Understanding or stone thrower?


call 911........call 911
Because of this board and its diversity in members, backgrounds, experiences?

Recently in Columbia, SC there have been two deaths by shaken baby syndrome. The father of the first little girl whom he killed over 5 years ago is back in court trying to reverse the death penalty. He was very unremorseful in court yesterday and described his daughters hideous murder at his hands. Then he took off his wedding ring, laid it on the table with a note and left his dead 1 year old daughter for his wife to find.

Another man living with his girlfriend and their 5 children shook his son so violently the baby died later at the hospital last week. Again they are seeking the death penalty.

And yet another man killed himself by stabbing because he was accused of raping a woman. Here's where it got odd for me, and in a good way, but I wonder without knowing the board and the answers to posts would I have felt this way.

My thougth was = accused. NOT convicted. Most posters to the story said he was scum, to kill him etc. I took a different stand and pointed out facts, he was accused only. In my mind I didn't picture an innocent woman crying rape - I pictured something else in my mind, stuck to the facts as they were reported and posted what I thought was a well thought out reply. I gave condolences to the family, urged them to get counseling, and stated that there are 3 sides to a story. Also that I wanted more information before I figuratively hung a man. A few other posters came along and attacked my "defense" of this man. Then a few posts later the mans daughter posted and said that it was his second wife, she had "issues" and that he most certainly did NOT rape her. He was a good man - he just couldn't handle being accused of rape.

See..it just made me think - IF I had not had a son like my son. WOULD I be able to be as compassionate and HOPE that no one would throw stones? Could I remember to be a decent human when it came my turn to judge someone in such a case? Would I hope others would have mercy and forgiveness in their hearts. Would I be a good enough witness to those needing one?

I dunno the entire week so far has been so full of violence here that it just made me wonder - was I being reserved BECAUSE of Dude or have I finally reached a point where I am able to sift out fact/vs/carp and make an intellegible decision and stand by my convictions.

I'm still not sure how I feel about the men that shook their children to death. Part of me wants to chime in and scream grab yer torch and pitchfork and the other part of me wants to belive that a man was over burdened, stressed out and did a horrible thing in the heat of the moment which he should have to live with the rest of his life. Natural life.

What do you think? Death for the guys who killed their children from shaking or life in prison and we hope they'll think about what they did - but know they won't and our taxes keep them. The first man - who killed his child over 5 years ago and got the death penalty didn't know his wife was pregnant with their 2nd child. OMG I couldn't imagine. Now not only is a child dead, but another child will never know it's father - and he seems to not care less.

Just wondering where your thoughts are with these cases.

It's been a really rough week here -

Hound dog

Nana's are Beautiful

I can honestly say that I'd have answered the same way you did on the rape case. The man had been accused, not convicted. There is a huge difference.

I'm not sure on the shaken baby cases. It would depend on the evidence presented. I'm assuming they were convicted??

Unfortunately, over past years we've grown used to the press trying and convicting someone looooong before they ever get into a courtroom. People watching it believe everything they're hearing is the bona fide all revealing truth, when it isn't. The press don't have all the facts of these sorts of cases. They don't get all the grimy details that juries listen to. 99 percent of what they rave on and on about in their news reports is speculation, but they make it sound factual........because it's based on a few truths.

Too many people have forgotten "innocent until proven guilty". It was worded that way on purpose.

Although I don't like the man, I gave OJ the benefit of the doubt up until the guilty verdict was rendered. And honestly, I'm still amazed they got a guilty verdict with all the mess ups of the LA police dept.:ashamed:

My brother's first wife left 6 kids under the age of 4 in a burning apartment. Three were hers, 3 were her sisters. Two of those kids were less than a week old. If not for people in a downstairs bar having seen her with the kids........they'd have burned to death.

I was 18 when my brother suddenly found himself in custody of his 2 little girls by the ex wife.

People thought it odd I was neither shocked, nor hated the girl. She had her first child by my brother at 14, shot gun wedding, 2nd child by 15, 3rd at 17 by another guy because my brother divorced her due to neglecting the kids. But didn't get custody.

