NANNY SAY'S,"I WAS A SCAPEGOAT FOR THE REAL ABUSER"
Al Walker
In her first interview after finally being allowed to go
home, the young english girl {nanny] asked why the parent's
were overlooked as the possible source of the injury or abuse
suffered by the infant Matty Eppen!
These two adults are doctors and since the child had a two
to three week old scull fracture, how was it they did not take
notice of anything wrong for so long a time?
Good question Louise!
This young baby sitter was jailed for almost ten months,
taking the rap for the parents lack of time and concern for
their child.
It was obvious to everyone with at least half a brain that
the adult parents who are trained doctors, were very, very
negligent in the care of their infant son.
If the parents did not have something to feel guilty about,
why did they avoid finding a problem with the infant? Why
was it the nanny who noticed a problem and immediately called
emergency medics?
All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a
week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
have been the one to find the problem and report it!
It appears to me that the parents either did not spend
enough time with and care for this child to find such a
problem, or they did it [cause the fracture] and allowed the
nanny to take the blame.
After having five children and three grand children [so
far], I can tell you that the daily ritual of checking each
child over from the day they came home as an infant, was one
of our required chores.
As you put them to sleep at night you check arms, legs,
joints, ribs, neck, and skull for tender or sore spots that
might have happened without your noticing during the day. Our
pediatrician told us we must do this every time they went for
check ups shots and colds etc.
The Eppens failed as parents and as the adults who should
have been watching out for this child Matty. Rest in Peace
Matty Eppen!
John Griffin
Al Walker <add, 7@after, waker, for, email> wrote:
> [ yap yap yap ]
Duuuhhhhhh...I suppose you're amazed that she thought of
such an original and clever (to you) lie. Maybe Scheck
invented it for her - it's so unexpected that it sure as
hell sounds like the work of a professional liar.
You're an idiot, hyeguy.
By the way, even if the child was injured weeks earlier,
she interrupted the healing process by killing him.
One more thing...you could be imprisoned for the rest of
your miserable life under the "hate crime" laws if you
continue criticizing the parents.
Tortorus Nates
In article <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>,
Al Walker <alwa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> These two adults are doctors and since the child had a two
>to three week old scull fracture, how was it they did not take
>notice of anything wrong for so long a time?
> All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a
>week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
>have been the one to find the problem and report it!
> It appears to me that the parents either did not spend
>enough time with and care for this child to find such a
>problem, or they did it [cause the fracture] and allowed the
>nanny to take the blame.
Walker:
According to the Boston Globe, Thursday June 18, 1998, a report has just been
published in the New England Journal of Medicine by a team of independent
scientists from the Pennsylvania School of Medicine specifically to respond to
the scientific controversy over "shaken baby syndrome" generated by the
Woodward case.
Their conclusion? The report states:
"There is no evidence of a prolonged interval of lucidity between the injury
and the onset of symptoms" in children with such severe head injuries . . .
"an alert well-appearing child has not already sustained a devastating acute
injury that will become clincially obvious hours to days later . . . there is
no evidence that traumatic acute subdural hematoma, particularly that leading
to death, occurs in otherwise healthy infants in an occult or subclinical
manner." Rather, the evidence suggests that after a truly severe head injury,
there is an "immediate or rapid onset of neurological symptoms."
The authors cite a San Francisco study in which 95 children died of accidental
head injuries. All but one "had an immediate decrease in the level of
consciousness." The one exception suffered a different kind of injury than
Matthew Eappens and died of surgical complications.
In plain ordinary English: Babies don't get skull fractures and then walk
around for days with no visible effects. They don't even walk around a few
minutes.
Ooh! Looks like the sweet little nanny is a baby-killer. :-(
Cable Guise
In article <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>, add, 7@after, waker, for, email wrote:
"Mr. Walker" wrote:
> All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a
>week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
>have been the one to find the problem and report it!
No true. A new report just came out contradicting the defense's claim on
the age of the fracture. Apparently not "all" the experts agree.
> The Eppens failed as parents and as the adults who should
> have been watching out for this child Matty. Rest in Peace
> Matty Eppen!
Then would you say that Mr. Simpson failed as a parent when he "allowed"
his own baby to drown in a swimming pool? Why wasn't he watching out for
HIS child?
(This is not a condemnation of this earlier tragedy, I'm just using this
as an example of how thoughtless and cruel "Mr. Walker's" line of
reasoning is).
By the way, if the nanny WAS guilty, wouldn't she STILL claim that she was
a scapegoat? She wouldn't say, "Yes, I did it." So why do you repeat her
words as if they were a monumental revalation?
Ron
Today's Featured Outright Lie By Hyeguy:
Ron
On Mon, 22 Jun 1998 23:26:48 -0400, gopa...@erols.com (Cable Guise) wrote:
>In article <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>, add, 7@after, waker, for, email wrote:
>
>"Mr. Walker" wrote:
>
>> All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a
>>week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
>>have been the one to find the problem and report it!
>
>No true. A new report just came out contradicting the defense's claim on
>the age of the fracture. Apparently not "all" the experts agree.
>
>> The Eppens failed as parents and as the adults who should
>> have been watching out for this child Matty. Rest in Peace
>> Matty Eppen!
>
>Then would you say that Mr. Simpson failed as a parent when he "allowed"
>his own baby to drown in a swimming pool? Why wasn't he watching out for
>HIS child?
>
>(This is not a condemnation of this earlier tragedy, I'm just using this
>as an example of how thoughtless and cruel "Mr. Walker's" line of
>reasoning is).
>
>By the way, if the nanny WAS guilty, wouldn't she STILL claim that she was
>a scapegoat? She wouldn't say, "Yes, I did it." So why do you repeat her
>words as if they were a monumental revalation?
Simple. Every now and then "Al" gets tired of being constantly caught lying
about the Simpson case. The reason he lies is that he knows nothing about
the Simpson case, so he just makes things up.
When he gets in these down moods, he's compelled to make some things up
about another topic that he knows nothing about. This is what he settled on
today.
Tomorrow it could be the Lincoln's assasination, Astronomy, or bowling. He
knows nothing about them either.
ma
Cable Guise wrote:
> In article <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>, add, 7@after, waker, for, email wrote:
>
> "Mr. Walker" wrote:
>
> > All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a
> >week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
> >have been the one to find the problem and report it!
>
> No true. A new report just came out contradicting the defense's claim on
> the age of the fracture. Apparently not "all" the experts agree.
>
> > The Eppens failed as parents and as the adults who should
> > have been watching out for this child Matty. Rest in Peace
> > Matty Eppen!
>
> Then would you say that Mr. Simpson failed as a parent when he "allowed"
> his own baby to drown in a swimming pool? Why wasn't he watching out for
> HIS child?
>
> (This is not a condemnation of this earlier tragedy, I'm just using this
> as an example of how thoughtless and cruel "Mr. Walker's" line of
> reasoning is).
>
> By the way, if the nanny WAS guilty, wouldn't she STILL claim that she was
> a scapegoat? She wouldn't say, "Yes, I did it." So why do you repeat her
> words as if they were a monumental revalation?
O.J. WAS ON ROAD THE DAY HIS POOR KID DIED.
THE "SAMMI'S" WIFE DID THE POOR KID IN,ACCRODING TO THE "GENERAL".
PERHAPS,THE GENERAL GOT ONE THING RIGHT IN HER LIFE.
AL WALKER REPRESENTS THE "BEST" IN AMERICA.
THIS DIRTY LITTLE PUNK "RON" IS A "NO GOOD CRACKER" LIKE FUHRMAN.
WE GOT YOUR BACK "AL WALKER",SEND THE "BUGGERS" HOME POSTAGE DUE !
M.A.ON THE SIMPSON'S VICTORY ..........................!
thez...@msn.com
Tortorus Nates <na...@tortorus.com> wrote in article <6mmgir$alo$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
> In article <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>,
> Al Walker <alwa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > These two adults are doctors and since the child had a two
> >to three week old scull fracture, how was it they did not take
> >notice of anything wrong for so long a time?
>
> >week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
> >have been the one to find the problem and report it!
>
We can all predict the response from the Greasy, Lying Fartbag (aka Al Walker)
when shown this material: how dare you contradict him with something so insignificant
as facts! Into the killfile you'll go. ;-)
You see, the fartbag wants to believe in the baby-shaking bitch merely because she
was represented by Barry Scheck, one of O.J. Simpson's attorneys. No Scheck = no
sympathy for Louise. It's quite transparent, of course. Myself, I can see she's guilty
based on the evidence. Just like with Simpson. I happen to have English ancestry
but that doesn't stop me from being able to see the kid is guilty as sin. I guess
that's why I could never be a Pro-J, since I don't let my background or racial group
influence my opinions.
We can all see what kind of person Louise is based on her company and actions.
Her attorneys (not just Scheck) are a pack of swine. One of them was pulled over
for drunk driving, tried to tell the state trooper "I know Louise is guilty and I just can't
handle it," to explain why she was loaded, and when that didn't work she tried to
claim the trooper made sexual advances towards her, despite the fact she's as
attractive as the south end of a northbound dump truck. Louise's own mother has
"borrowed" money from the Woodard defense fund and claimed she did nothing
wrong. Somebody else submitted falsified invoices to that fund to bilk it. Anyone
who contributed money to the au pair's defense probably paid for quite a nice dinner
or show for someone.
