OH - Clermont County father lined up sons 3, 4, and 7, executed with rifle, mother injured trying to protect them, June 2023

[thefragile7393]

Makes me wonder if he got on drugs that made him delusional and he could be thinking these were not his kids. They look very much like him but who knows what he thought.

Another idea - he is pretty muscular, whether it is hard work or some form of working out. Could it be roid rage?

Doubtful. That’s not steroid induced growth

 

[Googlebutts]

I asked earlier what kind of rifle was in the photo because it looks like an old deer rifle. If he was planning this for months, then I would think he would’ve obtained a more efficient weapon, such as a 9mm or AR-15 which hold many rounds.

My first thought was this was spontaneous and he was drunk/drugged out of his mind and some kind of argument happened. But he seemed so coherent in the arrest video!

I am having difficulty picturing how this all went down. This is so tragic.

With our recent UT/CO cases, the spouse murdered the kids and/or spouse because someone expressed a desire for a divorce. But those family/spouse annihilations were meticulously planned which doesn’t seem to be the case here. Or maybe I’m wrong.

I’m trying to understand why you think he would’ve gone out and bought and AR to kill his young children instead of just using his hunting rifle that he already had? That just doesn’t make any sense to me

 

[MeadowMuffin]

I’m trying to understand why you think he would’ve gone out and bought and AR to kill his young children instead of just using his hunting rifle that he already had? That just doesn’t make any sense to me

I agree. Heck, a 22 revolver would've been adequate, shooting those poor boys the way he did.

 

[Googlebutts]

If hurting his wife was his goal, why didn't he kill her, too? He had the chance when she tried to take away his gun. Why didn't he kill her daughter? He let her run away.

I can't begin to fathom the emotional trauma they have endured.

JMO

To make her suffer. I was with my ex for 27 years. I only stayed so long because he threatened to either kill my boys, kill me and the boys or take them and go back to Poland so I’d never see them again. He knew that was the one thing that would kill me inside. I finally left when my youngest was a senior in high school ( he’s almost 25 now). He sent pics of him and his gun. He stalked me for a few years (always knew where my truck was parked). Drove by my house. Took pics of the house and my truck. I lived in constant fear for years. I still believe he will one day kill me. Until you’ve dealt with someone like this, you’ll never truly understand the control that they want and have. And if anyone out there is experiencing this *advertiser censored* in their relationship, leave NOW. Your kids see and hear way more than you think. When I finally left, my boys answers were - it’s about time and why did it take you so long. Listening to that momma on the recording broke my heart. She’s going to suffer every single day of her life because of this piece of *advertiser censored*.

 

[MeadowMuffin]

To make her suffer. I was with my ex for 27 years. I only stayed so long because he threatened to either kill my boys, kill me and the boys or take them and go back to Poland so I’d never see them again. He knew that was the one thing that would kill me inside. I finally left when my youngest was a senior in high school ( he’s almost 25 now). He sent pics of him and his gun. He stalked me for a few years (always knew where my truck was parked). Drove by my house. Took pics of the house and my truck. I lived in constant fear for years. I still believe he will one day kill me. Until you’ve dealt with someone like this, you’ll never truly understand the control that they want and have. And if anyone out there is experiencing this *advertiser censored* in their relationship, leave NOW. Your kids see and hear way more than you think. When I finally left, my boys answers were - it’s about time and why did it take you so long. Listening to that momma on the recording broke my heart. She’s going to suffer every single day of her life because of this piece of *advertiser censored*.

I'm so sorry for what you went through, and are still going through to this day. No one can understand the horror of this unless they live through it themselves.

 

[iamshadow21]

I agree. Heck, a 22 revolver would've been adequate, shooting those poor boys the way he did.

You can kill someone with an air rifle, a slingshot, or a potato gun if you aim it right. Nobody needs an assault rifle to kill somebody. If you want to kill a lot of people very fast, it's efficient, but it's overkill. People are remarkably fragile. Three boys under ten, desperately so. A hunting rifle can take down a deer more than twice the size of those boys. It was there, to hand, he didn't have to buy it special, and he knew how to use it. I don't have any figures to hand, but I think if you were able to easily look at figures of domestic homicide where guns are involved, which I know is virtually impossible in the US, you would probably find that most cases, the gun was not bought or acquired specially, but was a personal protection or hunting weapon already owned. He just reached for it and extinguished them like rabbits. Probably with about as little conscience.

MOO

 

[Googlebutts]

This may be controversial, but the man killed three children, in front of witnesses, and even confessed to premediation, planning the killings for months in advance. It was not only deliberate, but also planned.

