SStarr33
Inactive
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2013
- Messages
- 7,881
- Reaction score
- 34
Today should be Cooper's second birthday. [emoji26]
Yes, his grandmother posted about it on FB today.
Today should be Cooper's second birthday. [emoji26]
Yes, his grandmother posted about it on FB today.
paternal gm or maternal gm?
What is strange is they both seemed to have reacted to his tragedy in the same way. jmo
And doesn't that make you (general you) wonder why? I've said it before.......birds of a feather, two peas in a pod, like minded people finding one another, etc. Whatever you want to call it, the two of them reacting to Cooper's death in the same, very odd way tells the story. This is just one of the reasons why I do believe that Leanna not only knew that Cooper was going to die, but that she was also a part of it.
MOO
Yes, his grandmother posted about it on FB today.
Not in my opinion. It was all about RH.The GM posted about cooper's birthday?
I'm still on the fence... I go back and forth, I read the things LH said and the way she acted and I feel like "how could she not have known!?" But then I forget that stuff sometimes and the mom in me feels compassion for her. I just can't imagine a mother ever planning to kill or allowing her husband to follow through with a plan to kill her child. I know it happens, it's just so impossible to understand.
"Evil that lies in the heart of man is far too horrific to comprehend for those of us who truly love with our whole hearts and feel deep compassion for others. ......"
I think your statement above explains why some people will never believe RH or LE are guilty of intentionally murdering CH no matter what evidence is presented if this case goes to trial. When I first read about this case in MSM, I was ready to donate to RH's fund. I thought LE had made a horrible mistake. Then I watched the entire PCH and was shocked at the evidence. I will need to see all the evidence at trial before I could decide premeditated if I were on the jury. There are too many strange/unusual behaviors/statements to ignore. They can not all be explained away.
Hello folks. Very much agreeing with the general thinking on LH here.
She strikes me as the archetypical foil to a narcissist, the self-sacrificing doormat (co-dependent). I think that she's trying so hard to play the 'perfect' and 'loyal' wife that she's blind to the fact that it makes her look involved. I believe her ability to stand calmly by her man has more to do with her fear of egotistical annihilation, which, unlike for the psycho-normal, would result from admitting (potentially to herself) that RH is an immature selfish mess. In short, accepting/telling the truth about him would her look like a loser. That's why, even after *accidentally* baking their only kid, RH is a great husband and father who doesn't deserve anyone's condemnation. Which is not to say that I don't think she's involved -- just that the dynamic of this type of relationship is alien to most people (thankfully), and the truth is likely stranger than the strangest fiction. There's no mistaking the results of it in the behavior anyway.
My guess is that she's complicit in doormat fashion. She was probably aware that RH was capable of any level of passive-aggressive 'forgetfulness' in the everyday, and probably sensed his disinterest in supporting the growth of another human being increasing as time went on (IMO as positive-attention-getting baby became negative-attention-getting PITA toddler), albeit subconsciously. The potentials were vague and palpable and she likely did what any doormat/psychological prisoner would do and turn a blind eye. For her, confronting and being vocal about the truth of what RH was capable of is as unapproachable as confronting the truth of what he is.
Anyway, MSO (my speculation only)
Hello folks. Very much agreeing with the general thinking on LH here.
She strikes me as the archetypical foil to a narcissist, the self-sacrificing doormat (co-dependent). I think that she's trying so hard to play the 'perfect' and 'loyal' wife that she's blind to the fact that it makes her look involved. I believe her ability to stand calmly by her man has more to do with her fear of egotistical annihilation, which, unlike for the psycho-normal, would result from admitting (potentially to herself) that RH is an immature selfish mess. In short, accepting/telling the truth about him would make her look like a loser. That's why, even after *accidentally* baking their only kid, RH is a great husband and father who doesn't deserve anyone's condemnation. Which is not to say that I don't think she's involved -- just that the dynamic of this type of relationship is alien to most people (thankfully), and the truth is likely stranger than the strangest fiction. There's no mistaking the results of it in the behavior anyway.
My guess is that she's complicit in doormat fashion. She was probably aware that RH was capable of any level of passive-aggressive 'forgetfulness' in the everyday, and probably sensed his disinterest in supporting the growth of another human being increasing as time went on (IMO as positive-attention-getting baby became negative-attention-getting PITA toddler), albeit subconsciously. The potentials were vague and palpable and she likely did what any doormat/psychological prisoner would do and turn a blind eye. For her, confronting and being vocal about the truth of what RH was capable of is as unapproachable as confronting the truth of what he is.
Anyway, MSO (my speculation only)
Hello folks. Very much agreeing with the general thinking on LH here.
Welcome to websleuths!