“Themes and Stories”

One of the things I've found interesting about the trial testimony, especially that of the children, is reoccurring themes. And I was also amazed by the stories I've read, which isn't too surprising knowing that they're coming from children. It is not easy to discuss hard things without running the risk that some might think that there is disrespect being shown to those who have suffered, or that something is being treated lightly. That is not the intention here in any way. The worst sin of western culture is the way girls and young women are treated. There are many good causes, many wrongs that need to be made right. But ending the violence, in all its forms, suffered by girls and young women is the most important. As far as this writer is concerned at any rate. But this is a thread dedicated to the trial transcripts, and the issues raised in them, at least relative to my ability to understand exactly what happened, is my focus here.

One witness was interesting in particular. This was due to an important theme; that of taking blame, but also of blaming others. It was as if the witness was saying “I will admit to this, as long as I can give half the blame to someone else.” And this is what happens. The thing I found really intriguing was the fact that this co-conspirator was sometimes the character I would naturally think would be the person to blame, but then there was a surprising twist. Several times the 10 year is the other party to blame. That’s interesting. It happened that way, so that’s what happened. But! I must admit that theoretically, if I was going to admit to something terrible, and then find another monster to share my blame, I would only pick a 10 year if I was trying to make a statement about what I was saying. Of course, I’d be picking someone who can’t really deny or rebut anything in a legal sense. What a coincidence it is to be sure that walking off the page and into the scene, I can’t help but feel that I walked into a movie. But I noticed something else; something I’m sure is not really there. I saw a sort of “splitting” of blame. At first it looked 50/50. Then I noticed that another character was being brought in, one that I didn’t see at first. That was the strangest thing of all! I was shocked to find out who it was I missed. So a 33/33/33 sharing of blame may be more like it. Now the extent to which a theme may be pursued can vary. But I noticed one of the most interesting pursuits of a theme I have ever seen; and one that left me standing in the scene, or movie, scratching my head over and over again.

In the account of the placing of the slogan, a three-way sharing of the blame takes place. Naturally, one person does part of it, and another person does another part of it. This only makes sense. Except as I watched, I wasn’t sure why the first person didn’t just do the whole thing. Then I found out; i.e. the person became sick. That was another interesting theme I would see again. I know that anyone with a shred of human morality would feel sick at such a thing; and later the second party states that they felt sick too. Not contrition by any means, but the rudiments of sympathy and/or empathy. These are things I know are key to the definition of a sociopath. Lacking such things, the sociopath has no identification with what other people feel. So I doubt that a sociopathic killer feels sickened by what he does. Actually, quite the opposite. In the same way, when the young woman suddenly appears in the kitchen, someone asks how she feels. A sociopathic killer doesn’t care. So another theme had started floating around the scene, and I wasn’t sure how to explain the “humanness” of it, as little of it as there was.

The slogan I get. It’s cruel, barbaric, and denigrating; in a word, disgusting. It also seems a bit verbose. It must have taken quite a bit of time, and given what the import was, I was surprised by the apparent concern for grammar; a complete sentence comprised of two parts, with a concluding prepositional phrase. It seemed like “I’m a” was not necessary. That is until I realized that it was not enough to brand someone with such a denigrating title; no, there had to be a confession. It also seemed like “of it” on the end was unnecessary. It appeared to be deemed necessary to make sure that the sentence was complete. It’s totally subjective, but “and proud!” seems to be more decisive. Then there’s the strange triangle that’s not a triangle. The letter “o” in the first part is made very differently than the clumsy, square-like “o” letters in the second part. The round “o” becomes square, and then almost a triangle. At any rate, there it sits.

Then things get really bizarre. Returning to the basement, it is suddenly decided that the whole matter isn’t finished yet. That’s odd, given the complete sentence, it seems complete; apart from the triangle-shaped “o.” As if something else needed to be added. And it was. But not as a continuation of this bizarre letter floating at the end. It was deemed necessary to add a character up above the slogan. This was described as a letter “S.” It wasn’t added below, where the slogan was. It was added well above it. It seems certain that it is not an “S,” and a number “3” became the accepted idea. But it was said it was an “S” even though it isn’t. I did not find in the testimony where anyone was asked what the “S” that’s not an “S” stands for, although I’m sure that I’ve missed it and would appreciate being set straight. Given how wordy the slogan is, suddenly we find that it is not complete, and disregarding the triangular letter at the end, another character is added above. Now the rule is that you can walk into the scene. You get to hear, see, smell, etc., but you don’t get to talk to people. That’s too bad, because I wanted to know what it stood for. The concern for a verbose and complete, well almost complete, statement was made, and I thought that it was too wordy. Now only a symbol is necessary. As hard as I tried, I couldn’t understand this. And then the woman of the house was shown what was done, as if it would mean something to her. I thought that this situation was strange enough. But then two more of those interesting themes suddenly popped up again. A boy came to the house, and it was decided that they should return to the basement. And why? The woman of the house is suddenly concerned about the other person’s modesty! Despite the horrors that have been occurring, defending the other person’s modesty is important. Only to have that completely reversed moments later. But modesty will appear again, when the person is put into the bathtub later on, the clothes are left on. The woman of the house specifically gives that order. The hypothetical sociopath mentioned earlier would have no such concerns.

But back to sharing blame, as far as the inexplicable symbol is concerned. The envelope is pushed further by designating the 10 year old as the fellow sadist. But for blame to be shared, the other person has to do something. And that’s what happens. One person makes the top part of the symbol, and the other person makes the bottom part. There is probably no other way to do it. It was easy to do some words, while the other person did other ones. But you can’t do that with a single symbol. So this bizarre scene unfolds, making an “S” that’s not an “S,” and apparently has no meaning. That’s not right, it does have a meaning. And we all know that the person responsible for it knew exactly what that meaning was. Nonetheless, I feel that I should re-review what I’ve read and make a much better effort to not make things so complicated, and pay closer attention. I’m sure I’ve strained out a few gnats and swallowed the camel.

Techtonicus 11/2015