1236 users online (215 members and 1021 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,097
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Do you have some sort of link to support the statement that 2 year olds usually don't identify a person committing violence?
    No I don't. I have nothing but first hand knowledge and understanding of the psyche of children through years and years of therapy. I don't think I could find *one link* to post here. I would imagine if you would research 'childhood trauma' and 'child psychology' in general you might find an understanding as to how the minds of children in trauma work. One book that helped me a lot was 'Your Inner Child of the Past', but that book is more geared towards an adult's perspective of what happened to them as a child, how they 'stored it away in their mind' and how to deal with those memories now.

    I think the general principal of 'children's minds being unable to cope with trauma committed by a person they trust' is a pretty common part of child psychology. If a stranger on the street 'hurts them', and they have a loving, solid, stable family around them, they are far more able to articulate and accept 'who did it'. Because it doesn't effect their security. They still have their secure family unit to fall back on for support. If it's someone who is supposed to love and support them, they become unable to acknowledge who it was *because* without that person, they have no security in their lives. It's why children who are abused often times cover for their abuser because without them, they are left with no one, in their minds, to care for them.

    They don't understand the intricacies of custody battles, of extended family units. All they understand is mommy & daddy feed them, clothe them, etc. If mommy & daddy disappear, in their minds, they become ALONE. I remember making it clear to my children at a very early age, that if anything ever happens to mommy & daddy, exactly where they would go, what would happen. "you would go and live with aunt so and so and uncle so and so. Of course I didn't do it in a morbid way. Simply 'should mommy & daddy ever get sick for awhile, you don't have to be afraid because Auntie so & so would come and take care of you.'

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    10,363
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    CY used the word *daddy* in the 911 tape when asked by Meredith 'was anyone here last night?' Meredith herself stated, in testimony, CY made references to 'her father'. That fact was never disputed by the defense team. They didn't jump up and cross examine Meredith about that statement during the trial. They could have cross examined her right there on the spot about what CY said to her, but they didn't.

    As far as CY not referencing the second doll as *daddy* to the daycare worker. Children that age, most times, will not acknowledge the person they see *hurting* either themselves or someone else. It often times takes years of therapy for them to identify, by name, who did the 'bad stuff'.

    As to it being simple child play, the daycare workers testified that CY's behavior after the event had changed. She played by herself. She didn't interact with the other children as she had before the event. She stayed off to herself, remote, distanced.
    As to the DT referencing any of that part of the 911-call testimony, I think they knew well that "Daddy" = dynamite. They absolutely had to stay away from that -- I think the "Daddy do" and/or "Daddy did it" in both places was certainly discernible by JY -- it was his own child; he had heard her speak and say his name hundreds of times, I'm sure. Don't touch that evidence with a 10-foot pole.

    And, glee, I agree with your take on CY's acting differently at the Center -- I think the little girl was clearly trying to sort out what she saw that night. Was it a bad dream? Was it another one of her parents' shouting matches? Did Daddy have to spank Mommy for biting somebody?

    I well remember when my son was little and we were talking about Daddy being sick with a stomach virus, I think, and my son clearly said, "Well, you're his mommy, too." And that little statement really hit me as to how he looked at the family dynamic at that young age. It gave me such an insight as to his very simple and loving view of his world.

    As soon as I heard and saw the Daycare teacher's re-enactment testimony, that's exactly what I thought back on -- my being "his Mommy, too." Again, out of the mouths of babes -- "husband and wife" is not a concept that they can grasp at that age -- it's all "me, mommy, daddy, brother, sister."


    All posts, unless attributed, are "just my humble opinion," and they are to remain here in Websleuths and are not to be used elsewhere. Thank you.
    _________________


    This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.
    William Shakespeare, King Richard II



    The Angel of the Waters, Bethesda Terrace, Central Park, New York City

  3. #33
    terminatrixator's Avatar
    terminatrixator is offline All Posts JMO - May Godspeed Justice for Janet and her unborn child!
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,511
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    My hope is that if she does remember all or part of that horrible night, she's believed and won't be subject to criticism or suggestions her memories have been planted by others. Bad enough she had to experience that night, it would compound the cruelty if she weren't believed.
    Two interesting research articles:

    The Journal of American Academy of Children has a pdf study from 1986 of 16 children who witnessed parental homicide.

    http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.c...02533/abstract

    Society of Research in Child Development report:
    children who witness Domestic Violence: the Invisible Victims

    http://www.srcd.org/documents/public...SPR/spr9-3.pdf
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

    "Safety never takes a holiday" ~Britney Romito

    "It's easier to KEEP Raven happy, than it is to MAKE Raven happy." ~Janet Christiansen (Abaroa)

    "Right now you have the capabilities of being a God" ~Karen Abaroa Bolton

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,097
    Quote Originally Posted by borndem View Post
    As to the DT referencing any of that part of the 911-call testimony, I think they knew well that "Daddy" = dynamite. They absolutely had to stay away from that -- I think the "Daddy do" and/or "Daddy did it" in both places was certainly discernible by JY -- it was his own child; he had heard her speak and say his name hundreds of times, I'm sure. Don't touch that evidence with a 10-foot pole.

    And, glee, I agree with your take on CY's acting differently at the Center -- I think the little girl was clearly trying to sort out what she saw that night. Was it a bad dream? Was it another one of her parents' shouting matches? Did Daddy have to spank Mommy for biting somebody?

    I well remember when my son was little and we were talking about Daddy being sick with a stomach virus, I think, and my son clearly said, "Well, you're his mommy, too." And that little statement really hit me as to how he looked at the family dynamic at that young age. It gave me such an insight as to his very simple and loving view of his world.

    As soon as I heard and saw the Daycare teacher's re-enactment testimony, that's exactly what I thought back on -- my being "his Mommy, too." Again, out of the mouths of babes -- "husband and wife" is not a concept that they can grasp at that age -- it's all "me, mommy, daddy, brother, sister."
    The way the minds of children work is so fascinating, isn't it? I've always been much more comfortable, and found it much more enjoying to work with children. Simply listen to the way their minds work. Your son's remarks are so 'right on'. I remember one of our daughters, when her dadddy's mother was down here staying with us. She was probably around 4 or 5 yrs old at the time. She wanted to do something, can't recall what it was anymore. But she asked her daddy if she could do such & such. And daddy told her NO, a number of times. It was just a low key conversation. No tension or arguing. Just "No, you can't do that right now.' So she finally went back in her bedroom for five or ten minutes. Come to discover, she was *thinking*. Her little mind was working away in an effort to find a way to do what she wanted to do. We adults were all sitting out in the living room, chatting, visiting, etc. So after that 5 or 10 minutes, daughter comes back out to the living room where the adults were. She went straight up to her visiting grandma and said "Grandma, can I do such & such?" Well, MIL was quite perplexed. She'd heard the whole first 'go-round' with daddy. Grandma said, 'honey, your daddy told you NO, you can't do such and such.' Well, daughter put her little hands on her hips, and in the most authorative voice made the statement "But you are HIS mommy!" Like she could go over daddy's head, to his mommy, and get her way! I mean, we all cracked up laughing. It was so ingenious for a child to figure out the order of authority in her mind. "Since daddy won't let me do it, I'll go to HIS BOSS.' I love kids, love listening to their own way of reasoning. Have my twin grandsons here with me right now in fact. They are six years old, and our conversations are fascinating.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,948
    Quote Originally Posted by terminatrixator View Post
    Two interesting research articles:

    The Journal of American Academy of Children has a pdf study from 1986 of 16 children who witnessed parental homicide.

    http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.c...02533/abstract

    Society of Research in Child Development report:
    children who witness Domestic Violence: the Invisible Victims

    http://www.srcd.org/documents/public...SPR/spr9-3.pdf
    From the link: "This study investigated 16 children between the ages of 5 and 10 who had witnessed a parental murder"

    Thanks for the links, but there isn't any data in the linked article stating that children aged 2 (or any age) usually don't identify the person committing violence.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,097
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    From the link: "This study investigated 16 children between the ages of 5 and 10 who had witnessed a parental murder"

    Thanks for the links, but there isn't any data in the linked article stating that children aged 2 (or any age) usually don't identify the person committing violence.

    Not to be difficult, but I'd prefer my remark to be kept in context. I did not say 'children that age usually don't identify the person committing the violence'.

    My statement was:

    Originally Posted by gracielee
    She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them. The entire event is too traumatizing to them. Their little minds can't accept that someone they loved and trusted did a bad thing. So their minds shut down. Immediately after the event, CY told Meredith about her daddy. Days later....the person spanking mommy became no one. Not bad man, not monster, no one.

    *******

    "if that person is someone close to them"

    The younger a child is when experiencing trauma, the easier it becomes to dissociate. My own diagnosis, after extensive testing & therapy, is PTSD/DID. Dissociative Identity Disorder.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,948
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    Not to be difficult, but I'd prefer my remark to be kept in context. I did not say 'children that age usually don't identify the person committing the violence'.

    My statement was:

    Originally Posted by gracielee
    She witnessed an extremely violent event. Usually they don't identify the person who committed the violence *if* that person is someone close to them. The entire event is too traumatizing to them. Their little minds can't accept that someone they loved and trusted did a bad thing. So their minds shut down. Immediately after the event, CY told Meredith about her daddy. Days later....the person spanking mommy became no one. Not bad man, not monster, no one.

    *******

    "if that person is someone close to them"

    The younger a child is when experiencing trauma, the easier it becomes to dissociate. My own diagnosis, after extensive testing & therapy, is PTSD/DID. Dissociative Identity Disorder.
    The article doesn't say that children of any age (2, 5, or 10) usually don't identify the person committing violence if it is someone close to them, or if it is someone unknown to them.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,097
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    The article doesn't say that children of any age (2, 5, or 10) usually don't identify the person committing violence if it is someone close to them, or if it is someone unknown to them.
    Which is why I suggested to you that one link or one article would not be sufficient to gain an understanding of childhood trauma, the minds of young children, etc. The subject isn't on the same order as 'pop psychology' aka Men Are From Mars etc. The subject of child psychology is involved, intense, and surely a 'not one size fits all' field. The entire field of psychology is extremely diverse, depending upon ones speciality.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,948
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    Which is why I suggested to you that one link or one article would not be sufficient to gain an understanding of childhood trauma, the minds of young children, etc. The subject isn't on the same order as 'pop psychology' aka Men Are From Mars etc. The subject of child psychology is involved, intense, and surely a 'not one size fits all' field. The entire field of psychology is extremely diverse, depending upon ones speciality.
    Regardless of the scope of the study of psychology, I do not believe that there is any documentation supporting the claim that 2 year olds do not identify the perpetrator of violence if they have a familial connection to that person.

    In fact, I would propose that there is no logical reason for a 2 year old to identify only one party in an altercation if the child had a familial connection to both the victim and the perpertrator of violence. I find it very unusual that only the mother figure was identified when, if the father was present, the father figure should also have been identified. I would go so far as to propose that the perpetrator of violence was not identified by the 2 year old because that person was unknown to the child.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,117
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Regardless of the scope of the study of psychology, I do not believe that there is any documentation supporting the claim that 2 year olds do not identify the perpetrator of violence if they have a familial connection to that person.

    In fact, I would propose that there is no logical reason for a 2 year old to identify only one party in an altercation if the child had a familial connection to both the victim and the perpertrator of violence. I find it very unusual that only the mother figure was identified when, if the father was present, the father figure should also have been identified. I would go so far as to propose that the perpetrator of violence was not identified by the 2 year old because that person was unknown to the child.
    I think the problem here is that it is being suggested or expected that a 2 yr old mind is going to be logical to the standards or comparison of an adult mind. It's been my experience with the children I raised that their thought process, or the way they expressed themselves at that age, is no where near what seemed logical to me. It was downright absurd, amusing, confounding and enlightening at times, but logical to a grown up's, not even close.

    The fact of the matter is that CY mentioned in the play acting with the dolls that mommy was getting a spanking for biting. From what I recall, it was not testified to that she specifically pointed to the "mommy" doll and said "this is mommy". It was just understood that it was mommy because of which doll was being hit by the other doll in her playacting. We also know she had asked for the "mommy" doll and was given the bucket for her to pick out whatever she wanted on her own.

    Kept within the context of what happened, I see no red flags at all that she did not specifically identify who the other doll represented in her playacting. It seems to me by listening to the testimony of what CY said to the daycare worker that her main focus of her playacting was what was happening to mommy, the spanking and the blood, boo boos everywhere. Her focus was not who was doing the act, thus the brief explanation that was given when asked what she was doing.

    She was asked what are you doing, she answered the question. If she had been asked who is that you are playing with, I think at that point she would have introduced to the daycare worker who the two dolls were in her mind. However, that is not what she was ask. She was asked, what are you doing.

    IMO
    Unless I've provided a link, everything I say is IMO


  11. #41
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is offline Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,222
    The point of the daycare teachers' testimony in my mind was to establish the fact that CY witnessed at least some part of the murder of her mother and she was acting it out with the dolls, unprompted by anyone, completely on her own, less than a week after the murder.

    The takeaway is that CY was a witness to a murder and was not only not harmed by the attacker, but was taken care of/cleaned up. That is circumstantial evidence.

    The jury logically inferred that whoever murdered Michelle had a bond or loved CY. That points to one person who had a lot of other circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as well.

  12. #42
    terminatrixator's Avatar
    terminatrixator is offline All Posts JMO - May Godspeed Justice for Janet and her unborn child!
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,511
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    From the link: "This study investigated 16 children between the ages of 5 and 10 who had witnessed a parental murder"

    Thanks for the links, but there isn't any data in the linked article stating that children aged 2 (or any age) usually don't identify the person committing violence.
    Understood, I found those articles in about 5 minutes. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to research this at the moment, but it's something I would be interested in and I'm sure there is more research on the very subject and every day more children that have witnessed heinous murders of a loved one.
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." ~ Edmund Burke

    "Safety never takes a holiday" ~Britney Romito

    "It's easier to KEEP Raven happy, than it is to MAKE Raven happy." ~Janet Christiansen (Abaroa)

    "Right now you have the capabilities of being a God" ~Karen Abaroa Bolton

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    683
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    Do you have some sort of link to support the statement that 2 year olds usually don't identify a person committing violence?
    Do you have evidence and that link you can quote that 2yr olds DO usually identify those that commit violence in a family home?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    The point of the daycare teachers' testimony in my mind was to establish the fact that CY witnessed at least some part of the murder of her mother and she was acting it out with the dolls, unprompted by anyone, completely on her own, less than a week after the murder.

    The takeaway is that CY was a witness to a murder and was not only not harmed by the attacker, but was taken care of/cleaned up. That is circumstantial evidence.

    The jury logically inferred that whoever murdered Michelle had a bond or loved CY. That points to one person who had a lot of other circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as well.
    This is so clear. CY's actions were only brought in to show that she witnessed the attack and was allowed to survive. That's it. She was not asked who the attacker was while at daycare. When she was asked what happened to her Mommy - on the morning of the murder - her first word was "Daddy."

    If her words have something to do with guilt of JY, then the fact that she didn't say who was doing the spanking while playing with the dolls says nothing (or than a spanking is usually done by a parent) but the fact that she said "Daddy" when actually asked what happened says a lot.

    In the end, the murderer's hopes of getting away didn't rest on what this innocent girl did or didn't say or imply. His hopes were dashed by the evidence he left behind. He almost got away with it, but not quite.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by gritguy View Post
    This is so clear. CY's actions were only brought in to show that she witnessed the attack and was allowed to survive. That's it. She was not asked who the attacker was while at daycare. When she was asked what happened to her Mommy - on the morning of the murder - her first word was "Daddy."

    If her words have something to do with guilt of JY, then the fact that she didn't say who was doing the spanking while playing with the dolls says nothing (or than a spanking is usually done by a parent) but the fact that she said "Daddy" when actually asked what happened says a lot.

    In the end, the murderer's hopes of getting away didn't rest on what this innocent girl did or didn't say or imply. His hopes were dashed by the evidence he left behind. He almost got away with it, but not quite.
    (BBM) Agree, and I think the fact CY did not specifically identify the spanker is a simple matter of her language aptitude at the time.

    POssibly 1 or 2 issues at work: expressing what is sufficient to get the point across, and actions which in the mind of CY carried implied persons or things which perform that action.

    Maybe to CY, spankings were something either given by Mommy or Daddy - so there is no need to identify the person doing it. In this example, if Mommy was getting a spanking, then of course it was Daddy giving it because Mommy would not be spanking herself. Or, that you get a spanking from someone in a position of authority. Either way, the actual person giving the spanking is blended into the action itself.

    "Mommy got a spanking for biting". I also think that is the extent of detail CY or most 2 yr olds would give. "Mommy got a spanking" is embellished with "for biting" and that's it. Going beyond that IMO seems excessive for a 2 yr old, especially if the person performing the action (in her mind) is implied.

    CY might have not even known the word "spanked" which would have made expressing it: "Daddy spanked Mommy". With children if a spanking is threatened its usually "do you want a spanking?" not "do you want to be spanked".

    Think about it another way, if CY were to recall to the daycare worker that SHE received a spanking for biting would she say:

    "I got a spanking for biting"
    or
    "Daddy/Mommy gave me a spanking for biting" - "Daddy/Mommy spanked me for biting"


    If Mr. G got into the trash and Mommy put him outside for a while, someone came over and asked CY where is Mr G, would CY explain:

    "Mr G is outside he was bad"
    or
    "Mommy put Mr G outside for being bad"


    IMO, That CY did not identify the spanker does not suggest it wasn't JY. In fact, that CY did not specify that it was NOT JY is only slightly less imcriminating IMO than if she had.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Quebec,Store clerk foils robbery with bear spray and spanking!
    By dotr in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-09-2015, 11:52 AM
  2. Spanking illegal?
    By californiacarrie in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 09:11 AM

Tags for this Thread