web analytics

An Eye, a Tooth: a Life.

By Mike Cunningham On January 13th, 2021

I am content to be able to send my heartfelt commiserations to the family of the murdered Bobbie Jo Stinnett, as her killer, Lisa Montgomery, was herself legally executed at the the Justice Department’s execution chamber at its prison in Terre Haute, Indiana.

This woman kidnapped the pregnant Bobbie Jo, strangled her, and then cut the unborn child from the dead girl’s womb. The baby survived the ordeal. 

It has taken sixteen years, but Justice was finally served, courtesy of a SCOTUS which swiftly dispensed with a last-minute delay.

59 Responses to “An Eye, a Tooth: a Life.”

  1. Mike, do you think you’d still be writing that if you had been almost continually beaten and sexually abused by practically everyone you knew when you were a child, raped by your step dad, then rented out for sex by your own mother to her various boyfriends, Mike?

    Why, I think that would have driven Mike psychotic, just as it did this woman.

    Or how about if little Mike was born with foetal alcohol syndrome, i.e. was already an alcoholic by the time he first saw daylight, then would have his mouth taped shut even if he spoke less bullshit then here, then be pushed out naked into the snow as further punishment, then if Mike’s father later built a special shed in the garden so his mates could come and rape and urinate on the young boy?

    And if then Mike confided in neighbours, including a sheriff’s deputy, but nothing was done, just as nothing was done about the West girls when a litany of sexual abuse was reported to the authorities?

    Would Mike still believe in justice and in the righteousness of the authorities then?

  2. For anyone opposed to the death sentence, this is the type of case to test that stance. A brutal, sickening murder of a young mother-to-be, followed by the desecration of her corpse and the theft of her unborn child. The only small light in this pit of darkness is that the child somehow survived such an ordeal.
    But was it right to execute the murderer? She grew up in an abusive household. She was repeatedly raped by her father; when her mother found out what had happened, rather than have the father arrested, or at least removed from the house, she threatened the girl with a gun, and the abuse and rape continued. By 14, she was an alcoholic; by 18 she was married, but this turned out to be an abusive relationship. So was her next marriage. She had four children before being sterilised through tubal ligation, but continued to claim pregnancies which couldn’t possibly be true – during her trial, it was shown that she had Pseudocyesis, a condition which makes women believe they are pregnant, and can manifest itself as giving the physical appearance of being pregnant. Old head injuries may have damaged the part of her brain which controlled aggression, according to a psychiatrist at her trial. Two further medical experts attested to the diagnosis of Pseudocyesis, as well as PTSD, Border-line Personality Disorder and Depression – however, the full details of these findings were not revealed to the jury at the first trial, only at the appeal.
    The jury however, were not convinced by this evidence and found her guilty. The judge passed the death sentence, which was upheld on appeal.
    The alternative to the death sentence was life imprisonment. As an opponent of the death penalty, one must ask oneself if the alternative sentence is a strong enough punishment to cover the crime.
    I personally have yet to come across a case where I felt that death was the correct sentence. I do feel that life should mean life in many cases, but I also believe that prison should be a place not only of incarceration, but of rehabilitation and change.
    This was a particularly brutal, senseless murder, and the murderer was thankfully caught the following day. But when sentencing her, I believe the court should have looked at the fact that Lisa Montgomery had no chance in life. Brutalised herself from a young age, her life began in a downward spiral and never improved. Lisa Montgomery was abused and let down her entire life, and Bobbie Jo Stinnett paid an awful price for that neglect. No sentence would have brought Bobbie Jo Stinnett back, but the sentence passed down and carried out did no-one any good.
    Lisa Montgomery may never have been allowed to walk free from prison, but does that mean then that she should just be killed? Does that mean that the judicial system should just give up on her? An eye for an eye, like so many other parts of the Bible, is an outdated, harsh and inhumane solution to issues like this.

