Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I don't have any "words of wisdom" for you, but let me say that I too,
    feel the same way you do...I am so disturbed by the parole that I find it
    difficult to discuss.
    
    If someone else has those words of wisdom, please share them with us.
    
    -Dotti.

Will he have this tight supervision for the rest of his life?  

Can you imagine having the job of *living* with and supervising this
man?

Carla

    I don't intend to excuse this man's crime, just to clarify what
    happened.
    
    He wasn't a chronic child abuser and his intent wasn't to
    disfigure his child for life -- it was a botched murder-suicide. 
    He wanted to kill himself and the child so they wouldn't be
    separated, set the fire that was supposed to painlessly kill his
    son, and kill himself.  He chickened out soon enough to save the
    child's life but not to prevent the serious injuries.
    
    Yes, this abuse and yes, the man deserves to be severly punished,
    but he's not quite the ghoul the news reports have made him sound.
    
    --bonnie 

Herb, what was the fluke?  What happened that would allow this man out?
It seems bizarre to me that they would let someone out that they felt was
dangerous enough to require 24 hour surveillence.  Why did they accept his
parole??

No words of wisdome here...I heard this yesterday on the radio on my way
in to work, along with *what* he tried to do to his son, and was almost sick.

D!

    It's an instance like this that makes me wonder what the difference
    is between intent to murder, and murder. If this little boy hadn't
    had the "luck" to survive, his father would have been charged with
    murder and a longer prison sentence. 
    
    Diane

    A *fire* that would *painlessly* kill his kid, Bonnie???  I find it
    incredible that anyone could be so ignorant as to even think that a
    possibility!  That *really* sounds bogus!
    
    						=maggie

    He drugged the kid with barbituates before he set the fire,
    maggie.
    
    --bonnie

    Still sounds bogus, doesn't it t'you?  I mean, anybody who'd set out to
    do something like that to begin with isn't in too good a shape
    cognitively, but I find it incredible that he could have, and
    administer, enough barbs to render the kid unconscious and *not* have
    enough, or be willing to administer enough, to just kill the kid that
    way.  It just stinks, unless there's more to it than is revealed here.

    That was my best memory of what CNN read from the court records --
    the sentencing record, I think, that has the official statement of
    the crime.  I don't remember if there was a trial -- I think he
    just plead guilty.  

    I can't say whether it sounds bogus or not, since you and I are
    rational people who are thinking clearly, and this guy is clearly
    not firing on all cylinders . . . perhaps he did intend the
    drugs to kill the child, and the fire to simply cover up.  

    I don't think this excuses him one iota.  I think someone who
    intended to murder someone, and had the victim saved by no action
    of his own, ought to be guilty of murder, not attempted murder. 
    Mabye that's the loophole that was changed.
    
    --bonnie

    [no there is no justice if you're a child in America]
    
    Well, what I heard is that he got off with only 6.5 years of prison
    due to 'good behavior' (did someone take his matches away? sorry,
    but I am really ticked off...)
    
    This was a movie for TV, and they way they showed it is said,
    'if he can't have the child then no one will', drugged him,
    threw kerosene all over him and the room, lit the match, and
    *left*.  He decided, I guess at the last minute, that he
    couldn't do it.  I don't remember him trying to save the boy
    though, even though he managed to save himself.
    
    I also heard it's going to cost $200K a year to watch this
    guy.
    
    sigh.
    maia
    

     I'm sorry Bonnie, I don't buy because he tried to kill HUMANLY are 
you saying (by using drugs before the burning) that he is not half the 
ghoul that the press is making him out to be?  Wow.  This does not ease
my troubled mind about this.  I guess that answers my questions as to 
why he's out on parole....somebody must have believed as you do - well,
he really didn't mean it - and geez, he saved the kids life!  

     I'm sorry to be sarcastic - but, I just CAN'T side with him one
tiny bit.

k
  

    re .4
    
    This person is pond scum.  If he is not dealing with a full deck
    then he should be in a mental hospital,  I don't care what he loaded
    the child up with, he is a monster.  I also don't care what facts
    are accurate and what is not, I saw the boy on tv, what he has gone
    through and what he is still going through is inhuman.  One look
    at that boy and you can see his pain, suffering and fear.

    I'M NOT SIDING WITH HIM EITHER!  HE DID NOT SAVE THE KID'S LIFE. 
    
