Friday, December 28, 2012

The Last Frontier: Myths & the Female Psychopathic Killer



An important article employing recent research and demonstrating that the myths about female non-culpability promoted by Marxist-feminist orthodoxy are obsolete and dangerous:

Frank S. Perri, JD, MBA, CPA; and Terrance G. Lichtenwald, PhD, "The Last Frontier:Myths & the Female Psychopathic Killer," Summer 2010, The Forensic Examiner (journal)

***


EXCERPTS: 

From the Introduction:

The goal of this article is to analyze homicides committed by women, the diverse motives for the kill, and the offender’s psychopathic traits that may facilitate the use of murder to satisfy a motive. The article reveals that the underlying behavioral traits are gender neutral even though the methods and motives to kill may at times be gender specific and societal  misconceptions still attribute gender specific explanations to crimes such as homicide. 

Conclusion – Violence, especially murder, is a human issue and not a gender-specific phenomenon. 

Failing to recognize that psychopaths can exact brutal violence on others exposes any gender or age group to be preyed upon. Moreover, we observe how technology can be used to debunk myths surrounding female aggression as depicted in criminal trials. For example, we observe mothers being videotaped killing or attempting to kill their children while in a hospital, Karla Homolka being videotaped by her husband Paul as she too enjoyed the thrill of killing her sister and two other girls, Lisa Montgomery being audiotaped as she tells her husband that she is fooling the forensic professional into believing that she is mentally ill, and Rutterschmidt and Golay videotaped discussing their crimes.

It has become increasingly difficult to rely on the myth, whether prosecution or defense, when technology displays images that contradict the myth, revealing criminal behaviors that are gender-neutral. Furthermore, social, behavioral, law enforcement, legal personnel, and forensic professionals must be willing to consider whether they harbor any gender stereotypes that may inhibit them from accurately performing their duties. Although myths of gender specific aggression persist, slowly, false perceptions are being exposed and hopefully corrected by the media, academic research, field work, and technology.



***

A Voice for Men : The indispensible website



***

Thursday, December 27, 2012

A Feminist Hoax in 1910: The Strategy of Dissimulation Exemplified


By  Mrs. Francis M. Scott, President of New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage.

FULL TEXT: It seems desirable, even necessary, to correct two misstatements made in
“Laws Discriminating Against Women in the State of New York,” by Hariette M. Johnston-Wood, as quoted in The Times of March 26. Mrs. Johnston-Wood says, “A wife cannot make a binding contract with her husband to pay her for services within or without the household.”

In Section 51 of the Domestic Relation law, 1909, we read:

A married woman has all the rights in respect to property, real or personal, and the acquisition, use, employment, and disposition thereof, to make contracts in respect thereto with any person, including her husband, and to carry on any business, trade, or occupation, and to exercise all powers and enjoy all rights in respect thereto, and in respect to her contracts, and be liable on such contracts as if she were unmarried; but a husband and wife cannot contract to dissolve the marriage or to relieve the husband from his liability to support his wife.

Again, Mrs. Johnston-Wood says, “The father’s right to the custody of the child is paramount.” I suppose she refers to Section 80 of the Domestic Relations law, but she omits to quote, and, therefore, fails to make it clear, that when “a minor shall acquire real property the guardianship of his property. *** belongs first to the father, and, second, if there be no father, to the mother.” Section 81, however, deals with the child, and not his property, and that declares: “A married woman is a joint guardian of  her children, with her husband, with equal powers, rights, and duties in regard to them.” And *** “Either the father or the mother may in the lifetime of them both, by last will duly executed, appoint the other the guardian of the person and property of such child during its minority.”

It is not less desirable and necessary to correct the general impression made by Mrs. Johnston-Wood in her compilation of laws regarding women and labeled as discriminating against them, because unless any set of laws is considered as a whole we get those half-truths which are always dangerously deceptive.

The “common law,” on which the law of the State is based, has always recognized the family as the social unit, and hold the husband and father responsible for its welfare. There is in the minds of some persons at present, and Mrs. Johnston-Wood seems to be one of the number, a disposition to ignore, or decline to recognize, this point of view, and to declare that the individual, in contradisctinction to the family, is the social unit. To insist upon reviewing the law as it stands while refusing to recognize the spirit which gave it birth, and to look at it through the distorted medium of deliberate misunderstand, is as foolish and misleading as it is disingenuous, and quite unworthy of even a special pleader.


Because the husband and father was and is responsible for the subsistence of his wife and family therefore he was recognized as logically the proper person to administer and inherit the property of the family; but as time wore away the barriers raised for protection became coercive between the family and the world; as individual life began to call women out of the home, and property amassed by the wife was claimed by the husband and used sometimes for his benefit rather than hers, the gradual changes began to take place which have in the last thirty or forty years entirely changed the relation of the wife toward property and the guardianship of her children. this change has all been in the favor of the wife and mother, and one after another the privileges which men had over the property of their wives and the guardianship of their children have not only been lost but many of them have been actually reversed. The legal relations are as though they were unmarried, excepting marriage. The wife cannot release the husband from the obligation to support her.

The italics are mine, as I wish to call attention to the fact that throughout these laws it is assumed as an unalterable condition that when a man marries and makes a woman the mother of his children he thereby incurs the responsibility for her and their support, a responsibility the wife never shares

For over thirty years a woman has been able to hold and enjoy her separate property, however acquired, even when it has been given by her husband, freed from any interference or control by him, and from all liability for his debts. A husband is, however, liable for necessaries purchased by his wife and also for money given his wife by a third person to purchase necessaries, and he is bound to support her and her children without regard to her individual or separate estate. Even when a separation occurs a husband is compelled through the payment of alimony to continue to support his wife, nothing short of infidelity on her part and consequent divorce relieving him of that liability. No obligation, however, to furnish necessaries to a husband rests upon the wife under any circumstances whatever.

A woman may sell, assign, or transfer her real and personal property and carry on any trade or business and perform any labor and service on her separate account, and her earnings are her own sole and separate property. Mrs. Johnston-Wood says that “the joint earnings of husband and wife belong to the husband,” but she forgets to add that out of those joint earnings the wife must be supported, and that if they are large enough to be invested in real estate it becomes impossible  for the husband to sell or devise it except subject to her dower right. Through this “dower right” Mrs. Johnston-Wood complains that a husband is obliged to lease only one-third of his real estate to his wife, and that she has only a life interest in it. On the other hand she can buy, sell, give, or will away her real property as freely as though she were unmarried without any right of interference by him, and without any claim of his upon it. This dower right is a very real and active line upon a husband’s estate, while the so-called “courtesy right,” which is supposed to offset it, is a very shadowy affair, and has been seldom exercised as to make it difficult to find authorities defining its exact limits and privileges.

A husband has no right to any of his wife’s estate until after the birth of a living child, and this right is so lightly considered that a wife may absolutely defeat it at any time without the consent of her husband, either by conveying her real property during her lifetime or by devising it by will. Should he inherit through “courtesy” right his, too, is only a life interest.

A husband is not obliged to leave his personal property to his wife, but neither is the wife obliged to leave any to her husband. there is no “discrimination against,” they stand on an equality.

Mrs. Johnston-Wood complains that a woman cannot make a binding contract with her husband to be paid for her services. But she doesn’t have to do so. He is obliged to support her, but she can go into any business she pleases, keep all the profits, and still demand support from him. A husband has no claim against his wife’s estate for having supported her, but if she supports him, as by keeping a boarding house, and he acknowledges the debt, she has a valid claim for reimbursement against his estate.

Generally speaking the rights of a wife against her husband are such as he cannot deprive her of, while his rights against her depend entirely upon her consent, and she can deprive him of them at any time with the greatest of ease.

– – MRS. FRANCIS M. SCOTT – President of New York State Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage. New York, March 29, 1910.

[“Married Women’s Rights. – Mrs. Johnson-Wood’s Suffragist Complaints Are Here Contradicted.” New York Times (N.Y.), Mar. 31, 1910, p. 10]

***

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

“Guillotine Rights” for French Women – 1913


FULL TEXT: The French suffragettes are now fighting for the right to be guillotined.

A recent murder trial in which the prosecuting attorney, when asking for sentence of death for a woman, added that such a verdict was merely a matter of form, since custom was against allowing women to be executed, has raised much discussion regarding this question of sex distinction, and now the foremost feminists are agitating for the “privilege” of equal punishment with men, regarding this as a step toward their ideals.

A symposium just held by L’Eclair shows that among the leading upholders of women’s rights the majority of them think that by being exonerated from death on the scaffold, when they legally deserve it, women are treated as irresponsible beings, and they protest against this attitude as a humiliating outrage.

Mme. Aubert, The General Secretary of the French feminist society, Le Suffrage des Femmes, says:

“Since woman is as competent as man to exercise her rights and account for her actions, the two sexes should be equal both before the polling booths and before the guillotine. Not to execute women criminals while the death penalty exists is sensitiveness of the hypocrite who classes women with lunatics and despoils them of their rights.”

Says Mme. Dr. Pelletier, the Director of La Suffrageste, the principal women’s rights newspaper:

“The gallantry of the guillotine is an insult to the feminine sex, as is gallantry in general.”

“To answer this question,” says the Duchesse d’Uzes, “is very simple. Crime has no sex.”

Similar views are held by several other prominent representatives of the woman’s movement. Only two women express the contrary opinion. Daniel Lesueur, a novelist, says:

“I have never dreamed of demanding the equality of sexes as far as the guillotine. I do not think that the most furious feminist should regard as a victory for her theories the fact that one of her sex had her head cut off. Let us at all events leave old French courtesy a free hand on this last ground.”


In connection with the death penalty opinion is now unanimous that public executions should be discontinued. This sentiment is expressed in an editorial article which has just appeared in Excelsior. The writer points out that the custom of public guillotinings, far from having the expected deterrent effect on criminals, has only given condemned men a chance for making theatrical appeals and teaching embryo assassins who may be gathered around the scaffold how to die with a swagger and leave behind a reputation for heroism among their comrades.

“The question,” says the editorial article, “to-day presents itself with less hypocrisy than formerly. It is no longer a matter of setting an awful example to the public, but merely getting rid as quickly as possible of persons whose existence is thought dangerous to society. The operation should be carried out privately before the Court of Magistrates in charge of the case, with the jury and a few journalists.”

It is thought that this reform will not be long in coming. [Editors note: And those who thought this were dead wrong.]


[“Women Demanding Guillotine ‘Rights’ – French Feminists Say It Is Unjust to Deprive Sex of ‘Privilege’ of Execution. – Equal Punishment Is Asked – Mme. Auclert Calls Custom of Failing to Execute Women ‘the Sensitiveness of the Hypcrite.’” New York Times (N.Y.), Mar. 16, 1913, p. C3]

***


For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***

Monday, December 24, 2012

“Wife Murders Child Of Eleven Years Because She Kissed Father Too Much." - 1915


CHRONOLOGY:

Apr. 21 – Mrs. Steele murders Evelina.
Apr. 22 – body found; fake story about Evelina being pregnant and the attempt to perform abortion told to police.
Apr. 23 – Arraignment in circuit court.
Apr. 26 – funeral, Acorn Street Mission Sunday school; thousands attended; Mrs. Steele pleads not guilty.
May 17 – trial begins.
May 21 – Mrs. Steele convicted of murder.
May 22 – Mrs. Steele admits, after much coaxing, to having lied about Evelina being pregnant.
Jun. 2 – Mrs. Steele sentenced to life in prison; falsely accuses husband of telling her to strangle their daughter to death; he is arrested then quickly released.

***

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., April 22. – “I tied her hands behind her, blindfolded her, pulled her tongue out of her mouth and threw a spoonful of muriatic acid down her throat. Then I held her in my arms until she died. I next pulled up two boards in the woodshed floor and buried the body.”

Without a trace of emotion and speaking in an even voice, Mrs. Albert Steele, aged 32 years, this afternoon confessed to the murder of her 11-year-old stepdaughter, Evelina, whose nude body was found in an alley back of her home at 9:20 o’clock this morning.

“At 3:20 o’clock this morning,” continued Mrs. Steele, “I became afraid the body would be found, so I dug up the body and placed it in the alley.”

~ Jealous of husband’s Love. ~

A charge of first degree murder has been placed against Mrs. Steele by Prosecuting Attorney Galpin. Jealousy of the father’s affection is given as the motive. The father. Albert Steele, formerly of Pentwater, is heartbroken.

“I knew she would do it,” he said. “I suspected her from the very first. I never want to see her again.”

Little Evelina was last seen alive yesterday morning. The father believing she was visiting an aunt, did not miss “her until 9 o’clock last night. Then after a search, when it developed that Evelina had not been at her aunt’s, the police were notified. The body was found this morning by John Vanderlaan, Sr.

~ Charged Criminal Operation. ~

When the discovery of the body was reported, Mrs. Steele and her husband wdere immediately arrested. At Balbirnie’s morgue, an autopsy was performed, which failed to reveal the criminal operation which the stepmother said had been performed on the girl.

Across the dead body of the child, Coroner Balbirnie confronted the woman.

“You might as well confess, Mrs. Steele,” he said. “Someone saw you put something in the alley early this morning.”

Then Mrs. Steele broke down.

It developed that she purchased the muriatic acid a month ago and the authorities say it was for the purpose of murder.

Mr. Charles Anderson, of Niles, the mother of Evelina, arrived tonight. She was divorced from Steele about a year after Evelina was born. Steele has been released. Mrs. Steele will be arraigned tomorrow morning.

[“Tells of Pouring Poison In Throat Of Stepdaughter – Mrs. Albert Steele, of Mukegon, Confesses Over Body of Child. – Jealous Of Husband’s Love, Planned Crime. – Discovery Follows Fear Corpse Would Be Found in Barn; Hides It in Alley.” The Detroit Free Pree Press (Mi.), Apr. 23, 1915, p. 2]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., April 23. – Mrs. Martha Steele, who yesterday confessed to the murder of her 11-year-old stepdaughter, Evelina M. Steele, this afternoon was bound over to the circuit on a charge of first degree murder.

~ Made Up Confession. ~

The police say that Mrs. Steele’s first confession, that of an attempt to perform an illegal operation on the child, was evolved while she was aiding in the search for the girl, whose dead body she had buried in the coal shed.

Further evidence obtained by the physicians who performed the autopsy over Evelina’s body has disclosed, it is alleged, that the mother mistreated the body after death, to give an appearance of truth to her first purported confession that the child died while she was attempting a criminal operation. The physicians who performed the autopsy are agreed that the alleged mistreatment took place after death, not before.

~ Father’s Grief is Tragic. ~

The most dramatic feature of the sensational murder is the tragic grief of the father, Albert Steele. He made frequent visits today to the coal shed where the body was hidden.

Steele said this afternoon that jealousy was the sole motive for the crime. “My wife never liked little Evelina. The child was of a loving disposition but would only come to me for a kiss or a pat on the head when my wife was not in the room.

“For hours my daughter would sit quietly when my wife and I were together, fearing to show any affection for me when her stepmother was there.”

~ Woman Appears Indifferent. ~

Meanwhile, Mrs. Steele, at the county jail, maintains an attitude of complete indifference. She sings and conducts herself in such a manner that the authorities suspect she may be mentally unbalanced.

The funeral of Evelina will be held Sunday afternoon from the Acorn Street Mission Sunday school, of which she was a member.

[“Father Mourns At Spot Where Slain Child Was Hidden – Albert Steele, Heartbroken, Paces Shed of Muskegon Home. – Stepmother, Murderesses, Sings At County Jail – Doctors Say Evidence of Criminal Operation Was Manufactured After Slaying.” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), Apr. 24, 1915, p. 1]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., April 24. – Abandoned by her mother and brothers and still without an attorney, Mrs. Albert Steele, who on Thursday confessed to the deliberate murder of her 11-year-old stepdaughter, Evelina, will be brought into circuit court Monday morning to plead to a charge of first degree murder.

A further examination of the body of the little girl this afternoon by Coroner James F. Bahlinire revealed four fingernail prints in the child’s throat. The authorities now believe that the woman may have strangled the girl, as an analysis of the contents of her stomach has failed to reveal any traces of muriatic acid.

Police reserves will be on duty at the public funeral of Evelina to be held tomorrow afternoon at the Acorn Street Mission church.

