Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Is this the Stuart case or the Simoni (?) case?  The Simoni (?) case is the
one where the wife was found dead in the mall parking lot.

Lisa

    RE .1 
    Stuart, the one that was shot in the car on a street in Boston

  Re: .2 CLEVER::SULLIVAN "Eileen


>>  Stuart, the one that was shot in the car on a street in Boston


    No, Stuart, the one that shot his pregnant wife and himself for the
    insurance money. 

    re .3
    
    Thank you, I guess my reply was not very clear.

    He could have had a hitman, you can buy one for under a grand.

    Being home sick with the flu is good for one thing besides boredom... 
    it allowed me to follow the story this am...  this was what I put in
    the Human Relations conference after the DA did a live news conference
    at noon today...
    
    At that time he would make no comment on motive.
    
         <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]HUMAN_RELATIONS.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'? >-
================================================================================
Note 884.81                   FEELINGS FOR VICTIMS                      81 of 86
ICESK8::KLEINBERGER "misery IS optional"             30 lines   4-JAN-1990 12:39
                         -< From the news conference >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From Newman Flanigan, the DA:

    search still continues, both in the Charles River, and in a body of
    water in Revere, looking for both a body, and a weapon.

    A secret grand jury had been called, A number of individuals were
    called and questioned from 8pm to 2am yesterday/today. During that
    time they stopped and went to see a certain body of water in Revere,
    and started a search of it. 

    Attempts were made to locate Stuart last night, but they were
    unsuccessful.  Media, not Flanigan, has said Bennet was the suspect.

    No more comments will be made to be fair to the grand jury. There was
    no comments made on questions about who fired, or motive. They believe
    the story Stuart told them in not true.

    The suicide note was a hand written note about 4 or 5 lines long, that
    stated he could not handle the allegations.

    The suicide is still being investigated.. it still can be a hoax, they
    are also searching the airport (in fact the conference was from Logan)


    From Jerome Cronin, the police officer first on hand...  

    He found a Black Nissen (type - missed it sorry), on the lower level of
    the bridge.  On the passenger side was the license and the note.
    He then looked into the water, and about 100 yards out saw what he
    thought to be a human body bobbing in the water.

 According to B106.3 in Nashua, the body retrieved has been identified as that
of Charles Stuart.

 The Doctah

    
    Actually, I had heard that the news reported that Charles Stuart HAD
    hired a hitman to kill his wife.  
    
    BTW- if he did shoot himself, he must have been REAL dumb cause he put
    himself in critical condition.  I would think that he'd have shot some
    minor part of his body.
    
    Rachael
    

    Tres Bizarre! ISn't this the guy whom all the friends/neighbors said
    "what a nice couple" "what a great guy" - the
    active-in-community-affairs, first-row-in-church folks?
    
    Humph.
    

From another news conference (4:40pm)- the last one that Flanigan said he would 
give:

Again sketchy details, I copied as fast as I could...

Flanigan read from a prepared statement and took no questions because the 
grand jury is still sitting.

He confirmed that the man found in the harbor beneath the Mystic River 
Bridge was indeed that of Charles Stuart, and that the cause of death was 
drowning.  He also confirmed that a spent bullet was removed from his 
body, the same bullet that was known to be in his body while he was in the 
hospital.

Last night, a bother of Charles Stuart (Perin? something) called the 
assistant DA saying he had some information concerning Ms Stuart and his 
brothers case.  They then met with the DA, and several members then gave 
the DA statements.

They also gave the DA Ms Staurts engagement Ring {why is this important?}
he then took out a warrant for Staurts arrest, but they were unable to 
locate him.

Drivers at the Dizzy Bridge in Revere, have recovered several articles 
personal and clothing that belonged to Ms Stuart from the river there.

    From an interview with the brother's lawyer this evening -

    One the night of the shooting, Stuart had asked his brother to meet him
    in the neighborhood where the shooting [was alleged to have] occured.
    He tossed a package (unopened) from his car into his brother's car,
    with instructions to take it home and keep it for him. The brother
    didn't see Stuart's wife, but thought there was something on the
    passenger seat (now thought to be the wife, already shot).

    The brother agonized over all this, but didn't come forward until
    Stuart had fingered a man in a lineup as the gunman.

    The package was pulled from a river (lake?) near Stuart's parent's
    home. It contained a gun, plus his wife's engagement ring and other
    material which was supposed to have been stolen by the supposed
    assailant.

    Overall, a fairly clear history appears. All of this was from a Channel
    7 special on the matter at 7:00 tonight.

    Wanna start a pool on when the TV movie show up?

>    The package was pulled from a river (lake?) near Stuart's parent's
>    home. It contained a gun, plus his wife's engagement ring and other
>    material which was supposed to have been stolen by the supposed
>    assailant.

 Before the package was deep sixed into the river, Matthew Stuart removed the
engagement ring for "safekeeping." The revolver has yet to be retreived (from
the river.)

 Many questions remain. Aside from the initial shock of hearing this bizarre
twist, numerous details continue to grate at my nerves.

 What was the motivation for murdering his wife? Assuming that Stuart was not
a fruitcake (which appears to be a safe assumption considering he fooled so 
many for so long), you have to wonder what the reason was for the elaborate
scheme to cover up the murder. Why not just have her iced while you have
a solid alibi (it happened while you were at work or whatever)?

 Logistical problems remain (assuming Matt is telling the whole truth). How did
Charles shoot his wife and himself without alerting his brother to the fact that
he had suffered a gun wound? Allegedly Matt met Charles in the Mission Hill
area, was tossed a package, and left- but had no idea that his brother was
suffering from a gunshot wound (if indeed he was at the time). I find this very
hard to believe. While I have never personally suffered from such a wound, I
imagine it would be rather difficult to act "normal" after receiving such a 
wound- especially to someone who knows you well.

 There is certainly more to the story than we are hearing. And Paul is right-
the movie for this one will be out shortly after all the facts finally surface.

 The Doctah

    News reports this a.m. said that Charles and his brother Mathew had
    planned to rob Kakas furs (Charles was the manager) and had actually
    done a trial run.  Charles was supposed to take the money from the
    store, give it to his brother and then make it look like he was robbed.
    Mathew allegedly assumed that that was what was happening when his brother
    asked him to meet him and have his window down so he could throw the
    bag through it.  The reason the ring was considered so significant was
    because it was one of the things Charles reported taken in the
    "robbery".
    
    AS to Charles' wound, I suspect he wanted to make it look good and just
    did more damage than he planned to.  How could his brother not know
    that he was wounded?  Seems strange, but let's face it the guy was a
    good actor.  I heard the 911 tapes.  He was very believeable.
    
    But there are alot of questions that may never be answered for sure.
    Like was the plot and elaborate ruse on Charles' part to get his
    brother's help with getting rid of the evidence?  If he really was
    going to rob the store, why would it he plan it for a night when he
    and Carol had the childbirth class?  Did he expect her to go along
    with it and when she wouldn't, kill her?  Or was the insurance money
    the motive all along?  
    
    I see a best seller or two along with the tv movie.
     
