dixiegirl1035
I will do it, but I won't like it
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2017
- Messages
- 12,887
- Reaction score
- 99,745
I think it's more that he came from an enmeshed situation with his mother and viewed his relationship with his child through that lens. He didn't want to share.
And maybe he would've prevailed if she moved out of state but I'm not sure about that. KB's mother insists she was the primary custodial parent. And when he had her he brought his infant to farrier jobs. Sounds like he didn't always have provisions for appropriate childcare.
I get the sense that KB thought they were engaged and going to create a family. He was unable to do that because his family was with his mama. And IIRC there were whispers about his mother not liking KB or wanting her around.
But things were coming to a head. Instead of telling the truth and dealing with KB's emotions over him not wanting her, or him not wanting to leave his mama, and then dealing with sharing custody, he decided to keep the baby for himself.
The thing I've noticed with many of these family annihilator/domestic murderers is an unhealthy family of origin. Dysfunctional families. Dysfunctional relationships with parents. Deep enmeshment.
Scott Peterson. Casey Anthony. Chris Watts. Chris Coleman. Neil Entwhistle. On and on.
I think their motivations can't make sense to those who don't have such families. Or to those who aren't living disordered lives with such families.
(Caveat: I'm not trying to bash adults who live with their parents. There's lots of reasons for that. Especially in today's economy. It can be a mutually beneficial situation where a parent isn't always alone and a grandchild has family there to help with childcare, or pets, etc. But when a murder suspect seems to have a certain situation with his family, it sparks my interest. It so often seems to fit a pattern).
As a family law attorney I see how insane people get about child custody. Beyond all reason. Some just refuse to share their child. They're incapable of seeing the other parent as entitled to a relationship with THEIR child.
More importantly, they're incapable of seeing their child as entitled to a relationship with the other parent. The kid is theirs. And doesn't have needs of his or her own. The child's needs mirror the parent's, in the parents' minds. They don't see the child as an individual.
The more dysfunctional the parent, the more that is so.
I have been racking my brain, and you just made me remember what I've been trying to remember! The Drew Peterson case I believe it was. The one who had multiple wives and killed perhaps more than one of them.
In the Drew Peterson case, they could not bring up the lawyer to prove and or discuss that she had gone to a divorce lawyer. Because that lawyer had been highered. There for attorney-client privilege that lasted even after her death if I recall correctly.
But they finally were able to bring in another lawyer, because she had met him and talked about divorce in a restaurant, but she never had retained him. So prosecution was able to get that guy on stand and testify about the divorce proceedings and questions.
I think that the district attorney here, has just done a telegraph salvo across the bow as to knowing that there are legal papers, and that they have been seen, knowing that he will not be able to get them from the lawyer if PF had talked to him? But he can put on the stand the mother to talk about such?
Hope that makes sense what I'm saying.
Friday, he got it on the record that there were papers, but he will have no legal way to get them from the lawyer, and only from his mother or somebody else.?
Could that be what is going on here?
ETA typo
Last edited: