Jump to content

48 Hours Mystery


  • Please log in to reply

2398 replies to this topic

#31

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 11, 2005 @ 8:42 PM

I'll second all of that, its really weird. There is something seriously wrong with Perry March.

One thing that bothered me is there was too much of a rehash of their prior episode about this case, with maybe 10 minutes of new footage in there. They could've done a quick update at the bumper end of another episode, but whatever.
  • 0

#32

Anyone Bueller

Anyone Bueller

    Couch Potato

Posted Dec 12, 2005 @ 6:58 PM

Is it just me or does it seem like 3 out of every 4 stories on 48 Hours Mystery focuses on a weird/ugly husband who has been accused of murdering his wife? It would be nice if they could give us a little variety once in a while. Oh, well. At least they haven't done an episode on the Natalee Holloway case, yet.
  • 0

#33

gaPeach

gaPeach

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 17, 2005 @ 7:45 AM

So the wife is planning on leaving the husband, she has friends she confides in about the realtionship and that she is afraid of him and one night they have a fight and she just leaves never to be seen or heard of again and he is upset they suspect him. Why does anyone think they can get away with this type of murder. Even though no body was found all leads point to the husband.

If one of my sisters disappeared under these circumstances I would hound the husband to the end. Most women do not just disappear to get out of a bad marriage especially if they have children. She was a good mother and loved her kids why leave them never to see them again? And the fact that she may have been killed in front of her youngest child is even more chilling. Why do people freak out and kill when all they have to do is divorce and get on with their lives? And to kill the mother of his own children. That's cold.
  • 0

#34

Theresa

Theresa

Posted Dec 20, 2005 @ 6:30 PM

So much word on all of that gaPeach.

The interesting thing about domestic violence, is that, usually, when women kill their husbands/boyfriends, it is to get away from them. When men kill their wives/girlfriends, it is a result of wanting to keep them from leaving. Research has shown that.

Divorce would be the answer, wouldn't it?? Instead of murdering someone just divorce them. But, I think with a lot of these men, when the wife tells him she wants a divorce, it is a blow to his ego, to how he is perceived by friends and family and by his community. And rather than deal with these ego-bruising ramifications of divorce, he murders. In some cases, the guy just snaps, but in the majority of cases there is a lot of thought that goes in to it.

I find this show so fascinating, because in the first half the viewer really doesn't know whether the guy did it or not. A lot of times I'm thinking the guy is innocent. And then in the second half they provide evidence where all doubt in my mind is removed as to whether he is guilty. In this case, it was when the mother said that the day before she disappeared, her daughter asked her to come with her to see a divorce lawyer. That did it for me.

Then came all the other evidence, like the rolled up rug, which March said never existed, despite his wife's friend and his own son saying they saw it. And, his wife supposedly saying in her list to March she would be back on a certain date, when she had already sent out invitations for her son's birthday party, which was to be held two days before he said she would be coming back.

March deserves to rot in jail. He deserves worse than that. The Levines, yes, heroes to me too, because if it wasn't for their relentless pursuing of the case, March may have never been brought to justice.

Edited by Theresa, Dec 20, 2005 @ 6:44 PM.

  • 0

#35

gaPeach

gaPeach

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 21, 2005 @ 5:47 AM

March deserves to rot in jail. He deserves worse than that. The Levines, yes, heroes to me too, because if it wasn't for their relentless pursuing of the case, March may have never been brought to justice.


What pissed me off was his father's attitude that those were HIS grandchildren. WTF? They had ever right if not more right to have those kids since it was their daughter that gave birth to them and it is very likely his son killed her so she wouldn't divorce him. It is unforgivable what damage he has done to his own children just because he is a selfish pig.
  • 0

#36

SvetlanaMonsoon

SvetlanaMonsoon

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Dec 21, 2005 @ 8:56 PM

Ok I saw the intro and figured it was another repeat.

So what was the new material/update on the case?
  • 0

#37

Albanyguy

Albanyguy

    Fanatic

Posted Dec 28, 2005 @ 5:13 PM

Divorce would be the answer, wouldn't it?? Instead of murdering someone just divorce them. But, I think with a lot of these men, when the wife tells him she wants a divorce, it is a blow to his ego, to how he is perceived by friends and family and by his community. And rather than deal with these ego-bruising ramifications of divorce, he murders.


