« The Legal Reader On Judge Weller - Part II | Main | Phase Two Of The Blow Job Talk - Sexual Positions »

June 17, 2006

Darren Mack Hired Fathers' Rights "Trial Consultant" Dean Tong As His Legal Consultant

Update - July 2, 2006: I'm getting lots of Google hits on this post. I wanted to make sure the Google people read my other post about Dean Tong and Darren Mack. He wrote an editorial for a Nevada newspaper that was published. Tong had again tried to explain away his involvement with Mack, still excusing the murder and shooting he committed on "the system". I think Tong is just trying to get attention for having met Darren Mack. He's a publicity hound.

-----

Update - June 19, 2006: Dean Tong has also appeared on CNN to talk about the Darren Mack case. He was interviewed by Nancy Grace, from CNN. He once again made excuses for Mack, and backpedaled around his support for the "fine, upstanding citizen" Darren Mack who stabbed his wife to death, shot a judge, and shot one of the judge's female colleagues. The two women are getting very little press. All the media attention and fathers' rights complaints are about Mack shooting the judge. I guess when women are injured and killed, they aren't as important as shooting a judge.

I'm sorry, but you can't base a judgment on something as important as a custody case based solely on having breakfast with a guy whose wife claims he beat her up. Tong says Mack "didn't appear to me to be a risk to his child or his wife" - and he based that statement over meeting him over breakfast.

Also notice that Grace attacks the victim - the woman who Mack stabbed to death - in reporting some of her statements in court documents. Remember that it was Darren Mack who stabbed Charla Mack to death, not the other way around. It's almost as if Grace wants to give the impression that Charla Mack's actions and statements were responsible for her own murder. That's right, blame the victim for her own murder.

Tong again made it sound as if Mack's "losing" everything was responsible for his murder of his ex-wife and his shooting of a judge and the judge's female colleague. Tong said "He was worried that he was losing access to his now 8-year-old daughter. He was getting financially destroyed. Obviously, there was a lot of money on the table here."

Note how much of the discussion is about money. Mack is a very wealthy man.

Remember that Dean Tong's organization "The Abuse Excuse", exists to help men accused of domestic violence and child abuse beat the charges (pun intended).

Here is what Tong had to say about Mack on CNN:

GRACE: To Dean Tong. He is a forensic trial consultant, and he consulted with Darren Mack during the divorce proceedings. Welcome, Mr. Tong. Thank you for being with us. I've taken a look at some letters that you say came from the suspect, Darren Mack -- very, very disturbing. What were the grounds of the divorce? Why is this guy so mad?

DEAN TONG, TRIAL CONSULTANT FOR DARREN MACK: Thanks for having me, Nancy. The grounds were incompatibility, irreconcilable differences, mental cruelty, domestic abuse. They just could not mediate. They could not work it out. They tried to do so, and it became a very contentious, protracted custody battle.

GRACE: What exactly were her complaints about him?

TONG: Well, she had made allegations of domestic violence, that he had hit her. I had him tested by one of my psychologists, and the results of those findings and conclusions were that he had no propensity to be the monster that she was pinging him to be. I met the man last July in a Las Vegas hotel. We had breakfast together, and he certainly didn't appear to me to be a risk to his child or his wife. So I mean, this is totally beyond surreal for me.

But basically, she was angry that -- she thought he could not be a fit father for their daughter, and she wanted to be the primary custodian of the child.

GRACE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Mr. Tong -- with us, Dean Tong, he is a forensic trial consultant -- what do you mean? You can't go into court and say, He's not a fit daddy? Why is he not a fit father? What exactly are her allegations?

TONG: It was mainly, `He said, she said," Nancy. And you know, it was basically going to boil down to be a battle of the experts. Unfortunately, the last six months, I became incommunicado with the defense team, so I'm not privy to what the final things were done by his defense team.

[...]

GRACE: I want to go back to Dean Tong, the forensic trial consultant who actually consulted with the murder suspect, Darren Mack, a well-known businessman there in the Reno area. I've got to -- taking a look at a letter that you claim Mack had sent you -- I guess it's in the divorce proceedings team -- a lot of complaints, a lot of accusations, they would ruin each other financially. One threatened to maim the other physically and put their body parts in a freezer. I mean, are you familiar with these documents that you faxed to our show?

TONG: Yes, I am.

GRACE: OK. I'm going to ask you again if you could be more specific about why they wanted a divorce.

TONG: Well, there were allegations of Darren's propensity toward this alternative lifestyle -- swingers, if you will. She went along with that, apparently, for a while, and then she became angry with that. And that was one of the issues in the complaint for the dissolution of marriage.

GRACE: I'm also seeing, aside from allegations of swinging on his part, the threat that she would cut his private parts off and put them in a freezer. Did you read that?

TONG: I did not see that in specific, Nancy, no.

GRACE: Well, it's in the documents that you sent us. Also, "I will ruin you financially if you ever leave me. I will make your life a living hell." This was not a happy couple. This is a bitter divorce proceeding. What did you advise this guy to do?

TONG: Well, first of all, I`m not his attorney, so I only can work with him to basically counsel him to have the attorney play out my strategy in court. I advised him to go for testing. He went through the testing. He took the HCR-20 and the Cappy (ph). There was no propensity toward physical child abuse or domestic violence. We were going to get a custody evaluator to evaluate the father and the mother and the child. I don't know if that happened. He was worried that he was losing access to his now 8-year-old daughter. He was getting financially destroyed. Obviously, there was a lot of money on the table here.

GRACE: How much money are we talking about?

TONG: We're talking about seven to eight figures.

GRACE: Whew! Let`s go to the lines. Eileen in Florida. Hi, Eileen.

[...]

GRACE: Yes. I want to go back to Dean Tong, forensic trial consultant. What did this judge do that made Mack so furious? What did he say from the bench? What did he rule to make Mack so angry?

TONG: Nancy, I'm not privy to the final judgment of the court, but I have to assume that Charla was awarded sole physical custody, that she -- like your guest earlier alluded to...

GRACE: Right.

TONG: ... she was getting at least $10,000 in spousal support a month, plus child support.

GRACE: Yes, well, this guy had millions of dollars, so I`m not so sure that $10,000 is that much.

TONG: And plus at least -- right. Plus at least half of his business. Now, arguably, he was making about $44,000 a month.

Update : Dean Tong uses the penile plethysmograph test, which is unreliable in ascertaining child sexual abuse. This test measures male sexual arousal. This article describes its many problems, including that it is not admitted in court under Daubert, which means that the test is scientifically unreliable. The test is "subject to fakery and voluntary control by test subjects..." That doesn't stop false allegations proponents from using it.

