(STAYED) Execution of Cathy Henderson in Texas June 13, 2007
Austin, Texas 78701
Cathy Henderson's Execution has been stayed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The stay was issued Monday, June 11, 2007.
Write Clemency Letters
Cathy Henderson is scheduled to be executed in Texas on June 13, 2007 for the 1994 murder of Brandon Baugh, an infant she was babysitting. Henderson would be the 12th woman put to death in the U.S. since capital punishment was reinstated. Since her arrest, Henderson has maintained that the child's death was accidental. She said that she dropped the baby, fracturing his skull, and then panicked after realizing she could not revive him. She then buried the boy's body and fled to Missouri, where authorities captured her nearly two weeks later. Henderson said that she is sorry for Brandon's death and that she feels regret every day for the pain she caused his family. She notes, "I wish there was something I could do to comfort them, and if it's going to comfort them to end my life for an accident, I hope this gives them comfort."
Henderson's spiritual advisor is Sister Helen Prejean, well-known author of "Dead Man Walking." Sister Helen believes Brandon's death was an accident. She said that the public needs to understand that Henderson is not a monster. "It's easy to kill a monster. It's hard to kill a real human being," she noted.
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Henderson's final appeal. She is seeking clemency from Texas Governor Rick Perry. View a video interview of Henderson by the Kansas City Star (Windows Media Player.
From the webpage Save Cathy Henderson
ACT NOW TO SAVE CATHY
March 2007
In February, the United States Supreme Court denied Cathy's petition for certiorari. This was a huge blow. Her lawyers are pursuing some other "longer shot" options, but if those fail it means her execution, scheduled for April 18, will proceed unless she is granted clemency.
Please help save Cathy's life by writing letters to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and the Texas Governor, Rick Perry. The Clemency Letters link provides pointers for writing such letters.
In the meantime, Cathy's lawyers and a dedicated team are working hard to find some legal means of stopping her execution.
Also from Save Cathy Henderson
Clemency letters
Governors are given a very special power over life and death. They are given the power to grant clemency to someone condemned to die. Clemency is an exercise in mercy, a power that is rarely - very rarely - exercised.
It seems mercy is out of fashion.
We need to change that, for Cathy's sake, for the sake of her daughters.
Please write a letter asking for clemency for Cathy Henderson. Write to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and to the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry.
Note that we have an updated address for letters to the Board of Pardons and Paroles. The envelope should be addressed to:
Board of Pardons and Paroles
Executive Clemency Section
8610 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, TX 78757
The enclosed letter should be addressed to:
Rissie Owen
Presiding Officer
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles & other Board Members
If addressed this way, the letter should find its way to Ms Ramirez, who handles the clemency packages. She will fax a copy to each board member.
Points for your clemency letters
Before you write, read the points below. We are very fortunate to have had advice from a former member of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles on exactly what constitutes an effective clemency letter. The same points apply when writing to the Governor.
The key thing to remember is that the goal of your letter is to save Cathy's life. This letter is not a good time to rail against the inequalities and injustices of the system - doing so will render your letter less effective.
We also recommend you read Tony Rizzo's article in the Kansas City Star, Uncommon Path to Death Row. It shows how Cathy's punishment appears out of kilter with others sentenced to death (a punishment usually reserved for the "worst of the worst"). Not to minimize Brandon's death and his parents suffering, but put in this context, the Board may find there is room for mercy.
(If you do wish to write a letter about the injustices in Cathy's case and in the Texas system, consider addressing it to the editor of one of the local papers, such as the Austin-American Statesman.)
How to write an effective clemency letter
Things to remember
* All of the members of the Parole Board will almost invariably believe that the judicial system is essentially fair and just. Therefore, they believe that Cathy has received a fair trial, has received adequate appeals, and is guilty.
When writing your letter, it does not matter whether you agree with this or not: this is what the Parole Board members believe and it is the context in which they will make their decision.
* The members of the Parole Board are appointed by the Office of the Governor. They will almost invariably reflect the views of the governor, Rick Perry.
* Most members of the Parole Board are not attorneys (currently, four of the seven members are not attorneys), so they generally are not going to consider the legal problems in a case. The members of the Parole Board do not think of their role as being a court of appeals. They view clemency letters essentially as pleas for mercy, and they will need overwhelmingly good reasons to grant that mercy.
Things to do
The bulk of your letter should focus on these points:
* Emphasize Cathy's humanity. If the Parole Board members are going to consider clemency, they need to be able to see Cathy as a human being and not as a murderer. One thing you can do is stress that Cathy is a parent with children.
* The Parole Board members want evidence that the person for whom you're requesting clemency has changed for the better. In Cathy’s case, it would be good to note that she has taken advantage of having spiritual advisors, culminating in Sister Prejean serving as her spiritual advisor.
* The Parole Board members will take into account a person’s criminal history. People with extensive criminal histories have no chance at clemency. In Cathy’s case, she had no felonies and no violent offenses in her background, so highlight this in your letter.
Things to avoid
Your letter might briefly mention the following things, but you should generally avoid them, and the focus of your letter should not be on these issues:
* Philosophical discussions about the shortcomings or the immorality of the death penalty. As far as the members of the Parole Board are concerned, the death penalty is a fact of law, and it’s not their role to change it. They have probably heard all the arguments before.
* The facts of the case. Unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the members of the Parole Board are not going to be weighing the merits of the case or Cathy's guilt or innocence. It would not be out of line, however, to discuss the perceptions of the facts. In Cathy’s case, there is no disputing that Brandon Baugh died. It can be argued, however, that it was an accident. Realize, however, that they will be inclined to believe the forensic report on the injury to Brandon’s head.
* Avoid personal attacks on the people who have been involved in the case. Again, unless there are extraordinary circumstances, the members of the Parole Board are going to be inclined to believe in the integrity of the process and the people who are a part of the process.
Official Website: http://stopexecutions.blogspot.com
Added by niris on March 23, 2007
Comments
Off2DR
When that same judge learned that Cathy was babysitting children in her home, he became so alarmed that he faxed a copy of the court orders to the Department of Human Services to let them know Cathy should not ever be around children!!! The Child Welfare Worker testified at the trial that she went to the home to check on Cathy and the children. Nine, that's 9 days before she murdered Brandon, the Child Welfare Worker went to the home to talk to Cathy about falsifying her application. The CWW said at the time she confronted Cathy, Cathy withdrew her APPLICATION, not license as she had told Eryn and Melissa she had obtained, but application to be a Child Day Care Home. The CWW was asked, "Did you see the Baugh children in the home at that time?" She answered "Yes." The CWW was asked, "Why did you not notify the Baughs after talking to Cathy? The CWW answered, "At the time Cathy withdrew her application for licensed day care, our duty to the Baugh children ended." That is the honest to God truth of what was said.
Cathy also abused her 3rd daughter, Jennifer. A utility man testified that he was working near a clinic. He saw a car pull up and woman get out of the car and yank what looked like a 2 year old girl out of the car. The child was crying. Cathy was angry with the child, so she picked her up under the arms and body slammed the 2 year old to the ground. TWICE. Then she drug the child into the clinic still crying. The utility man was so alarmed that he followed Cathy into the clinic, waited till her name was called to go in to see the doctor, then he left and called DHS and reported Cathy for child abuse.
