# woman pleas guilty to infanticide, charges will be dropped after resurrection



## jarrod (Apr 1, 2009)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/03/31/cult.child.death/index.html

essentially a woman in a cult starved her one year old to death because he wouldn't say "amen" after meals. she pleaded guilty to first degree child endangerment resulting in death, but as a part of her deal the charges will be dropped when her son rises from the dead.  

jf


----------



## Tomu (Apr 1, 2009)

I just need to stop reading stuff like this.  It makes me want to hurt people.  Every time I read about stuff wackos do to their own children I lose a little more faith in the human race.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Apr 1, 2009)

*Mod Note - 

Thread moved to Horror Stories.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator*


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 1, 2009)

Hmm... maybe the reason the kid wasn't saying "amen" after meals is that he WASN'T GETTING ANY!?!  Being one year old might have been a factor, too.  Just sayin'.

Your ovaries... let me take them out and show you them.


----------



## Live True (Apr 1, 2009)

Please tell me this is a really sick april fools joke....no....unfortunately, stupidity and ignorance are alive and well 24/7/365

This woman does not deserve to have ovaries.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 1, 2009)

Unbelievable.


----------



## dnovice (Apr 1, 2009)

crazy lady:shock:


----------



## tellner (Apr 1, 2009)

I really, really wish that had been an early April Fool's joke.


----------



## Flea (Apr 1, 2009)

It's just a micro-Jonestown.  Everyone in the world should take a note from this as a reminder of the pervasive power of groupthink.

One one level I do feel sorry for the mother.  Imagine the day she wakes up and realizes what she's done ...


----------



## Flea (Apr 2, 2009)

Thanks for the thanks!  It occurred to me after the fact that I'd probably get flamed to a crisp for my last post.  

This is a complex situation with plenty of blame for everyone.  Her the boy's grandmother said in one interview at http://www.rickross.com/reference/onemind/onemind14.html ...



> Khadan-Newton still remembers that fateful day in 2006 when she dropped off her daughter and grandson at a house in West Baltimore, assuming that a babysitter lived there to take care of the boy while Ramkissoon went to school....   When she returned to the house *two days later* with a police officer, Khadan-Newton says her daughter was already transformed.
> "She just stood there with her hands down like she was drugged up," she says.


  There's that groupthink again.  What on earth happened in those 48 hours?

And from http://www.rickross.com/reference/onemind/onemind6.html :



> The grandmother of Javon said the Maryland Department of Social Services failed to respond to several calls she made to warn it the baby might be in danger.
> "They told me it's not their job," said the grandmother, Seeta Khadan-Newton, 59, of Baltimore. "They told me I need to get the proof and bring it to them."


Granted I've never worked for a child protection agency, but that strikes me as a bit excessive.  The grandmother isn't a prosecutor.  When it comes to the welfare of a toddler, she shouldn't have to be.  One of my relatives fosters newborns, most of whom never even make it home from the hospital in the first place.  That decision once was based on an outrageous comment made by the baby's father in the recovery room immediately after birth.  If a single comment could have sufficed in one case, shouldn't this cult's longstanding reputation in the neighborhood have been evidence enough for the agency to have taken at least a casual glance?


----------



## Live True (Apr 2, 2009)

Flea, 
I don't know about the laws in that state, but our SS departments are required to follow up on allegations of abuse or suspicion of ill treatment of a child.  This sounds like someone making excuses because they couldn't be bothered.

Perhaps I am being unkind. I know many SS depts are overworked and understaffed, but this just doesn't track.

You're right, though, more than enough blame to go around.

sigh...and none of that will bring back that little boy.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 2, 2009)

Flea said:


> Thanks for the thanks!  It occurred to me after the fact that I'd probably get flamed to a crisp for my last post.


Flea, why would you be worried about getting flamed or neg-repped to oblivion for that post. Most ..*ahem* excuse me... ALL of us here have a secret desire to take child abusers, molesters, killers, et al into a room without any windows or cameras and work out MA-skills out on them for a few hours... then take 'em outside to be shot, castrated or otherwise be subjected to death by stoning. 
The horrors that the children have to face and the countless ones that we DON'T hear/read about are on our minds and our hearts go to THEM, the children who couldn't do anything to defend themselves. 
In many of these cases the court system's and their final judgement usually ends up as an inadequate joke to justice that should be metted out equally to the crimes committed upon these innocents. 
Yet your post is adequate to feel at least a crumb of pity for the mother (of this particular case) who may "not know what she do" and the day comes about IF and when she may realize what she has done... but at 1 year old how can ANYONE expect a child at that age to do what is expected of them, when they do then praise is needed when they don't then positive reinforcement is needed, not punishment. Her punishment to her own was horrendous.


----------



## Nolerama (Apr 2, 2009)

So... it's okay to kill children, plead guilty, get a lighter sentence, and a loophole clause that promises freedom if the child is resurrected?

That's a load of donkey doo doo.

A load of doo doo that will have serious interpretive debate as to the validity of resurrection in the US, as well as set a needless precedent on how we sentence cult members.

It might sound extreme, but this case makes it "okay" for people to commit crimes for the sake of religion without prosecuting to the utmost extent of the law.

Woman kills child on purpose. Woman should get life imprisonment (no loophole; that's just an avenue of hope that she doesn't deserve) or be executed.


----------



## Flea (Apr 2, 2009)

> Flea, why would you be worried about getting flamed or neg-repped to oblivion for that post. Most ..*ahem* excuse me... ALL of us here have a secret desire to take child abusers, molesters, killers, et al into a room without any windows or cameras and work out MA-skills out on them for a few hours... then take 'em outside to be shot, castrated or otherwise be subjected to death by stoning.


