Munchausen by Proxy and the case of Jennifer Bush

[wendybtn]

Missizzy, Thank you so much for providing this insider's view of Mbp. I have read a lot about how perpetrators are caught but never hear about how it is on the other side for the victim.

 

[wendybtn]

How does a MBP mother get a hold of foster children? That is crazy. I don't know what it will take to open the eyes of the world to the horrific things going on out there. Foster children after what she did to Julie is very, very frightening. I don't understand.

Because prosecuting these cases is almost impossible. If you aren't convicted of a crime, no legal issues bar you from being a foster parent. And a person (usually a woman) who is interested in a very sick foster child and is organized and doesn't mind handling the doctors appts., meds, etc., can look pretty great to an agency. Mbp is very subtle, it does not jump up and wave. Very complicated psychological condition, extremely dangerous for the chosen child.

 

[wendybtn]

Mbp is one of the most rarely diagnosed conditions in the world. Most docs I've seen are loathe to even discuss it. It is not something medical doctors take lightly in the least. If it is possible, MsFacetious, could you just tell us the court case name of one or two false accusations court cases, ie, Wisconsin v Smith, please?

 

[K_Z]

Maybe you were talking about how the prosecution's ability to argue that Kathy suffered from Munchausen by proxy was thrown out before the trial??? If so, that absolutely does not mean the case was disproved.

Originally, the prosecution planned to use MPB as part of their theory for what Kathy's 'motive' was for the child abuse charges. The judge decided that the prosecutors had to prove a charge of child abuse by actually proving child abuse, not by proving that Kathy suffered from Munchausen by proxy syndrome.

That was a major blow to the prosecution team. Now they had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Kathy did abuse Jennifer WITHOUT being able to explain to the jury what they thought Kathy's motive was. And you know what? Kathy was STILL found guilty even though prosecutors had to adjust their whole argument at the last minute.

Respectfully snipped for focus.

In the past 15 or so years, there has been a marked shift in the strategy of the prosecution of these cases, that mirrors the approach of medical providers. MBPS has ceased to be documented as a "diagnosis" by pediatricians in the medical record of the victims, as this diagnosis applies to the mother (usually a mother, but not always-- a close care giver), not the child victim.

The term "medical child abuse" has emerged as the preferred diagnosis medically to describe the child's injuries and overall situation, a term which has been increasingly embraced by the criminal justice system. Sometimes the prosecution voluntarily chooses to avoid using the term "MBPS", as in the current prosecution of Lacey Spears; other times the courts rule that prosecutors can't mention it in building their case, if the woman hasn't been officially diagnosed. And defense attorneys are loathe to seek that diagnosis, because it's essentially admitting guilt, and isn't eligible for consideration as a mental illness/ diminished capacity defense.

When that shift in focus happened (Texas cases were among the first to abandon MBPS and focus on "medical child abuse"), the ability to successfully prosecute and get guilty convictions when up. (Prosecutors, IMO, also seem to be moving away from first degree murder charges, and favoring 2nd degree, so as to increase their ability to get a guilty verdict.) It's my opinion that removing this psychiatric diagnosis by the prosecution also helped to provide more clarity to the juries. There has been confusion as to whether or not a mother with MBPS is sick and less responsible for her actions, versus someone with a psychological condition (Axis II, personality disorder, which is not diminished capacity) who remains aware of her actions, takes measures to cover them up (thus demonstrating evidence of knowing right from wrong), and IS responsible.

In cases where there has been a death, convictions appear to be increasing. In cases where the child has been rescued and removed before the tragedy of death occurs, prosecution is much more complex, I think.

Either way, I'm glad to see the shift in prosecution from the focus on the mother's psychological make up, to the effects of the abuse on the child victim. The abuser/ mother is not the "victim" in these cases, which has to be made clear to the jury. These mothers clearly know what they're doing is wrong, IMO, and take steps to cover up and conceal their actions. And their twisted psychology is not enough of an excuse to call it diminished capacity/ mental illness defense.

Links to some threads for cases currently being prosecuted:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-of-salt-poisoning-w-suspicious-circumstances

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-8-arrested-for-quot-medical-child-abuse-quot

And an excellent discussion of the issues of medical child abuse in prosecutions, written by a pioneering Texas prosecutor:

http://www.tdcaa.com/node/2871

http://www.tdcaa.com/journal/investigating-medical-child-abuse

 

[Tricia]

It has been a long time since I visited this thread.

Thank you Missizzy, Jm713, and everyone who participated in this thread.

Tonight (Thursday March 19 2015) 8 PM Eastern on my radio show we will discuss Munchausen by Proxy with two of the top experts in the field.

Dr. Marc Feldman and Ms. Louisa Lasher

I hope you will join us.

Show starts a little bit past 8 PM Eastern Tonight (Thursday). Go to www.truecrimeradio.com and click on the, Listen Now button. That takes you to my live show on iHeart Radio.

Chatroom opens at 7:30 PM Eastern.

Thanks again for the great posts on this thread. Very informative

 

[DrollForeignFaction]

Here's a documentary about the case:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oCu0okv5fNg

To me, it's obvious this was a case of MBP or whatever you want to designate it as. Once upon a time I knew a little girl who had a feeding tube in her stomach and it's not like we ever tested it out but I doubt a day away from her family would have cured her of needing to use it. Yet that worked for Jessica. Too many suspicious things happening with her health.

I'm also someone who was taken away from her mother and placed in foster care needlessly imo - I was being abused but my mother had NO idea or involvement. The family I was with was very nice but it still hurt to be separated from my mother. It was unnecessary. I know from experience that bad choices are made wrt foster care. So it irked me greatly to see this woman on TV trashing the DHS or whoever for "unfairly" targeting her when as far as I can tell they targeted her for very legitimate reasons. Frankly, I wouldn't trust this woman farther than I can throw her. She came off rather manipulative and cloying.

It was very interesting to hear what the advocate representing the child had to say at the sentencing hearing, apparently reading a letter from the then-teenager about her mother's treatment of her. It directly contradicted what Jessica said as an adult about not blaming her mother a bit. To me it sounds like at this point she doesn't want to face the truth.