It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: In Texas, man gets 4 mos. for killing wife, 15 yrs for wounding man

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I do want to point out one thing. the only serious research article on FMD you pointed out does not point to deminital it does talk about strokes. In addition, the group that it identifed was predominantly young childbearing women.

In regards to vasospasm, I do get the concept as I am a Pediatric Critical Care Transport Nurse




posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I do want to point out one thing. the only serious research article on FMD you pointed out does not point to deminital it does talk about strokes. In addition, the group that it identifed was predominantly young childbearing women.

In regards to vasospasm, I do get the concept as I am a Pediatric Critical Care Transport Nurse



I have posted numerous references to FMD throughout this board - pulled back on referencing them here to focus on effects, and because the post was already too long. ...Can provide if you insist, but they're already here and FYI - my personal files contain millions.


.....FMD first infects stem cells in connective tissue inside the blood and lymph vessel walls. Then, it infects smooth muscle cells inside the vessel walls - and from there it can infect virtually any part of the body.

... There are numerous FMD myths propagated in the literature - and better information available. Ie., FMD is not rare - it's epidemic; it affects men and women about equally, just differently - young childbearing women get hit harder, younger and in the renal arteries because of the hormone involvement. ...men get hit later and usually in the prostate and/or gut, and heart.

Briefly, while FMD can affect any part of the body, it's final fatal effects are limited by biology: heart attacks - 44.4%; cancer - 33.3%; stroke - 22.2%.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Because you are a Pediatric Critical Care Transport Nurse - I want to raise a side issue with you. ...Back in the '80's, after accusations of abuse and murder had ruined many good parents lives, FMD (usually in the coronary arteries, valves etc.) was determined to underlie most cases of SIDS, ...Now "shaken baby syndrome" has emerged as a fairly common diagnosis - at the same time as congenital FMD has been observed to more often affect the cranial vascular system. .....Medical profiles now say that bleeding from the eyes and other parts of the head are normal in neonates (!!!) for about 3-8 weeks - but if the symptoms persist or emerge after that, then shaken baby syndrome is the dx. ....This seems to me clearly wrong and injust. ....FYI - FMD creates lesions that are most often microscopic and difficult to find. Here's an older reference:

1985 - "A detailed post-mortem examination revealed FMD involvement of the intracranial vessels, not demonstrated by arteriography." Stroke. 1985 Mar-Apr;16(2):255-61. "Fibromuscular dysplasia of cervico-cephalic arteries with multiple dissections and a carotid-cavernous fistula. A pathological study." Bellot J, Gherardi R, Poirier J, Lacour P, Debrun G, Barbizet J. PMID: 3975964

...."Shaken baby syndrome" and the new "cranial bleeding" phenomenon observed in neonates is something I've flagged in my research, but haven't tackled yet. Are you interested in, able to pursue this or help me?
(I have abstracts etc, but no analysis and haven't organized the research.)



.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Quickly, shaken baby syndrom is also usually occopanied by retinal hemmorages. And the charecteristics of brain damage is quite unique to the coup counter coup type injury that occurs. Often other patterns are observed as well such as tissue damage from the impacts.

Remeber that with neonates you are dealing with really immature vasculature. Intercranial bleed in micro / low birthweight premies are common due to the underdeveloped vasculature. While the indicents of them SEEMS to be going up you also have to factor in the fact that what was a death sentance even 15 years ago is now common place. A 23 week premie has really good survival rates now. hence the increase in teh number of bleeds

[edit on 1/10/05 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Quickly, shaken baby syndrom is also usually occopanied by retinal hemmorages. And the charecteristics of brain damage is quite unique to the coup counter coup type injury that occurs. Often other patterns are observed as well such as tissue damage from the impacts.....
[edit on 1/10/05 by FredT]


Thanks for responding Fred. ...Your description jibes with the accepted profile - and also reflects common symptoms of FMD. I don't think the similarities are coincidental - and I suspect that like SIDS, "shaken baby syndrome" will prove to be caused by FMD in most cases. Hopefully, the truth will come out before more lives are ruined.




.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ess Why Kay
..you're serious?

I don't know if texas has such a law, but when they exist they are called 'crimes of passion'. Its considered unreasonable to expect someone to not kill his adultress wife and her lover, at least if you do so in a psychopathic uncontrolled rage. Italy supposedly has these laws.


soficrow
most Americans soon will lose their voting rights based on "mental incompetence

If over 150 million people loose their voting rights because they're mentally handicapped, and actually listen to it, then they are, de facto, mentally incompetent.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

If over 150 million people loose their voting rights because they're mentally handicapped, and actually listen to it, then they are, de facto, mentally incompetent.


Precisely - and made so by infectious epidemic disease that's worsened by contaminated water and food. ....As stated above - it's PREVENTABLE, but preventions aren't implemented because it would cut into multinational corporate profits. ...You may think "they have it coming" but as somebody said about Hitler's Nazis, "If you know something's happening in the world, you have a responsibility to act."




.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


I am The Son Of NANCY Watkins and it will be 10 years that i lost my mom. i had no clue that so many people were talking bout it. Thank yall for the support it help alot. I would love to hear more.



posted on Sep, 25 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Nygdan
 


I actually kind of agree with the law.
I personally think the murder sentence should be reduced for this type of thing.
I know it sounds sick but I think it's reasonable.

Really if I had a wife for 15 years and came home from a long day at work to find her in my bed with some hairy sweaty guy bussin on my bed sheets.. I would be pretty pissed seeing as woman usually get away with doing this and also get to take off with your house and half your crap.
Sometimes giving there husband STD's from other men she slept with.