  3. Well said, Noel.

  4. Good comments, Noel and Seimi. I can’t think of anything to add except to despair at such a story of the depths of unmitigated human misery. What Lisa Montgomery did was vile beyond belief but my God what an awful fate life gave her from the moment of her birth. I wonder if she ever had a day without pain in her entire depressing existence. I will never support the Death Penalty, but part of me thinks the ending of her life was something of a relief for a person dealt the most dreadful cards in life.

  5. Lethal injection involves tying a person down and injecting them with chemicals to create a slow, agonising death but where the victim is paralysed to spare those murdering them any discomfort. Is it in any way, shape or form less evil that what Lisa Montgomery did?

  6. “Right to life” Scotus judges did this to her .

  7. I know its a gruesome thing to talk about but if you are going to have a death penalty surely you should use whatever method does it the quickest. The guillotine would be more humane than the consequences of lethal injection as Seamus explains it.

  8. Good posts Noel and Seimi.

    Would Mike still believe in justice and in the righteousness of the authorities then?

    Either that’s a rhetorical question, or you haven’t been paying attention to Mike’s posts over the years.

  9. Monsters walk among us, monsters that we made…. but monsters nonetheless.

    It took 10yrs too long

  10. ” Hard cases make bad law ” , as the US jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said.

    And life without the possibility of parole is no day at the beach either.

  11. waste of tax payer money…. 3 appeals, 6yrs to do them and then hang them. Preferably in the town square.

  12. Not everyone can be saved, and not everyone deserves mercy. Some crimes when you commit them you forfeit your life.

    That punishment should be public.

    The knowledge of and the witnessing of the cost of certain acts like it or not is one of the best deterrents.

    Now before you go all psycho on me I support the death penalty but only in cases where there is ZERO doubt of who did what. There are a lot more of those cut and dry cases than you think.

    A sentence of death should only be given in those type of cases.

  13. You can’t send someone to prison unless there is zero doubt. So that isn’t creating a new standard. And ultimately what the state did to Lisa Montgomery was just as evil as what Lisa Montgomery did to Bobbie Jo Stinnett. And they did it on behalf of the people. So the people of the United States just commited a crime as heinous as what Lisa Montgomery did to Bobbie Jo Stinnett.

    “Some crimes when you commit them you forfeit your life.”

    So much for unalienable rights.

    “The knowledge of and the witnessing of the cost of certain acts like it or not is one of the best deterrents.”

    Except that is simply not true. The death penalty is not a deterrant. It is inhumane bloodlust and vengeance. And the mark of an uncivilised society.

  14. I also don’t for a second think that there was no emotionalism in the decision to execute.

    The murder was so vicious and awful it scarcely bears thinking about. But it wasn’t so awful, nothing is so awful, that it makes the perpetrator suddenly lucid and able to make a balanced decision. Either the murderer had mental problems or she didn’t, and if she didn’t she should not be put to death, regardless of how gruesome her crime was.

    That this women had very serious mental problems at the time is beyond doubt. That doesn’t make her innocent, but she was never on a level playing field as regards morality and responsibility for her actions, and that at least should have been taken into account.

    BTW, what was the point in writing this post, can anyone guess?

  15. “BTW, what was the point in writing this post, can anyone guess?”

    Because some people like to revel in the killing of defenceless people when it meets their moral judgement to do so.

  16. I’d say that in many prison convictions, there is doubt, no matter what anyone involved in the case says.

    Unless the judge and jury all personally witnessed the event in question.

  17. When I say without a doubt you might want to ask for clarification if you’re going to make a statement like You can’t send someone to prison unless there is zero doubt.

    Seamus you can convict a person of murder based on the preponderance of evidence, and then you have the people you catch with a basement full of skeletons and human innards in the refrigerator and the killer if you ask them will share with you their recipe for human kidney pie….

    or the drug dealer that tells you to your face “yeah I blew the bitch’s head right off so what, F her”

    There are animals that commit capital crimes who do so without regret and when they get caught laugh in your face with no denial. Most are back on the street in less than ten years. Chicago and Detroit have the highest recidivist murder rate in the world simply because the courts in that state don’t punish the murderers.