Learned during the trail that Cathy was turned in multiple times for Child abuse, which by the way, was NEVER INVESTIGATED BY CHILD WELFARE! How are unsuspecting parents supposed to protect their babies from this kind of monster when the system put in place to protect them fails them so miserably?
Cathy Henderson is a future danger to any child she might ever come in contact with therefore the only proper way to deal with her is the punishment of death by lethal injection.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Staff
http://deathpenaltyresource.com
lauraof3
Hey Off2DR..If it is true that she was a wicked Mom, then why is her Daughter happy that she is getting another chance at freedom.
GrandmotherofBrandon
Jennifer was allowed to get to know this monster, who is her mother, while in prison. Don't you believe that Kathy was kind and oh so sincere to Jennifer as she was with Sister Prejean and Sister Rose? Remember that Cathy is a con woman and is very good at lies and deception.
It is no wonder the good sister believed her, even my son and his wife believed Cathy Lynn Henderson's lies. Else they would never have let this monster be around their baby son let alone babysit him.
And yes, Cathy Lynn Henderson did all of those horrible things and more.
They tell you that Cathy is sorry for what she did. Really?? Not so, she has never admitted to the crime she committed and she still tells people it was an accident. It was no accident. She formed the intent and she murdered our baby boy. She has never apologized to the family for what she did, no matter what she tell the good sisters. Of course Cathy is a liar so how would they know. But then the good sisters will not talk to the family either. My son has tried to contact them repeatedly but they refuse to answer him.
Cathy is NOW worried about the suffering of her daughter? She should be ashamed of herself for having put her daughters in the situation of having to deal with this. She isn't a mother, she is a bearer of children. Plain and simple. A mother doesn't allow herself to be in this situation. A mother makes sure she does the right thing so she can be there for her children. It is Cathy's fault her daughter "is having a tough time concentrating in school and fighting depression." How DARE Cathy put her child through this 'bizarre reality' of her life giver being put to death! Nobody ever has any responsibility for their actions.?.? Not now, not ever. This is part of why she is on death row. Not being responsible for her actions.
Thank you for caring about Jennifer and please try to find her a good role model. Teach her that she has to be responsible for her own actions and that if she chooses to do the wrong thing, she must pay the consequences - not blame others, the legal system or the lack of money to pay for justice as an excuse. If anyone is to blame, it is Cathy and Cathy only!
Please review the facts about the case, not just stories gathered from Cathy or people who are throwing out lies. A violent crime DID occur. She shattered our infant's skull with brutal force. It doesn't have anything to do with her not being pleasant to be around or being annoying. It has to do with the solid facts. She murdered him at her house because he was crying. He was crying because he was hungry. He was murdered with an empty stomach. Instead of shattering his soft skull like an egg, she could have given him a bottle. Problem solved. He was a good baby and an easy baby.
Grandmother of Baby Brandon
sbusani
I suppose it is possible that there are innocent people on Death Row. I don't think that Ms. Henderson is one of them. Anyone who is capable of murdering a helpless infant ranks right up there with the Nazis. Ms. Henderson will die far less horrifically than did little Brandon.
norwegian-girl
I just read about this case. We do not have death penalty in Norway - I must admit that I find it hard to be a part in deciding wether a human being should live or not. To participate in taking anorther persons life - I simply could not. This does not mean that I don`t symphatize with the familiy of the victim here - the little babyboy. I have a daughter - I can only imagine how they must feel, what nightmares they must have. People like Ms. Henderson should be put away somewhere for the rest of their lives.
Here in Norway, the newspapers are headlining Ms. Hendersons upcoming execution - that is how I learned about the case. But they do not offer any details, they just say that she claims it was an accident and that she is woman number 12 to be executed in the U.S since 1976.
To " Grandmother of Baby Brandon" : my deepest sympathy goes out to you and your family.
With love,
Ann Elene
sbusani
Dear Ann Elene,
Sometimes it helps to know the facts.
The facts are that Ms. Henderson is a sociopath, a compulsive liar, a person with a well-established history of abusive behavior (against children as well as adults), a thief, a user of illegal drugs, an alcoholic, a con artist and a murderess.
It is for the last crime that she is to be executed on 13 June.
Please do not waste your sympathy on this most undeserving miscreant. She is not worth it.
If the good people of Norway prefer not to have a death penalty, I can understand. And I respect that. Please respect the fact that the majority of the American people in certain states are overwhelmingly in favor of the death penalty. And that the legislators who are elected reflect the wishes of the voters.
Finally, I note that Norway abolished the death penalty in 1906, but brought it back in order to execute Vidkun Quisling. Promptly following his execution after the war, the death penalty was once again abolished.
So, it would appear that in Norway, certain crimes are so grievous, they warrant re-enacting the death penalty, carrying out the execution, and then abolishing the death penalty. Like the Norwegians, Americans recognize that there are certain crimes so hideous that the death penalty is the ONLY punishment possible.
Please save your passions and your sympathies for a cause more deserving than Ms. Henderson. She is getting EXACTLY what she deserves.
norwegian-girl
Dear sbusani.
I do not feel sympathy for Ms.Henderson. And I do respect the fact that so many americans are in favor of the death penalty. I can only speak for my self - and I am against the death penalty. My sympathy however does not go out to those who are to be executed - but to the people that feel the need to execute them. To me it does not matter what horrors a person has afflicted on to me - I could still not see to their death. I could not kill anyone - simply because they themselves have killed. One murder - to me - does not justify another. So my sympathy goes out to the families of the victims - whom I know will not get their peace even after the execution - and to people in general who seem to think that it is ok to kill someone -if this someone has killed first.
I agree that these criminals should never get the upportunity to get back to society - but why can`t they be kept behind bars for the rest of their lives? Is it to expencive? Are we simply "killing them off" to save us the money? Or maybe they get executed because society need their deaths to feel revenged. I don`t know.
As I said to begin with - I do respect the opinion of those in favor of the death penalty. But it does not mean I think it is right. And because I can imagine how much despair and hatred and fear, that must have accumulated, to want to actually execute someone, I feel sympathy for those in favor of the death penalty too. I am willing to bet that you don`t want my sympathy - but then again; it is my privilege to feel sympathy for whom ever I like.
It seems to me that you have interpreted my comment in a wrong way. It was not meant as an attack towards american ways or opinions. I do not think of the american people as less then the norwegian people. I know the norwegian history shows many political wrong-doings. Especially after the war - we - the norwegian people - were bloodthirsty. I am happy however that we do not have the death penalty here now. So is the majority of the norwegian people.
Nice of you to respect that.
sbusani
Dear Ann-Elene,
Thank you for responding. I wish to clarify one thing: there is a difference between "murder" and "execution." Murder is an act which is outside the law. Execution is a fully-legal act, government and court-sanctioned.
Ms. Henderson committed a murder.
The State of Texas will be performing an execution. They have full legal, judicial and legislative power to do that.
I know very many Norwegians as I work in international shipping. I think the Norwegian people are among the kindest and most decent I have ever met. They are not bloodthirsty (at least not for the last 2000 years. The Berserkers, the Vikings -- well, that was a long time ago.
Given what happened in Norway, Vidkun Quisling very much needed to die. He was responsible for the deaths of so many Norwegians.
That is not bloodthirsty, my dear. That is justice. The execution of Cathy Lynn Henderson is also justice.
Best regards,
Susan Busani
norwegian-girl
Dear Sbusani.
I believe we are on a misleading path, when we justify our actions solely by what the ruling government at that time considers legal.
Forgive what might seem as an dramatic parallell, but I find that there is a parallell: Burning witches were considered legal also at one time. I like to think that if I had lived in that timeperiod, I would not have participated in that either. That a higher sense of moral, of right and wrong, would have stopped me.
Who knows - a century from now, maybe people will look back and ask : how could we? How could we accept murder, simply because the government called it an execution? How could we stand by such laws?
I will not get to deep into the religious aspect of this, but merely say that for those of us, and those americans who believe in God, there is a bible that says that "thou`shall not kill". It doesn`t say anything about "except when your government supports it and calls it an execution". The bible clearly states that revenge belongs to him [God]. To keep these criminels behind bars for the rest of their lives, would be an act of self-preservation, a way to protect our communities, killing them (executing them) is a way of revenge - an eye for an eye.
So to sum up: one day our childrens children (children)(...) might look back and ask what made us feel we had the right to terminate somebodys life in the name of the law.
And if there is a God... will He give us salvation because we followed our government laws instead of His?
So they can call it what they like; the law, justice.
It will still not be my law, my justice.
I will never say that I believe something is right, when I deep down in my heart feel that it is wrong.
I don`t think you would have either.
Best regards,
Ann Elene
sbusani
Dear ann Elene,
Well you got your wish. Cathy Lynn Henderson's execution has been stayed yet again. More agony for the Baugh family, whose little boy would be 12 years old were it not for Ms. Henderson.
I respect your views. I do have a question -- was it wrong for the Allies to execute Nazi war criminals? Was it wrong for the Israelis to execute Adolf Eichmann?
I should mention that I am an Orthodox Jew, the child of concentration camp survivors. I am a very big fan of justice. You may be interested to know that my father, like you, does not support capital punishment under any circumstances. It is a great disappointment to him that I truly believe that occasionally, justice comes at the end of a rope, or on a hospital gurney. Being Jewish, I identify more with an eye for an eye than with turning the other cheek. And I do not believe that my compassion or humanity is impaired in some way because I want to see guilty individuals punished commensurate to their misdeeds.
I am not too terribly concerned about "why." That is a question for the philosophers. Speaking of philosophers, what do you think of Jostein Gaarder? Do you agree with his philosophy of hate?
To my simple mind, people like Ms. Henderson are beyond rehabilitation. What kind of a human being murders a helpless infant?
Regards,
Susan
Diamondgirl102906
Indeed Susan, you said that you have a simple mind, whom are you to decide whether or not someone is beyond rehabilitation?
Murder is murder, no matter whether it was sanctioned by the state or not, if you wish to speak of the Nazi's, then I will ask you this, The murder of Jews was sanctioned by the Goverment of Nazi Germany, so I guess in your eyes that was not murder! Goverments constantly execute thier citizens, i.e. Afganistan, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen just to name a few, these are not ranks of which I am proud to join as a nation! We demand that other nations follow the basic principles of human rights, why are we exempt?
Just because our government says that something is right does not mean it is so. That is why we have the framework of the constitution to guarantee certain inalienable rights LIFE IS ONE OF THEM! We are expected to question our leaders and our government and hold them accountable. The government is run by human beings, and no human being is infallible.
I for one do not sympathize with Cathy Henderson, however I do believe that there was a trial error, in not allowing her to present expert testimony at that time, in which case she may not be on death row today. I do beleive in having a fair and equitable justice system, and for the most part we do, however that is not to say that it is perfect. There have been many cases where innocent people have been convicted. Even though I do not beleive in Capital Punishment, I do beleive that if we are to use it, then it would have to be conducted in a criminal justice system that is flawless, which ours clearly is not.
Maybe you are not too terribly concerned with why, but those of us with a conscious, are deeply concerned with why!!!!
I am happy to live in a non death penalty state.
Marlena
sbusani
Part 1 of 2
You are correct about the Nazis, Marlena. Indeed, what happened after the War in the Nuremberg trials is that the victorious countries criminalized acts post facto. The U.S. Constitution prohibits trying someone as a criminal if the act they committed was not a crime at the time of commission. However, the war crimes which were perpetrated by the Nazis and their collaborators (and, indeed, the Japanese) were so shocking and so unconscionable, that steps were taken following the war to criminalize those acts.
I hope some day we bring Sudanese government officials to trial for their unconscionable acts in Darfur. There is, after all, an International Court of Justice in The Hague in Holland whose task it is to bring war criminals and those guilty of crimes against humanity to trial.
That said, I am offended that you accuse of having no conscience (you said "conscious" which is not what I suspect you meant). You are quite wrong. I do have a conscience. It is people like Cathy Lynn Henderson (sociopaths) who have no conscience. I think where you are wrong is in that you are trying to impute emotion and sensitivity in in arena where it has no place. And when I said that "why" is a question for the philosophers and does not concern me is because I think far too much emphasis is put on so-called "mitigation." Look at the whole sordid Cathy Henderson case.
I don't particularly care WHY she murdered a baby in her care. I don't particularly care WHY she chose to bury that infant in a wine cooler box in a shallow grave and leave the state and change her identity. I don't care particularly care WHY she stole things from stores, or WHY she abused her children and abandoned them for weeks or months at a time, or WHY she wrote bad checks, or WHY she abused alcohol or WHY she took illegal drugs, or WHY she threatened to shoot people who might have insulted her, or WHY she has consistently refused to accept responsibility for any of her bad acts. She is what she is. I am VERY concerned with the fact that she MURDERED a baby in her care. That she ABUSED her children and, indeed, her spouse. That she STOLE merchandise that did not belong to her. That she ABUSED illegal drugs. That she ABUSED alcohol to excess. That she frequently became VIOLENT and THREATENED people for no good reason.
I hope that you can recognize that where Ms. Henderson's actions intersected with the ability of others to live in safety and security (most notably, Brandon Baugh), she became a problem of the criminal justice system. It may be imperfect, but it's the best we have at the moment and, frankly, I prefer our criminal justice system to what exists in most of the rest of the world. It's not flawless, but what would you suggest? Abandoning it altogether? That's called anarchy.
People make conscious decisions, Marlena, to live law-abiding lives or to not live law-abiding lives. Where someone bends the law, we have a criminal justice system that determines how to deal with these individuals. And I hope you recognize that certain crimes are worse than other crimes, and therefore the system has evolved to treat the offenders differently, and to look at first-time offenders differently than habitual offenders. You can see that "WHY" has very little to do with it, except in the grand philosophical sense. And I have never been particularly impressed with arguments that are put forth about circumstances of upbringing and environment being responsible for people's illegal acts. That is insulting to the millions of individuals who overcame horrible environments, and painful upbringings and who managed somehow never to commit a single crime in their entire lives.
sbusani
Part 2 of 2
I am not sure I understand what you mean by life being an "inalienable right." It is a non sequitur. But for argument's sake, accepting that rather grand statement as fact, I would ask you to address how you would deal with someone who violated Brandon Baugh's "inalienable right" to life. The good people of Texas have determined that Ms. Henderson's violation of Brandon Baugh's inalienable right to life was egregious enough to warrant a death sentence. I'm inclined to agree with them.
While you're addressing this point, perhaps you might also address the question of "WHY" Ms. Henderson might do such a terrible thing. As I said, to my simple mind, "WHO" is responsible for killing an infant is more important a question than "WHY." Please enlighten me.
