Previous: A Kind of Zen Acceptance
Welcome back to pt. 3 of our ride alongside @kenthecowboy_! We are deep in his Zizian Facts doc, & have just hit a rushing river which it seems no man can cross. It’s called: “Why did Patrick McMillan call the cops on the morning of Emma’s murder?”
Just to review, here’s what we learned from Patrick’s recent testimony:
Patrick called the cops at ~2am bc ppl were banging on the side of Lind’s trailer. He says the police came, but did nothing.
We’d said that this sat oddly w/ previous testimony given by both Patrick & Lind:
At ~1am, the girls were throwing rocks at Lind’s trailer & trying to open his door.
We’d added:
While the girls could have thrown rocks & tugged on the door & banged on the sides… why would Patrick, in a 911 call about an hour later, only report the last of these 3 things? The first two are legally-actionable; the 3rd is not.
***
Now we have the SF Chronicle saying:
On the night of the attack, McMillan said he saw individuals running through the yard with headlamps.
We have the Vallejo PD Public Log showing there was a 911 call made from Lind’s property at 1:47am on the morning of Emma’s murder. This appears to be our “banging on the walls” call.
However, the log description is not of wall-banging. It isn’t of anything: it says only, “suspicious circumstances”. What was the outcome of this call? It was “unable to locate”. 😮💨
Ken’s comment on this log description is:
This fits in with the LA Times: account that states that Patrick McMillan called the cops because someone was walking around with a headlamp around 2am.
We’d argue it does not. It confirms a ~2am call was made; we can triangulate from Patrick’s recent testimony, & confidently christen this Patrick’s Call (PC). But PC’s log says nothing abt headlamps— neither does his testimony.
Anyway, of all these behaviors— wall-banging; rock-throwing; door-trying— wearing a headlamp at 1-2am is the least “suspicious”, in our opinion.
Running w/ a headlamp is a little dodgier; but “running” itself is a dodgy word— as the LA Times demonstrates by easily toning it down to “walking”. Walking— perhaps briskly; perhaps w/ occasional trotting, or perhaps not— is inoffensive. Even at 1-2am, & even w/ a headlamp (which, incidentally, we’d want to wear too, after dark, on Lind’s property (LP): the press loves to call LP “junkyard-like”.)
The LA Times has echoed the SF Chronicle, but the only thing either has echoed from the call log is the approximate time of PC. Similarly, Patrick’s testimony aligns w/ the time of PC, but is dramatically different from both of these press accounts, & cannot be corroborated from that “suspicious activity” description alone.
***
Towards the end of its piece, SF Chronicle appears to offer us a little bank to stand on:
At some point, a distressed Lind called and said people were pummeling his door and windows with rocks.
—But we fear this may be quicksand in disguise. We go tumbling into the rapids as soon as we set foot on that slippery “called”. Who is called? Patrick? Police?
We’re guessing Patrick— that is pure intuition. If so, this partly aligns w/ the testimony given by both Lind & Patrick:
At ~1am, the girls were throwing rocks at Lind’s trailer & trying to open his door.
—Yet makes us ask again: why has “trying to open his door” been omitted?
That is even scarier, to us, than the throwing of rocks. If we were Patrick, we would mention it consistently; &, if we were the SF Chronicle, we’d lap up the chance to print such beastly Zizian behavior.
We stagger out of this river, sopping wet & freezing. Maybe, in a v. different season, it will be passable.
***
After all this, we’d hoped to find Ken building a nice, warm campfire for us to huddle around. We’d hoped to make some coffee, pass him a cup, & ask for his honest opinion on this fiasco. Instead, we find him quoting Jamie’s childhood abuse descriptions, & then saying sthng v. strange:
I Need to investigate this blog further, find out about the most extreme examples of abuse. The quoted ones in the medium article mostly relate to veganism, and aren’t the strongest examples for a broad audience in terms of judging the level of abuse
***
Ken, we don’t even know where to begin— that isn’t rhetorical: we cannot pin down what you mean by any of this. Do you mean you need to:
a) Read the blog more thoroughly, to look for more abuse stories (AS)?
b) Call up Jamie’s acquaintances & verify these AS?