    
    

    re best sellers and tv movies...
    
    will they come out before or after that smash hit at the box office,
    "Montreal Massacre"?

    	One of the radio stations this morning said that Stuart
    	could not have shot himself, from all the evidence, etc.
    
    	Too many questions left unanswered.
    
    	Scott

    In the  long  run,  the  real  story  here  is  about racism. This
    incident has done more to harm race relations than almost anything
    else in the past years. Starting from the early coverage which put
    this murder on the front page of many papers (all of which ignored
    the  murder  of a black man the same night), and continuing with a
    lot  of comments about blacks killing whites (in fact, most murder
    victims are the same race as the killer).  

    Somehow, we're  all  going  to have to learn to live together, and
    the media's coverage of this murder doesn't help.

--David

	So, did he identify a black man as the killer?  What evidence
	collaborated with his story that prompted the police to arrest
	the black man?

	We're not getting as much coverage of this out west.

	Carla

    
    Yes,
    
    He he identified the killer as a black man in a jogging suit.
    
    

    
    this is a bizarre story...suppose the brother actually did it.?
    I mean, it seems odd that all of a sudden he shows up with the
    ring, and a tale about being tossed a package.  Who knows...
    the details will hopefully come out eventually, once the grand
    jury decides what happened, then we can all understand.
    
    Yes, my first impression of the whole story was how racist the
    thing was.  Black kids/adults get killed regularly, and there is
    little media coverage, but let a white couple get shot, and its
    front page news.  (that's not to say that there is *no* page 1 coverage
    of the former...)
    
    Anyway, it will be interesting to follow this one.
    
    Any news on the Simoni case...where the husband has been considered
    a suspect all along?
    
    deb
    

    Judy and I heard about this on the way home from OUR birthing
    class.  Creepy.

    The hospital is now saying they have no record that the Stuarts
    were ever enrolled in any classes there.  Sounds like that was
    just part of the story.
    bob

    re -1 That's right Mike he was never accused by the police. He was
    tried in the press. But I do not agree that it was just because
    he was a black man. This guy is bad news, black/white or green.
    His record was as long as my arm. Yes, the press is at fault 
    for prosecuting him on this case, but until all the evidence is
    in, I'm not going to be in line to apologize to him ruining his
    reputation. It was mud long before we heard about Charles Stuart.

    Why him? He had the unfortunate circumstance of being in the neighborhood.
    Wrong time, wrong place thing...
    
    
    Gail
    

    The particular  black  man who was accused (apparently wrongly) in
    the  press  based  on  police  department  statements  isn't  that
    important  in  large  terms.  Though  I assume he will sue lots of
    people  for  libel and defamation of character, and quite possibly
    win.  Accusing  someone  of murder is defamation, even if he is an
    unsavory  character.  Having the bad luck to be in the wrong place
    at the wrong time is generally not a criminal offense.

    The larger  issue  is  the  damage  done  to race relations in the
    entire  metropolitan area by a (apparently false) statement that a
    black  man had killed a white woman. The whole thing may have been
    a  ploy  to  collect  on  some  insurance  policies, but it's done
    immeasurable damage to the Boston area. I don't know how that will
    ever be undone.

--David

    I thought something was weird here. I know I sure would hate to
    be the innocent black man. Whether or not he was formally charged
    yet it was only a matter of time. The people wanted someone hung
    because of the dispicability of this crime. His innocence or guilt 
    would have become secondary to their need to vent.
    
   Some people, by accidents of their birth, seem more scary. This is
    why I do not believe in capital punishment. Every convicted felon
    on death row who I have seen who was finally found innocent of a
    murder, has been a black man. Strange, isn't it.
    
    Kate 
         

 Many people are saying that the sole reason that this case got the coverage
it got was because the victims were white and the accused was black. This
would lead you to believe that every other or at least most other cases
which involved white victims and black alleged perps would get substantially
similar coverage. This is simply not the case. I do not see Tom Brokaw doing
a 5 minute piece on every white murder victim who is alleged to be a victim
of a black.

 How many victims of mayhem are well into pregnancy, and give birth to their
children by c-section almost post-humously? How many victims of violent crime
call the police with such a dramatic message and are tracked down by listening
to sirens going through a cellular telephone?

 Announcing that a certain person is a suspect is NOT defamatory, nor is it
necessarily racist, even when the person happens to be a minority. 

 That William Bennett was essentially accused in the media is reprehensible;
but is not necessarily racist. It simply serves to show just exactly how
callous and sleazy journalism has become (as has previously been claimed by a 
number of us).

 If racism really is the primary force in operation here, the story will soon
disappear and everyone will forget about it- after all, the perp is white.

 The Doctah

    Stuart may well have *planned* to do this in the Mission Hill section
    *and* to claim a black man did it, knowing that we are all too eager to
    blame it on an urban black male and so would believe him!  (This I
    heard on some news media speculation.)
    
    Yes, certainly there were many aspects of the case that made it "news."
    I believe the main news-catcher feature was the 911 call and the drama
    of it on TV.  
    
    But I fully believe that *black victims do not* get the press
    that *white* victims get, regardless of the color of the perpetrator.
    *And* that our racist system and our own racist thinking lead us to
    quickly accept the stereotypes!
    
    Nancy

re: .13
    
> What was the motivation for murdering his wife? Assuming that Stuart was not
>a fruitcake (which appears to be a safe assumption considering he fooled so 
>many for so long), you have to wonder what the reason was for the elaborate
>scheme to cover up the murder. 
    
    No, that's not a safe assumption -- sociopaths (as opposed to
    psychopaths, who are generally bizarre from the start) are often
    likable, respectable people with no visible faults -- the perfect
    neighbor, the perfect husband, the perfect friend -- until
    something happens that triggers their total disregard of the rules
    the rest of us live by.  One of the main traits of their pathology
    is that they can fool anybody, anywhere, any time, because they
    are so much smarter than the rest of us.  They have no trouble
    planning complicated and bizarre crimes because their contempt for
    ordinary people leads them to believe they'll never be suspected. 
    It's not at all uncommon for sociopaths to kill themselves when
    they are caught simply because their world view leaves no room for
    failure. 
    
    I don't know whether Charles Stuart is a sociopath or not, but the
    fact that his life is SOOOO perfect is evidence in favor of it,
    not against it.
    
    On the definitely unfounded side -- there's a rumor circulating
    that the police had known for some time that the accused man
    couldn't have committed the crime because he was getting into
    minor trouble somewhere else at the time.  So they had known
    things didn't add up, but hadn't reached the stage of suspecting
    anyone else yet.  Apparently Stuart picked this particular black
    man because he had seen his picture in a paper somewhere in
    connection with one of the other crimes and knew he could
    recognize him, and that no one was going to suspect him of
    fingering an innocent man.  I mean (sarcasm on here) who's going
    to suspect a black man with a long criminal record of being an
    innocent victim?
    
    --bonnie

>    No, that's not a safe assumption -- sociopaths (as opposed to
>    psychopaths, who are generally bizarre from the start) are often
>    likable, respectable people with no visible faults -- the perfect
>    neighbor, the perfect husband, the perfect friend -- until
>    something happens that triggers their total disregard of the rules
>    the rest of us live by.

