WA WA - Sky Metalwala, 2, Bellevue, 6 Nov 2011 - #12

[stefanrae]

I am looking for photos that have the following:

This photo was taken on September 5, 2011 using a Canon PowerShot SD770 IS.

This photo was taken on September 15, 2011 using a Canon PowerShot SD770 IS.

I am not sure if September 15, 2011 is the correct date, but I thought there were some after September 5, 2011

It has to read "using a Canon PowerShot SD770 IS, as this means it was uploaded from the camera to the website, rather than from the camera, to a computer file, to the website.

The most recent photos I see that state "using a Canon PowerShot SD770" are from June 15, 2011. M is in every picture, but there are some with Sky.

 

[bendrn]

Okay, gitana1, et al, you guys got me to thinking. :blushing:

I did a search on profiling maternal filicide, and found some interesting articles. I have included one here, and I definitely recommend clicking the link if you are interested in reading up on the criminal profiling of parents who murder their children.

http://www.publications.villanova.edu/Concept/2005/Filicide.pdf

SNIPPED FROM ABOVE SITE:

Previous psychiatric symptoms
More recent studies have shown that 75% of filicidal parents had displayed
psychiatric symptoms prior to the child’s death, 40% had seen a psychiatrist
shortly before the crime, and almost half of the filicidal mothers had received
inpatient psychiatric treatment (McKee & Shea, 1998). In a study encompassing a
50-year cohort of women admitted into mental institutions for killing their
child(ren), suicide attempts after the act were seen in half of the cases (Stanton &
Simpson, 2002). While mentally ill filicidal mothers generally have psychiatric
histories, they do not usually have any history of child abuse, and they generally
describe having experienced a clear intention to kill (Stanton, Simpson, &
Wouldes, 2000). In all studies impairment due to drugs and alcohol was rarely
seen and was of little importance in the crimes.

 

[bendrn]

ETA: This site also lists risk factors for prevention... very interesting. I think we can all agree that the system totally failed Sky and M both. And dad. Every possible warning sign was in place, if you believe what you read in this article.

 

[CharlestonGal]

Well, here's the thing though, isn't Munchasuen's by Proxy about a disturbed need for attention? And doesn't it result in repeated trips to the doctor, the hospital, needless tests, etc?

In this case, it seems that Julia likely bruised her children, but not because she wanted attention or sympathy, but to coldly bolster her allegations against Solomon and to insure that he did not get custody. I think that is different. And while we don't know that Julia wasn't taking her kids to doctors all the time or making up illnesses for them or herself, we do know that M's first trip to a doctor was when she was over a year old and it was to homeopath, not to a medical doctor.

Also, nowhere in Solomon's detailed declaration does he indicate that she claimed sickness, claimed the kids were sick all the time, or made things up for attention, caused situations for attention, etc. A better candidate for that would be, I think, the woman who killed Sandra Cantu - her daughter was always "ill" and she had falsely claimed rape and tried to start fires, etc.

IMO, Julia was a little bit the opposite. She wanted desperately to be left alone so she could indulge in her obsessions about cleaning. She wanted to be left alone so badly that she didn't want people to come over, wouldn't allow her children to rise until Solomon could come get them after work, and possibly, eventually killed in order to not have anything get in her way of an obsessively, sterile environment. So I am in agreement with PattyG at this point.

BBM. Yes, it is different. It's called child abuse and it isn't a mental disorder. It's just general evilness.

 

[Patty G]

The most recent photos I see that state "using a Canon PowerShot SD770" are from June 15, 2011. M is in every picture, but there are some with Sky.

Thank you. That is what I have also, June 15, 2011. I thought I had seen some with September 5, 2011 with the camera info, but can't find it and so many, many pictures to go through. :crazy:

 

[Cubby]

At one time I did read that entire "no body" site...and there were very few, if any, cases that went to court without a confession or a crime scene showing signs of violence. At at stretch, there may have been a case or two when the suspect had a record of abusing the person previously. But almost no children...it seems to be even more difficult for LE to prove a child is dead than a missing adult, perhaps because there are people who would take a child, vs. an adult. JMO

Ashley's case is the only one I am familiar of with regards to a child who has never been found. One of these days I'll take the time to read the entire no body site. It will be interesting to see which are children and which are adults.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Wow.. Isn't that something?? I mean it seems so odd to me that the schools are so dang adamant about that shot record and that literally if your child is lacking one booster shot they are prohibited from being allowed to return to school in any capacity until you have in hand documented Proof that they are totally and completely up to date with their immunizations..