Are you saying these stories:
a) Show extreme abuse, & need further investigation?
b) Aren’t extreme enough, & you want to check the blog for more extreme ones?
Are these AS the “quoted ones in the Medium article”? (Editor's note: they are.) If so, you have just claimed these AS:
1. Mostly relate to veganism
2. Aren’t the strongest examples for a broad audience in terms of judging the level of abuse
***
Here are our least-fav of the quotes you’ve included:
We abuse you because you need to be abused to be good, and if anyone finds out it would be humiliating for you. And they might take you away from us and put you in foster care where you’ll be raped and beaten every night. You don’t want that, do you? Also we are friends with the local judge, and will know if you report us. And if you ever try to run away again, I’ll kill you. I mean it.”
i was not allowed to leave the table under threat of physical violence until i finished everything on my plate, and got more lectures than i can count on how animals “don’t have feelings,” and “were put on this earth by god for us to eat, so you’re disrespecting the almighty,” (…) and that my empathy for them was a sign that i was going to become a dangerous mentally ill person, and that if i talked like i did they’d end up “needing to” lock me up, with the implication that the state would help/agree with them. i think the exact phrases they used were something like, “cart me off to the (crazy) farm.”)
Here is the only other quote you’ve included— it is also the only one that explicitly mentions veganism:
i’d never heard of a vegan before, and had grown up being viscerally upset at my family because they kept sneaking corpses of rabbits into my food, because they wanted to make sure i’d be just as complicit as them. (when i’d say, “i don’t want to eat that,” they’d say i ate it before and was a hypocrite.
***
Where do we begin, Ken? If you want to call Jamie’s acquaintances for verification: we like this idea, but don’t know if it will get you v. far, since elsewhere on their blog, Jamie does say they stayed silent abt these abuses, & they explain why:
Growing up I began fearing asking people for help
When I was a kid I believed I was a child of satan and thus could not trust myself...
...because I thought they'd [their parents would] resent me or get hurt. [...] that [and] if you do there will be retaliation against you AND the teacher you tell (and then you'll assume that teacher will hate you for bringing your dad's rage to them) so you don't want to risk losing a safe space and you stay quiet.
***
If you think these stories show extreme abuse: we agree! If you think these stories are so extreme that they require further evidence… we don’t exactly disagree, but will share w/ you a friendly, disappointing tip: often, abuse survivors are the only witnesses to their own abuse; often they tell no one; if they do tell others, these others’ reactions— denial; pushback; minimization; selective forgetfulness— may muddy the narrative, rather than clarify it.
We know this is not ideal.
We have mostly seen you be diligent, in your doc, abt verifying accounts against each other. This is a great practice. Still, when trying to double-check abuse claims, esp. childhood abuse claims, this practice often runs up against walls. The q., then, is: do we believe abuse claims, even if no secondary sources back them up?
We suppose this is a matter of individual discernment. For our part, we almost always do, bc the alternative is to distrust & dismiss a majority of survivors; & we, as a survivor ourself, know what it feels like to be distrusted & dismissed. It is a hot potato we do not want to pass along to others. If this means doling out our empathy to some “fakers”, so be it— empathy is free & renewable.
Also— according to everything we’ve read— ppl do not rlly fake abuse narratives. We’re sure it’s happened— anything & everything can happen— but it is not a “thing”. What is a “thing”, unfortunately, is abusers pushing a trumped-up stereotype abt “pseudo-victims”— in order to cover their tracks, & as one more devastating act of abuse against their targets. Enablers enable this bc it is easier than radically shifting their beliefs, alliances, & possibly lifestyles in order to stand up for others.
These, Ken, are our reasons for believing abuse narratives regardless of who else backs them up.