    Anyone that can kill another person without hesitation over a drug deal or a territory dispute can do 7-10 standing on their head. Prison is their second home.

    We have a breed of criminal predator over here that look at dropping bodies as part of a business model. That is the reality of the world.

    Now we can ring our hands and find 100 cases to debate the morality of the death penalty, but I can put up 1000 cases from 5 cities where the killer has multiple bodies on them that they were caught for, did time for and are walking the streets.

    These animals are a threat to society and the only way to solve it is to put them down.

  18. “Seamus you can convict a person of murder based on the preponderance of evidence”

    No you can’t, certainly not in a just system. Preponderance of evidence is for civil matters, not criminal matters.

    “These animals are a threat to society and the only way to solve it is to put them down.”

    Actually the biggest threat to society, time and time again, is authoritarian governments. And this is the most authoritarian a government can get. Tying a defenceless woman down and slowly suffocating them to death so that the President can get a law-and-order erection.

  19. Noel

    BTW, what was the point in writing this post, can anyone guess?

    Another rhetorical question?

  20. No you can’t, certainly not in a just system.

    The shear arrogance and certainty……. lol

    You get a call of a gun shot, go to the address. There on the floor is a man with a hole in his chest, sitting at the kitchen table is his wife with a .38 sitting right next to the cup of coffee she’s drinking. She never says a word doesn’t explain a thing. Never says she shot him, never says she didn’t. Has gunpowder residue on her hand. Is evaluated as sane.

    You have a body, a weapon and a suspect with gunpowder residue on her hands. Her Lawyer pleads not guilty. You have no witnesses, no video, just the evidence as described.

    Jury finds her guilty on a preponderance of the evidence.

    Now do you execute her? NO but she gets life,,,,

    but you can’t convict someone on just the preponderance of the evidence…….

  21. Actually the biggest threat to society, time and time again, is authoritarian governments. And this is the most authoritarian a government can get. Tying a defenceless woman down and slowly suffocating them to death so that the President can get a law-and-order erection.

    NO religious fanatics with nuclear weapons that believe if they kill everyone but themselves god will return and give them heaven on earth….. that’s the threat to all societies…

  22. can unrepentant maga terrorists be injected with a dose of reality ? lol
    Nah… wood ( james or Lin ) probably kill them .hahaha
    pat you’re very well vaccinated against reality — except you bought poison .. oops
    big mistake – foolish virgins .. NB

  23. “Jury finds her guilty on a preponderance of the evidence.”

    Preponderence of evidence is for civil trials, not criminal. At least you are being consistent. Doesn’t matter what the topic is you can always count on Troll being the least informed in the conversation.

    Find one case where a jury convicted someone in a criminal trial on a preponderance of the evidence. Just one case.

  24. Seamus you are wrong…. but you can’t bring yourself to admit that on most things you’re clueless.

    I suppose nobody’s ever been convicted through circumstantial evidence either….. ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NYFq7ZJg4c&ab_channel=ScottGreen

  25. Can you provide a single case where a person has been convicted in a criminal trial on a preponderance of the evidence? Yes or no? Simple question.

  26. Patrick Van Roy, on January 13th, 2021 at 10:58 PM Said:
    Seamus you are wrong…. but you can’t bring yourself to admit that on most things you’re clueless.

    I suppose nobody’s ever been convicted through circumstantial evidence either….. ?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NYFq7ZJg4c&ab_channel=ScottGreen

    Classic Troll. Makes a statement – statement proved wrong. Insists he is correct. Asked to provide evidence to back up statement – changes statement. Calls other person names.

  27. Seamus you are hung up on the “Legal Term” Preponderance of Evidence which is all you need in a civil case. However if all you have in a criminal case is the physical evidence the Jury still basses it’s decision on a preponderance of the quality of evidence and fact being great enough in number, quantity, or importance to equal a conviction….