As I stated in my post I am in no way claiming this is for certain the case here.. They very well could be fully immunized and I realize as I stated in my post that it is not just for religious purposes that people choose not to have their children immunized.. I have two clients who both have refused immunizations both with their second child as they feel the immunizations are directly responsible for their first born's autism.. This is an entire different subject, tho.. And I was just very curious about how and why we have such mandatory regulations for the kids who are immunized(meaning if they're a day late with a booster they're not allowed to attend school .. As if they'll somehow put the other kids at risk.. Ridiculous IMO.. When Chidren who are not immunized AT ALL are fully allowed to attend school unprohibited..??).. That's where my issue lies and what I am very confused about.. Does that make sense how I explained that??:crazy:.. lol..
Probably not.. But I personally don't understand how this type policy stands?? How can you be so very strict in one sense to the point that you prohibit a child from attending school for being late or missing a booster shot vaccination????.. But yet if a parent chooses nit to have their child immunized AT ALL that child is a-okay to attend every day of the school year??.. That's what I'm not understanding..

Sorry for veering slightly off topic and thanks to all those who chimed in with what you all know of how the policy works

 

[pdxmama]

Wow.. Isn't that something?? I mean it seems so odd to me that the schools are so dang adamant about that shot record and that literally if your child is lacking one booster shot they are prohibited from being allowed to return to school in any capacity until you have in hand documented Proof that they are totally and completely up to date with their immunizations..

As I stated in my post I am in no way claiming this is for certain the case here.. They very well could be fully immunized and I realize as I stated in my post that it is not just for religious purposes that people choose not to have their children immunized.. I have two clients who both have refused immunizations both with their second child as they feel the immunizations are directly responsible for their first born's autism.. This is an entire different subject, tho.. And I was just very curious about how and why we have such mandatory regulations for the kids who are immunized(meaning if they're a day late with a booster they're not allowed to attend school .. As if they'll somehow put the other kids at risk.. Ridiculous IMO.. When Chidren who are not immunized AT ALL are fully allowed to attend school unprohibited..??).. That's where my issue lies and what I am very confused about.. Does that make sense how I explained that??:crazy:.. lol..
Probably not.. But I personally don't understand how this type policy stands?? How can you be so very strict in one sense to the point that you prohibit a child from attending school for being late or missing a booster shot vaccination????.. But yet if a parent chooses nit to have their child immunized AT ALL that child is a-okay to attend every day of the school year??.. That's what I'm not understanding..

Sorry for veering slightly off topic and thanks to all those who chimed in with what you all know of how the policy works

I completely understand what you're saying and I agree, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I think what is happening is that, even though immunizations are required by the state, the religious exemption is protected under the 1st Ammendment.

 

[Bree0372]

All I can say about Julia's friends is they need to explain to her that Sky needs to be brought home and that she needs to tell the truth about what she did to him. It's quite obvious to me that they do not have the best interests of Sky or M in their heart, if they did, they would be begging Julia on their hands and knees every day to tell the truth.

Are we sure that they haven't told her that? Maybe she's refusing to talk to them as well? We can't blame her friends for her lack of concern for HER missing child.

Ok I'm very confused by something and perhaps someone with more knowledge than I could enlighten me.. I know we have discussed MM's firsy doctor visit and it being to a homeopathic type dr(not sure if that's the correct label) but you know what I'm talking about.. This obviously was well after MM was over year old, likely closer to two IMO.. My Point is I do not understand how these children are able to "get by"(for lack of a better term) in life without having had the exhaustive list of immunizations that babies, tots, and children are required to have..(and I am not claiming that we know for absolute certain that the children WERE NOT IMMUNIZED.. am just asking a question here) Now I am aware there is a religious clause that can be used to refuse these immunizations however my issue is that I do know in order for the children to begin school that the children must show proof of immunization, infact I believe that it's required even for PRE school and daycare.. So how do those who choose not to have their children immunized get around this issue.. Seems to me that with it being such an important REQUIREMENT(and boy do they make sure to have the documented proof when a child begins school, changes school, etc and that's throughout their entire mid/highschool as well).. ATLEAST in my state that's how it goes and if for some reason you cannot come up with their complete shot record.. Well.. The child IS NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND SCHOOL, PERIOD!! i mean if even one booster shot is missing THEY DO NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO EVEN INTERACT WITH ANY OTHER STUDENTS, period..

So could someone who knows explain this issue to me?? I am very confused about it and find it difficult to believe that children whose parents for religious reasons(or other reasons) have refused these immunizations are able to attend daycare, PRE school, elementary, middle, or highschool.. In my area it's flat out prohibited as I explained so I'm curious to know how this issue is handled..

TIA to anyone who has knowledge of this issue..

My son is 2.5 and is not fully immunized (we live in WA) for allergy reasons. When I completed the paperwork for his daycare, there was an immunization sheet that had to be signed by his medical provider. I asked the doctor if it was required and she said, "No, they can not require you to immunize your child". He is allowed to go to daycare and his play group (at the local elementary school).

