of Chico, received permission from the court to enter a dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity for Archuleta.

    According to deputy district attorney Elizabeth Norton, the judge will now appoint two psychiatrists from an approved list to evaluate whether Archuleta was legally sane at the time of the crime.

    The Feather Falls man remains held pending a status hearing in the case May 22.

____________________________________________________________________________
    Briefs
    Chico Enterprise-Record (Chico, CA) - Tuesday, November 6, 2007

    Competence questions raised

    OROVILLE -- A Feather Falls suspect, who recently suffered a stroke in jail, has renewed questions about whether or not he is mentally competent to stand trial for the alleged attempted murder of family members in 2004.

    Several months ago a state hospital discharged Delmas Archuleta , who is in his 60s, declaring him restored to competency.

    But his lawyer, Dane Cameron, said Tuesday the accused gunman has since suffered a stroke, which has raised new concerns about his ability to competently assist in his own defense.

    A doctor who was appointed by the court to re-examine Archuleta, had not completed his written findings by Tuesday, forcing yet another postponement in the nearly four-year-old shooting case.

    Archuleta is accused of firing a pistol during a family altercation in January 2004, at his Feather Falls residence.

    No one was injured in the alleged assault.

    Archuleta remains in the Butte County Jail, pending a hearing now set for Dec. 4 in Butte County Superior Court regarding his present mental competency.
You must be a member of the Keddie Forum with 15 approved posts to view the files attached to this post.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby azucena » Tue Aug 19, 2014 7:55 am

The Meeks have always been a huge question in my mind because of Shelia's baby. There clearly was disagreement about the decisions made concerning this child's future, and that raises the possibility of motive. If the Meeks were sufficiently angry with Sue, it is possible this was a factor in the murders...

The problem is that so many of the individuals connected to the Sharp family all appeared to have some form of convoluted and conflicted interactions with them. There are so many seemingly disparate yet interwoven associations from Tony the Greek, to the Meeks to Dee Lake to Marilyn , Bo, Marty, the list goes on. Not to mention LE and Doug Thomas's supposed friendship with Marty, Ken Shanks as a sexual perp, Deputies suspected involvement with drugs in Keddie. Everything about this case has roads leading in multiple directions that separating out what is relevant versus coincidence versus irrelevant is in my mind , what has been such a obstacle.

On an aside, there was a Christine Potts that used to live in Greenville. Don't know if she is the same Potts mentioned above...
azucena
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:18 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby Cheshire » Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:05 pm

I really don't see the baby as being motive, partly because I can't imagine how killing all of those people would --in even the most deranged minds-- make any kind of sense as retribution. Reading this did make me wonder though about the circumstances of the adoption and whether there might have been some attempts on the part of the Meeks to learn where the baby was, whether the father was required to sign off on an adoption in CA at that time (and with an under-aged mother) etc, etc
Cheshire
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 9:34 pm
Has thanked: 157 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby dmac » Tue Aug 19, 2014 2:06 pm

There are no valid reasons for the heinous things done to these and other murder victims, and the motives brought up as 'possibles' in this case-- whether it be the baby, jealousy, drugs, the list goes on and on-- has been used countless times in other murders.

While I do not see the baby as a major motivation for Marty, Bo, Loon, Dee, or Tony Garedakis, I do see it as a huge motive for Mama Meeks. Everybody involved brought their own motives to the table, and few of them were in common. What this thread has lined up is just a few of the odd things going on with the Meeks- and by that, I primarily mean Mama, Wade, Charles. We know very little about him, but his name has been bandied around several times by several sources.

There is problems in 'truthiness' surrounding the nature of the Meeks/Sharp friendship. Mama and others have said they were best pals and inseparable and, while it may be absolutely true they spent alot of time together, it doesn't mean their friendships were genuinely reciprocated. Mama's speech at Tina's memorial service cries out that the friendship was one-sided. The Meeks behavior after the murders is distinct evidence of that: Taking in the killers, when Mama claims she realized that same day Marty (and Bo) were involved. She's said she was told by Loon, and that she also figured it out when Marty was pacing around, wanting to go back to Keddie and "finish".

It seems to me the links between the Smartts and Meeks were just as numerous, if not more-so, and also involved drugs on many levels. I also believe much of the breakdown/bizarre shifts in stories by Loon and Mama are rooted in the relationship between Loon and Wade, and how it had a crippling effect between the families. Whatever happened, something seems to have impacted their claims of how well they knew each other, who they knew in the killers' camp, and events before and after the crimes.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:26 pm
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 3341 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby azucena » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:12 pm

I have been a social worker for 35+ years and I can say that people's emotions concerning children can be very, very powerful indeed. People commit many horrific acts due to disagreements concerning children. The fact that Johnny Tina and Dana were killed seems more and more to me as " collateral damage ". Sue was the target. i think things got way out of hand really fast.

The interactions and relationships between these families are convoluted and from what we know, all of these families circumstances were chaotic and their functioning was survival based . We have Mama Meeks statements at Tina's memorial, Marty's outburst at the jail to the Meeks son, these people were connected, but likely not in a healthy way. Put drugs and alcohol into the mix and the ante gets bigger.

It may be very unlikely the Meeks were involved in any way with these murders, and I am not convinced they were, and my point is the webs connecting all of these people are quite complicated, and cannot be totally ignored.
azucena
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:18 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby azucena » Tue Aug 19, 2014 5:17 pm

As far as the adoption, I too have wondered whether it was a private adoption, for instance a relative adopted the child or if the child was placed by a Social Services agency . Usually, BOTH parents must sign a document terminating their parental rights, and I think this was true in 81. If the parents are under the age of 18, I believe the parents of the minor parents can sign the termination documents, but will double check the statutes in 81. Is it correct the adoption was finalized in Oregon?
azucena
 
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 1:18 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 148 times

Re: Did the Meeks' have motive?

Postby IPO » Sat Sep 20, 2014 10:37 am

Where I live, an under-age mother's parents can choose to take on the raising of the child. If they choose not to, or are deemed unfit, then the father and paternal parents can take on this role. Is this not the case in California? Or, did Mrs. Meeks apply and the home was deemed unfit?

I have just re-read this entire thread (thanks dmac for pointing us in this direction as there is so much information on this forum and previous forums that I have read).

The very first thing that sparked a memory for me was when I read "Mrs. Meek's posts" on this particular thread. Her grammar, spelling, and punctuation is fairly good. Not great, but average. However, on another forum (and perhaps some of those posts have been moved over here), I recall her spelling, grammar and sentence structure as that of an un-educated hillbilly. She often apologized and "humbly stated she was just a mother trying to set the record straight". Those weren't her exact words, but it was the message she was repeatedly trying to make us hear and believe.

Does anybody else remember those posts. I'm sure you do. If someone, more familiar with where all these posts can be found, can help me out I'd appreciate it. if not, I'll do my best.

on a side note, my avatar photo (my beloved cat Missymew died on May 21st just 8 days before her 16th birthday). I will be changing my avatar soon, but am having a difficult time. As I grieve so deeply for the loss of my cat, it also brings to light what dmac said about Sheila "not remembering" so much about the days leading up to the death of her mother, brother and sister....or even the time after. I don't believe it.
IPO
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:48 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 97 times

PreviousNext

Return to meeks

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests