NY - Lauren Belius, 6, stabbed to death, 19 July 2011 *Insanity*

New Posts

I am just seeing this today. Horrible, horrible...

If he is found to be schizophrenic, imo mom should get involved with the closest NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) chapter to her. Finding a support group might be the closest she will get to ever understanding what occurred.
 
I live not far from here and this is the first I've heard of this story.
What a horrible thing to go through..my prayers are with the family..

and yes-he does look like he is smiling in that mug shot!!!sick b####d
 
Not knowing this guy obviously so only speculating.

I suppose this man could have had fantasies that he was able to not act on but he finally did. I cannot help to think that his plans would have involved all the children then the mom.

My brother is a paranoid schizophrenic not on medication. Most paranoid Schizophrenic people I thought are more fearful and the reason most SOMETIMES act with violence because their perception is that it is survival instinct. If they fear someone is after them they could strike out with violence. However I have no idea not a shrink.

I can say my brother yells and gets mad but never violence.

I agree he showed premeditation that is why I think he had plans with the other children then the mom.

Drugs maybe, but salts I would think the mom would have seen that laying around. Maybe he was taking medication from patients at the nursing home he worked at.
 
I had asked Allison's friend Charmaine for permission to post these a while ago... (apparently neither of us is very fluent at facebook.)

However, she has now given me permission to post them here. :wave:

laurenbycharmaine2.jpg


laurenbycharmaine.jpg
 
After nearly three hours of testimony by the last witness in the case, both sides rested Friday afternoon in the murder trial of David Trebilcock.

Trebilcock's defense attorney, Oneida County Public Defender Pat Marthage, is not denying Trebilcock stabbed the little girl in front of her twin sister, but is trying to clear him of murder charges by having him found not-guilty due to mental disease or defect.

Closing arguments are set for Tuesday, February 14....

Since David Trebilcock requested a bench trial, Judge Michael Dwyer will get the case after those closing arguments, and he alone will decide Trebilcock's fate.

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Clos...-David-Trebilcock-murder-trial-139127364.html

lauren12.jpg
 
taken from this link

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Closi...139127364.html

quote :-

"His final ruling regarding David Trebilcock's mental state, Dr. Farago testified, "as the direct result of his schizophrenic illness, he lacked the capacity to know or appreciate that the killing of Lauren Belius was wrong."

BUT

"Dr. Farago says that Trebilcock showed remorse by telling investigators he was sorry the stabbing had to be done in front of Lauren Belius' twin sister"

So this guy was able to show some remorse because he KNEW how killing the girl in front of her sister would effect her, but didn't know that killing her was wrong?

Surely that contradicts exactly what he is saying? What a load of rubbish.
 
sindydee said:
taken from this link

http://www.wktv.com/news/local/Closi...139127364.html

quote :-

"His final ruling regarding David Trebilcock's mental state, Dr. Farago testified, "as the direct result of his schizophrenic illness, he lacked the capacity to know or appreciate that the killing of Lauren Belius was wrong."

BUT

"Dr. Farago says that Trebilcock showed remorse by telling investigators he was sorry the stabbing had to be done in front of Lauren Belius' twin sister"

So this guy was able to show some remorse because he KNEW how killing the girl in front of her sister would effect her, but didn't know that killing her was wrong?

Surely that contradicts exactly what he is saying? What a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...

It possible - the law looks at the mental state during the event. He could have been completely disconnected at the time of the stabbing, but post-event have remorse for the situation. The fact that he's expressing remorse for acting in front of her twin, but not for what he did, when interviewed by investigators may be a sign of disconnect.

Or he could be depraved. But that disconnect does truly happen from time to time for some people struggling with mental illness. You can be remorseful for your actions, but truly be disconnected from them during the act. Hard to say for sure with him, but I don't think mental illness can be completely dismissed out of hand.
 
It possible - the law looks at the mental state during the event. He could have been completely disconnected at the time of the stabbing, but post-event have remorse for the situation. The fact that he's expressing remorse for acting in front of her twin, but not for what he did, when interviewed by investigators may be a sign of disconnect.

Or he could be depraved. But that disconnect does truly happen from time to time for some people struggling with mental illness. You can be remorseful for your actions, but truly be disconnected from them during the act. Hard to say for sure with him, but I don't think mental illness can be completely dismissed out of hand.

___________________________________________________________

Thank you for your reply. I understand what you are saying.

I guess that whatever the case, this is a guy that has murdered a child. Mentally Ill or plain evil, he never needs to see the light of day again.
 