 Ok- You got me. I should not have resorted to such a technical term as 
"fruitcake." :-) My definition of fruitcake is along the lines of psychopath.
I should have been clearer. :-)

 The Doctah

    	Heard on the news this morning that they found the pistol
    	in the Pine River that Stuart allegedly used to kill his
    	wife.
    
    	Forensics to do their thing on it.
    
    	Scott

    I'll be interested to find out if it matches the bullet in Charles
    Stuart's body.  Either answer raises interesting questions.
    
    							Ann B.

    	One of Boston TV stations had an interview with a friend
    	of Stuart. He said that Charles Stuart asked him to help
    	Stuart kill his wife. He said no, but didn't tell the
    	police or anyone else (why, God only knows). He said
    	Stuart had worked 6 and 7 days a week at Kakas Furs and
    	wanted to open a restaurant. Stuart was afraid Carol would
    	quit her job (she was a lawyer) and stay home with the
    	baby. According to the friend, Stuart asked/told Carol
    	to get an abortion.
    
    	Stuart supposedly asked his brother Mike to help him kill
    	Carol.
    
    	Too weird.
    
    	Scott

    The thing that I find mind boggling is that, depending on which news
    report you believe, the brothers and sisters knew that he had killed
    her either right after it happened or at least several days before
    Matthew went to the police.  Mike admits that he knew w/in a few 
    days of the murder.  I try not to be judgemental because I've
    never been in the position of having someone I love commit murder
    but how could they not come forward?  Particularly given the fact that
    he killed someone they claim to love when she was 7 mos. pregnant.
    Wouldn't that set off some bells in your head?  Would you want to see
    him still on the street?  Would you want him across the table from
    you at the next family dinner?
    
    They also think that one or two of the siblings removed the insurance
    papers from Stuart's house.  If this true, did they do this to protect
    him?  Were they hoping for a cut?  It'll be interesting to see if the
    DA finds some charges to bring against some of the family members and
    if the grand jury indicts.  
    
    

    REGARDING THE INSURANCE POLICY:
    
    THIS IS A FACT.
    
    The police or DA, I'm not sure which, asked the two siblings to
    go to the residence in Reading and pick up the insurance policy(s).
    Chuckie did not ask his brother and sister to do this.  It is among
    alot of other false statements (rumors) that you are reading in
    the papers.
    
    The papers are reporting each and every rumor or story.  ALot of
    it is false.  The Grand Jury will probably have the most solid evidence
    and truthful version of the story that we'll ever hear. 
    
    I believe in my heart that someone else was involved.  I don't know
    this for a fact, but from all I've heard about the accused, I do
    not believe he could do this.
    
    

    RE: .36

    You seem to be advocating guilt by association....

    The brothers (as it stands with the information we have at this point in
    time), did not commit the murder, nor did they do the lesson plan for
    the murder.  All they are guilty of is Charles having a big mouth
    afterwards.

    Yet you want the DA to charge them with something?  You can not control
    what someone tells you. If someone tells you they just killed XYZ
    person, you are not legally bound to tell anyone - morally maybe, but
    not legally.

>If someone tells you they just killed XYZ
>    person, you are not legally bound to tell anyone - morally maybe, but
>    not legally.

 Be careful. This is not always true.

 The Doctah

    	Would anyone care to comment on the news conference
    	yesterday in Boston?
    
    	For those of you outside of Massachusetts/Rhode Island/
    	New Hampshire, 4 of the Stuart siblings had a news
    	conference with a lawyer.
    
    	I personally thought the lawyer came off badly. Just my
    	opinion. If I were in the same situation, I would want
    	someone who came across as more calm.
    
    	Scott

    Well, what about the brother who showed up on Mission Hill, took the
    gun and dumped it in the river, and took the pocket book and jewelry
    and got rid of that stuff?  Doesn't that count as helping out the
    murderer?
    

    RE: Doc...  why, do you say this?  My interpretation on the law is that
    YOU don't have to go to police with evidence, but if they ask for it,
    you are under an obligation to give it to them, unless you are a direct
    relation to the person in question.

    Re: Lawyer...  probably figured it was his way to boost his career
    with national attention...  only problem is, in my opinion he lowered
    it.  However, I'm not a lawyer (yet :-)....), so don't know what the
    legal people opinion are...

    Re: helping out... at the time, he didn't know why he was tossing... he
    thought it was a dry run for another robbery that they were talking
    about doing... since he didn't know, he can't be charged is how *I*
    personally look at it...

>    RE: Doc...  why, do you say this?  My interpretation on the law is that
>    YOU don't have to go to police with evidence, but if they ask for it,
>    you are under an obligation to give it to them, unless you are a direct
>    relation to the person in question.

 What I meant was, this is not true in all jurisdictions in the United States.
Sorry for the oblique wording.

>    Re: helping out... at the time, he didn't know why he was tossing... he
>    thought it was a dry run for another robbery that they were talking
>    about doing... since he didn't know, he can't be charged is how *I*
>    personally look at it...

 He was given two items, a bag and a gun (which by all acounts should have been 
practically smoking or at least reeking of gunpowder). He felt the need to open
the bag (I think it was Carol's handbag), and removed the engagement ring from
the bag before heaving it into the Pines River with the gun. Now, I ask you, if
he opened the bag and saw the engagement ring, did he probably know the
remaining contents of the bag or not? Sounds to me like he knew exactly what
he was disposing of. The engagement ring was one of the smallest items in
the handbag. It stands to reason that he would almost certainly have to know
what else was in there. And I find it extremely difficult to believe that
he didn't notice the fact that the gun was freshly fired. Gunpowder is not
a terribly subtle fragrance.

 Matt has not told everything. Time will tell if we get "the rest of the story."

 The Doctah

   .10> Tres Bizarre! ISn't this the guy whom all the friends/neighbors said
   .10> "what a nice couple" "what a great guy" - the
   .10> active-in-community-affairs, first-row-in-church folks?
    
      "Bizarre" ? Not when you consider what sanctimoniousness is all about .
  The Reaction Formation factor should also be considered. 
  Jimmy Swaggart and one Dr. McDonald are recent examples of devious hypocrites.
   Swaggart was the nice guy who was frequently condemning "immoral practices"
   from the pulpit. When Jim Bakker was exposed Swaggart was one of the most
   vocal bashers of Jim & Tammy. When Swaggart's turn came it was revealed 
   that for many years he had a neurotic obsession for adult magazines and 
   illicit sex. When McDonald's entire family was brutally murdered in their 
   home no one suspected he could have done it - after all he was a doctor(md).
The father-in-law was the only one who kept looking for concrete facts, which
were later used to convict him. If doctors are incapable of committing heinous
crimes becuase of their suppossed intelligence then how was josef mengele(MD)
able to commit such sadistic crimes at auschwitz ? A case of demonic bigots and
their devious smarts? A lot of the seemingly nice and educated could also be 
the most devious. I don't think there is anybody on this notesfile who can give
the exact number of women who were brutally tortured and killed during the 
period of the inquisition. The inquisition proper which was inaugurated at the
Synod of Verona in 1184 and the approval of torture with the publication of
Innocent IV's bull Ad exstirpanda in 1252 victimized millions of innocent women
for several centuries - (ending in 1834). Most of the accusers were supposedly  
educated and considered to be intellectuals by their peers yet these were the
ones who developed and enforced the sadistic methods that were used against 
countless number of innocent people. Chuck Stuart knew how to use devious smarts
in his diabolical scheme of killing his pregnant wife and deflecting attention
from himself by using race to gain sympathy and "understanding". It worked ! 
(Ref. P/W issue of Jan. 22 1990 page 70 l/para.) Sympathy for demonic bigots?  