The ex-wife, all of 17 at the time of the fire, had come from a very abusive homelife, basically forced into marriage to my brother, was extremely immature, ignorant (not kidding).......and I've no doubt overwhelmed.

She served a very looooooong sentence. And karma got her with uterine cancer in prison which resulted in a hysterectomy.

That last big case with the missing 2 yr old girl..........the press was crucifying the Mom long before they had anything to go on. But I swear everytime I saw footage of the girl I saw someone who was severely mentally ill. Doesn't change what happened or make it excusable.

Too many people have forgotten that a person is innocent until proven guilty. That while a trial is going on the only ones who know all the facts of the case are those who are directly involved with it.

in my opinion doesn't sound like the first case you mentioned that the dad gave a darn what he did and that it was done purposefully. If that is the case, then he deserves the death penalty.

But we had a case here where a very young mom fell asleep in the chair while nursing her newborn. Newborn got wedged between Mom and the chair in such a way that it smothered. A horrific tragedy. No facts were ever found to disprove the mother's story. Mother was a hysterical mess as I recall. But I swear everyone I ran across only had the most vicious things to say.

Instead I heard things like She cries too much it has to be fake, Oh, she just sat staring off into space when they questioned her.....Excuse me? Have you ever lost a child, let alone a newborn and believed it to be your fault? Yeah, sorry. I'd be a mental basket case myself. And was with Travis.:mad: And it wasn't my fault.

With the outragious sensationalism in the press these days........I wait to draw my conclusions.


Well-Known Member
First of all, I don't believe in the death penalty. Yes, there are some people who do heinous things and they should not be allowed out into society. I'm definitely in favor of a life sentence without parole but for many reasons, I'm not in favor of our government putting people to death. We do it when people are innocent; we do it when people are poor; we do it when people are retarded; we do it when people are the "wrong" ethnicity; we do it inconsistently; the way we do it does not serve as a deterrent; and as far as I'm concerned it diminishes all of us.

I do think that our 24 hour news services thrive on sensationalism and they often practically declare somebody guilty before the facts are known. That is not the way our system is supposed to work. I think of John Adams defending the British soldiers who were accused after the Boston Massacre. If the mob had been allowed to have it's way, they would have all been condemned. It was later shown that at least most of them were innocent. I doubt if they'd get an innocent verdict today, once CNN and Fox News got done with them.

I do think that having kids with problems has probably made me more aware of the other side of some of these stories. I can only pray that neither of my kids will ever be accused of anything as serious as that but I do know that once somebody is in trouble for small things, they get accused of bigger things without any reason (like the time difficult child 2 was hauled in by the sheriff and accused of stealing a gun only to find out that he was 75 miles away in lock down at the time). Even when something has happened, we don't know the whole story.

As somebody who identifies herself as a Christian, I'm willing to let supposed wrong doers have a fair trial and if they're found guilty they can serve their time. If more punishment is required, I'm willing to leave it to God.


I do believe that those who are acused of a crime are innocent until proven guilty and should be treated acordingly.

VERY simply, I think I have more compassion for human beings and the complications of life circumstances. However, at the same time, I do believe in personal responsibility and accountability. For the most part, each of us knows the difference between right and wrong. And, for the most part, each of us are aware at some point of when we are approaching dangerous waters. There is almost always a point that we become aware of inappropriate thoughts and actions and have an opportunity to make a change.

I do have more compassion since having a difficult child and recognize that things are not always black and white. It can open a person's eyes to other possibilities and/or allow for room/acceptance of extenuating circumstances. I guess the bottom line is that I am no longer so quick to judge and that my compassion runs deeper than it may have been previously. I would never say that this would close my eyes to certain things though...just perhaps broadens my perspective.


Active Member
Star, I think what you've stumbled on is the insulation we get from a site so well moderated as this one. ON this site we look out for one another, there are only rarely problems caused by somebody getting a bit too heated on a topic. In general, the manners on this site are wonderful, compared to the rest of the world.

