March 18, 2005
Here are a couple of things I'd like to get off my chest, admittedly in a surlier than usual mood of self-righteousness.When It Comes to Parades, Stick to the Classics: Yesterday's St. Patrick's Day parade was a decent enough way to burn some daylight: the bagpipers, the wheelie lawnmowers, and the Sandbar float rocked it. But some of us have to admit that it was, well, a bit of a snoozer overall. My revelry was impeded, admittedly, by my sober state, but I would like to make a couple of suggestions to the town's parade organizers: marching bands and Shriners. Also, if you are walking down the street handing out candy, thank you. But if you approach a group of six kids, don't hand one piece to one kid and walk on, leaving us with one gloater and five pissed-off whiners. Share the love or keep walking. Free candy is an all-or-nothing enterprise.Drop the Pillow and Call Me Instead: The town's recent trend in offing one's irritating wife rather than divorcing her is bizarre. There are worse things than paying a lawyer to legally block your ex from taking your daughter to California or being unable to serve on the board of some prissy private school no one has ever heard of, and that is spending the rest of your life being Bubba's bitch in prison, not to mention the agony of seeing your grown children fighting your parole in 25 years. Husbands would benefit from a little critical thinking prior to wrecking numerous lives. I'd also like to point out to Lawrence's divorce lawyers that there seems to be an untapped market out there: "Husbands: You Don't Have to Off Her!" Okay, I'm no good at catchy ad copy, but my point is that a little effective advertising could help ease our current stupid frantic men/prison overcrowding problem.
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
chrisgladfelter (anonymous) says...
One thing I liked about this parade was that, unlike in the Sesquicentennial Parade last fall, I didn't see any politicians ruining the fun. I was relieved to see the Sandbar's float march on by without being followed by Kris Kobach's mammoth face on a moving van.
As for killing one's wife, my partner brought up an interesting point yesterday. Both Thomas Murray and Scott Peterson were found guilty, whereas Robert Blake was found innocent. Is it because Blake is somewhat of a celebrity, or is it because most people didn't sympathize with his wife, who was often portrayed as an unfavorable character (unlike Carmin Ross and Laci Peterson)? Perhaps there's no connection. Still, I wonder.
March 18, 2005 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
thetom (anonymous) says...
There's the story in Tomball, Texas where a guy hires - through a friend - an undercover officer to kill his wife. The police talk to the wife and take a picture of her made up as shot. When the Husband, the Friend, and the 'Shooter' get together to settle up (under video and audio surveillance), Hubby and friend get into an argument over money and hubby shoots friend.
March 18, 2005 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SarahSota (anonymous) says...
I think Scott Peterson is more of a celebrity these days than Robert Blake. Apparently, the man already has had women calling and sending letters to him proposing marraige. What the HELL is wrong with people??
March 18, 2005 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Carmenilla (anonymous) says...
Its the Ted Bundy syndrome. He's a "good-looking" guy and now he's *sob* being punished. Many women will buy into the whole idea that he "needs" them. Scary friggin' people, I say!
Also, the parade was lame but the outdoor show (after the parade) at the Replay was a lovely ending to our Mcholiday.
March 18, 2005 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says...
I don't think the Blake verdict had much to do w/ celebrity. I generally defer to jury acquittals.The Blake DA was relying on very suggestive (but not damning) circumstantial evidence and witness testimony from Blake hangers-on, and I think what sank the ship was the fact that the hangers-on weren't credible. The Peterson DA had scads of credible witnesses to back up the circumstantial evidence, plus the advantage that Peterson proved himself a liar out of his own mouth.
Anyway Phil Spector now has a reason to get out of bed in the morning....
March 18, 2005 at 1:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
toreador (Michael Austin) says...
The hanger ons were addicts and have lied about things over and over again. Very hard to convict when that is a lot of your evidence!
They should have tried to find more damning evidence before they put that one before the jury....
March 18, 2005 at 2:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...
All of these high profile murder cases has had me thinking about evil - the presence and nature of it.... How is it that four men (2 in the Lawrence area and two in CA) thought murdering their wives was a good solution to their problems? What kind of short circuit in the logic board makes that rise to the top of the choice pile? Surely there were other more productive ways of resolving the problem - divorce, fleeing the country, changing identities, hiring a seductive young man to lure her away... Where have the creative relationship ending thought processes gone!? And what about women is there that we cannot see when a man we love is about to do us in? I know a lot of people (male and female) try to turn the other cheek, work on their relationship, and stay true to their vows. But do these guys give no clue that they're about to end a life? Probably not - killers are often fairly normal seeming people...till they kill someone. Oh, and while I am wondering about how much evil may lurk in the hearts of a loved one who at the moment seems fairly "normal", let us not forget BTK as we speak of murder most foul. I sure wish there was some really effective test you could give potential mates to find out if, down the road, they will do something to break your heart, steal all your money, or end your life.... Anyone have a good test for those kinds of things that you can suggest to young women (and old) (and men) who are still looking for Mr/Ms. Right?
March 18, 2005 at 4:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says...
It's a scary question to ponder. Does love blind someone to that side of their mate? It's interesting to me that the Ross family immediately suspected Murray of being Carmin's killer, as if they may have seen signs of his being a potential monster that maybe even she didn't pick up on.