The use of this test, plus the current disaster of the Darren Mack case, make me wonder how many abusers have been able to get away with their behavior when "trial consultants" are used in domestic violence and child abuse cases.

-----

I'm long familiar with Dean Tong. He's a fathers' rights activist. He runs The Abuse Excuse, a web site for men who claim that they have been falsely accused of domestic violence and child abuse. He has set himself up as a trial consultant for false allegations cases. Tong abides by the belief that women frequently file false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. That's not true. Bona fide false allegations of abuse are rare. They are no more common in the context of a divorce and custody case than they are in the general population.

Tong has written books, some self-published because no publisher would touch them, and he sells them to angry men who want to get back at their ex's when their ex's accuse them of domestic violence and child abuse.

I have met Tong in person. I was hanging out with a woman colleague, practically hanging on her arm because I didn't know anybody else at the conference. I'm shy. Bet you weren't expecting that - Trish The Pit Viper is shy in real life. Smiley_grin. If I know only one person in the room, I'm likely to hang out with that person. My colleague had told me that later Tong had told people that we were lesbians! I never laughed so hard in my life.

Tong has had a poor relationship with his daughter. He was accused of child sexual abuse, and spent thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Remember the Elian Gonsalez case from many years ago? That was the one about the boy from Cuba whose mother drowned when she tried to get to Florida by way of boat. Her son Elian was with her, but he survived. Elian's Miami relatives fought for custody. His father, living in Cuba, wanted him returned to him. I thought that his father should get custody. Dean Tong and a few other fathers' rights activists latched onto the case to gain media attention.

Tong may get more media attention now, but not the kind that he'd like.

Now, Tong represents fathers who claim to have been falsely accused of domestic violence and child abuse. He is the epitome of fathers' rights. Lots of abusive men who want to get away with their abuse hire men like Dean Tong to help them win their cases. This is where it gets interesting.

Darren Mack had hired him as his legal consultant. Yes, the same Darren Mack who had stabbed his ex-wife to death, and shot the judge who decided his case against him in the chest. Mack is now a fugitive, hiding from the law. He is considered armed and dangerous.

That job is now biting Dean Tong on the ass. Here is a portion of an interview he had on the Rita Cosby show. Notice that Tong is being very cagey about how he didn't see that Mack was an angry and violent man, even though he had "his expert" conduct forensic tests. He said that Mack seemed like a "fine, upstanding citizen". They even ate breakfast together! It's so easy to tell a guy is a "fine, upstanding citizen" over a helping of pancakes and coffee.

This "fine, upstanding citizen" murdered his wife. He stabbed her until she was dead.

Tong had sent Mack to his expert on "domestic violence and physical child abuse propensity tests". Just what kind of expert was this? Someone who sides with men accused of abuse? That's what The Abuse-Excuse is all about. Women supposedly use abuse as an "excuse" to get their way in divorce and custody cases. Dean Tong is their to protect all of the men accused of abuse from this supposedly rampant practice.

Tong was actually trained as an emergency medical technician. He has no business being a "trial consultant". Now, a woman is dead, and a judge is injured. This is bad news.

This makes me wonder how many other "fine, upstanding citizens" Tong helps get around their domestic violence and child abuse allegations...

Also notice this statement he made: "You know, this was a situation where he—he wasn‘t going to take justice delayed is justice denied.  He felt like the fox was guarding the henhouse. And—and he wanted justice now. " He's giving excuses for why Darren Mack stabbed his ex-wife to death and shot a judge in the chest. "Justice delayed and justice denied ... he wanted justice now." If Darren Mack had been given what he wanted in court, his ex-wife would still be alive and the judge wouldn't have a bullet hole in him.

Dean Tong is yet another example of someone who is making money from the "divorce industry" who shouldn't make a red cent. There are lots of people out there making money from divorce and custody cases. "Forensic consultants", with unregulated training, are one example.

Boys and girls, can you say damage control??? Eek

Let me bring in forensic trial consultant Dean Tong, who Mack hired for his
custody case, and two people who worked with Mack, John Ohl, and also Robert
Cheesebrew.  Both of them worked with him. 

Now, Dean, let me start with you. 

You—you worked with him on this consulting issue.  Did you see anything in
there in his behavior that he had any violent tendencies?  I understand
there were even some tests done. 

DEAN TONG, FORENSIC TRIAL CONSULTANT:  No, nothing, Rita.

I met the man last July.  He seemed like a fine, upstanding citizen.  We
shook hands.  We had breakfast together.  We talked on the phone many times
before I even came out to Vegas to see him, or vice-versa.

COSBY:  And what about these tests?  Tell us about these tests.

TONG:  Yes. 

He was subjected by my expert to domestic violence and physical child abuse
propensity tests.  And he passed the same with flying colors.  So, there was
nothing there to give us any forewarning he was a ticking time bomb ready to
explode.

COSBY:  Was there anything at all about his behavior, even in, you know,
recent weeks at all?

TONG:  Well, unfortunately, Rita, I‘m only as good as the attorneys who work
with me. 

And this became a case of incommunicado.  The attorneys and—and Darren Mack
failed to communicate with me over the past six months or so.  I...

COSBY:  But you said to one of our producers that he didn‘t seem like
himself recently.  What was it? 

TONG:  Well, the psychologist, whose name I—I cannot disclose at this time,
did talk to him and his attorney a few months ago.  And he said he sounded
like on the phone like he was distressed, like he was distraught. 

COSBY:  Like someone who might snap? 

TONG:  I don‘t want to use that word.  But, certainly, the case was going
south.  He was losing access to his daughter.  He was losing his fortune. 

You know, this was a situation where he—he wasn‘t going to take justice
delayed is justice denied.  He felt like the fox was guarding the henhouse. 
And—and he wanted justice now. 

Posted on June 17, 2006 at 04:41 PM | Permalink

Comments

What's a penile plethysmograph test? Is that the official term for the view that if a male gets an erection out of something then it means he wasn't abused?

Posted by: Alon Levy at Jun 17, 2006 10:01:17 PM

I believe that is the message this type male wants to project. "If she'd just done what I told her to do, I'd not have had to hit her, yell at her, threaten her, stab her, shoot her, kill her". I guess it's her fault also when he adversely, and based upon lies receives custody of their children and then denies the mother access or interferes whenever he can. Oh yes, that's the part where he is "punishing" her for "wrong-doing"....yes...back to the "she didn't obey him" routine.

