(I was originally going to ask sndrake about this in his thread, but decided it would derail his topic, so I'm making a new post)
Why, in all the media accounts of this, does it seem like they are making the man's "desperate financial condition" as an excuse for murder? Almost like they are saying it is a mercy killing, but they aren't saying that. But they definitely seem to be trying to make people feel a bit sorry for the poor man who couldn't support his wife any longer.
And why is he only charge with second degree? Seems to me it sounds like he thought about this before throwing her over. It wasn't in a fit of rage or knee-jerk reaction.
(I linked to Fox, but other news agencies, CNN, etc. all have the same take on the story)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: (I linked to Fox, but other news agencies, CNN, etc. all have the same take on the story)
That's because they all seem to just be using the AP feed verbatim. The Kansas City Star's story has a few additional details.
I don't read them as saying that the financial situation is an excuse; I read them as saying it is a clear motive.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Wow -- rivka, did you read the reader "comments" at the bottom of the Kansas City link you gave (where article readers can post their reaction?) Most of them seem to think this was "understandable" and a "mercy killing".
And I still don't understand why it isn't first degree. Maybe Dag can enlightened me if he has any idea from a legal perspective.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: Wow -- rivka, did you read the reader "comments" at the bottom of the Kansas City link you gave (where article readers can post their reaction?)
No. And I'm not going to. I have found that the "comments" sections on most articles are filled with idiots, and it is far better for my blood pressure that I not read them. Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
I think what this man did was reprehensible, but there is a part of me that hopes this shines even more light on our utterly ridiculous and callous health care system. Most personal bankrupcies are caused by medical bills, and I'm sure a hugely significant sum of people in the U.S. could never pay their way back from cancer.
Sick, saddening, story. I would also like to hear Dag's explanation.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I'm withholding a reaction until I hear more. This story reeks of missing info.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The article on CNN agrees with the link.
I'm becoming more and more in favor with a different way of paying for healthcare.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From the Missouri state code: "A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if he knowingly causes the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter." The minimum sentence is life without parole.
I can think of a couple of reasons not to charge it. First, it will be hard to proved deliberation here, and doing so will require introducing evidence of the wife's illness. It's possible the prosecutor does not want to introduce such evidence, in order to reduce the impression of a mercy killing. There are also certain procedural requirements attached to first degree murder that the prosecutor may wish to avoid.
Second degree is a very serious crime - he's not getting off lightly.
Finally, fit of rage and knee-jerk reaction describe voluntary manslaughter more than second degree murder.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What a tragic waste of two lives, and so needless. Reading the description of his wife's condition really made me sad. I can see how this might be a case of 2nd degree murder. It might be a bit difficult to prove that is was premeditated, just going by my gut that does not seem to be the case. I'd be very interested in seeing how long he tried to pay such high medical bills.
I honestly hope he gets ALL the help he needs, including the counseling he will need to help him come to grips with just what he has done.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But Dag (and, of course, I'm only going by my limited exposure to the courts) - my understanding is that with first degree definition, the "after deliberation" doesn't have to be any specific AMOUNT of time. In other words, even if it was only "deliberated" for about 30 seconds, it can still be considered pre-meditated.
But your other reason makes more sense, and I can see that from the prosecutor's point of view.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But Dag (and, of course, I'm only going by my limited exposure to the courts) - my understanding is that with first degree definition, the "after deliberation" doesn't have to be any specific AMOUNT of time. In other words, even if it was only "deliberated" for about 30 seconds, it can still be considered pre-meditated.
But it still has to be proven - here he used a method that involved very little preparation.
Posted by Zevlag (Member # 1405) on :
Does this remind anybody of Poke like it does me?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Hadn't occurred to me at all, Josh. But now that you mention it.....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not really, this remind me more of Petra towards the end of Ender's Game. But even more like (I can't believe I'm going to say this because it's the plot of a billion movies but I couldn't think of anything else) Vertical Limit, where Bill Paxton injects oxygen into the guide, killing him, so that he won't use up the adrenaline they would need to survive. The guide was perceived to be a lost cause.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I can't say I don't care about this. It's horrible, her situation was horrible, her murder is horrible. But. Somehow I am always less shocked when a husband does something like this than when a doctor or nurse does.