    Well, this case is the cover story this week for Time, Newsweek and
    People magaziness.  The Time article says that CBS is planning the
    made-for-tv movie.  Guess the movie may beat the books......

    The TIME article says nothing about CBS planning a movie.
    

    I also saw the TIME article reference to the movie being planned/made
    by <network>.

    
    In Newsweek article, it states, "Getting there is no less critical in
    Hollywood. "Rescue 911" excutive producer Arnold Shapiro announced
    plans last week for a movie to be aired on CBS in 1990."
    
    
    Just reporting the facts...

    Gee, I'm really glad that hollywood is going to make a movie about a
    real-life murder of a woman.  I am getting so tired of hollywood's
    made-up stories about violence against women.  This should bring a
    refreshing change and I'm sure that taking the time, money and effort
    to make this movie will vastly improve the quality of life for women.
    
    And we wonder why violence against women is such an extreme problem?  
    
    Laura
    

    re .49 -
    
    Well said!
    
    Just knowing we're going to be able to relive this murder on the Big 
    Screen is enough to warm the cockles of one's heart. (Or is it the 
    hackles of one's court?)  
    
    And just think of the $$ someone will make out of this...
    
    Dorian
           

    I'm still waiting for them to find out that the brother did it and
    made up all the rest of it, including the suicide note, to cover
    up...
    
    --bonnie

    I'm with you bonnie, a triple murder, wherein he pushed Charles
    over the bridge.  The only thing missing is the motive.  Who get's
    the insurance money now?
    	Linda

    
    Don't forget the part about him dressing in black-face to fool his
    brother, and then giving away the jogging suit as a charitable act to
    some poor Negro on the streets named William Bennett...
    
    As for the insurance checks, once Charles cashed them, he didn't need
    to be alive any more. And who says "demonic cunning" can't run in the
    family!

    I think it goes into Charles' estate, to be distributed either
    according to his will, or, if he doesn't have one that covers all
    the contingencies, according to Mass. state laws for the
    distribution of property.  Assuming she didn't leave a will, since
    she predeceased him, he would probably have inherited at least
    half of her  estate, and that plus his own estate would probably
    be divided equally by the parents and the surviving siblings. 
    State laws vary, so we'd need to consult an estate lawyer.
    
    Actually, I'm getting sick of the whole thing.  I feel like
    apologizing to the Mission Hills people just for reading the
    newspaper.  
    
    --bonnie

    Motive??  How about, oh, I dunno, maybe Satan, disguised as a
    dog, told him to do it?
    
    A TV-movie seems as inevitable as night following day. Hell,
    if they can make one about the Big Dan's rape trial, does this
    really surprise anyone?
    
    --- jerry

    follow up to .47
    
    From last week's issue of TIME (cover story on the Stuart case):
    p. 10:
    
    	"His fabrication raised the curtain on a drama in which the
    	press and police, prosecutors, politicians and the public
    	played out their parts as though they were following the
    	script for THE TELEVISION MOVIE THAT CBS WILL MAKE ABOUT
    	THE CASE."  <emphasis added>

    My apologies for the confusion.
    

    In general, I have been saddened by many of the notes written to this
    topic. I was moved (in the wrong direction of course) by the one noter
    who implied that there was nothing racist about this case.  The best
    way to describe my shock is to ask you to imagine how you might feel
    and react to the man who, very matter-of-factly, points out the obvious
    to the womannotes community: the massacre in Montreal had nothing to do
    with sexism.  Certain insults are unbearable.

    I am including an article which many of you may have already read.  I
    am including this article, rather than one of my own, since it is
    coming from a more feminist perspective than I might be able to
    provide.  

    

Taken from Sojourner: The Women's Forum

		Feminist Thoughts on the Stuart Case
			
by Ann Russo

The murder of Carol Stuart and her child has been a media 
extravaganza from the beginning, revealing the racial and sexual 
fears, biases, and interests of white men.  After the murder in 
October, the media sensationalize the case beyond belief, hitting us 
with days and days of coverage, from the exact transcript of Charles 
Stuart's phone calls to reports of white suburbanites discussing 
their fears of coming into the city and white middle-class parents' 
fear of sending their children to college in Boston.

In October, I was already tremendously angry at the media coverage.  
While women are raped and killed daily, the media reports few of these 
deaths, particularly those of women of color, poor women, single 
mothers, or prostitutes.  The fact is that women are more likely to be 
raped and murdered by the men who know and supposedly love them - ie. 
their husbands, lovers and ex's - than by strangers.  But rarely is 
any social analysis of these murders offered, and when it is, it 
usually has something to do with the particular women killed.  For 
instance, in the New Bedford, Massachusetts, serial killings, the 
media always reported that the women murdered were drug addicts and 
prostitutes, implying that they were more expendable than other women 
(i.e white middle-class married women).

Knowing all this, as the media and the city played up the social 
significance of this one murder, despite the very unusual nature of 
the alleged circumstances, I became increasingly angry.  I was 
especially frustrated as the media began warning white women and men 
to beware of the city because of Black violences, when in reality 
white women have far more to fear in our own homes and communities than 
in Black neighborhoods.  Moreover, I cannot help but think of the 
women raped, assaulted, and murdered previously in all of Boston's 
neighborhoods and be outraged that somehow these women do not count 
in this culture's estimation.  This invisibility alone is cause enough 
for outrage on the part of the feminist community.

It is very important to look at why this particular murder got the 
attention it did.  The attention paid the case was greatly 
exaggerated because the supposed victims - Charles Stuart and his 
pregnant wife - were white upper-middle-class people, a nuclear family 
at that.   But more importantly for the drama that ensued, the murder 
victim was a white women who was married *and* who was allegedly 
murdered by a Black man.  Each of these characteristics is absolutely 
essential to the way the public responded.  Governor Dukakis, Mayor 
Flynn, and other city officials never would have gone to the funeral 
of Carol Stuart had they knows from the beginning that Charles Stuart, 
or even another family member, had killed her.  Who knows if it would 
even have made the news (although because of her race, class, and 
occupation, there might have been at least one or two stories). It 
didn't take any great effort to make the white public feel upset, 
outraged, and hysterical over this crime (which we now know was 
exactly what Charles Stuart had counted on).  We live in a society 
with a very deep history of racism, particularly with respect to the 
fear of Black men attacking white womanhood.  Not long ago, Black men 
were routinely lynched for the alleged rapes of white women.  The myth 
of the Black rapist and revenger has been used historically to keep 
racism alive and well in this society, to keep white women dependent 
on and loyal to white men (despite the public and private abuse these 
men subject "their" women to), and to keep the focus on the Black 
community as the source of racial tension, rather than on white racism 
as social pathology.

