gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"He already had the potential to kill, and he likely DID kill."
Based on what? The complete and total lack of evidence that he had anything to do with his wife missing?
"So CPS/courts couldn't "push" him to do what he'd had the capability to do and DID do (in all likelihood) before."
That is ridiculous. If NO ONE could EVER be pushed to do something they were not capable of, then there would be no reason for any "justifiable" cases or anything like that. Could you shoot someone? COuld you shoot someone if they had a gun to your child's head? So are you dangerous because you are CAPABLE of shooting someone, even though it is only under extreme situations?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
ssmom79
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/27/07
Posts: 7783
|
|
I think that is a very poor comparison. Talk about apples and oranges, gr8 you've got apples and gorillas!
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Justifiable killings are the exception in that they are for PRESERVATION of your own life.
I do NOT believe in excusing murder for say "the klonopin defense" or "roid rage", or "road rage" or any other bullshyt excuses. I do believe in "justifiable" killing if your life is in imminent danger.
As for "complete and total lack of evidence". Okay, so you don't know what they do or don't have. First of all. Second of all, MANY people have been convicted on "circumstantial" proof. The Looks like Duck, Quacks Like a Duck thing. In this case, umm... you'd take a then 5 year old and TWO year old out, at what midnight? On a freezing cold night, to go CAMPING??? What parent on crack does THAT?
NOW, two years (almost 3 years) later, the kids are talking. Now YOUR position is because the seeds have been "planted" basically, right? Have you considered that now the children are older, are better ABLE to verbalize? Aren't AFRAID to verbalize?
I'd highly doubt that you'd be able to plant THAT big a seed, at THAT age, in four short months. NOT unless there was something already there to SUPPORT that seed. For example, and I have said this here before, like PAS.. I don't think it works, PARTICULARLY in young children, without there being some seed of doubt or something missing about the other parent, in the young child's mind.
I feel the same here. IF an idea was planted, it wouldn't take route to "mommy was in the trunk of the car" unless there was something to lead the child there NATURALLY.
I absolutely belief that's EXACTLY where she was. And the kids are now just ABLE to say. Also probably a big factor in why he killed them, and himself.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"As for "complete and total lack of evidence". Okay, so you don't know what they do or don't have."
Neither do YOU, and under OUR system of justice, a LACK of evidence means you are innocent.
"MANY people have been convicted on "circumstantial" proof. The Looks like Duck, Quacks Like a Duck thing. In this case, umm... you'd take a then 5 year old and TWO year old out, at what midnight? On a freezing cold night, to go CAMPING??? What parent on crack does THAT?"
So a parent that makes a bad choice on where to CAMP is guilty of MURDER? Come on, that is a stretch.
"NOW, two years (almost 3 years) later, the kids are talking. Now YOUR position is because the seeds have been "planted" basically, right? Have you considered that now the children are older, are better ABLE to verbalize? Aren't AFRAID to verbalize?"
Nope. They have spent the last four months with people who are CONVINCED that the father did it, and the BEST that they are "verbalizing" is that Mommy was in the trunk, supposedly. Yes, they COULD be able to verbalize, but they are JUST as likely to be regurgitating what they have been fed. So lets take a look at the trunk of the car...oops, NOTHING there.
"I'd highly doubt that you'd be able to plant THAT big a seed, at THAT age, in four short months."
What HUGE seed? That Mommy was in the trunk? Its easy, "Did you see Mommy? No? Well, could she have been in the trunk, did you look in the trunk? You didn't? Then Mommy COULD have been in the trunk, right?" Boom, done. Took 30 seconds.
"I absolutely belief that's EXACTLY where she was. And the kids are now just ABLE to say. Also probably a big factor in why he killed them, and himself."
OR, he was under a GREAT deal of stress, NO ONE believed he was innocent, even with the abscence of evidence, his inlaws were turning his kids against him, he was repeatedly denied custody, despite his efforts to satisfy the court requirements, which appear to keep changing each time he goes, with no end in sight?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Nope, direct comparison. "Justifiable" deaths are those under which there are extenuating circumstances that led to the death that are unlikely to be repeated under normal circumstances in the future.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
annieo
veteran
Reged: 07/07/10
Posts: 1408
Loc: Pacific Northwest
|
|
I'm just floored that he killed the children - want to kill yourself fine go right ahead but there was NO reason to take the children with you.
This guy planned this it wasn't a "heat of passion" due to being pushed over the edge and he sent the email saying he was sorry - there is the knowledge of right and wrong when one does such an action. He's a murderer plain and simple - maybe he did not kill his wife but he certainly killed his innocent children.
