The Fox panel study is a fraud. Yes, it took place, but Fox lied about meeting or talking to the parents.
Assisted by a panel of three people, he has been lucky that family members of the victims, as well as Mr. Huff's mother and twin brother, Kane, who were unavailable for interviews for this article, have spoken to him, Dr. Fox said.
I was the only parent Fox contacted and that took place via telephone after the Panel report was completed and this NY Times article was published. Imagine my astonishment, if you will, that while I awaited for the article "After 7 Deaths, Digging for an Explanation" load on my 26.4kb dial-up connection, which I had no idea was related to the Seattle murders, my phone rang and I left the room to get my phone and as I answered it while returning to the still loading page, I read "James Alan Fox" at the same moment he uttered those very words, telling me whom was calling.
Pretty freaky! and oh, so suspicious.
I still have no idea if it was Kyle or Kane who committed the murders, though we've accepted that it was Kyle. Very odd that Kane was not held as a material witness, considering all the contraband the police confiscated, including a live grenade and a pound of weed. Somehow the grenade never appeared on the inventory of confiscated property. The SWAT team reported finding it.
Drew, with all due respect, there is much projection by the author and some factually incorrect information too.
"More weapons were in the truck, including a base-ball bat and machete." And an AR-15 with 3-30 round clips taped together.
"...and shot two partygoers on the porch." He shot 4 people on the porch.[/i]
The entire event transpired in 3 minutes. The responding officer actually heard the first shots and was there before being dispatched. Huff left when he was finished killing. Officer confronted Huff upon his exiting, commanding him to drop his weapon. Huff ate his shotgun before the officer finished uttering his command.
Speaking of these murders as being a "...local record, at least for a single shooter..." is irresponsible at best. At worst it is a challenge to the next wannabe famous mass murderer suicide to commit even greater carnage. And the writer assumes prejudicially without evidence that this killer was "unhinged." (I do recognize that most would assume one who kills is quite mad, but we know that one who kills does not need to be crazy.) There is no evidence that Kyle Huff suffered at any time from any mental illness.
"...the massacre did not happen at the rave itself. Nor could it have, given the security arrangements, which included a ban on alcohol, drugs and firearms, a search at the door, and seventeen uniformed police." Seventeen armed policemen and women with the precinct just across the street.
Again, Drew, meaning no disrespect, but this, "As for the devastated ravers, they could at least take comfort from the fact that the killer was not one of "us." That this was officially recognized also mitigated the stigma. After the rituals of mourning (including a vigil, a church memorial, and a dj evening to raise money for the families), the wound could be allowed to heal, and normal operations at the Capitol Hill Arts Centre could resume."
"Comfort"? Seriously? Healing? it is more than plainly obvious to me that the writer has never lost a loved one so suddenly and violently. The murderous event crushed this excellent community center, and it closed within two years of the shootings. That is a great loss to the entire community.
A "happy choice" is just a fucked-up thing to say, "We cannot know the impulse that led Kyle to select, from the arsenal at his disposal, the guns he used. The Winchester and Ruger came with him to Seattle. Perhaps they were his favourites. Be that as it may, as a signalling device, drawing attention to the continuity between one scene and another, it was a happy choice."
And he and his brother had more than a dozen other firearms and long guns with them in Seattle. For a writer to use the word "happy' in any story about a mass murder is grossly irresponsible, imho.
"What fuelled the fury in Kyle's attack on art and on being an artist (let us surmise) was a repudiation of identification with his mother as a position which might open him to the homoerotic desire that had to be repressed for the sake of being, and passing as, a man in a homophobic, hunting country, small town high school."
More biased and unwarranted projections by the author. Probably says more about the writer than it does about Huff's state of mind. He was 22 and drunk and he had access to weapons. A foolish act, for sure, but to psychoanalyze his state of mind after the fact and to come to some rather profound finding is even more foolish. From my viewpoint one would first think if Huff harbored aggression towards a parent, it would be towards the father whom abandoned him, rather than towards his mother who cared for him. There is no evidence Kyle expressed any homosexual tendencies.
That's enough. The rest seems to be the author trying his convoluted best to justify his own imaginings.