Do we really need a trial here? Is there anyone who doubts that he is guilty? At some point, in the overzealous protection to save an innocent person from going to jail, we have lost the ability to see guilt, for what it is. Why do we need to spend years in hearings, trial dates. Collecting evidence...on and on... fast track him, trial in ten days. Call it done.

Once he didn’t cooperate, they should have just done what they had been authorized to do. Save everyone the horror of a trial and appeals

 

[gitana1]

Excuse the abruptness.I sincerely don’t understand this. I have seen several comments where people are saying he’s not mentally ill. Insane/crazy requires a cause..a diagnosis that contributes to these heinous acts. Psychopath is a mental heath diagnosis as it’s a form of antisocial personality disorder. Normal, sane, everyday people don’t plot the murder of nor carry out the murder of their own children. Or anyone really. I don’t understand how people feel a mental health issue is not a causative factor here. I am really trying to see the point of view & understand so I apologize if it’s misplaced

It’s an interesting subject.

IMO, yeah, someone can’t be “normal” and do something like this. Probably every murderer can be diagnosed with something off the DSM. Like anti-social personality disorder, for example.

It’s easy to just say, “the person is evil.” And wash our hands of it. But the older I get, the more I realize the complexity of life and the nuance involved in things. Nothing is black and white.

The dude is evil, IMO. But evil has its roots. The question is, do those roots have to do with something that can mitigate personal responsibility or the ability to make choices and avoid problems? If so, can anyone truly be held responsible for their actions?

I remember talking to my friend’s husband, who was a farmer, about their pitbull type dog who was never leashed. Just free roamed. (This was in New Zealand). I asked if he was ever worried the dog would hurt a sheep or a child. He said no. His dog has never even chased a sheep. If a dog even chases sheep (and isn’t doing so as a herder being commanded) they put them down.

He said there is no rehabilitating a dog that’s gone bad.

Something is wrong with this man. But IMO it is not something that has to do with psychosis,or anything else that prevents him from controlling himself. He’s of a type that are committed to vengeance and feel justified in their rage. They tend to absolve themselves of any responsibility for anything negative they do. It’s always someone else’s fault. Someone else “pushed” them.

They are capable of making the right choices but believe they are entitled to make the wrong ones.

I have seen two, major subtypes of these people in my cases and also in some of these types of cases: One is a violent, angry person who was the subject of abuse or had a parent model rage and domestic violence. The second is one who was totally spoiled and allowed to throw tantrums or behave badly and their behavior was always justified or ignored by their parents. Both types tend to have alcohol issues and/or other drug problems. Some have a history of criminal behavior. And many are able to manipulate some others into thinking they’re nice, family people.

But they exploit their families and view them as property. They can and will do things for and with their kids but ultimately, it’s about power and control for them and often their efforts are lazy, or inconsistent and often their responsibilities are shifted to the other parent, to the grandparents or to a new girlfriend.

This is all my opinion based on what I’ve seen in my cases.

Ultimately, of course they’re not normal. And while they can’t typically be classed with someone who kills because they get a lascivious pleasure from watching others suffer, like a serial killer, they also can’t be classed with someone who kills due to psychosis (Yates) and shouldn’t even someone who kills in a sudden, intense rage, IMO.

He felt entitled to kill, not because he thought he was saving his children from hell or demons or something, not because of a sudden, insane rage, but because he wanted to cause his wife pain. MOO.

 

[Laura456]

Welp, now my father who told my mom he would sit next to Jesus and judge her and make sure she goes to the bad place sounds perfectly lovely compared to this guy. Also live in Cincinnati.

 

[gitana1]

My takes:

When the judge in court asked him if he understood he said 'yes sir' each time. He looks completely sane. This is not a case of mental illness at all. Quick side question: do you think he is tranquilized at all to appear in court? I know sometimes they give defendants that have committed the most horrendous of crimes some sort of something so they appear docile.

He flew into rage and committed these acts when the police apprehended him I'd like to figure his cortisol and adrenal levels were sky high and thus now in altered state of hyper awareness. I think when it is said he premeditated this, I have to think that his wife had threatened she was going to leave him at some point and in his most demented thoughts said i will do the most horrific of all things and justified it somewhere in the deep abyss of evil that lurked within him. Something triggered him that day it happened and the internal narcissistic rageful explosion went off --unless he truly had planned on that day and I guess the details will come to light. I do not think he planned on the aftermath of what he did only the vengeful spirit of eternally wounding his wife and ending the lives of his children. And the satisfaction of what that meant to him in those sick moments of thoughts. This is just horrific, all of it. And the traumatized dog....rest in peace to the little ones and may the daughter and Mom find peace and hope again.

