That murder by rebirthing case. Warning: beyond vile.

The BBQ Pit
21

There’s been just as much coverage in Denver, (I live about 3 miles from the courthouse where the trial was held). My understanding (and I don’t have a cite either) is that the murderers told the mother to leave after the kid started vomiting. And the mother did.

First, by the murderer’s theories, asking the mom to leave makes zero sense. The whole idea behind this… um… “therapy” is that the adopted kid doesn’t have a bond with the adoptive parent so the kid acts up and misbehaves. By forcing the kid to relive the “birth trauma” and emerge from the torture (aka the fake birth canal) into the adoptive parent’s arms, the kid forms the parent-child bond with the adoptive parent. :rolleyes: So sending mom out of the room makes NO sense whatsoever, even by the murderer’s own standards. And, might I add, the idea of torturing the kid and then letting the parent “rescue” the kid is just horrific. (Putting about 500 lbs of weight on the kid so the kid can’t get a breath=torture by any reasonable definition…as a matter of fact I believe there was a medieval torture that involved putting bunches of weights on someone’s chest over time until the victim suffocated. Kinda like Candace.)

Second, if my memory is correct (that the woman left when the kid really started to show physical distress) then she’s absolutely complicit (morally, of course, not legally). Some years back my cousin had to go through an MRI (I think… You’re in an iron lung-looking device) and apparently my cousin started to have a claustrophobia-esque panic attack. The nurses stopped the test, calmed her down, and, once she was calmed down, talked her through the test. I can’t imagine ANY non-emergency (ie: a broken leg, bleeding, etc) proceedure that is so serious that it can’t be stopped if the child is in obvious physical and emotional distress. The fact that the mother is a pediatric!!! nurse and knows better makes the whole situation worse.

Is she legally guilty of anything beyond neglect? Probably not. Is she evil for standing by (leaving the room when the kid was obviously suffering=standing by) and letting her child be tortured and murdered? Yep.

Fenris

22

Stoid,

You ask what the mother is guilty of. Is it neglect in regards to the murder? Yes, absolutely. And, from a legal standpoint, she is culpable for the murder of her child. She had a legal obligation, a duty, to protect her child. By not taking any action, when taking action would result in minimum risk to herself, she is absolutely responsible for what happened in that room.

The law is strange sometimes. If you’re standing right there next to me and some psycho comes up and stabs you, I could sit there eating popcorn, watching it, and there’s not a damn thing the law can do to touch me. But if you’re my daughter, and the same thing happens, you can bet I’d be charged with murder even though I never picked up the knife.

The mother murdered her daughter.

23

Yep, it was called pressing. If you’ve read The Crucible, you might remember that that was how Giles Corey (the stubborn old guy) was killed.

Personally, I think the fair thing to do would be to make the ‘therapists’ experience ‘rebirthing’ firsthand so they can realize what they put Candace through and have to live with that. Is the Panthers offensive line busy?

24

Stoid:

I really don’t see how her motives or thoughts are particularly germaine. After all, the Grand Inquisitors thought they were saving souls when they tortured jews to convert. There are no excuses to torture a child. There are no motivations that make it appropriate. I cannot conceive how a loving parent would allow her child to suffer to the point where she threw up and defecated. No loving parent, not decent human being could stand by such a thing.

IMO she is guilty of child abuse, and manslaughter.

Once again, I’m unconcerned with her motivations. It’s her actions that I’m addressing. For all we know she enjoyed dominating another human being and was totally devoid of love for this person, and that was why she wanted to keep her. I doubt that’s true, but the point is we don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.

[/quote]
And if it was neither of those, then it was stupidity, and why should anyone be punished for stupidity?
[/quote]

And what makes you think she was stupid? I don’t think you can be a pediatric nurse if you’re stupid.

And, assuming for the moment she was just stupid, why would this excuse her action? I’m not aware of stupid being some kind of legal defense, are you?

Sure. Criminal neglect. Manslaughter. Maybe she was malicious. Being a pediatric nurse, and adopting a troubled child might indicate that she’s deeply caring. On the other hand it might indicate that she enjoys having power over children, and likes to see them in distress.

Onve again though, her motivations don’t concern me. It’s her actions.

Let’s say there’s this guy, and he’s a little sick, and he fantasizes about cutting people up. He gets off on it. He goes to medical school and becomes a gifted surgeon, not becuase he wants to help people, but because he likes to cut them up. He saves thousands of lives.

Is this man a criminal?

It ain’t the motivations we’re judging here, Stoid. It’s the results.

25

It may sound like evil to you, that doesn’t make it so.

Is anyone reading this thread familiar with a man named Ferber? He’s pretty famous among parents, at least in my neck of the woods. (By the way, I just had a long talk about this with a friend of mine who is a little shy of a PH.D in early childhood development, so some info I have I don’t have web cites for) He has a technique for getting children to sleep through the night which has come to be known as “Ferberizing”. Some people swear by it, others think it is horrific. But the way it works is pretty simple: put your kid to bed and pretty much let them cry themselves to sleep. Do they become hysterical and traumatized? They’ll recover. Sometimes kids cry so hard and become so upset that they will vomit or defecate. You clean it up, and put 'em back to bed.

Puking and pooping is indicative of distress, yes. But not of impending death. It just sounds so shocking now to read about it, it seems so obvious that they should have known they were killing her. :rolleyes: Distress is one of the * goals * of the therapy, to break the kid down so much they are literally “reborn” in the process. Whether you or I believe in such therapy or think it works is completely beside the point. It’s been around a long time, Ponder and Watkins didn’t make it up. The mother was desperate, willing to try anything to reach this kid after the more traditional therapeutic community said “Sorry, done all we can”. She could have given the girl up to an institution, and that was in fact what she was trying to avoid. But she loved her and wanted to help her. There was no abuse or neglect involved.

Actually, I believe you are in error here, Ender, the mother was never charged. What I’m talking about is not the idea that the mother is being charaged, I’m just shocked at the people in this thread who wish her to suffer the tortures of the damned for having made a decision out of love that resulted in her child’s death. I find that strange.

Not any law I ever heard of.

Well, I just explained how it is done by loving parents all the time. I hope you are not going to try and make the case that all parents who love their children behave the same way, make the same choices, cope with problems identically, and that anything outside your definitions constitutes unloving parenting?

I’m full aware that you are uninterested in motivation. That is precisely my point. I’m disturbed by the number of people here in this thread (representing a fair percentage of the world at large, certainly) who are so full of the need to blame that they are ready to condemn this mother as evil, which I think is utterly preposterous. Motives matter. The** law ** recognizes that, even if you don’t. That is the reason insanity is a defense. Self-defense is a defense. Death by misadventure is a legal concept. Causing the death of another does not automatically mean one is a murderer, and it ** absolutely ** does not mean that one * deserves to suffer *.

Ya know what? Bad shit happens to good people who mean well. There doesn’t have to be blame, suffering, and punishment to follow. I think there is entirely too much finger-pointing going on in the world, where we could do with a great deal more compassion.

stoid

26

Yea Stoid I’ve heard of Ferber’s technique (one of the many things my ex and I disagreed on, I might add). And while I also disagree w/that technique in the first place, I will note to you there’s a very large difference between hearing your child cry/vomit etc. in the next room where they’re under some covers in their bed, unrestrained, and hearing the same child cry/vomit while they’re completely restrained and being pushed on by a couple of adults 2 or 3 times their size and then noting the child stopped struggling. From the article I sited earlier:

So, 40 minutes into the session, the child says her last word and struggles no more. 30 minutes later they unwrap her.

As far as I’m concerned, since people can indeed die w/a lack of oxygen in only a few minute, to wait 30 minutes after her struggles and vocalizations ceased, knowing that she’d vomited, defecated, said she couldn’t breath - sorry, no problem seeing that as a homicide, not a ‘horrible accident’.

27

Oh. You don’t have four (yes, four. [Bender]Learning is fun![/Bender] Lord.) adults sit on them and force them to lay in it while taunting them?

Strange, that.