I agree with whoever stated that CPS was working on reunification given the visits were in his home because (one case sticks out to me) when I did supervised visits for CPS I had a lady that went to prison for two years and her children went into foster care her reunification plan had supervised visits at McDonald's, the foster parents farm, public places etc... and graduated to her home and she did get her children back - it took about 10 months and would have been shorter time if she had gotten a suitable home sooner for them but it took her a while to get her sh!t together. In the very beginning she had her visits in the CPS office playroom. She had to get to know her children again and they had to build trust with her on child was 4 and the other was 10 when she went to prison.
I do not get why he hadn't had the evaluation sooner - that doesn't make sense.
Once his dad went to jail and he cut off contact the reunification should have been on course. He was not providing a safe environment for the children to live with the father in the home - not much different then the mother who stays with the abusive boyfriend and the children are taken until the mother either rectifies the situation or if she doesn't then she has approximately one year for the reunification program - it used to be two years but the time limit has shortened due to not wanting to leave the children in limbo and the research that shows children do better when not left in limbo - children need structure and safety and a home they can count on - knowing they have food and a safe place to call home is necessary for building self-esteem, self-control, healthy relationships, etc...
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
"This guy planned this it wasn't a "heat of passion" due to being pushed over the edge and he sent the email saying he was sorry - there is the knowledge of right and wrong when one does such an action."
Sent an Email, pop open a gas line, strike a match. Not a lot of planning.
"I agree with whoever stated that CPS was working on reunification..."
The difference being, she had actually DONE something to warrant a reunification plan. He had done NOTHING.
"I do not get why he hadn't had the evaluation sooner - that doesn't make sense."
It wasn't ordered. He DID everything he was told to do, showed up in court, and they ADDED stuff.
"Once his dad went to jail and he cut off contact the reunification should have been on course."
Once the Dad went to jail, the kids should never have been removed.
"He was not providing a safe environment for the children to live with the father in the home - not much different then the mother who stays with the abusive boyfriend..."
The difference being that the woman with the abusive boyfriend KNOWS what he is doing. There is NOTHING to indicate that Josh was aware of what his Dad was doing. So what you are saying would be akin to a woman finding out her boyfriend is abusing the kids, she kicks him out of the house, and CPS STILL takes the kids and makes her prove she is fit.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
LexieBelle
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/07/10
Posts: 3680
|
|
Apparently you haven't had a small child in a while ;) Children inherently WANT to trust/belief their parents. And particularly with the loss of ONE parent, they will want to cling to the OTHER parent. I think it would take VASTLY more than "30 seconds" to plant that seed. I really do. And I think any child psychologist would agree. You're stuck in "divorced dad" brain and not applying basic child psychology, plus loss/separation psychology plus surviving child of a murdered parent psychology.
It would take a TREMENDOUS amount of coaching to get to what you're suggesting. TREMENDOUS.
As for "bad choice on where to camp". Not just WHERE, but WHEN. Let me ask you, do you know ANY mother who would be okay with dad taking out a BARELY 2 year old, out at MIDNIGHT, in FREEZING weather, to CAMP????????? Let's apply basic maternal logic here. FREEZING weather, MIDNIGHT. She was DEAD BY THEN. NO WAY a mother is going to allow that. Well, okay, maybe there's some trailer trash hillbilly crackhead type who would. But she obviously was not that kind of mother. Soooo, she's a reasonable, sane, concerned, NORMAL mother. NO WAY is she just gonna be like "oh yeah, it's midnight, freezing out, SURE HONEY, go take our just barely 2 year old to go sleep". Nope. SHE WAS DEAD ALREADY.
|
Tweeby
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/05/04
Posts: 7100
|
|
I don't buy into the fact that the kids are now just being able to verbalize what happened. Perhaps if it came out in play therapy it may be more believable but not just saying they can talk and remember now.
Both sides (Dad and the maternal grandparents) have been able to twist things around in the young kids minds that anything that they 'remember' now is not that believable to me.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30195
|
|
Interesting, you want to use the words of the kids? Well, here is what the grandparents attorney says the KIDS said:
"They were beginning to verbalize more," said Downing, whose clients had custody of the children. "The oldest boy talked about that they went camping and that Mommy was in the trunk. Mom and Dad got out of the car and Mom disappeared."
So you want to believe that the kids saw Mommy in the trunk...but they also say they saw her get out of the car. Was Dad walking her around like Weekend at Bernies?
BTW, consider that you live in NEW YORK, they live in UTAH. New Yorkers don't go out in cold weather, Utah folks do.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