[“Stepmother May Have Choked Girl – Fingernail Prints on Throat of Muskegon Murder Victim; Woman to Face Court Monday.” Apr. 25, 1915, p. 18]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 4 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., April 26. – Surprising the authorities, Mrs. Albert Steele, alleged to have confessed to killing her 11-year-old stepdaughter, Evelina M. Steele, this afternoon pleaded not guilty in circuit court to first degree murder.

Mrs. Steele appeared unmoved by the curious throng which crowded the court room and the corridors.

Attorneys R. W. Gale and Harry W. Jackson were appointed to defend Mrs. Steele. Her trial will be the last on the criminal calendar of this term.

In anticipation of a plea of not guilty, the officers took photographs of marks on the child’s throat that seem to indicate that she may have been strangled.

Thousands of persons yesterday jammed the neighborhood of the mission chapel where the Sunday school, of which Evilina was a member, conducted a memorial service. Pinned on her burial dress is the reward of merit pin which she had earned for faithful attendance and which was to have been presented to her yesterday.

[“Pleads Not Guilty To Slaying Child – Mrs. Alberta Steel, of Muskegon, Must Stand Trial; Many at Services for Stepdaughter,” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), Apr. 27, 1915, p. 16]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 5 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., May 15. – An important exhibit in the Mrs. Albert Steele murder case, which will come to trial in the circuit court Monday, the bit of rope found in the shed addition to the rear of the Steele home has disappeared. It was with this rope, prosecution contends that the child’s hands were tied before she was first poisoned, and then strangled by her stepmother. The rope was dug up by members of the sheriff’s force. What has happened to it since no one knows and everyone disclaims responsibility.

[“Muskegon ‘Murder Rope’ Missing On Eve Of Trial – Cord With Prosecution Alleges Stepmother Tied Child’s Hands Disappears.” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), May 16, 1915, p. 10]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 6 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., May 17. – Her face showing the pallor of one confined in prison for years. Mrs. Albert Steele, slayer of her 11-year-old stepdaughter, Eveline Mary Steele, walked into the court room this morning at the opening of her trial.

The stir following her appearance seemed to have no effect upon her. She calmly took the chair pointed out by a deputy, immediately back of the table used by her attorneys.

Anton Beilgart was the first juror called. The box was rapidly filled. Mrs. Steele showed no interest.

Before the case opened, the prosecutor announced he would endeavor to prove that Mrs. Steele strangled the girl. The defense will be along the lines that Mrs. Steele was insane at the time of the slaying.

Six of the first 14 jurors examined by the prosecution openly admitted they had positive opinions as to the guilt or innocence of Mrs. Steele, some saying that they believed the woman was guilty. These expressions visibly affected Mrs. Steele.

Questions of the defense attorney, R. R. Gale, to the jurors, plainly revealed that insanity was to be the defense.

[“Murder Trial Of Mrs. Steele Opens – Muskegon Woman Charged With Slaying Stepdaughter, Stolid in Court . – Temporary Insanity Will Be Plea Of Defense – Many Talesmen Express Positive Convictions of Woman’s Guilt.” The Detrot Free Press (Mi.), May 18, 1915, p. 16]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 7 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., May 18. – Details of the life of Mrs. Albert Steele, facts which she and her relatives will expose to the public eye in a desperate effort to save her from life imprisonment for the slaying of her 11-year-old stepdaughter, Evelina Mary, will be the basis of the defense in the most heinous criminal case ever tried here.

Mrs. Steele’s story, for she will take the stand in her own defense, will not only turn the public loathing against her in sympathy, it is said, but the sympathy, but the sympathy for some of the principals in the case will instead be altered to disdain.

The defense has already requested Judge Sullivan to bar all women and children from the court room.

An even greater crown than has attended the Steele case since it began, was present in the court room this afternoon. Women outnumbered the men about nine to one.

~ Says Girl Was Strangled. ~

Dr. W. A. Campbell, former city physician, who examined the girl’s body, testified that the blood showed positively that death was the result of strangulation and not poisoning. Mrs. Steele sat as yesterday, her glance never varying from a distinct line ahead.

After Judge Sullivan announced that the afternoon’s proceedings were over a curious crowd gathered outside. Through this crowd Mrs. Steele had to walk. She stepped between two deputy sheriffs and began the two blocks walk to the jail, reading horror, loathing and anger in every face.

[“‘Insanity, Victim Of Society,’ To Be Steele Defense – Relatives Flop at Last Moment to Aid Woman Who Killed Child. – Feminine Spectators Crowd Muskegon Court – Attorneys Plan to Bare Past of Defendant and Threaten to Thrill Town With Revelations.” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), May 19, 1915, p. 9]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 8 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., May 20. – With Mrs. Martha Schrebe Steele, accused of strangling her step-daughter, appearing more lifeless and morose today than any time during her trial in the local circuit court, the evidence was concluded late this afternoon and preparations made for the beginning of arguments by attorneys at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.

It is expected that the arguments and Judge James E. Sullivan’s charge will occupy both sessions of court tomorrow, the case going to the jury late in the afternoon.

~ Asks Judgment of Alienists. ~

The defense made its last desperate attempt for acquittal today with a hypothetical question. In this were listed the alleged sorrows of Mrs. Steele’s life, her vicious habits, her tainted heredity and the black side of her married life. The sentence ended with: “Would such a woman be insane?” This hypothetical question was the one dock on which the defense pinned its hopes. Everything also. Everything else was thrown aside today.

In the question the defense admitted that Mrs. Steele strangled her step-daughter, Evelina Mary.