This article goes more in-depth into this whole fubared mess. Not a “good” read, but worth one. Something that caught my eye, emphasis mine:

Hmm. Now why would they expose the head most usually? Perhaps to monitor the child’s condition?

Probably best not to do that. It probably interferes with it. What could improve the therapy’s chances of “success”? Ah ha! If only someone would think of a way to increase the intensity of it! Wait, wait, someone has!

But before that, an observation. I don’t think licensing and lack of it is even all that important. Julie Ponder held a California license, simply hadn’t obtained a Colorado one. I rather doubt she would have had difficulty in so doing, before this at least. Where did Watkins get the wonderful idea of fully covering her rebirthee?

Licensed, again. I’ll leave the obvious California-is-like-granola-because jokes to others.

Watkins later told investigators “she didn’t like rebirthing therapy.” Well, gosh. What’s not to like?

Ponder talked with Candace about what the process would entail:

Every fucking time I think the case can’t be more chilling, it gets more chilling. Not only that last lovely bit above, but this: it wasn’t just the two of them, there were four adults putting more and more of their weight directly on top of the 70 pound girl. Together, they weighed 673 pounds.

What a wonderful therapy. In elementary school, we called it “dogpiling”. Even then, we didn’t have the thought it was a nice thing to do, or something that was conducive to the pilee feeling better. It was just stupid and vicious, like kids can undeniably be. Like adults.

Interestingly, the article disagrees with SI’s version of the transcript. These are the last moments according to it:

Jeanne Newmaker (her adoptive mom): Baby, do you want to be born?
Candace: No. (final word)

At that point, they sent her mom from the room. They didn’t want Candace to pick up on her sorrow, or somesuch. A bit after that, Watkins and Ponder sent away the two others involved. They sat on her for another half an hour before thinking, hey perhaps we should unwrap her.

“somehow the 10-year-old inexplicably stopped breathing” --Watkins, in a message to her ardent supporters.

Yeah. Somehow.

Not “Candace”. “The 10-year-old.” No need for a name. I imagine not thinking of her by name is a way to cope. Perhaps Watkins could use some rebirthing therapy to come to terms with it.

Hubris is a very appropriate term.

Jeanne Newmaker has been charged on a “lesser charge” of negligent child abuse, is still awaiting trial, as best I know right now. I suspect she’ll get a minimum sentence as well. And in her case, not too much point in a heavier one, I suppose. I rather doubt she’ll be given custody and power over any other child.

Wishing her suffering, though, isn’t something I’m much into. If she’s remotely human, she will suffer, and horribly. If she’s not that human, no amount of wishing in the world will make a difference, any more than it will make Candace less dead.

28

So what are you saying, exactly? That they were sitting around waiting to * ** make sure she was dead? ** *

Why does everyone keep repeating to me the events, and ignoring my requests for your explanations of what is *behind * those events that justifies your assessment of what happened as murder?

stoid

29

What I am ** saying** is that they failed to use due care and diligence in treating a minor in their direct care.

That by hearing those pleas, noting the vomit and defecation, even if they believed all of that was within the ‘routine’ of this technique, the cessation of struggle and the cessation of verbalization would indicate to even a lay person that either the technique was simply not working at all with this child or the child was in physical distress and unable to communicate.

that’s where the criminal action is. It doesn’t matter that they didn’t intend the result. they failed to act in a manner consistent with exercising due care and diligence. There were actions consistent with a person having trouble breathing and they failed to even check to make sure she was ok. They had the obligation, both moral and legal, to insure the child in their care was ok. they failed to do so.

30

Well, Drastic, I printed out the article you linked to and read it very carefully.

Having done so, my opinion is that you were looking for things to be chilled by, since I found it to tell a sad story, but hardly the one you seem to have seen. You took those quotes quite out of context.

I thank you for the link, though. Reading it has convinced me more than ever that this was a very terrible and sad accident, caused by the arrogance of one therapist who apparantly had some cause to believe in herself and what she was doing.

stoid

31

Stoid, “a decision out of love”??? The evil bitch murdered Candace through inaction. She allowed those two lunatics to torture that child and did nothing.
I hope the guilt eats her until she goes mad.