Finally, Ms. Henderson was not precluded from presenting expert testimony. One of the experts who testified against her simply said that based on more recent evidence of the mechanics of falls and injuries, he would not be able to testify in the same way. Of course, the other four experts who testified against her have not changed their minds. My sisters are both physicians, and one of them suggested that in light of the fact that Cathy Henderson is five feet tall, it is impossible for Brandon Baugh to have sustained the injuries he had from a simple fall. The more likely scenario is that she picked him up by the heels and slammed his skull into a wall. To which I add the observation that any time I held one of my children and stepped on a toy, my grip on my child tightened. That's an instinctive reaction -- to my simple mind.
Thank you Marlena.
Diamondgirl102906
sbusani,
I have read and reread the transcripts and writs from the Henderson case. Some of the information I beleive is true, and other stuff I may question.
Dr. Bayardo, (the one that is recanting his testimony) I might add was not a defense expert, he was a prosecution expert. When Cathy Henderson's trial Attorneys asked for the funds to obtain a biomechanics expert the court declined that request, anytime a defendant is being tried in a case where the punishment is death or life in prison they should have the access to any and all resources they may need to defend themselves. Also Henderson's attorneys were compelled to turn over a map that she drew under attorney client privilege, a violation of her right to self-incrimination, whether or not she is gulity these were issues at trial, and in light of that I have a particular issue with putting someone to death.
I don't consider hyself a supreme human being capable of deciding who lives and who dies.
There is a paragraph in the The Constitution part of which reads LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. The whole reason our Constiitution was written, and I might add our nation founded, was to flee the tyranny and oppsession of others. The death pnalty is opression. When I say that our justice system is flawed, Imean just that I would agree with you that right now it is the best we have, however in light of the errors that are made, how can one advocate imposing the ultimate penalty of death?
I understand that hte death of Brandon was sad, tragic and unfair! Cathy's death won't bring him back, and she won't hurt anyone if she is in prison for the rest of her life, which is where she likely belongs.
I am concerned with why, and the mitigating circumstances, because as a society we can't address things that are happening unless we attempt to understand why they are happening.
As, for your sister and the rest of the doctors out there, I respect thier opinions, however depending on who you talk to and when all of the opinions will be different, is your sister an expert in infant head trauma?
As for reactions everyone is different, in terms of physical,and emotional reactions, and sadly enough upbringing can have a profound impact on emotional recation, in this case fight or flight response.....if flight is all that you know, that may be the response.
That is why I beleive there are mitigating circumstnaces. Many of us can overcome that stuff there are others that cannot. Some break the law because it is the only way they know to survive.........Cathy was a victim off abuse and she gave as good as she got .However sad as iit is a true fact. I agree what she did is horiffic, however imposing death makes us no better than her.
sbusani
You need to go back and read the constituion.
It is the Declaration of Independence which refers to "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Not the U.S. constitution. Even if it did, we would have to weigh which is more important: Cathy Henderson's rights as opposed to the denial of such rights to Brandon Baugh, for which Cathy Henderson -- I remind you -- is responsible.
My sister is a pediatric neurosurgeon.
I, for one, do not understand Cathy Henderson's flight impulse. To me it speaks of guilt more than anything else. I also do not believe that she administered CPR. All of her actions following the death of Brandon while in her care and custody bespeak the actions of someone with something real and serious to hide. She ran. She tried to change her appearance. She got rid of her license plates. She obtained false identification.
Every comment I have seen posted by a member of the Baugh family has been reasoned and thoughtful. I think they would have been equally reasonable and considered had they received a telephone call from Ms. Henderson along the lines of "I was holding Brandon. I tripped over a toy, and he flew out of my arms, landed skull first on the cement floor. I called EMT and am at the hospital now. Please come."
Isn't that what an innocent person would do?
I know people who experienced horrific abuse while growing up. They have not become murderers or abusers in turn. The fact that some do and some do not does not a mitigating factor make. Particularly since I have seen no evidence in any of the trial and appellate records that anyone testified bearing out Ms. Henderson's alleged abuse-driven upbringing.
Now that the immediate pressures of impending execution no longer need concern Ms. Henderson, I would love to see her agree to a polygraph examination. I know that it is not necessarily an indication of guilt or innocence. But I'd be real curious to see what happens.
Whether or not to impose death is a decision of the good people of the State of Texas. It is not yours or mine to make. Whether or not to request clemency is a decision of the members of the Baugh family (keep in mind they are the real victims in this case -- they lost a son at a horrifically early age).
If you think the death penalty is cruel and unusual, wouldn't you be much happier living in a country that adheres to your point of view?
Dina6
Dear Sbusani,
I also live in a country that does not have the death penalty (New Zealand) For those of us in countries such as mine, the idea of executing ones citizens does seem rather strange. You must understand that over here even our police force is unarmed, and the idea of a jury of ones peers or judges determing whether someone lives or dies is totally foreign to us.
From what I have read of this case I believe Ms. Henderson to be guilty, I have no sympathy for her whatsoever, and believe she should never see the outside of a jail cell for the rest of her life.
State sanctioned execution, especially considering the amount of death row inmates released since the advent of DNA testing, is not something I could support though. I do however believe that if the majority of Americans support the death penalty, and it seems that they do, then by all means it should be in place in your country.
I think you should not take these comments or the comments of some of the other posters as criticism of your justice system. Rather imagine yourself in a country where you have never experienced this 'type' of justice. Simply the majority of our citizens just do not have an appetite for it. Surely you too would struggle to understand it if you had never experienced it. The only execution I have seen is the Hollywood type, and for that I am eternally grateful.
Dina.
Diamondgirl102906
Dear Sbusani,
At no time in any post did I advocate that I thought that Cathy Henderson or her actions following the death of Brandon were right, they clearly are not.
I will tell you, as a victim of abuse and of violent crime, that everyone deals with that abuse in different ways some of us cope better than others, and some of us receive the help and the counseling that we need to overcome our situation while others do not, I can tell you first hand that I personally witnessed many who did not have acccess to the care they needed, that as such has a way of manifesting itself many different ways. Do I think that is an excuse to go and commit a crime, no I don't but it does lend a hand in understanding why which is a mitigating circumstance. If you look at everything you will see she was abused, and that is the life that she knows.
The fight/flight repsonse is well documented in modern psychology, is you wish to read about it. Do I think that Cathy did the right thing no I don't, (i.e) changing appearance, false i.d. etc, I agree that those are indicitive of gulit, however it can be the guilt of negligence, invouluntary, manslaughter, capital murder, or a number of other things, and they dont prove means or motive either so that does not sway me in the least.
I do not belive that death imparts justice, and personally I don't feel that it is" up to good people of the State of Texas." as you put it, or to any human being for that matter to decide who lives and who dies and when, that is left to one supreme being to which Cathy Henderson will have to answer.
Quite honestly the polygraph is meaningless, what would you say if she passed?
As for your last comment, I HAVE FOUGHT for this country, and love this country, so no I don't think would be happier in a country that adheres to my point of view. Part of what makes this country great is that we have the freedom to voice our opinions. And while I respectfully disagree with you ( as many other Americans do I might add) I have the right to my own opinion. If you don't understand that maybe you would be best off living in a communist or totalitarian state, that reflects the view of if the government says its so then it is.
Marlena
sbusani
Dear DIna,
I do love Kiwis. Hawk's Bay is number two on my list of must-see places. New Zealand also has to be one of the most tolerant places on the face of the earth. I don't know about crime rates there, but I don't think they are very high.