    Sorry to shout, but I thought I said that plainly in the last
    note.  I have this unfortunate addiction to doing my best to base
    my judgements on facts, not on made-for-TV movies.  He's out on
    parole because under California law at the time of the crime, they
    had no other choice -- "good behavior" is the default.  You're
    presumed to have good behavior unless your record has specific
    demerits of bad behavior entered in it.  The child survived so the
    worst he could be jailed for was attempted murder. 
    
    When I said he wasn't such a ghoul as the press made him out, I
    meant that he hadn't been previously abusing the child, and the
    attempted murder wasn't part of an abusive situation.   He's an
    ordinary, garden variety murderer who got lucky, or unlucky,
    depending on your perspective, and had his victim survive.  I
    guess I'm comparing him to the guy in Maine who, at about the same
    time, punished his two-year-old by 
    
    (warning, what follows formfeed is real bad . . . )
    
    
    putting her in a hot oven for ten minutes.  She survived the first
    three times.  That's ghoulish.
    
    --bonnie

I apologize, Bonnie.  I hope that I haven't affended you badly.  I let 
my emotions get carried away.  Thank you for remaining objective and 
giving us the facts.  I am now doubly sick with your last line - that
goes beyond comprehension.

kim

Bonnie,

I think that is the most disgusting thing I have ever read in here.
Thanks for the form-feed...unfortunately, I am pretty cocky about what
I can take.  That was one I shouldn't have read.

Boy, lost my appetite quick.

*sigh*

rhetorical question:
WHY DO PEOPLE DO THESE THINGS????  HOW DO SUCH HORRIBLE< AWFUL< EVIL PEOPLE
COME INTO EXISTENCE????  

ARRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!

Ahem.  Excuse me.  Just had to get that out, meaningless though it was,
it makes me feel better.  (Though I think I scared my boss in the next
cubby over.)

D!

    Apology accepted -- I'm not offended any more.  
    
    I can appreciate how something this awful, this tragic, can blur
    logic and objectivity.  Maybe it's better to be angry and
    disgusted than to sit here and say "Facts, facts."  
    
    And I suppose that, as awful as this case is, some good did come
    of it if the law's been changed so that this sort of travesty of
    justice can't happen again.  
    
    Maybe the appropriate direction for our disgust and anger isn't to
    rail on about the injustice but rather to look at our own states
    and find out what would happen if he had committed the same crime
    in Boston or Chicago, and work to change the laws and procedures
    for the future instead of waiting for some tragedy in our own
    states. 
    
    --bonnie

    
Good suggestion, Bonnie.  Thanks.

kim

    Was wondering if there was a topic in here discussing people who
    do horrible things to other people?  I'd ramble on this note, but
    it doesn't seem to be the correct one, and the question of why people
    DO these things to other people brought up a couple notes back got
    my mind a-thinking.
    
    ---kim

    I am just responding to one of the replys.  (I'm not sure which
    one).  This man will not have 24-hour supervision all his life.
    That protection/supervision only lasts THREE years.  
    
    What will the boy do then?
    
    

    
    
    I read where it is costing the state $18,000/month to supervise
    this animal.  I remember when this happened, the poor little boy
    had to have his fingers amputated.  He has had numerous surgeories
    with more to follow.  
    
    While driving to work the other morning someone called in with a
    good cost savings for the state, she said why not just give him
    some drano, it's only pennies a cupful.  
    
    I agree -

    Is the 24-hour supervision to protect the boy, or is it
    to protect the father? I had heard it was to protect the
    father....
    
    Kathy

        The San Jose Mercury had an article on the situation, but my old
    papers are at work and not here at home.  I'll look for the article on
    Monday and type in the relevant facts.  Here are some of the details I
    remember.
    
    1. The father is fitted with an electronic tracking device on his
       ankle.
    
    2. The father must check in via phone every x time periods to have his
       voice checked against a voiceprint.
    
    3. The father is not allowed within 25 miles of the boy.
    
    4. The father is not allowed within Orange County, where the boy lives.
    
    Tony

    
    This whole story sickens me as well, and last night on the program
    "The Reporters" they had a segment on this story.  They interviewed
    the father before his release and he said he wouldn't try to see
    his son, even though he wanted to.  I also can't comprehend why
    there is so much evil in this world, and why there is so much
    suffering.  Why should they want to protect this monster, he should
    feel the wrath of his actions, and the public's cry is already saying
    we don't want him here, just like Larry Singleton, he was chasted
    out of 16 cities until he ended up back at the prision for his own
    saftety.  This guy will be faced with the same opposition because
    the people don't want him anywhere but behind bars where he belongs!!
    
