GUILTY IA - Gabriel McFarland, 4 mos, dies of head trauma, Des Moines, 22 April 2014

[chaotic_idealism]

Jealousy of the time his wife was spending with "that baby"?

That is my guess. I think he didn't emotionally recognize the baby as his own, or if he did, he saw the baby as an interloper rather than a family member.

The highest odds of murder, by relationship, are by a stepparent. Now, this young man wasn't the child's stepparent--but with the months of separation, he probably never bonded with the infant.

That wouldn't have been a problem if he had a conscience or a sense of responsibility. Parents and stepparents, when they find they don't have much of an emotional attachment, either fade out of the picture or make an effort to bond. Not this guy--he wasn't a parent at all, just a sperm donor. He probably saw that baby as a competitor for the mom's time, forcing him to do what he didn't want to do. The dynamic between the two would have been much like that of a sociopathic stepfather, not a birth father.

Without a human conscience in the mix, he resorts to infanticide... Kill a child that doesn't feel like yours, so that you can impregnate the mother yourself. Not that he thought about it that way. He wouldn't have; it's a primal impulse and you have to go all the way to chimpanzees to see it happening routinely. In humans, all that's left of it is the way we tend to say how much the child looks like their father.

Calling this guy less than human by comparing him to chimpanzees committing infanticide... well, it feels like I'm insulting the chimps.

 

[MissUnderstood]

I've only heard birth mum refer to Gabrielle as 'the baby' in her interviews. I haven't heard or read her using any name!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[K_Z]

Baby Gabriel was not a toaster or a possession that someone owned. An adoption plan was made for him, he was placed in a loving home. The birth mother disrupted that adoption and now he is dead, those are the facts as I see them.

I am sorry for the birth mom and it sounds like she had no direct role in his death. But I also feel very sad for the adoptive parents who loved him and had him in their life for such a brief time - but more time in fact, than the birth mom.

BBM. I agree. But until the laws are changed, babies are treated as toasters and possessions. The best interests of the child/ person/ human being is never even considered by these laws-- only who has the "right" of possession, at a particular point in time. Under current laws, babies ARE footballs, suitcases, or toasters. IMO.

If it were otherwise, there would be mandatory involvement with child protective services and social services when a child is "reclaimed" from an adoptive situation. Just as there is when a child enters a foster care or adoptive placement. Or is "reunified" from a foster care placement back to the birth mother.

 

[MyBelle]

That is my guess. I think he didn't emotionally recognize the baby as his own, or if he did, he saw the baby as an interloper rather than a family member.

The highest odds of murder, by relationship, are by a stepparent. Now, this young man wasn't the child's stepparent--but with the months of separation, he probably never bonded with the infant.

That wouldn't have been a problem if he had a conscience or a sense of responsibility. Parents and stepparents, when they find they don't have much of an emotional attachment, either fade out of the picture or make an effort to bond. Not this guy--he wasn't a parent at all, just a sperm donor. He probably saw that baby as a competitor for the mom's time, forcing him to do what he didn't want to do. The dynamic between the two would have been much like that of a sociopathic stepfather, not a birth father.

Without a human conscience in the mix, he resorts to infanticide... Kill a child that doesn't feel like yours, so that you can impregnate the mother yourself. Not that he thought about it that way. He wouldn't have; it's a primal impulse and you have to go all the way to chimpanzees to see it happening routinely. In humans, all that's left of it is the way we tend to say how much the child looks like their father.

Calling this guy less than human by comparing him to chimpanzees committing infanticide... well, it feels like I'm insulting the chimps.

The trigger could have been a combination of things. The father is only a junior in high school and the sudden idea of not just having to care for a baby he hasn't bonded with but to also be responsible for child support for 18 years may have overwhelmed.

JMO

 

[K_Z]

Most people of all ages are prepared to be parents. There are many parents who are older and have money and never take a parenting class are lousy.

I've seen great dads at 18.

Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

BBM. I guess the key here is how each of us, society, and the laws, define "prepared". My definition of "prepared" is likely not even close to yours, I suspect.

I disagree that "most" people of all ages are prepared to be parents. (There is the potential for an entire PhD dissertation in that sentence!) Most people of all ages have the biological potential to reproduce. The ability to parent is an entirely different discussion. That includes the ability of males to parent their offspring, as well as the females.