Thus, I would suggest that it was, in part, so-called white male 
chivalry that was called up in the Stuart case and was used to fuel 
anger and fear toward Boston's Black community.  This chivalry, 
however, is only extended to a white woman married to a white man 
(pregnant with *his* child) who happens to be in Mission Hill when she 
is murdered; it is not extended to all white women.  In fact, this 
chivalry has little to do with white women in and of themselves, but 
is based on an ideology that sees white women as the property and 
possession of white men, to be protected from "other" men, not from 
white men themselves.

This murder also got the Black community's attention, because it meant 
a new rationale for interrogation and interference in a community 
already scourged by the symptoms of racism and economic exploitation, 
including police brutality, drugs, poverty, and crime.  And certainly, 
as we are now finding out, this community took the brunt of the 
fall-out from Charles Stuart's set-up

Of course, the scenarios has now changed and so has the analysis. 
Since Stuart killed himself and his brother has come forward with 
evidence implicating Charles Stuart in the murder of Carol Stuart, 
the racism of the police, the city and state government, and the 
media, as well as the media hype itself, have been, at least 
superficially, called into question.  yet public officials still 
refuse to take responsibility for the racism involved.  While the 
officials admit they were duped, they are incredibly defensive and 
deny that race had anything to do with their handling of the case, 
given the information they had.  What the media, the public officials, 
and police fail to acknowledge is that even without the new 
information, there were serious problems with the way they responded 
to this case.  The police investigation was indicative of the low 
value the city places on the lives and welfare of the Black community, 
and the high value placed on the credibility of the white 
upper-middle-class men and the lives of their wives.

In fact with the new evidence in the case the whole public 
analysis and perspective has changed.  A shift has occurred in the 
media, in people's discussions, and in investigative insight.  With  
the shift from stranger to husband, Black to white, from interracial 
to intraracial, from extrafamilial to familial, the murder is now 
characterized as the "unthinkable" work of a psychopath.  In addition, 
all kinds of "reasonable" motives are discussed and speculated upon - 
from insurance money, to the possibility that the baby was not his, to 
another woman (as if these were legitimate reasons to murder your 
wife).  In October, the media discussed the pathology of violence and 
drugs in the Black inner city.  But now, where is the discussion of 
the pathology of sexism and violence in families, whereby men rape and 
murder their wives? (Every 22 days a women is killed by her husband or 
lover in Massachusetts). 

The Stuart case was initially considered a social crime of great 
concern to society (i.e. white men, and white women connect to white 
men, who are potentially the targets of nonwhite people's violence), 
but now the crime is analyzed as an individual act by an individual 
psychopath.  There has been very little discussion of the connection 
between Charles Stuart and the other men who have murdered their 
wives, lovers, and ex-wives this month, this year, this decade.  We 
are supposed to believe that Stuart acted as an individual, not as a 
white married man who holds, with other white men, social, economic, 
political and personal power over women.  Moreover, we are to see him 
as an individual, not a member of a race and social class that hold 
such power that he could create a situation in white a whole community 
could be terrorized, while he, a white man, collected everyone's 
sympathy over the loss of *his* wife.

These are just a few of the reasons that this case stirs my feminist 
anger.  But what I'd really like to ask is: why aren't feminists 
(including myself) out here in a more public and visible way, speaking 
out, demanding media attention and time, creating social havoc, 
expressing our outrage and anger at the sexual and racial atrocities 
that are happening every day in our communities?  I believe we need 
to begin to be more organized and outspoken in response to the murders 
of the women we read about and those that don't make the paper, and 
more critical about the way the media treats these murders, both in 
terms of sexual and racial biases and bigotry.  We must continue, in 
louder and more aggressive ways, to demand for ourselves and all the 
women who are being raped, beaten, and murdered, that the community 
take all of our lives seriously, no matter what race, class, or 
marital status.



Ann Russo teaches about violence against women at MIT.

    re .58 Hi Karen!
    
    I found the article very interesting -- it pointed out aspects of the
    case that are disturbing.  These aspects are especially disturbing
    because they hadn't occurred to me *until* they were pointed out.  Like
    the point about how government officials wouldn't necessarily have
    attended the funeral of "a woman killed by her husband"; only the
    funeral of "a white woman killed by a black man in an urban area".  
    The prevalence of marital murder doesn't seem to bother people.
    
    The racial aspects are also obvious, and I agree that the police and
    media, faced with a confusing case, took the "easiest" explanation and
    ran with it.  I personally stopped reading about it at the time it
    happened because it was clear to me that public reaction had gone 
    overboard (as the case appeared at the time).  I do think, however,
    that there are mitigating aspects to how the case was handled, in that
    medical evidence is still confused (the doctor insists the Charles'
    injury couldn't be self-inflicted, etc.).
    
    Also, one thing that keeps getting forgotten is that the ORIGINAL media
    hype was a) the apparent random senselessness of the shooting, b) that
    Carol was pregnant and delivered a live baby although she was dead or
    close to it, and c) the extraordinary means of finding the couple
    through the cellular telephone call to 911.  THOSE were the combination
    of facts that originally made the story "news" -- the racist connection
    was not the main story *to begin with*.  
    
    I see a connection in Stuart story to the story 3-4 years ago in Boston
    -- a distressed couple went on the 11:00 news pleading for news of
    their young, missing daughter.  Subsequently the man (and the wife?)
    were charged with murder of the child.  That story got a lot of hype,
    too...and it took a while to straighten out what happened, perhaps
    because the media had shone such a bright spotlight on the case.
    
    Pam

    
    Karen, thanks so much for posting the article here. AND in Blacknotes.
    I think it sends racist ticklers to those quick to ignore racism and
    sexist ticklers to those quick to ignore sexism. Such incidents occur
    frequently in both Valuing Difference conferences, and rather than
    pointing them out, its nice to see it done by an articulate third
    party.
    
    If I thought it would make a difference to post it in Mennotes and
    Soapbox, I would advocate such as well.
    
    It is a lonely road to try to watch groups aware of one -ism ignore the
    other. It is a harder road still to be the messenger.  I think about
    the quote from the civil rights movement that the only position in
    which women will do any good is prone, and I want to scream. But I see
    strong feminists buying into the "Willie Horton" syndrome almost as
    frequently.
    
    I read recently that we need to stop asking if x was racist or y was
    sexist but simply acknowledge, and PUBLICLY RECOGNIZE that sexism and
    racism are ingrained in our culture, and in each of us as individuals.
    Only then can we really address it.
    
    We sympathize with the alcoholic who cannot admit to the disease. But
    how many of us want to admit to our own racism, our own sexism, our own
    homophobia? Not many. But these are part of American culture, they are
    learned from the beginning days of our socialization. They flash across
    our screens, our billboards, blare on our radios, show up on our
    newspaper headlines, get taught in our school texts and churches as
    well as by our parents, slip off the tongues of our elected officials
    and end up coming out of the mouths of babes.
    