America's problems are a little more peculiar. We have a population of 300 million, not all of whom are law abiding. We also have a huge problem with recidivism. Moreover, the 635 criminals who were executed in the United States between 1998 and 2005 were responsible for the deaths of 1,315 people (that we know of; they may have committed murders for which they were not charged and sentenced). That is an average of close to 3 murdered victims per executed killer. It's simple enough to say "Toss them into jail and throw away the key." But it doesn't work that way. We fund educational programs, and legal appeals ad nauseum, and medical care and psychological outreach programs. Very little of it to much avail. I'd, frankly, rather see the money spent on crime victims and abuse victims and the people who are left in the wake of the murderers' vicious acts. It would be nice to pay for absolutely everything at the taxpayers' expense, but that is impractical and intolerable for any number of reasons. In an environment of rapidly increasing crime and rapidly diminishing funds, I know how I'd like to see the resources spent. Prolonging comfortable lives in prison for people who have been sentenced to death is not my idea of money well spent.
I don't mean to sound so harsh. I am actually a rather kind and tolerant person. I just pick my spots.
New Zealand has what, 4 million, 5 million people? Hell, we have more than that in jail in the United States. New Zealand can afford not to have capital punishment. I'm not sure the U.S. can. I do know that the overwhelming majority of Americans support capital punishment. I don't think they came by their views casually; it is a subject people give quite a bit of thought to because it is irrevocable. I suppose most people arrive at their opinions on the basis of their knowledge and experience. There is a lot of violent crime in the U.S.; that might be what prompts Americans to feel the way they do.
Susan
sbusani
Marlena,
I don't know what I would say if Ms. Henderson passes a polygraph. She has steadfastly refused to take one. When she does, I'll comment. I'll tell you what, though: were she to take one and pass, I will keep in mind that she might be innocent if you will keep in mind that she might be a sociopath with no conscience.
Who should determine how to sentence crimes committed in Texas if not the people of Texas? Government by the people means government by the people -- not government by the people whose opinions you like.
I'm sorry to hear you are a survivor of abuse. Clearly, you have overcome those shadows in your past. I wish you well.
Cathy Lynn claims to be an abuse survivor; that has never been corroborated. Doesn't it offend you -- as a true abuse survivor -- that someone should so cheapen your horrific experiences by inventing a history of abuse in order to garner pity and support from people?
The people who suffer abuse incur real emotional scars. They are worthy of real sympathy and real assistance. Cathy Lynn wants to join the club, but she hasn't paid the dues. Of course, from what I read in the transcripts, just about everyone she has come in contact with has suffered abuse at her hands.
I am the child of Nazi concentration camp survivors. For you to accuse me of totalitarian views is reprehensible. It is also morally repugnant. (Unless, of course, you are simply poorly educated, in which I apologize; you just didn't know better. Going forward, however, you do know better. Don't make that mistake twice, dear. You have no idea how offensive it is.)
So, what do you think the odds are of Ms. Henderson taking a polygraph?
Diamondgirl102906
Dear Susan,
I am sorry if I offended you, however I was offended by the comment that I might what to live in a country that adheres to my point of view, as I have served and fought for this country.
I am not offended by Cathy Henderson's claims of abuse, being a survivor of abuse I have seen and understand that abuse comes in many forms and I do beleive that she was a victim of abuse at the hands of her mother, which I beleive is what manifested some of her behavior. I am not entirely clear on her relationships with men, however I inclined to beleive that there was an "exchange" of abuse based on what I've read. In my case I had very loving and dedicated parents, who were there for me, they were not drunks or drug abusers like hers, and I had the best counselors and doctors in the world, she did not have that, as many do not, its not really a wonder to me that she never learned to cope, as I have seen it time and time again. I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I overcame I managed to get through college and grauate school, and begin to move on, yes the scars are there they always will be. Many of times in the past 12 years I wanted to face my perpetrator and ask why........but you know what it would not have mattered what he said there is no answer that would have been acceptable to me. As for those of us that have suffered you say we deserve sympathy, you know what, by and large we don't want sympathy,we are no different than anyone else.
Susan ,I beleive in the 10 commandments, and though shall not kill, and vengance is mine sayeth the lord. Killing is killing whether it is done by the state, or just a person. If in fact Cathy Henderson intended to murder Brandon Baugh she will face her judgement, which will be far more tthan anything on this earth.
The livesof other people,are not political pawns that should be used as a staging ground for politicians which they often are, I find that morally repugnant. Most of the civilized countries in the world have outlawed capital punishment, and I think that it is with good reason.
I was reading your post above that was addressed to someone else with regard to the costs of caring for death row inmates:
A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 ), please consider that when you speak of taxpayers expense.
I don't care if she takes a polygraph quite frankly, the results would be interesting I agree, how ever I would lend no credence to the results either way.
Your parents are survivors of the concentration camps? Out of curiosity, what is thier stance on this issue? The opinions of those that have had to suffer state sponsored torture,abuse and death are opinions that truly matter as it is they that understand the effects of a government murdering it own people.
Regards,
Marlena
Diamondgirl102906
Dear Susan,
I am sorry if I offended you, however I was offended by the comment that I might what to live in a country that adheres to my point of view, as I have served and fought for this country.
I am not offended by Cathy Henderson's claims of abuse, being a survivor of abuse I have seen and understand that abuse comes in many forms and I do beleive that she was a victim of abuse at the hands of her mother, which I beleive is what manifested some of her behavior. I am not entirely clear on her relationships with men, however I inclined to beleive that there was an "exchange" of abuse based on what I've read. In my case I had very loving and dedicated parents, who were there for me, they were not drunks or drug abusers like hers, and I had the best counselors and doctors in the world, she did not have that, as many do not, its not really a wonder to me that she never learned to cope, as I have seen it time and time again. I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I overcame I managed to get through college and grauate school, and begin to move on, yes the scars are there they always will be. Many of times in the past 12 years I wanted to face my perpetrator and ask why........but you know what it would not have mattered what he said there is no answer that would have been acceptable to me. As for those of us that have suffered you say we deserve sympathy, you know what, by and large we don't want sympathy,we are no different than anyone else.
Susan ,I beleive in the 10 commandments, and though shall not kill, and vengance is mine sayeth the lord. Killing is killing whether it is done by the state, or just a person. If in fact Cathy Henderson intended to murder Brandon Baugh she will face her judgement, which will be far more tthan anything on this earth.
The livesof other people,are not political pawns that should be used as a staging ground for politicians which they often are, I find that morally repugnant. Most of the civilized countries in the world have outlawed capital punishment, and I think that it is with good reason.
I was reading your post above that was addressed to someone else with regard to the costs of caring for death row inmates:
A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 ), please consider that when you speak of taxpayers expense.
I don't care if she takes a polygraph quite frankly, the results would be interesting I agree, how ever I would lend no credence to the results either way.
Your parents are survivors of the concentration camps? Out of curiosity, what is thier stance on this issue? The opinions of those that have had to suffer state sponsored torture,abuse and death are opinions that truly matter as it is they that understand the effects of a government murdering it own people.
Regards,
Marlena
sbusani
Dear Marlena,
Thank you for your open and frank discussion of abuse. I think you are quite remarkable in your refusal to allow your experience to dominate your life.
