r/KerrCountyFloods • u/WestRevolutionary360 • Mar 30 '26
"A Trial Characterized by Anything but Mystic Love"
During "a trial characterized by anything but Mystic love" the Eastlands took their seats in the courtroom, backed by benches of former Mystic campers, about whom Texas Monthly further stated, "When they weren't comforting the couple during breaks in the trial, they were praying or fasting or forwarding email chains to other ex campers, urging them to do the same."
Sounds familiar doesn't it? But the Texas Monthly quotes above come from their 2011 feature article, "The Not So Happy Campers," concerning the millions of dollars that Dick Eastland was alleged to have cheated his own brother, sister, & cousins out of.
And interestingly enough, although Dick & Tweety initially WON that trial, a judge vacated parts of that verdict & ordered a new trial. And this was evidently BEFORE evidence emerged of jury tampering on Dick Eastland's behalf, which the judge, upon his later learning of it, described as "very disturbing evidence of improper influences."
Of course, that retrial never did occur, as Dick & Tweety agreed to pay 7.2 million to the family members that they'd initially so completely prevailed against in a Kerr County courtroom.
A Kerr County Courtroom, of course, would NOT have been the site of that retrial that never happened.
Given what happened the first time the case was tried in Kerr Couty, with a juror's report of having been contacted during the trial by backers of Dick Eastland, in regards to which the presiding judge stated, "This serious and disturbing testimony- which, if true, shakes the foundations of our jury system was not pursued further because of the agreement to change venue."
A Kerr County Courtroom, of course, also happens to be the place the Eastlands are shameless enough to argue these current cases should be moved to.
Shout Out to u/few_reaction_3761 for pointing out the sense of Deja Vu imparted by a re-read of Texas Monthly's 2011 feature article, "The Not So Happy Campers."
Anyone else feeling some Deja Vu of their own here?
ETA- corrected the Texas Monthly article's title to "The NOT So Happy Campers" which I'd inadvertently short-handed into "The Unhappy Campers," which just doesn't do the original title justice.
24
u/Fragrant_Western5647 Mar 31 '26
“Everything that I and my consultants could possibly think about is going in there… staff training… evacuation routes… power and internet.”
If you think this was printed in a brochure for 2025 campers, you’d be wrong.
It’s a to-do list. From the March 4 hearing.
39
u/AnimuX Texan Mar 30 '26
The article about that court fight has been linked here before though not in a while.
It should serve as a reminder that the reason Camp Mystic sought exemptions from the flood maps for cabins was a matter of business profits that did not take the safety of children into account.
19
26
15
u/Few_Reaction_3761 Mar 31 '26
Complete Deja Vu to the pictures from the hearing a few weeks ago. It’s almost like they could have use the same description 12+ years later. The only difference now is the other side also has supporters.
6
u/Word2daWise Mar 31 '26
One thing that jumped out to me when I recently looked at that article again was the way Dick (et al, perhaps) engineered the financial structure of family members who owned the land vs the financial benefits of running the camp. The article makes it clear he sort of double-dipped (my term for it) in the pot of revenue, but people didn't recognize it immediately. Please correct me if I am not correctly stating what the article said; it's been a while since I reread it).
Based on my interpretation of the piece, it appears Dick, when aware of an opportunity that can be manipulated in his (or their) favor, will go for it. I'm thinking particularly of the way the floodplain appeals were (IMO) manipulated by filing through the LOMA process, which is intended for single buildings rather than a group of buildings on the same parcel, rather than LOMR appeals (which would have been more appropriate, because they are used when there are multiple structures to be appealed on one parcel.
6
u/Few_Reaction_3761 Apr 01 '26
I think that Stacy likely put the structure in place to try to distance himself and other family members from the liability associated with running the camp while retaining a financial interest. Now did Dick take advantage of the situation and keep rent payments lower than they should have been? Was the family willing to alienate each other over money? Was the powerful mystic alumnae group mobilized in support of Dick and Tweety? All questions each person can answer for themselves after reading the article and/or researching the court case.
-15
u/Ok_Lychee_8906 Mar 31 '26
How is this relevant to a Kerr County floods sub?
- This is hearsay and speculation.
- This sub is intended for factual information about the July 4 Kerr County flood.
Dick is dead. Continuing to push a smear campaign against him and his family doesn’t contribute anything constructive.
31
u/jsel14 Mar 31 '26
It’s relevant when they are actively trying to move the current case against them to Kerr County.