Their lives and errors are ALWAYS the fault of someone else.

If the judge had just ruled in their favor, then he wouldn't have had to shoot him.

Is this what we're hearing?! Is this a message to mothers and the judicial system, this threat of more violence?

The truth is, IF these men WERE right, the WOMEN in their life would GLADLY obey them! THE RESPONSIBILITY when you insist in leading is to be RIGHT! When you're not, only a FOOL would follow you.

And the father's rights issue....this is simply another abuse tool. This type male abuses, beats, and at times kills the woman who cannot follow him and they've yet to have children! (Scott Peterson, Mark Peterson, Mark Henning, Justin Barber (currently on trial)...others...

Men have a RIGHT to a lovely life, but they must be lovely/loving themselves and earn it. Women have a RIGHT to a lovely life and she too has the responsibiltiy to be loving. The children have a RIGHT to lovely parents. The problem comes when one person thinks only of themselves, their greed, their selfishness, their power. Then....no one's lovely, no one's happy.*

Shoulda been so simple, shouldn't it?

*Ah...gotta add.....talking to and receiving advice from and acting on the advice from agendaed morons isn't any help either!

Oh and...I can only TRUST this will incite MORE judges to do what is RIGHT...and to discredit the "hate-mongers" feeding the ANGER of the "unlovely".

Posted by: charms at Jun 17, 2006 10:59:57 PM

I hope this ruins Tong. .

Posted by: Txfeminist at Jun 18, 2006 11:26:19 AM

In one way, it's so screwed up that this is still in the news because a judge was shot, not that a woman was murdered. Yet I have to be thankful that he was, because otherwise this would be a one-day local wonder, and Darren would get away with it. All this 'at the end of his rope' stuff makes me sick. It's all BS. He wasn't bankrupt, and their wealth wasn't just on paper. For him, it was all about winning and control.

Posted by: ReeAnn in Reno at Jun 18, 2006 7:50:56 PM

Another woman was also shot; there was a court reporter or some other female staffer standing next to the judge.

The FRAs are slime.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 19, 2006 9:03:47 AM

Wow, that update from CNN is positively kafkaesque.... they're still going to claim this is a "he said/she said" situation in light of the current circumstances? He is still blabbing about how he didn't show any propensities for violence?

Jeez. what a tool. I'd say he needs to go re-examine
those tests he likes to use, because it's clear from
this situation that the tests are utterly bogus.

anyone with half a clue should realize that
Tong is completely discredited.

Posted by: Txfeminist at Jun 19, 2006 3:08:50 PM

I saw an article including jaw-dropping statements by Rita Cosby reiterating what Tong had said. She wondered if divorce and custody battles could "make" men do things like what Mack did.

Absolutely fucking amazing.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 19, 2006 3:34:43 PM

i wonder how she would feel if someone told her that idiotic conclusions made by newscasters "make" people scratch their eyes out.....

Posted by: Txfeminist at Jun 19, 2006 4:23:52 PM

"He was losing access to his daughter"
That's one creepy sentence.

Posted by: JM at Jun 20, 2006 12:01:07 AM

Why did the legal system fail? I have been forced to litigate various matters, divorce, probate, a dispute over property. There is one thing in common that all the judges care about is to build fees for lawyers and to collect it to the point of cleaning you out to the last penny. They do not care if they destroy your business. They try to avoid a trial, refuse to take evidence and testimony, instead they malign an demean. The rule of law if whatever the judge rules. They do not care what the law is and what the facts are. The lawyers egg on the two sides, they promise things they cannot or have not intention to deliver, because their primary interest is to make fees. The more discord the higher the fee. It is a viscious system and that cannot be overlooked. Obviously the system did not help, it destroyed both the husband and wife and of course the innocent child.

Posted by: Judy Fried at Jun 20, 2006 1:02:53 PM

Interesting article about Tong.. I wasn't aware of his involvement before.. It's all so sickening.

Posted by: Ginger at Jun 20, 2006 1:30:54 PM

I personally know Darren, and worked for him for a few years, I even know Charla, who was probablly responsible for my not working there any more. She was in my opinion only out to marry someone with alot of money. I do know that she was into the Darren's life style (at first anyway) and it does not surprise me that their marriage was to end in divorce. I can also say that while I personally know Darren to be an agressive man, I am surprised that he destroyed his life and his childrens lives (I found him to be a parent totally devoted to his kids) but he loves guns, and loves to hunt. I guess I am just saying, out side of war, he is the only person I have know who has committed murder, and that shocks me. After knowing his wife I could see how she could get under anyones skin, but to get murdered for it is shocking of course. (but she could make even a passive person like me want to kick her in the ass)I am surprised that so little is being said about Charla, and so much about Darren. Sad. Money and power, sex...again MONEY POWER SEX... Sad

Posted by: golf4birds at Jun 20, 2006 9:01:15 PM

Wow, golf4birds, let me be the first to congratulate you on being a victim-blaming asshole.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 20, 2006 10:16:25 PM

I have two good friends that knew the Mack's. Both indepedently said she was a crazy nutbag at times. No excuse for Mack's actions but the victim basher is probaly right. As for him, what a selfish pig to exercise his revenge and mess his kids up.

Posted by: absolutetruth at Jun 21, 2006 1:05:36 AM

Uh, dipshit, you don't get it, do you? Trish, you and I are getting the same trolls. "I'M NOT VICTIM BLAMING, EVEN THOUGH I TOTALLY AM.CRAZY BITCH, NOT THAT SHE DESERVED IT, BUT...." For fuck's sake, give it up already. These assholes never seem to realize that if they just were honest, they'd be less loathsome, but of course, it's just a matter of degree. I mean, their whole value system boils down to, gimme what I want or I kill.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 21, 2006 12:56:09 PM

I would never advocate violence to women, and If I am an asshole then comming from you thanks.... truly this is a sad situation. If you did not hear me say that Darren was not the typr of person to let things go by, then I am sorry. He always played his games to win at a very sad cost

Posted by: golf4birds at Jun 22, 2006 9:08:05 AM

Why all the euphemisms? This is not a game. You can't make it anything but what it is: Mack killed his wife and tried to kill two other people. He's got legions of little cheerleaders who are either actively or passively on his side. Saying you're not victim blaming while criticizing a dead woman IS victim-blaming, moron.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 22, 2006 9:35:10 AM

I think it's interesting that these people posting here who claim to have known the Macks attack Charla. They are attacking a dead woman. It doesn't matter if Charla was Queen Bitch of the Universe. Her husband stabbed her to death, and that's what matters. The Wild Card in action.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 22, 2006 9:56:25 AM

So the only appropriate comment is to say bad things about him?

