GUILTY CT - Barry James, 59, stabbed to death, Fairfield, 28 Aug 2006

[CyberLaw]

The poster who made the "keen" observation that in the months to come we are most likely to hear about the "dysfuctional" family of the Dad is in my opinion is on the money.

If your neighbour is "not dressed" properly in his own home, then it is his own home, close your curtains or blinds and just don't sit there and stare. Then call the cops, because you were watching him in his bedroom......

Also a big point will the dogs, and I put money that the dogs will be put to a "test" as to if they will alert or bark when some stranger comes into the house.

If there is no "evidence" that proves the little girl story, then it is unsubstantiated, alleged, with no basis in fact and evidence.

The Dad believed what he wanted to believe, and for a lawyer, he did not "logically" and factually "analyze" the story of his daughter, just used it as an excuse to do what he wanted to do, get rid of the neighbour that he did not like.

I for one think under any circumstances(except truly criminal)that "blaming" the victim for the fact that he was killed is just "so not accepted".

The fact that the Mom and Dad were renting, were only living there since March and that the Barry family have lived there a lot longer, tend to make one think who was the one with the "problem"

A 60 year old man does not "suddenly" decide to "harm" little girls in their bedrooms, within 15 feet of another homes, in a quiet neighbourhood, with close set houses, with dogs in the house.

If he did harm little girls, was turned on by same, there may have been 'something" in his past, or computer, or books, or websites, or friends, or volunteer activities that would "indicate" this type of activity.

Any one in their right mind would not go near a house with dogs, for that very reason, they are "a wonderful" first alert to any trouble brewing in or around the neighbourhood.

That this happened on many occassions, is just just lacking credability.

But when a story is fabricated, it has no "basis" in reality, you have to fill in the blanks as "you think" they should be, not in the case of what they really were.

The claim again is just hearsay.....it seems the adults are using the child's story for justification for cold blooded murder.....

 

[luthersmama]

The poster who made the "keen" observation that in the months to come we are most likely to hear about the "dysfuctional" family of the Dad is in my opinion is on the money.

If your neighbour is "not dressed" properly in his own home, then it is his own home, close your curtains or blinds and just don't sit there and stare. Then call the cops, because you were watching him in his bedroom......

Also a big point will the dogs, and I put money that the dogs will be put to a "test" as to if they will alert or bark when some stranger comes into the house.

If there is no "evidence" that proves the little girl story, then it is unsubstantiated, alleged, with no basis in fact and evidence.

The Dad believed what he wanted to believe, and for a lawyer, he did not "logically" and factually "analyze" the story of his daughter, just used it as an excuse to do what he wanted to do, get rid of the neighbour that he did not like.

I for one think under any circumstances(except truly criminal)that "blaming" the victim for the fact that he was killed is just "so not accepted".

The fact that the Mom and Dad were renting, were only living there since March and that the Barry family have lived there a lot longer, tend to make one think who was the one with the "problem"

A 60 year old man does not "suddenly" decide to "harm" little girls in their bedrooms, within 15 feet of another homes, in a quiet neighbourhood, with close set houses, with dogs in the house.

If he did harm little girls, was turned on by same, there may have been 'something" in his past, or computer, or books, or websites, or friends, or volunteer activities that would "indicate" this type of activity.

Any one in their right mind would not go near a house with dogs, for that very reason, they are "a wonderful" first alert to any trouble brewing in or around the neighbourhood.

That this happened on many occassions, is just just lacking credability.

But when a story is fabricated, it has no "basis" in reality, you have to fill in the blanks as "you think" they should be, not in the case of what they really were.

The claim again is just hearsay.....it seems the adults are using the child's story for justification for cold blooded murder.....

One of the little things that has been bothering me for a few days is that Rebecca referred to Barry James as "Barry". Now, I know I'm a bit of an old fart, but my daughters would be taught to call him "Mr. James". Furthermore, if I was creeped out by the guy, she sure as HELL wouldn't be on a first-name basis with him.

Sometimes old customs help set appropriate boundaries.

