It's not the act that appalls me.
Sep. 24th, 2005 09:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Well, I mean, it is, but not as much as reporting of it does.
"In a case that touched the local community, neighbours, including the local pastor, expressed sadness and said Markcrow was a "lovely woman" who would be welcomed back with open arms."
God. It sounds like he was a notorious kitten-killer or something. "Touched the local community"? That's the phrase you use when refering to a murder case?
She had been through a double tragedy with the sudden death of her husband Paul, an architect, shortly after she killed her son.
Now, the other article implied that her husband had died *first*. But if he died *after* the boy, suddenly (not the result of a long, drawn-out illness, say), the "oh, she was upset that her husband died" argument obviously doesn't work. And, of course, her son's death is considered part of a "double tragedy", even though she caused it.
"There is more sympathy than criticism. People who know will be very understanding really, knowing Wendy as they do."
Of course they will. Because she was just so put-upon, poor dear.
"Patrick had special needs and that was an enormous pressure for her, she was very conscientious in her care for him."
Whatever the lawyers and all said, the community and the press are working to make sure we all get the idea that her son's murder was okay because he was a burden on her - not because she had serious psychiatrc problems. And maybe she did, but that's not what I'm reading in these comments in the article.
It's sickening. There's no other words for it. If she'd killed anyone else, nobody would be saying "I don't know what happened but whatever she did, it was not her fault", not like that. And it's clear that her neighbors aren't saying that because they thought she wasn't in her right mind. If they did, I doubt they would've gotten together to sign a book of support to mail to her after her arrest. For murder, remember, even if now it's been pushed down as far as manslaughter, which is a joke.
"In a case that touched the local community, neighbours, including the local pastor, expressed sadness and said Markcrow was a "lovely woman" who would be welcomed back with open arms."
God. It sounds like he was a notorious kitten-killer or something. "Touched the local community"? That's the phrase you use when refering to a murder case?
She had been through a double tragedy with the sudden death of her husband Paul, an architect, shortly after she killed her son.
Now, the other article implied that her husband had died *first*. But if he died *after* the boy, suddenly (not the result of a long, drawn-out illness, say), the "oh, she was upset that her husband died" argument obviously doesn't work. And, of course, her son's death is considered part of a "double tragedy", even though she caused it.
"There is more sympathy than criticism. People who know will be very understanding really, knowing Wendy as they do."
Of course they will. Because she was just so put-upon, poor dear.
"Patrick had special needs and that was an enormous pressure for her, she was very conscientious in her care for him."
Whatever the lawyers and all said, the community and the press are working to make sure we all get the idea that her son's murder was okay because he was a burden on her - not because she had serious psychiatrc problems. And maybe she did, but that's not what I'm reading in these comments in the article.
It's sickening. There's no other words for it. If she'd killed anyone else, nobody would be saying "I don't know what happened but whatever she did, it was not her fault", not like that. And it's clear that her neighbors aren't saying that because they thought she wasn't in her right mind. If they did, I doubt they would've gotten together to sign a book of support to mail to her after her arrest. For murder, remember, even if now it's been pushed down as far as manslaughter, which is a joke.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 01:40 am (UTC)I don't mean "well, she could have chosen not to kill him." OK, duh.
What I do mean is that, when she was afraid of living with a large man with the emotional maturity of a toddler, who physically threatened her on a regular basis . . . how did she get out of it? Seriously, did she have options other than murdering him and hoping that no one noticed or continuing to live with a man in prime of life who didn't get that hitting people is wrong?
This particular article didn't mention his physical aggressiveness; I have seen others that did.
I'm not defending her, just asking: what were her choices?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:27 am (UTC)For example, they say he used to be in a day facility - but two years ago, he left. I don't know why, but it does seem strange that they'd just kick him out. Did she pull him out? Were they badly run? I don't know.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 01:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 09:39 am (UTC)That said, a big loud WORD to everything you've said in this article. We're all so into instant gratification that we tend to forget the rule of every single life being as precious as one's own. If it's a nuisance and interferes with one's pleasure, get rid of it! We do it to inconvenient foetuses*; I suppose the logical next step is to do it to children who are less than perfect.
Reading about Mrs Markcrow's circumstances, one becomes more and more aware that this situation was far from inevitable. Look where she lived, for instance. (http://www.petergoodearl.co.uk/laceygreen/bradnhm/alcren.htm) A glance at the place where she lived - and such villages are as posh as they look - plus the information that her husband had been an architect, gives the impression that she cannot have been entirely without money or resources. (She may even have been too well-off to qualify for a State-funded care worker, actually.) Couldn't she have put an ad in the Buckingham papers - "Wanted: person to care for my adult Down's Syndrome son for two/three afternoons a week"? Now there may have been reasons why she didn't wish to do this, but, as you state, it doesn't look as if she took up every option available to her before resorting to murder. Was the line "I didn't get a carer to look after my son because it would have been too expensive" ever trotted out at the trial, I wonder...