Didnt that poster say that murder was wrong? Didnt they say that they were shocked since Mack was the only person they knew who had committed a murder? Didnt they say that he was a very aggressive guy?

I just didnt see anything wrong with that person's comments.

Real situations are not bad up of completely bad people on one side and perfect angels on the other.

Posted by: will at Jun 22, 2006 12:30:37 PM

Why am I not surprised, Will? People are attacking a dead woman and you're whining that it's something it's not----good people versus bad. What part of, "He killed her, he was abusive, and he tried to kill two other people" doesn't equal BAD to you? Chrsit. already.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 22, 2006 6:27:00 PM

You know I have been looking at the photo's they keep displaying of Darren Mack, and there is such a smugness about him. He has that look on his face like go ahead throw whatever allegations you want at me because they won't I will make damn sure they don't stick. It worries me to know that the 8 year old is with Darren Mack's mother! I am fearful that her being a mother and probably convincing herself he is 100% innocent, the last thing he needs right now is to be away from his little girl; the one which in their minds he faught soooo hard to keep with him, but damn that awful Charla for speaking up about the true piece of shit he is. I just hope his mother does the right thing for that little girl and keeps her in the U.S. and away from her father. For anyone out there putting any of the blame on anyone but Darren, why don't you go stay in a physically and mentally abusive situation for awhile and then see if you are so quick to blame the GODDAMN victim.

Posted by: Lauren at Jun 22, 2006 7:27:22 PM

Thanks Trish for all you do to help the public realize that children of abusive divorces need protection from these types.

Posted by: at Jun 22, 2006 9:00:10 PM

says TONG, the EMT

"He was subjected by my expert to domestic violence and physical child abuse
propensity tests. And he passed the same with flying colors. "

Posted by: No more EMT Tong at Jun 22, 2006 9:08:25 PM

You're very welcome, anonymous. I do what I can for abused children. This post was one of them.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 22, 2006 9:18:52 PM

Yes, No more EMT Tong, and look what good that "expert" Tong assigned to Mack had done for Charla. Mack stabbed his wife to death.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 22, 2006 9:21:39 PM

Ginmar:

Of course I am wrong. We shouldnt allow anyone to recount how they are shocked by this or to discuss how they saw the family.

We should only be able to discuss their relationship prior to the murder if we want to paint it in clear black and white colors. I guess you think that people are too stupid to see any gray about their life before the murder. The golf person was clearly not apologizing but rather expressing amazement. That is not allowed in your world. Someone should have explained to her that Ginmar only likes to see posts with slamming men.

Shame on her for expressing shock and disappointment that this real family ended up murdered by the dad.

Posted by: will at Jun 22, 2006 10:14:02 PM

http://www.aimpress.com/neverland.htm
“I don’t play the let’s wait and see what happens game in these cases,” Tong barks. “Take no prisoners, this is America versus Iraq, and this is war,” Tong notes. “Jackson, if he is truly innocent of child molestation, should be submitting to a series of sexual deviancy tests like a Plethysmograph and Abel Screen (www.abelscreen.com) to glean if he’s truly the monster the prosecution says he is,” Tong states.

Posted by: No more EMT Tong at Jun 22, 2006 11:06:38 PM

Fuck you, will, and fuck you for your mind reading act. What part of "HE KILLED HIS WIFE AND TRIED TO KILL OTHERS" is ambiguous to you, asshole? And what part of CRITICIZING A DEAD WOMAN do you not get? Oh, wait; it's the same old act you try at every fucking feminist site there is.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 23, 2006 9:21:27 AM

"Fuck you, will, and fuck you for your mind reading act"

Wow Ginmar. I am so surprised. I thought you would try to discuss this issue instead of cuss and rage.


I do not disagree that murder is wrong. Period. As the Countess said, she could have been Queen Bitch of the Universe and she still shouldnt have gotten murdered.

At the same time, I do not think it is outrageous for people to express shock at what happened to this family. I am not offended by someone who says "Wow, she was a bitch who could push his buttons and he was an aggressive asshole, but I am still shocked that he killed her."

Perhaps it is just more comforting to you to say "she was sweet and kind all the time, and we all knew that he would killed her because he belonged to a Father's Rights Group." Does that fit in your storyline better?

Posted by: will at Jun 23, 2006 10:39:08 AM

Will, you're being obtuse, as usual, and then pretending that you're SHOCKED, SHOCKED that I lose my patience with you. Wow, what a shock.

Perhaps it is just more comforting to you to say "she was sweet and kind all the time, and we all knew that he would killed her because he belonged to a Father's Rights Group." Does that fit in your storyline better?

No, asshole, what fits better is that you not give the benefit of the doubt to some internet troll who's bashing a dead woman by saying she was a bitch and crazy and shit like that, and also not try and act coy that it's just a coincidence that her FRA hubby disappeared at the same time she turned up dead. Oh, yeah, and that the judge in the case 'became shot' somehow, along with a clerk. How about you try that on for size? And how you drop the act that concluding that the logical suspect here---indeed, the only suspect---is her estranged ex husband, and that it's somehow shocking to call him a wife-killing asshole becuase in fact, he killed her?

You know what, Will, why don't you just stop pretending, period? I love the way you twist my words every time I point out your duplicity in giving the benefit of the doubt to some wife-killer, but not to the woman he killed. You always pull shit like this, then whine about it. Now go whine about that, too. How dare I have an opinion about this wife-killing sack of shit! How dare I call him a sack of shit before he's been convicted and appealed and so forth and so on! How dare I think that bitching about a dead woman is pretty fucking disgusting! How dare I actually think, Hm, you know this guy's got a documented history of being an MRA/FRA, who in turn have a documented history of trying to rewrite reality so that abusers have an excuse, and this guy also had access to weapons, and the wife was stabbed to death,a nd curiously enough, Will doesn't have a problem with that but God forbid I should use harsh language.

So what it boils down to, Will, is that once again, you're getting upset that somebody's not treating men way better than women, especially some dead woman, who was probably asking for it anyway.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 23, 2006 1:21:16 PM

Just so everyone knows, Darren Mack has been captured. He was in Puerto Vallarte. He thinks he's going to get his fifteen minutes of fame by bashing family courts on TV. Good thing the feds caught him before some idiot reporter let him spout his views on TV.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 23, 2006 1:40:19 PM

So the only appropriate comment is to say bad things about him?