And now that it's over we have Louise going on television trying to blame the parents,
obviously hoping to make a buck doing interviews or book deals despite a law in
Great Britain prohibiting such a thing. Does she remind you of anyone in particular
back home here in the States? Like maybe a failed, washed-up loser of an
ex-actor who runs around pretending to stab people with bananas?
No wonder the fartbag and the rest of the Simpson sycophants find Louise a
cause to embrace. You can have her, Pro-J's. She's your kind of killer.
Ron
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:53:43 -0500, ma <m...@cranston.com> wrote:
>Cable Guise wrote:
>
>> In article <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>, add, 7@after, waker, for, email wrote:
>>
>> "Mr. Walker" wrote:
>>
>> > All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a
>> >week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
>> >have been the one to find the problem and report it!
>>
>> No true. A new report just came out contradicting the defense's claim on
>> the age of the fracture. Apparently not "all" the experts agree.
>>
>> > The Eppens failed as parents and as the adults who should
>> > have been watching out for this child Matty. Rest in Peace
>> > Matty Eppen!
>>
>> Then would you say that Mr. Simpson failed as a parent when he "allowed"
>> his own baby to drown in a swimming pool? Why wasn't he watching out for
>> HIS child?
>>
>> (This is not a condemnation of this earlier tragedy, I'm just using this
>> as an example of how thoughtless and cruel "Mr. Walker's" line of
>> reasoning is).
>>
>> By the way, if the nanny WAS guilty, wouldn't she STILL claim that she was
>> a scapegoat? She wouldn't say, "Yes, I did it." So why do you repeat her
>> words as if they were a monumental revalation?
>
> O.J. WAS ON ROAD THE DAY HIS POOR KID DIED.
>THE "SAMMI'S" WIFE DID THE POOR KID IN,ACCRODING TO THE "GENERAL".
>PERHAPS,THE GENERAL GOT ONE THING RIGHT IN HER LIFE.
>
WHEN WILL YOUS GETS ONE THING RIGHT....................?
>AL WALKER REPRESENTS THE "BEST" IN AMERICA.
>THIS DIRTY LITTLE PUNK "RON" IS A "NO GOOD CRACKER" LIKE FUHRMAN.
I IS? DO THIS MEANS THAT YOUS DON'T WANT TO GOES DO SOME OF THE "FISHING"
WITHS ME? I WAS COUNTING ON YOUS TO "GUIDE" HEY........!
I SEES YOU IN THE "MINNESOTA" VERY SOON HEY..............!
>WE GOT YOUR BACK "AL WALKER",SEND THE "BUGGERS" HOME POSTAGE DUE !
>
YOUS BETTER WORRIES ABOUT YOUS OWN "FRONT" HEY..........!
>M.A.ON THE SIMPSON'S VICTORY ..........................!
GOOD THING THE TRAIN DON'T MOVES VERY FAR, HEY...........?
Al Walker
>
> > These two adults are doctors and since the child had a two
> >to three week old scull fracture, how was it they did not take
> >notice of anything wrong for so long a time?
>
> >week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
> >have been the one to find the problem and report it!
>
In plain ordinary english you are absolutely wrong. 8 month
old infant's NEVER WALK AROUND, much less with a fracture.
There have been many hairline skull fracture's in infant's,
and some have even healed without being treated.
Many instances of fracture's were documented in children
who did walk around, and the injuries were only discovered
after later injuries required X-rays.
Hairline fracture in infant's are easy to get because of
the very soft nature of the bone in an infant's skull. Then
there is the very thin skull in many area's of the actual
infant head.
I have not read nor have I heard anyone knowledgeable or a
medical expert discuss the findings you speak of. But you
must understand they will have more than likely used the same
information put forth by the prosecution.
The prosecution used a very narrow interpretation of the
fact's. There was no way to tell that this was the way it
happened. The fracture showed that the prosecution's
hypothetical claim as to how it happened was not the only way
this injury could have happened.
Shaken baby syndrome can cause retinal hemorrhages, but
does not cause a skull fracture, not even a hairline
fracture!
The defense was denied the autopsy evidence of the skull
fracture which showed calcification and wear on the edges of
the fracture, both indicate the older fracture. The retinal
hemorrhages could have come from the skull fracture, but not
the other way around!
This information came to light when the Dr who performed
the autopsy testified or there was some evidence that was
testified to about the fracture itself.
The defense was denied the chance to see or evaluate this
evidence and the prosecution was accused of intentionally
subverting the discovery process when it did not advise the
defense that such evidence was available but went ahead and
threw it out without giving it to the defense.
Parents who appear to be more interested in making a buck,
or are career oriented should not bring children in to the
world for others to raise for them.
Recent studies have concluded extreme differences in the
offspring of those who farm their kids out to day care, as
opposed to parents who raise their children to the age of a
much better understanding, and then go back to work!
The first three years of a child's life is the most crucial
for the brain to develop, and for the individual brain pathway
ends to multiply for the brain's optimum development. Then
there is also the ultimate adjustment of the child's total
personality. A child who feels abandoned will have severe
self image problems.
Like the captain of a ship, ANYTIME ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THE
SHIP it is the captain's fault. Can a parent's responsibility
to their children be any less?
The single parent has no choice, the parent with little to
no education and chance to make a life, has no choice. They
have to work to feed and clothe the child.
But these two parent's are trained and licensed doctor's,
how much attention did they pay to this 16 yr old Nanny's
handling of their children?
These people used this young girl to shift blame from them
to her. Who knows the mother or father could have done it that
morning by accident and not tell anyone? Then when the nanny
saw the baby finally stop breathing she called the emergency
medics? Prove to me that was not possible?
And I mean prove it, not just repeat what you do not
understand? This conclusion did not take into acount the
defense allegations of skull fracture.
The General
I agree with Al that the Nanny is innocent. BTW, have you
seen a picture of Louise lately? She has a new hairdo and
she looks marvelous. She did an interview since she has
been back home in Great Britain and in the interview, she said
that she shook the baby lightly, but she shook him *after*
she found him unconscious, in an effort to get a response
from him. My theory is that the parents did it, but I'm
not sure of which one. Kinda like the Ramsey case. I think
the parents did it, but can't decide which one. I saw the
Eppens on TV in several interviews and they both seemed
insincere to me. The mother impressed me as being unstable.
Have you ever seen a picture of the baby? He looked a
bit retarded to me. Maybe the parents had a hard time
accepting this and were impatient with him. IAC, I think
they did it and blamed it on Louise.
Ron
Hyeguy, following his practice of swooping down like an obese buzzard on any
unfamiliar name pontificated:
<dissertation by doctor Hyeguy deleted>
Geez, Mike, now you're a medical expert? What happened to your days as a
cashmere sweatsuit expert? They sure came to a shit-screeching halt, didn't
they Sunny? You were right in the middle of sayig what a liar I was,
then........
Later, Als-heimer.
Ron
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 13:56:36 -0700, The General <gen...@wco.com> wrote:
<hyeguy babble deleted>
>
>I agree with Al that the Nanny is innocent.
Based on what, Dr "Walker's" theories?
> BTW, have you
>seen a picture of Louise lately? She has a new hairdo and
>she looks marvelous.
So that makes her innocent? (BTW, she's a dog. No hairdo is going to help
her.)
> She did an interview since she has
>been back home in Great Britain and in the interview, she said
>that she shook the baby lightly, but she shook him *after*
>she found him unconscious, in an effort to get a response
>from him.
What did you expect her to say, "Haha! I did it?"
> My theory is that the parents did it, but I'm
>not sure of which one.
Why?
> Kinda like the Ramsey case. I think
>the parents did it, but can't decide which one.
There's slightly different circumstances involved.
> I saw the
>Eppens on TV in several interviews and they both seemed
>insincere to me.
So that makes them guilty?
> The mother impressed me as being unstable.
How?
>Have you ever seen a picture of the baby? He looked a
>bit retarded to me.
Are you qualified to judge the mentality of a baby by looking at a photo?
Is anyone?
> Maybe the parents had a hard time
>accepting this and were impatient with him.
How come this was never mentioned in the trial? You sure can't tell me it's
beneath Scheck to pull a stunt like that.
> IAC, I think
>they did it and blamed it on Louise.
Do you realize how much this resembles a pro-j post? No proof, just "I
feel" "I think" "He looked" and "She seemed"?
The parents have given me the heebie-jeebies from the start, but so has old
Louise. I didn't pay enough attention to the trial to have an informed
opinion. Did you?
Al Walker
General,
I thought the baby looked a little unusual myself, but
the clincher for me was when the mother read that dramatic and
phony appeal for sympathy about the older brother was asking
where is matty? Will I ever see matty again? And with all that
she did not get misty eyed, much less shed a single wet one.
Much about a case like this nanny one or the simpson matter
with only circumstantial evidence has a lot to do with gut
feelings and a person's personal experience.
If you have ever raised your own children then you know the
possibility of things happening to that child within a split
second has frightened the crap out of you on occasion. It does
not matter if you were occupied with other things, or if you
were holding the child. Things happen and you know it was
not your fault or the fault of whoever might have been in your
place. But you do not allow anyone else to take the blame
unless you are frightened that you might be charged with it.