You answered your own question there.  :uhyeah:  I've learned over the years to keep my mouth shut over what is, sadly, a deeply controversial position.  Compassion for the criminal.  It started 12 years ago when there was a shooting on my campus at Penn State University.  One fatality, one severe injury, one minor injury, suspect apprehended unharmed.  Imagine my disbelief a few days later when I found out that the shooter was in one of my circles of friends!  Not only that, but she was the beautiful stranger I often enjoyed smalltalk with at the bus stop.  And we both cashiered at the same greasy spoon, though not at the same time.  Another close friend took me aside and told me that they had dated for several months and he had considered proposing.

I never really knew her myself, but I felt enough affinity that I couldn't simply write her off as a person.  Do I feel responsible for not picking up on her illness?  Of course not - you don't walk up to a virtual stranger at the bus stop and confide that you've fantasized about being The Campus Sniper.  Ultimately she's responsible for her choices, but it's well-documented that she went way out of her way to get help.  She _did_ detail that fantasy to a therapist who didn't take her seriously.  But I do feel some responsibility in the abstract - as a member of the human community I need to pay better attention in general.  We _all_ let Jill down, and Melanie Spalla paid the ultimate price for it.  (Wow, I didn't even have to look that up.  This really has stuck with me.)

So when I come across these cases I can't just demonize the perps like I used to.  The crime is usually only the icing on the cake of what's _really_ going on.  The substance beneath is usually years or decades in the making, impossibly complex and painful.  The casual reader will never know or even ask what that mothers' story was.  What prompted her to move from Trinidad?  What of the teenage pregnancy?  What was it about that cult that caught her eye?  And how many warning signs did Grandma miss before she realized her daughter was in too deep?

I learned really quickly after the campus shooting to keep my sympathy for criminals to myself.  People can't handle the idea of identifying with them; it removes that barrier of denial and "There but for the grace of god."   It's too scary to acknowledge our own capacity for getting _that_ lost or _that_ sick ourselves.  But no one is invincible, and I do believe that given the right set of circumstances no one is immune.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 2, 2009)

Flea said:


> You answered your own question there.  :uhyeah:  I've learned over the years to keep my mouth shut over what is, sadly, a deeply controversial position.  Compassion for the criminal.  It started 12 years ago when there was a shooting on my campus at Penn State University.  One fatality, one severe injury, one minor injury, suspect apprehended unharmed.  Imagine my disbelief a few days later when I found out that the shooter was in one of my circles of friends!  Not only that, but she was the beautiful stranger I often enjoyed smalltalk with at the bus stop.  And we both cashiered at the same greasy spoon, though not at the same time.  Another close friend took me aside and told me that they had dated for several months and he had considered proposing.
> 
> I never really knew her myself, but I felt enough affinity that I couldn't simply write her off as a person.  Do I feel responsible for not picking up on her illness?  Of course not - you don't walk up to a virtual stranger at the bus stop and confide that you've fantasized about being The Campus Sniper.  Ultimately she's responsible for her choices, but it's well-documented that she went way out of her way to get help.  She _did_ detail that fantasy to a therapist who didn't take her seriously.  But I do feel some responsibility in the abstract - as a member of the human community I need to pay better attention in general.  We _all_ let Jill down, and Melanie Spalla paid the ultimate price for it.  (Wow, I didn't even have to look that up.  This really has stuck with me.)
> 
> ...


There are a number of individuals who do things without *fully* realizing the consequences of what they do and the long term results. As I said *some* do garner a crumb of sympathy but most... well ...


----------



## Carol (Apr 2, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> So... it's okay to kill children, plead guilty, get a lighter sentence, and a loophole clause that promises freedom if the child is resurrected?
> 
> That's a load of donkey doo doo.
> 
> ...



I also don't like how the term "resurrection" entered in to the plea bargain.  To me it opens all kinds of loopholes and gives too much of a nod of credibility to the beliefs of the cult.  

However, I doubt that she was offered a plea bargain because of her religious beliefs.  She agreed to testify against other cult members and she likely has no criminal priors - those two circumstances alone are enough for most judges to agree on some kind of defendant-will-plead-guilty-if-the-charges-lowered-to-xxxx situation.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 2, 2009)

Very dangerous, very bad precedent. We will come to regret this.


----------



## Flea (Apr 2, 2009)

> There are a number of individuals who do things without *fully* realizing the consequences of what they do and the long term results. As I said *some* do garner a crumb of sympathy but most... well ...



For the record, we are on the same page here.  Some people are simply lost. They're out of touch with themselves, with the community, with reality.  For them, their actions are quite reasonable in whatever context they occupy in their parallel universe. This woman falls into that category.  

I don't sympathize with everyone who makes the headlines for steppin' onna crack and breakin' momma's back.  Most people who commit crimes are slugs, especially anyone with a repeat record.


----------



## jarrod (Apr 2, 2009)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Very dangerous, very bad precedent. We will come to regret this.


 

so what's new?

jf


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 3, 2009)

This is one of the things that changed in me, the second I became a dad.

Whenever I read stories like this, I cannot help but think how the kid must have felt. And at that point I usually get misty eyes, combined with the conviction that no punishment is too cruel for those responsible. and while I can agree that in general, criminals can pay their debt to society and start with a clean slate, child abuse is not one of those cases.


----------



## exile (Apr 3, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> This is one of the things that changed in me, the second I became a dad.
> 
> Whenever I read stories like this, I cannot help but think how the kid must have felt. And at that point I usually get misty eyes, combined with the conviction that no punishment is too cruel for those responsible.



I had the same kind of experience, Bruno.


----------