Husbands are sworn to protect, love, and cherish their wives (usually), but they live in a world where people seem to take marital vows very lightly much of the time. And somehow it's easier to think that someone sworn to love one woman went bad than it is to contemplate someone sworn to preserve and protect all life that comes under their care going bad. I am not sure why. Horrifying and bad as this is, as much as it bothers me, it doesn't quite bother me as much as the other story. Maybe because we just see so many spousal killings? It's a very sad reflection when I begin to think about it.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I just can't believe he felt he had NO other options. (not that he said anywhere that it was his only option. I'm just commenting on the "deperate" statement)
I mean, in a world with so many governmental and community social programs, agencies of help, bankruptcy options, etc. etc. -- he chose killing her as his option of choice?
That's why it smacks of just regular murder to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: I just can't believe he felt he had NO other options. (not that he said anywhere that it was his only option. I'm just commenting on the "deperate" statement)
I mean, in a world with so many governmental and community social programs, agencies of help, bankruptcy options, etc. etc. -- he chose killing her as his option of choice?
That's why it smacks of just regular murder to me.
The article does not begin to dabble in what programs he might have signed up for, what lengths he went to solve the situation. Nor does it discuss his awareness of such programs.
Until I know those things I'm just not willing to call a black looking shape a spade.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
This is such an Agatha Christie plot.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: The article does not begin to dabble in what programs he might have signed up for, what lengths he went to solve the situation. Nor does it discuss his awareness of such programs.Until I know those things I'm just not willing to call a black looking shape a spade.
Fair enough, BlackBlade..
..but does that mean that if there was "reasonable explanation" of some sort through details, there would be a way, at some point, you personally would consider this man's choice to be justifiable?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I guess this is a weird thing to wonder, but I'm wondering if it wasn't the wife's idea somehow. I guess that's just my reaction because the first thing he said to the cops was "She didn't jump." It made me wonder if they were religious and thought suicide was a terrible sin.
-pH
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't know that it could ever be justifiable, but isn't there a point somewhere between justifiable and totally evil, like mitigating circumstances that led to his bad choices?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
And pH has a good point that just knocked my previous addendum of "Not that he shouldn't be punished the same but that we might have more pity for him" out of his head.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zevlag: Does this remind anybody of Poke like it does me?
That was my first thought upon reading the title.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, personally, I don't see much difference, really, between this and the thread of sndrake's about the doctor "hastening the death" of the organ donor.
In each case, one person is hastening the death of another for their own reasons. So just because it's a spouse instead of a doctor, it is more understandable?
Again, I agree with BlackBlade that there is much we DON'T know about this incident. But I can't think of any reasoning that would justify it in my mind.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:In each case, one person is hastening the death of another for their own reasons. So just because it's a spouse instead of a doctor, it is more understandable?
Not more understandable, but to me, perhaps (sadly) more expected.
And pH's scenario is one I can think of that would definitely qualify it as NOT first-degree murder (or at least, should not be tried that way) to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl:
quote: The article does not begin to dabble in what programs he might have signed up for, what lengths he went to solve the situation. Nor does it discuss his awareness of such programs.Until I know those things I'm just not willing to call a black looking shape a spade.
Fair enough, BlackBlade..
..but does that mean that if there was "reasonable explanation" of some sort through details, there would be a way, at some point, you personally would consider this man's choice to be justifiable?
Outside the realms of the extreme, no I don't think you could justify it.
What if his wife actually did jump as a means to save her husband from this burden, and to protect her honor he is claiming that he pushed her over?
What if she began climbing over and he rushed over to stop her, tripped and pushed her over? Perhaps he is seizing the technical interpretation of what happened, and insisting that he pushed his wife over, and is convinced she would never have done that to him, it must be his fault?
Maybe he did buckle under the intense pressure and stress, lead her to the balcony, kissed her so she knew he didn't have murder in his heart but survival, that she would be better off dead then suffering alive with him, and pushed her.
Maybe she resisted, maybe she didn't. Either way a woman is dead and a man is going to jail, I just hope the truth is found out and the action needed is taken.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
While those scenarios are unlikely,
quote: her caregiver told them she had numerous health issues and could barely walk. She would have been “physically unable to climb over the railing of the balcony,” the caregiver said, according to the probable-cause statement.