***
Ofc, if you are instead saying that these stories aren’t “extreme” enough— that they “aren’t the strongest examples for a broad audience”…
We’d ask you— honestly— which abuses do you think are “extreme” enough to— what, count? Register? Move you to empathy and/or action? How have you determined this metric?
We’d then sigh & say— of your “broad audience”— maybe you are right. Maybe lots of ppl in America are similarly tight-fisted towards survivors. Even in cases where abuse ends in death— this, for many, is not “extreme” enough. It is not enough to make them turn towards survivors, & it is not enough to make them relinquish their loyalty to abusers. This is a v. sad, v. unhealthy element of our culture.
The good news, Ken, is that Jamie’s abuse narrative isn’t a product you are consumer testing. It isn’t a TV show you’re pitching to a big network. Even if the majority of Americans are hostile or indifferent to survivors, this need not impact your decision of whether or not you believe Jamie. If you are waiting for belief in survivors to become more fashionable, we fear you will be waiting a long time.
We wonder, Ken— & this is, again, a sincere question— where, in your life, do you take stances which others might oppose or find strange? It isn’t the best feeling. If we’re being honest, we flinch each & every time a relative finds out abt our true beliefs, & reacts w/ surprise, unease, and/or pressure-y words of warning. We do not bravely lean into this, either; we try to avoid it as much as we can. Still— we have, thru trial & error, decided it’s better for us to stand by our convictions— even if this means a slightly weird dynamic w/ certain loved ones, & even if this means we lose a portion of our potential audience. It’s better for us; & we hope it’s better for other ppl as well.
We can’t say for sure if taking an unpopular stance will be “better” for you, Ken— that’s on you to figure out. We can’t say for sure that “supporting survivors” is a conviction you, if freed from social mores, would organically hold— & we can’t exactly argue w/ that. It is entirely your prerogative.
***
You finish your comment, Ken, w/ this observation: the strength or weakness of Jamie’s abuse claims…
in turn informs how we judge alleged approval from the zizian community of their murder
…by which we assume you mean, “of their choice to murder their parents.”
We will say it again, Ken: Jamie is not in jail for murder-related charges. Their murder trial has only been held in the court of public opinion.
Who has “alleged approval from the zizian community” abt Jamie’s parents’ murder? First, we want to double-check: what is “the zizian community”? Is it Ziz’s friends? Is it anybody whose heart goes out to one, some, or all of these young ppl? When we think of “community”, we think of the following:
• Members w/ specific roles: leaders, organizers, elders, etc.
• Formal & informal rules abt member interactions & behaviors
• Regular activities, practices, or rituals
• Ways of passing down values, knowledge, or practices: mentoring; written documents; more rituals
• Some sort of dedicated space: a neighborhood; a shared house; a forum
Does “the zizian community” have any of these things, Ken? If so, we’re chuckling bc it sort of sounds like “the zizian community” is the new, p.c. name for what we used to call “the zizian cult”. We don’t mind this at all.
Also, if they do have these things: that’s cool! That’s fun! We’re miffed that we haven’t been invited to their clubhouse, haven’t been introduced to their leaders, &— worst of all— have never even been asked if we’d like to take part in their rituals. But that’s fine, we’re v. happy for them.
At any rate: your extremely helpful color-coded highlights tell us, Ken, that your line “alleged approval from the zizian community of their murder” comes from your conversation(s) w/ the courageous entity. To the entity: feel free as always to correct us if what we’re abt to say is way off-track.
In the absence of a direct quote, here’s how we interpret this claim that members of the zizian community would approve of the murder of Jamie’s parents, if Jamie were indeed the killer & if their parents were indeed abusive.
***
There are cases when harming or even killing one’s abuser may be necessary & fine.
This, btw Ken, is one of those unpopular opinions we hold which our relatives wish we didn’t.
For ex., if one is trapped by one’s abuser; if one’s life is at stake; even in cases where there may not be immediate, life-or-death urgency, but where the abuse has tipped past a point of no return— “violent*” resistance may be one’s only option, or may be a critical tool that one may, legitimately, decide to use.