 

[K_Z]

That is not his name. I know they are using but it's wrong. They should be using the name his mother have him


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

What do you think the baby's name "is"? MA continued to call him Gabriel, even in the 911 recording. Is there some article or source that lists another name?

Gabriel King Atkins?
Gabriel King Wheeler-Smith?

Different first, middle, and last name?

Where did you hear that MA changed Gabriel's name?? That has never been reported by MA, the McFarland's, or in any media article.

Rachel and Heidi McFarland say they didn't allow themselves to dream that big. But they dreamed nonetheless and had agreed in high school that if they ever had a son, they would name him Gabriel.

http://www.fdlreporter.com/viewart/...5003/Infant-s-death-leaves-3-mothers-grieving

 

[K_Z]

I think media use it because police are using it. It is probably his legal name on both his birth certificate and death certificate.

JMO

Gabriel was 4 months old. It would be extremely unusual if he did not have a birth certificate by that age, and a social security number/ file is typically initiated on newborns at the same time as the birth certificate. Changing the baby's name would have required a lot of effort, at that point. I think it's pretty unlikely, IMO, to have been done in the 40 days with MA.

Until we have some evidence that substantiates that Gabriel's name was changed, the idea that it was changed by MA is just conjecture/ rumor, IMO.

I'm kind of confused as to why this idea of a name change has been put into the conversation? Would that be of significance in his murder?

 

[K_Z]

That is my guess. I think he didn't emotionally recognize the baby as his own, or if he did, he saw the baby as an interloper rather than a family member.

The highest odds of murder, by relationship, are by a stepparent. Now, this young man wasn't the child's stepparent--but with the months of separation, he probably never bonded with the infant.

That wouldn't have been a problem if he had a conscience or a sense of responsibility. Parents and stepparents, when they find they don't have much of an emotional attachment, either fade out of the picture or make an effort to bond. Not this guy--he wasn't a parent at all, just a sperm donor. He probably saw that baby as a competitor for the mom's time, forcing him to do what he didn't want to do. The dynamic between the two would have been much like that of a sociopathic stepfather, not a birth father.

Without a human conscience in the mix, he resorts to infanticide... Kill a child that doesn't feel like yours, so that you can impregnate the mother yourself. Not that he thought about it that way. He wouldn't have; it's a primal impulse and you have to go all the way to chimpanzees to see it happening routinely. In humans, all that's left of it is the way we tend to say how much the child looks like their father.

Calling this guy less than human by comparing him to chimpanzees committing infanticide... well, it feels like I'm insulting the chimps.

Here is one study that included birth fathers' reactions to adoption. I will look for studies that explore birth fathers' reactions to non-relinquishment "take back" situations.

In exploring birth parents’ feelings during adoption, those of birth fathers who voluntarily relinquish parental rights often tend to be dismissed. A study conducted by Whitesel (2009) found that birth fathers displayed different emotions triggered by adoptions when compared to birth mothers. Birth fathers experienced high levels of anxiety, but did not experience elevated levels of depression (Whitesel, 2009). Additionally, birth fathers’ emotions were measured according to the life impact of the adoption process. Birth fathers reported that they felt relieved afterwards, knowing that they could offer their children better life conditions with families that were emotionally, financially, and physically prepared for parenthood (Whitesel, 2009). It was also found that connectedness between the birth parents influenced their emotions during the process of adoption. Birth parents with strong and positive connections to each other experienced more positive adjustment.

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/...ets/Birth_Parents_in_the_Adoption_Process.pdf

There really is no rational or logical way to separate the discussion, and the effects, of the adoption plan on what happened to Gabriel, and all of the adults in his life. It wasn't one hour in a vacuum with the bio-dad. Everything is interconnected. We are not asked to do that with any other case discussed at WS.

I agree that the minutiae of the adoption and reclaiming process, who filed what papers, and when, may be insignificant as to what happened, but the EFFECTS of the process on EVERYONE involved cannot be cast aside or denied. It is absolute folly to suggest that this can be ignored, or denied. Professionals will certainly not deny what happened, or pretend it had no effect on the "one hour" the child was with his bio dad. The adoption process WAS 3/4 of the child's life, it DID have effects on everyone involved, and the prospective parents ARE a significant part of his story. They will certainly be witnesses if the case proceeds to trial. To marginalize, discriminate, or deny that 3/4 of this child's life never existed is absurd in the extreme.