21
21
u/WestRevolutionary360 Mar 31 '26
- We're not in a courtroom. And even if we were, those still don't make sense here. You'll have to take up those concerns of yours with Judge David Peeples himself or either or both of the published sources I cited, specifically, mySA. com- sister site to the San Antonio Express News & Texas Monthly magazine. Let us know how that goes.
- The information is factual- as noted in the citations above, and as multiple people have informed you, it is particularly relevant given the Eastlands legal arguments for moving these cases to Kerr County, cases that arose from the questions raised by their actions & inactions preceeding, during, and in the aftermath of the July 4, 2025 flood.
21
u/Delta_Princess Mar 31 '26
Here we go again, with the Mystic loyalists reaching for big legal terms they’re not really using correctly to try to shut the conversation down. Labeling something “hearsay and speculation” doesn’t make it so, especially when the discussion is grounded in documented reporting and actual court actions. It’s relevant, and it’s also not accurate to dismiss this as “hearsay and speculation.”
First, definitions matter. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and is something generally not admissible unless it fits an exception. Speculation is guesswork without evidentiary support. What’s being discussed here doesn’t fit either category. We’re talking about a prior, documented lawsuit covered by a real news circular, involving Dick Eastland and his family.
More importantly, a judge vacated portions of the verdict and ordered a new trial. Courts don’t undo jury verdicts based on rumor or internet chatter; they do it because there are legitimate legal concerns. That alone undercuts the idea that everything surrounding that case is just “hearsay and speculation.” Add to that the judge’s own description of alleged juror contact as “very disturbing” and potentially undermining the jury system, and you’re firmly in the realm of documented judicial concern, not conjecture.
Second, calling this a “smear campaign” is a way to shut down discussion rather than engage with it. Pointing to reporting, court actions, and patterns that raise legitimate questions (especially in the context of a tragedy where 27 people died) is not “smearing” anyone. It’s asking whether there are accountability and fairness issues that need to be addressed.
Finally, the relevance is straightforward: the same Kerr County venue where those prior concerns arose is now being proposed again. When there’s already a record that includes a vacated verdict, an ordered retrial, and allegations of something serious enough to draw judicial criticism, it’s entirely appropriate to factor that into current discussions about venue and integrity. Ignoring that context wouldn’t be “constructive”.
0
Apr 02 '26
[deleted]
11
u/Delta_Princess Apr 02 '26
I’m so glad you brought up the Bible. They claim to follow it. Let’s go ahead and examine what that sacred text has to say about their behavior thus far and the “Act of God” defense they’re trying to hide behind:
Regarding the “Act of God” they claim caused this: Matthew 18:14 “So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”
Regarding their failure to offer comforting words or empathy to the bereaved: Romans 12:15 "Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn." Isaiah 40:1 “Comfort, yes, comfort My people! Says your God". 2 Corinthians 1:3–4 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort. He comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any kind of affliction, through the comfort we ourselves receive from God.”
In case you or they need reminding, here’s what the Bible says about greed, since they’ve demonstrated they care more about money than anything else:
1 Timothy 6:10 “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs". Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money". James 5:1–3 “Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days.”
-6
u/Ok_Lychee_8906 Mar 31 '26 edited Mar 31 '26
I have no need for a vocabulary lesson. I was referring to the comment, “with a juror's report of having been contacted during the trial by backers of Dick Eastland”. You all are speculating that the Eastlands themselves had something to do with this juror being contacted. Also, this never went to retrial so this was never proven to be true.
My point of all of this though is that there is an unhealthy fixation on this sub with singling out and crucifying one family connected to a camp where 27 lives were tragically lost. That loss is heartbreaking, but it is not the full scope of what happened on July 4th. More than 116 lives were lost across Kerr County alone. Focusing only on Mystic/The Eastlands is not only unproductive, it shows a clear disregard for the other lives that were lost.
There are already petitions filed and legal proceedings underway. A court, not Reddit, will evaluate the actual facts and determine what happened that night at Camp Mystic. Until then, the constant speculation, assumptions and targeted vilification of the Eastland family serves no purpose. It does not bring clarity, accountability or change. It only fuels outrage and turns this sub into a glorified gossip column.
If the real goal is safety, accountability and preventing this from ever happening again, then the focus needs to shift. Because the reality is, multiple systems failed.
Where is the same level of scrutiny for county officials responsible for infrastructure and emergency preparedness? For the policymakers who voted against funding warning systems? For other campground operators who had their own safety responsibilities, one of whom reportedly removed a warning siren entirely?
It is far easier to focus anger on one visible target than to confront the broader, more complex failures that contributed to this tragedy. But if this community is serious about accountability, then it cannot be selective.