And don't forget that to most of these men, divorce is too expensive to contemplate. They can't bear the thought of giving up a big chunk of their assets/income, moving out of their houses and accepting a reduced standard of living. So much easier to kill your wife, keep all your assets and maybe even collect some insurance money as well. Not mention losing custody (and control) of their children.

Edited by Albanyguy, Dec 28, 2005 @ 5:15 PM.

  • 0

#38

Theresa

Theresa

Posted Dec 29, 2005 @ 12:19 AM

Well, I agree that custody and insurance may be a reason for some of these guys. But for financial reasons, no, because when divorce happens, the wife, usually, is hurt financially more than the husband.

Women still earn, on average, less than men. And there are still a lot of women not working or working part-time so they can stay home with the kids. And, usually, it is the woman who ends up with custody of the kids, so she is faced with that financial burden as well. So, the guy will probably be better off financially after the divorce than before the divorce.

So, I hold to the theory that murder results to prevent a potential ego-bruising. They do it to save face, and also probably with the thought of "If I can't have you, no one will", which also has to do with ego.

The interesting question, to me, is why the woman doesn't resort to murder. She is faced with a bruised ego too, and with the stigma of divorce, financial burden, etc, but she doesn't resort to murder.

That answers the question posed upthread as to why this show is usually about men who murder their wives. Because it simply happens more often than the other way around.

Edited by Theresa, Dec 29, 2005 @ 12:25 AM.

  • 0

#39

topwitch

topwitch

    Video Archivist

Posted Dec 29, 2005 @ 3:31 PM

But for financial reasons, no, because when divorce happens, the wife, usually, is hurt financially more than the husband.


The guys who murder their wives don't see it this way. I have a co-worker who went through a really nasty divorce - the wife was asking for alimony & child support in the $80,000/yr range, plus private school tuition for the kids, he would be responsible for mortgage payments for her house, etc.

He said to me at one point that he could understand why men kill their wives rather than divorce them, and that if he were "connected" he'd consider it. Now I know that he was just blowing hot air, but I'm guessing that for a guy who had it less together, they might just do that.

And of course there's the guys with narcissistic personality disorder who believe "if I can't have her, no one can".

This show just makes me more vigilant of people I meet - I guess we never see the stuff that goes on in other people's marriages or what's going on behind someone's social mask. Scary.
  • 0

#40

Krista7

Krista7

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 4, 2006 @ 12:14 AM

So, did anybody else see tonight's repeat of the Blood Feud ep? I hadn't seen this before, so I'm anxious to hear some feedback!

The essence of the story is a woman, Nancy Seaman, kills her husband with a hatchet purchased *very* near to the time of the murders. When the cops investigate his disappearance, she denies any knowledge of his whereabouts, tries to keep them from discovering the body, etc. Her defense when the body is found is that she's a battered wife who, after an initial attempt to defend herself from the husband, went into a near black-out from fear, causing the obvious overkill to the body, the attempts to hide it, etc.

She and her husband had two sons, but the men have taken different sides. One claims he's known his mother was abused for years; the other says she was just clumsy and never, ever abused.

(My own theory is that she was abused--her coworkers, her son, a police and ER record all point to that; the only contradictory evidence was brought by her elder son, who denied absolutely *any* abuse and repeated lines about her falling/being clumsy, which just made it sound to me as if he had decided a while ago he couldn't accept what that really meant. Moreover, we know the dad was aware the marriage was breaking down and was quite angry about potential divorce/property settlements, so that makes an angry confrontation over a split quite probable. I'm a bit weirded out, however, by her behavior in relaying her story, and the amount of overkill involved in the murder, esp. the use of an instrument-a small pocket knife--that would require close proximity. The fact that she tried to hide the body is very bizarre to me. My conclusion is that she was battered in the past, they argued, and at some point, she snapped and went into a state of rage. I really wish the show would've discussed more how, for example, she got the body of her husband into her car by herself. I thought that was strange, and I also wonder if there wasn't some bizarre Mother's Favorite dynamic that kept the younger son and the mother together emotionally, breeding rage/resentment within the Dad and the older son.)



Weellll? Anybody have any thoughts?
  • 0

#41

lls59

lls59

    Video Archivist

Posted Jan 4, 2006 @ 1:19 AM

Krista7, I have the same questions you do! How did that tiny woman get that huge body tarped, taped and into the SUV? I thought the elder son was creepy, and I would have liked his wife's perspective (how did she like her parents-in-law?)