If the EFFECTS of the adoption process, and the respect and contributions of Rachel and Heidi McFarland are to be "off limits" in our discussions here, then the only reasonable and logical course of action is to close this thread permanently, IMO.

 

[chaotic_idealism]

All three of the women lost their baby. If Gabriel had lived, the adoptive moms would have known that the child they loved was alive and loved, but elsewhere. They're probably mourning just as much as the birth mother is.

But let's differentiate between risk factors and causal factors here. The cause of this baby's death was a decision made by a man who didn't care about human life, and that was the only cause. But there are things that make it easier for someone who is capable of murder, to decide to kill. One of them would have been the feeling that the baby was not "really" his. That's a risk factor. But if he had a conscience and listened to it, he would not have killed that child no matter how long the separation had been or how little he thought of himself as the baby's father. His young age is another risk factor; it means he probably had fewer resources than most parents do, both emotionally and in material terms. However, think back to who you were when you were sixteen: Would you have killed a baby, even if you were stressed out and frustrated? Probably not.

When people talk about this being somehow inevitable or predictable, they almost imply that the murderer himself had no choice in the matter. But he had plenty of choice. He could have called someone. He could have left the room. He could have decided not to involve himself in Gabriel's life, if he didn't want to be a father. Nobody was holding a gun to his head and forcing him to hurt his child.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What do you think the baby's name "is"? MA continued to call him Gabriel, even in the 911 recording. Is there some article or source that lists another name?

Gabriel King Atkins?
Gabriel King Wheeler-Smith?

Different first, middle, and last name?

Where did you hear that MA changed Gabriel's name?? That has never been reported by MA, the McFarland's, or in any media article.



http://www.fdlreporter.com/viewart/...5003/Infant-s-death-leaves-3-mothers-grieving

I know that is not the name the family used to the baby any longer and I am not going any further than that. It is not in MSM and so it is not linkable.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Gabriel was 4 months old. It would be extremely unusual if he did not have a birth certificate by that age, and a social security number/ file is typically initiated on newborns at the same time as the birth certificate. Changing the baby's name would have required a lot of effort, at that point. I think it's pretty unlikely, IMO, to have been done in the 40 days with MA.

Until we have some evidence that substantiates that Gabriel's name was changed, the idea that it was changed by MA is just conjecture/ rumor, IMO.

I'm kind of confused as to why this idea of a name change has been put into the conversation? Would that be of significance in his murder?

It was not put into the conversation as discussion. I offered that MA may have changed his name after getting him back and so that would make it hard to find a memorial or funeral notice.

Nothing more. Some people have made it another reason just to argue.

 

[MyBelle]

BBM. I guess the key here is how each of us, society, and the laws, define "prepared". My definition of "prepared" is likely not even close to yours, I suspect.

I disagree that "most" people of all ages are prepared to be parents. (There is the potential for an entire PhD dissertation in that sentence!) Most people of all ages have the biological potential to reproduce. The ability to parent is an entirely different discussion. That includes the ability of males to parent their offspring, as well as the females.

BBM. ITA. Nobody is automatically prepared to be a fit parent. There is more to it than just biology. There seems to be an explosion of child abuse and violence in this country and it has less to do with biology and more to do with environment and that includes the availability of support systems and role models. Clearly absent in Gabriel's case because he was left alone.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM. ITA. Nobody is automatically prepared to be a fit parent. There is more to it than just biology. There seems to be an explosion of child abuse and violence in this country and it has less to do with biology and more to do with environment and that includes the availability of support systems and role models. Clearly absent in Gabriel's case because he was left alone.

JMO

No. That is not the facts of this case. AS you said, There is more to it than biology.. But some people are just capable of killing and some are not.
DWS killed this baby while he was left to care for him. That alone puts him at fault. He alone is charged with First Degree murder.

He alone killed the baby When he was with the baby.
The baby was not left alone. The baby was left with his father and he killed him.

