CA - Hannah,16,Devonte,15,&Ciera Hart,12 (fnd deceased),Mendocino Cty,26 Mar 2018 #5

[human]

One of their friends was surprised Jen had alcohol in her system that Jen and Sarah were not drinkers even when they ordered Pizza they ordered Pepsi. It could mean one or both were alcoholics staying sober or they just didn’t like to drink or Jen was a closet drinker.

My husband says ( I have to quote him because I do not know this my own self) that some people who drink do not want to pay bar prices so they drink at home and then have very few drinks at a bar. That way they can socializie but it is not as expensive.

Another trick people do, and I have seen this, is rounds are bought for everyone. Conveniently, people are in the bathroom when it is their turn.

So they may have been drinking at home or they did not want to share in the cost of drinks

 

[Sleuth99]

I not African American but I think it looks pretty cool for anyone and can see why kids would like it. Kinda fun. Hair grows no biggie. How do they cut it like that? its pretty amazing what hairdressers can do.

Y'all think the kids picked their clothes too? [emoji854]


MOO*

 

[human]

I saw kids at Occupy camps in Portland. It was great. Well run. Efficient. Lots of activities for the kids. Dancing. Exposure to activism in a well-organized setting. I disagree with you. But these people exploited their kids for attention and accolades which is different than bringing kids out of a sincere belief in exposing them to activism.

Portland did not have an issues with police?

 

[Sleuth99]

The boys look pretty happy with their haircuts. And I know that some barbershops have the 'menu' of shaved hair designs available for customers to choose. How do we know that the moms chose those designs, and did so because they were 'animal' designs and they wanted to humiliate their young adoptees?

For all we know, the boys picked the designs themselves because they thought they were cool. As you pointed out, adult males have chosen this same shaved hair design, including Nick Cannon and Kanye West. So it would not be surprising if the boys chose it as well.

I am just saying that we seem to be finding deep nefarious motives about every single thing ---and sometimes a haircut is just a haircut. It doesn't have to be objectified or racist or evil. Plenty of people, African Americans included, have chosen to have animal prints shaved in their hair as a design. Why would they do so if it had some horrible, demeaning meaning behind it?



https://hairstyleonpoint.com/10-insanely-cool-haircut-designs/


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur..._aAhWupFkKHbcVCYEQMwj7ASg7MDs&iact=mrc&uact=8

Can't help if there are deep nefarious possibilities. 🤷🏾*♀️

 

[Sleuth99]

I don’t disagree about mental illness being terrifying, and it’s so often difficult to treat. I do believe, however, that some people do awful things for their own gratification, not because of true mental illness. The courts have a very narrow definition of mental illness in determining guilt. A person is not considered mentally ill unless it’s determined that they don’t know that they are doing wrong. So, legally speaking, these two didn’t qualify. Medically, we don’t know. But if one or both of them was mentally ill, they had signals that they needed help when abuse was first reported. Instead, they pulled kids out of school and eventually left the state...more than once. Unlike MrsEmmaPeel, they didn’t try to get help for their impulses and keep trying until something worked. One can be mentally ill and humble. Hubris is not diagnosed as mental illness...yet.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/.../201411/does-your-boss-suffer-hubris-syndrome

http://www.clinmed.rcpjournal.org/content/8/4/428.full.pdf

And you can be a functioning person with a mental illness. It doesn't necessarily remove culpability.


MOO*

 

[human]

The boys look pretty happy with their haircuts. And I know that some barbershops have the 'menu' of shaved hair designs available for customers to choose. How do we know that the moms chose those designs, and did so because they were 'animal' designs and they wanted to humiliate their young adoptees?

For all we know, the boys picked the designs themselves because they thought they were cool. As you pointed out, adult males have chosen this same shaved hair design, including Nick Cannon and Kanye West. So it would not be surprising if the boys chose it as well.

I am just saying that we seem to be finding deep nefarious motives about every single thing ---and sometimes a haircut is just a haircut. It doesn't have to be objectified or racist or evil. Plenty of people, African Americans included, have chosen to have animal prints shaved in their hair as a design. Why would they do so if it had some horrible, demeaning meaning behind it?



https://hairstyleonpoint.com/10-insanely-cool-haircut-designs/


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur..._aAhWupFkKHbcVCYEQMwj7ASg7MDs&iact=mrc&uact=8

I do not know if it is new, but in the black community, there are people who are really into Egypt and reclaiming that country. Also, the Third Eye is a biggie as well.