I can agree with giving the benefit of the doubt until evidence is presented in the trial.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: While those scenarios are unlikely,
quote: her caregiver told them she had numerous health issues and could barely walk. She would have been “physically unable to climb over the railing of the balcony,” the caregiver said, according to the probable-cause statement.
I can agree with giving the benefit of the doubt until evidence is presented in the trial.
I did forget about that part. But I can't see the railing nor have I observed the deceased manner before she died.
What is unlikely about the husband and wife agreeing to end her suffering so that the husband could be happy?
Your right it likely could be that everything is as the husband says it is.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:What is unlikely about the husband and wife agreeing to end her suffering so that the husband could be happy?
Because most people don't want to die? Because there is no evidence that she was suicidal? Because that's pathologically selfless of her, considering her life to be worth so little and so much less than her husband's that she'd be happier DEAD rather than him, you know, applying for government assistance.
Because death = bad?
I don't understand why you need to ask the question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Far too many people commit suicide because they are desperate over financial matter to make those scenarios implausible.
Lots of people, in moments of desperation, think death = better than what they have to face.
I think they are wrong, but I have never been that desperate.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Though I've never acted on it, I've definitely had moments where I felt death would be better than what I had to face. I can easily imagine a husband and wife, one of whom is terminally ill and no longer able to afford treatment, breaking down together while thinking about their uncertain, pain-filled future and the healthy spouse either snapping and making a sudden decision, or the ill spouse making a sudden decision to end it and the healthy spouse helping.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:What is unlikely about the husband and wife agreeing to end her suffering so that the husband could be happy?
Would you have been happy with such a resolution?
quote: perhaps (sadly) more expected
That is sad. I can see reserving judgment, but some of these reactions are really, really puzzling to me. I can see exercising your imagination as well, but let's call it that and not argue for how likely your alternate scnenario may be.
People need to learn to ask for help when they have a problem. People have choices. They aren't always pretty choices, but they have them. I hope I always have the choice to not kill someone.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Javert Hugo: Kmbboots pretty much said what I would say in response to your post. And you do not know that they DID apply for governmental assistance and it just was not nearly enough.
I've read heart rending historical accounts where women have killed and eaten their own children to stave off starvation. Where men have killed their wives to live. The US is not a land flowing with milk and honey where all can simply stoop down and take a draught.
I'm not trying to be overly empathetic of the man at the expense of the women's tragedy, but neither am I willing to just point the accusing finger at the man, call him a murderer, and see that he does jail time or dies.
edit:
quote:Would you have been happy with such a resolution?
I doubt this man is happy with the resolution of his decision. But the actual effects not matching the intended ones is hardly something rare in humanity.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Whatever her wishes, it was his choice to throw her over.
*shakes head* No, I'm not sympathetic to that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And people also need to recognize that every person isn't as strong or as well-informed as we are. That they may not have the internal or external resources that we do.
Rather than say that they need to ask for help (from whom anyway?) we should work to make that help more available. A better system of healthcare might have been that help for these people.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
While I might be able to picture a scenario where I personally would perhaps want to take my life (although I'm really not the suicidal type) -- I can NOT imagine any scenario where I would be willing to do that for someone else (spouse, family member) even if they begged me.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think that he had a choice whether or not to throw her over, to forcibly kill his wife. I get that there was a lot of stress, but that...that's really beyond the pale.
quote:But the actual effects not matching the intended ones is hardly something rare in humanity.
You mean he didn't intend to kill her? Or he didn't intend to be caught?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
He must have known he will be charged.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Whatever her wishes, it was his choice to throw her over.
*shakes head* No, I'm not sympathetic to that.
Besides his word that he threw her over, I just can't be 100% sure he in fact did throw her.
You can't be sympathetic to his actions, that's fine, I just hope you can believe I don't think he was right to do what he did, but neither am I quick to judge anyone.
edit:
quote:You mean he didn't intend to kill her? Or he didn't intend to be caught?
I mean maybe he thought this would solve an unacceptable state of misery, or that both of them would be happier with this arrangement. Maybe he did suffer from selfishment and just took matters into his own hands, hoping the problem would just go away when he threw her off.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The center of gravity of a human body is approximately at the height of the belly button. Railings tend to be hip-height. ie Anyone who can drape themselves over a railing can go over the railing: no climbing necessary.