    Every American: black, white, red, yellow, brown, male, female,
    (including me!) who claims NOT to have any sexist or racist tendencies,
    is probably not being honest, or maybe just not aware. Its only when
    you recognize that the problem not only affects you, but INCLUDES you,
    that you and I and all of us, can start to eradicate it. 
    

    Hello Pam, how are you!!! :-) 

    re the topic

    I was very sad and angry at the way this topic was treated in here. I 
    was so sad, angry and disturbed that I choose not to reply until today. 
    It continues to disturb me greatly to have to confront the fact that
    many people do not seem to understand what was and is happening in our
    community. I am disturbed because for so long I tried to deny that the
    real reason why I cannot truly align myself with many women is because
    they seem not be to be able to identify discrimination unless it is
    sexism. I shouldn't be too harsh, though, we all have our own issues to
    work. 

    I disagree that the racist connection was not the main story *to  begin
    with.*  Had Charles Stuart not blamed a black man, Mission Hill  would
    not have been ransacked.  Before you complain take a look at the 
    treatment of the Simonis' case.  Had Charles Stuart not blamed a black
    man, this story would have been "just another case of domestic
    violence" which is a problem.  Whites kill whites all the time. Blacks
    kill blacks all the time.  Men kill their wives all the time.  Of late
    the black community has taken stands on whites' killing of black and IT
    makes an issue out of it to raise the consciousness of others. 
    Frankly, left to media's own volition Bensonhurst might have been back
    page news! 

    As it was so eloquently pointed out in the article, not so long ago
    black men were lynched for looking at while women above their knees. 
    Can you imagine being lynched for looking at a man the "wrong  way"?  I
    have a difficult time believing that such deep rooted hatred  and
    racism disappeared overnight!  Take a closer look at death row.  Not
    one white person is sitting on death row for having killed a black
    person.  I don't believe that there is a black person sitting on death
    row for the murder of another black. Yet, blacks are over-represented
    on death row.  I dunno, you tell me what you think their crimes were.  

    Black men are framed many times.  I think it was only last week when a
    black man (I think that it was Alabama - one of those states) was
    finally released from his ten year dance on death row.  He was dancing 
    on death row for the rape of a *white* girl.  After ten years someone
    came forward with information - the janitor did it!  Please note,
    SOMEONE CAME FORWARD.  If I were to tell the police that a black man or
    white man raped me they would probably say that I'm loose anyway and
    wanted it. The police does this to white women too, except when black
    men are the culprits.  I remember in college a black football player
    was accused of raping a white female.  His name was put on the front
    page of the school's newspaper.  He was tried and found innocent, I
    don't know all of the particulars.  He dropped out of school, the
    humiliation was too great.  I wonder, how many white women said they
    were raped by black men and received harassment from the cops? Maybe I
    should refer to the rape topic to read what victims have written. 

    The fact that many of you, from what has been written here, were not 
    able to see that Bennett was about to get the shaft disturbs me!  The 
    issues of race and sex were intertwined.  You were able (in the better
    cases) to see the sexism, but not the racism. 

    Maybe this is the "double-wammy" Lee wrote of a few years or months
    ago.  I know that womannotes is not indicative of the rest of the
    world, or of the rest of the feminist movement.  I read the lite topics
    sometimes.  Women write about men they find attractive, sexy,
    appealing, whatever.  Few black men make it to the list. I might be
    jumping to conclusion when I say that apparently black men aren't
    appealing according to womannoters.  Don't you say that you don't know
    any black men.  You certainly don't know Mel Gibson!

    _karen

Excerpts from various B/Globe articles -> (For those who are several...
hundred/thousand miles from the epi-center of all this ....) 

From, Vol. 237  Jan. 7th of the Boston Globe.
[ Minutes before, a close friend said Micheal Stuart (bro. of the killer) had 
received a phone call on his job (as a Boston firefighter) from his wife 
informing him that Shelly (sister of killer) was going to tell Stuart's mother
what Chuck had done in October. Then Shelly was on the phone with Micheal at 
work to discuss a piece of family business that has been around since Oct.25, 
two days after the murder. Their conversation went roughly as follows:

"We got to tell Ma" Shelly Yandoli said to Micheal Staurt over the phone.

"I don't think she can take it," the brother replied.

 "We have to tell her" said Shelly. "She's not ready for that"-> Micheal Staurt.

They could not have been thinking too clearly(due to panic?) becuase ALL CALLS 
to Boston's firehouses are RECORDED.   ( from page 71 by Mike Barnicle)

From this account it is quite clear that most members of the family knew that
the killer of Carol and Christopher was Chuck Stuart. Since this conversation 
was recorded at a publicly owned firehouse, why was Chuck Stuart not targetted
as the prime suspect ? If he had been arrested earlier a lot of the ugliness of
this case could have been eliminated. Chuck could have been on trial to answer
for his demonic behavior and perhaps he could have told the world something 
about his crime. This could have prevented the rumor mongers from using the
case to inflame hatred among the residents of the city of Boston.
 
  [Carol's baby - Christopher died 17 days after a  c/birth at Bingham/Women's
Hospital. (Classic hypocrisy ?)-> It is a measure of depth of one man - Chuck 
Stuart's icy, calculating, maniacal cruelty that, hours before the infant 
expired, Chuck Stuart asked to be wheeled alongside the child's incubator to say
goodbye. This was during the same period that he (Charles Stuart) was receiving
almost daily phone calls from his girlfriend. Stuart gave the woman his 
telephone credit card. The card was given to her BECUASE she lives with the 
parents and did not want to run 30 - 40 minute conversations on a home phone.
The woman's birthday was Wed. Jan. 3rd. For a gift Chuck Stuart purchased a 
$260.00 brooch. Twenty-four hours later, 7 a.m. ..this man a cunning demon 
capable of fooling nearly everyone around him..hurled himself off the bridge 
into the water below.]  ( M. Barnicle page. 71  Vol. 237 Jan.7th B/Globe)
 
One magazine's report identified the "other woman" as a 22 year-old-tall-blonde
named Deborah Allen a graduate (or so) of Brown University who used to work at
Kakas Fur. Carol was a short, brown haired, brown eyed lawyer.  
            
[ The initial tale was crushing, sickening, and it unleashed fear and fury.
But now the city is reeling from a second and infinitely more devastating jolt.
It was all a horrible hoax. Charles Stuart, far from being the average guy who
had the love of his life snuffed out in random act has emerged as a -
calculating and coldblooded killer of unimaginably evil cunning. Authorities 
said he killed his wife and shot himself to cover up. Stuart spent weeks 
plotting to murder the woman who unfailingly ended their conservation with
"I love you". Reportedly, he even conducted dress rehearsals of at least two
possible scenarios of killing her. 
"In 33 years in the criminal justice field, I have seen some cold and
calculated killers, but I have never seen anything like this" said Paul Leary
the first assistant district attorney. 