I knew Carmin for a couple of months before she was murdered. She and I had talked about her divorce and she even talked about Murray some, but never said anything negative about him at all. Granted, we were not confidantes or even friends, just two mothers whose kids were in the same preschool class. I suspect she had no idea he was about to flip out. If she did, surely she wouldn't have rented a house in the country where she didn't know anyone. Surely she would have mentioned that he might come to the preschool to take her daughter.
If there is anything to be said for Murray (there isn't, I know), at least he took his daughter to a babysitter while he went off-rail. This Martin Miller joker, however--was there even 2 layers of drywall between his kids and the murder scene?
March 18, 2005 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
liz (Liz Weslander) says...
The Martin Miller case is straight out of a Law and Order episode - what with the mistress and the preacher who just can't keep himself out of the spotlight. Divorce is looked down upon by the church, so he goes and kills his wife? The church will love that.
I too wonder about the short circuit that leads to these sort of crimes. I wonder about these men's families. I find it interesting that Murray had no family at the trial. His parents are dead and he is an only child, so I guess that explains some of it.
Anyhow, I find it hard to come up with much to say except that I am disturbed by the trend. (and that I'm glad the Murray trial is over)
March 18, 2005 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Carmenilla (anonymous) says...
My folks know/knew the Millers. What that man did within a few feet of his children was despicable. Between him and BTK, the average church-going white male is looking pretty shitty. I know its only a few bad apples but these guys were actually well known and respected in their social spheres. Imagine knowing these people as "good Christians".......It makes me shiver.
March 19, 2005 at 12:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
edie_ (anonymous) says...
Makes you wonder if the abominable threat of Christian disapproval has driven other unidentified churchly fellows to make their wives die "mysteriously" so they could pull off that quickie second marriage as a desperate need for consolation.
I especially enjoyed the way you worked the phrase "spending the rest of your life being Bubba's bitch in prison" into the discussion here.
March 20, 2005 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stinkblossom (anonymous) says...
In regards to National Alcoholics Day, the rowdy fellas around Freestate urging the parade to become a car show was delightful. There just needed to be more stink of the car and human kind to really get the feel.
In regards to what folk are thinking when they are with a crazy fucker... it's all very individual. Sometimes it's money other times it's self-esteem. It's just survival. The brain does wonderfull things to help people forget what goes on in abusive relationships until the undeniable awful truth forces them to take some action. Love doesn't always blind, but love sometimes inconjunction with hope and a severe and tragic loss of logic causes mental cataracts in the afflicted. I don't want to sound like I have answers to fit all circunstances. I just wanted to give a tiny bit insight to bloggers who I don't think have been in that position. Someone once said to me, "it's amazing all the smart women I know who've been in those types of relationships". Even if the broad (or toad) were dumb as a post it still is amazing considering the legal, sane, positively beautiful option of divorce being offered and at times at rather low costs. God bless my divorce lawyer! Has anyone heard what was happening in the case in Castlerock, Co, about the lady suing the police dept. over the loss of her kids by her estranged husband? That woman didn't think that he'd kill the kids.
March 22, 2005 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
leslie (Leslie vonHolten) says...
I admit that the mind of the abused/intimidated wife is not one I've learned to empathize with. Speaking from experiences with friends & family members, most of the time I think it's a lack of priorities on the part of the women (esp. those with children)--sympathy for the husband who "needs them," trepidation about life without a man, etc. I know, I know--it's supposedly psychologically deeper than that. But that is a completely different topic; I haven't heard any evidence that these recently murdered wives were abused during their marriages.
What is especially weird to me is that these husbands thought they'd get away with it. The husband, esp. an ex, is ALWAYS the first suspect. (Case in point: when I got the phone call that Carmin had been murdered, I immediately thought, "oh my god, her ex." No reason at all--I had never met him, knew he was a well-educated professor, and Carmin had never said anything to me negative about him.) Since these murders were premeditated, didn't they consider this stereotypical reaction of the police & public?
I don't know any details of the Colorado case, other than it's completely terrifying. How does the wife see the police as culpable?
March 23, 2005 at 10:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says...
The wife in the Colorado case obtained a restraining order barring her husband from contact w/ the family; they had three girls. The husband, while the restraining order was in force, took the children from the family's yard and later killed all three.
I don't know the details of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the kidnapping, although of course she called the cops. Nor do i know whether or not the husband had a history of violating the order prior to the kidnapping, although that seems to be part of the public understanding of the case.
In any event, the wife's grounds for action are that the restraining order placed a positive obligation on the Castle Rock police to protect the family from the husband. That's the issue the Supreme Court is considering this week: Are municipalities obliged to fully enforce restraining orders? All the municipal leagues, of course, have sided w/ Castle Rock, which is arguing that full enforcement of restraining orders would be ruinously expensive. The economic argument was one of the principal issues on which the justices spent time during the arguments. Is it appropriate to increase the burden on police and other law enforcement agencies, which by definition have limited resources to address broad obligations?
Ugly ugly case.
March 23, 2005 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
quinn (Patrick Quinn) says...
I should qualify the above by saying that it came off the top of my head, from AP Radio wire reports, and that I've done no reporting on this myself; Castle Rock isn't my beat. AP Radio (which is usually pretty good on this stuff) reported that much of oral argument on Monday was about the financial implications of restraining orders.
I, too, have long been amazed by the number of husbands/lovers who kill their sig-others. This is one element TV gets right; the husband/lover is _always_ the first person looked at in the murder of a female, and that's because the numbers say that's the smartest place to look.
March 23, 2005 at 2:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )