Women: The Forgotten Child Murderers

Started by Rob, Jan 11, 2006, 01:34 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


While searching for links about female killers to discredit a rabid feminists claim that "in general men are a danger to women because men murder and rape up to 50 women for shits and giggles", I came across this article that I thought was interesting (though a little dated now, Feb '01).


by David MacRae
         After six years of searching for compassion from Canadian legal system, Robert Latimer must finally, as the statists like to put it, « pay his debt to society » for the crime of killing a vegetable in human form. After three trials, the Supreme Court of Canada has delivered its verdict. There will be no more appeals. He will spend at least ten years in prison.

         Almost forgotten in the national debate over this case is the fact Latimer's case has finally established the principle in Canadian law that if the Crown doesn't like a jury's verdict, it simply has to appeal to one of its own in order to get it changed. Formerly, the most an appeal court could do was to order a new trial. Yet another limit on state power has been erased.  
         Equally forgotten is the fact that Mr. Latimer had an accomplice. He did not make the decision to terminate the existence of his misbegotten daughter on his own. He discussed it beforehand with his wife Laura and they both agreed that it was time for Tracy to die.  
A simple error  
         Why would apparently-loving parents decide to terminate the life of their only daughter?  
         Well, advocates for the disabled may applaud the court decision, claiming that it demonstrates respect for their rights, but the fact remains that Tracy Latimer was not handicapped. As I said, she was a vegetable.  
         A vegetable who knew nothing of life except excruciating pain. She couldn't walk, talk or feed herself. She functioned at the level of a three-month-old. She had already endured several major operations and would certainly have needed many more.  
         After twelve years, her parents decided to end the life of this travesty. No one will ever know whether they did this to end her pain or because they needed to move on in their own lives. Probably they cannot even sort out their motives themselves.  
         Whatever you think about the ethics of their decision, Robert and Laura Latimer made a simple error which would have prevented the Canadian legal system from hounding them for six years, destroying their family, slandering their reputation and committing him to prison.  
         They chose the wrong person to perform the deed.  
         Had Laura killed their daughter, it is almost certain that no one would have gone to prison. The system would have been sympathetic and sentenced her to « treatment », not prison. This assumes that case would ever have reached trial. This is far from certain.  
         There is a vast difference in the way that women and men are treated for the crime of killing their children.  
         Surprised? You shouldn't be. Consider.  
Female compassion  
         In the time between Latimer's first and second trials, Danielle Blais of Montreal drowned her six-year-old son Charles-Antoine in a bathtub. Like Tracy Latimer, Charles-Antoine had a handicap, in his case autism. Unlike Tracy, he had a life. He could get out of his bed. He attended school. He had the hope of one day becoming independent, perhaps even productive.  
         Like Robert Latimer, Danielle Blais was charged with murder for her act. Like Latimer, Blais was initially sentenced to two years in prison. Thereafter, the stories differ.  
         The Latimer verdict provoked a national outcry. The Crown appealed with the result, as we have already noted, that he will spend at least ten years in prison.  
         And Blais? Her sentence was suspended. Few people, even in Montreal, have ever heard of her. There was no appeal. Did disabled activists react with outrage at this travesty of justice? Well, not exactly. The Quebec Society for Autistic Children hired her as a spokesperson - to explain how difficult it is to live with autism.  
Want more?  
         While the Latimer case waited to be heard before the Supreme Court of Canada, in British Columbia Cheryl Baker let her ten-year-old daughter Katie Lynn die from starvation. At the end Katie Lynn weighed 20 pounds. Yes, you read that right. She was ten years old and weighed 20 pounds.  
         In mommy's defence, Katie Lynn had Rett's Syndrome, a severe form of autism and one of the symptoms of this disorder is a lack of the desire to eat. Still, like Charles-Antoine Blais, Katie-Lynn Baker was well enough to attend school. Her mother has never been charged for criminal negligence, let alone murder. Nor have any of the numerous social workers and school officials who watched her die. In all likelihood, no one ever will be charged.  
    « Women who kill their children are given sympathy and sentenced to "treatment" while men who do the same thing are charged with murder and sentenced to life. »  

         At the same time as the Supreme Court rendered its verdict on the Latimer case, an inquest in Toronto tried to make sense of the death of Jordan Heikamp. Like Katie Lynn Baker, Jordan died of starvation under the watch of social workers and women's shelter bureaucrats. As in her case, society's protectors did nothing.  
         Unlike Katie Lynn, Jordan Heikamp was not handicapped. He suffered simply from the misfortune of being born to the wrong woman. She never provided him with any sustenance and he therefore died. Renee Heikamp was charged with criminal negligence, as was a social worker. Still... the result was the same. When the case went to court, the judge threw out the case, absolving both women of all blame. And yes, there was no appeal.  
Parenting skills  
         All of this points to one conclusion: women who kill their children are given sympathy and sentenced to « treatment » while men who do the same thing are charged with murder and sentenced to life.  
         Perhaps it is not a coincidence that women are many times more likely to murder their offspring than men.  
         A hospital in Great Britain installed hidden cameras to survey children who they feared to be at risk of abuse by their parents. They found dozens of cases and made headlines about abuse by « parents » and « step-parents ». The Life Channel chronicled the story (this version was translated and ran on Canal Vie as well).  
         What all the commentators carefully hid was who these « parents » were: there was one grandmother, one father... and thirty-seven mothers. Judging from the references to « step-parents », I suspect that the man wasn't really a father either.  
         How did the hospital choose the people to watch? Every case involved previous children who had died in mysterious circumstances. To be more precise, 37 killer moms murdered 40 children. Total jail sentences imposed: 0, even though some of the women confessed when confronted afterwards.  
         About 1300 child murders took place in the US last year. About 500 perpetrators were non-parents, roughly divided between men and women. Of the rest, only 30 (!) were fathers. In other words, mothers were more than 25 times more likely to kill their progeny than fathers. Yet somehow, men are viewed as being more dangerous to their children than women.  
         In Canada, many crime statistics are presented in such a way as to hide female malevolence. As an example, we do not break down statistics on child murder by sex of the offender. Consequently, this information is not available here. However, there is no reason to assume that things are any different north of the border.  
         This favoured treatment of women is not limited to child murder. Rose Cece and Mary Taylor, a lesbian couple in Toronto, decided on a lark to kill a police officer. Had a man done so, he would have been convicted with first-degree murder almost without regard to the facts. If not, police associations across the country would have been outraged. In fact, Cece and Taylor were convicted of manslaughter and no one commented.  
         At least they went to jail. Women are often let off with suspended sentences. As the Ottawa Citizen said in one case, « husband-killer Lilian Getkate's sentence of two years less a day at home is an insult to our sense of natural justice. » The murderer herself reacted by saying: « I was startled. I took someone's life and I'm not going to jail. Of course I'm surprised by that. » Once again, the Crown did not appeal.  
Getting away with murder  
         This reluctance to convict women murderers goes back a long way. In fact, it is the reason for the invention of the crime of infanticide at the turn of the last century. Juries refused to convict women of murdering their own children.  
         Or their parents, it would appear.  
  Lizzie Borden took an axe  
  Gave her mother forty whacks  
  When she saw what she had done  
  She gave her father forty-one.  
         What the ditty doesn't mention is that the 1892 Boston jury let Lizzie off. One of the main reasons for this is that her judge, like the one in the Getkate case, practically directed the jury to acquit. Plus ça change...  
         One difference between women who are committed to jail and those who are not appears to be familial relationships. Only two women have ever been convicted of first-degree murder in this country. Yvonne Johnson killed a man she barely knew. Sarabjit Kaur Minhas strangled her nephew. In other words, women are given greater latitude when they kill their husbands, parents or children. Of course, they always get some slack - Cece and Taylor are proof enough of that.  
         The discrimination of the courts in favour of women is not limited to murder. It is true of all crimes. Officially, women commit 15% of serious crimes in Canada, almost certainly an understatement of the facts. Whatever the real number, they form approximately 1% of the people in our prisons. Texas statistics indicate that women are actually more likely to commit fraud than men. Despite this, men are ten times more likely to serve time for the offence.  
         There seems to be a fundamental refusal to admit that women are capable of committing crimes. When they do, we tend to downplay the act and to view her as the victim, not as the victimizer. A book has been written about the Johnson case. Its title is Stolen Life. Guess whose life the author feels was robbed. It isn't the man she killed.  
         While feminism may be partially responsible for this, the answer appears to be more profound. Lizzy Borden's parents died long before the appearance of this form of collective insanity. The reality is that people, in all societies, assume that the female of the species must be protected, even from the consequences of her own actions.  
         Whatever. The bottom line is that male misbehaviour, however you to define this word, is treated far more severely than equivalent female crimes.  
         Robert Latimer would be free today had he insisted that his wife take responsibility for her decisions instead of doing it for her. So would she. After all, she was never even investigated for her part in the killing, let alone charged, convicted or sentenced.

Sir Percy

Rarely does one read essays like this that are written with a tonal quality quite so quiet and sad. What a fine piece.
vil, like misery, is Protean, and never greater than when committed in the name of 'right'. To commit evil when they are convinced they are doing 'good', is one of the greatest of pleasures known to a feminist.


I remember this piece from when it first came out. It is that well written. The problem remains: women are allowed to kill and feminists support a woman's right to kill.

ay what you mean: Mean what you say.


There is one female I know. I will not give details by which she might be identified. I will say that I have witnessed her do horrible things.

I find it impossible to hate her. I am constantly giving her the benefit of the doubt. One excuse or another for why she isn't as bad as she is.

Even now, I am being unusually cautious to avoid any possibility of identification of her. Why? I find her "cute," "attractive," etc.

This is just instinctive I think in men. We have a hard time attributing culpability to attractive women -- also actually all women.

Women use the instinct the maximum for their benefit. I think to
eliminate this completely the very nature of men would have to change.