And the judge - did he want to date Mrs. Seaman? He seemed awfully partial for a blind administrator of justice...

I kept going back and forth - the husband seemed like the stereotypical abuser, but she didn't strike me as a battered wife - she seemed pretty cold. (Going to work the day after or day of the murder, taking back the hatchet two days later, her fakey tears). I just do not know, but I'm leaning toward guilty, guilty, guilty!
  • 0

#42

SznnMorse

SznnMorse

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 4, 2006 @ 11:28 AM

I saw this episode last night, and while I believe she was a battered wife, I would not have been comfortable with her being found not guilty. I am not sure if she planned to murder him - I suspect not. I think she felt like she was in danger, and that there was a potential for him to come after her when she left him. She would have done herself a much bigger favor had she reported the event when it took place, rather than trying to hide it.

In short, I don't think she specifically planned it but I do think she was preparing herself for a confrontation. As such, I think she probably should have been found guilty of murder in the 2nd degree, as someone who didn't necessarily have the intention of killing her husband that day.

I will say that I think the evidence was there that he was abusive. The fact that her co-workers saw bruises, and that his co-worker knew that he could be out of control proved that to me.

Also, just wanted to comment on the Leiterman case, which was discussed a few posts back (the episode was on in November). While I think it is possible that Leiterman was the killer, I don't think I could have voted to convict him. The fact that DNA from the other killer was there, and that the other killer's case was being examined at around the same time, just brought too much reasonable doubt to my mind. And the fact that Leiterman seemed to have no other prior incidents (except for drunk driving, IIRC).

Edited by SznnMorse, Jan 4, 2006 @ 11:32 AM.

  • 0

#43

Krista7

Krista7

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 4, 2006 @ 11:18 PM

Totally agreed with both of you that, while she did seem to be the victim of regular abuse, there's a definite "guilty" vibe in this murder--it just doesn't seem to be a defense murder. Plus, she's a terrible witness for herself--as lls59 said, even her tears seemed fake!

I think the real problem here, what the defense argument touched on but didn't do a great job in presenting, is that Nancy Seaman seems to be All About Appearances. It's why she didn't leave before, why she didn't admit to anybody what was going on (including her children), why even in court she appeared with a major makeover from the time of her arrest, why she was relatively emotionally restrained during the trial. (Making the times she cried--except when her youngest son was on the stand--seem a bit strained.) This isn't "fixing things," as she said in trial; it's *hiding the ugly truth*. It's why she didn't call the cops, tried to hide the evidence, and tried, to the very last, to avoid admitting the murder, even though she was driving around town with his corpse in her car! What people think of her and her family *matters*. I'm not trying to ream her for this--it is what most of us do, deny our home lives are imperfect--but I do think this tendency to sweep things under the carpet, to repress reality, played a role in the ferocious overkill and then the subsequent denial of it. If she couldn't come out and say right away, "Yes, I killed him; he frightened me and I snapped," I think she could've made a much better argument by saying she'd consistently been worried about what others would think of the family and its problems, which led her to attempt the pathetic cover-up. Her job all along had been in hiding things, repressing things, not necessarily "fixing them," as she and her lawyer both argued.

Tangent: I think it is curious that the elder son showed up in shirt sleeves to court, whereas the younger son was much more nattily dressed, like his mother. I felt like that shirt-sleeved look was a bit of defiance against what his mother seemed to stand for, appropriate behavior/dress. (It is interesting that he didn't appear at her sentencing at all--says a great deal about his feelings for her at the time of the trial.)
  • 0

#44

SznnMorse

SznnMorse

    Couch Potato

Posted Jan 5, 2006 @ 1:34 AM

Tangent: I think it is curious that the elder son showed up in shirt sleeves to court, whereas the younger son was much more nattily dressed, like his mother. I felt like that shirt-sleeved look was a bit of defiance against what his mother seemed to stand for, appropriate behavior/dress. (It is interesting that he didn't appear at her sentencing at all--says a great deal about his feelings for her at the time of the trial.)


I actually think that the older son was a lot more like his mother than he cared to admit - he was far more interested in presenting an image of his father as the perfect father than he was in understanding the dysfunction in his parents marriage. The fact that he wouldn't entertain the idea that his father might be having an affair and that he just seemed to accept that his mother was "clumsy," rather than a victim of abuse at his father's hand, shows that.

Ultimately, I wish she had been convicted of a lesser charge (and who knows, maybe she was offered a deal). I agree that she was so much more invested in creating an image, but it is also clear that the husband was an abusive jerk. I suppose, ultimately, I would have wished that he had just let her move to the condo, as had been her plan, but it is no surprise to me that someone that controlling wasn't going to let that happen.
  • 0

#45

Theresa

Theresa

Posted Jan 10, 2006 @ 7:16 PM

I was weirded out by the fact that the son who stood up for his father looked exactly like his father, and the son who stood up for him mother looked exactly like his mother. And the two sons didn't look like brothers.

I also wonder if there wasn't some bizarre Mother's Favorite dynamic that kept the younger son and the mother together emotionally, breeding rage/resentment within the Dad and the older son.


Could have been the other way, too, where perhaps a strong bond developed between the father and older son, and the younger son and mother were jealous. Parents have favorites, they did in my family, and I think they do in most.

How did that tiny woman get that huge body tarped, taped and into the SUV?


Where there's a will there's a way. She could have used a dolly, or wheelbarrow, anything with wheels, or just dragged him over. If you've got a dead body to hide, you're gonna find some way of doing it.

And the judge....He seemed awfully partial for a blind administrator of justice.


The judge was entitled to his remarks. I happen to agree with him. No way in hell that woman went to Home Depot to buy a hatchet with the intention of killing her husband. I agree with what others have said, that there was a confrontation and she snapped. Therefore, she should have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder. I don't think there was premeditation.

Another case of letting things get to a level where a crisis happens which ends in tragedy. They weren't getting along, there was abuse, all of which had an impact on the two sons.... yet no one did anything. I work in the mental health field and have seen the same scenario happen over and over, where it takes a crisis to change things. But, there are so many dynamics going on within families, if there is no outside intervention sometimes only a crisis will change things. Which is incredibly unfortunate.
  • 0

#46

MethodActor05

MethodActor05

    Stalker

Posted Jan 16, 2006 @ 12:37 PM

The interesting question, to me, is why the woman doesn't resort to murder. She is faced with a bruised ego too, and with the stigma of divorce, financial burden, etc, but she doesn't resort to murder.


Can we say Betty Broderick? I mean, you couldn't even make up half of the shit she did before offing her ex and his new wife.

I saw the one about clay busts being used to idenitify remains...ugh. I can't imagine what it must be like to be the families of missing people, and to never even get a body to bury and have closure.


I was pretty touched at how everyone wanted to give the Jane Doe girl a proper burial, and the man that puts flowers on her grave, etc.
  • 0

#47

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Jan 16, 2006 @ 5:08 PM

I think part of the reason men do it so much more could be the whole Scott Peterson issue (well, ONE of his issues) where he thinks he can get away with it and has an ego the size of Texas to think up this stuff. I really can only guess about that. But yeah Betty Broderick is one batty woman to say the least!
  • 0

#48

dragonfly08

dragonfly08

Posted Jan 16, 2006 @ 6:19 PM

I also wonder if there wasn't some bizarre Mother's Favorite dynamic that kept the younger son and the mother together emotionally, breeding rage/resentment within the Dad and the older son.


I kept thinking that the younger son was gay and maybe he bonded more with the mother and didn't really fit in with the father/older brother. That could be part of why he was so quick to defend his mother and go against what his brother said.



I think she did it intentionally. She could have left him a dozen times if he really was so abusive. If her younger son knew of these incidents why didn't he help her to really and truely leave the situation years before? Who leaves an axe laying around in a garage? She just happened to fall down and be near an axe on a table or on the ground? She also hid that body for several days and lied to the police about it. She scrubbed that garage down with bleach and went so far as to return the stolen ax to Home Depot so it didn't look like she had one. I just think if she were a true battered wife who killed in self defense she would have called the cops ASAP. He's dead, he can't hurt you now. But by all her actions after the murder she made herself seem even more guilty in my eyes.
  • 0

#49

Theresa

Theresa

Posted Feb 1, 2006 @ 6:05 PM

Can we say Betty Broderick? I mean, you couldn't even make up half of the shit she did before offing her ex and his new wife.