Our youngest once rolled from the bed before he could walk,
and where he was napping. if my wife had not put pillows and
piles of blankets all around the bed he might have really
banged his head on the floor.
I was sitting holding my youngest son on my lap in the
drivers seat of the car and he pulled the door handle while
leaning on the door of the car. I caught him in mid air by the
foot or he goes head first into the parking lot.
This is all a part of life, and you cannot always find a
culprit or guilty party. But if I had to venture a guess who
was the guilty party in the nanny case I would have to say the
mother, her maternal instinct was non existent when I saw her
in court.
Cable Guise
In article <35904758...@yahoo.com>, add, 7@after, waker, for, email wrote:
> This is all a part of life, and you cannot always find a
> culprit or guilty party. But if I had to venture a guess who
> was the guilty party in the nanny case I would have to say the
> mother, her maternal instinct was non existent when I saw her
> in court.
Based on your previous "astute" character observations I think that means
we can safely disregard that shallow casual observation.
Tell me, if the mother had cried and wept openly would you have called her
nasty names like you did about Fred Goldman? I bet you would.
Apparently the surviving family members of murder and/or accident victims
just can't win in "Al Walker's" world. If they cry they are milking the
"evil media." If they try to remain composed they are heartless and cruel.
Al Walker
> > culprit or guilty party. But if I had to venture a guess who
> > was the guilty party in the nanny case I would have to say the
> > mother, her maternal instinct was non existent when I saw her
> > in court.
>
> we can safely disregard that shallow casual observation.
Here we go again. This little boy who has little to draw on
in the way of experience and who relies on the media to do his
thinking for him, makes his worthless observations and gives
no reason for them.
There was noting casual about it. It was based on her
actions both before, during and after the trial. But you are
so inadequate and lack the ability to make such observations
for yourself, that you go with the crowd. And naturally those
who lack the ability themselves will do anything and snip what
I really said, so you can lie to anyone who does not know you
for the fraud you are. Get lost little boy.
> Tell me, if the mother had cried and wept openly would you have called her
> nasty names like you did about Fred Goldman? I bet you would.
Fred goldlman put himself in the limelight, and began his
self serving comments two days after his son's death. He
created his own TV persona, and only mindless suckers thought
well of him for begging money and putting himself up for
sale. His ambition and his desire for money finally became
obvious to even those like you who are not very bright to
begin with.
Once again the only thing he seems to be good at is
worshipping at the alter and kissing the ass of a money hungry
sycophant like goldman. It does not matter to the child that
goldman was selling his story to geraldo two days after his
son was killed.
It makes no difference that the microphone hungry loser
used the death of his son to lift himself out of the lower
middle class rut he was in [making 27,500 a year as an
industrial tool salesman] and promoted himself by making
baseless allegations long before anyone had been aware of
anything!
> Apparently the surviving family members of murder and/or accident victims
> just can't win in "Al Walker's" world. If they cry they are milking the
> "evil media." If they try to remain composed they are heartless and cruel.
The families and victim's of the oklahoma bombing chased
geraldo out of town.
They told him do not come back if you are looking to sell our
grief for lonely ghouls to feed on. They would not allow his
on camera interviews and he left oklahoma and never went back
because they told him they had his number!
Those plain folks from the God fearing and family value
belt of this country chased all the geraldo's out of town and
even threatened to bop his interviewers who kept looking for
quotes.
And maybe 99 percent I saw were composed and would not show
off their tears for the camera's Those people are my kind of
people. And I have said many a prayer for their pain and hurt
to be healed. But that is not something I needed to advertise
kid, it just was something I have been doing since they became
victims who would not sell their grief.
They would not sell out the privacy of their hurt and tears
for the public to lap up like fred goldman did. They did not
make comments and parade themselves in front of the media at
every chance they had to grab a microphone like goldman did.
Your kind of people appear to be the fred goldman type, the
show off and creep who is looking to gain from his loved ones
death death.
The type that will use the sympathy generated by the
foolish sob sister types and all those who are dumb and so
easily fooled.
It is clear to everyone but them that they do not know the
difference between a con man and a sincere victim.
You are the single most gullible and easily conned kid I
have ever run across in my entire life. Why don't you stop
trying to act grown up and actually live that lonely life of
yours?
Your childish antics provide no stimulation, and I just do
not have the time I used to for nonsense. Abi gezint! Thats
not a kill file threat, just telling you I might not answer
frivolous posts because I have other interests.
deepf...@hotmail.com
In article <35900DC5...@yahoo.com>,
add, 7@after, waker, for, email wrote:
>
We're not talking just skull fracture here, AL. We're talking trauma
accompanied by subdural hematoma. The child was bleeding in the brainpan. Do
you understand? Such an acute injury DOES NOT LAPSE, is not "occulted" or
hidden. It is sudden onset and quite noticeable in symptoms.
If you care to argue - cite your case studies.
> Many instances of fracture's were documented in children
> who did walk around, and the injuries were only discovered
> after later injuries required X-rays.
> Hairline fracture in infant's are easy to get because of
> the very soft nature of the bone in an infant's skull. Then
> there is the very thin skull in many area's of the actual
> infant head.
This is nonsense.
> I have not read nor have I heard anyone knowledgeable or a
> medical expert discuss the findings you speak of. But you
> must understand they will have more than likely used the same
> information put forth by the prosecution.
How can an expert like you NOT read the NEJM? Or is it your position that the
NEJM is not as "Knowledgable" as you are?
> The prosecution used a very narrow interpretation of the
> fact's.
The fact's WHAT?
> There was no way to tell that this was the way it
> happened. The fracture showed that the prosecution's
> hypothetical claim as to how it happened was not the only way
> this injury could have happened.
It happened as the prosecution described, not only beyond reasonable doubt but
to a veritable certainty. Produce a case study of simialar injury resulting in
occulted symptoms for ANY length of time.
> Shaken baby syndrome can cause retinal hemorrhages, but
> does not cause a skull fracture, not even a hairline
> fracture!
Depends what happened while she was "being a bit rough".
SNIP
> Parents who appear to be more interested in making a buck,
> or are career oriented should not bring children in to the
> world for others to raise for them.
Or they shouldn't hire homocidal schoolgirls.
> Recent studies have concluded extreme differences in the
> offspring of those who farm their kids out to day care, as
> opposed to parents who raise their children to the age of a
> much better understanding, and then go back to work!
Yup - most studies show that daycare has a salutory affect on children's
socialisation skills, self image, social skills, and interactions. Which
studies are YOU referring to?
> The first three years of a child's life is the most crucial
> for the brain to develop, and for the individual brain pathway
> ends to multiply for the brain's optimum development. Then
> there is also the ultimate adjustment of the child's total
> personality. A child who feels abandoned will have severe
> self image problems.
This is bull. Cite your studies.
> Like the captain of a ship, ANYTIME ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THE
> SHIP it is the captain's fault. Can a parent's responsibility
> to their children be any less?
They screwed up - they trusted her.
> The single parent has no choice, the parent with little to
> no education and chance to make a life, has no choice. They
> have to work to feed and clothe the child.
So - you're saying that children trump career? You're going to tell people how
to spend their money?How magnanimous of you.
> But these two parent's are trained and licensed doctor's,
Doctor's WHAT?
> how much attention did they pay to this 16 yr old Nanny's
> handling of their children?
Apparently not enough. So your point is that they deserved to have Louise kill
their kid because they trusted the bitch?
> These people used this young girl to shift blame from them
> to her. Who knows the mother or father could have done it that
> morning by accident and not tell anyone? Then when the nanny
> saw the baby finally stop breathing she called the emergency
> medics? Prove to me that was not possible?
Prove that it was. The clinical data doesn't support you at all.
> And I mean prove it, not just repeat what you do not
> understand? This conclusion did not take into acount the
> defense allegations of skull fracture.
>
Allegations - no proof.
An old story with Borenthals.
Deep Fish out of Korea
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
anti-chilengarian
In article <35904758...@yahoo.com>, alwa...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
(usual Hyeguy babble deleted)
> This is all a part of life, and you cannot always find a
>culprit or guilty party. But if I had to venture a guess who
>was the guilty party in the nanny case I would have to say the
>mother, her maternal instinct was non existent when I saw her
>in court.
You seem to like all killers, Hyeguy. Hitler, OJ, the nanny. What a horrid
person you are. I hope that next heart attack comes soon and you rot in hell
in the Chilengarian wing.
AC
"What care I if Faith Chilengarian's ass is the size of Iowa?"
anti-chilengarian
In article <35900DC5...@yahoo.com>, alwa...@yahoo.com says...
>
(usual Hyeguy babble deleted)
> And I mean prove it, not just repeat what you do not
>understand? This conclusion did not take into acount the
>defense allegations of skull fracture.
Shut the fuck up, Hyeguy. No one cares what you think. And anyone who has a
different opinion than you becomes "killfiled" anyway, so shut up Fatty.
doughnuts anyone?
AC
"What care I if Faith Chilengarian takes it up the ass?"