“The killing of a child, her own step-child, without motive or cause by a woman who endured what the defense claims Mrs. Steele had to endure, would be evidence of insanity,” Dr. Frank B. Marshall testified. He was backed by a number of local physicians in his contention.

The expert medical witnesses disagreed, however. The prosecution, in rebuttal, placed on the stand Dr. Charles W. Hitchcock, professor of mental discusses at the Detroit College of Medicine and an expert alienist. He examined Mrs. Steele at the county jail, May 3, a few days after the crime. He declared himself positive today that she was sane. This testimony concluded the evidence.

~ Mrs. Steele Wears Mourning. ~

When Mrs. Steele came into court today, she was dressed in mourning. The scarlet bow on her black velvet turtan was entirely covered with a heavy black veil. The crowd noticed it immediately.

Mrs. Steele appeared to be more vigorous than at the session yesterday afternoon when Judge Sullivan ordered her cross-examination halted because of her apparent physical exhaustion. After answering a few questions well, however, her memory again failed her, it appeared, and the constant reply became “I don’t know,” or “ I can’t remember.”

Women gathered at the court house as early at 6:20 o’clock this morning waiting for the doors to open. More than 300 persons remained in the courtroom during the noon recess, friends going out and purchasing them a luncheon.

[“Steele Attorneys Admit Slaying In Quiz Of Alienists – Muskegon Lawyers Risk All On Hypothetical Question. – Women Gather At 6:30 For Good Seats In Court – Sensational Murder Case Expected to Reach Jury Late Friday.” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), May 21, 1915, p. 18]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 9 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., May 22. – The one last service that Martha Schrebe Steele, convicted last night of the murder of her 11-year-old step-daughter, Evelina Mary, could do the child from whose frail body she strangled the breath of life, she did today at the county jail.

In her cell, as she lay on her cot suffering, she declared, from a terrific headache, she admitted that her girl victim had never been attacked by boys, had not been in a delicate condition and was, as other girls of her age, wholly innocent.

Thus, with a term of life imprisonment in the Detroit house of correction facing her, the convicted woman cleared the child’s name of the stain she herself had cast upon it, making the feeble but only reparation she could to the child now in her grave at Pentwater.

The confession did not come willingly. It was the result of long persuasion. Harry W. Jackson, her attorney, demanded that she make it in return for the fight he had made to save her from prison, appealed to save her from prison, appealed to her gratitude, to her sense of honor. He pointed out that since the jury had pronounced its verdict, all evasion was futile. Captain Phillip Lawton, head of the Salvation Army branch here, and her chief comforter, added his entreaties.

“You want to clear the little girl’s name,” Mr. Jackson implored. “You want to clear it of the stain that has been brought upon it by you, don’t you?”

No answer.

“You don’t want this little girl’s name blackened, do you?” said Captain Lawton.

“The story was a lie!” cried Mrs. Steele as she burst into tears, “Evelina was a good little girl. She was good and clean, just as any girl of her age might be. She never was attacked. That story was what first came to my mind when the officers arrested me.”

All that happened during the last week – the trial, the crowds, the courtroom – Mrs. Steele asserts is a blank to her. This morning she asked what the jury’s verdict was.

“What does guilty mean?” she inquired.

“Have you anything more to say,” asked Captain Lawton, “in regard to the happening the day of the crime?”

“No sir, I don’t remember. I do know, though, that Evelina did not leave the house the morning she met her death, as the prosecution claimed she did. That was the morning before. I know Evelina was dressed this morning. I don’t remember whether she had had her breakfast or not.”

Mrs. Steele, through her attorney, Mr. Jackson, this afternoon sent to Circuit Judge James E. Sullivan a letter containing her final request before she is to be sentenced. What was included in this letter Judge Sullivan refused to reveal. She will be sentenced some time next week.

[“Mrs. Steele, From Cell, Clears Name Of Child Victim – Confesses She Lied in Blackening Reputation of Step-Daughter. – Says Mind Is Blank On Events Of Trial – Muskegon  Slayer, Facing Sentence, Asks What What Verdict of ‘Guilty’ Means.” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), May 23, 1915, p. 12]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 10 of 11): Muskegon, Mich., June 2. – Lying in a cot in Hackley Hospital, Mrs. Martha Schrebe Steele, convicted two weeks ago of the murder of her stepdaughter, Evelina Mary, eleven, today accused her husband, Albert Steele, of complicity in her crime. The man was immediately placed under arrest by sheriff’s deputies.

Mrs. Steele’s told officers today that her husband advised her to “get rid of the child,” so there would be nothing to interfere with their marital happiness and that he even suggested the method of killing the girl – strangulation.

Later in the day Mrs. Steele was taken before Judge Sullivan and received sentence to life imprisonment.

[“Causes Arrest of Husband – Murderess Tells Authorities That He Counselled Her to Kill Girl.” Lincoln Daily News (Ne.), Jun. 2, 1915, p. 2]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 11 of 11): Two women descended from a Pere Marquette train in the Union station Wednesday afternoon, closely followed by a spare, bronzed men who seemed to accord them more than the ordinary attention.

The leader of the group and the taller of the two women was Mrs. Albert Steele, of Muskegon, convicted strangler of her 11-year-old step-daughter. She was muffled in a long blue coat, a scarf was wrapped about her head, and she made the trip from the train to the building like a person asleep, oblivious of the rain. The attentive man with her was Sheriff Fred J. Collins, of Muskegon. His wife was the third member of the group.

