former central time
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 5
You need to go back and read the documents from the time of the crime and what Kathy Kirby has said, which is that she got back up out of bed when all the kids returned from the Elder's party and prepared a place for both Suzie and Stacy to sleep. It was late and for all she knew the kids (and that was classmates & friends, not just females) planned to leave early for Branson, so she did not want them leaving again to go somewhere else. She was trying to get everyone settled down for the night. But Suzie and Stacy declined to stay there.
I would not use the word "documentary" when discussing the programs "Disappeared", "Vanished", or "48 HRS" and their reporting on this case.
Hurricane, thanks for the correction or clarification. Most of the general accepted accounts of this story have all either said to the effect it was too crowded at the Kirby house, so the girls left, or given that clear impression. My guess is, it was a supposition made early on and just stuck.
Ms. Kirby may very well have made plans for the girls to stay and said so in the initial reports. May I offer a little skepticism to the effect, would you not have said the same thing ? The two girls stopped by your house and leave, that much is indisputable. They go missing, in the immediate wake what do you say to camera lights, media accounts, LE and other inquiring minds ? A) The house was too full of relatives from out of town, you girls have to go home, or B) I urged them to stay and fixed a place for them to sleep. Exactly, wouldnt we all chose 'B. This isnt to say thats not what happened and Ms. Kirbys intent. Personally, as a dispassionate observer (as a juror would be), I believe she was more agnostic where the real dispute and tension lay with the three girls, to which well never know what about or why as two of them are dead.
I take issue with the blanket condemnation of the national reports on this case. Having worked in the electronic media for over twenty years, I know most people dont like stories reported about them. Not liking something and being 'grossly inaccurate are not the same thing. All too often people will say, 'I never said that, you show them the tape, then it turns to, '...well not in that context, show them the context, it turns to, '...well, thats not what I mean. Politicians are great at it and 'spin doctoring is a sub science. This isnt to say there hasnt been sloppy reporting done, or less than careful in checking simple facts. Or, points have been largely ignored which might be more important to the dialogue. Understand too, with the contemporary stories coming from the, mostly TV media in Springfield, will be done by people often way to young to have remembered that time nor were living in the area then.
Personally, I have only seen the Disappeared program and while not overjoyed by it myself, I found its only real failing was rehashing most of what was known or widely reported. It also appeared spoon fed from LE. While not questioning LEs ethics and accounts, it is one account. We see the Great Civil Rights Movement of the 60s through more windows than those provided by Southern Sheriffs, do we not ? But, the producers of that program are cranking out massive quantity of programing, which to be fair is probably reasonably accurate. Do they give it the 60 Minutes Mike Wallace treatment ? No, neither did 48 Hours when it was kicking. But, that proves my point before. Many also dont like 60 Minutes when they do stories about them either, but not because theyre wrong.