My father is adamantly, eternally and forever opposed to the death penalty. My mother is "undecided." Depends on the crime, she says.
You quote the Bible; fair enough, but allow me to explain the Jewish interpretation.
Starting with the patriarchs -- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob -- up to Moses, in fact, the relationship between Jews and G-d is a close and personal one --- a lot of one-on-one communication. Some scholars say that this was essential while the Jews were largely a desert, nomadic people. With Moses, that changes. With Moses, you have the instruction that the Jews are to inhabit the land of Canaan, or, essentially, to become, for the first time, city dwellers. There is to be no more one-on-one communication with G-d. However, we get, in the form of the Ten Commandments, a pretty good framework with which to organize our lives (by our, I mean Jews -- I don't know enough about other religions to attribute an interpretation.
All religions are comprised of two aspects -- spiritual and ritual. Spiritual is what you believe, ritual is what you practice. While there is diversity among Jews in terms of ritual practice (some Jews keep kosher; others don't; some observe the Sabbath in a very restrictive manner; others don't .... etc.) All Jews, however, believe the same thing. The first five books of the Bible (the Torah) is G-d's truth, as revealed to Moses. Everything else is commentary.
The reason for the above digression is to explain to you that "Thou shalt not kill" does not mean quite what you might think. Most of the book of Leviticus, and a large part of Deuteronomy, is given over to prescribing how Jews are to live in society. There is clearly a death penalty -- for quite a few things, actually. Implicit in this is the sense that there is an evolving sense of morality, and while the basic tenets remain fast, interpretations can be modified as needed for future use.
Consequently, we no longer stone people to death (well, except the Iranians, of course). Evolving standards of decency. The Ten Commandments work pretty well -- they've remained a pretty good framework for about six thousand years -- but keep in mind that they are intended for individuals as they interact with other individuals.
The Hebrews went to war quite a bit -- that's a government sort of exercise. So while the injunction "thou shalt not kill" extends to people within one society interacting with other people within that society, quite clearly it does not extend to governments or people in power invoking war. Similarly, it would not be an injunction to which modern governments need adhere if they wish to designate certain crimes as capital.
sbusani
continued .....
I'm not sure I'm expressing myself as clearly as I wish. The difference is clear to me, though I don't think I'm explaining myself well at all.
Okay. Let me try it this way. An American solder in Iraq today who kills an insurgent who is trying to kill him is NOT guilty of murder. There are different classes of terminating the existence of a human being.
There is killing .... there is execution .... there is self-defense .... there is accidental (e.g., vehicular) homicide ... there is depraved indifference. There is doing one's duty on the battlefield. There's lots of ways to end a life, not all of which have criminal ramifications.
"Thou shalt not kill" refers to killing. Not execution, not self-defense, not accidental death, not military action.
I'm still not sure I'm making my point. It is 1:35 in the morning. Let's see if sleep helps; I'll check back in tomorrow.
Susan
Dina6
Dear Susan,
I appreciate your comments and agree that it is difficult to compare New Zealand and America in regards to crime and punishment. We do have our fair share of crime, but granted we are well down the list in worldwide crime stats per capita. It is also apparent that the US is leading the western world in murder statisics per capita, therefore the question should be asked as to whether capital punishment is making your country safer. It may sound simplistic, but it seems to me that the criminals you are executing are like sharks teeth, and for every one you execute there is another just waiting to takes its place. My interest lies more in crime prevention, do you believe that the US gives enough time and attention to this area?
Rehabilitation is good to a point, but I think we all agree many criminals are beyond help, and in NZ we actually incacerate more prisoners (per capita) than most other western countries. But our focus is more on identification of 'high risk' families and early intervention. I note that when you speak to limits of taxpayer funded programmes, they are all 'after the fact' Taxpayer funds spent in the right areas early on, can save you a lot of money, and a lot of suffering as a society in the long run.
Criminals do not just happen by accident. Most criminals are determined before they even enter their first school. Ask any junior school teacher and I'm certain they could identify tomorrows criminals with a high degree of accuracy.
In NZ there are no homeless people, unless they choose to be. Low income earners are given government assistance with rent, and all essentials including food, electricity etc. Unemployed people are able to access free training programmes. We have free healthcare for everyone, a free education system up until university, and for low income earners who want to go university (I think you say college) you can borrow the full amount for your degree and living expenses. When you have completed your learning and are in full employment earning over a certain amount, you begin to pay back your loan with no interest. What do you end up with then? An educated and healthy society, with people who are able to contribute to the taxpayer pot and so it goes. (The size of my country also is not too relevant, as clearly we have far less people contributing via taxes etc, so it is swings and roundabouts really)
I am not saying things are perfect here, they are not. But surely some of the things I have mentioned above, are effective at 'preventing' crime which surely is the ultimate goal. If execution was the key to creating a safer society, then America should be getting pretty safe by now. Is it?
I find your other comments in the above post interesting. I am always amused at the degree of wiggle room one can find in biblical interpretation when one is trying to justify a point of view. My favourite would be the amount of 'rich men' who believe they will squeeze through the eye of that needle to reach the pearly gates.
And I think to suggest that execution is not killing is pushing that envelope right off the edge of the table. The dictionary describes killing as the "act of a person or thing that kills' just because a group of people (and that is all a government is) declare it to be there desire, does not make the act any different. To end someones life is to kill them. Whether on the battlefield, on the gurney, or up a dark alley is irrelevant. Is there criminal differences? Yes, because that same group of people (governments) say there is.
Dina6
con.......In the Middle East honour killings are considered justified. Cannibalism was quite popular for a while in some places too, that was also quite a good justification for taking a life.
We can floss it up, make it look pretty and pin a label to it if we like. But to deprive someone of their life is to kill them, and you either support the belief that that can sometimes be justified or you dont. There is no wiggle room except in the case of self defence which is actually the act of saving a life (your own) and with the likes of accidental death where intent is clearly absent.
Dena
sbusani
Dear Dena,
I'll try to address your points in turn.
First, keep in mind 300 million (U.S.) as opposed to 4-5 million (New Zealand). Just the bureaucracy differential is staggering.
We do have early intervention programs in the U.S. Is it enough? No, of course not. It is a barely a drop in the bucket. We also have a huge number of illegals here; estimates run to 35 million or thereabouts. These people do their mightiest to stay below the radar. Yet, the social services laws are weighted towards them. I am not entitled to free medical care. They are. As a taxpayer, I can tell you that free public education is a fallacy. It's not free for me; the public schools in New York City (where I live) are horrible places, and although as a taxpayer I support the public schools financially, I would not dream of sending my children there. I have two college-age children (annual tuition: $88,000) and a high-school sophomore (annual tuition: $26,000). My children are (thankfully) good students and in any other country in the world, might actually get scholarships. Not in the U.S., however, where financial aid and scholarships are not merit-based, not need-based, but rather "diversity based." Translation: if you are white, Jewish and middle-class, don't even bother applying. We call that "affirmative action," though I can't see anything affirmative about it. I call it the dumbing down of America, when children who are functionally illiterate get full scholarships to college. Did you know that remedial reading and remedial math are common on university campuses in the U.S.? Do you see the basic problem here. But, because it is not politically correct to suggest that perhaps we've gone a wrong road, no one says anything. But everybody I know quietly seethes inside. Except those who benefit from the programs. They laugh all the way to the bank.