 

[BillyGoatGruff]

Not to get too hung up on terminology, but I thought non-consensual "frottage" is more like "dry humping" where the perv rubs his parts up against the victim. Like on a crowded bus. I didn't think it involved finger-to-parts contact.

Re-read the entire description of what was supposedly done to the child.

 

[BillyGoatGruff]

One of the little things that has been bothering me for a few days is that Rebecca referred to Barry James as "Barry". Now, I know I'm a bit of an old fart, but my daughters would be taught to call him "Mr. James". Furthermore, if I was creeped out by the guy, she sure as HELL wouldn't be on a first-name basis with him.

Sometimes old customs help set appropriate boundaries.

"Mr." is a sign of formal respect. I don't think the dead guy was apt to have instilled that in the neighborhood. And if she only heard him called "Barry" (no doubt because his father MR. James, was still alive, that' s what she'd call him).

 

[BillyGoatGruff]

The poster who made the "keen" observation that in the months to come we are most likely to hear about the "dysfuctional" family of the Dad is in my opinion is on the money.

If your neighbour is "not dressed" properly in his own home, then it is his own home, close your curtains or blinds and just don't sit there and stare. Then call the cops, because you were watching him in his bedroom......

Also a big point will the dogs, and I put money that the dogs will be put to a "test" as to if they will alert or bark when some stranger comes into the house.

If there is no "evidence" that proves the little girl story, then it is unsubstantiated, alleged, with no basis in fact and evidence.

The Dad believed what he wanted to believe, and for a lawyer, he did not "logically" and factually "analyze" the story of his daughter, just used it as an excuse to do what he wanted to do, get rid of the neighbour that he did not like.

I for one think under any circumstances(except truly criminal)that "blaming" the victim for the fact that he was killed is just "so not accepted".

The fact that the Mom and Dad were renting, were only living there since March and that the Barry family have lived there a lot longer, tend to make one think who was the one with the "problem"

A 60 year old man does not "suddenly" decide to "harm" little girls in their bedrooms, within 15 feet of another homes, in a quiet neighbourhood, with close set houses, with dogs in the house.

If he did harm little girls, was turned on by same, there may have been 'something" in his past, or computer, or books, or websites, or friends, or volunteer activities that would "indicate" this type of activity.

Any one in their right mind would not go near a house with dogs, for that very reason, they are "a wonderful" first alert to any trouble brewing in or around the neighbourhood.

That this happened on many occassions, is just just lacking credability.

But when a story is fabricated, it has no "basis" in reality, you have to fill in the blanks as "you think" they should be, not in the case of what they really were.

The claim again is just hearsay.....it seems the adults are using the child's story for justification for cold blooded murder.....

Let me get this straight...lets say I have a neighbor who lives 15 feet away from me. His bed room window is paralell to mine. The neighbor keeps his shades open and routinely lays down on his bed in the nude. Perhaps even arouses & satisfies himself in full view of me and whoever else happens to be in my house at that particular time. Lets assume that I assume he's unaware that he can be seen and inform him of the fact. Nothing changes. I then feel the need to call law enforcement to complain about the situation. LE comes over but nothing is done and the neighbor continues to lie naked on the bed and do whatever the hell he's doing while he's lying nude on his bed. At what point is this innocent behavior on the nude neighbor's part?

 

[southcitymom]

One of the little things that has been bothering me for a few days is that Rebecca referred to Barry James as "Barry". Now, I know I'm a bit of an old fart, but my daughters would be taught to call him "Mr. James". Furthermore, if I was creeped out by the guy, she sure as HELL wouldn't be on a first-name basis with him.

Sometimes old customs help set appropriate boundaries.

Thanks for some of the new links and articles, luthersmama. I really appreciate it.

I know when our kids were that age, they called people Mr or Ms and then their first name (ie, Mr. Ben or Ms. Julie) - then as they got older, they started using the honorariums with people's last names. Perhaps, this little girl called him Mr. Barry.