Suicides can't be buried in Catholic cemeteries, and there are other denominations with the same type of rules against suicides receiving funereal rites. Not saying it happened... ...but depending on religious orientation, I would certainly investigate the possibility of suicide with the husband covering up "unforgivable sin" by confessing to murder. Murderers are allowed burial in Catholic/etc cemeteries. Love "side by side for Eternity" could be sufficient motive for a false confession.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Lots of people, in moments of desperation, think death = better than what they have to face.
I've been there. Fortunately(?), it's really really really hard to actually kill yourself. No matter how much you want to. You can have your finger on the trigger or the pills in your mouth and your body won't obey. You could do it if you put your mind somewhere else but it's not exactly the time you want your mind elsewhere. I think this is probably an evolved trait because everyone who found it easy to off themselves did it way back in the evolutionary chain.
I wouldn't be surprised if she asked him to do it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Even more of a reason that it's a problem - even saying she did ask (for which there is NO evidence at all), then as a fellow human being he shouldn't have agreed to it.
quote:Maybe he did suffer from selfishment and just took matters into his own hands, hoping the problem would just go away when he threw her off.
Like a three-year-old? He'd have to be deranged to think that was a good idea.
Maybe he was. It is a tragedy, all around, but this "maybe she was asking for it" rhetoric is a little sickening.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: The center of gravity of a human body is approximately at the height of the belly button. Railings tend to be hip-height. ie Anyone who can drape themselves over a railing can go over the railing: no climbing necessary.
Suicides can't be buried in Catholic cemeteries, and there are other denominations with the same type of rules against suicides receiving funereal rites. Not saying it happened... ...but depending on religious orientation, I would certainly investigate the possibility of suicide with the husband covering up "unforgivable sin" by confessing to murder. Murderers are allowed burial in Catholic/etc cemeteries. Love "side by side for Eternity" could be sufficient motive for a false confession.
This is definitely what I thought of, as kq mentioned. And although a woman's center of gravity is lower than a man's, she wouldn't necessarily have to climb over the railing to fall to her death. You'd think that they'd be able to somehow show her trajectory or something...
Anyways, I think the assisted suicide-ish angle is the most likely one. Personally, I find that possibility less sickening than simply murdering one's spouse.
-pH
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Why is it the most likely one? Because it is the most palatable?
I agree that it's a more comforting scenario than a husband tossing his sick and protesting wife over the balconey because he was overwhelmed by money demands, but I see no reason for it being a more likely scenario.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Because I have a hard time with the idea that a husband who'd helped his wife deal with all these issues for a while would just suddenly kill her in cold blood. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Then again, I generally expect people to behave better than they actually do.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Suicides can't be buried in Catholic cemeteries, and there are other denominations with the same type of rules against suicides receiving funereal rites. Not saying it happened... ...but depending on religious orientation, I would certainly investigate the possibility of suicide with the husband covering up "unforgivable sin" by confessing to murder. Murderers are allowed burial in Catholic/etc cemeteries. Love "side by side for Eternity" could be sufficient motive for a false confession.
Since popular perception is still that there is an absolute prohibition, that could still be a motive to lie about a suicide.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
I can think of situations where I would want someone I have absolute trust in to end my life if I was physically incapable of doing it myself. Then again, I would make sure they wouldn't risk spending the rest of their life in prison for doing so.
Death = bad, but there are many worse things in the world (in my opinion of course).
I'm with the "wait for more information" crowd. Then again, we'll never know what their life prior to this event felt like, nor will we know what was going through the guys head when he did this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Farmgirl: While I might be able to picture a scenario where I personally would perhaps want to take my life (although I'm really not the suicidal type) -- I can NOT imagine any scenario where I would be willing to do that for someone else (spouse, family member) even if they begged me.
What if you were a cheerleader and your family member was about to lose control and blow up New York? Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Not to be unduly light about the subject of murder, but wasn't there a Law and Order or something where the husband killed the wife because she wanted to commit suicide, and committing suicide you couldn't be absolved for but murder you could or something?
It's just sounding so familiar to me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I know there was one where an elderly lady had terminal cancer, and she and her husband decided together to give her a bunch of the medicines in her IV at once so that she could die peacefully.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
If you haven't already, you can expect to soon. It really annoys me when I see the cop dramas using real news stories, like the astronaut kidnapping. Terribly irreverent.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
My father refused treatment for leukemia and took aspirin in an effort to hasten the stroke that he hoped would end his life. It did.