To the sobs of 6-year-old Lauren Belius’s mother Allison Belius, Oneida County Judge Michael Dwyer ruled that David Trebilcock lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect.

http://www.uticaod.com/news/x1341778178/Judge-Trebilcock-lacked-criminal-responsibility-in-stabbing

Trebilcock will return to prison where he will undergo further psychiatric evaluations and later transferred to a psychiatric institution.
He will re-appear before Judge Dwyer in one year to determine at that point if he is mentally competent or not.

http://www.wktv.com/news/crime-reports/Verdict-expected-in-Trebilcock-case--139274383.html

I am so sorry... and other than that I am speechless. :tears:
 
These rulings aren't handed out like candy - it can be very difficult to prove a lack of culpability due to mental illness. I feel very sorry for the family, but if it's any consolation to them, he will likely spend quite some time institutionalized. His prognosis is poor - he is likely to be institutionalized for the rest of his life, given the dangerous nature of his mental disorder. I know that it doesn't help now, but hopefully in time it will be a cold comfort to them that he's at least not out on the streets.
 
AnaTeresa said:
These rulings aren't handed out like candy - it can be very difficult to prove a lack of culpability due to mental illness. I feel very sorry for the family, but if it's any consolation to them, he will likely spend quite some time institutionalized. His prognosis is poor - he is likely to be institutionalized for the rest of his life, given the dangerous nature of his mental disorder. I know that it doesn't help now, but hopefully in time it will be a cold comfort to them that he's at least not out on the streets.
Click to expand...

Here is my issue now that I am calm...ish...

He held a job...
He was in a normal adult relationship...
He only displayed any odd behaviors to those he worked with...

Yet he was so crazy he did this and didn't realize it was wrong or had no control of it. :waitasec:

I've known Schizophrenics. Even violent ones. My Mom worked in a state hospital and took me to work all the time. :banghead:
They are not generally normal for a few years and then turn psychotic one night.

What if he returns back to the sane person he was up until that night?
He could be released in a year. Then what? If he doesn't remain on his meds? Who might the next anti-Christ be?

I've just seen the cases where they are found not guilty because of insanity and then released 2 years later.
I'd feel much better if a proven "dangerous mental illness" with a "poor prognosis" came with a minimum institutionalization time. (15 years or so.)

You know, when you've already brutally stabbed to death one child. Evaluated in a YEAR? That shouldn't even be an OPTION.

I do not doubt that he is mentally ill.
I doubt that he is THAT mentally ill...
 
The thing is, the doctor who gave his opinion - he was originally hired by the state. If he had any bias, it would go towards being skeptical of his mental defect being so severe. So for him to render an opinion that Trebilcock is severely mentally ill, with a very poor prognosis of ever getting better - I give that some weight. Given his incredibly poor prognosis, I believe that he's going to be kept for a long while.
 
I can't decide how I feel about this. I see very good points on both sides. I do believe in these cases there should be a minimum amount of 'treatment' time before review. I have also heard of cases of people murdering someone and being released from care in a year or less. Those people could not have been seriously mentally ill enough to avoid punishment. Yet, there are those like Andrea Yates that I know are truly that sick and I was glad when her conviction was overturned.
 
He will be evaluated in one year. If he is still sick, which we all know he will be, he will then be held for indefinite two year stretches, with an evaluation at the end of each.

This might be good thing.

He was not declared not guilty. He was not declared incompetent to stand trial, he was declared not criminally responsible. These two differ because once you are incompetent, you will always be incompetent, and you will not face trial for your actions. But,when you are are not responsible, you can be rehabilitated far enough to be considered responsible, and stand trial at a later date, when your defect or disease has been treated.
 
I thought it was the other way around. You can be incompetent and brought to competency for trial (like they are doing with the guy that shot the senator). If you are said to be not criminally responsible, there is no further trial. That is the verdict. I will have to check into this.
 
not_my_kids said:
He was not declared not guilty. He was not declared incompetent to stand trial, he was declared not criminally responsible. These two differ because once you are incompetent, you will always be incompetent, and you will not face trial for your actions. But,when you are are not responsible, you can be rehabilitated far enough to be considered responsible, and stand trial at a later date, when your defect or disease has been treated.
Click to expand...

I think that you have that exactly backwards. Jered Lee Loughner has been declared incompetent to stand trial and they are medicating him to try to return him to a reasonable level of sanity so that they can then prosecute him. had he been declared not criminally responsible he would never have to go to trial. They reevaluate him ever so often to determine if he is now sane enough to prosecute.

This is from Maryland but I think that as far as the ruling goes it's pretty standard. http://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2010/criminal-procedure/title-3/3-112/


This man has had his day in court and will not be prosecuted for the little girls murder.:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 4,447 (members: 214, guests: 4,233)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
4,233
Total visitors
4,447
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,259
Messages
17,983,324
Members
229,064
Latest member
Champ86
Back
Top