~ In Hospital Since Trial. ~

Mrs. Steele was being taken to the Detroit house of correction, to begin a life term. She was removed from the hospital in Muskegon Tuesday, the sheriff said, where she had been confined since the trial. Upon her arrival here she had no word to say of the past or the future. Her dull eyes kept upon vacancy, and there was no shade of color in the sunken cheeks. Mrs. Collins, an alert, capable little woman, hovered about her like a nurse.

No person on the train save the officials knew her identity and the trip was without incident. The slight, pale figure in the veil was not a person likely to attract attention.

The trio hailed a taxicabs Mrs. Steele was placed within, between the sheriff and his wife. She evinced not a shade of interest in the proceedings.

~ Will Work When Well. ~

She was received at the house of correction at 6:16 o’clock, registered and assigned quarters. Inmates are permitted their identity in the institution and the formula of giving her a number was absent. She will be given garments such as are worn by other inmates and as soon as their health permits will be set to work in the shops.

Sheriff Collins said Mrs. Steele had made him illuminating comment on the care since the trial, save to reiterate that the murder was performed at the instance of her husband. He was arrested Tuesday [June 1] as a result, but was later released.

[“Life Term In Jail For Mrs. Steele, As Slayer, Begins – Sentenced for Strangling Child, Muskegon Woman Brought to Detroit. – Rides From Station To Cell Like Person Asleep – Guarded by Sheriff and Wife; Has No Comment to Make on Past or Future,” The Detroit Free Press (Mi.), Jun. 3, 1915, p. 1]

***

Evelina’s Mother – Mrs. Charles Anderson, Niles, divorced circa 1906

***


***

***

***


***

***


***

ALSO SEE: Maternal Filicide: Spousal Revenge Motive for similar cases

***


For more examples, see Step-Mothers from Hell.

***

“Divorce By Murder.” Favored By Frenchwomen - Sentimental Juries’ Leniency Menace To Civilisation” - 1930


FULL TEXT: A Paris divorce costs £60, a gun costs £1 Europe is in a state of excitement, husbands are worried. The International League for the Protection of Human Rights [Liga für Menschenrechte] is planning to do something. France is the centre of a righteous moral volcano and her entire manhood is going into conference.

Frenchwomen have turned the trick; they have found a, substitute for divorce. Cheaper, easier, far more amusing than the antiquated process of legal proceedings, with its hazardous outcome, the new French vogue has taken a firm hold on womanhood in that land of liberty, equality and fraternity.

“If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, reads the Scriptures and Madame la Franchaise, with the directness of intuition which her sex boasts, has modernised and applied the lesson; “If thine husband offend thee, snuff him out.”

A simple formula and easy to remember.

Marital freedom a la francaise is, we repeat, an easily acquired status. The popular method costs only 126 francs or about £1, a little publicity which is invariably gratis, a few hours of good play acting before a jury, and at the very most a brief period of time as a guest of the government.

~ Bright Reading for Husbands. ~

The 126 francs will purchase a small but efficient automatic. This be taken to bed and carefully concealed under a pillow. When the offending spouse is quite asleep (preferably from an excessive use of alcohol) a steady hand can do the business in a second. Even the frailest and most timid of the sex can put the tyrant out of commission permanently by using up the contents of the gun. Variation can be obtained by choosing a more dramatic moment, and this is considered preferable, for it makes an acquittal easy for the jury. The procedure which is recommended as ideal is to catch the brute in the act of beating a child or in the company of a friend’s wife. This naturally assures a quick trial, favourable publicity and a speedy release. It is highly approved by the criminal courts and gives a jury an opportunity to enjoy the full pathos and sentimentality of the affair.

The facts are these: In 1920 no loss than forty-seven Frenchwomen shot, poisoned or gassed their husbands into oblivion with virtual impunity. During the present year, up to July 1, a total of thirty-eight have taken advantage of the new liberation scheme, and indications are that all records will be broken before the New Year’s bells ring out.

~ Deliriously Spectacular. ~

Reviewing a few of the cases, some are deliciously spectacular. Notable is that of Mme. Desotrat who secured her freedom last December. Her husband was the common or garden variety of drunkard. He beat her, starved, harassed and brutalised her and was generally disagreeable. Knowing that the divorce courts in France are costly and nearly inaccessible since they had been overcrowded by Americans seeking solitary bliss, and that French legislation had made the old-fashioned divorce a difficult business, Mme. Desotrat formed her campaign along the sure and methodical lines outlined above.

She bought herself a gun – a neat, powerful automatic. She applied to a professor of firearms and took seven lessons. With the confidence that comes of familiarity with a weapon she bided her time until one night Desotrat came home in a particularly villainous mood. In the room with the couple was her mother-in-law who was – perhaps fortunately—blind. With this perfect setting for a crime prepared, she allowed his natural disagreeableness to assert itself until she should reach a high point of righteous indignation. Then she fired seven shots, one for each lesson, into the midriff of the cruel man. It was over in a trice. There she was free – save for the short legal formality which must follow.

~ Simple – Efficient – Easy. ~

At the trial her mother-in-law was a witness. She had heard quarrelling but had seen nothing. Mme. Desotrat shed tears in the court. The jury also shed a few tears in sympathy. Her lawyer pleaded crime passionel, the justifiable; elimination of a brute. She was forced to pay damages amounting to a few pounds and to meditate a few months in a state hotel of justice. That was that: Simple, efficient, easy.

The International. League for the Protection of Human Rights [Liga für Menschenrechte] with its headquarters in Vienna, is being deluged with letters from French male citizens who arc genuinely convinced that it is no longer a matter of protecting the fragile sex against masculine intrusion, but quite the reverse. It is pointed out that not even beauty is necessary to soften the hearts of judges and juries when a woman who kills for love or for her happiness is in the dock. Editorial writers call this new conception of a “right to kill” a menace to civilisation which must at all costs be overcome.