My great aunt asked her husband for assistance to swallow enough pills to be able to die (she couldn't swallow unless someone held up her head for her). He did.
My wife's grandmother mistook my umbrella for a rifle, and asked me to shoot her. Later she took to swearing at her daughter (my mother-in-law) when she told her she didn't want her to die, and screamed for St. Peter to take her.
The "sanctity of life" is what you make it. Disease and old age can be painful enough to cause people to beg for someone to end their life.
This woman was down to 75 lbs and unable to walk. And by the way, most railings on balconies are way higher than "hip-height" even on me, and I'm 6' tall. I doubt this woman could have climbed over the rail given these circumstances.
If it was her idea to have her husband throw her off the balcony, I have no problem with this at all, although I feel sorry for both of them.
If it was his idea and he didn't have her consent, then yeah, he's a murderer.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Whatever her wishes, it was his choice to throw her over.
I didn't see this article until today -- and so I didn't realize the title of this thread was *literal* and not something else. I should have known better.
For all of those who don't want to be quick to judge, I'd ask if you hold yourselve back in other cases in which husbands murder their wives. Or do you just do so in those cases in which the wife is ill or disabled?
I suspect people would *like* to think that somehow most husbands who kill ill or disabled wives are different than the bigger pool of those who commit domestic violence, but there isn't much to support that comfortable belief.
Julie Malphurs and Donna Cohen are two researchers that have studied these situations pretty extensively. The following abstract is pretty typical of their findings overall (note - in most alleged "mercy killings" in couples, it's the male who is the perpetrator).
quote:Objective: Homicide–suicides are rare relative to suicides and homicides, but these lethal events are an emerging public health concern. They have a mortality count similar to meningitis, pulmonary tuberculosis, influenza, and viral hepatitis, and the rate may be increasing in the United States, especially among older persons. The goal of this case–control study was to identify factors that differentiate older married men who commit homicide–suicide from those who commit suicide only.
Methods: A total of 20 spousal homicide–suicides involving persons age 55 years and older were ascertained in Florida between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 1999 from medical examiner records. Two suicide controls were matched to each homicide–suicide perpetrator by age, race, marital status, method of death, and medical examiner district. Perpetrator groups were compared on sociodemographic characteristics, medical variables, and autopsy findings.
Results: Homicide–suicide perpetrators displayed significantly more domestic violence or were caregivers for their wives, in contrast to suicide perpetrators, who had health problems and were receiving care from their spouses. Both groups of perpetrators had reported depressed mood, and there were no differences in sociodemographic factors.
Conclusions: Depression plays a significant role in both homicide–suicide and suicide, but the associated factors are different: we see caregiving strain in perpetrators of homicide–suicide, and living with physical health disorders as a care-recipient in men who commit suicide. Marital conflict is a significant factor in some spousal homicide–suicides.
In other studies, they've noted that many women whose deaths were labeled as "mercy killings" were found to have defensive wounds on autopsy. And caregiving stress is a factor - but the real kicker is that stress combined with a history of domestic violence.
This research isn't well-known. Probably because it messes up what reporters and the public think are perfectly good stories.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Here's another link I found that is apparently an archived news story from a New Zealand newspaper with quotes from Donna Cohen, one of the researchers I referred to:
quote: In many countries, including New Zealand, violent deaths of disabled and sick family members have typically been labeled euthanasia or mercy killings. Professor Cohen, who is based in Florida and has led many of the world’s homicide-suicide studies, says the geriatric Romeo and Juliet scenario is the most poignant and palatable explanation for grieving survivors, and for a society that routinely devalues disabled people and the elderly – except that it’s hardly ever true.
“These are not acts of love. They are not compassionate homicides. They are acts of desperation and depression, other forms of psychopathology, or domestic violence.”
Dr Cohen’s research indicates that older men – who almost always initiate the acts – routinely proceed without their wife’s knowledge or consent. She says true pacts occur in perhaps one half of 1 per cent of elder homicide-suicides.
Of the hundreds of homicide-suicide deaths in the US each year, the rate amongst over 55s is twice that of under 55s. Homicide-suicides now account for about three per cent of all suicides, and about 12 per cent of homicides in the older population.