I occasionally research various topics for various reasons. I recall when I was donig some digging on the Cronulla riots I found a website which I had hoped would let me see some of the local issues which led to the heated feelings. What I found was sheer trash, racism and "yobbo" nastiness, people sniping at each other with personl remarks purely because there wasn't a complete agreement with whatever extreme point of view someone had expressed. So if someone wasn't totally on board with "chuck the lot of them out of the country!" they copped abuse in return such as, "You're obviously a small-minded idiot sympathiser..." with words I won't repeat here.

I also for a while was following a friend on Australian Idol, so we could push her cause. Again, the crud thrown at me for expressing support for this person, simply because she was in competition with someone else's preferred competitor - nowhere was there a sign of fair play. I simply said, "X sings really well, I hope she can continue on," and copped a flame war in response such as, "She's a loser compared to Y, anyone who likes her is a moron..." (again, substitute unprintable abuse for 'loser' and 'moron'). Her sexuality was openly discussed and questioned. I was in a position to say, "She's NOT gay, but it shouldn't matter if she were," and again there was a lot of crud about how people hide their sexuality but she MUST be gay because of the way she answered back to one of the pushy judges. Again, "gay" was not a word used; they were extremely abusiv (by the way, she is about to have her first baby; she and her husband are very happy. I'm not going anywhere near the Idol website to share this very private news).

The thing is, the internet is anarchy, as a rule. "Moderation" has changed meaning. The attitude has become, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen". Or to apply it to the 'Net - "If you find the website too hurtful, don't go there."

The thing is, the people who attack and verbally abuse those who merely express a different (and generally less extreme and considered) opinion, are bullies. Without decent moderation, they get away with it. Decent people avoid those sites, leaving them as wastelands of abuse from unstable minds who enjoy flame wars.

I've learned to click away such forums and never return to them. They do not represent community opinion, they do not present valid information. Absolutely no redeeeming value whatsoever.

When you find a website where you can express a moderate view, that is of value. If you find your moderate and compassionate views getting flamed, then ignore the flamers. If the site is important to you (as this one is to me) then you can appeal to the moderators, especially if the flaming is not representative of your previous experience on the site.

There were acouple of times in the past when even this site led to me being hurt - I got a couple of PMs which were hurtful, because I had expressed something in a post which these people felt was incorrect and could lead to more problems. I got a PM telling me to shut up and stay out of topics I obviously knew nothing about. I didn't report it to the mods because there was a grain of truth in the PM. But only a grain, and it could have been expressed in a much better way.

Since then I've learned a lot and I've gained a lot more confidence in myself. Such a PM I would ignore these days. But for people who have less confidence (and on this site, it could be most of us) are more vulnerable to such an attack. Which is why I'm so glad our mods are as vigilant as they are, with such high standards.

The debates themselves - I strongly agree with moderation and compassion. I've seen too many cases where people have been publicliy vilified with rumours being sold as fact.

The cases you mention, Star - I don't know them personally. But we have our own, here in Australia. We have no death penalty any more. A good thing, because I'm sure Lindy Chamberlain would have been sentenced to death if they could have. I remember every detail of that case - it was a mess. For Australia it was as big as OJ Simpson, the inquests were televised and although the trials themselves were not, the media reported everythnig they could, even to what Lindy wore to court each day. She was pregnant with her 4th child while on trial for the murder of her 3rd. The day she finally had to wear a maternity dress she had worn previously, the media crowed. She had had enough dresses to not repeat the pattern for 2 weeks.

When she was found guilty, I was in shock. The case had never added up for me. The claims of the defence never made full sense, there seemed to me conflict with the evidence. But the prosecution case was unsatisfactory also, there was no motive ever given.

If we had the death penalty, she would have been executed. As it was, she had a horrible time in prison with guards picking on her, other prisoners giving her a hrd time, until they got to know her a bit better.

I'm not sure how many years it was before they found the baby's matinee jacket. The absence of that jacket had stengthened the case against her. It was found in the only place it could have been, if her claims were correct. Where the jacket was found - the prosecution case fell apart. She was innocent after all. And not only had been jailed (with a life sentence) but had her newborn baby taken from her (another daughter).