Totaljust
Subject: Re: NANNY SAY'S,"I WAS A SCAPEGOAT FOR THE REAL ABUSER"
>From: Al Walker <alwa...@yahoo.com>
Mike Chilengarian took a moment from worshipping at the murderer altar to
write:
>
>Cable Guise wrote:
>>
>> In article <35904758...@yahoo.com>, add, 7@after, waker, for, email
>wrote:
>>
>> > This is all a part of life, and you cannot always find a
>> > culprit or guilty party. But if I had to venture a guess who
>> > was the guilty party in the nanny case I would have to say the
>> > mother, her maternal instinct was non existent when I saw her
>> > in court.
>>
>> Based on your previous "astute" character observations I think that means
>> we can safely disregard that shallow casual observation.
>
> Here we go again. This little boy who has little to draw on
>in the way of experience and who relies on the media to do his
>thinking for him, makes his worthless observations and gives
>no reason for them.
Mike is talking about himself again.
> There was noting casual about it. It was based on her
>actions both before, during and after the trial. But you are
>so inadequate and lack the ability to make such observations
>for yourself, that you go with the crowd. And naturally those
>who lack the ability themselves will do anything and snip what
>I really said, so you can lie to anyone who does not know you
>for the fraud you are. Get lost little boy.
I read your original post, junkman. It was full of completely unrelated
bullshit about what a hero you were for not letting one of your brats smash
their head against the floor. So what? Do you want a medal or a 21 gun salute?
And why the fuck does your meager and probably utterly imaginary delusions of
being Father Knows Best give you the balls to pass judgement on the parents of
murdered children? Is attacking victims your only pasttime or do you enjoy
melting ants with magnifying glasses too, Mike?
>> Tell me, if the mother had cried and wept openly would you have called her
>> nasty names like you did about Fred Goldman? I bet you would.
>
> Fred goldlman put himself in the limelight, and began his
>self serving comments two days after his son's death. He
>created his own TV persona, and only mindless suckers thought
>well of him for begging money and putting himself up for
>sale. His ambition and his desire for money finally became
>obvious to even those like you who are not very bright to
>begin with.
> Once again the only thing he seems to be good at is
>worshipping at the alter and kissing the ass of a money hungry
>sycophant like goldman. It does not matter to the child that
>goldman was selling his story to geraldo two days after his
>son was killed.
> It makes no difference that the microphone hungry loser
>used the death of his son to lift himself out of the lower
>middle class rut he was in [making 27,500 a year as an
>industrial tool salesman] and promoted himself by making
>baseless allegations long before anyone had been aware of
>anything!
In other words, the answer to Cable Guise's question is "Yes, Mike Chilengarian
WOULD have called her names."
Thanks for PROVING his point, shithead.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
>> Apparently the surviving family members of murder and/or accident victims
>> just can't win in "Al Walker's" world. If they cry they are milking the
>> "evil media." If they try to remain composed they are heartless and cruel.
>
> The families and victim's of the oklahoma bombing chased
>geraldo out of town.
> They told him do not come back if you are looking to sell our
>grief for lonely ghouls to feed on. They would not allow his
>on camera interviews and he left oklahoma and never went back
>because they told him they had his number!
> Those plain folks from the God fearing and family value
>belt of this country chased all the geraldo's out of town and
>even threatened to bop his interviewers who kept looking for
>quotes.
> And maybe 99 percent I saw were composed and would not show
>off their tears for the camera's
and that, you reeking junkman, is ONLY because the MURDERER of their children
DID NOT ESCAPE JUSTICE LIKE THE NANNY AND WHAT'S-HIS-NAME, THE BANANA WAVING
SOCIOPATH.
If Timothy McBoom had weaseled out of paying the price for killing all those
babies (like your new girlfriend, the nanny did) then those parents would have
been on the airwaves every night SCREAMING their outrage to the country....and
I'm sure you'd have been there calling them "gold diggers" and "bloodsuckers"
and the other colorful names in your tiny but repulsive volcabulary.
> Those people are my kind of
>people.
No, Mike, those people are human beings. What are you?
>And I have said many a prayer for their pain and hurt
>to be healed. But that is not something I needed to advertise
>kid,
But notice how the hypocrite JUST DID!
>it just was something I have been doing since they became
>victims who would not sell their grief.
> They would not sell out the privacy of their hurt and tears
>for the public to lap up like fred goldman did. They did not
>make comments and parade themselves in front of the media at
>every chance they had to grab a microphone like goldman did.
There he goes again! Jesus, Mike, why don't you just go live in a cave
somewhere if decent humanity offends you so much? I PROMISE the world will roll
along just fine without you.
> Your kind of people appear to be the fred goldman type, the
>show off and creep who is looking to gain from his loved ones
>death death.
> The type that will use the sympathy generated by the
>foolish sob sister types and all those who are dumb and so
>easily fooled.
>It is clear to everyone but them that they do not know the
>difference between a con man and a sincere victim.
And Mike, you are so twisted and filled with psychosis that you can't tell the
difference between a celebrity and a murderer.
> You are the single most gullible and easily conned kid I
>have ever run across in my entire life. Why don't you stop
>trying to act grown up and actually live that lonely life of
>yours?
Look at who....excuse me, look at WHAT is talking. What a sad pathetic
miscreant.
> Your childish antics provide no stimulation, and I just do
>not have the time I used to for nonsense.
Really? How often do you spend at the altar worshipping murderers? Is it double
the time you devoted to Simpy since the nanny escaped justice?
> Abi gezint! Thats
>not a kill file threat, just telling you I might not answer
>frivolous posts because I have other interests.
Let's see, that must be either scarfing down donuts, bashing crime victims,
licking Simpy's blood soaked Bruno Magli's, or frantically canceling his own
posts. By the way, WHY are you doing that, Mike? What exactly did you say that
you are suddenly ashamed of?
NOT a good summer for murderer worshippers.
***************************
"This is work for a butcher, not a pharoah."
- Yul Brynner 1956
"I want to get back to work."
- O.J. Simpson 1998
ma
deepf...@hotmail.com wrote:
TERM SIMPSON PRESENTED THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO THE "COURT",THUS
Ms. WOODWARD WAS SET FREE LIKE THE "ALL-AMERICAN HERO" O.J. SIMPSON.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT "THEY" THINK,THE CASE AT HAND WAS A MATTER OF
FACT AND LAW. THE JUDGE BASED THIS DECISION ON FACT AND LAW. HE WAS UPHELD BY THE
HIGH COURT.
THE CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH v. WOODWARD IS CLOSED.
M.A.ON FACT AND LAW ................................... !
Tortorus Natibus
Tortorus Natibus wrote:
> > In plain ordinary English: Babies don't get skull fractures and then walk
> > around for days with no visible effects. They don't even walk around a
few
> > minutes.
Al Walker wrote:
> In plain ordinary english you are absolutely wrong. 8 month
> old infant's NEVER WALK AROUND, much less with a fracture.
Walker,
I anticipated that you would reply to my posting, and that I could count on
your response to be: 1) rude, 2) irrelevant, 3) unbelievable, 4) unnecessarily
long. Four out of four isn't bad.
Let's deal with 1) first. You didn't even get the insult right. I'm a little
bit surprised that someone who comes up with the imaginative scenarios you
write is so literally minded, but since we're being literal--if, as you point
out, 8 month-old infants NEVER WALK AROUND, then I'm not "absolutely wrong."
Rather, I'm absolutely right. If no 8 month-old infants walk around, then
babies with skull fractures don't either.
But since you don't seem to like figures of speech, I'll put things so you can
understand them. According to the recent report in The New England Journal of
Medicine, infants with the kinds of serious skull fractures that Matthew
Eappen had, immediately lapse into unconsciousness, and then they die. They
don't appear to be normal for days or weeks, only later to lapse into
unconsciousness, as Barry Scheck claimed.
Here comes 2), the irrelevant part.
> There have been many hairline skull fracture's in infant's,
> and some have even healed without being treated.
> Many instances of fracture's were documented in children
> who did walk around, and the injuries were only discovered
> after later injuries required X-rays.
Even if what you say here were true, it doesn't matter. The infants you are
talking about are infants who lived. They had hairline fractures, or healed
without being treated. Matthew Eappen died. The NEJM study considers
children who died of serious head injuries, as did Matthew. Of the 95 who
died, 94 lapsed into immediate unconsciousness. The one who didn't did not
suffer an identical injury to Eappen's..
As the article states unequivocally: "There is no evidence that traumatic
acute subdural hematoma, particularly that leading to death, occurs in
otherwise healthy infants in an occult or subclinical manner."
Here comes 3), the unbelievable part:
> I have not read nor have I heard anyone knowledgeable or a
> medical expert discuss the findings you speak of. But you
> must understand they will have more than likely used the same
> information put forth by the prosecution.
Have you ever heard of peer accountability? There's a basic difference
between "Barry Scheck science" and the kind of science published in
respectable journals like The New England Journal of Medicine. In Barry
Scheck science, you drag a $100,000 through the medical community until you
find someone who bites, somewho is willing to say what you want them to say.
In reputable scientific journals, scholars put their reputation and careers on
the line. If the NEJM report were bogus, some hungry post-doc would
immediately publish a refutation and guarantee himself a tenure track
position. The authors of the original article would be left with the same
credibility as the poor guys who thought they'd discovered cold fusion a few
years back.