Elisabeth Bathory was born in Hungary in 1560.  At the age of 15 she married to Count Ferencz Nadasdy and took residence in castle Csejthe.  The Countess Bathory and her husband took part in black magic and demonic rituals.

The Count Nadasdy often left the castle to go to war.  It was at these times Elisabeth had lesbian orgies mixed with sado-masochism.

Elisabeth was at her middle age when her husband had died.  One day she struck one of her servants for carelessness.  blood lay on her hand which gave it a youthful appearance.  The Countess then thought that blood made her look younger so she took to killing girls.  At her castle she had dungeons where girls were kept and being fattened up for blood, she also had people kidnapping girls and taking them back to the castle where they were killed.  Elisabeth Bathory believed herself to be a vampire, by this she drank blood and bathed in it.

Over the years the Countess and her associates killed over 600 girls, all of which were used for their blood.  The villagers were aware but could not act upon it as she had powerful friends.  Prime Minister Thurzo of Hungary who was a cousin of the Countess decided to do something and stormed the castle with soldiers to arrest the Countess and her associates.  They were amazed at what they saw in the castle, such torture practices that were far more gruesome than the usual, dead corpses filled the castle.

Countess Bathory and her associates were arrested.  All but the Countess were sentenced to death.  The Countess herself was put into a sealed room with small spaces for ventilation and the passing of food.  She died on the 21 August 1614 at the age of fifty-four.  It is said that the Countess' life story inspired Bram Stoker to write 'Dracula'.
Even a whole village can't replace dad, children need both parents.


Quote from: "zarby"
This is just instinctive I think in men. We have a hard time attributing culpability to attractive women -- also actually all women.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I think this needs to be said (or at least laid on the table) because I believe that most men at some point or another think what I'm about to write but don't say it. And that is, simply: draw the analogy between how men think about women and how men think about children. It's very similar. And this is why men (in many circumstances; I'm not saying all) don't hold women responsible for their own actions. Because men, at their core, very often don't believe women can be held responsible for their own actions. Like children.

Apologies for breaking any forum rules with this thought.


Quote from: "NobleTry"
I'm going out on a limb here, but I think this needs to be said (or at least laid on the table) because I believe that most men at some point or another think what I'm about to write but don't say it. And that is, simply: draw the analogy between how men think about women and how men think about children. It's very similar. And this is why men (in many circumstances; I'm not saying all) don't hold women responsible for their own actions. Because men, at their core, very often don't believe women can be held responsible for their own actions. Like children.

I dont thing that you are too far off Noble.  I think that alot of what we feel (and yes men feel) has been ingrained within our psychy.  We are brought up with a specific set of values or ideals and as we age, and learn, we define these values for ourselves.  But the core of the values are still there... somewhere.  The boys don't hit girls crap immediately comes to mind.

Other things like what we are suposed to do; gifts, roses, special treatment, pedistal placement and the like are also examples I think.

Only when we start to challenge the things that we find peculiar about our values do we truely begin to grow and learn.  Oh, sure.  We may find that by challenging these ideals that they are are in fact fitting for ourselves and continue as such.  Often though, I think, we find that the ideals don't fit with who we feel we are or want to be, thus we analyze (challenge)  and eventually modify out beliefs.

Feminists, (generally) have no intention or even a desire to challenge these ideals.  They (again generally speaking) feel that they are constant and are to be made difinitive to society as a whole, without compromise.  That is where these gender wars start, I believe.

At least that is my opinion.  But I have been know to be wrong before...

The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.


I think that men - on the whole - have been trained to act in a chivalric manner. However, this training seems to have gone down the tubes over the past several years for a number of reasons, including anti-feminism backlash and single parents (who - male or female - are not instructing their boys in the whole chivalric thing). In addition, the public school system reinforces the fact that everyone is equal, which equates to "no one needs special treatment".

On the other hand, we have the media - all of it, telling women that they still deserve to be treated as females were in the old days, up on the pedastal, etc. Hell, I was raised that way, to open doors, give flowers, buy a diamond, excuse her bad behaviour, make life as easy as possible for the tender creature that is woman...

And then, as Al points out, I began to challenge my assumptions. I hold the door for anyone, but take notice that while every male says "Thank you," only one out of ten women will, and they are usually at least forty. It's as though they take it for granted.

The thing is, there is a new generation of men arising. They are not being trained to think in a woman-first manner. They will not have the values that we as older men were brought up with. This is a shame, because part of that chivalric tradition contributes to strengthening the altruistic, protective instincts of the male. Not only that, many of them are undereducated, medicated, and utterly uninterested in even dealing with women for anything but sex.

Now, if feminists were attempting to get rid of the sense of female privilege that is the converse to male chivalric thinking, there would be no problem. Well, other than the fact that feminism is destroying everything around us, but leaving that aside, the problem is that feminists are still working on the old double standard that I and many other males see so often in unenlightened females. One rule for men, another for women.
: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?


Go Up