You just said that Ranger Ben's children should be sleuthed.
What do you mean by 'sleuthed'? Can you point out what where I posted any of these people's information? Did I post their names? Did I post their social media? Did I attempt to contact them or look them up in any way? Did I ask other users to do these things? More to the point...
Someone else posted recently that the Camp Director had a son who was a pedophile. Not true.
The user Pensfan made several posts earlier in the thread--years and years ago--that they had heard the caretaker's son was a pedophile who had raped several of his younger siblings and cousins.The posts were thanked many times. As a newcomer to this thread last week, when I came across those posts, I asked for more information. Naturally, that would be a primary person to look at. I mistakenly referred to the "director's son" and later clarified that it could only have been the ranger's son, as the directors did not have children at Camp Scott.
When I asked for more information, I had read only halfway through this thread (it's very long) and there may be follow ups I haven't reached yet, I don't know.
If you have an issue with this topic, then I assume you took it up with Pensfan back when that user made the posts, no?
The official suspects in the case are known.
Who are those suspects? Who is the arbiter of this magic list of suspects you speak of? Is it public record? Or did you decide who it is good and decent to consider may have had a hand in these slayings?
There were several who were investigated and considered.
I am assuming that a large number were investigated and considered. Even the people you are objecting to being given a second or third look. Investigators decided not to charge these people. Because investigators decided not to charge these people, and did not cast public suspicion on any of them, is that your argument that they are out of bounds to discuss in this thread?
What about the West Memphis trucker? Bill Stevens and Sonny James? These people were investigated as well. And apparently law enforcement reached the same conclusion they did of the people at Camp Scott--no charges. Not the person or people we're looking for. Does that mean these people are out of bounds for discussion too?
Who exactly is it that you want to discuss here? Nobody? Gene Hart only? Every convicted felon within a certain radius because they are lesser human beings?
The people being discussed were in the immediate vicinity of the murder scene. They were investigated. They were questioned. They were called to testify. I completely understand your position that most or all of them may be innocent, and it sucks their names have to be dragged up all the time. Just as it sucked for them personally back then. But in the course of finding the one guilty person, or the small group of guilty people, we do not have a magic ball that allows us to only focus on the guilty. Or this case would have been solved a long time ago.
Asking reasonable questions about the people involved seems reasonable to me. Any adult would be decent in how they go about discussing such a thing, and I feel that I have conformed to that sense of common decency. If you disagree, then that is your prerogative.
But for those who think children were involved in the killings, please go ahead and explain your theory.
I already stated my theory. A group of 2-4 people ranging from teens to early 20s in age. Mostly male or all male, but a female or two not out of the question, more than likely at the behest of a sadistic lover or some kind of dominant male authority figure in her life. That age demographic fits the profile for a case like this, and a witness at the scene reported a male swinging from the latrine door, an action that I find consistent with a juvenile or near-juvenile young male.
How did GLH manage to convince Ranger Ben's children to help him kill the 3 young girl scouts? What was their motive? How did they meet GLH?
Ah, now we get to the root of the problem. Your post insinuates that GLH was 100% for sure most definitely involved. You realize that is factually incorrect, right?
You have made several posts in this thread directed not just at me, but at other users, telling them to can it because their theory doesn't match up with GLH's guilt. I don't know what else to tell you. Maybe the title of the thread should be changed to SOLVED.
If an insider were involved--and I'm not saying they were, I'm just considering the possibility--then it would obviously not have been with GLH. That is why I asked what kind of relationships and friendships were there. Did anyone know any other juveniles or young adults in the area? If they were from Tulsa and did not know anyone locally, could their lover or group of friends traveled to Camp Scott? That kind of thing.
Keep in mind, his oldest child was a girl who was about 14 or 15. He drove her to work and back that night, locking the gate after they returned.
His oldest child was 16. The testimony recorded he had a child not living with him, I assumed grown, but maybe not. The other ages were not indicated and I asked if anybody knew how old they were. I did not say they should be suspected, I simply asked a question for the sake of possibly ruling them out. If the kids were 6 and 8 years old or serving overseas in the military or still in their cribs, that answer would have sufficed. If they were 14 or 15 year old boys, and in particular if one of them had turned out to have a criminal record, they would absolutely be worth looking at.
For the record, I'm not saying that was the case. I don't know their ages or whether Pensfan's posts were verified or not. If you have other information, simply say it.