BTW, I suppose you think those 95 babies who immediately lost consciousness
and died were just trying to help out the prosecution in the Woodward case?
> Shaken baby syndrome can cause retinal hemorrhages, but
> does not cause a skull fracture, not even a hairline
> fracture!
Well, you've obviously been listening carefully to Barry Scheck.
The NEJM specifically addresses this question. The authors say that
shaken-baby syndrome accounts for most severe brain injuries to infants, but
that it should more accurately be called "shaking-impact syndrome," since most
injury comes when the head forcefully strikes a surface. That Matthew Eappen
did not have obvious marks on his scalp does not mean that his head did not
strike an object. The article notes that when the head strikes a soft object
like a couch or pillow, the force is dissipated, but "the brain itself
decelerates rapidly."
IOW, the sweet little nanny used the baby's head for a basketball, maybe
banging him around for awhile on the couch or the bed.
> These people used this young girl to shift blame from them
> to her. Who knows the mother or father could have done it that
> morning by accident and not tell anyone? Then when the nanny
> saw the baby finally stop breathing she called the emergency
> medics? Prove to me that was not possible?
I want to make sure you get this straight. The baby's head injury was a
serious injury--serious enough to lead to immediate unconsciousness and then
death. If the baby was conscious when the parents left that morning, they
could not have been the one's who caused the injury. If the baby became
unconscious during the time when he was with innocent Louise--and there was no
one else around--then she had to have been the one responsible.
BTW, I heard one of the nurses who was present in the operating room during
the futile operation to try to save Matthew Eappen's life call into an NPR
station. She said that there was no doubt among any of the doctors that baby
Matthew had been seriously abused--that what had happened to him was not the
result of a lingering injury. She did not hesitate to call Louise Woodward a
murderer.
One last question: Do you always insult the families of those who have been
brutally murdered, or just the families whose relative's murderers are
defended by Barry Scheck? That's a rhetorical question, of course. I think I
know the answer.
And, finally, in true "Al Walker style," one last insult.
> And I mean prove it, not just repeat what you do not
> understand? This conclusion did not take into acount the
> defense allegations of skull fracture.
>
The report did take into account the defense allegations of skull fracture. It
said they were nonsense.
Al, it seems you have only a couple of choices here.
1) Admit you were wrong (unlikely).
2) Insult me again.
3) Tell me I'm full of "hate." Call me a "hate-mongre."
4) Put me in the infamous Al Walker kill-file.
5) Ignore me.
I'm torn between which one of 2), 3) or 4), you'll try, but I can hardly wait.
Sherlock
Eight month old babies who get their head hit against some immovable object
also gets a depressed fracture, not a linear fracture such as this baby did.
Also, a baby slammed against an object has neck trauma and bruising on the
outside, again, symptoms this baby did not have. never forget the baby had
been in distress that morning before Louise took over. Louise was told by
Ms. Eappon that he had been constipated all weekend and crying. There is no
dispute to a three week old wrist fracture. again, they went for what was
perceived as the easy conviction instead of trying to find out the truth.
the parents were part of the medical team that worked on the baby. They
were NEVER investigated. Their testimony was only scrutinized by the
Defense, and that was during trial, where the defense would be making a
major mistake to do anything but be kind during cross examination.
Considering this case was another rush to judgment, mistakes were made.
Does anyone really want convictions based on incomplete information just
because they are easy??? Would anyone want to be judged in this
manner????????? I don't think so. This child deserved to have complete
information and a complete investigation before anyone was arrested. We all
know how police stick together, it is the same with doctors. In most child
injury cases the parents are supposed to be investigated as well, not be
part of the treatment plan. Add to this, forensic evidence disappearing.
Something is very wrong in Massachusetts. Taking lessons from L.A. again I
think.
Tortorus Natibus wrote in message <6mreq0$ilh$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu>...
deepf...@hotmail.com
In article <3590AD32...@cranston.com>,
ma <m...@cranston.com> wrote:
> Ms. WOODWARD WAS SET FREE LIKE THE "ALL-AMERICAN HERO" O.J. SIMPSON.
> IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT "THEY" THINK,THE CASE AT HAND WAS A MATTER OF
> FACT AND LAW. THE JUDGE BASED THIS DECISION ON FACT AND LAW. HE WAS UPHELD BY THE
> HIGH COURT.
> THE CASE OF THE COMMONWEALTH v. WOODWARD IS CLOSED.
>
> M.A.ON FACT AND LAW ................................... !
>
>
I agree with the finding in law - Woodward murdered the child. Glad to see you
also agree.
Ron
Hmmm......As I was reading through your step by step destruction of "Al," I
was evaluating which route he'd take with you.
Up until the closing, my money was on 2 & 3, followed by the inevitable 4.
The penalties for disagreeing with Hyeguy are well established, and daring
to confront him with facts is inexcusable.
However, after your final humiliation of old Fatty, you're headed directly
for #5. This is reserved for those who batter him so thoroughly he doesn't
go through the formal killfiling process. He'll just act like it never
happened, drop the thread, and insult you through 3rd parties in the future.
Very nice work.
Al Walker
Tortorus Natibus wrote:
>
> Tortorus Natibus wrote:
>
> > > In plain ordinary English: Babies don't get skull fractures and then walk
> > > around for days with no visible effects. They don't even walk around a
> few
> > > minutes.
>
> Al Walker wrote:
>
> > In plain ordinary english you are absolutely wrong. 8 month
> > old infant's NEVER WALK AROUND, much less with a fracture.
>
> Walker,
>
> I anticipated that you would reply to my posting, and that I could count on
> your response to be: 1) rude, 2) irrelevant, 3) unbelievable, 4) unnecessarily
> long. Four out of four isn't bad.
You should try that trick when buying lottery tickets.
telling us what you saw in the stars for my reply is unique,
hash. Except that they would not believe you anymore than I
do. But then I suppose you might be the only one that
believes what you have posted.
However, If you will admit that you do not believe
yourself, you just might get me to admit that you are a little
smarter than I first gave you credit for. When you figure than
one out we will go on.
> Let's deal with 1) first. You didn't even get the insult right. I'm a little
> bit surprised that someone who comes up with the imaginative scenarios you
> write is so literally minded, but since we're being literal--if, as you point
> out, 8 month-old infants NEVER WALK AROUND, then I'm not "absolutely wrong."
> Rather, I'm absolutely right. If no 8 month-old infants walk around, then
> babies with skull fractures don't either.
# 1
So because I chose not to be insulted by a worthless and
irrelevant comment you made, you decided to call it rude?
You are lucky, I usually never even answer much less read
beyond this schoolboy styled silliness you called a reply!
The group of infant's this group of doctors admitted they
considered had massive compound fractures of the skull,
nothing at all like the eppen case.
But then you would have no way to know that would you?
You would rather chatter like a little kid repeating what
others say, even though you really haven't the faintest Idea
what you are talking about. Particularly when it comes to this
case!
That's because you have little interest in the case, your
real interest seems to be me.
Let me tell you now, I do not go that way, and you will
have to find a man somewhere else.
> But since you don't seem to like figures of speech, I'll put things so you can
> understand them. According to the recent report in The New England Journal of
> Medicine, infants with the kinds of serious skull fractures that Matthew
> Eappen had,
By the way, did I tell you how wrong you are about the
article in the JAMA? The title even indicates little
correlation to the eppen child.
Current Concepts: Non accidental Head Injury in Infants --
The
"Shaken-Baby Syndrome"
The use of the word non accidental is objectionable when
they try to apply it to this child. They were speaking about
much more severe injury!
You are such a fraud.
immediately lapse into unconsciousness, and then they die.
> They don't appear to be normal for days or weeks, only later to lapse into
> unconsciousness, as Barry Scheck claimed.
Once again you are howling into the wind like a lonely
wolf, the skull fracture was never found or diagnosed till
after the autopsy. In fact the evidence of the skull fracture
was hidden from the defense team by the prosecution till they
questioned the coroner or doctor from the hospital that
performed the autopsy.
It was so massive and obvious that no one was aware of it
till the skull was opened during the autopsy.
I try to avoid embarrassing the very foolish but often like
you, they leave me no other alternative.
> Here comes 2), the irrelevant part.
Any comment by you is irrelevant!
> > There have been many hairline skull fracture's in infant's,
> > and some have even healed without being treated.
> > Many instances of fracture's were documented in children
> > who did walk around, and the injuries were only discovered
> > after later injuries required X-rays.
>
> Even if what you say here were true, it doesn't matter. The infants you are
> talking about are infants who lived. They had hairline fractures, or healed
> without being treated. Matthew Eappen died.
The reason it matters is because that is the kind of
fracture Eppen had. It was not diagnosed, and the damage
became life threatening after the brain accumulated fluid and
caused the complications. Some time later.
It was not among the kind of fractures the JAMA group
considered.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
Do you think you can tell about apples by studying oranges?
That is what the blueribbom panel of publicity seeking doctors
did!
Try as you might you cannot change the fact's of the case.
The NEJM study considers
> children who died of serious head injuries, as did Matthew. Of the 95 who
> died, 94 lapsed into immediate unconsciousness. The one who didn't did not
> suffer an identical injury to Eappen's..