Of course, affirmative action programs in education haven't worked at the undergraduate level, so we extended them to graduate school. Of course, affirmative action at the undergraduate level is supposed to "level the playing field." So why are they needed at the graduate level? Oh, never mind. That was a rhetorical question.
Crime. In this country, it starts at an early age. And it escalates. The juvenile courts are among the busiest in the country. More and more juveniles are tried as adults because of the type of crimes they commit. Intervention doesn't seem to have worked. Anti-gang programs do not seem to have worked. Counseling, after-school programs, fresh-air programs in the country during summers doesn't seem to have worked. These programs are publicly funded (meaning, by the taxpayers). Sooner or later, we will have to face facts and decide what to do? What is more important? Keeping the public safe and these kids locked up forever, or keep trying, keep failing, and watch the murder rate rise?
to be continued
sbusani
What do you mean about the eye of a needle? I don't recognize it from my Bible. Does it come from the New Testament? That would be your Bible, not mine. Sorry ....
Of course there is a difference between murder and execution. Murder is per force illegal, and criminal. Execution is the legally-mandated carrying out of a judicially-imposed sentence. You can argue this point 'til the cows come home, and perhaps -- as a Norwegian poster suggested and as an American poster seconded -- 2000 years from now we will have figured a better way. But for the most part, most societies throughout history have maintained capital punishment. Some have in recent times abolished it. Some have abolished it and then brought it back. Some have it for extremely precisely-defined crimes (treason, for the most part). Israel, which has a huge terrorist problem, does not have a death penalty for terrorists. Kudos to them. I, frankly, would not be that generous of spirit. (Call me vindictive if you wish: on September 11, 2001, I looked out my office window and watched two airplanes hit the World Trade Center; watched the two towers collapse; and remember the ensuing shock, horror and grief. These are not "freedom fighters." These are terrorists. What would you do with them, by the way? I know there is a difference between Australians and New Zealanders (well you're both Antibideans, but distinctly different societies). What was your reaction to the bombing of the nightclub in Bali that killed so many Australians? You call that freedom fighting? Or do you think it was terror?
To your mind, do terrorists deserve a death penalty? What should we do with them? See, to my mind, freedom fighters might attack a government installation. They might wish to take on an army base. Some overt symbol of government, or national power. That's what the French Resistance did during World War II, for example. They never laid a hand on innocent civilians. Or people who did nothing wrong but choose to go to work one beautiful Tuesday morning in New York and Washington D.C.
But I digress.
Plenty of wiggle room between "murder" -- which might be deemed punishable by death -- and judicially-mandated execution, or justifiable homicide (such as self-defense), or causing a death during time of war.
Looking forward to your response. And please do not ridicule my Biblical interpretation, just because yours is different. That's quite rude.
sbusani
to Dena, Marlena, Anne Elene,
You are all thoughtful, articulate people with whom I would like to correspond. However, I am conscious of the fact that this is a post thread devoted to Cathy Lynn Henderson. I do not wish to digress from that post, although I would like to correspond with all of you (thoughful, articulate people have become a rarity on the Internet!). Please feel free to contact me at [email protected], if you wish. I do look forward to hearing from you!
Regards
Susan
dena
Hi Susan,
I would just like to point out that I did not ridicule your biblical interpretation at all. I merely commented that people often selectively use biblical quotations to bolster their arguments one way or the other. I am sure you must have noticed that yourself! If that does not apply to yourself then all well and good. I am not a rude person at all.
Dena.
sbusani
Dear Dena,
Sorry. I'm a little sensitive about it.
Actually, I wasn't using the Bible to bolster my argument. Were I to want to do that, it would be sufficient to stop at "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Distinctions between "murder" and "execution" have existed in most cultures for a very, very long time; I can certainly cite others. I was merely reaching back as far as I could. History is replete with examples, but Biblical text is as good and thoughtful as authority as any. Besides, more people are likely to know the Bible than just about any other text,
Susan
BEFAIR
A CHILD'S SKULL IS VERY FRAGILE. IT MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT. AND IF THE CHILD LANDED ON HIS HEAD THEN IT IS POSSIBLE THE DAMAGE CAUSED WAS FROM THIS ACTION. WHERE IS THE MOTIVE TO KILL A CHILD THAT IS IN HER CARE AND IF SHE IS SUCH A CON THEN SHE IS SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW SHE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CHILDS CARE. SMASING A CHILDS SKULL TO WHICH SHE KNOWS ANY DAMAGE CAUSED SHE WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER FOR DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. THEN FLEEING TO ANOTHER STATE AND BURRYING THE CHILD DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THIS WAS PREMEDITATED. WHICH IS WHAT A CRIME IS SUPPOSED TO CONSIST OF FOR THE DEATH PENALTY. WE ARE NOT GOD WHAT GIVES US THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHO LIVES AND WHO DIES? DRUGS ALTHOUGH NOT AN EXCUSE MAKE PEOPLE DO THINGS THEY NORMALLY WOULDN'T DO. IT'S A SICKNESS. WHAT IF SHE HAD A MENTAL ILLNESS LIKE MUNCHAUSENS? WAS SHE EVER EVALUATED? IF SHE HATED CHILDREN SO MUCH WHY DID SHE HAVE HER OWN? WHY NOT HAVE ABORTIONS? IF SHE HATED CHILDREN WHY BABYSIT? THE PAY SUCKS AND WHY DO SOMETHING YOU HATE? THERE ARE ALOT OF IF'S IN THIS.AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT IS BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EXCEPT A CHILD DIED WHILE IN HER CARE. OF COURSE MY HEART GOES OUT TO THE VICTIMS FAMILY. I'M JUST SAYING SHE MORE THEN LIKELY WOULD HAVE KILLED ONE OF HER OWN CHILDREN THAT SHE WAS AROUND DAY IN AND DAY OUT WAY BEFORE SHE WOULD HAVE DONE WHAT SHE IS ACCUSED OF WITH ANOTHER PERSONS CHILD IN HER CARE. ATLEAST IF SHE IS THE MONSTER EVERYONE IS MAKEING HER OUT TO BE. DOES THIS WOMAN DESERVE THE SAME FATE AS SOMEONE WHO PLANNED AND THEN EXCUTED THE RAPE AND MURDER OF A 5 YEAR OLD CHILD? OR A SERIAL MURDERER? THERE ARE SERIAL KILLERS WITH LIFE SENTENCES IN THE SYSTEM. WHY DOES THIS WOMAN NEED TO DIE? I'M SURE SHE DIDN'T PLAN ON WHAT SHE DID OR WHAT HAPPENED. IF SHE DID PURPOSELY KILL THIS CHILD IT WAS IN A MOMENT OF RAGE. JUST LIKE A HUSBAND COMMING HOME AND FINDING HIS WIFE IN BED WITH SOMEONE AND HE LOSES CONTROL AND SHOOTS THE PERSON. NOT THAT IT IS EXCUSEABLE BUT IT CERTAINLY ISN'T PREMEDITATED. AND THERE IS REASONABLE DOUBT AS TO HOW THIS HAPPENED OTHERWISE THE EXAMINER WOULD NOT RECANT HIS TESTIMONY NOR WOULD 5 JUDGES GRANT A STAY. THESE ARE JUST SOME POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE. I AM BY NO MEANS SAYING I BELIEVE SHE IS INNOCENT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN AN ACCIDENT. JURY'S HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE. LOOK HOW MANY PEOPLE ON DEATH ROW WERE FOUND INNOCENT AFTER LOSEING 10, 13 YEARS OF THEIR LIFE FROM AVAILABLE DNA EVIDENCE. THIS CRIME DOESN'T FIT THE PUNISHMENT. NOT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE CHARLIE MANSON ETC . WHO WEREN'T GIVEN THE DEATH PENALTY.