However, what I think probably happened is that this little girl often heard her parents complaining and belly-aching about Barry and so that's what she called him. I don't get the feeling the parents had much respect for Barry, so chances are, she didn't either.

As Cyberlaw pointed out, if houses are close to each other, sometimes you catch your neighbors in their skivvies. Close the blinds and don't stare - maybe mention it to them discreetly the next time you see them.

When the lawyer's family complained about Barry to the police, the police weren't able to find any evidence that Barry did anything wrong. And if Barry lived in that neighborhood for years AND lived next to a rental property, you better believe the police would have an idea if he did inappropriate things - he'd have some history of that.

I'm telling you, somethings truly truly wrong with this murderer, but we probably won't start hearing more about it until the police tell everyone that evidence does not indicate that the little girl was abused.

 

[Reader]

I also appreciate the articles posted.

I noticed that these articles answer a question that was previously asked: that Barry had no previous criminal record of molestation or anything else, other than the DUI traffic offense.

To me, it would be very odd if a 58 year old man just all of a sudden started molesting children. Usually this is a compulsion that begins much earlier and his behavior would have indicated before, with complaints from children and their parents, or even previous charges.

 

[luthersmama]

"Mr." is a sign of formal respect. I don't think the dead guy was apt to have instilled that in the neighborhood. And if she only heard him called "Barry" (no doubt because his father MR. James, was still alive, that' s what she'd call him).

I wouldn't care whether he was respected in the neighborhood or not. If I didn't like him myself, I would NOT allow my kids to call him or refer to him by his first name. We actually had this issue when we moved to our current home and my kids were 2 and 5. We had a creepy neighbor who used to come around. His father was still alive. Nonetheless, although I called "Creepy" by his first name, the kids referred to him as "Mr. _____________" It was a signal to them and to him to maintain distance. There were lots of other signals too, like the fact that our mild-mannered labrador retriever hated the sight or smell of him and would raise her hackles whenever he approached.

 

[Details]

You would - but lots of other parents maybe wouldn't. It's not that uncommon these days that everyone goes by their first name - at least when and where I grew up. And even if these parents didn't, the scenario where the daughter hears of this guy only referred to as 'Barry' (or something more unprintable along the lines of that jerk next door) - it is reasonable she'd call him that.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

I'd be surprised if the parents called him by his first name if they disrespected him. It seems like they'd be more likely to call by his last name only, or use a derogative of some kind to refer to him.

No matter what, the actions of this young father have ruined more lives than just his own.

 

[s_finch]

Tuppence,

She might have been. I'm not convinced yet that she wasn't. I personally don't think there's enough information to know. My 2-year-olds were very verbal, but no 2-year-old in the world (and I've met a great many!) is reliable in conversation. They flicker back and forth b/w fantasy and reality - it's the nature of the age.

I do think the father probably truly thought it happened when he flew off in a murderous rage. However, I think if the father had more experience with 2-year-olds, he might have investigated things a bit more. It was almost like he was triggered to go off. I still suspect a strange dynamic b/w the father and the mother.

Like maybe mom was setting up the dad??

 

[southcitymom]

Like maybe mom was setting up the dad??

I don't necessarily think she was setting him up on purpose to murder someone, BUT, she may well have been goading him.

It's pretty obvious that both the husband and wife didn't like Barry and thought he was creepy. Maybe there were other things going on in their relationship that we don't know about - maybe the wife really wanted to move but the husband said no we can't. Maybe the wife called and said - "See, because you wouldn't agree to move, our daughter has been molested - because of you, she's scarred for life." I don't know for sure - this is just one type of scenario I can envision.

I do believe both of these parents were immature and inexperienced regarding the word of a two-year-old regarding something this serious. That's not so strange - parenting is a learn on the job type of situation. I don't blame them for that.

I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that one or both of these parents had been molested. Maybe they told and weren't listened too. Who knows?

I just have a gut feeling that much more is going on behind the scenes in that relationship that helped lead to this occurrence. You don't just go from 28-year-old patent attorney practicing with a decent firm to a vicious knife slaughterer of neighbors overnnight.