He doesn’t look tranquilized to me. And I know what that looks like. A good example is Scott Peterson in his tv interview with Diane Sawyer. Slow blinking. Slowish speech.

This guy just has the entitled criminal look I’ve seen so much of bullies who commit crimes and think everyone owes them. It’s just my personal opinion. He has those mannerisms. The way he turns his head to look around. The way he responds to the judge.

ETA: They don’t give tranquilizers to people in jail. They’re lucky if they get their heart or diabetes medication. No one is going to give them a controlled substance.

 

[deadfoot13]

One thing is obvious, call the police or the CPS if you think your neighbor is abusive to kids. However, I can see how CD’s neighbor could have been sincerely scared of him. Are there any anonymous lines?

RSBM

Yes, you can call in a hotline report anonymously in OH.

Report Child Abuse and Neglect

How to Report Child Abuse and Neglect in Ohio Report your suspicions to the public children service agency or law enforcement agency in the county in which the child lives or was abused. Click here to find your county Public Children Services Agency Don't know the cou

jfs.ohio.gov

 

[Seattle1]

It’s an interesting subject.

IMO, yeah, someone can’t be “normal” and do something like this. Probably every murderer can be diagnosed with something off the DSM. Like anti-social personality disorder, for example.

It’s easy to just say, “the person is evil.” And wash our hands of it. But the older I get, the more I realize the complexity of life and the nuance involved in things. Nothing is black and white.

The dude is evil, IMO. But evil has its roots. The question is, do those roots have to do with something that can mitigate personal responsibility or the ability to make choices and avoid problems? If so, can anyone truly be held responsible for their actions?

I remember talking to my friend’s husband, who was a farmer, about their pitbull type dog who was never leashed. Just free roamed. (This was in New Zealand). I asked if he was ever worried the dog would hurt a sheep or a child. He said no. His dog has never even chased a sheep. If a dog even chases sheep (and isn’t doing so as a herder being commanded) they put them down.

He said there is no rehabilitating a dog that’s gone bad.

Something is wrong with this man. But IMO it is not something that has to do with psychosis,or anything else that prevents him from controlling himself. He’s of a type that are committed to vengeance and feel justified in their rage. They tend to absolve themselves of any responsibility for anything negative they do. It’s always someone else’s fault. Someone else “pushed” them.

They are capable of making the right choices but believe they are entitled to make the wrong ones.

I have seen two, major subtypes of these people in my cases and also in some of these types of cases: One is a violent, angry person who was the subject of abuse or had a parent model rage and domestic violence. The second is one who was totally spoiled and allowed to throw tantrums or behave badly and their behavior was always justified or ignored by their parents. Both types tend to have alcohol issues and/or other drug problems. Some have a history of criminal behavior. And many are able to manipulate some others into thinking they’re nice, family people.

But they exploit their families and view them as property. They can and will do things for and with their kids but ultimately, it’s about power and control for them and often their efforts are lazy, or inconsistent and often their responsibilities are shifted to the other parent, to the grandparents or to a new girlfriend.

This is all my opinion based on what I’ve seen in my cases.

Ultimately, of course they’re not normal. And while they can’t typically be classed with someone who kills because they get a lascivious pleasure from watching others suffer, like a serial killer, they also can’t be classed with someone who kills due to psychosis (Yates) and shouldn’t even someone who kills in a sudden, intense rage, IMO.

He felt entitled to kill, not because he thought he was saving his children from hell or demons or something, not because of a sudden, insane rage, but because he wanted to cause his wife pain. MOO.

Completely agree, @gitana1, and thank you for all you've contributed here over the years about family annihilators.

 

[gitana1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1673082770698977280

They’re so adorable. Just the cutest.

 

[gitana1]

From the quoted news link, the following was reported:

Despite his confession, Doerman did not enter a plea while in court Friday.

Also during the detention hearing, we further learned from David Gast, assistant Clermont County prosecutor, that not only did Doerman confess to murdering his children but that he also planned their murders.

Who hasn't wondered if a suspect confesses, why do they plead 'not guilty' in court?

I know that I have!

Referencing a case in Washington, I learned the first thing to understand is the difference between “innocent” and “not guilty.”

Not guilty can mean innocent – as people are presumed innocent until found guilty – but in essence, pleading not guilty sets into motion the process where attorneys can review the case. (Otherwise, once a plea is accepted, the next step is sentencing).

Generally, at the time of arraignment (where the defendant enters a plea), defense attorneys only have the charging document and/or probable cause statement and by pleading not guilty, it allows the defense time to collect discovery from the prosecution, and that can involve a lot of information (evidence against the defendant).