There was not one case of a similar incidence of fracture
that the JAMA panel looked into. They were all severe and
immediately diagnosed on the first inspection by the doctors.
I have given you the benefit of my knowledge, and since you
lack even the basic facts of this case, I see no reason to
waste any more time with a dullard like you.
Perhaps you better discuss things with those more likely to
be just as ill informed of the actual facts as you are. There
are plenty of them, just take notice of those who I will not
bother to discuss things with.
And please, do not flatter yourself to think that I would
stoop to insult you, telling a fool he is a fool is merely
telling the truth.
(The rest is good for a chuckle from anyone who does know
the facts, so I will not snip)
It might also help you all see if you can recognize who
this poster really is!
Gee, I would have imagined self immolation is the best
option you would offer me?
> 1) Admit you were wrong (unlikely).
I only do that when It is proven
> 2) Insult me again.
You do that to yourself much better than I do
> 3) Tell me I'm full of "hate." Call me a "hate-mongre."
You haven't given me any reason to think that much about
you/
> 4) Put me in the infamous Al Walker kill-file.
Now you know you already are, did you think think this
phony name could fool me twice?
> 5) Ignore me.
Now you got the ticket, bugs, and most little things get
ignored, why should you be any different?
> I'm torn between which one of 2), 3) or 4), you'll try, but I can hardly wait.
I understand you are desperate for conversation or
attention, but you
will have to come back with a picture I.D. showing you are at
least 21 YO before I can teach you anything else. sorry.
I think I will toy with you for a while, is that one of
your guesses?
Vestrum excrucibo
Al Walker
I think you are right on the money Kari
The mother should have checked the child, and found the
injury.
And that information about depressed fractures and the
eppen baby having a linear fracture has never be refuted.
That JAMA article was not just about the eppen case. I
ordered the full text. See you later.
Totaljust
Subject: Re: NANNY SAY'S,"I WAS A SCAPEGOAT FOR THE REAL ABUSER"
Mike, when you admit that you are lying murderer worshipping simpleton who
wouldn't know logic, reason or justice if it arrived on your doorstep post-paid
and gift wrapped THEN you might be able to criticize a legitimate poster.
Otherwise you're just our resident court jester.
>> Let's deal with 1) first. You didn't even get the insult right. I'm a
>little
>> bit surprised that someone who comes up with the imaginative scenarios you
>> write is so literally minded, but since we're being literal--if, as you
>point
>> out, 8 month-old infants NEVER WALK AROUND, then I'm not "absolutely
>wrong."
>> Rather, I'm absolutely right. If no 8 month-old infants walk around, then
>> babies with skull fractures don't either.
>
>
># 1
> So because I chose not to be insulted by a worthless and
>irrelevant comment you made, you decided to call it rude?
> You are lucky, I usually never even answer much less read
>beyond this schoolboy styled silliness you called a reply!
Which is Mike's way of saying, "I've had my ass royally whipped by every other
human being on this newsgroup, let's see if I can bully this new guy."
> The group of infant's this group of doctors admitted they
>considered had massive compound fractures of the skull,
>nothing at all like the eppen case.
> But then you would have no way to know that would you?
> You would rather chatter like a little kid repeating what
>others say, even though you really haven't the faintest Idea
>what you are talking about. Particularly when it comes to this
>case!
This from Dr. Chilengarian, the medical expert and "father" of the year.
> That's because you have little interest in the case, your
>real interest seems to be me.
Correction, the real interest is in blowing your half baked ramblings out of
the water. Not a hard task, actually. It's kind of like shooting a target with
a bazooka at a distance of two feet.
> Let me tell you now, I do not go that way, and you will
>have to find a man somewhere else.
Brrrrrrrrr. The very thought is enough to make your skin crawl, ain't it?
>> But since you don't seem to like figures of speech, I'll put things so you
>can
>> understand them. According to the recent report in The New England Journal
>of
>> Medicine, infants with the kinds of serious skull fractures that Matthew
>> Eappen had,
>
> By the way, did I tell you how wrong you are about the
>article in the JAMA? The title even indicates little
>correlation to the eppen child.
> Current Concepts: Non accidental Head Injury in Infants --
>The
> "Shaken-Baby Syndrome"
> The use of the word non accidental is objectionable when
>they try to apply it to this child. They were speaking about
>much more severe injury!
> You are such a fraud.
I think Mike is jealous. He wants to be the biggest fraud on this newsgroup.
>immediately lapse into unconsciousness, and then they die.
>> They don't appear to be normal for days or weeks, only later to lapse into
>> unconsciousness, as Barry Scheck claimed.
>
> Once again you are howling into the wind like a lonely
>wolf, the skull fracture was never found or diagnosed till
>after the autopsy. In fact the evidence of the skull fracture
>was hidden from the defense team by the prosecution till they
>questioned the coroner or doctor from the hospital that
>performed the autopsy.
> It was so massive and obvious that no one was aware of it
>till the skull was opened during the autopsy.
> I try to avoid embarrassing the very foolish but often like
>you, they leave me no other alternative.
Now, Mike, not everyone has no shame or lack of human empathy as you do. Try to
be more tolerant.
>> Here comes 2), the irrelevant part.
>
> Any comment by you is irrelevant!
AHAHAHAHA
Good one, Mike, glad to see you graduate to grade school humor from
kindergarden. Keep trying!
>> > There have been many hairline skull fracture's in infant's,
>> > and some have even healed without being treated.
>> > Many instances of fracture's were documented in children
>> > who did walk around, and the injuries were only discovered
>> > after later injuries required X-rays.
>>
>> Even if what you say here were true, it doesn't matter. The infants you
>are
>> talking about are infants who lived. They had hairline fractures, or healed
>> without being treated. Matthew Eappen died.
>
> The reason it matters is because that is the kind of
>fracture Eppen had. It was not diagnosed, and the damage
>became life threatening after the brain accumulated fluid and
>caused the complications. Some time later.
> It was not among the kind of fractures the JAMA group
>considered.
> Is that too hard for you to understand?
> Do you think you can tell about apples by studying oranges?
Do you think you can tell the difference between a murderer and a celebrity?
>That is what the blueribbom panel of publicity seeking doctors
>did!
> Try as you might you cannot change the fact's of the case.
Yep, the fact is: GUILTY of second degree murder....case closed, don't come
back to America, we don't worship murderers here.
> The NEJM study considers
>> children who died of serious head injuries, as did Matthew. Of the 95 who
>> died, 94 lapsed into immediate unconsciousness. The one who didn't did not
>> suffer an identical injury to Eappen's..
>
> There was not one case of a similar incidence of fracture
>that the JAMA panel looked into. They were all severe and
>immediately diagnosed on the first inspection by the doctors.
> I have given you the benefit of my knowledge, and since you
>lack even the basic facts of this case, I see no reason to
>waste any more time with a dullard like you.
Oops, there goes that infamous Chilengarian kill file again! Jesus, Mike, you
are SUCH a sore loser!
> Perhaps you better discuss things with those more likely to
>be just as ill informed of the actual facts as you are. There
>are plenty of them, just take notice of those who I will not
>bother to discuss things with.
Non-murderer worshippers?
Also take notice of the Pro-J's who won't even bother to discuss anything with
HIM......the more rational among them consider him a disgrace and an
embarrassment to their cause.
> And please, do not flatter yourself to think that I would
>stoop to insult you, telling a fool he is a fool is merely
>telling the truth.
Says the man who has been called a fool more times than I can remember.
Mike thinks setting someone on fire is funny. What a piece of work you are,
Mike. No wonder people think you are a nazi.
>> 1) Admit you were wrong (unlikely).
>
> I only do that when It is proven
It has been proven AGAIN and AGAIN. But what kind of reaction do you expect
from a deluded loser?
>> 2) Insult me again.
>
> You do that to yourself much better than I do
He's right. ANYBODY could do ANYTHING better than Mike, except for making an
ass of oneself...I thinkyou OWN the patent on that.
>> 3) Tell me I'm full of "hate." Call me a "hate-mongre."
>
> You haven't given me any reason to think that much about
>you/
Then why bother replying to his post, oh glorious hypocrite?
> > 4) Put me in the infamous Al Walker kill-file.
>
> Now you know you already are, did you think think this
>phony name could fool me twice?
Sounds plausible to me. You are kind of stupid, you know. Just pointing that
out.
>> 5) Ignore me.
>
> Now you got the ticket, bugs, and most little things get
>ignored, why should you be any different?
Yep, it's the kill file again. Yawn.
>> I'm torn between which one of 2), 3) or 4), you'll try, but I can hardly
>wait.
>
> I understand you are desperate for conversation or
>attention, but you
>will have to come back with a picture I.D. showing you are at
>least 21 YO before I can teach you anything else. sorry.
What if he's 49 or 79?
> I think I will toy with you for a while, is that one of
>your guesses?
You have to actually be superior to your prey to "toy" with them, Mike. You
remember all those other times when you made an ass of yourself, don't you?
> Vestrum excrucibo
Yeah, and beans and disease to you too, genius!
Tortorus Natibus
Al Walker wrote:
> The group of infant's this group of doctors admitted they
> considered had massive compound fractures of the skull,
> nothing at all like the eppen case.