Of course women murder their husbands. Another famous example would be that case of the woman in Texas who ran over her dentist husband with a Mercedes when she found out he was cheating. What I meant was that men murder their spouses more often than wives murder their spouses. The statistics show that. The stats also show that women usually murder to stop abuse, while men will often murder to prevent their spouse from leaving. There are gender differences not only in the rates, but in the reasons. Another interesting thing they show is that mothers murder their children at a greater rate than fathers murder their children.

The Betty Broderick case is so well-known because of the circumstances (wealthy people; situation leading up to it; how it occurred), and the personalities (Betty was bat-shit crazy, imo). I don't have any sympathy for Betty Broderick. I felt she should have got the death penalty. As far as the stuff she did prior to the murder, that is not the exclusive behavior of women prior to murdering their spouses. Men will harass and stalk and do the same things. I don't know the stats on that, but I would think men actually do that at a greater rate than women do. Most stalkers are men.

(I'm not anti-male, btw. I love men. I just try to look at things logically and rationally. You can't argue with statistics).

Edited by Theresa, Feb 1, 2006 @ 6:15 PM.

  • 0

#50

methespy

methespy

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 4, 2006 @ 11:08 PM

The episode tonight, about the 13 year old charged with second degree murder, was interesting. Why they persisted with questioning her after she invoked her right to counsel, is beyond me. Stupid, stupid move. Even then, interrogating a juvenile for 19 hours is just ridiculous.
However, it would have been interesting to see how it turned out if the statements were admissible. I think it's likely she shook the baby and didn't realize she was doing it. Then again, I think the parents were just as culpable. Leaving a 13 year old alone with a baby so you can screw and do drugs in a back room is negligent beyond belief.
ALso, the third possiblity is that the other sister was rough housing with Freya or got mad at her and shook her.
Or of course, it could all have been a horrible accident, with no one to blame. Maybe she had a seizure they didn't catch?
  • 0

#51

sej208

sej208

    Video Archivist

Posted Feb 4, 2006 @ 11:24 PM

I totally agree. The detectives definitely should have known that continuing to question her like that was going to ruin the case. Don't they watch Law & Order? That stuff has come up on the show a million times.

Personally, I didn't get that she was guilty, and was shocked that the DA and police seemed so sure that she was. I just didn't see much evidence of it beyond the seemingly forced 'confession' and even that pointed to an accident. If she did actually shake Freya, there seemed to be no knowledge that it was dangerous or could have caused harm.

The parents seemed so flaky, and the media whoring after the case was dismissed seemed really fake to me. I didn't see the whole thing, so I don't know who the woman that was always with Freya's mom was (her sister, maybe?), but when she said that parents should make sure their babysitter was good, I just kept thinking yeah, or not hire a thirteen year old to care for two children for 3 straight days. Unbelievable. If anything, I felt the parents would have been more likely to be tried for negligence for that fact alone, not to mention drugs being left in the house.

Anyway, I'm interested to see if anyone actually thought she was guilty. I just didn't get that vibe, so I'm curious if I was just swayed by her looks and age, or if the case against her was as ridiculous as it seemed to me.
  • 0

#52

Krista7

Krista7

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 4, 2006 @ 11:29 PM

I had to run over here to see what others thought of this case!

Agreed entirely that the police behavior was stupid. They had a case against the girl--a shred of one, but still a case--and they utterly destroyed it by their behavior in the questioning.

Also, as methespy said, allowing a 13 year old to care for a baby that small=recipe for trouble. *Especially* any kid who had danger flags about her at all. (Maybe I don't hang out with 13 year olds enough, but that girl struck me as bizarrely old and immature at the same time--like a sheltered little girl who spent most of her time with her family. She was very wooden, I thought.)

My sense is the girl did shake the baby. By her own behavior in the tapes, she was in a physical position to shake the baby. The baby was crying and Ashley was speaking to the baby very assertively, by her own admission, to shut the baby up. To me, speaking strongly to a baby (as if the baby can understand and reason with you) is a strong sign Ashley was very annoyed/irritated, irrational, and therefore emotionally not far from shaking the baby (which is just as "logical" a response to a baby crying as yelling in the baby's face). Ashley's arms even made a motion that was pretty darned near shaking, despite her attempts to describe it verbally as something else (rocking/nurturing), in the CBS interview.

