In these pre-election days, I think most of us have seen the obvious bias of the news media. As I was coming home yesterday, I had my car radio on. There was an item on the news about Obama being hanged in effigy at a college campus -- I think in Kentucky. At any rate, they proclaimed it not just political freedom of speech, but a hate crime. The effigy had been taken down immediately by authorities, and an apology was on its way to the Obama family. Then there came this little addendum (paraphrased) -- "An effigy of Sarah Palin was hanged in California. Protestors today tried to cover it with some sheets."
Then there are the flat-out inaccuracies. Last Sunday's Dallas Morning News carried an article by Jessica Sidman. I suppose it was meant to stir up some Halloween fright. It concerned an old homicide case from 1980. Notice I said "homicide," not "murder." Most people from North Texas remember the infamous Betty Gore case. Mrs. Gore's hacked up body was found in her Wylie home. She had been repeatedly struck with an ax. Her baby daughter was found unharmed in her crib. The perpetrator had washed up in the Gore's bathroom before leaving the scene. The community was horrified.
It didn't take long before Candy Montgomery, a friend of the Gore's, was arrested. She had been having an affair with Mr. Gore, and Betty Gore had found out. Mrs. Montgomery, despite having hit Mrs. Gore 41 times with the ax, was found not guilty of murder by a jury of her peers. When I first heard about this case, I was astonished that she could have gotten away with such a heinous crime. But then I read some trial transcripts and read a book on the case, and I agree with the jury -- Candy Montgomery was defending herself. Betty Gore initiated the attack, Candy Montgomery managed to get the ax away from her, and despite repeated blows, Mrs. Gore kept coming after her. Candy Montgomery was guilty of a lot of things, but murder was not one of them.
But Ms. Sidman has decided it was murder. She refers to the case as a murder no fewer than nine times. If I were Candy Montgomery, I would sue. This woman was not guilty of murder, and was so judged in a court of law. The determination of the jury was that no murder occurred. A homicide, yes -- homicide is merely one person taking the life of another, whether it be murder or self-defense or accident. Candy Montgomery was no murderer, and The Dallas Morning News should be held accountable.
"Murders haunt some who live at scene." The Dallas Morning News; October 26, 2008; p. 1B.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Not to argue this too much, but I, too, have some first hand knowledge on this case.
For the record, "not guilty" only means there was not enough evidence to prove guilt. It does not mean the jury found her "innocent". She's not. She's still a killer. "Not guilty" only means "we can't prove you're guilty". We CAN prove Candace Montgomery hacked Betty Gore to death. We know she's a killer.
We only have the killer's version of what happened that day. We don't KNOW that Betty Gore initiated the argument, attack or said "shhhh".
To accept the facts as given by Candace Montgomery without the forensic evidence to support them is, in my opinion, just as biased as accepting the contrary with equally little evidence.
What we do know: Betty Gore was hacked to death and Candace Montgomery did it.
So, MaryAn, suppose you stop by a friend's house, and for some reason she goes berserk on you and starts coming at you with a butcher knife. You manage to grab the knife from her hand and stab her. But she gets up and comes at you again. You stab her again, but she keeps getting up. Finally, she doesn't get up anymore. Will you consider yourself a killer or a victim? And how will you feel when people say to you, "Well, we only have your word for it that it happened that way. What we do know is that you hacked another person to death, and that makes you a killer." Forensic evidence is not the only consideration in a trial. There is also circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidence, coupled with the forensic evidence, says this woman was not guilty of murder. Was she guilty of adultery,trying to cover up what she'd done, and leaving an innocent child unattended? She certainly was. But causing the death of another does not make one a "killer" in the context you are using.
I have to agree with MaryAn on this one. There is no conclusive evidence that Candace Montgomery acted in self defence. All we have is her word on it.
If I had had an affair with someone else's husband, and the person came at me with an axe, I would try to run out, or scream to alert people. I sure as help would not hack someone 41 times, no matter how scared I was. To take an axe to a human being 41 times in not a self defence measure. And dont tell me that it took 41 blows to get Betty to stop "coming at" Candance. Once Candance has hit her 3 or 4 times, I am sure that Betty was in enough pain to move slower. This would have been a perfect opportunity for Candance to run and get help. If she had done this, Betty would still be alive, and her children would still have a mother.
The fact that Candace could take a shower and clean up after hacking at Betty just proves to me that she showed no remorse. As for leaving an infant unattended just shows me that she was completely selfish. No mother can leave any child unattended, unless they are heartless.
In my mind I find Candace Montgomery guilty and I feel that she got off way too lightly.
There has to be conclusive evidence that she did not act in self-defense, and there is none. The defense doesn't have to prove anything in this country -- the prosecution does. If someone comes at you with an ax in a small laundry room, and they are between you and the door, how are you going to run out? How do you know what you would do in a state of extreme panic? You don't until you reach that state. I never denied that Candace Montgomery was a selfish, immoral person, but that doesn't make her automatically guilty of murder. If it did, half the population would be classified as murderers. Have you read the book about the Montgomery case? Have you read the trial transcripts? If not, then do so and come back and comment again. Otherwise, I can safely say, you don't have all the information you need to decide "in your mind" whether or not she was guilty of murder.
Montgomery is a MURDERER....flat out!
And you don't know that -- flat out!
Post a Comment