> But then you would have no way to know that would you?
Right. The New England Journal of Medicine specifically commissioned an
independent study to respond to the controversy raised by the Eappen case, and
the authors decided to write a report on a completely different topic, massive
compound fractures of the skull. Do you know what a "compound fracture is?"
That means that bits of skull would be protruding through the skin.
Brilliant. I can imagine the conversation at the Journal now.
"Boss, we've got a serious problem. You know that group of scientists who
were supposed to be investigating "shaken baby" syndrome because of the Eappen
case? Well, they've written a completely different report. It's all about
babies with compound skull fractures--nothing like Matthew Eappen."
"Shit. What a bunch of idiots. What's left of a kid after a compound skull
fracture anyway? Bits of jelly? Well, let's publish it anyway. Maybe no one
will notice."
(A week later)
"Boss, we're in even bigger trouble. Some guy named Al Walker on the
Alt.Fan.OJ-Simpson newsgroup has blown our cover. He's discovered that the
scientists studied the wrong babies!"
"Damn! Well, I guess it's all over for the New England Journal of Medicine.
Guess we'd better close up shop And we've been in business for almost 200
years. Why didn't someone do some research on this Walker guy before we
published this thing? He sounds brilliant. What medical school does he teach
at?"
> By the way, did I tell you how wrong you are about the
> article in the JAMA? The title even indicates little
> correlation to the eppen child.
> Current Concepts: Non accidental Head Injury in Infants --
> The
> "Shaken-Baby Syndrome"
> The use of the word non accidental is objectionable when
> they try to apply it to this child. They were speaking about
> much more severe injury!
Actually, Al, I have it on good authority that the original title of the
article was: "How We Know That the Nanny Beat The Little Baby's Brains Out of
His Skull," but someone decided that was in bad taste.
BTW, whether the baby's death was "non-accidental" is the whole point. Saying
it was doesn't make it so. The whole point of the Journal article is that
head injuries like the one suffered by Mathew Eappen are not accidental. They
lead to immediate unconsciousness and eventual death.
Al included a bunch of irrelevant detail about how the baby's skull fracture
was not discovered until the autopsy. Unfortunately, he forgot to snip the
relevant stuff I'd written below:
> > Even if what you say here were true, it doesn't matter. The infants you
are
> > talking about are infants who lived. They had hairline fractures, or
healed
> > without being treated. Matthew Eappen died.
>
Al responded with Barry Scheck science:
> The reason it matters is because that is the kind of
> fracture Eppen had. It was not diagnosed, and the damage
> became life threatening after the brain accumulated fluid and
> caused the complications. Some time later.
> It was not among the kind of fractures the JAMA group
> considered.
> Is that too hard for you to understand?
> Do you think you can tell about apples by studying oranges?
> That is what the blueribbom panel of publicity seeking doctors
> did!
Sorry, Al, you're simply wrong. The "blue ribbon panel of publicity seeking
doctors did not study babies with "compound skull fractures." They studied
babies who had died of massive head injuries. Some of those involve skull
fractures. Some of them don't.
Read again what I wrote below:
> The NEJM study considers
> > children who died of serious head injuries, as did Matthew. Of the 95 who
> > died, 94 lapsed into immediate unconsciousness. The one who didn't did
not
> > suffer an identical injury to Eappen's.
>
> There was not one case of a similar incidence of fracture
> that the JAMA panel looked into. They were all severe and
> immediately diagnosed on the first inspection by the doctors.
I'm sure you've read the entire article, but you're entirely begging the
question of whether or not Matthew Eappen's head injury was severe. In case
you've forgotten, I'll let you read for the third time that little quote you
like to ignore:
> >
> As the article states unequivocally: "There is no evidence
> that traumatic
> > acute subdural hematoma, particularly that leading to death, occurs in
> > otherwise healthy infants in an occult or subclinical manner."
What that means is that Matthew Eappen did not have a pre-existing fracture,
which killed him later. The kind of injury suffered by Matthew leads to
immediate unconsciousness, and then death.
> It might also help you all see if you can recognize who
> this poster really is!
> >
Actually, Al, I'm a lurker. I've posted on two or three occasions in the last
several years, and even have had conversations with you once or twice, but I'm
not one of the "bugger boys." Sorry to disappoint. If it's any relief, I
probably won't stick around long. I don't have the stamina of a Griffin or a
Wedeking.
But one of the reasons I did repond to your original post was that I was
trying to set a new record for going into the Al Walker killfile.
> > 4) Put me in the infamous Al Walker kill-file.
>
> Now you know you already are, did you think think this
> phony name could fool me twice?
>
I did it in two posts. Do I get my trophy now?
BTW, my name really is Tortorus Natibus. I'm named after my father, Tortorus
Natibus, Sr., whose name I've been proud to carry all of my 49 years.
I also predicted you would:
> > 5) Ignore me.
>
> Now you got the ticket, bugs, and most little things get
> ignored, why should you be any different?
> I have given you the benefit of my knowledge, and since you
> lack even the basic facts of this case, I see no reason to
> waste any more time with a dullard like you.
>
Yes! Two for two!
I also predicted Walker would insult me. Did he?
> You would rather chatter like a little kid repeating what
> others say, even though you really haven't the faintest Idea
> what you are talking about. Particularly when it comes to this
> case!
> You are such a fraud.
Excellent. I made three out of five. BTW, did you know that there used to be
another poster who liked to call people "little kids." Ever heard of him?
>
> I understand you are desperate for conversation or
> attention, but you
> will have to come back with a picture I.D. showing you are at
> least 21 YO before I can teach you anything else. sorry.
Actually, Al, it's hero-worship. But as I told you above, I'm 79 years old .
.I mean, 49.
> I think I will toy with you for a while, is that one of
> your guesses?
>
Now that's a scary thought!
> Vestrum excrucibo
>
Please, I hardly know you.
Al Wallker
In her first interview after finally being allowed to go
home, the young english girl {nanny] asked why the parent's
were overlooked as the possible source of the injury or abuse
suffered by the infant Matty Eppen!
to three week old scull fracture, how was it they did not take
notice of anything wrong for so long a time?
This young baby sitter was jailed for almost ten months,
taking the rap for the parents lack of time and concern for
their child.
It was obvious to everyone with at least half a brain that
the adult parents who are trained doctors, were very, very
negligent in the care of their infant son.
If the parents did not have something to feel guilty about,
why did they avoid finding a problem with the infant? Why
was it the nanny who noticed a problem and immediately called
emergency medics?
week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
have been the one to find the problem and report it!
It appears to me that the parents either did not spend
enough time with and care for this child to find such a
problem, or they did it [cause the fracture] and allowed the
nanny to take the blame.
far], I can tell you that the daily ritual of checking each
child over from the day they came home as an infant, was one
of our required chores.
As you put them to sleep at night you check arms, legs,
joints, ribs, neck, and skull for tender or sore spots that
might have happened without your noticing during the day. Our
pediatrician told us we must do this every time they went for
check ups shots and colds etc.
Al Wallker
Al Wallker
defense allegations of an old undiagnosed skull fracture.
Al Wallker >
Cable Guise wrote:
>
> In article <35904758...@yahoo.com>, add, 7@after, waker, for, email wrote:
>
> > This is all a part of life, and you cannot always find a
> > culprit or guilty party. But if I had to venture a guess who
> > was the guilty party in the nanny case I would have to say the
> > mother, her maternal instinct was non existent when I saw her
> > in court.
>
> we can safely disregard that shallow casual observation.
Here we go again. This little boy who has little to draw on
in the way of experience and who relies on the media to do his
thinking for him, makes his worthless observations and gives
no reason for them.
There was noting casual about it. It was based on her
actions both before, during and after the trial. But you are
so inadequate and lack the ability to make such observations
for yourself, that you go with the crowd. And naturally those
who lack the ability themselves will do anything and snip what
I really said, so you can lie to anyone who does not know you
for the fraud you are. Get lost little boy.
> Tell me, if the mother had cried and wept openly would you have called her
> nasty names like you did about Fred Goldman? I bet you would.
Fred goldlman put himself in the limelight, and began his
self serving comments two days after his son's death. He
created his own TV persona, and only mindless suckers thought
well of him for begging money and putting himself up for
sale. His ambition and his desire for money finally became
obvious to even those like you who are not very bright to
begin with.
Once again the only thing he seems to be good at is
worshipping at the alter and kissing the ass of a money hungry
sycophant like goldman. It does not matter to the child that
goldman was selling his story to geraldo two days after his
son was killed.
It makes no difference that the microphone hungry loser
used the death of his son to lift himself out of the lower
middle class rut he was in [making 27,500 a year as an
industrial tool salesman] and promoted himself by making
baseless allegations long before anyone had been aware of
anything!
> Apparently the surviving family members of murder and/or accident victims
> just can't win in "Al Walker's" world. If they cry they are milking the
> "evil media." If they try to remain composed they are heartless and cruel.
The families and victim's of the oklahoma bombing chased
geraldo out of town.
They told him do not come back if you are looking to sell our
grief for lonely ghouls to feed on. They would not allow his
on camera interviews and he left oklahoma and never went back
because they told him they had his number!