 

[MyBelle]

No. That is not the facts of this case. AS you said, There is more to it than biology.. But some people are just capable of killing and some are not.
DWS killed this baby while he was left to care for him. That alone puts him at fault. He alone is charged with First Degree murder.

He alone killed the baby When he was with the baby.
The baby was not left alone. The baby was left with his father and he killed him.

I have posted links that police have said the investigation is ongoing.

I do not find the witness, Siobhan Williams, to be credible.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have posted links that police have said the investigation is ongoing.

I do not find the witness, Siobhan Williams, to be credible.

JMO

No the Links that you posted are before he was charged with Murder. He is the only suspect and the only one being held. She is credible. And the police seem to think she is credible. She tried to save that baby's life.

It is over. Suspect in custody. Sadly it is the father of little baby Boy.

 

[MyBelle]

All three of the women lost their baby. If Gabriel had lived, the adoptive moms would have known that the child they loved was alive and loved, but elsewhere. They're probably mourning just as much as the birth mother is.

But let's differentiate between risk factors and causal factors here. The cause of this baby's death was a decision made by a man who didn't care about human life, and that was the only cause. But there are things that make it easier for someone who is capable of murder, to decide to kill. One of them would have been the feeling that the baby was not "really" his. That's a risk factor. But if he had a conscience and listened to it, he would not have killed that child no matter how long the separation had been or how little he thought of himself as the baby's father. His young age is another risk factor; it means he probably had fewer resources than most parents do, both emotionally and in material terms. However, think back to who you were when you were sixteen: Would you have killed a baby, even if you were stressed out and frustrated? Probably not.

When people talk about this being somehow inevitable or predictable, they almost imply that the murderer himself had no choice in the matter. But he had plenty of choice. He could have called someone. He could have left the room. He could have decided not to involve himself in Gabriel's life, if he didn't want to be a father. Nobody was holding a gun to his head and forcing him to hurt his child.

BBM. I think when it is implied this tragedy was inevitable, I think the implication is more about physical environment and maturity of caregivers. Babies require knowledgeable caregivers and that knowledge has to be intentionally acquired. They also require money. I don't know that either of Gabriel's parents are employed. Baby formula is expensive and it was reported he was found with a bottle of milk next to him.

There is one very important aspect that the father did not have any choice: financial. Whether or not he wanted to see the child, he would be required to provide child support for 18 years.

At this point in the case, we don't even know for sure if the person charged is Gabriel's biological father. He hasn't been arraigned so details are sketchy, the only evidence he was even there are the witness statement and I don't find her credible and the mother has stormed out of at least one media interview and told the reporter to leave. This case has a lot of moving parts to it.

This is one case I'm going to continue to sit on the fence for awhile.

JMO

 

[EGirl]

No the Links that you posted are before he was charged with Murder. He is the only suspect and the only one being held. She is credible. And the police seem to think she is credible. She tried to save that baby's life.

It is over. Suspect in custody. Sadly it is the father of little baby Boy.

The subject regarding the murder of Gabriel is over. We are free to discuss ANY aspect of an ongoing case that does not violate TOS and that we feel is relevant.

If a case is over for us.... we are free to move on.

 

[EGirl]

I know that is not the name the family used to the baby any longer and I am not going any further than that. It is not in MSM and so it is not linkable.

If it's not linkable then it needs to be shared by a verified case insider. Otherwise it is just opinion or rumor.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The subject regarding the murder of Gabriel is over. We are free to discuss ANY aspect of an ongoing case that does not violate TOS and that we feel is relevant.

If a case is over for us.... we are free to move on.

Actually we are not. We have been told not to discuss the adoption but we may discuss the crime and suspects. We are not allowed to infer or imply anything derogatory about his mother who is also a victim.

 

[EGirl]

Actually we are not. We have been told not to discuss the adoption but we may discuss the crime and suspects. We are not allowed to infer or imply anything derogatory about his mother who is also a victim.

I read the notice.. it inferred that this case was not about the adoption. It did not say there could be zero mention of the adoption.

It did say, no victim bashing of Gabriel's bio mother.

I believe there are pieces of this case that cannot be discovered without some mention of the adoption.

JMO