    You see when you don’t know what your talking about and you type something in a searcg engine it leads you to the MOST COMMON answer NOT the ONLY answer…..

    The pile of evidence in every case is a preponderance of factual, and circumstantial evidence.

  28. Statement wasn’t proven wrong seimi and I’m making fun and jesting with Seamus….

    What concern is it of yours if I poke fun at him?

    Oh your butt buddy is being picked on because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about he read a reference and ran with it,,,,

    You though sitting there with your pud in your hand foaming at the mouth…. look look troll is being mean…. I’ll attack…. Did you get a Woody?

  29. “Seamus you are hung up on the “Legal Term” Preponderance of Evidence which is all you need in a civil case.”

    Yes because you stated above:

    “you can convict a person of murder based on the preponderance of evidence”.

    Now that is clearly a stupid thing to say but rather than hold your hand up and admit you made a mistake you decided to double down on the stupidity.

    A preponderance of evidence is for civil trials. No one is convicted in criminal trials on a preponderance of evidence. A preponderance of evidence means anything from 51% to 100% sure. The standard in a criminal trial is beyond any and all reasonable doubt. If you are 99% sure, and the preponderance but not totality of evidence is in the favour of the prosecution, you acquit. That is the legal standard. And strange of me to get hung up on “legal terms” when talking about the law.

    Again you can always count on Troll being the least informed in a debate. It is the only thing consistent in his arguments that he will say something stupid and then double down on it.

  30. no your wrong.

    What is an accumulated pile of evidence…. in a criminal case…..

    Come on skippy, is it not a preponderance of evidence,,,, nope sorry can’t call it a preponderance the term is “shit big pile” ……

    Now go pet your dog Seimi

  31. Oh your butt buddy is being picked on because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about he read a reference and ran with it,,,,

    You though sitting there with your pud in your hand foaming at the mouth…. look look troll is being mean…. I’ll attack…. Did you get a Woody?

    How sad are you?

    You get educated on your own laws – yet again – by Seamus, and your best retort is to make childish adolescent jokes. What age are you?

  32. We can now add “preponderance of evidence” to “slander” as legal terms that Troll is too stupid to understand.

  33. Now go pet your dog Seimi

    What a childish prick you are.

  34. I guess the most comprehensive and accurate answer would be to say that yes legally in criminal trials you are supposed to reach a guilty verdict only when you are beyond reasonable doubt but in many cases juries may decide to convict on probabilities even though strictly they shouldn’t.

  35. It would be easier and much quicker to compile a list of things in general Troll does understand.

  36. “I guess the most comprehensive and accurate answer would be to say that yes legally in criminal trials you are supposed to reach a guilty verdict only when you are beyond reasonable doubt but in many cases juries may decide to convict on probabilities even though strictly they shouldn’t.”

    Yes but when Troll is trying to create a new legal standard just for death penalty cases one would expect that it would be greater than the current legal standard. But in fact what Troll is proposing is to maintain the current legal standard for death penalty cases and reduce the legal standard for all other criminal cases.

    “It would be easier and much quicker to compile a list of things in general Troll does understand.”

    I have compiled such a list. It is just a blank bit of paper.

  37. Colm

    In the case in question, I believe that it was the horrific brutality of the murder, rather than the guilty verdict itself which determined the death sentence being passed, and that was wrong.

  38. And we can confirm Seamus and Seimi as just disruptive assholes who have no interest in actually debating the issues all they want is to look for anything a word a phrase not used as they see fit so they can attack the messenger and not the message.

    A collection of Evidence is a Preponderance of it Criminal or Civil, it is a Defined Category of a Type of Conviction in a Civil case because the evidence does not have to be forensic.

    However the accumulated evidence in any case criminal or civil is still a preponderance of it.

  39. “A collection of Evidence is a Preponderance of it Criminal or Civil”

    Now it isn’t. A preponderance of evidence is an evidentiary standard (and an evidentiary standard not used in criminal law). You can’t just make up new meanings for words or phrases because you said something stupid. Be a man, for once, and just admit you made a mistake.

