You know, for a long time, I had an uncomfortable notion that maybe Sue was protecting Hinton. From what, you might ask? Well, possibly, from the consequences of the abuse he inflicted upon Layne. Why would I think so, you might ask? Well, its difficult to explain. But it was as if Sue held an undercurrent of hostility toward Layne. It was not overt in any way. But there was always an effort on her part to exclude him. For example - back when there were efforts to contact parents and kids about the CA law suit - she was opposed to telling Layne anything about it. She insisted his statue of limitation had run and that telling him about it would only frustrate him. (wrong) She expressed other concerns having to do with his fragile mental health. (wouldn't getting some measure of justice Help, not Hurt?) I decided to ignore her concerns, and told him about it.
There were other occasions, involving journalist, where Sue seemed hostile to bringing Layne in on it. Again, nothing strongly overt - but just a discouragement from doing so - a "concern" it might not be beneficial.
It always nagged at me - Why was she hostile to the idea of letting this young man be part of an attempt to achieve some measure of justice? I knew she had at one time worked with Hinton. I didn't know it had been during the time she was operating PURE. But I did wonder, if she were helping him keep his ass covered.
For awhile Layne was trying to find out where Hinton was. I think he was hoping there could be charges brought for his crimes, if he could be found. I noticed that reporters sometimes quoted anon sources, who had worked from the Program, and who appeared to be Hinton - and wondered how the reporters were finding him. One reporter did confirm to me he had interviewed Hinton, but he would not tell me where he was. I now suspect that when it suited her - Sue provided the reporters with his whereabouts and contact info. But if she had it, she never offered this info to Layne.
Shifty sort of fence she sits on, isn't it?