I hate the animal design on the Hart kids. If it was any other family, it would not bother me. Too many other negative things so this seems like part of the whole pattern

 

[Mira_Eg]

The photo journalist who took a photo of Devonte heading to the police officer during 2014 protest (not the most viral one) said she visited the Harts house (calling it a crime scene), met and talked to the neighbours for there two hours. Hopefully, we read about it soon Link https://www.instagram.com/p/Bg_3gJQhh1-/ (It is not a MSM link but the journalist's professional account / page on Instagram).
Replying to a poster who asked about this photo few pages back that I can't easily find right now : (


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[human]

It's dark, right? I don't get the impression people drive on that highway much if they're not looking at the scenery. It seems *ideally* secluded, in my opinion.

I would guess that Sarah thought, "We're heading south to who-knows-where, getting some sleep on the side of the highway with no one around seems the only safe way to spend the night without being spotted ..." I just don't see why this would seem like a bad idea to her if she doesn't know Jen's intentions.

I would feel totally exposed five feet from the highway on a lonely road. Too many horror movies for me, I guess. But Sarah would be too out of it to question, I imagine.

 

[Sleuth99]

The reason I was given when I dared suggest something behind the haircuts other than sheer malice, is that since it was the Hart women,there could be no other reason than racism and hatred, simply because it was them.

What I think people don't realize is just by being self-centered they were liable to be insensitive to their children. You don't have to be conscious and have hate evil or ill will on your mind to do things that fit into that category.

Defensive people in this thread are trying to turn the argument into a superficial good or bad motive this and that but it's more complicated than that. When people see minority and/or children as less they will not think twice about their actions and will place themselves first. Some might even feel insulted when challenged not realizing they're in the wrong. Doesn't remove their culpability though


MOO*

 

[Sleuth99]

Thank you! I was wondering what I'm supposed to say when I'm doing, for example, face painting and a child wants to be a jungle animal.... Am I supposed to not allow any jungle animal faces or worse only for certain kids? How do you explain to a 6 year old sorry I know your buddy Henry has his face painted like a leapord but you don't get to because you're a black kid?

I'm not trying to perseverate, just asking since it's still bring talked about (jungle hair cuts).

We don't know that the Hart children asked for this...


MOO*

 

[mishandled]

Very quick point to make... JMO

It is my belief that JH was the nastiest one, and SH a victim of her.

Someone said a few threads ago (sorry I can't quote - I've been catching up for days) that SH pulling along one of the children and leaving bruising was proof that SH was just as abusive as JH. I just wanted to point out that it isn't unusual (best example being in children) that someone being bullied takes out their frustration at the situation on someone smaller than them. So it would be entirely plausible to me that this is why SH has been seen to snap - and has admitted as much to friends. Along the same lines, bear in mind that in the example of wrist pulling, it may have been for something that she knew would anger JH, so she reacted badly because of that, to prevent JH's anger against her or the kids.

I know that if this is the case then SH should have left and taken the kids, but situations are rarely that easy in DV.

Thank you, I feel this hasn't been said enough. I see people either trying to defend/excuse both of them, or demonise both as equal partners in abuse. Perhaps that was the case, but from everything I've read and seen, I strongly suspect Sarah was a victim as well. Often people are afraid to leave in case the abusive partner kills them and the kids - and we see now that Jen was indeed capable of exactly that when her world was threatened.

The grabbing the wrist in front of people stuck out to me as potentially an angry reaction out of fear more than anger/abuse. She may well have been trying to prevent much worse punishment later behind closed doors.

I wonder how the adoption was done, whether Sarah even legally *could* leave and take the kids? Perhaps she - misguidedly - stayed to protect them, even though in truth all she was doing was enabling. I also wonder - pure speculation of course - if the damaged wall was her trying to leave in a hurry with some of the kids? Perhaps Devonte and Hannah if she saw that the punishment for the neighbours/CPS was going to go too far?

I'm also wondering if the text to the friend was a cryptic call for help, rather than the opposite (trying to stop anyone wondering/worrying). As someone mentioned a while back, why would you call 911 if the friend had a partner - unless you suspected that partner may have something to do with the emergency?

Edit: the cover up, also - Sarah pleading guilty when the child said it was Jen. Honestly that could absolutely be another sign of DV rather than collusion. It's very common for the victim to take the blame for something to stop the abuser getting into trouble. What "should" be done and what DV victims *do* are often two very different things.

 

[Lilibet]

And you can be a functioning person with a mental illness. It doesn't necessarily remove culpability.


MOO*

Precisely.