Accident, my left foot! And no, the therapist had no cause to believe in her New Age voodoo bullshit. I very much doubt that the “rebirthing” technique was the subject of a refereed journal study, and it has already been established that the “therapist” was an unlicensed fraud.

32

I’m curious. Do you have the same “It’s a shame, but they belived it would’ve worked so the consequences were unfourtunate.” (if that is how you feel) feelings about Christian Science-types who withold Insulin or transfusions? How 'bout the (rare) fundie-types who beat children because they think that beatings are an appropriate form of discipline?

Personally, I believe that parents who withold basic medical care and allow their kids to die, parents who beat their kids to death and parents who take their kids to “therapists” who’s “therapy” involves torturing kids to death should be found guilt of murder. Even though all three groups have “some cause to believe in themselves and what they are doing.”

Fenris

PS: Putting 500lbs of pressure on a 70 lb child and then being surprised when the kid suffocates is hardly an “accident”.

33

::shrug::

I am fundamentally unable to view this as a sad but blameless accident, a fluke like an appendectomy with proper precautions going wrong. The difference between an established procedure and one even quackier than most therapies is pretty clear in my mind.

More than that, it was an uncommon therapy that Watkins did not have much experience with, and even then deliberately chose a more extreme variant of it than was usually practiced. I don’t really understand how anyone thinks it’s reasonable to not think that four full grown adults putting their weight on a fully coccooned child is not pretty damn risky, even brushing aside concerns about it being cruel.

I don’t think Watkins intended to kill her, though. I get the impression from that and other articles she rather liked making children cry, and then getting to comfort them. Sense of power, that. God complex.

I have some pretty unshakeable doubts about the inherent goodness of someone who enjoys that kind of thing.

34

I didn’t say it was blameless, i very clearly laid the blame on the therapist.

As for the rest of what you say, your prejudices are revealed, and I believe that explains a lot about why you find this so unforgivable. Same goes for Fenris and goboy.

As for comparing this to witholding insulin, I think you (Fenris) are reaching. This is the first time it has ever resulted in person’s death. And the worst that could be said of it was that it did not work, not that it actually brought harm. Witholding insulin is known to bring harm.

There was evidence to make one believe that this would work, including one “victim” of her “God complex” :rolleyes: who still, years later, keeps in touch with her and credits her with saving her life when she was a child.

So it would seem not to be quite so clear cut as you imagine.

(And still no one explains why the mother would have murdered her kid. Because you can’t. So we’ll pretend that motive is meaningless. All I can say is I’m glad you guys aren’t sitting on any benches)

stoid

35

Really? What does it say about my prejudices? And what does your glossing over the fact that this child was tortured to death in the name of a patently stupid theory and your refusal to empathize with the victim explain about you? (Candace’s head was shaved, she was subjected to slow suffocation, and had insults shreiked at her. Regardless of any psychotic “theory” the two murderers had, this is torture.)
**

And putting approx. 500 lbs of weigh onto a 70 lb little girl is also known to bring harm. As discussed, it’s a medieval torture.

I wrestled in high school (briefly). While clowning around with a couple of friends, I ended up at the bottom of a pile-on by about 4 friends. They kidded around and were saying things like “Boy Fenris, you’re comfortable to sit on.”, “With all that padding, you make a good pillow.” etc (in High School this is High Wit). Meanwhile I literally couldn’t draw a breath. I could just barely gasp. It was terrifying and I knew that my friends had NO desire to hurt me. (It took 'em about two minutes for one of them to realize that something was wrong and immediately got up with profuse apologies.)

Imagine how much more horrible it would have been for a little girl surrounded by hostile adults (they were screaming “quitter” and “weakling” at her and shaved her head for Christsake!) who, as far as she knew, had no benign intentions. Try putting yourself in the child’s place for a minute.

**

Just so we’re clear, I’m not claming the mother committed “murder” (the therapist(s) did), the mother, IMHO committed homicide through gross negligence. I find that turning away from the agonized screams of your child while she’s being tortured is evil, but it’s not “murder” legally.

Fenris

36

Or perhaps the therapist has Munchausen by Proxy, in some shape or form?