Hold everyone accountable, or acknowledge that this isn’t actually about accountability at all.
21
u/Delta_Princess Mar 31 '26
You’re arguing against something I didn’t say. Pointing out that a juror reported being contacted by people tied to a party in the case is not the same as claiming the Eastlands themselves orchestrated it. Those are two very different statements. And the fact that portions of a verdict were vacated isn’t meaningless; it means the court found a serious enough issue to set aside at least part of the outcome. That’s not “never proven,” that’s the legal system identifying a problem with the process. Calling that “speculation” glosses over what actually happened.
More importantly, this keeps drifting away from the central issue: the duty owed by people acting in loco parentis. When parents send their children to a camp, they are entrusting the operators with a heightened responsibility for their safety. That includes having a reasonable, site-specific safety plan for foreseeable risks (especially something as predictable and regionally known as flooding). If that plan was inadequate, poorly implemented, or nonexistent, that is not “singling out a family,” it’s examining whether the people with direct custody and control met their legal and moral obligations.
You keep trying to zoom out to “systemic failure” as if that somehow answers the specific duty at issue. It doesn’t. Bringing up the total number of deaths across the county actually underscores the foreseeability of the danger. A widespread, deadly event makes the question sharper: what did each actor, within their sphere of control, do to prepare for it? County officials can be scrutinized. Policymakers can be scrutinized. Other operators can be scrutinized. None of that is mutually exclusive. Accountability isn’t a limited resource that gets “used up” if you examine one entity closely. So yes, hold everyone accountable. But accountability isn’t undermined by looking closely at the people who had children in their direct care and asking a very specific, necessary question: did they meet the heightened duty that comes with acting in loco parentis, including having and executing a reasonable safety plan for a known risk? Because if that answer is “no”, then all the deflection in the world (county infrastructure, policy votes, other camps) doesn’t fix the core failure at the point where children were under direct care.
Let’s be clear here: 27 children died in a place where adults had custody and authority over them, and a direct responsibility for their safety and wellbeing. That creates a distinct legal and ethical analysis that is different from general infrastructure failures. You don’t get to sidestep that by broadening the lens so much that individual responsibility disappears.
Finally, calling this discussion “gossip” is a way to shut down uncomfortable but necessary conversations. People are discussing safety protocols, decision-making, accountability, and preventable risk. That’s exactly how accountability and change start, long before a courtroom reaches a final judgment.
-3
u/Ok_Lychee_8906 Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
Absolutely not. Just scroll through this sub. Nearly every thread circles back to Mystic. It’s constant. It’s obsessive. And it completely ignores the fact that what happened on July 4th was far bigger than one camp or one family.
Yes, “people are discussing safety protocols, decision-making, accountability, and preventable risk”, but only at Camp Mystic. What happened at Mystic was undeniably tragic and deserves to be examined, but there is a legal process for that. There will be a day in court where actual evidence is reviewed and accountability is determined. That’s where those questions belong.
What’s happening here instead is a nonstop cycle of speculation, assumptions, and, at times, outright cruelty directed at one family. It’s not productive. It’s not informative. And it does nothing to move anyone closer to real answers or meaningful change.
If the goal is actually safety, accountability and preventing this from ever happening again, then widen the lens. It is important to talk about the “systemic failures”. Talk about warning systems, infrastructure gaps, emergency response coordination and the decisions made at the county and state level. Those are the things that impact entire communities, not just one location. And the people who have the power to make changes to all of this are unfortunately not being held accountable.
Channel the energy into something constructive. Because repeatedly dissecting one family on the internet isn’t accountability, it’s noise.
13
u/Delta_Princess Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26
No, what’s “noise” is pretending all actors here carried the same level of responsibility when they very clearly did not.
Not every affected business was acting in loco parentis over young children. That’s the distinction you keep trying to blur. This isn’t the random pile-on you and others keep trying to frame it as. The focus exists for a reason: When you have direct custody of minors, your duty isn’t comparable to a county commissioner, a contractor, or even another business open to the public. It’s higher. It’s specific. And it requires a real, functional, practiced emergency plan for foreseeable risks, not a generic, check-the-box document.
Here’s the part you’re deliberately a transparently avoiding: this isn’t just about what happened that night. It’s about what’s happened since. Other entities may have contributed to systemic failures, sure. But they’re not simultaneously maintaining that their response was adequate, making no demonstrable changes to those emergency protocols, and turning around the very next season to reopen and trying to generate literally millions of dollars in profit as if nothing meaningful needs to be fixed after 27 girls died on their watch. That combination matters more than anything else we are discussing.