[George Seldes, “Divorce By Murder.” Favoured By Frenchwomen - Sentimental Juries’  Leniency  Menace To Civilisation,” syndicated (A.A.N.S.), The Auckland Star (New Zealand), Nov. 10, 1930, p. 18]

***


For more on this topic, see Chivalry Justice Checklist & Links

***

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Women, Violence & the Law


Advanced Studies in WOMEN, VIOLENCE & THE LAW: the cutting Edge in Gender Studies

***

If you want to honestly and thoroughly study the subject “Woman, Violence & the Law,” then you cannot afford to ignore the new research on female serial killers. As of December 2012 there are 600 cases on file (with 3 or more victims).

None of the scholarship taught in the universities has yet made use of the data revealed in the 600 known female serial killer cases (let alone the other voluminous data on female violence in history).

Ignorance and censorship is useful in promoting ideology (of all varieties), but ignorance and censorship are not conducive to learning the truth. Currently victims of violence perpetrated by women are treated by most experts on violence as “second class victims.”

It is incorrect to assume that victims of violent women are usually adult males. Most of these “second class victims” are women, girls, boys and babies of both sexes.” These victims of violence deserve to have their experiences more widely known, more widely discussed. These people need to be treated as individuals, not as mere cannon-fodder to be exploited by professional ideologues to advance their lucrative careers.

Ignorance is quite definitely not bliss.

***














Black Widow Serial Killers (an exception: 2 or more victims)

***

ALSO:













Ask your professors to explain this material. If you are not satisfied with their answers, then you might want to demand a refund from your school. The social engineering status quo has failed! – and so we must resist the establishment’s indoctrination with all our might.

***

***

***

Monday, December 17, 2012

Women’s Instrumental Violence: Fact vs. Myth



INSTRUMENTAL vs. EXPRESSIVE

The professional term for the type of violence that women – according to the false stereotype – are supposedly incapable of is “instrumental,” referring to deliberate, premeditated action. ‘Instrumental’ is opposed to ‘expressive,’ referring to action taken only in a moment of passion or insanity. Peter Vronsky, in his 2007 book on female serial killers points out and explains this fallacy of female inability to be calculating, cold-blooded agents of violence:

When women commit violence, the only explanations offered have been that it is either involuntary, self-defense, the result of mental illness, or hormonal imbalances inherent with female physiology: postpartum depression, premenstrual syndrome, and menopause have been included among the named culprits. Women have been perceived to be capable of committing only reactive or “expressive” violence – an uncontrollable release of pent-up rage or fear-and that they murder unwillingly and without premeditation.

‘Instrumental violence, however, murder for a purpose – political power, rape, sadistic pleasure, robbery, or some other base gratification – remains the domain of the male. After all, every male is a potential killer in the form of a warrior – and he only becomes a murderer when he misuses his innate physical and socialized capacity to kill for ignoble, immoral, and impolitic reasons. While the male is built and programmed to destroy, the female nests, creates, and nurtures. Or so the story goes.” [Peter Vronsky, Female Serial Killers: How and Why Women Become Monsters, 2009, Berkley Books, p. 6]

Here is a sample “instrumental violence” case from 1889:

FULL TEXT: Zanesville, O., Sept. 10.— Frank Amos, one of the most prominent citizens of Morgan county, was murdered at his home in the western part of this county by Mrs. Hampton, his niece, who literally hacked his face and head to pieces with a butcher knife which she had carried for weeks avowedly for that purpose. Amos was picking berries in the field with his wife when the attack was made. She and a man who was passing on the road were attracted by his cries of m ardor and reached him only in time to see him breathe his last and to see Mrs. Hampton and her daughter run away. The trouble grew out of a law suit in which the testimony of Amos threw the costs on Hampton.

[“Killed By His Niece - Ohio Comes to the Front with a Most Unnatural Murder.” syndicated, Fort Worth Daily Gazette (Tx.), Sep. 18, 1889, p. 4]

***


For an expansion of this theme, SEE: “The central myth of MISANDRY: ‘the inherent non-violence of women’”

***

Saturday, December 1, 2012

“He Deserved it”: Myrtle Devlin’s 8-Hour Sadistic Attack – 1953


“He deserved it”: an entire philosophy summarized in three simple words.

***

FULL TEXT: New York – An unremorseful wife was held by police yesterday for methodically stabbing and beating her husband with a hammer over an eight hour period following an argument.

“He deserved it,” said Mrs. Myrtle Devlin, 36, a Negress, when arraigned on a felonious assault charge before Magistrate Amedo Lauritano. The attack occurred Saturday.

Mrs. Devlin weighs about 100 pounds, her 35-year-old husband, James, about 180.

Police said the woman told them she stabbed him first  in the chest and body when he accused her of infidelity after 15 years of marriage. He crawled into another room where she followed and struck him repeatedly over the head with a hammer.

Afterwards she fell asleep, according to the police resort. When she awakened she found the bleeding man had crawled into bed, so she got a larger kitchen knife and cut his throat.

The husband’s condition was reported serious by hospital officials, who said almost his entire blood supply had to be replaced.

[“Say Wife Beat Husband For 8 Hours,” syndicated (AP), Newsday (Long Island, N.Y.), Jul. 13, 1953, p. 5]

[Correction: original text reads: “He crawled in another room …”]

***



***

Mary Lewis Bought a Hatchet For Her Husband’s Head – Boston 1901


FULL TEXT: George Lewis, who is colored, and a big, strapping fellow, and his wife, Mary J. Lewis, who is also colored and 22 years of age, had a spat at their home, 8 Bradford st, late Saturday night which ended with Mary’s attempt to chop her husband’s head off with a hatchet.