So you want us to make up fake good things about him? It's interesting you don't consider wife-killing to be kind of, you know a deal breaker.

Didnt that poster say that murder was wrong?

Yeah, in an "I'm not a racist, but..." kind of way.

Didnt they say that they were shocked since Mack was the only person they knew who had committed a murder?

In a blame the victim kind of way, which you also missed.

Didnt they say that he was a very aggressive guy?

Yeah, the bitch shouldn't have pissed him off, obviously.

I just didnt see anything wrong with that person's comments.

That's the problem, Will, because you basically keep being all passive and coy about shit like this.

Real situations are not bad up of completely bad people on one side and perfect angels on the other.


We're not talking about situations, plural. We're talking about this one case, where people are bashing a dead woman and you don't think it's bashing, but you do feel it very keenly when assholes get criticized. You evidently don't define wife beating murderer as an asshole, which says volumes. Also, your ability to paraphrase sucks ratehr conveniantly when you try to paraphrase feminist thought and you evidently employ a rather distinct brand of logic as well: one wherein one must be very careful about discussing wife-murderers yet not their victims. I'm surprised you haven't whipped out the, "But he hasn't been convicted yet!" card.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 23, 2006 1:52:53 PM

"you evidently employ a rather distinct brand of logic as well: one wherein one must be very careful about discussing wife-murderers yet not their victims."

Perhaps we should stick with reality Ginmar, instead of the issues that pop up in your mind.

Murder is inexcusable unless in self-defense.


"You know what, Will, why don't you just stop pretending, period? I love the way you twist my words every time I point out your duplicity in giving the benefit of the doubt to some wife-killer, but not to the woman he killed. You always pull shit like this, then whine about it. Now go whine about that, too. How dare I have an opinion about this wife-killing sack of shit! How dare I call him a sack of shit before he's been convicted and appealed and so forth and so on! How dare I think that bitching about a dead woman is pretty fucking disgusting"

Wow Ginmar. You really are not grounded in reality, are you?

Where did I give the benefit of the doubt to Mack? Where did the other poster give the benefit of the doubt to the poster?

Did you actually read what I wrote or did you simply see my name and totally lose control of your ability to think and read?

Twist YOUR words? I never cease to be amazed at the venom that must be inside you.

I will repeat what I said "I am not offended by someone who says "Wow, she was a bitch who could push his buttons and he was an aggressive asshole, but I am still shocked that he killed her."

Murder is inexcusable except in self-defense.

Personally, I think that the other people who read the Countess' blog are intelligent people who can handle a thought more complex than "Mack bad man who killed ex!" Clearly, that is what he was. Apparently, people cannot say anything more than that without Ginmar breaking out the childish insults and cussing.

Posted by: will at Jun 23, 2006 2:18:16 PM

Did you notice, Will, that your alleged rebuttal consisted of negatives? If someone doesn't explicitly state that they are in favor of wife-murder, then in your book they're okay.

Your continued paraphrasing of what I say as "Man bad kill wife" or whatever would be amusing except you believe it, because you don't evidently see that kind of trolling as being the very sort of oversimplicity you accuse me of.

Meanwhile, you ignore substantive isseus and wonder why I lose my temper. Either you're exceptionally passive aggressive or very slow, because you really seem to believe that people have to say umbiguously that they love killing women or something for it to be offensive and proven.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 23, 2006 2:37:35 PM

"Meanwhile, you ignore substantive isseus and wonder why I lose my temper. Either you're exceptionally passive aggressive or very slow, because you really seem to believe that people have to say umbiguously that they love killing women or something for it to be offensive and proven. "

Of course, there is a third option.

Gimar, I bow down to you. You see things that I am incapable of seeing. You read things that I am incapable of reading.

I will work harder so that when someone says "I am shocked that he killed her" that I will read "I condone killing women." Help me out then. Once I have read in between her tricky little attempts to hide her statement that she loves the killing of women into otherwise innocent statements, am I supposed to immediately start the cussing and insults, or should I wait until the second post?

"I can also say that while I personally know Darren to be an agressive man, I am surprised that he destroyed his life and his childrens lives (I found him to be a parent totally devoted to his kids) but he loves guns, and loves to hunt. I guess I am just saying, out side of war, he is the only person I have know who has committed murder, and that shocks me."

Now I understand why you started the personal attacks. I should have read this slower and with Ginmar-like lasor vision to read her sneaky code.

Perhaps you can quote where I said that Mack should get the benfit of the doubt? Or will I learn that in lesson number 2 in the Ginmar School of Anger?

Posted by: will at Jun 23, 2006 2:49:39 PM

Will, don't bother with this. Consider the source, and ignore.

Posted by: Anne at Jun 23, 2006 3:24:49 PM

Er, anne, fuck off.

Er, Will, giving someone the benefit of the doubt is as often as not an action, though it can be done in words, but hey, ignore the part where I wrote about how you demand someone say they hate women or something similiar before you belive it. Meanwhile, you have evidently never encountered somebody saying something like, "I'm not racist, but...." which is always a dodge designed to conceal hateful statements. It's a hedge. I'm not going to let you claim you're unfamiliar with the tactic, as it's one you see from anti-feminists all the time, which you should know as you spend the majority of your time acting clueless on feminist boards.

Or maybe it's not an act.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 23, 2006 5:57:13 PM

Oh, man, am I going to regret getting in the middle of this fight between Will and Ginmar.... But I will anyway.

Will, it does sound like you're making excuses. Yeah, you pointed out that I said it wouldn't matter if she was Queen Bitch of the Universe. He had no business stabbing her to death. Still, you sounded like you were making excuses for him.

Ginmar is right to be supremely pissed about that. I understand why she's so pissed.

Some info I just found that you two need to know:

Authorities are investigating bomb components that may have been found in Mack's home. I'll post more about that tomorrrow. It ain't good, and there's no way to dance around it.

Charla Mack, who his now dead thanks to her husband stabbing her to death, said that he had violent propensities. She told her friends that "He's out to get me and someday he will probably kill me." I'll also post about that tomorrow. I just don't feel like it now.

Keep in mind the report I found at the men's rights forum Stand Your Ground that Mack was looking for media attention before he turned himself in. He's still trying to bully people into seeing things his way. He didn't get his way. He has been captured.