“One of our most distressing findings is evidence that older women who are killed are not knowing or willing participants,” says Dr Cohen. “Often they are killed in their sleep or shot in the back of the head or chest.”
Her research indicates that about a third of elder homicide-suicides occur in a context of domestic violence, an ugly contrast to the Norman Rockwell image of loving clan matriarch and patriarch.
Most elder homicide-suicides, however, have more to do with poor health. Often one or both partners are in failing health, and typically the husband is supporting a spouse who is chronically ill.
“You’ve got men in long-lived marriages who have typically exercised a certain amount of control and they’re having to care for their wives,” says Dr Cohen. “They’re very task oriented, and this inability to help the wife becomes an interpretation of failure.”
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: A man accused of throwing his ailing wife four stories to her death took her away from her mother's home last month and never brought her back, two of the woman's sisters said. ...
Criste Reimer had been living with her mother for several months and was doing well, said her sisters, Vicki Jones and Terri Metrano.
But in mid-July, they told The Kansas City Star on Thursday, her husband visited the mother's home near Kansas City and said he was taking Criste Reimer to dinner.
[ August 17, 2007, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Farmgirl,
this all begins to look sickeningly familiar.
and it fits right in with the comments from the research I posted earlier.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I wonder what his motives where -- if he wanted rid of her, why not let her stay with her mother?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
They were still married and financially linked. Her medical bills were his medical bills.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
ah. right.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/235445.html gives a slightly fuller picture that would also seem to remove any possible "religious" motivation.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Man. This story was gross enough framed as a mercy killing. I don't understand how anyone can have sympathy for the guy after this new evidence. When you deliberately seek someone out to kill them, that's hard to explain away.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: this all begins to look sickeningly familiar.
Doesn't it?
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
How utterly horrible. Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
Wow. Being on Social Security she should have had some sort of health coverage. If he couldn't handle it he should have sent her back to her mother's and divorced her not thrown her to her death. I just can not wrap my mind around choosing murder over sending her back and divorce. How disturbing.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
You know, I don't think I'm AS shocked at what he did (people murder their spouses all the time, it seems). What I'm primarily shocked at is other people's responses to it.
I mean, (I don't know if it is still there, but it was originally) at the Kansas City Star newspaper link to the story, and also the Wichita one, people could post comments on the article. Many people said things like "well, he did what he had to do". etc. etc.
That type of reasoning just is beyond my comprehension.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Farmgirl,
I think at least part of the answer - in this instance - is that the public's imagination was helped along by sloppy reporting. Notice the image portrayed in the original story, which as has been noted, was an AP story that went just about everywhere:
quote: According to court documents filed Wednesday in Jackson County Circuit Court, Stanley Reimer walked his wife to the balcony of their apartment and kissed her before throwing her over.
This presents both his throwing her and his kissing her as *facts*, rather than statements that Reimer himself made.
Shouldn't that read "Stanley Reimer *says* he walked his wife to the balcony of their apartment and kissed her before throwing her over."???
I have trouble understanding how other people's imaginations work. No matter how many times I picture it, I *cannot* for the life of me picture someone throwing someone over a balcony with a loving and compassionate look on their face - what I see is anger and rage.
Had this woman been healthy and younger, I believe that is what everyone else would see in their heads, too.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Had this woman been healthy and younger, I believe that is what everyone else would see in their heads, too.
Not me...
I don't picture either a loving or compassionate OR an angry look on his face.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Just as I was not willing to take what the husband said at face value, I am also unwilling to subscribe wholesale to what the family of the deceased are saying.
Hopefully forensic evidence combined with the testimonies of all involved will paint a picture that is beyond dispute.
[ August 19, 2007, 11:26 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
This all got unexpectedly personal. Some of Criste Reimer's messages to online groups have been posted elsewhere, all from 1998.
One of the things I knew about Reimer from the news articles is that she had hydrocephalus. Until a few years ago, I had a website on hydrocephalus and got quite a bit of mail through it. (Her parents had rejected doctors' advice to take her out of school due to the severe cognitive disabilities they believed she would have due to her hydrocephalus and neurofibromatosis.)
I checked my email archives using just the first part of the posted email address, since many people keep a favorite screen name even when they switch email services. Sure enough, there was a message from 2002 from a woman signing herself as Criste Reimer.