BEFAIR
Dr John Plunkett, a forensic pathologist with an expertise in infant head
trauma, states that while he agrees with the experts at trial that an impact
injury caused Brandon Baugh’s death, Dr Bayardo’s conclusions were "wrong" and
that he had "strayed from his area of medical competence and expertise when he
opined about the amount of ‘force’ sustained by Brandon Baugh, and opined that
this ‘force’ could not have been sustained accidentally". Dr Plunkett notes
that the trial transcripts indicate that "none of the medical witnesses in Ms
Henderson’s trial understood [the science of biomechanics]". Dr Plunkett states
that he has reviewed at least two cases of accidental falls of less than four
and half feet involving infants that "caused fractures virtually identical to
Brandon’s". Dr Stephens concurs, stating that "since 2000, physicians have
increasingly recognized that lethal injury to the infant can, and does, occur
from an accidental fall, even of a short distance… It is simply incorrect to
state that only a fall from a bunk bed, balcony, or upper story window can
cause such an injury. Forensic pathologists, biomechanical scientists and many
paediatricians now agree that such comparisons are without scientific merit and
should not be made."
BEFAIR
In her report on the case, Dr Janice Ophoven notes: "In the past, the
characteristics of a fracture of the type seen in Brandon were assumed to
denote an abusive injury. However, current scientific experience reflects a
more conservative analytical approach to skull fracture evaluation. The nature
of the fracture itself cannot be used to determine whether the injury is due to
an accident or inflicted injury". Fourthly, Dr Kenneth Monson, a leading
biomechanics expert, states that the ‘force’ at which Brandon Baugh’s skull
would have hit the floor under Cathy Henderson’s version of events was enough
to cause the injury that killed him. The accidental death of Brandon Baugh, he
states, "cannot be ruled out given the current state of knowledge".
The large number of errors discovered in capital cases in the USA over recent
years may have been one of the factors contributing to a lessening in public
support for this irrevocable punishment. Science has played its part in
revealing such errors. For example, in 15 of the 124 cases of prisoners
released from death rows since 1973 on grounds of wrongful conviction, DNA
testing played a substantial role in establishing the inmate’s innocence. In
each of these cases at the original trial, the prosecution had argued, and the
jury or judge had found, that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt. In some cases, the state had supported its theory of guilt with expert
evidence. For example, in Texas, investigators concluded that a house fire that
killed two people in 1986 was arson, and Ernest Willis was sentenced to death.
Post-conviction investigations using modern methods concluded that there was no
evidence of arson, and Willis was released after more than 15 years on death
row. In Mississippi, Sabrina Butler was acquitted at a retrial in 1995, five
years after she was sentenced to death for the murder of her nine-month-old
child. It is now believed that the baby may have died either of cystic kidney
disease or from sudden infant death syndrome.
txgiggles
I have followed this story since it began. I have shed many tears for Brandon and his family.
A few years prior to all this, I, myself, interviewed her to babysit my daughter. I declined to use her. I didn't feel comfortable the way she handle my child. She was very nervous, shaky, and unstable. When she tried to pick up my child, who was only 8 months old, she was shaking considerably. I went with my instinct and said no. She did keep phoning me after the interview and asking why she couldn't babysit for me. She even dropped the price of the babysitting fee. I just couldn't do it.
I don't know how it feels to lose a child. I have seen my aunt lose her oldest son. I pray every day for those who were involved in this situation. I hope some day there will be closure for them.
txgiggles
I have followed this story since it began. I have shed many tears for Brandon and his family.
A few years prior to all this, I, myself, interviewed her to babysit my daughter. I declined to use her. I didn't feel comfortable the way she handle my child. She was very nervous, shaky, and unstable. When she tried to pick up my child, who was only 8 months old, she was shaking considerably. I went with my instinct and said no. She did keep phoning me after the interview and asking why she couldn't babysit for me. She even dropped the price of the babysitting fee. I just couldn't do it.
I don't know how it feels to lose a child. I have seen my aunt lose her oldest son. I pray every day for those who were involved in this situation. I hope some day there will be closure for them.
Off2DR
Here is some information you should know about Cathy Henderson and this horrific crime she committed:
Baby Brandon's head was shattered. When a child is born, their skulls are still soft. It's a trait that aids in the childbirth and there is a soft spot on the skull that eventually closes over. Because the bone has a rubbery texture to it, it's almost impossible to crack. The cracks in his skull were so extensive that they almost encircles the skull and there was about a 2 inch circular piece at the back that had been pushed in with radiating lines to about a 4 inch diameter and the bone in between the inner and outer cirle had been fragmented. The coroner stated that the amount of force to cause that much damage would be the equivalent of being hit with a baseball bat. The only thing he could theorize that could cause that much damage is that she grabbed him by the ankles, swung him like a hammer and slammed his head into a hard object like a concrete floor....repeatedly.
Cathy's daughter Melissa testified AGAINST her mother. Cathy was abusive to her and after they divorced, Melissa had her parental rights terminated. Cathy was so furious at her daughter that she swore that one day when Melissa had a child she would come and take it from her so she would know the pain of losing a child. It was her own child's testimony and fear that the jury heard when they decided that she would be a continuing threat to society. They coupled that in with one of Cathy's in-laws testifying that she had come to his house drunk one evening and attacked him with a knife. (it's in the court transcripts if you want to look it up)
The woman has serious anger issues, along with drug problems and alcohol abuse. She was also abusive to the men she lived with and practiced domestic violence with her male partners. She gave as good as she got. She stabbed one male partner, threw a cup of boiling water in her 1st husband's face and cold cocked the 2nd husband with a telephone. She never admitted to any problems with herself, it was always someone else's fault she had to stab, beat, hit abuse them!
Cathy was also a con woman and a multiple child abuser, who abused all 3 of her own children. Cathy was not married to the father of her first child. Her first child, Melissa, was removed from Cathy's custody for severe abuse and neglect. The child Melissa, testified in court that Cathy used to burn her with the curling iron, beat, her starve her, and severely mistreat her. Melissa was so abused by Cathy that she used to hide in the dog house and sleep with the dog and eat the dog food to keep away from her mother, especially when Cathy was doing drugs and staying drunk and had her male battling partners in the home. Then Cathy abandoned the child with a babysitter for weeks at a time. Eventually, her rights to the child were terminated and the woman who had cared for Melissa adopted her. Then the child had a stable home and a loving mother. The only times Cathy called or contacted the child, she do so to upset the girl or make her feel guilty that she was no longer living with Cathy.
Cathy lost custody of her second daughter by her first husband, but she still had visitation rights. That was a violent relationship with drugs, alcohol abuse and domestic violence, between her and the husband. In the summer of 1993, Cathy took the child for a visitation to Possum Kingdom to a family reunion. Cathy did not want to take care of her during the visit and forced the child to take some kind of drugs that would knock the child out and make her sleep. Then Cathy could go out and do as she pleased, while the child was unconscious. The child complained to her father when she returned home and the father took Cathy to court to change her visitation rights. The judge set it as supervised visitation, so Cathy could no longer be alone with the child.