Since then - it took more years to clear her name and her husban'ds name. Byt then he was her ex-husband, the marriage couldn't stand the strain. She has remarried but her children stayed with their father. Too much damage was done to the relationship with their mother, especially the daughter's. They tried, they really did. But a family's lives were ripped apart, because nobody was prepared to believe that a baby was taken by a dingo at Uluru. Instead, the mother's lack of tears in court (she was trying to hold herself together for the family) or her floods of tears in the days after the tragedy ("she's crying too much") were never seen as genuine. The tourism industry in the area was out to find her at fault, so they didn't have to blame the environment.

And I have to admit - even I thought she was guilty (or rather, had done it perhaps while affected by post-natal depression), because the forensic evidence as presented seemed conclusive and I AM a scientist. But the day I heard the flaws in the scientific evidence, I overturned my opinion.

This was a case conducted with every scrap of evidence presented by the media, over and over. Along with myths "the baby's name means "Sacrifice in the wilderness", they're a weird religious cult, those Seventh Day Adventists, they don't believe in blood transfusions", "the baby had been killed days earlier, the people at the campsite who said they saw the baby were either lying or only saw a doll" - all of this totally untrue. I KNEW these rumours were untrue - so why did I choose to believe some of them? I was no better than the rest. When the verdict wasoverturned after the matinee jacket was found - a nation hung their collective heads in shame. THose who did not still choose to beleive in her guilt, because the alternaitve is to recognise their own inhumanity.

Whenever I hear of another case especially one rousing public opinion, I have the memory of Lindy Chamberlain's experience in my mind, jogging my memory and reminding me to never judge too hastily.



Spork Queen
Star, you bring up some very good points. I lived in Gainesville, FL during the college students killing spree. I can't described what it was like to be in the happenings of that. Anywho...

They targeted Edward Humphry for the murders. Some 18/19 year old kid who was 'accused' and basically taken down in the media.

Fast forward a year or two and they found the 'real' killer,' Danny Rollings. Now I could give a rat's hind end about Danny Rollings. He got what justice said was due.

What I DO care about is this young male who was put through hades and back to clear his name. In fact, he changed his name so he could attempt to lead a new life. I haven't followed it since the killings, but I just can't imagine being in his shoes at that point. What kid would know what to do?

Very touchy water.



Well-Known Member
Star- I think too many of our legal cases in this country aren't necessarily settled on the basis of the law. There doesn't seem to be so much truth or justice anymore.

That being said, I had a baby that cried and screamed non-stop around the clock. Duckie only stopped to sleep about 10-20 minutes an hour. It was exhausting and frustrating. I would have called for help had I ever gotten to the point where I was going to treat her roughly. As a matter of fact, I quit my job because I couldn't chance her being in the care of someone that didn't love her and may not be able to take the stress.


New Member
Star - growing up with Sis in the house (I was 13 when she was born) was an experience. I joke around that she was the best sex-ed my parents could have ever gotten me, 'cause with THAT as a constant reminder, what teenage girl would EVER want to risk a pregnancy?

However, as I've gotten older, it really has come into focus for me that having her around in my teen years was a very significant event......I'm not sure I ever want to have kids, now. Having seen my older stepbrothers (MAJOR difficult children), and my little sister (trying to avoid her becoming a MAJOR difficult child) raised, the chance of having a child like them, I dunno. I honestly think sometimes that I might end up like the baby-shakers, or the closet-children parents. I'm usually about 90% sure I don't want kids for this reason.

The non-stop irrational crying baby who hates to be held. The vicious, angry toddler. The fit-pitching, violent elementary schooler. Having to fight off a 10 year old determined to beat you. I'm rationally aware that I'm not guaranteed a difficult child, but the CHANCE of getting one is enough for me to say - I don't think I am the type of person who could do it. I've been there, and I'm not willing to do it again. So I see the baby-shaker cases (at least, the remorseful ones) with a type of horrified understanding. Not exactly "there but for the grace of god, go i", but more of a "it's horrific and wrong, but I can see the panic and frustration that could lead to that".