The content of it suggests we had contact in the past, but it could have been through an email group she asked about how to reconnect with. She was also asking some advice about professionals who were familiar with hydrocephalus.
I am positive I would have responded to her with the contact info for the email group in question and also suggested contacting the Hydrocephalus Association for suggestions in regard to local professionals who could do a good work-up on her.
I won't post the email - here or anywhere. It would feel like invading her privacy. The summary I've posted here is, I think, sufficiently general enough to be noninvasive of her privacy.
Nothing alarming about her health status, her husband or home life. Nothing about her husband at all, really.
Crap - I wish I had a better memory.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Hopefully forensic evidence combined with the testimonies of all involved will paint a picture that is beyond dispute.
I doubt it. There were only two people there, and only one is around to tell his version of the story.
This is one reason why I support legalizing assisted suicide. It would require legal documentation of the deceased's intentions and state of mind. That would effectively prevent using "it was a mercy killing" as a defense in the event of a murder as described above.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I am also unwilling to subscribe wholesale to what the family of the diseased are saying.
I assume you really meant to say "deceased."
How Freudian.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Hopefully forensic evidence combined with the testimonies of all involved will paint a picture that is beyond dispute.
I doubt it. There were only two people there, and only one is around to tell his version of the story.
This is one reason why I support legalizing assisted suicide. It would require legal documentation of the deceased's intentions and state of mind. That would effectively prevent using "it was a mercy killing" as a defense in the event of a murder as described above.
You really ought to have more faith in forensic science. It currently is capable of feats that are nothing short of fantastic. Not only that, forensic science is constantly getting better and better. Sure it isn't perfect, but I would not be surprised if say the prosecution, manages to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the husband did in fact push his wife over the balcony, even if we ignore his admission to so doing.
Rivka: I stopped breast feeding earlier than any of my other siblings Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You really ought to have more faith in forensic science. It currently is capable of feats that are nothing short of fantastic.
You have been watching way too much CSI.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I stopped breast feeding earlier than any of my other siblings
Mkay. What's that got to do with anything?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:This is one reason why I support legalizing assisted suicide. It would require legal documentation of the deceased's intentions and state of mind.
Not really, unless they go through a legal process where they have to deal with an adversarial attorney and psychiatrist, independent of involvement with relatives. Anyway. I just generally don't think it's the government's business to kill people (I don't support the death penalty either.)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think the breastfeeding comment was in response to Freudian slip remark. I refuse to watch CSI because it is just so inaccurate it drives me crazy. I think the question of how shows like CSI effect potential jurors is interesting.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I think the breastfeeding comment was in response to Freudian slip remark.
Yeah, I figured. It still doesn't make much sense, unless one conflates all of Freud's theories into a single UberTheory. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Jurors in Butler County, Ohio, are forbidden from watching CSI (and some other shows) so that they don't develop unrealistic expectations of what forensic science is capable of.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I think the breastfeeding comment was in response to Freudian slip remark.
Yeah, I figured. It still doesn't make much sense, unless one conflates all of Freud's theories into a single UberTheory.
Now you're getting it!
quote:You have been watching way too much CSI.
I've never watched a single episode. I do however watch Forensic Files on Court TV quite frequently.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Not really, unless they go through a legal process where they have to deal with an adversarial attorney and psychiatrist, independent of involvement with relatives. Anyway. I just generally don't think it's the government's business to kill people (I don't support the death penalty either.)
I don't think an adversarial position is necessary, although it should be independant of relatives. But this isn't about government being in the business of killing people. It's merely about government allowing people to decide for themselves when they want to end their own lives.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Unless, of course, they've lost the ability to voice their own opinions or think like an adult. In which case we'd let someone else who probably isn't unbiased do it. I'm gonna take a pass on that one. It's the paranoid in me.
Posted by Mara (Member # 2232) on :
I have so many problems with this occurrence I hardly know where to begin.
1. I want the book thrown at this guy because I think that the lives of the sick and helpless are just as important as anyone else's. If it had been a child, would he still have been charged with 2nd degree?
2. Yes, our health care system needs to be far, far better. People should not be driven to financial desperation by medical disaster.
3. He threw her over the balcony??? If it had been a mercy killing, aren't there much more merciful ways to go? Such as, maybe, an overdose of the many many prescription painkillers I'm sure she had?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)