 

[human]

Thank you! I was wondering what I'm supposed to say when I'm doing, for example, face painting and a child wants to be a jungle animal.... Am I supposed to not allow any jungle animal faces or worse only for certain kids? How do you explain to a 6 year old sorry I know your buddy Henry has his face painted like a leapord but you don't get to because you're a black kid?

I'm not trying to perseverate, just asking since it's still bring talked about (jungle hair cuts).

You know education is a difficult PR position. People interpret things in all kinds of ways. Since this seems a sensitive topic, I would paint rhe child’s face however s/he wanted and then send a note home. You could say that Betty wanted to be a zebra because she loves stripes or whatever the kid tells youl

No need for hassles. We get enough hassles.

 

[katydid23]

What I think people don't realize is just by being self-centered they were liable to be insensitive to their children. You don't have to be conscious and have hate evil or ill will on your mind to do things that fit into that category.

Defensive people in this thread are trying to turn the argument into a superficial good or bad motive this and that but it's more complicated than that. When people see minority and/or children as less they will not think twice about their actions and will place them first. Some might even feel insulted when challenged not realizing they're in the wrong. Doesn't remove their culpability though


MOO*

Well, I guess not everyone will agree with what is insensitive and what is not. I would never tell my kids, they could not wear certain haircuts because jungle animals are racist for a black child to wear.


For example, when my daughter was in elementary school, she and her 2 best friends LOVED LOVED LOVED Paul Frank kids clothing. It was their absolute favorite clothing and they begged for it for back to school shopping and their birthdays, etc.

Most of the clothing had the logo, a little smiling monkey face, somewhere on the outfit.


Was I supposed to tell my daughter that she could not wear her favorite sweatshirt because it had a tiny monkey logo on the shoulder 'Sorry honey, but you are half Jamaican, so it would be insensitive for me to allow you to wear this sweatshirt your friend gave you for your birthday, because at some point in our country's past ugly history, some racists called black people monkeys.' Sorry, we will exchange it for something else...'


NOPE, Nope and NOPE----I did not do that and I would never do that. I do not believe it is insensitive for me to allow my child to wear whatever she chooses, as long as it is in good taste.

She had a zebra print back pack in middle school. Was that insensitive of me too? :doh:

 

[human]

There was a lot of negative feedback and threats after the photo was first published.

If you want links try googling his name with the date range around the time of the protests in Ferguson.

https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/dear-america-wheres-my-hug-1822521722
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/10/the-problem-with-hugs/
https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/cop-who-hugged-crying-kid-in-viral-photo-allegedly-supp-1790885939

The uglier stuff - you'd have to search twitter, reddit, Facebook, and maybe 4chan. It was there. I remember seeing some horrifying tweets and worrying about the young man and his family.

I don't know why people are having trouble believing the Harts were harassed after that picture was published. This is the internet. Trolls and bullies get vicious and go after people for just about anything. (And things were VERY TENSE after Ferguson. Very. Tense.)

The articles are excellent. The first one talks about the police. There is one that nails it right on the head about Jennifer, I feel.

The photographer said he got nothing but good things about the picture. So why would her experience be so different?

After reading these articles posted, I think,what happened is that the veil was lifted. All of the people that bowed and prayed still existed. But now here were people who were questioning her motives. She was not the great person she was projecting , to some eyes.

I wonder if that is why they moved and hid the kids in the house, as Devomte claims.

 

[Holl]

Thank you, I feel this hasn't been said enough. I see people either trying to defend/excuse both of them, or demonise both as equal partners in abuse. Perhaps that was the case, but from everything I've read and seen, I strongly suspect Sarah was a victim as well. Often people are afraid to leave in case the abusive partner kills them and the kids - and we see now that Jen was indeed capable of exactly that when her world was threatened.

The grabbing the wrist in front of people stuck out to me as potentially an angry reaction out of fear more than anger/abuse. She may well have been trying to prevent much worse punishment later behind closed doors.

I wonder how the adoption was done, whether Sarah even legally *could* leave and take the kids? Perhaps she - misguidedly - stayed to protect them, even though in truth all she was doing was enabling. I also wonder - pure speculation of course - if the damaged wall was her trying to leave in a hurry with some of the kids? Perhaps Devonte and Hannah if she saw that the punishment for the neighbours/CPS was going to go too far?

I'm also wondering if the text to the friend was a cryptic call for help, rather than the opposite (trying to stop anyone wondering/worrying). As someone mentioned a while back, why would you call 911 if the friend had a partner - unless you suspected that partner may have something to do with the emergency?