It could well be that the community felt guilty about not helping her when she needed it, hence this "she'll be welcomed back with open arms" salving of the collective conscience. But I agree with you, it's still pre-meditated, cold-blooded murder.
* I'm not trying to steer the debate onto "pro-life"/"pro-choice" lines, I'm just arguing that there may be a connection between the refusal to see a valuable life in a little bundle of cells and the refusal to see a valuable life in a person with Down's Syndrome. The moment one employs the "there are enough people in the world already" argument, one is admitting that some lives are worth more than others. (But then again I fully support the mother's right not to give birth if the conception happened as a result of rape, or if the birth could end up killing the mother, so I do acknowledge that there are grey areas in the whole abortion debate; the parallel is far from exact.)
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 03:28 pm (UTC)However, this discussion does remind me of the linked page. It's true - even as quality of life for people with Downs syndrome has improved, people have been pushed more and more to abort in those cases. And it's not just Downs - even fetuses with very mild, treatable disabilities are likely to be aborted.
And even while I'm sitting there going "Well, that's their right, leave it alone", the greater trend involved in this is troubling, to say the least. More education, people, more education.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 01:40 am (UTC)I don't mean "well, she could have chosen not to kill him." OK, duh.
What I do mean is that, when she was afraid of living with a large man with the emotional maturity of a toddler, who physically threatened her on a regular basis . . . how did she get out of it? Seriously, did she have options other than murdering him and hoping that no one noticed or continuing to live with a man in prime of life who didn't get that hitting people is wrong?
This particular article didn't mention his physical aggressiveness; I have seen others that did.
I'm not defending her, just asking: what were her choices?
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:27 am (UTC)For example, they say he used to be in a day facility - but two years ago, he left. I don't know why, but it does seem strange that they'd just kick him out. Did she pull him out? Were they badly run? I don't know.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 01:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 02:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 09:39 am (UTC)That said, a big loud WORD to everything you've said in this article. We're all so into instant gratification that we tend to forget the rule of every single life being as precious as one's own. If it's a nuisance and interferes with one's pleasure, get rid of it! We do it to inconvenient foetuses*; I suppose the logical next step is to do it to children who are less than perfect.
Reading about Mrs Markcrow's circumstances, one becomes more and more aware that this situation was far from inevitable. Look where she lived, for instance. (http://www.petergoodearl.co.uk/laceygreen/bradnhm/alcren.htm) A glance at the place where she lived - and such villages are as posh as they look - plus the information that her husband had been an architect, gives the impression that she cannot have been entirely without money or resources. (She may even have been too well-off to qualify for a State-funded care worker, actually.) Couldn't she have put an ad in the Buckingham papers - "Wanted: person to care for my adult Down's Syndrome son for two/three afternoons a week"? Now there may have been reasons why she didn't wish to do this, but, as you state, it doesn't look as if she took up every option available to her before resorting to murder. Was the line "I didn't get a carer to look after my son because it would have been too expensive" ever trotted out at the trial, I wonder...
It could well be that the community felt guilty about not helping her when she needed it, hence this "she'll be welcomed back with open arms" salving of the collective conscience. But I agree with you, it's still pre-meditated, cold-blooded murder.
* I'm not trying to steer the debate onto "pro-life"/"pro-choice" lines, I'm just arguing that there may be a connection between the refusal to see a valuable life in a little bundle of cells and the refusal to see a valuable life in a person with Down's Syndrome. The moment one employs the "there are enough people in the world already" argument, one is admitting that some lives are worth more than others. (But then again I fully support the mother's right not to give birth if the conception happened as a result of rape, or if the birth could end up killing the mother, so I do acknowledge that there are grey areas in the whole abortion debate; the parallel is far from exact.)
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 03:28 pm (UTC)However, this discussion does remind me of the linked page. It's true - even as quality of life for people with Downs syndrome has improved, people have been pushed more and more to abort in those cases. And it's not just Downs - even fetuses with very mild, treatable disabilities are likely to be aborted.
And even while I'm sitting there going "Well, that's their right, leave it alone", the greater trend involved in this is troubling, to say the least. More education, people, more education.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-25 03:33 pm (UTC)