*These scare-quotes are for Paolo Freire: "Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognize others as persons- not by those who are oppressed, exploited, & unrecognized."
Gypsy Rose Blanchard & Lorena Bobbitt are 2 examples that spring to mind— we admire both a great deal.
***
We’ll add to this another opinion which makes our relatives nervous: we believe that, often, those who value & push for nonviolence in all situations, no matter the cost, are ppl who have been privileged enough to avoid true desperation.
You are welcome to regale us w/ inspiring examples to the contrary!
This is our opinion born, ironically, from the fact that we are a Quaker. Yes: we are a Quaker who believes that “violent” resistance may be justified in many cases, for roughly the reasons that Mr. Freire lays out: there is a big difference between violence which initiates the oppression of others, & violence which seeks to liberate oneself and/or others from oppression.
We sit in Quaker Meeting, silently & secretly holding these beliefs; & we, in a v. uncharitable way, cringe when our kind, thoughtful, middle-class, well-educated, white, mostly straight, & all cis Friends praise the virtues of Nonviolence In All Situations No Matter What.
We are not yet, on this important topic, Letting Our Life Speak; we are Telling Our Life to Zip It bc we do not want to be seen as crazy.
We are biding our time & building our case for how “pragmatic, corrective violence” (we are still branding it) can be fine, if it seeks to disrupt ongoing violence & contribute to the liberation of the oppressed.
We suspect, Ken, that when members of the so-called zizian community would, allegedly, approve of the murder of Jamie’s parents— if Jamie were the killer, & if their parents were abusive— some of them could be thinking along these lines.
***
We will add to this only— if Jamie were the killer, we’re not sure being the killer would be the best move for them 😞 They had already left their childhood home; they had already gone no-contact; they had, by the look of their tumblr, done some really important healing work. We are not aware of ongoing violence from their parents— except for the ongoing violence of complex trauma, which “pragmatic, corrective violence” cannot by itself heal 😞😞😞😞
We do not see, in this hypothetical Jamie scenario, how murder would be the most “pragmatic” way to liberate anybody. To liberate oneself from the wounds left by abuse, there are countless other tools to use, & all the ones we can think of are nonviolent. They are things like “finding ppl who believe & support you”, & “building up trust in yourself again”.
These routes to healing are ofc difficult— but double-murder might be even more difficult. We’ll stop short of “approving” or “disapproving” of this hypothetical choice: Jamie is a stranger, & slightly older than us besides. They have never asked our opinion on this matter, & it feels gross to look down our nose at them uninvited. We’ll just wish them lots of healing— whether or not they’re the killer.
***
This brings us, Ken, to the last part of your comment:
[the strength or weakness of Jamie’s abuse claims] in turn informs how we judge [the alleged approval of the zizian community]
We wonder, who is “we”? Who is on your judging panel? How were they appointed? For that matter, Ken, how were you appointed? We admit that judgey feelings in a case like this may come involuntarily, but you are making this sound like a formalized procedure which someone has hired you to do— as if you were a severe English teacher reminding either Jamie, the zizian community, or both of your rubric.
We read you as implying a promise: that, if Jamie has good-enough abuse claims, you will judge the zizian community’s approval favorably. Is this true? If so, we are on a similar page. If so, we had no need to write our last section, & you can forget all abt it. But if so: we can’t hide our surprise at this, Ken. We still can't pin you down. First, you ask whether Jamie’s abuse claims have the “strength” to play to a “broad audience”, as if their popular appeal were an influence on your “judging the level of abuse” Jamie suffered. Now you’re saying there’s a scenario where you will boldly stand behind violence as an ethically-contextualized tool, available for the (sufficiently) oppressed to use. We’re not unhappy w/ this plot twist— but don’t mind telling you it’s a plot twist.
***
That’s all we have time for tn! If you would like to write nice & censored things to Jamie, here is their current contact info. Be well, stay safe— see you next time w/ the home stretch of Ken’s google doc 🙀
*****