Edit: the cover up, also - Sarah pleading guilty when the child said it was Jen. Honestly that could absolutely be another sign of DV rather than collusion. It's very common for the victim to take the blame for something to stop the abuser getting into trouble. What "should" be done and what DV victims *do* are often two very different things.

Excellent posts and insight.

If JH was the only legal adoptive parent, perhaps imo that is the reason SH took the blame and charges , so evil JH would not get charges and lose custody , being she could have been sole parent.

In reference to the homeschooling, I am not making excuses for these women however the school failed to do their job on their end.

As a homeschool teacher myself, to my teenage son , Letter of Transfers must be sent from school to new district and portfolios must be kept, turned in at the end of the year, and declined or accepted by Superintendent. With that being said, any physical mail that the school should have made with the Harts would have been forwarded to new address and new school district would have been immediately notified. I know this from personal experience. Perhaps the kids were being cyber schooled. Somewhere along the lines, both parents and the school failed to do their own paperwork and that is what happens when people are not thorough . With this following statement I know only from news articles in several cases, the same came be applied for people collecting Social Security checks on already deceased people. People fail to do their jobs and the death of a person is not reported immediately so the checks keep flowing. So, the school district just made the Hart women's lives so much easier, off the radar.

On a final note, the festivals do not bother me so much. These kids were pre teen and teenagers and the world of internet and television is 10xs worse and more harming when parents allow their kids free roam to browse. Just my opinion but I find it more damaging than political rallies and music fests of the sorts.

 

[Sleuth99]

Well, I guess not everyone will agree with what is insensitive and what is not. I would never tell my kids, they could not wear certain haircuts because jungle animals are racist for a black child to wear.


For example, when my daughter was in elementary school, she and her 2 best friends LOVED LOVED LOVED Paul Frank kids clothing. It was their absolute favorite clothing and they begged for it for back to school shopping and their birthdays, etc.

Most of the clothing had the logo, a little smiling monkey face, somewhere on the outfit.


Was I supposed to tell my daughter that she could not wear her favorite sweatshirt because it had a tiny monkey logo on the shoulder 'Sorry honey, but you are half Jamaican, so it would be insensitive for me to allow you to wear this sweatshirt your friend gave you for your birthday, because at some point in our country's past ugly history, some racists called black people monkeys.' Sorry, we will exchange it for something else...'


NOPE, Nope and NOPE----I did not do that and I would never do that. I do not believe it is insensitive for me to allow my child to wear whatever she chooses, as long as it is in good taste.

She had a zebra print back pack in middle school. Was that insensitive of me too? :doh:

You are REACHING in all types of directions other than the one I was heading in with my post.

You speak of what your children love love love. And that's great! I'm talking about insensitive people who place their wants over others. We do not know that the Hart boys wanted those hair cuts. They don't even look that happy in those pictures... the parents could have thought the designs were cute. And yes, they could be dehumanizing especially if it was done to please the Hart women.


MOO*

 

[bluesneakers]

The articles are excellent. The first one talks about the police. There is one that nails it right on the head about Jennifer, I feel.

The photographer said he got nothing but good things about the picture. So why would her experience be so different?

After reading these articles posted, I think,what happened is that the veil was lifted. All of the people that bowed and prayed still existed. But now here were people who were questioning her motives. She was not the great person she was projecting , to some eyes.

I wonder if that is why they moved and hid the kids in the house, as Devomte claims.

Too many reasons to list here. Read some comments on recent articles about the Hart family (like on that recent link - I wish I hadn't read them). Look at how people want to attack Devonte's birth family. Etc. Do you remember how angry everyone was during the Ferguson protests people were? How hateful? Yes, many people were supportive. A lot of people read whatever they wanted to into that picture and found it hopeful or a sign of what could be. And I know it's easy to dismiss everything JH says as a lie, but some people are ugly and when ugly people get see a young black male interacting with a white police officer (no matter the circumstance) they are not sympathetic and they are not shy about letting their feelings known.

Why would angry, hateful trolls NOT let the Hart family know exactly what they thought about the photograph?

 

[bluesneakers]

Y'all think the kids picked their clothes too? [emoji854]


MOO*

Good point. I doubt they all always wanted to dress alike or in costumes or as part of a theme. It's so sad to have so many pictures of them and not have any clues to their identities, their individual personalities. They are always part of a pack. Even in their teens their moms were dressing them. So yes, I agree, the haircuts were probably not their choice either. (Especially not the girls. )

 

[fridaybaker]

They turned them into a zebra and a leopard. Due to the history of how black people have been compared to animals by racists, this was a tone deaf move.

Sorry, BEYOND tone deaf. Otherwise, I agree with you!