Those plain folks from the God fearing and family value
belt of this country chased all the geraldo's out of town and
even threatened to bop his interviewers who kept looking for
quotes.
And maybe 99 percent I saw were composed and would not show
off their tears for the camera's Those people are my kind of
people. And I have said many a prayer for their pain and hurt
to be healed. But that is not something I needed to advertise
kid, it just was something I have been doing since they became
victims who would not sell their grief.
They would not sell out the privacy of their hurt and tears
for the public to lap up like fred goldman did. They did not
make comments and parade themselves in front of the media at
every chance they had to grab a microphone like goldman did.
Your kind of people appear to be the fred goldman type, the
show off and creep who is looking to gain from his loved ones
death death.
The type that will use the sympathy generated by the
foolish sob sister types and all those who are dumb and so
easily fooled.
It is clear to everyone but them that they do not know the
difference between a con man and a sincere victim.
You are the single most gullible and easily conned kid I
have ever run across in my entire life. Why don't you stop
trying to act grown up and actually live that lonely life of
yours?
Your childish antics provide no stimulation, and I just do
not have the time I used to for nonsense. Abi gezint! Thats
Al Wallker >
Tortorus Natibus wrote:
>
> Tortorus Natibus wrote:
>
> > > In plain ordinary English: Babies don't get skull fractures and then walk
> > > around for days with no visible effects. They don't even walk around a
> few
> > > minutes.
>
> Al Walker wrote:
>
> > In plain ordinary english you are absolutely wrong. 8 month
> > old infant's NEVER WALK AROUND, much less with a fracture.
>
> Walker,
>
> I anticipated that you would reply to my posting, and that I could count on
> your response to be: 1) rude, 2) irrelevant, 3) unbelievable, 4) unnecessarily
> long. Four out of four isn't bad.
You should try that trick when buying lottery tickets.
telling us what you saw in the stars for my reply is unique,
hash. Except that they would not believe you anymore than I
do. But then I suppose you might be the only one that
believes what you have posted.
However, If you will admit that you do not believe
yourself, you just might get me to admit that you are a little
smarter than I first gave you credit for. When you figure than
one out we will go on.
> Let's deal with 1) first. You didn't even get the insult right. I'm a little
> bit surprised that someone who comes up with the imaginative scenarios you
> write is so literally minded, but since we're being literal--if, as you point
> out, 8 month-old infants NEVER WALK AROUND, then I'm not "absolutely wrong."
> Rather, I'm absolutely right. If no 8 month-old infants walk around, then
> babies with skull fractures don't either.
# 1
So because I chose not to be insulted by a worthless and
irrelevant comment you made, you decided to call it rude?
You are lucky, I usually never even answer much less read
beyond this schoolboy styled silliness you called a reply!
The group of infant's this group of doctors admitted they
considered had massive compound fractures of the skull,
nothing at all like the eppen case.
But then you would have no way to know that would you?
You would rather chatter like a little kid repeating what
others say, even though you really haven't the faintest Idea
what you are talking about. Particularly when it comes to this
case!
That's because you have little interest in the case, your
real interest seems to be me.
Let me tell you now, I do not go that way, and you will
have to find a man somewhere else.
> But since you don't seem to like figures of speech, I'll put things so you can
> understand them. According to the recent report in The New England Journal of
> Medicine, infants with the kinds of serious skull fractures that Matthew
> Eappen had,
By the way, did I tell you how wrong you are about the
article in the JAMA? The title even indicates little
correlation to the eppen child.
Current Concepts: Non accidental Head Injury in Infants --
The
"Shaken-Baby Syndrome"
The use of the word non accidental is objectionable when
they try to apply it to this child. They were speaking about
much more severe injury!
You are such a fraud.
immediately lapse into unconsciousness, and then they die.
> They don't appear to be normal for days or weeks, only later to lapse into
> unconsciousness, as Barry Scheck claimed.
Once again you are howling into the wind like a lonely
wolf, the skull fracture was never found or diagnosed till
after the autopsy. In fact the evidence of the skull fracture
was hidden from the defense team by the prosecution till they
questioned the coroner or doctor from the hospital that
performed the autopsy.
It was so massive and obvious that no one was aware of it
till the skull was opened during the autopsy.
I try to avoid embarrassing the very foolish but often like
you, they leave me no other alternative.
> Here comes 2), the irrelevant part.
Any comment by you is irrelevant!
> > There have been many hairline skull fracture's in infant's,
> > and some have even healed without being treated.
> > Many instances of fracture's were documented in children
> > who did walk around, and the injuries were only discovered
> > after later injuries required X-rays.
>
> Even if what you say here were true, it doesn't matter. The infants you are
> talking about are infants who lived. They had hairline fractures, or healed
> without being treated. Matthew Eappen died.
The reason it matters is because that is the kind of
fracture Eppen had. It was not diagnosed, and the damage
became life threatening after the brain accumulated fluid and
caused the complications. Some time later.
It was not among the kind of fractures the JAMA group
considered.
Is that too hard for you to understand?
Do you think you can tell about apples by studying oranges?
That is what the blueribbom panel of publicity seeking doctors
did!
Try as you might you cannot change the fact's of the case.
The NEJM study considers
> children who died of serious head injuries, as did Matthew. Of the 95 who
> died, 94 lapsed into immediate unconsciousness. The one who didn't did not
> suffer an identical injury to Eappen's..
There was not one case of a similar incidence of fracture
that the JAMA panel looked into. They were all severe and
immediately diagnosed on the first inspection by the doctors.
I have given you the benefit of my knowledge, and since you
lack even the basic facts of this case, I see no reason to
waste any more time with a dullard like you.
Perhaps you better discuss things with those more likely to
be just as ill informed of the actual facts as you are. There
are plenty of them, just take notice of those who I will not
bother to discuss things with.
And please, do not flatter yourself to think that I would
stoop to insult you, telling a fool he is a fool is merely
telling the truth.
(The rest is good for a chuckle from anyone who does know
the facts, so I will not snip)
It might also help you all see if you can recognize who
this poster really is!
>
Gee, I would have imagined self immolation is the best
option you would offer me?
> 1) Admit you were wrong (unlikely).
I only do that when It is proven
> 2) Insult me again.
You do that to yourself much better than I do
> 3) Tell me I'm full of "hate." Call me a "hate-mongre."
You haven't given me any reason to think that much about
you/
> 4) Put me in the infamous Al Walker kill-file.
Now you know you already are, did you think think this
phony name could fool me twice?
> 5) Ignore me.
Now you got the ticket, bugs, and most little things get
ignored, why should you be any different?
> I'm torn between which one of 2), 3) or 4), you'll try, but I can hardly wait.
I understand you are desperate for conversation or
attention, but you
will have to come back with a picture I.D. showing you are at
least 21 YO before I can teach you anything else. sorry.
I think I will toy with you for a while, is that one of
your guesses?
Vestrum excrucibo
Al Wallker >
I think you are right on the money Kari
The mother should have checked the child, and found the
injury.
And that information about depressed fractures and the
eppen baby having a linear fracture has never be refuted.
That JAMA article was not just about the eppen case. I
ordered the full text. See you later.
Robert C. Miller
Tortorus Nates wrote:
>
> In article <358EBA94...@yahoo.com>,
> Al Walker <alwa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > These two adults are doctors and since the child had a two
> >to three week old scull fracture, how was it they did not take
> >notice of anything wrong for so long a time?
>
> > All the experts agree the fracture was at least more than a
> >week old. If the woman had done her job as mother, she would
> >have been the one to find the problem and report it!
>
> > It appears to me that the parents either did not spend
> >enough time with and care for this child to find such a
> >problem, or they did it [cause the fracture] and allowed the
> >nanny to take the blame.
>
> Walker:
>
> According to the Boston Globe, Thursday June 18, 1998, a report has just been
> published in the New England Journal of Medicine by a team of independent
> scientists from the Pennsylvania School of Medicine specifically to respond to
> the scientific controversy over "shaken baby syndrome" generated by the
> Woodward case.
>
> Their conclusion? The report states:
>
> "There is no evidence of a prolonged interval of lucidity between the injury
> and the onset of symptoms" in children with such severe head injuries . . .
> "an alert well-appearing child has not already sustained a devastating acute
> no evidence that traumatic acute subdural hematoma, particularly that leading
> to death, occurs in otherwise healthy infants in an occult or subclinical
> there is an "immediate or rapid onset of neurological symptoms."
>
> The authors cite a San Francisco study in which 95 children died of accidental
> head injuries. All but one "had an immediate decrease in the level of
> consciousness." The one exception suffered a different kind of injury than
> Matthew Eappens and died of surgical complications.
>
> around for days with no visible effects. They don't even walk around a few
> minutes.
>
[Except that the baby had a past fracture that was several
weeks old.]
anti-chilengarian
In article <3591A7BB...@yahoo.com>, alwa...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
(Hyeguy's usual sticking up for killers deleted)
> I think I will toy with you for a while, is that one of
>your guesses?
>
> Vestrum excrucibo
Oh Hyeguy. Hitler, OJ, the nanny. Who's next? The unabomber?
If you're going to stick up for a killer, at least have a good excuse, okay?
I mean, these lame theories you keep throwing out, it's embarrassing.
Anti-Chilengarian