Charles Stuart wrote in a letter to his dead wife, read aloud by a friend at her
funeral. "I  Will Never Again Know The Feeling Of Your Hand In Mine, But I Will
          Always Feel You. I Miss You, And I Love You."

Can any of the experts help to explain this ?  Are demonic murderous bigots
like Stuart capable of giving love ? 
Are there several kinds of love ?  How do you determine which kind of love
is around you?  What about the seemingly nice person who's always doing good 
things out of love ? What if there is a hidden motive behind all the good deeds?
   
[ In retrospect, the 13-minute conversation between Charles Stuart and the 
police dispatcher, which transfixed listeners across the nation, now seems to
contain a glaring gap:  -------- Never once does Charles say her name, "Carol". 
Never once is he heard speaking to or trying to comfort his dying wife ]
Did anybody else notice that ? 

If there is a need for healing (in the Boston community) Let It Be !
Some sincerely concerned individuals and groups have already began exploring
the possibilities for reconciliation. Hopefully the hypocrites will stay out of
this so that the sincere ones can get it done !       Example -->
  
[In the aftermath of the bizarre twist of events involving Chuck Stuart, the 
Boston public schools will use the case to teach students about issues like 
unfair stereotyping of racial groups. "Public concern has generated 
extra-ordinary interest in this case and created forums. Issues have been 
questioned and reviewed.." - Joyce Grant deputy superintendent for carriculum,
wrote in a letter to Zone Superintendents, Principals and school administrators.
"The current high level of interest creates an instructional window which  
provides an opportunity to ensure that all Boston public students are 
challenged to be critical thinkers.."  Each school has been asked to develop a
carriculum that uses the Stuart case to address various topics, including racism
...and stereotyping. The schools also will examine the role of the news media 
in helping to perpetuate racial images.   
                                      (By Diego Ribadenneira, B/Globe Jan.13th

Also it has been reported that the parents of Carol have donated a large sum
of money to set up a Scholarship Fund for college-bound students  from the
Mission Hill High School. An article by Matthew Brelis stated:

[In a effort to heal wounds suffered after her  murder, the family of
Carol DiMaiti Stuart announced that they were forming a foundation in her memory
to grant scholarships to college bound students from the Mission Hill community.
  The non-profit foundation, established *also to promote better race relations
in the city, was announced at a news conference in which Carol's father Giusto
DiMaiti spoke publicly for the first time since his daughter's murder Oct.23'89]
    (From page 1 of Vol. 237 #26 of the Boston Globe)
 

If the  "experts" who handled the shooting of Carol and Christopher were
informed & relatively objective thinkers, they could have seen thru' the
venomous concoction of chuck stuart. But they were so blinded by their own
deep seated stereotypical view of "them" they drank the last drop of spite that
chuck had concocted for all of us. Should we keep drinking from the cup of 
degrading ethnic/gender/race stereotypes? Cuz It's fun and it tastes great too ?
  
Re: >> Should city officials & police apologize? >>  It is unnecessary !
"It will be like plunging a knife in the back of a neighbor, pulling the bloody
knife and saying: "Did it hurt ? - If it did then I'am sorry.." 

    Karen, I think you're correct about the fact that in this community
    we're generally much quicker to see sexism than racism.  But I'm not
    sure that we're doing it deliberately, I think it's more a case that
    the vast majority of us are white, not black or latina, and so we're on
    the delivery end of racism rather than the receiving end.  Which is
    lots better for us than for you, but it still sucks.
    
    How many women of color do we have in our community?  I don't know, but
    it isn't many, and we almost never get the benefit of hearing about
    something from a non-white perspective.  I personally would welcome
    having my eyes opened, but I can't *expect* you to educate me and it's
    hard for me to do it by myself; I work on it, and sometimes I get it...
    but other times I miss badly.  
    
    In the Stuart case I was horrified by what seemed in the confusion of
    the moment to have been an utterly random, senseless, and vicious
    attack.  The fact that it was a black man who allegedly committed it
    was immaterial to me:  I focussed exclusively on the terrorist nature
    of what appeared to have happened.  I certainly didn't *question* the
    allegation, because it seemed to me just as likely for a black man to
    do it as a white.  But that may be racism at work, since I *would* have
    found it odd had the attacker been said to have been asian, and I would
    immediately have thought "drugs" had the allegation been against a
    latino.  I don't know what to do about that, because those reactions
    seem to come from my experience of the world rather than being the
    product of inter-group fears and hatreds.
    
    Would we as a community have been better off if you had spoken out
    about this case from the first, Karen?
    
    						=maggie

    I am having a tough time with my personal assumptions about how I
    perceived what happened.  The media account of what happened and all of
    the other media stories about the violence in the black community led
    me to assume that a black man killed a white woman and wounded her 
    husband.  It was a very easy thing for me to accept this story.
    
    Now I am questioning my belief system.  Am I somewhat racist?  I have
    always felt that I am not.  I guess I am trying to understand why I
    come to certain conclusions.  Is it because of the media or is it my
    personal assumptions I have about situations.
    
    Denise
    

    
    Denise, I submit the following as something to think about.
    
    Within the doctrine of the Buddhism which I practice is the concept of
    disregarding "fault" as irrelevant, but choosing to take
    "responsibility" instead. To most Westerners, its quite a comfort to be
    told that you don't have to feel guilty. But that does not divest you
    of responsibility for a given position or situation.
    
    In the context of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, I do not bring these
    things up to make people feel guilty. I do not BLAME people for being
    racist, sexist, homophobic. I do not point, and say "its your fault".
    But its there, nonetheless. And each individual needs to be responsible
    for his or her sexism/racism/homophobia. Without guilt, but with full
    positive intent to commit to change.
    
    There are probably a lot of people who would rather sit back and feel
    guilty. And even more people trying to prove that they are NOT guilty.
    But in the long run, its a sissy way out of a major problem in this 
    country. 
    
    If we sat back and waited for the guilty originators of the -isms to
    come forth, we'd grow old, turn grey and die before they rose from
    their graves to answer. And the institutions which simply perpetuate
    the -isms would simply continue, and continue to affect and shape each
    of us, UNCHALLENGED.
    
    I think the saddest thing I face is the scores of people who say: "its
    not my fault, why should I do anything? Why should I care." There's a
    great deal of truth to the old (by my standards) saying: If you're not
    part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
    
  >  Now I am questioning my belief system.  Am I somewhat racist?  I have
  >  always felt that I am not.  I guess I am trying to understand why I
  >  come to certain conclusions.  Is it because of the media or is it my
  >  personal assumptions I have about situations.
    
    A positive step is to ask yourself if you've been manipulated by the
    media. And if you think that the answer is yes, work toward questioning
    how things are reported. Everyone taking a step to break the cycle of
    self-fulfilling media prophecy is a good thing. One of these days, we
    will all be human beings with lives of equal value, instead of as we
    are now, differentiated by race, ethnicity and gender. But its
    something that each of us within the nation must want, before it can
    happen.

    I've been thinking about this case a lot.  I'm one of the women who pointed 
    out that the issue of sexism seemed to be largely missing from the 
    analysis of this case, but I never meant that we shouldn't also consider 
    the racism.
    