There goes all the stuff you worked for and all that time spent with the slut.
Your life is ruined, Wife sleeps around and give you AID's then takes off with your house and or/half your stuff.
Yeah I'd be willing to spend the rest of my life in jail just to get back at her.
What else you gonna do with AID's and most of your crap gone.

But thats just me.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by buds84]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buds84
 


As so many times, it is the opposite, (and I'm not going to even go into the joint property laws, that exist due to the legal partnership aspect of marriage) what do you suggest? Killings of this kind equate a feeling of ownership over another person. If women killed every unfaithful spouse, would the same tolerance be applied?



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
An anonymous poster bumped this old thread but I can't help but reply. For some reason, everyone who posted in this thread seemed to miss the word 'estranged' in the quoted article. As in, the husband and wife were no longer together, albeit not legally divorced. I ran some Google searches to find more on this story since this thread was so old that the article in the OP no longer exists but I could not really find any information on this case. However, the quoted segment says enough. I feel we need to focus on the word 'estranged.'

This is not a regular case of a husband walking in on an unfaithful wife he is still married to. This is a case of a man walking in on a woman he was separated from (even if they were still legally married). Does this not set a scary precedent? A man can leave his wife but not technically divorce her, later return to see her with a new boyfriend, get into a fit of 'jealously,' then kill her and basically claim it was a crime of passion.

Not very good. Then he guns her down while she is calling 911 for help. Sounds like a control freak who got mad because his ex was moving on and he found a legal loophole. Yuck.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


I was just getting ready to post about that when I read yours. It makes me wonder what the jury's definition of estranged was. Mine is the same as yours. They were not together, they were separated. So my question is, why would he be walking in on them to begin with? Did he have a key? Did he break into the house to try and catch them?

I have to agree it sounds to me like somebody couldn't handle their estranged spouse moving on with someone else and decided to lash out. Off to go look up the story and see what else comes up.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Why on Earth would anyone think they had the right to kill their spouse, separated or not because they caught that person cheating on them?

That indicates to me they had a feeling of ownership over the other person, and "their" property was behaving badly.

I just dont think of it that way. I dont think I own the person I am with. I expect faithfulness, but if that turns out to be an unfulfilled expectation, divorce, or ending the relationship, not murder, seems the appropriate move.

Apparently, this phenomenon of letting "crimes of passion" get a pass in Texas is so common that they have a term for it. "Law of Texas."

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...


crime of passion n. a defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of "premeditation." This usually arises in murder or attempted murder cases, when a spouse or sweetheart finds his/her "beloved" having sexual intercourse with another and shoots or stabs one or both of the coupled pair. To make this claim the defendant must have acted immediately upon the rise of passion, without the time for contemplation or allowing for "a cooling of the blood." It is sometimes called the "Law of Texas" since juries in that state are supposedly lenient to cuckolded lovers who wreak their own vengeance. The benefit of eliminating premeditation is to lessen the provable homicide to manslaughter with no death penalty and limited prison terms. An emotionally charged jury may even acquit the impassioned defendant.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


I was thinking the same thing. First of all, no one should have a right to hurt a spouse or ex spouse. There is divorce. However, they were separated for crying out loud. What was he doing in her house with a gun? Sounds really fishy to me. Please let me know if you can find something else on this case. The only thing I came up with were the legal records but they were too hard to read. This whole case sounds very scary to me. The guy was most likely a psycho who couldn't let her go. Sigh.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Why on Earth would anyone think they had the right to kill their spouse, separated or not because they caught that person cheating on them?

That indicates to me they had a feeling of ownership over the other person, and "their" property was behaving badly.


Just a clarification. Wasn't sure if you were referring to me since I was the first person to point out they were separated. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if they were newlyweds or separated for 5 years- nobody should do this to somebody else. However, I pointed out the fact they were separated due to the fact:

1). No one else seemed to have noticed it.
2). Due to the poster above who was talking about unfaithful 'sluts' and why this would be justified.

The article mentioned the fact they were estranged so it truly does not sound like a typical crime of passion case but rather a jaded ex who was stalking the woman. Their status isn't necessarily the issue, IMO, but still needed to be pointed out due to the fact it was being overlooked and seemed like one poster in particular acted like the woman deserved it.


[edit on 10/16/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I don't see the problem. If I came home and my wife was banging another guy they would both be dead.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:46 PM
link   
I do not agree with him getting 15 yrs, and I dont agree with the 4 month sentance.
I thought it was a 5 yr term for acts of passion. I think the sentance was harsh for
wounding the guy. I do agree he should not serve a full murder sentance.
You cant do this to people and expect them not to snap. Youre stupid if you do.
Look what it gets you, dead.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
My first thought... oh I am cynical as always... this is a good story to show to the people that only women get off easy for spousal murder that actually the same bad standard is applied to both genders.


But I like to think that he got 15 years for the boyfriend not because he was worht more, but because the second jury objected to the light sentancing for the wife.

BTW this guy comes from may town... and I reject him.



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Memysabu
 




Why even give him ANY time?? Sends a clear message to spouses who rip out their other spouses heart by witnessing them banging someone else under YOUR roof. Hell less than 100 years ago no one would have said JACK - and even sided with the innocent party. We have WAY TOO many pussifed people these days - look where that has gotten us...



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pityocamptes
 


But was it HIS roof? Or was it her own house that she was now living in due to being estranged? The article has been taken down so we don't know all the details. Since they were estranged, it wouldn't make a lot of sense they were living in the same house and it also makes no sense for her to have taken her lover to her estranged spouse's house. There is more to this story than just a wayward wife and a doting man who came home from work one day. This doesn't make any sense but without the original article (and no other articles about it I can find via Google), we don't know what all happened but 'estranged' seems to be a huge clue.




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join