I understand about being desparate, but Jesus Christ on Wheels! Hello-she was wrapped in blankets and pillows with adults hog piling on her, and she was vomitting. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to tell you that people have often choked to death on their own vomit.

The people who supposedly were “cured” by Watkins…sounds to me like people who still defend their abusers, such as their husbands, their parents, etc etc.

It reminds me of TCS, in a way. No proof it works, just a lot of self-righteous assholes.

37

Hey Stoid…do you ever agree with anybody at all?

Just wondering…

38

That is your prejudice right there. You think it is a stupid theory. Are you a psychotherapist? Are you a psychiatrist? Do you have any experience with deeply disturbed children? Are you able to cure them? Or have you simply decided that this is stupid, therefore using it is evil, based on no more education or experience than most people have? And it wasn’t in the name of a theory…it was in the name of saving the child from the effects that abuse and torture had on her already.

Have I * refused * to empathize with her? That’s a creative charecterization. I** cannot ** empathize with her, any more than you can. I am not a deeply disturbed and abused 10 year old who has been suffocated to death

I am very sorry for what happened to her, however; it was perfectly horrible. But there are plenty here to chime in with that refrain. I just happen to be able to feel bad for more than one person at a time, as well as being able to feel bad for things that happen without wishing further harm on people I don’t feel deserve it.

Where did you read this? I’m not saying it isn’t so, I’m just asking where you read it, since I haven’t read it anywhere.

Would you be willing to give me a definition of “evil”? Because what I understand to be evil I do not see anywhere in this whole sad story. There is a simplistic definition of evil as just “causing harm” but I find that to be a poor use of the word, since one can cause harm many ways and in many circumstances without being what most people understand to be evil.

** Xploder ** I agree with people all the time. And when I do so publicly, enthusiastically, I get grief for * that *, as well.

But to give you the serious answer: I don’t formulate my feelings and opinons based on majority assessments. Too often the majority opinion turns out to be deeply flawed.

stoid

39

Whether or not I’m a “psychotherapist” is irrelevant. Nice try at an Argument from Authortity. However, since you’ve asked:

I’ve got a minor in psychology, a major in elementary education, and I worked with learning disabled and emotionally troubled kids for about two semesters.

And did you know that the lunatics who promote this “therapy” diagnosed Candace with "Radical Attachment Disorder in absentia?! This is about as close to legitimate psychology as lobotomies were.

Please don’t tell me what I can and cannot do. I am a human. I am able to put imagine the horror it would be to helpless and tortured. Please don’t project the sad fact that you apparently cannot onto me.

As can I. I don’t appreciate the implacation that because I won’t feel bad for a torturer or someone who stood by and allowed torture to occur, that I’m unable to feel bad for multiple people.

Fair enough:

I can’t find a cite for “weakling” but a quick search turned up:

“You’re a quitter!” and “If you don’t have the courage to live, it’s easier to die”,

To make matters worse, the kid knew and said ON TAPE that she expected to be “tortured” (her word, not mine in this case)

** Source. I can’t find the specific quote that says her head was shaved, but the previous cite says they were going to.

Also from the same article:
**

Tell me “jerking her head 309 times” and “grabbing her face 90 times” isn’t abusive.

The torturer and accomplices told Candace “You act pretty stupid. . . . You’re a liar and you lie all the time”, she tells Candace to “Stay there with the poop and vomit.” and tells Candace in a "nyah-nyah taunt—“Quitter, quitter, quitter, quitter! Quit, quit, quit, quit. She’s a quitter” (from here )

Also note that even if you accept this gibberish theory, the torturer didn’t even do it right: she sent the mother out of the room, so there’d be no way for her to hold the kid after the torture and she (per the final transcript) twisted and held both ends of the sheet so that Candace couldn’t be reborn!

Since you’ve said you’re unable to empathize with the child, try this: imagine how you’d feel if four men, weighing 250 each (since you’re a grown-up) grabbed you and against your will did exactly the same thing to you.

**
“All that is needed for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing”. Candace’s mom was evil through inaction.

Fenris

40

Oops…transcript of Candace’s last hour is here.