Former desparate mom
The difference between an abusive parent and a regular parent is that we just don't. There is a hundred reasons why I am not a baby shaker or a parent who thinks whipping a child with a weapon is a good thing but it has nothing to do with not being angry enough.
I have been plenty angry and plenty close enough to the edge but being a parent means something to me that includes never causing harm. I understand growth and development. I know what intense fear of a parent when you are little feels like. Making a child become submissive and broken so I can think how well I raised my child isn't one of my personal goals. Doesn't mean I didn't want to shake him until his teeth rattled.

There are a lot of reasons why violence happens. None are good enough to justify a parent being violent to a child.

My biggest concern with the death penalty is the number of people who have been proven innocent with DNA. Doesn't mean they weren't a criminal but they weren't the person wh should have gotten the death penalty. Killing an innocent man is just as outrageous as killing an innocent child.

I'm just oppositional enough to be skeptical of anything I hear in a 2 min soundbite on the news. Finding out facts before voicing an opinion or feeding the blood lust, mobs seem to love is good common sense.

Star, for many of us, we see that accused as "our child" and appreciate that not all is as clear as it is being painted.


Well-Known Member
Have any of you seen that new show on ID called Dallas DNA? I have just caught a few episodes but evidently it is being run by this new DA out of Dallas who has found out that out of 40 convictions in which DNA could later be used to test the accuracy of the convictions, 18 were found to be not guilty of the crimes they were convicted. Now they work with the Innocence Project and other projects to review past convictions to see if DNA can clear convicted felons. It is very interesting.


Well-Known Member
I also agree with Fran.
...don't care to much for the death penalty.

I do think having a difficult child causes us to at least in the case of our own children see that while a behavior is deplorable or awful...we still love our children regardless and want the best of situations for them...even if they be locked up.
Even after my oldest was hooked on Meth and stole computers from husband' client, even after we helped "put him away" in prison...I went and visited him frequently, wrote him regularly and even befriended some of "his friends" that he met in jail/prison...exchanging letters. I do try and see the "human" side of people...and see that pershaps one awful act does not necessarily define an entire life...at least not for this mom.

I definitely have more compassion I believe than that of perhaps a parent of all easy child's who has not experienced all that we've gone through...
And...I myself had a psychotic episode over 2 yrs ago...during that episode I tried to pull the gun out of a police officers halster. Now I was trying to get the gun to shoot myself...but of course he had no way of knowing that...and he could have killed me. This is no joke...I was literally out of my mind, very paranoid, delusional and hallucinating...anything could have happend and I do mean that.
I could have been incarcerated, killed...or you name it I don't know. I mean I could have ended up on the news depicted as a "cop killer" or something ya know...it's very frightening to even think about.
I am grateful that the police took me to the hospital...that no further incident happend. "There but for the grace of G-d go I". ya know.



Shooting from the Hip
I don't think violence against children is the answer either.

Having said that I will admit to having spanked difficult child 2 - on the bum, two or three swats with my hand, and honestly I don't think it worked, so it's only happened a couple of times. And not in a couple of years. Also, I have slapped difficult child 1 in the face - once when she was 8, and once about 3 weeks ago. The first time, she cried - the second, she attacked me. So. I do think it was justified on both occasions.

I understand what would lead a parent to consider violence. However, I can't imagine shaking an infant. Once or twice I've been tempted to shake a cat for something such as chewing up my handmade name tags for Relay - but I found a better way to handle it - I punched a stuffed animal instead. Satisfying, didn't hurt anyone, even myself.

As for actually abusing an older child - after hearing the horror stories from the difficult children about BM - thank goodness a slap/swat is all I will let myself do! And honestly, even at my angriest I am mostly able to reason it out. I've been know to go outside and throw rocks at my tree when I get really upset. I don't know how I do it, but I do.