 

[s_finch]

I don't necessarily think she was setting him up in purpose to murder someone, BUT, she may well have been goading him.

It's pretty obvious that both the husband and wife didn't like Barry and thought he was creepy. Maybe there were other things going on in their relationship that we don't know about - maybe the wife really wanted to move but the husband said no we can't. Maybe the wife called and said - "See, because you wouldn't agree to move, our daughter has been molested - because of you, she's scarred for life." I don't know for sure - this is just one type of scenario I can envision.

I do believe both of these parents were immature and inexperienced regarding the word of a two-year-old regarding something this serious. That's not so strange - parenting is a learn on the job type of situation. I don't blame them for that.

I also wouldn't be surprised to learn that one or both of these parents had been molested. Maybe they told and weren't listened too. Who knows?

I just have a gut feeling that much more is going on behind the scenes in that relationship that helped lead to this occurrence. You don't just go from 28-year-old patent attorney practicing with a decent firm to a vicious knife slaughterer of neighbors overnnight.

I totally agree, but the PP episode shows that Edington has trouble controlling his rage issues, doesn't it.

 

[southcitymom]

I totally agree, but the PP episode shows that Edington has trouble controlling his rage issues, doesn't it.

Absolutely. Did his wife know about these rage issues? Probably...

 

[Reader]

Another thing I noticed from the articles yesterday, was the mention that the Edington's were vacationing with "their children". Don't remember seeing anything about how many children they have or their ages.

This makes me want to know more about the floor plan of their house and where everyone's bedrooms were. It was described as a "ranch" home, which to me means that it has one floor.

Where did the children sleep in relation to the parents? Did any of the children sleep in the same bedroom with the 2 year old? Did they hear anything, or know anything about the neighbor coming into the house? Were the dogs outside or inside at night? Also, was there any type of security system? Were the windows and doors locked at night? Did the parents check on their children before they went to bed? Especially since they already suspected and accused Barry of exposing himself to the children.

So many circumstances in this case are unknown for now, but I'm having questions not only about whether Barry was even inclined to commit this type of crime, but if he did, how he could have gotten into the house on more than one occasion without the parents, other children or dogs having a clue. If Edington was so intent on protecting his children, he really was not doing a good job of it to begin with, if windows/doors were left unlocked, he or the mother did not check on the children before going to bed, and if there was no security system.

Again, it is strange that they did not notice signs of disturbance in the girl's room, bedclothes or her person/clothes, or her behavior before if this supposedly happened more than once. Any child that goes through an experience like this is going to have behavior changes. If the parents were already discussing how they did not like Barry and had called the police about him, it is very strange the child had not previously had an opportunity to mention why she did not like Barry and the alleged abuse, before this vacation trip.

I also agree with those that said the Edingtons should have just closed their blinds or put curtains up on the window that they could see Barry through. It seems to me that, after observing him one time in his bedroom, if you don't like what you see, you prevent seeing it, not keep watching. That almost sounds like the parents were voyeurs themselves to keep watching what Barry was doing, and to maybe allow the children to see also. Fences and curtains sometimes make good neighbors. A person does still have the right to do what they please in their own bedroom, after all, and it says something that the police investigated and found nothing wrong, after the Edington's complaint against Barry.

 

[s_finch]

I agree there's more to the story - maybe, as someone above stated, the mother using this story as an excuse to get away from her husband (and using his least favorite person in the neighborhood as a scapegoat, since he'd be more likely to believe that).


But, indecent exposure in the home - that's not really anything, unless he was looking outside and masturbating or something - but just that someone could see inside the house and the guy wasn't fully clothed - I can't comment negatively at all on that, because I'm also a household nudist. And I try to keep from getting exposed, but sometimes a door is left open, or the blinds aren't all the way down.

I was working on a theory myself - not too sure at all about it - and I want to make it very clear there's nothing to suggest this is true - but just as a hypothetical, imagine daddy is the molester. Mom notices something, asks the girl about it. Maybe she's too scared to name the real molester, so she names the neighbor; or in the really dark version, she names daddy, and he convinces the mom that the neighbor must have really done it and told the girl to lie. Anyway, daddy knows the truth, and figures the best way to keep this from being investigated is to kill the neighbor so he can't defend himself, so the abuse allegations aren't investigated.