    When I first heard of the shootings, I must say that I believed the
    intial news reports that a black man had robbed and then shot the
    Stuarts.  When I heard that they had brought Mr. Bennett in for 
    questioning, I was very skeptical.  I knew that the police had turned
    Mission Hill upside down looking for the killer, and I was angry about it.
    I felt that the police were only responding so seriously because it had
    been (they thought) a black on white crime, and in my heart, I believe 
    that they would never have dedicated those resources to "solving" a crime 
    if the victims had been black -- no matter who the alleged perpetrator 
    had been.
    
    So I was already aware of the racism in the police dept. and in the Mayor's 
    office before the "truth" came out.  I still hadn't doubted the initial 
    story that the perpetrator was black, but I figured that the police had
    no idea who had done it but that they were sure as heck going to find
    some black man to "try" and "hang."
    
    When it was revealed that Charles Stuart (and not some stranger) was the
    probably killer, I felt a lot of what's already been described here and
    in the media.  I felt that the racism of public officials and my own
    racism (and our collective racism) had been manipulated to hide the 
    horrible crime that Stuart had committed.  I see two major differences, 
    though, between my reaction and the reactions that I've heard
    from other people.  
    First of all, I was already aware of and angry about (what I was sure
    was) the complete disregard of the rights of all the residents of 
    Mission Hill.  I imagined police officers bashing in doors and heads 
    until someone finally told them what they wanted to hear.  Even when I 
    believed the story Stuart told about the perpetrator being black, I 
    doubted Stuart's ability to identify the man in a line-up, and I was
    quite certain that they *could* have the wrong guy, and I worried about
    his ability to get a fair trial.  It seems to me that when it turned
    out that Stuart was probably the murdererer, that's when (in my opinion
    based on a tiny sample) most people started to feel that the police
    department's handling of the case had been influenced by racism.  
    In other words, when it turned out that the murderer wasn't black, that's 
    when (it seems) a lot of people started to feel bad about how the police 
    treated the folks on Mission Hill.  I say that the police showed total 
    disregard for the rights of the people of Mission Hill -- and I would 
    still feel this way even if the murderer had been black and lived there.  
    I don't see anyone tearing up the suburban town of Reading, trying to find 
    out if anyone had ever heard Charles Stuart threaten his wife or there had 
    been other accomplices.
    The other way that I feel my reaction is different from what I've heard
    from most other people is that I'm also troubled by the hatred of women
    I see both in this crime and in many of our reactions to it.  I pointed out
    somewhere else in this file that it seems that when we found out that Stuart
    had probably killed his wife, we all breathed a sigh of relief that it
    wasn't a racial incident.  By that, I mean that the murder wasn't a
    racial incident -- certainly the Police dept's handling of the crime and
    our collective reactions to it have racial implications.  But it seemed
    that we were all horrified to think that it might not be safe for a young
    white couple to drive home after performing that most sacred of activities
    -- bringing a (white) baby into the world.  It seemed there couldn't
    be a more terrible thing than to have a young, white, professional woman 
    and her baby killed and her husband seriously injured when they weren't
    doing anything wrong.  They weren't walking home late from a bar or a 
    concert or buying drugs.  They were on their way home from a birthing 
    class.  How could it be, we thought?  And our hearts went out to them.
    And.. some of us were angry at this unknown, black man, because when (we
    thought) he killed that woman and her baby, he made us all remember how
    afraid we feel.
    
    But how can it be that when we found out this woman was killed by her
    husband that we stopped being afraid?  Why when we found out it was
    _just_ a case of domestic violence did our attention turn (I think 
    completely) away from Carol Stuart and onto the police department's and 
    the Mayor's racism?  Certainly, we need to look at racism.  And those of 
    us who live or know people who live in and around Mission Hill can feel 
    some relief that there isn't some kind of murderer-of-unsuspecting-people
    out there, but we cannot forget Carol and the countless women like her.
    If we'd known from the start that this was _only_ a wife murder, we might 
    not be talking about it at all.  It probably wouldn't have made page 1, 
    and the mayor probably wouldn't have gone to her funeral.
    
    Women in this country are beaten and killed every day by men they know 
    and trust.  It is dangerous to be a woman, more dangerous, I submit,
    than it is to drive or walk around Mission Hill.  Police come late
    when women call.  Police don't want to arrest husbands... and yet
    they think nothing of dedicating all kinds of resources to hunting
    down a black man (who turned out to be fictitious, but that didn't stop
    them from "finding" him).  I dare say that a black man's assault of
    a white woman is only important because it hurts white men, and it becomes
    a public crisis, because we all have an investment in protecting what's 
    important to white men.  When it's the white man who assaults or kills 
    the woman, we say it's private.  Maybe we should start a quilt with panels 
    to commemorate all the women who have died from male violence.
    
    Justine

    
    Aha!  I went back to thinking when I first heard the news...all I heard
    was that a woman who was pregnant was shot in the head from her
    birthing class - my first immediate reaction was that her husband did
    it.
    
    then i found out he was also shot and in critical condition....my
    reaction was how could *ANYONE* do such a thing....race never entered
    my mind even tho they said the man was black....I still can't imagine
    how anyone could do this no matter what color they are.  But I guess
    what anger I felt was it seems its always a MAN....you read more about
    men doing these things than you do woman.  I know that woman kill their
    husbands but it's usually because they are being beaten not because
    they are thinking about $ signs....so I guess I am prejudice because
    I'm more surprised when I hear about a woman committing a brutal crime
    than I am when a man does it.....
    
    ****bobbi
    
    

    
    RE: Note 927.69 by DECSIM::RETINA
    
    
    To say the least: PROFOUND !

    They are keeping this quite now - I wonder who really killed
    Carol Stewart?  I find it hard to believe that Charles did it.
    Of course, this is just my opinion.
    
    Betty
    

    Re: Note 927.71 by DEMING::COULOMBE 
    
    >> Stewart again >>
    
    
    Which "Stewart" are you talking about ?
    Who's saying "Charles did it"  ?

re: .72

There have been some rumors circulating lately that the grand jury is going to
return an indictment charging one or more of the brothers with murdering both
stuarts, or with murdering Carol, persuading Charles to help cover up, and
then hounding him to death, or something like that -- not a thing official,
just the same kind of unfounded meanderings, maunderings, and speculation
(to boost ratings?) that got the whole thing started in the first place.

--bonnie

    RE:73
    
    >> persuading Charles ===>(Chuck Stuart?) to help cover...>>
    
    I thought chuck stuart was the guy with the stomach wounds.
    Why cover for his brother/s for shooting him and his pregnant wife?
    Why did chuck(charles?) stuart describe and "identify" a non-caucasian
    as the possible "killer" when all his biological brothers are caucasians?
    Why didn't he choose Revere - his hometown as the stage for all this
    drama ?  BTW: Is someone being paid to fabricate new theories & rumors ? 

re: .74

I haven't got the foggiest idea what the answer to any of your questions
might be, except the last one.  Yes, there are people being paid to 
think up these rumors/speculations -- the so-called journalists who
work for the local newspapers and TV stations.

--bonnie