So--to me--we have a girl who admits being exasperated/annoyed with the crying baby, to the point she's saying something strongly to the child, and holding the baby under the arms, out from her body--shaking position. On the other side we have vague theories about unknown medical condition (no evidence), and possible parental misbehavior (only evidence: CPS calls--for reasons we don't know: negligence? Bad taste? Abuse? No idea--and possible drugs/alcohol. Nothing that specifically links the parents to the death of the child.) So my theory is it was in fact the babysitter who did it.
  • 0

#53

katymo

katymo

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 4, 2006 @ 11:41 PM

What an interesting case indeed! I totally agree with all of you, the police sure fucked things up. I thought the video with the doll was pretty incriminating and telling, it just didn't seemed coerced at all. I was thinking the same thing about letting a 13 year old care for two small children like that. I'm 23 and it would drive me bonkers in a strange house with no furniture and a boyfriend with a stupid ass name.

I think Ashley shook the baby, there's no doubt in my mind about that, but there's also little doubt that I don't think she knew what she was doing, as it was wrong or the baby would die or anything like that. There was something weird about Ashley's dad, and her story and demeanor really seemed to change once they were interviewed together, which isn't surprising for a teen, but the whole story changed.

That poor baby.

Edited by katymo, Feb 4, 2006 @ 11:42 PM.

  • 1

#54

gaPeach

gaPeach

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 5, 2006 @ 8:21 AM

I didn't see the whole thing, so I don't know who the woman that was always with Freya's mom was (her sister, maybe?), but when she said that parents should make sure their babysitter was good, I just kept thinking yeah, or not hire a thirteen year old to care for two children for 3 straight days. Unbelievable. If anything, I felt the parents would have been more likely to be tried for negligence for that fact alone, not to mention drugs being left in the house.


ITA. I like how the mom got a total pass for dumping her 19 month old baby on a 13 year old so she could do drugs and have sex with her creepy looking boyfriend. It was her sister that was doing all the talking while the mom just looked sad. I think the mom practiced that sad look in front of mirror so she would get it right. When being interviewed she would look like she was crying but I never saw any real tears. Fake as fake can be if you ask me.

What bothered me is they did not give any real information on when they thought the baby was shaken. I know that they said the baby would show signs of being shaken almost immediately and from the sounds of it the baby was not acting right when Ashely was giving her a bath. According to everyone's story of time line Ashely had just gotten back from the movies and the baby had been in the mother's care for a couple of hours. So the mom goes to the store and leaves the baby with Ashely to give her a bath and put her to bed? Seemed a bit tidy in my opinion.

Where was creepy boyfriend? With the mom or in the back room doing drugs? How long was the mom gone at the store? Why was no one arrested when they found drugs in the home? Oh yeah I forgot the mom said they were not their drugs. And mom already had one baby die "mysteriously" years before. And the police NEVER even suspected her? The first detective on the scene said the mother was unaffected by the baby being hurt and did not even ask why they were at the hospital!

It is a sad story and one that will most likely never be solved. I blame the mother more than anyone just because it is her responsibilty to take care of her OWN CHILD. The whole thing sounded like mom was more into partying with the boyfriend then her own kid.

And what the hell was up with the other daughter's hair color? Who does that to their kid?
  • 0

#55

Fraoch

Fraoch

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 5, 2006 @ 2:41 PM

I was riveted by this episode as well, and ITA that the mom seemed...off. The whole "I wasn't doing drugs, but I can't say for certain that [creepy boyfriend] wasn't doing drugs..."--in my opinion, that does NOT let you off the hook, lady. Don't pull the bereaved mother of the year act after leaving your small kids alone in an empty house for a long weekend while you partied elsewhere.

I feel so sorry for Ashley--she's going to be scarred for life by this event.
  • 0

#56

lyz2814

lyz2814

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 5, 2006 @ 3:41 PM

I just loved how the boyfriend had prior convictions for drugs, and maybe battery. You date a man who was violent and into illegal stuff? Yea, she really cares about her kids--NOT.