I just want to say, there's nothing suggesting this is true - I'm just trying to figure out some explanation for what seems a huge overreaction - just the stabbing seems so over the top, and the girl can't have been left alone or even close to the neighbor, which severely limits the level of molestation that could have occurred.

I've been wondering about this as well. Mom and daughter are away, she doesn't want to go home because "he" puts it on my nose and my tummy. Mom asks who and maybe leads with "Barry" and the child answers yes. Dad is the real molester but realizes his cover is nearly blown so he outs Barry figuring that the time he'll serve for a vigilante killing is less than that of abusing his daughter. Oh, and public perception would be important here too. Most men would rather be known as the vigilante hero than as chester the molester.

Course, this is only speculation and nothing more. I personally can't imagine a 300 pound person quietly entering a house repeatedly, but stranger things have happened.

 

[christine2448]

Dad is the real molester but realizes his cover is nearly blown so he outs Barry figuring that the time he'll serve for a vigilante killing is less than that of abusing his daughter. Oh, and public perception would be important here too. Most men would rather be known as the vigilante hero than as chester the molester.

This had never crossed my mind. Very good point....didn't even think of it. Could very well be. Hmmmmm.

 

[southcitymom]

I've been wondering about this as well. Mom and daughter are away, she doesn't want to go home because "he" puts it on my nose and my tummy. Mom asks who and maybe leads with "Barry" and the child answers yes. Dad is the real molester but realizes his cover is nearly blown so he outs Barry figuring that the time he'll serve for a vigilante killing is less than that of abusing his daughter. Oh, and public perception would be important here too. Most men would rather be known as the vigilante hero than as chester the molester.

Course, this is only speculation and nothing more. I personally can't imagine a 300 pound person quietly entering a house repeatedly, but stranger things have happened.

This scenario has definitely crossed my mind as well, though there's nothing yet to indicate the father was inappropriate with his daughter. But his action was so extreme, you have to wonder in a "methinks the (gentleman) doth protest too much" sort of way.

 

[CyberLaw]

Some people who have anger issues, also have control issues.

The Police did "not find anything wrong" when sent to investigate Barry, the Dad fully "expected" the Police to do something about Barry in his bedroom.

Then the frustration builds, he wants to get back at him, then anger which is borne out of lack of control and frustration, and then he obsesses about it, then the he feels he is powerless, the Police did not do what he wanted them to do, Barry is "still next door" then with this scene over a short or long period of time, the wife calls, then the Dad goes "nuts" and relieves his anger, resentment, lack of power and control in killing the neighbour.

 

[s_finch]

Some people who have anger issues, also have control issues.

The Police did "not find anything wrong" when sent to investigate Barry, the Dad fully "expected" the Police to do something about Barry in his bedroom.

Then the frustration builds, he wants to get back at him, then anger which is borne out of lack of control and frustration, and then he obsesses about it, then the he feels he is powerless, the Police did not do what he wanted them to do, Barry is "still next door" then with this scene over a short or long period of time, the wife calls, then the Dad goes "nuts" and relieves his anger, resentment, lack of power and control in killing the neighbour.

Yep, good look at it. Makes you wonder what Edington was like to life with. He might have been fine, maybe this was just the proverbial straw. ???? All in all, whether the child was abused or not, whether Dad or Barry were guilty or not, Edington's actions certainly haven't helped anything have they. I know my hubby would be terribly upset if we suspected someone had abused our child, but he would't crawl through the window and stab the guy. If Dad is totally innocent in all of this (except for the murder of Barry) then the wife and kid/s are left without a husband, a dad and financial support. Stupid thing for Edington to do if he's innocent of abuse. And I agree those that have pointed out that 2 yo's do cross between reality and fantasy but in no way do I want to discredit the accounts of those who have been abused.

Strange case, IMHO.