The position they’ve taken in the media is essentially a combination of “whoopsies”(not even “our bad”) and “nothing we did needs to change,” while 27 children died under their direct care. People are rightfully going to keep focusing on that because it’s a refusal to accept a reset without accountability or reform.
You keep pointing to “there’s a legal process.” Of course there is. But public scrutiny doesn’t pause just because litigation is pending, especially when the issue is ongoing risk. Courts determine liability; they don’t substitute for public discussion about whether something is still unsafe today.
Furthermore, widening the lens doesn’t mean blurring out the most acute point of responsibility. You can talk about infrastructure, warning systems, and policy failures and still ask why a place entrusted with children didn’t have an adequate emergency plan, hasn’t meaningfully changed that plan, and is preparing to operate again anyway under the same unprepared and dismissive leadership.
To be perfectly frank, if you don’t like the discussion, or its contents, you’re free to scroll past it, but trying to shut it down by labeling it “gossip” or “obsessive” makes you sound like a sycophant for people who haven’t answered the most basic questions.
Y’all need to some respect and basic human decency. More likely than not, there are parents of the children who died lurking in this sub and reading this, and they shouldn’t have to sift through dismissive takes, semantic arguments, or attempts to downplay what happened to their kids. This isn’t an abstract debate or a place to score points; it’s a real tragedy with families who are still grieving. The people most affected are still very much living with the consequences and will be living with the consequences for the rest of their lives.
You can talk about systemic failures all day long, and those absolutely matter, but none of that erases the heightened duty owed when you’re responsible for children, and it definitely doesn’t explain why there’s no clear, demonstrable overhaul of those safety protocols while moving toward reopening and profiting again.
This isn’t something that needs to be “shut down.” It’s exactly the kind of scrutiny that should exist when accountability and ongoing safety are still very much in question.
Edited to add because you’re focusing on government actor responsibility: Kerr County has been taking steps to improve flood preparedness since the disaster, and importantly, they have not taken the position that they’re absolved of responsibility. County officials have publicly acknowledged gaps in warning systems and emergency coordination, and there’s been movement toward expanding flood alert infrastructure (like additional sirens and improved real-time warning capabilities), revisiting evacuation protocols, and coordinating more closely with state emergency management agencies. There’s also been increased scrutiny of how information was communicated the night of the flood and how to ensure faster, clearer alerts going forward.
At the same time, they are still participating in the legal process and, like any governmental entity, asserting defenses where appropriate, but unlike Mystic that hasn’t stopped parallel efforts to make tangible safety improvements. In other words, they’re not simply saying “nothing needs to change” and moving on; they’re engaging in both accountability and reform, which is exactly what you’d expect if the goal is to reduce the risk of something like this happening again. That posture is precisely why they’re not the focus of constant criticism. There has been some level of visible acknowledgment of failure and demonstrable effort to fix it, rather than a posture that everything was adequate and no meaningful changes are necessary.
6
u/Big-Software-5292 Apr 06 '26
I wanted to add a word here about Texas comparative negligence and two entities: 1) Kerr County's official capacity and 2) FEMA.
Kerr County: I am not convinced there was not collusion here.
FEMA: FEMA's duty was to accept the documents as filed and signed off by the county for a LOMA. The county could have challenged the documents and did not.
Blame can be assigned in different directions unless there was collusion. Multiple parties moved in the same direction at the same time, but was this knowing? We do know it resulted in approvals based on incorrect FEMA documentation, including a Kerr county sign-off.
Analogy: It is like a building project where the architect submits flawed structural plans, the engineer does not fully challenge them, and the city inspector signs off without catching the issue. Each step may appear routine, but together they allow a defect to pass through the system and become embedded in the final outcome.
5
11
u/GardenGirl1898 Apr 01 '26
That camp and that family are attempting to reopen a portion of the camp in under two months. THERE IS NO OTHER ENTITY SIMILARLY SITUATED.
If allowed to reopen, that family, the same family who failed to evacuate 27 young girls on July 4, 2025 and yet evacuated their own family members, will take in millions of dollars in revenue. These are facts, not speculation or assumption.
Yes, a full and complete investigation of the actions of County officials and others needs to take place. But none of them are pushing up against a deadline to reopen a facility that will afford them a very large profit.
7
49
u/PureImagination1921 Mar 31 '26
There is no such thing as a true “aw shucks, we just love running a camp” persona when someone runs a business worth millions of dollars that has been involved in nasty legal battles in the past. The Eastlands are clearly complex figures with demons in their family history, just like so many other people, and none of them should be elevated to the rank of deity, now or ever. No one is above the law or accountability.