The bad part about our society is it isn't innocent until proven guilty anymore. But it should be. The media makes it all seem like the accused is a horrible person. Duke University, anyone?

house of cards

New Member
I tend to float from the thought that we can't judge intent so we need to stick with the action which would mean murder is murder whether you were abused, on drugs, whatever....to, normal people don't do these things, what good does punishing a mentally retarded person do?? What about the alcoholic that wipes out your family??

Bottom line, I don't have any answers. But it bothers me greatly that a person can get drunk and in a fight with a friend, hit him wrong and kill him, get sentenced to life or ...just beat each other senseless, go home, sleep it off and make up and go drinking again the next day. It seems so random.

On the topic of shaken babies. I'm shocked that they got sentenced to death for that. My sister (that died) had a shaken baby as a foster child. Poor thing was nearly blind with bottle cap glasses. In N. J, Dad was given anger management classes and given the child back! I believe in prevention though and wish there was more warnings out there that shaking your baby can kill it.


Well-Known Member
I have very little tolerance for dead babies, but it has more to do with how unprepared people seem to be for parenthood. They're not dolls. They cry, stink, pooh, and keep you awake. Not to mention, the next 10 - 12 years at least is going to be all about them because compassion is something you learn over time.

There seems to be a subculture of people who feel that the number of babies that they have define who they are (particularly as men). When you have a baby, it should be about what you want for the baby, not about what you want for you. When it takes a few weeks or months to get to the point where you have shaken that baby to death, that says to me that everyone has failed that parent, and the parent has failed that baby.

You can argue whether or not two adults consent. You can't argue about a dead baby. Somebody did it, and it's a failure in society because we all know how it happens and we all know how to prevent it. Every parent leaves the hospital these days being told "No matter what, don't ever shake your baby, it will give it brain damage or kill it." They did it in spite of knowing what could happen. Given a choice, I'm throwing stones.


Active Member
I dated a guy in high school. His sister had gotten pregnant and the guy dumped her. She started dating a really nice guy. After she had the baby, within a month or so, the baby started having issues....like horrible coughing and stuff. Then one day, when the baby was about three/four months old, she left to go get something from the store and came home to a blue baby. When all was said and done, the new boyfriend had told his inmate that he was jealous of the baby and wanted the baby dead. Turned out that he had been abusing the baby for a few months. In this instance, this was done with intent and malice. He did not get the death penalty, but could have and probably should have.

Some cases, it's done out of frustration, stupidity and spur of the moment....though it's wrong, is it done with the INTENT of killing baby?....probably not. This is where the laws about death penalty come into play. Death penalty, I believe in most states, is only given for those who intended to kill and killed with calculated purpose.


New Member
several issues here.......

I, too, agree that it seems to be guilty until proven innocent. I do NOT pay attention to any news reports on cases. Since my husband does Court Watch and usually has intimate knowledge of any case we're following, I just pay attention to his information.

He says that now adays, if a case gets to a jury trial, one of the first instrustions given is that court is NOT like TV. It's not CSI or any such program, things don't get wrapped up all nice and neat in an hour.

On the death penalty - until recently, "life" in Ohio meant 19 years and one could start asking for parole. The victims would have to keep track of the prisoner, and write to the parole board every 3 - 5 years to make sure they were not released. It was a horrible, never ending thing.

I've known 2 people that were murdered, and who's killers wound up on death row. In both instances, there was absolutely no doubt that these people were guilty - the first was found with blood all over himself, and before he died, Monty described him perfectly. In the second case, it was all caught on video tape, as well as police dogs tracking perfectly, etc. Monty's killer lived 19 years longer than Monty, and while in prison managed numerous times to smuggle letters out to Monty's widow and daughter stating that he was going to have others rape them, etc. Denny's killer is still alive and going through appeals - 15 years after the murder. In both cases - it was a store robbery / murder.

There will be an ugly case coming up soon here. A man shot a 19 year old woman, her 9 month old child, and the 3 year old child she was babysitting for. It's a convoluted case of drugs, gang retaliation, and love triangles. It's the youngest murder victim we've ever had shot here. Sad, sad, sad.