    My heart goes out to David and his mother for their endurance, and
    courage!!
    
    K

 Justice was not served in this case. I do not believe that justice is reachable
in this world. However, this does not excuse for a single moment the fact that
the system failed.

 The system is supposed to deter acts of this nature, and, failing that, to
punish those who do perform acts of this nature and *prevent recurrence*.

 I am a believer in "make the punishment fit the crime." The punishment in
this case is woefully inadequate due to the limitations of the law in 
California. While a catalyst for legal change, this case itself remains
unresolved. The child fears for his life. The father gets out on parole and
gets a bodyguard. This is not right.

 First of all, the "raison d'�tre" for the chaperone is ostensibly to protect 
the child from his father. In that case, why not give the bodyguard to the 
child, possibly allowing some concerned citizens to have the opportunity to
become objects of moralist's scorn by at least preventing this action from
ever occurring at the hand of that person.

 The Doctah

     re.18
    
    Hopefully someone will see fit to be as kind and mercifull to him
    as he was to his son, then we won't have to worry about what happens
    after three years.

        I wasn't able to find the article again.  If I find it in further
    searchs I'll post information here.
    
    Tony

    I was horrorfied when I saw that poor little boy on the news.  Because
    of his "loving" father, he suffered unbelievable agonies, disfigurement
    and mental torment when he should have been out playing baseball or
    riding his bike with friends.
    
    I don't care what the father's reasons were for what he did....it was
    wrong.  That poor child will carry the horror of his father's actions
    with him for the rest of his life.
    
    It really does make you wonder about our justice system as well as the
    human race in general.
    
    Nancy

    
    
    	Well, it looks like we are all in agreement. Justice did
    	indeed have her blindfold firmly in place when this happened.
    	Lets see now. We had the "witch burnings" in the colonial
    	days. Yep, start a rumor, get rid of someone who had something
    	you wanted. We had the infamous lists of the McCarthy era.
    	Name a name and again, get rid of someone neatly and cleanly.
    	How about Charles Manson? He showed a bunch of people an
    	exciting time didn't he?  Too bad they can't reciprocate.
    	I doubt that even today, he thinks he did anything wrong.
    	Bad boy. We sent him to his room.
    
    	I was talking with a friend who is an attorney. He has been
    	a judge, prosecutor and defending attorney. He is firmly convinced
    	that if he needs to defend someone, they have a much better chance
    	of coming out okay if they are ACTUALLY GUILTY of something.
    	In his experience, if you are innocent there is nothing to defend.
    	The burden of proof is, however, on you no matter what is said
    	about it being the other way around. Guilt can always be explained
    	away by "I was suffering from <fill in the blank> and I couldn't
    	help it.", "I don't remember...", "I did it for love...", etc.
    
    	We see this stuff happen every day. We grouse about it, rail
    	against it and even fear it. The innocents, the victims suffer.
    	They pay. Sometimes (too often) for the rest of their lives.
    	They try to pull out of dreams in the night where they relive
    	the crime, they sweat, the heart pounds and they are screaming
    	only things they can hear in their own heads. And with any luck,
    	there will be someone there to wake them before the reality of
    	it becomes too much to bear. The elderly lose their life savings.
    	They become destitute cause someone needing money saw them as a
    	bank. Women, children are assaulted for a variety of "reasons". 
    	Naming those reasons is only a formality cause the courts want
    	a justification.
    
    	So, how do we change it?  Are we so powerless?  Is our society
    	so big and do we feel so little that we cannot take the time
    	to write a senator, a congressperson?  Are we so insignificant
    	and is the political machine so large that we cannot become a
    	part of it and say "HEY! OVER HERE! I have something to say
    	and I want you to listen!"  And don't just accept a polite but
    	patronizing listen. Start watching. Who listens and who acts?
    	Who votes? Who runs for office?  I was born and I will die.
    	But will I make a difference through what I do between those
    	events? I might leave some tiny footprints in the universe but
    	I'm gonna place them carefully. If I can keep one kid from getting
    	damaged, one old person from being lonely, help one person to
    	get closer to being happy, I'm gonna do it. If I can do more
    	than that, I'll feel like I'm accomplishing something. 
    
    	So, sorry I got on a roll there, but justice is important
    	to me and I want to see it happen. We need to WORK our
    	guts out to make it happen. It's gonna be tricky. Justice
    	has that blindfold but she has her scales too. We need to
    	work to keep them balanced. Not swung too far one way or
    	the other. Not an easy goal is it?  We better get started.
    
    							kim