Mack is bad news. He's not a good dad. He murdered his wife. That says it all. He wasn't driven to murder and shooting because of "the system". Enough already.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 23, 2006 8:22:07 PM

Will, in case you wanted to ask, you wrote, "Real situations are not bad up of completely bad people on one side and perfect angels on the other." That sounds like blaming the victim. Not good. I'm not picking a fight. I just want you to see what you're saying.
"

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 23, 2006 8:25:20 PM

Will: "We should only be able to discuss their relationship prior to the murder if we want to paint it in clear black and white colors. I guess you think that people are too stupid to see any gray about their life before the murder. The golf person was clearly not apologizing but rather expressing amazement. That is not allowed in your world. Someone should have explained to her that Ginmar only likes to see posts with slamming men."

That sounds like blaming the victim for her own murder. Discussing their relationship wouudl lead to that. The impression is that if she wasn't a perfect angel, she deserved to be killed. Sorry. That doesn't fly.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 23, 2006 8:28:42 PM

I couldnt disagree with you more.

I am disappointed that you believe that someone expressing amazement that this happened to this family is justifying the murder.

Quite frankly, Countess, I am surprised that you think that I came anywhere close to blaming the victim for her own murder. Ginmar didnt surprise me.

There has been plenty of discussion about their relationship prior to her murder. Yet, someone if that discussion involves a victim that was less than perfect, I am condoning her murder.

That is only true if you believe that someone deserves murder if they are less than perfect.

This is the reasoning that I do not understand from you. I do not think that she deserved murder because she was less than perfect. Why do you have to set such a high standard for a victim?

Posted by: will at Jun 23, 2006 9:38:13 PM

Some more examples of statements (made up by me) that are not justifying murder:

1. "Wow, I never thought that would happen to that family. She was always the aggressive one!"

2. "I never thought he would murder her."

3. "He seemed so devoted to his family and she seemed to not care much about the kids."

4. "I thought she was a royal bitch, but I cannot believe he ended up killing her."

None of these statements justify murder or condone murder.

Posted by: will at Jun 23, 2006 9:43:45 PM

Not only a murderous thug. Assume for the sake of argument that his ex-wife was a piece of work. Still, it remains that he STABBED HER TO DEATH, and from what I understand, THE CHILD WAS UPSTAIRS AT THE TIME. What kind of piece of shit does that to a child? Even if he never laid a hand on his daughter, it's pure and simple child abuse of the most insidious emotional kind. Unless you have to act in self-defense to protect yourself or your children, there is no legitimate defense for homicide. Of course, the daughter has been rendered more invisible in this than the wife. And why not? To the FR mindset of total entitlement, children are things. That piece of shit father of hers never once considered his child's welfare or emotional response in all this at all. This is something she will struggle with all her life. I've heard interviews with people who witnessed the murder of their parent(s), and they never "get over" it. Never one do you hear these FR shits mention how the kid might feel. Never. Only how justified they are in "their" anger. Pure abuser narcissism and entitlement. The world revolves around your poor little feelings. I really can't put up with these assholes anymore. Absolutely no capacity to put their crap aside and consider anybody else as a human being.

Posted by: silverside at Jun 23, 2006 11:34:16 PM

Uh, Will, when you make up statements of course you can say anything you want in them. Let's deal with reality here and the actual examples you defended. Or you don't want to admit you were wrong. Passive aggressive all over again.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 24, 2006 8:56:21 AM

Will, I know you weren't blaming the victim. The problem is that when you write statements like "Real situations are not bad up of completely bad people on one side and perfect angels on the other.", it sounds very much like you're leaning in that direction. I know you agree with me when I wrote that it wouldn't matter if she was Queen Bitch of the Unverse - he had no right to kill her. The thing is, he did kill her. Looking to her behavior to see if he might be justified in being angry, in light of him killing her, doesn't sound good.

Posted by: The Countess at Jun 24, 2006 9:01:09 AM

You're being too nice to him. Will only errs in one direction, and that's toward the male side. He always argues for leniancy for the male and for suspicion of the female.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 24, 2006 12:59:20 PM

Ginmar:

I so enjoy watching you look for reasons to spew venom at me. It is a shame because you can write intelligently when you are not so twisted in a knot that you start cussing and insulting.

Please feel free to quote evidence of your delusional fantasy where I argued for leniancy for the male and for suspicion of the female.

Posted by: will at Jun 24, 2006 3:10:03 PM

Um, dipshit? I already pointed them out above. Give evidence that you've read them, digested them, or fuck off.

Posted by: ginmar at Jun 24, 2006 3:30:36 PM

1. "Wow, I never thought that would happen to that family. She was always the aggressive one!"

(except...look who turned out to BE the agrressive one. Think that happened overnight buddyboy?))

2. "I never thought he would murder her."

((looks like you thought wrong. Maybe..just MAYBE because he didnt show that side of himself to you...just his wife *gasp*))

3. "He seemed so devoted to his family and she seemed to not care much about the kids."

((yeah...stabbing the mother shows such devotion. ))

4. "I thought she was a royal bitch, but I cannot believe he ended up killing her."

((maybe she was a royal bitch because she was married to a man capable of killing her. Hmmmmmm))

Posted by: pheeno at Jun 24, 2006 3:40:05 PM

Pheeno:

My point is that after someone gets killed, people can make such expressions of shock and surprise. When they make such comments, they are not suggesting the man should have killed her, but simpply expressing surprise.

Apparently, some people feel like victims have to be angels. Somehow, if the victim is less than perfect, that someone minimizes the murderer's actions.

Fortunately, most people understand that someone who plans out a murder and then follows through with a murder is a murderer. Period. He is not less of a murderer simply because the victim was not a nice person. Moreover, someone who continues to move on and try to kill other people is a bad, bad person. Period.

In our society, you do not get to hit people simply because they make you mad, much less murder them.

Some people have such tenuous hold on their emotions that they lose control of themselves. We are more likely to expect murder from the person who always blows up when people disagree with them. Usually, that is a sign of deep-seated insecurity whereby every disagreement is seen as a personal insult to that person.

Unfortunately, murder, rape and other serious crimes are committed every day by people from whom you would not expect such behavior.

Posted by: will at Jun 24, 2006 3:56:04 PM

And people with half an ounce of sense realize crimes are committed by everyday people and don't spend half their energy talking about what a bitch the victim was.

HOW is her being a bitch or not relevant at all?

It's not.