Well-Known Member
If you have a bad temper and you know it from past history, and you follow your ex-wife whom you used to beat up around, and you spy on her everywhere she goes, in a jealous rage you show up at her house with a knife, and you slice her throat and her friend's throat, and they die even though you only meant to intimidate them, did you murder them? Yes. It was the inevitable result of what you were doing.

If you know you have a violent temper, you know that if you shake a baby you could kill it, if you are jealous of a little baby and shake it for weeks or months so that it won't come between you and your girlfriend and you don't actually think it's going to die this time, did you murder it? Yes. You knew it was inevitable that the baby would die one of these days. Even criminals can figure out that eventually you get caught or eventually it turns out badly.

Honestly, ladies, I am finding it pretty difficult to believe that anyone here would look at a brute who shakes a defenseless baby to death and think that was in any way excusable at all. The only excuse anyone even tries is that they didn't know how strong they were is because the baby is so defenseless and it's so easy to kill them. A child can easily kill a baby.

But to torture a baby for weeks and eventually kill it is no different than taking a grown man or woman hostage and cutting him or her repeatedly for weeks until she dies of an infection of blood loss. You can say you didn't know it was going to happen, but it's still the murder of an innocent by someone who knew that it was inevitable. Not only that, they knew that if it didn't happen slowly, one day they'd just plain do quickly.

I'm appalled that anyone thinks it's ever excusable or understandable. No one is that stupid. They're just trying to get away with it.


Active Member
Witz, In the case I was speaking of, he meant it. He did it for months, it was premeditated. My next paragraph was not meant for him at all. I make no excuse for that sick-minded creep. He deserved Murder I, but wasn't tried for it.

I was just simply stating that there are cases where it is not Murder I. Regardless, it's sick and jail time is absolutely a must, but death penalty, in all cases, is not, according to the laws regarding the death penalty.


call 911........call 911
Well here's a little bit more on the first shaken baby case.

THe mans attorney today said that he (the man) was violently abused as a child. (the man is now 25) the baby was only 4 months old at the time he murdered her. Her murder involved -
shaking her
slapping her so badly her brain dislodged her skull was dented
choking her
bear hugging her until all her air was exhausted
biting her wrist until it fractured
then smothering her and finally one last act of fatherhood
he slammed her backwards over the crib and broke her back in two

When the prosecutor went through all these acts - there was not a dry eye in the courtroom and HE was accused by the defense of being OVERZEALOUS in his descriptions. THAT is what got this man a second chance to escape the death penalty.

He said he was planning on leaving his wife anyway. He was never not once been remorseful about the death of his daughter. He left his ring on the counter, a good bye note and drove to another state where he was later caught and extridited.

The defense is trying to get people here to be sympathetic to this man and I gotta tell ya - they want him dead. Deader than dead. The sad part is all the comments about "well why didn't he get help?" or "Why didn't anyone report the father." and my favorite "Lets go get HIS Dad and arrest him for the abuse." His father supposedly made him have sex with his girlfriend of the week and watched. He was an abusive alcoholic to his son so the violence only perpetuates. He was kicked out of 8th grade and spent time in Department of Juvenile Justice, The defense says "He never had a chance to choose a nice life." He wants him to sit in jail for life. I think everyone has a choice, this doesn't seem to me like a man who was "in the moment" this seems like someone who wanted to hurt an infant - a very sick person who was abused himself.

Now.....despite the fact that I know a lot of people here, in my own life and my own son who were abused by their Fathers or MOthers for all that matters - I can't find one reason to think that this man would be better off dead. It is not at all a case where it "could" have been - forensic autopsy showed every single thing this man did. He didn't just shake her - he tortured an infant. I want to think that the best /worst thing for him is to have to think about what he did every day for the rest of his natural life. He's a monster who is being painted as a monster, and if it were legal here to grab a torch and pitchfork this guy would have been dead long ago by a town who is outraged at the defense atty's attempt to portray this man as a victim. Fact is - the man was/is a victim. One that lived or existed and had a miserable life.

Now that you know this wasn't a momentary lapse of judgement - or ONLY a shaking -does it change how do you feel about this case?