I don't know what I think. Kind of on the fence. Her demeanor does suggest she's innocent, to me. Also, some doctors testified at her appellate hearing that it could've happened as she stated.
She was granted a new trial, which is significant to me.
But what supports her guilt is the former foster mother who stated the little boy did not have pica and did not hoard food when with him and the statement of Hannah's son that Andrew was surveilled to see if he did something "bad", and also that she used forcing the ingestion of food items as punishment.
Also, something doesn't jibe about her statement that she gave him water with a taste of Zatarain's to placate him. That statement seems like a desperate attempt to explain the levels of salt in his system. And how does it conveniently correspond with exactly what he ingested?
And her statement about how she put a Pizza hut pepper on her kid's tongues for "just a second", seemed like a big fat lie.
I think this could've been a mother who lost it in the face of a foster child she could not handle, and became an abuser. I;m just not sure. If so, though, it probably is not a capital murder case under TX law, apparently.
Also, I am reading rumors that Overton's bio dad murdered a teenager and her maternal grandfather was the Heaven's Gate cult leader. Anyone know about this or have independent proof?
To your last question, yes, it's true HO's bio dad brutally murdered a teenager, and her maternal grandfather was the Heaven's Gate leader. This has never been disputed, that I know of-- only minimized and said to be "irrelevant" to Hannah's case. I happen to think it's highly relevant, as it establishes what kind of extremist fundamentalist environment she was exposed to from birth.
It's my opinion that HO's case is another case of "religious child maltreatment." This is child abuse/ discipline/ training within a fringe fundamentalist religious family environment, that "goes too far", and the child dies. The focus is on "breaking the child's will" and forcing obedience and submission to the parent, but from a loving and "God-driven" perspective, not necessarily "just" sadistic abuse. Those who subscribe to this kind of "Train up a Child" style of parenting view this as *loving discipline* designed to save the child's soul, not abuse.
http://www.examiner.com/article/another-child-s-death-linked-to-pearls-and-to-train-up-a-child
http://www.examiner.com/article/ano...f-murder-for-parenting-by-to-train-up-a-child
This is a particular problem within some fringe fundamentalist families that are compelled to adopt children from troubled backgrounds to save souls, both domestic and international. Many of these adopted children have disabilities, and significant emotional and behavioral difficulties that don't adapt well to the new fundamentalist family structure and rules of behavior. The adopted child/ children haven't had the "benefit" of learning the family religious based discipline since babyhood, and being "trained up", and often "rebel", as compared to birth children within the family.
Hana Williams' murder is another example of this "breaking their will" religious child maltreatment. Her adoptive parents were both convicted of her murder. (Carri Williams is particularly sadistic, IMO.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/doubl...of_an_ethiopian_adoptee_and_how_it_could.html
Rachel Coleman, a Ph.D. candidate at Indiana University Bloomington and a homeschooling graduate, co-created the website Homeschooling’s Invisible Children, which tracks cases of extreme child abuse or death in the homeschooling community. Of the 125 cases the site has collected so far, 54—or 43 percent—are adoptees. Much of that she attributes to parenting styles among some fundamentalist homeschoolers that focus on breaking a child’s will to raise perfectly obedient children.
“Adoptive parents coming from this point of view are looking at the child almost as an enemy to conquer. The idea is that there is a payoff: If you can win the battle, you save the child’s soul,” says Coleman. In such a setup, families may be reluctant to admit failure or ask for help, and everything from everyday disobedience to serious problems that need psychological treatment may be instead viewed as “sin issues” to be addressed with religion.
Here is an excellent read about religious child maltreatment, exhaustively researched:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/161614405X...UTF8&colid=1ISTEH7340SXA&coliid=IWKHLPJN9T945
These cases are particularly difficult to prosecute, because the fundamentalist community often comes together to vigorously support and campaign on behalf of the accused individual, portraying them as an excellent parent, loving, involved with homeschooling, active in charities and their community church, etc. There is a disconnect between the loving, grieving religious family, the well-cared for remaining children, the supportive church members, and the reality of the dead child's abusive maltreatment. But just like situations involving medical child abuse/ Munchausen by proxy syndrome,
abuse is still abuse, even if delivered within the context of "lovingly administered in the name of God."
Andrew Burd came from a very troubled background, and had a number of very predictable serious emotional and developmental problems. The pictures of his room, and the descriptions of how he was disciplined compared to the birth children, his food issues, defecation and smearing, etc,-- all of what the parents did are common "disciplinary" techniques within fundamentalist child rearing lore that is focused on "breaking the child's will".
HO has been painted to be a very sympathetic persona, a pretty, young, deeply religious woman, mother of 5 beautiful children, foster/ adoptive parent, devoted husband, and a tight knit fundamentalist church community supporting her. But I do think the jury got it right the first time, that Andrew Burd's death was murder and child abuse. That it occurred within a religious context should not matter in court, although many want to portray this as an "attack" on fundamentalist churches and lifestyles.
It will be interesting to see how the second trial goes.