In fact, it’s not unusual for a judge to enter a not-guilty plea on behalf of a defendant, or in some cases, simply decline to accept a guilty plea at arraignment.

“Legally, you have the right to plead guilty at arraignment,” said Chief Deputy Prosecutor Chad Enright. “But it is a qualified right.”

In cases where a person is charged with aggravated first-degree murder, state law prevents them from pleading guilty for 30 days after arraignment, Weaver said.

The judge – whose job is to protect a defendant’s rights, lest the case be returned to their courtroom on appeal – has to make an independent determination that the plea is voluntary. They also have to make sure that a defendant understands the nature of the charges, possible consequences and that they are giving up their right to a trial and to appeal. Enright said at arraignment there usually hasn’t been enough time to accomplish all that.

Kitsap-Crime

Great, informative post!

I never knew about that 30 day wait.

 

[gitana1]

Punishment without a fair trial is a lynch, not a justice.

Yeah. It’s written into our constitution for a reason. I have zero problem with a fair trial.

 

[gitana1]

The reason there are few videos of bookings is because jail booking areas are off limits to the news media because courts consider such videos to be highly prejudicial. Remember the video of Scott Peterson's booking? It was done at night and LE opened the blinds so the media outside the building could take video. His trial became a circus.

I wonder if the defense will use this to get his confession thrown out or the death penalty off the table. I sure hope they have him on suicide watch.

JMO

Nah.

 

[gitana1]

I guess there will always be cracks in the system...

It’s weird how for some, there’s always mitigation for a literal murderer and the victims are the ones responsible for not saving themselves.

 

[MyBelle]

Nah.

The reason I asked was because in the booking video, he asks when he gets to make his "phone call" and, iirc, the answer was "later." The video shows him being stripped searched which was considered by courts 50 years ago to be highly prejudicial and is why the media is restricted from those areas and why cops/DAs resort to perp walks. Has something changed?

The DA told the court CD confessed to cops and also premeditated it. Where's his proof? The cop who arrested him told him to keep his mouth shut.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

The reason I asked was because in the booking video, he asks when he gets to make his "phone call" and, iirc, the answer was "later." The video shows him being stripped searched which was considered by courts 50 years ago to be highly prejudicial and is why the media is restricted from those areas and why cops/DAs resort to perp walks. Has something changed?

The DA told the court CD confessed to cops and also premeditated it. Where's his proof? The cop who arrested him told him to keep his mouth shut.

JMO

I’m not quite understanding your post.

There is nothing “prejudicial” about publishing a video in which he’s told he can make a phone call later. If you’re saying that he wasn’t given the opportunity at that moment to make a phone call so his confession would be thrown out, no. That would not be the case without more factors involved.

What do you mean by the statement that “50 years ago” strip searched were deemed highly prejudicial. Again, are you talking about publication of the video being prejudicial to the defendant or the act of strip searching him? Do you have a source so I can better understand? Rulings regarding strip searches vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and have to do with civil rights violations (of a detainee’s rights) not whether a confession would be thrown out.

As to “proof” of a confession, we aren’t getting any of that until at least the prelim.

 

[MyBelle]

I’m not quite understanding your post.

There is nothing “prejudicial” about publishing a video in which he’s told he can make a phone call later. If you’re saying that he wasn’t given the opportunity at that moment to make a phone call so his confession would be thrown out, no. That would not be the case without more factors involved.

What do you mean by the statement that “50 years ago” strip searched were deemed highly prejudicial. Again, are you talking about publication of the video being prejudicial to the defendant or the act of strip searching him? Do you have a source so I can better understand? Rulings regarding strip searches vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and have to do with civil rights violations (of a detainee’s rights) not whether a confession would be thrown out.

As to “proof” of a confession, we aren’t getting any of that until at least the prelim.

BBM. I mean publication of the video being prejudicial to the defendant. Decades ago, a NY federal Court ruled that even staged perp walks are highly prejudicial and inflammatory to the perp prior to trial. The intent of cops/DA (is to convict) and the media is to humiliate the perp. The more click bait, the happier the media!

CD is a suspect but he still has rights. His strip search was recorded by LE and then publicly released which could be highly prejudicial to his receiving a fair trial with an impartial jury. I want the defendant to have a fair trial.

A few decades ago, a Federal judge in NY State ruled that perp walks on public sidewalks are too prejudicial and the media accepted that decision.

JMO

Staged "perp walks" constitute unreasonable search and seizure

From the Fall 2000 issue of The News Media & The Law, page 15.

www.rcfp.org