Judge Judy would have kicked her ass!
  • 1

#57

sugarplum_pdx

sugarplum_pdx

    Couch Potato

Posted Feb 5, 2006 @ 4:12 PM

I agree that the mom and boyfriend seemed extremely shady and I can't believe more attention was not focused on their part in this tragedy. I think even if Ashley did shake the baby, it's still largely the mom's fault for being so negligent. How could any parent leave their young children alone with a 13 year old for 3 days and not even seem concerned with how things are going? When you add in the drug thing, the death of the previous child, the boyfriend's arrest record, and Morningstar's weird demeanor (not seeming concerned when she went to the hospital) ... it all points to them being at fault. Ashley didn't strike me as a menace to society, anyway. She's a kid. Regardless of what happened that night, I don't think she is a murderer who needs to be locked up.

I feel bad for the other girl, Madeline. Her younger sister has died, her younger brother supposedly died of "crib death," her mom has a creepy boyfriend, and her mom apparently thinks it's fine to go off and party for days while leaving her kids alone. That's a lot of things stacked against her ... who knows how she'll turn out.
  • 0

#58

joltinjo

joltinjo

    Loyal Viewer

Posted Feb 5, 2006 @ 5:34 PM

I wasn't left with the impression that the kid was guilty. She explained that the child was squirming, which was plausible, when she was supposedly showing the child being shaken. People do bounce babies to try to calm them down, and to me it didn't look like more than that in the videotape with the baby doll. I work in the legal field and it is AMAZING how many teens have outright confessed to crimes under pressure and suggestion from detectives, under the belief that they could then go home, only to have it be proven in the end that someone else altogether committed the crime. It's hard to believe that anybody would confess to a crime who didn't in fact do it, but it's not that unusual with this age group. I was really surprised to hear that in Washington it's okay to interrogate a 13-year-old without a lawyer or parent present. In the end, it seems like the boyfriend or mother could have done this just as easily.

ETA: I cringe whenever someone says--as the sister did at the end--that the child got off on a "technicality." Your constitutional rights are not technicalities!

Edited by joltinjo, Feb 5, 2006 @ 5:35 PM.

  • 0

#59

gaPeach

gaPeach

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 5, 2006 @ 9:36 PM

I work in the legal field and it is AMAZING how many teens have outright confessed to crimes under pressure and suggestion from detectives, under the belief that they could then go home, only to have it be proven in the end that someone else altogether committed the crime.


The detective was a real piece of work. He was amost giddy on the stand when testifying. The way he told Ashely the baby died was so off handed it was almost cruel. And then to suggest that they know she did it while the girl was still obviously upset about the baby dying.

There just seems so much that was not explained I feel as though we are missing something. I can't understand how they came to such a quick decision about Ashley, when the mother and boyfriend were so shady.

And Morningstar saying she felt perfectly safe with the boyfriend being around her children even with his past history of drugs and abuse. Yeah she will win mother of the year.
  • 0

#60

Madmarsha

Madmarsha

    Fanatic

Posted Feb 6, 2006 @ 12:48 AM

sej208:Personally, I didn't get that she was guilty, and was shocked that the DA and police seemed so sure that she was . . . If she did actually shake Freya, there seemed to be no knowledge that it was dangerous or could have caused harm . . . but when she said that parents should make sure their babysitter was good, I just kept thinking yeah, or not hire a thirteen year old to care for two children for 3 straight days

I'm lost, too, why the DA was so sure. Makes me doubt that DA's ability to accurately assess the evidence in ANY case. Wouldn't one of the elements of the crime be that the Defendant KNOWINGLY committed the act? Ashley didn't even know how to properly ask for her rights and the judge found that she was not able to KNOWINGLY give up her rights, how in the world would she know what constitutes the crime she was charged with. Most people when they hire a young babysitter are only gone for a couple of hours, not completely usurping the care for as long as this mother did. She was in and out of the house at various times, why was SHE not bathing the baby?

Krista7 . . . that girl struck me as bizarrely old and immature at the same time . . .

Funny but I thought the same thing. I'm glad this case turned out the way it did. I don't know what happened (had it been a 2-hour epi we might have gotten more info, like what happened to the older stepsister who was supposed to have been there that weekend as the primary caregiver) but while it's a tragedy for Freya to be dead, it would not be fair for Ashley to be locked up for it. She was put into a position that she shouldn't have been in in the first place. The responsible adults failed Ashley as much as they did Freya.

gapeach:The way he told Ashely the baby died was so off handed it was almost cruel

Almost? I think it was cruel. He was talking to her as if she was walking, breathing scum. He should be fired. Those detectives' body language and posture were literally in her face and should be reserved for adults only.
  • 0