Posted by: pheeno at Jun 24, 2006 4:04:49 PM

Ok, here I go again. first, thanks to Will for not reading anything into my comments, other then the fact the I personnally know both Charla, and Darren. Ginmar, am I not entitled to my own personal opinion of both, as I have met them, and know both on a personal level? I would think this gives me the right to say something about each of them, given my own expereince with each of them. I will say this hopefully in a way that you might understand. Darren is a pig, and if he gets life in prison, or the death penalty neither is enough for what he has done to Charla and his kids. THERE IS NO EXCUSSES... I AM NOT GIVING ONE FOR HIM...I have spent hours alone with the guy, and I know him a little. Someone wrote eariler here that they saw his picture and he looks quote "like a smug sob" What is wrong with you people? Everyone had an opinion about O J but they did not know him either. There was no excuse for O J and there is not excuss for Darren or anyone who feels so trapped that the only way out is to end someones life. It makes no difference what drove him to this, he was wrong. Maybe ginmar should not throw so many rocks at glass houses, and learn a new word other then fuck. We were not there. We do not know what happened. I know Darren, and Charla a little, and to that I base my opinion. But opinions are like ass holes, or ginmar, everyone has one. I am not goning to apoligize for my opinion, it does not mean that it is right, it is simply my opinion. I am also not going to apoligize for this world being a mans world. It simply is. Are women smarter? yes... women have bigger brains. Are men and women treated as equals today? It does not seem so. Am I trying to change that? Good question, I think I am, then I run into a person like ginmar, and I wonder. I guess I should remember that words have never killed anyone, or really do the damage that a knife can do, if so, ginmar would be in jail with Darren.

Posted by: golf4birds at Jun 24, 2006 6:08:32 PM

I have noticed distinctly that not much has really been said about Charla Mack, far more in regards to Darren Mack. Obviously the man was quite wealthy as well as his mother, I am shocked and suprised that the paternal grandmother has custody of their daughter. I think their daughter needs to be awarded to Charla's family and this guy needs to be locked up for awhile. I mean I don't know about anyone else, but if I shot a judge or killed my husband I would be in a WHOLE lot o trouble. Violence against women and children is statistically worldwide very large.

Posted by: didi at Jun 24, 2006 11:51:40 PM

Does it not seem odd? if they were premeditating and planning a murdur, would plan to do it in their own garage?! And who would do that when they have witnesses present? at least in the house knowing they were having a conversation? That does not sound premeditated.
Killing the spouse and leaving them in their own garage? Isn't that pretty INCRIMINATING?So something must have happened in the gargae that
caused a sudden fight....that may never have turned lethal, except there was already so much being thrown into the fire a fuel, that al it took was a trigger event to set it all off. He seemed unaware that the dog was present. That is not a planned premeditated situ. Or peple who want to find him guilty would claim he is just stupid or else he did it this way on purpose to make it look like it was not premeditated.
But if that was the case and he was also the shooter, it looks like the bottom line could be it was not premeditated, and if he was the shooter/ sniper it was because he felt it somehow was part Judge Wellers responsibilty and never should have happened. Never had to happen.
I think it is also interesting how D.A. gammink states he was not firneds with Darrin and uses a careful choice of words to explain his
position that he was friendly with Mack but a real friedn is only 3 or 4 people in a lifetime, so therefore he was not freinds with Mack. That is word play. If Darren was getting an award i bet Gammick would have called him a friend!!

Posted by: mary contrary at Jun 29, 2006 4:17:43 PM

I am so glad to see these views somewhere. I live outside of Reno and am horrified that many people in the community are defending the actions of this man. They say how even though many of them only met him in brief social situations that he was a "great man" and a "loving husband and Father". My sister was shot to death 5 years ago by her husband who was a decorated offer on the local police force. It was the same situation with him. All these people who had maybe met my brother in law once or twice were on the news defending him to the death. The bottom line is that Darren Mack, like my former brother in law, has always been able to control and minipulate everyone. When someone finally stood up to them, they flipped out. I really hope Daren Mack's money and connections don't buy him freedom.

Posted by: MommyinNV at Jun 29, 2006 6:04:09 PM

I'm sorry this discussion is so caustic and hateful. About the wicked monsterous act of a man on a woman. This all being true the fact is the court system makes this a war between the sexes. The family/divorace industry is ruining families and our children. I don't care about your orientations, if you are a hater stay away from my children. If your are so oppinionated not to look at the truth, weather or not it confirms your bias, please get help and stop spreading your hate.
Children deserve both parents and the courts don't allow peace between splitting parents. I am a father who has lost access to my boys because of the lies told by their mother. I have lost over a million dollars trying to protect them and patiently wait for justice, going on three years now. I don't hate their mother, I am upset with the system empowering her to actively exploit my boys to harm me, and the harm it is causing them. This works both ways, fathers, mothers, children are being destroyed. I understand the anger and hostility, but really it just begets more pain and heart ache. I'm sorry that those that have a need to express their hate have been so wounded in their life. I could feel the same way, so could many others.

Posted by: George at Jun 29, 2006 7:09:16 PM

I think that no one have the rights to take anyone's life.
At the same time everyone has a breaking point.
If you come home one night and someone raping your daughter, you will call 911???
Everyone talk bad about Darren, don't you think that she mind had a little to do to push him to the limit? I do!
I met Darren a few times. I thought he really loved his kids! I never thought he would do any harm to anyone!
He was just a man that wanted to be divorced and wanted his life back. She wouldn't let him!
So who win? No one!
It is a very said story!
We can sit here and try to judge someone. You never walked in his shoes and he never walked at yours! Let's just hear what really happened.

Posted by: agi at Jun 30, 2006 12:55:15 AM

Well I don't know about your court system, but I lost over 2 million in an estate fight that should never have been entered into probate. The judges made so many errors against the law I did consider suicide. Some judges ignore the law and common sense.
some think they are god. I cannot justify taking a human life, but none of us know what happened in that garage. None of us know why in the world they both violated a restraining order or why Ms. Mack placed her and her child in harms way. No one knows who pushed whose buttons in order for this to happen. I am not sure it will be accurate in court. I did hopefully show that it is not worth arguing over money. Everyone lost here, there are no winners, the lawyers will wind up owning half of a long standing family business one person is dead, the other may as well be and three children lost people they love. Civil suits will be filed and lawyers will make more money. No one thought this through, no one put the children first, but the lawyers will get paid, and go on to the next human mess.

I think the system can share the blame, both parties can share the blame. And the attorneys who inflame cases deserve a bit of credit. Darren is no angel, but many factors came together to form the "perfect storm" for this to happen. Even his friend, who left and did not call the police or an ambulance for hours should be ashamed. Ms. Mack could have lived for a time. There are cell phones, and he could have called. Actually he could have stopped the next state of this terrible story. So is he an accessory? Is Mss. Macks family who were certainly comfortable enough with Mr. Macks money to run the ebay internet site for him?
Everyone seemed happy on the surface as long as they got their piece of Mr. Macks money. When it came to severing that tie things went bad. Charla Mack had been there before with Macks first wife. She knew what he was capable of and married him anyway. Sometimes people have to take responsibility for getting sucked into bad lives. This entire matter sounds like a movie script and only the lawyers win. But then again lawyers become judges and bad things happen to them too.

