I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing you or people that have commented about HH's upbringing being a reason for not cooperating or having an unfailing allegiance to their parent. But, serious question from me is where is the the line? Because one reason I've flipped on feeling sorry for HH to being very suspicious is that this is a murder case of her step brother. I feel she should have been very open to relaying on the oddities of her mother's behavior to investigators prior to the arrest given what we read about her in the AA.
So where is that line - should people raised by a TS type person be treated differently if they actively participate in murdering someone with their mothers? Covering up murder? Participating in something not as bad as murder? Knowing info but not cooperating? Knowing nothing and not cooperating? Note I'm *NOT* saying HH is involved at all in the act of murder. Just wondering where she stops being a victim that doesn't deserve judgement of her behavior for people that sympathize with her upbringing.
I completely understand and sympathize with those that can compare their own upbringing with HH's, so please don't take this post as confrontational, I'm just genuinely curious of where the line is crossed from victim to willing participant. Regarding HH specifically, what would need to come out in this case to come to a mindset of "despite her upbringing she really isn't a victim here - should have known better and <fill_in_the_blanks_here> is inexcusable behavior."
I don’t feel sorry for her. I think she’s a brainwashed individual whose perceptions and beliefs have been deeply affected over time by her mother’s psychological violence. The extent of that impact is likely known to LE and FBI behavioral experts, and they have an opinion of where HH fits in any complicity. Or doesn’t. Or, that impression is still evolving.
I see some wanting this to be a clean and clear case where HH consciously made a decision at a particular point to step over a line and become a calculating complicit actor in concealment of a murder. This view is especially remarkable to me when it’s accompanied by characterizations of LS as a severely disordered person who is routinely deceptive, highly manipulative, and skilled in psychologically vicious behaviors such as gaslighting, bullying, and a long list of insidious and smoke and mirrors abuses. Not pointing to you, just saying this case has been loaded with these descriptions of LS, right next to claims that HH should have known, did know, lied for LS, is essentially guilty, etc. This defies reason to me. It’s also unlikely to me that LS would disclose to HH what she actually did to Gannon. So if HH helped after the fact, what exactly did she believe she was helping with?
HH may be taken into custody before it’s over, or have to make a deal, or she might land on the witness stand, or under the care of a team of psychiatrists who say she’s a victim too. Or who knows. I just don’t think it’s tenable at this time to declare her a co-conspirator because there is too much we don’t know. We really don’t even know how LS could pull off this murder at all between arriving home that afternoon and the call to police - and clean up that brutal of a scene, that to the naked eye, reflected nothing remarkable. And then hide Gannon, even from the police.
I can’t help but notice that HH was never with LS when LS was on her criminal missions, and was then called to duty in circumstances where she was entering the picture in the middle or after the fact.
For me it’s not a case of sympathizing with her upbringing, rather, it’s recognizing that LS and her kind use anyone and everyone and I’m sure that’s being sorted out.