Mrs. Lewis is in the city prison awaiting arraignment on a charge of having assaulted her husband with the hatchet, and Mr. Lewis is in a cell at station 5, where he was locked up shortly after his wife was arrested, and he is held as a witness.

According to the police version of the row Mrs. Lewis thought pretty well of a colored man other than her husband, and so she attempted to put George out of the way. The police say that after Lewis and his wife had indulged in a somewhat lengthy quarrel, George sat down in a chair to think things over, while his wife left the room, declaring she would have no more to do with him. Presently Mrs. Lewis returned, but Mr. Lewis was on his dignity and would not deign to turn his head, so it was easy for her to creep up close to him and bring the blade of a new hatchet down squarely on top of his bare head.

The hatchet cut a two-inch gash in Lewis’ scalp, but it didn’t penetrate his skull. He grabbed his wife before she could hit him again in a more vulnerable spot, and some of the neighbors called in a policeman, who took Mrs, Lewis to the station house and sent George to the City hospital to have his scalp sewed up.

Lewis was taken to the station house, too, after the surgeons got through with him, and he accused his wife his wife of having tried to kill him. The police say she admitted that he was approximately correct in his statement, and to have added that she was sorry she didn’t succeed in her attempt. She said, also, that she bought the hatchet for the special purpose of putting her husband out of the way. It came out, the police say, that Mrs. Lewis has a pretty kindly regard for another colored male person, and when this was suggested to her she remarked:

“Dey is uthus.”

Mrs. Lewis is said to be a very impulsive person into whose young life have been crowded a number of experiences. Four years ago she got into a fight with another woman, and the other woman threw a lighted lamp struck Mrs. Lewis it broke and set her clothes afire. Patrolman Michael McDonough of division 3 was the man of the hour at that time, for he tore off his uniform coat and wrapped it about Mary, with the result that her life was saved and the patrolman was commended for his gallantry and prompt action.

[“Hit With A Hatchet. George Lewis Suffers a Cut on the Head Two Inches Long at the Hands of His Wife.” The Boston Daily Globe (Ma..), Nov. 25, 1901, p. 14]

***



***

Louise Rutter’s Fifth Arrest for Husband-Beating – New Jersey, 1900


FULL TEXT: Hackensack, N.J., Jan. 5. – Louise Rutter, who was convicted here yesterday of husband beating, was to-day sentenced to serve two months in the county jail as punishment. When she was called to the bar for sentence Judge Zabriskie said:

“Mrs. Rutter, if I am not mistaken, this is the fourth time you have been before me charged with offense.”

“That is wrong; this is the fifth time,” was the cheerful reply.

“We’ll, it’s five times too often,” said the Judge, “and I want to know if you intend to stop having to come before me on this charge.”

“I guess not, so long as occasion demands,” said Mrs. Rutter, complacently.

Judge Zabriskie looked at the woman for fully a minute without speaking. Then he shook his head as if admitting defeat and murmured: “Two months.”

The prisoner was led away not altogether cast down.

Mrs. Rutter is thirty-two years of age, strong, and muscular. Her husband, whom the law is trying to protect, is fifty-five.

[“Fifth Time Once Too Many. – Muscular Mrs. Rutter Gets Two Months for Beating Her Husband.” New York Times (N.Y.), Jan. 6, 1900, p. 1]

***



***

Henderson Cass, War Veteran Buggy-Whipped by Wife - Kentucky, 1903


Following is a brief news report which tells a story that contradicts the official “herstory” fairytale narrative of domestic violence in the bad old days.

A wife whose 76-year old war veteran husband spent money on himself because he “wanted to have a good time” is reprimanded by a judge for such “abuse” of his wife. The appropriate treatment of an elderly Civil War veteran accused of such “abuse” was deemed to be having him trashed with a buggy whip in public by the “abused” wife. Makes sense, right?

Now you know what it the term “abuse” means when you see applied to the treatment of a wife. Husbands are, as Marxism-steeped gender ideologues who create public policy,  tell us,  fundamentally “abusers,” due to their “male privilege.” And women are fundamentally innocent gentle, fearful victims of that same oppressive “male privilege.” Than goodness we have public servants selflessly dedicated to protecting victims of “male privilege.”

***

FULL TEXT: Henderson Cass, Lexington, Ky., aged 76 years, a veteran of the civil war, was horsewhipped in public by his wife by the order of Police Judge Riley. The woman had lodged a complaint against her husband, claiming that he was squandering his pension money and was drunk a great deal of the time. He was brought into court and told Judge Riley that he wanted to have a good time. The Chicago Chronicle correspondent says the judge asked the abused wife why she did not whip him, and she said she could do it all right if he said she might. Judge Riley replied:

“Well, I will get you a whip and see that you do it.”

He told Patrol Driver Wallace to bring him a buggy whip, and, arming the woman with the whip, he told her to march her husband into the station-house lobby and lay it on him until she got tired. The woman did so.

The husband at first took the matter as a joke and laughed, but soon he began to realize, after the woman began laying on lick after lick with full force that she was in earnest and he begged her to stop. He promised to be sober and a good husband and she stopped.

[“Wife Whips Husband. – Police Judge in Lexington, Ky., Orders Matrimonial Thrashing for Civil War Veteran.” The Havre Plaindealer (Mt.), Sep. 5, 1903, p. 3]

***



***