Posted by: Susan at Jul 6, 2006 8:12:19 AM

Jesus fucking christ.

Some of you have got to be the most simple minded morons I've ever seen.

The only person to blame for a murder is THE MURDERER. Being driven to desparation means you'll try anything to get a DESIRED result. If his desired result was full custody or lower child support payments, MURDER most assuredly guarantees that won't happen. DOUBLE murder even moreso.

He killed 2 people over money. His victims are no more at fault than any victim of a planned muder by a total stranger.

Idiots.

Posted by: pheeno at Jul 6, 2006 9:40:29 AM

It never ceases to amaze me that there is always 2 sides to a story and equality in fault when justifying *really bad acts* by someone who has a vocal support group.

The fact that Charla Mack is no longer alive to defend herself should tell the Darren Mack supporters something about their man. True, no one knows all that happened in the garage when Charla was physically assaulted and murdered in a cold and calculated manner, but the facts are that she did not attack him, that she was overpowered and was not able to defend herself, she was there because she had to exchange custody of their daughter as per a court order, he had arranged for someone else to be there to meet her and get their daughter, he brought the murder weapon, he covered up the crime and went on to try and commit another murder, then he fled the crime scene and tried to do damage control by blaming his crimes on the victims.

Did I miss anything? There doesn't seem to be any place in the facts where Charla Mack or Judge Weller were equal in the *bad acts*. I have seen nothing (except from FR) indicating that Charla Mack was uncooperative in the custody and divorce. I think that Darren couldn't deal with his own demons and was unable to accept that he could not push Charla into retaliating in-kind, so he silenced her forever, and attempted to do the same to Judge Weller.

No matter how it is twisted and retold, the current facts are the same and do not show any equality in protection, aggression, contention or quality of love and concern for the Mack children. Anyone who murders a mom while the child is present in the house is not a loving, kind father or a victim of his victim. That is justification by those who would support him no matter what he did.

I have seen this mind set in other circumstances such as in Germany when the Jews were slaughtered and Hitler was kept in power by a minority of like thinking individuals. It is a gang mentality where each supports the others in the crazy ideas that they are right simply because they have power in numbers, that is until they are brought down by the truth and held accountable for their crimes.

What do you have when you have a group of narcissistic, abusive control freaks? Hatred for those who will not cower and cave in to threats and outrageous demands. Eventually, justice will right itself and these individuals will turn on each other to save themselves. Oops, maybe that is what is happening already with Glen Sacks and Wendy McElroy?

Posted by: justonemom at Jul 6, 2006 1:26:12 PM

ecccccchhhh.

you know. i am sure that there are some cases where it really is a false accusation. i have known women who were seriously abusive in their own right; not (necessarily) physically (although that happens, too); but yes, creating all sorts of unnecessary drama and misery for all involved. usually these are people with borderline personality or some such. so sure; it'd be nice if, in some world, it would be more possible to recognize such cases for what they are, without it suddenly proving something about All Women or All Men.

but i mean: *this* is the kind of case someone like Tong defends. the woman is DEAD. as in, murdered, as in, not coming back.

you know, i came to this particular field fairly clueless--i don't have kids, don't currently have close friends going through this sort of shit. i wanted to keep a reasonably open mind.

and sure, i expect there are some MRA's and FRA's out there who are regular schmos, more or less...

but goddam. i mean: goddam. the more i read.

fuck.

Posted by: belledame222 at Jul 8, 2006 9:53:38 AM

>Anyone who murders a mom while the child is present in the house is not a loving, kind father or a victim of his victim

um, hello?!?

seriously, how fucked up do you have to be to think otherwise?

whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Posted by: belledame222 at Jul 8, 2006 9:55:08 AM

>I guess I should remember that words have never killed anyone, or really do the damage that a knife can do

Yes, that really would be a good thing to remember. Frankly.

look, i'm sure it's hard to process that a guy you knew and liked did this.

He still did it. He really, really did. And the woman you knew and liked is dead, and not coming back; and their kid is essentially orphaned.

How would *you* react to a case like this, do you think, if you didn't know the guy personally?

"smug SOB" is pretty mild all things considered.

Posted by: belledame222 at Jul 8, 2006 10:00:29 AM

>What's a penile plethysmograph test?

It sounds so antiquated. What does or doesn't turn the guy on (particularly in a controlled lab environemnt) has little or nothing to do with whether he's capable of going into a murderous rage.

"he's not that sort of person." Well, he did this; evidently he IS that sort of person. more important: simply, he did this.

maybe just stop bending oneself into knots (yes the lawyer has to do it i expect) in order to justify it.

he murdered his wife and the mother of his child.

he murdered his wife and the mother of his child.

he murdered his wife and the mother of his child.

i am sorry: short of self-defense against *himself* being literally killed in that moment (which it clearly wasn't) or an actual psychotic break (as in hallucinations telling him to kill the alien or whatnot); there *is* no rationalization for this.

and frankly i am disgusted that people (especially those who aren't being paid to do so) are trying to find one.

Posted by: belledame222 at Jul 8, 2006 10:06:30 AM

>"Real situations are not bad up of completely bad people on one side and perfect angels on the other."

No, that's generally true; but it really doesn't much factor into "the guy murdered his wife."

sure, i expect she had her dark side and he had his human moments.

the fact remains: she was unarmed, the kid was upstairs, he murdered her.

it really doesn't matter whether she called him nasty names or wanted more money than he thought proper or whatever it is (if even that much is true).

He. Killed. Her.

with the child upstairs.

sorry.

sure, i hope there is a chance for rehabilitation or genuine repentance. in jail. far far away from anyone else that he can hurt.

Posted by: belledame222 at Jul 8, 2006 10:16:48 AM

>At the same time everyone has a breaking point.
If you come home one night and someone raping your daughter, you will call 911?

Um.

1) That's not what happened here, not even remotely
2) in point of fact, the guy MURDERED HIS CHILD'S MOTHER while the child was UPSTAIRS
3) um, ew? why, of all hypothetical situations you might have picked, is that the first one that comes to your mind?

Posted by: belledame222 at Jul 8, 2006 10:29:28 AM