  40. Patrick

    Yes but I think the question is are you legally permitted in criminal trials to reach a guilty verdict purely on the preponderance of evidence ?

  41. And we can confirm Seamus and Seimi as just disruptive assholes who have no interest in actually debating the issues all they want is to look for anything a word a phrase not used as they see fit so they can attack the messenger and not the message.

    This is such utter bullshit. Just because Seamus is running rings around you, and you are all over the place (Trump is no longer president…Trump is still president), does not mean I nor Seamus don’t want to debate anything. I will discuss topics with whoever I want to here. If I decide not to discuss anything serious with just you, then that is my choice. Suck it up, you child.

  42. a preponderance of forensic evidence. That is the difference Colm.

    In the criminal case that “big pile” (aka) “a preponderance” of it must be made up of forensic evidence.

  43. “In the criminal case that “big pile” (aka) “a preponderance” of it must be made up of forensic evidence.”

    There is no preponderance of evidence, forensic or otherwise, in a criminal trial. This is yet another topic that you have absolutely no knowledge of. And are now getting abusive towards people because you can’t actual debate the topic. Typical Troll.

    He has no facts. No evidence. Just abuse and (occasionally racist) conspiracy theories.

  44. Seimi it’s not bullshit… you add nothing to this conversation except bile for the sake of attacking another commenter.

    You’re an asshole, plain and simple.

    If Seamus wanted to fight or ask me to be nice he could, his words seem to be showing up just fine…. I was trying to get him to see that he was hung up on a phrase not what I was actually saying with that phrase….

    but you your just an ass that thought oh look Pat is arguing with Seamus I’ll jump in and attack….

    Then the two of you start in unison one hits then the other,,,,,, and this to you is civil?

    No you’re just a bitter asshole, and it’s old.

    Why don’t you try adding something to the conversation of merit…. you were at one time a decent contributor, now you are just an ass.

  45. And on that not I will stop talking with the Butt Buddies….

  46. “Why don’t you try adding something to the conversation of merit…. you were at one time a decent contributor, now you are just an ass.”

    Why don’t you try adding something to the conversation? Because you haven’t yet.

    “And on that not I will stop talking with the Butt Buddies….”

    Typical coward. You are losing an argument and instead of holding your hand up you run away. Anyone surprised?

  47. Fuck yourself Troll. I’m civil with everyone else on this site, and I engage with everyone else on the topic in hand. There’s no rule anywhere that says I have to be civil to you.

    Now dry your eyes and continue being educated.

  48. The preponderance of evidence on this thread is that much more needs to be done before we can beyond reasonable doubt say that the online relationship between Patrick and Seamus and Seimi has been fully repaired 😉

  49. business as usual I see. LOL.

  50. yeah ..lol
    i put it down to butthurt on pat’s side
    in all the melee and nuttiness
    the back drop id they lost WH, house and senate
    but don’t mention it
    ergo heap big pain in backside for maga terrorists
    they lost everything , following Trumps BIG LIE
    about the election
    whoops learn to tell the truth , shame the devil
    will they?
    nope , they made their bed with satan and they like it like that

  51. a lil pic/a> for ya pat .. great eh 😉

  52. Looks like EP put a massive link on the are you now post above, so that now I cannot read it that post without the screen moving around

    I’m not going to change the settings as a workaround ; That post still can be read on other devices

    I’d just try not to post too much code in a comment, embedding not hard

    Kurt

    Above pic not set up as you wanted to?

  53. correct phantom, but still links for me, does it for you ?

  54. Yes it works I see the smiling Biden

    Again the five minute grace period to edit things is good but it would also be good if it was longer than five minutes

  55. Phantom I fixed EP’s link

  56. Cheers

  57. did you see Biden has brought back Susan Powers to run USAID ?

  58. Samantha?

  59. yes

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.