 

[belimom]

Ok I'm very confused by something and perhaps someone with more knowledge than I could enlighten me.. I know we have discussed MM's firsy doctor visit and it being to a homeopathic type dr(not sure if that's the correct label) but you know what I'm talking about.. This obviously was well after MM was over year old, likely closer to two IMO.. My Point is I do not understand how these children are able to "get by"(for lack of a better term) in life without having had the exhaustive list of immunizations that babies, tots, and children are required to have..(and I am not claiming that we know for absolute certain that the children WERE NOT IMMUNIZED.. am just asking a question here) Now I am aware there is a religious clause that can be used to refuse these immunizations however my issue is that I do know in order for the children to begin school that the children must show proof of immunization, infact I believe that it's required even for PRE school and daycare.. So how do those who choose not to have their children immunized get around this issue.. Seems to me that with it being such an important REQUIREMENT(and boy do they make sure to have the documented proof when a child begins school, changes school, etc and that's throughout their entire mid/highschool as well).. ATLEAST in my state that's how it goes and if for some reason you cannot come up with their complete shot record.. Well.. The child IS NOT ALLOWED TO ATTEND SCHOOL, PERIOD!! i mean if even one booster shot is missing THEY DO NOT ALLOW THE CHILD TO EVEN INTERACT WITH ANY OTHER STUDENTS, period..

So could someone who knows explain this issue to me?? I am very confused about it and find it difficult to believe that children whose parents for religious reasons(or other reasons) have refused these immunizations are able to attend daycare, PRE school, elementary, middle, or highschool.. In my area it's flat out prohibited as I explained so I'm curious to know how this issue is handled..

TIA to anyone who has knowledge of this issue..

I think I posted this link several threads back but I'm sure it's buried way back there by now. I'm posting again in case it helps explain the vaccine laws by state. Washington is a state that allows philosophical exemptions for vaccines, in addition to religious and medical exemptions that are allowed by most states.

Again, not a place to debate vax vs non-vax, but just some info on how/why M may not have had previous doctor visits.

http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/images/usmap.jpg

 

[Rougelatete]

My nursing specialty for 10 years was Pediatric ICU. I have seen many cases of Munchausen By Proxy, and can tell you that as with so many other disorders, there is no set standard as far as "how" or even "when" it is done.

I don't rule it out at all in this case. It is already documented in the court docs that she has been accused of this in the past.

One of my 10 zillion theories as far as this case goes, is that JB's Munchausen by Proxy actions got out of hand, went too far, and she just didn't care. Sky was totally dependent on her, and thus an easy victim for which to assert her control over, even to sickness or health, life or death.

I have to say, though, that JB's mental issues are so complex that it's as if someone threw a psychiatric diagnostic manual into a blender and out popped JB.

Everything here is MOO.

Hi, do you have a link to where the court doc says JB had Munchausen by Proxy? I only recall coming across OCD, bipolar, and depression. Personally, I'm not still not seeing evidence of this diagnosis unless there are documents that have not been released. Thanks!

 

[Rougelatete]

I agree. She seemed to pride herself on their rare need for medical attention. Their first appointment was photo documented with a naturopath, right? And they weren't tiny by any means.

IME, part of the image she wanted to portray would include that the kids don't get sick much because they eat organic, healthy meals.

There's no record of constant doctors visits, hospitalizations, medications, etc. Which with MC or MCbP there always is.

I am in FULL agreement! If anything, JB was too isolative and holed up in her apartment to make endless medical appointments. I feel like we've heard everything else about JB's actions and mental health diagnoses and I, personally, have not read or heard anything that indicates Munchausen by Proxy. If anyone has more info on this in regards to JB, I would really appreciate seeing it. I do believe Sky was "sick" in some way, as JB said when LE first arrived, but I think he was truly sick -- likely from neglect or direct malevolence on JB's part.

 

[Rougelatete]

I absolutely agree with you as far as a generalization of the diagnosis goes.

But again, JB is such a complex person that I am thinking MBP may present itself in different ways given her spectrum of other disorders.

Total Speculation: "Oh, SO (or whomever), I am just exhausted and Sky is sick all the time but I take such good care of him, I have to keep him with me and only me because his dad wouldn't know what to do with him in this condition". Still gaining attention to herself, but within her realm of safety with her few friends, versus in a doctor's office or hospital setting.

I believe it was Rougelette (sp?) who stated there is a kernel of truth in most lies, and I am in total agreement. I believe we will discover that Sky was indeed sick and in need of medical attention at some point... unfortunately, given JB's spectrum of mental issues, he never made it that far, as a hospital or doctor's office was probably far from her realm of "safe places" to be.

What is evident to me is her need for absolute control, and it is far too easy for a parent to control everything about their little child, even their overall health.

Again, all MOO. Thanks for a great debate. :crazy:

Yup! It was me! You gave me laugh, though. "Rouge la tete" is French for "red head." I've been called that since I was a babe with a shock of strawberry-colored hair.

 

[imamaze]

Working on a new thread... will be closing this one in a few...

Ima

 

[imamaze]

Closing thread please continue here...

Thread #13