It’s not “an opinion” to tell OP how disgusted you are and point out parts of his crime you think are most outrageous to goad her into defending him so you can pick her apart further ( as seen the one time she made the comment about older woman vs children)
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Well as you have addressed this to me specifically, I will respond to you directly:
I have given my opinion on your original post and stand by my opinion that I find it repellent that you think it's fine to communicate with a killer of an 88 years old woman but it's ok as you would not do so it he was involved with 'child crime'.
There you go. End of.
I don't think all convicts on death row are evil psychopaths. I imagine many of them who made a terrible decision many years ago have grown considerably in that time and taken the opportunity to reflect and express remorse, perhaps try to make amends as best they can. Nothing can lessen the crime they committed but equally they are a whole person aside from their crime. I can understand how people could not get past the crime though.
I think this was tackled well in I am a Killer - gave an insight from both sides
Well mature debate requires that any thesis can be responded to in kind by an alternative thesis. If a customer volunteers the information that she writes to a person on death row, whom she considers a “dear sweet human”, and then furthermore gives that persons name then it is surely immature, or at best desperately niave, to think that anyone wouldn’t immediately Google him to find out exactly what the dear sweet human did. Indeed wouldn’t carrying out the said Google search be very much in line with expanding the opprtunity to learn/educational experience you outlined in posts 382 and 386 above. Maturity surely suggests that an educational experience is of little value unless all the facts are understood. (In fact sod it, I would put my mortgage on betting you googled him yourself). And in additional fact i would say that an educational experience is of no value UNTIL all the facts are known. Because that is what makes the difference between informed opinion, and biased propaganda.
Being empathic and nonjudgmental does not equal abandoning your own moral framework and disgust at his actions. He slaughtered an elderly woman who would have been physically unable to defend herself. He was found guilty of this at trial, and this decision was upheld at subsequent appeals. What further understanding is required? And what is the purpose of such understanding other than to seek reasons to minimise the severity of his actions. Mitigation would have been considered at the sentencing and subsequent appeals. From what I’ve seen of the trial reports none was found.
I agree.
If it was a young man in a gang convicted of murdering another gang member than maybe I could see how it was different than a child murder or nonce but this guys crime sounds absolutely barbaric. Can’t understand the “if he was a child murderer I wouldn’t have written” logic at all.
The whole person outside of their crime scenario can only work if we assume that each decision you make has equal importance and impact on your life. That somehow choosing which socks to put on in a morning is of equal import to a persons character then choosing to take the first puff of the crack pipe. The reality is you simply can’t separate a death row prisoner from his crimes in any meaningful way. Everything about that persons life, his accommodation, his daily routine, even his eventual death, is as a consequence of the said “terrible decision”. Not all decisions are created equal. There are no metaphysical scales which he can rebalance by simple reflection, once the scales are tipped to the extent you end up on death row they are tipped for ever, in both a legal and moral sense. In this case what do you propose he does to ”make amends” to Myrtle and her family. Say he’s very sorry and he pinky promises not to do it again? The amends is that he serves the sentence set out by the court. If he genuinely has remorse he must surely understand that.
Kids- no no, the elderly- a-ok 
Does anyone watch the channel ewu on YouTube? The latest video of the police interview is the most shocking I've seen.
I'm not sure what to think, claims of him being bipolar or schizophrenic but cant find any info if true.
He killed his wife and 10 yr old daughter, luckily his 4yr old son survived his 11 stab wounds,
Apparently the judge took the death penalty off the table due to request of the victims family.
The only emotion he seems to show in the interview is his relief of having his handcuffs removed.
I'm not sure what to think, claims of him being bipolar or schizophrenic but cant find any info if true.
He killed his wife and 10 yr old daughter, luckily his 4yr old son survived his 11 stab wounds,
Apparently the judge took the death penalty off the table due to request of the victims family.
The only emotion he seems to show in the interview is his relief of having his handcuffs removed.
All this death row talk has reminded me of the case of Ronald Sanford in the US. He was interviewed by Trevor McDonald for his death row series. He, along with an older friend, murdered 2 elderly sisters when he was 13 for $5. He was encouraged to admit responsibility on the understanding that his age and lack of conclusive evidence would lead to a shorter sentence however he was sentenced to 170 years without parole when he was 15 and his accomplice got a much lesser sentence and was released after a few of years. The case has always left me really torn. Yes of course, he should be punished for his crime but also, he was 13 
He's spent his life in jail educating himself and seeking redemption, in the interviews I've seen with him he comes across as a humble man, truly sorry for his actions. Is his sentence fair? I can't decide.
He's spent his life in jail educating himself and seeking redemption, in the interviews I've seen with him he comes across as a humble man, truly sorry for his actions. Is his sentence fair? I can't decide.When I spoke of being empathetic and nonjudgmental- I was referring to the OP.
Yeah I love that channel! Don't think this is one I have watched yet (video is blocked).
Wow, I've never heard of him. 13 is so young but I'm torn because I believe James Bulger's killers should have never been released. I think the fact his friend got such a light sentence makes it all seem worse.All this death row talk has reminded me of the case of Ronald Sanford in the US. He was interviewed by Trevor McDonald for his death row series. He, along with an older friend, murdered 2 elderly sisters when he was 13 for $5. He was encouraged to admit responsibility on the understanding that his age and lack of conclusive evidence would lead to a shorter sentence however he was sentenced to 170 years without parole when he was 15 and his accomplice got a much lesser sentence and was released after a few of years. The case has always left me really torn. Yes of course, he should be punished for his crime but also, he was 13
Why did the older friend get a lesser sentence? You would think he’d get longer and in the context of only knowing what you’ve said about the case (not heard of it previously) it does seem an unfair sentence. Maybe he should have got less or his accomplice moreAll this death row talk has reminded me of the case of Ronald Sanford in the US. He was interviewed by Trevor McDonald for his death row series. He, along with an older friend, murdered 2 elderly sisters when he was 13 for $5. He was encouraged to admit responsibility on the understanding that his age and lack of conclusive evidence would lead to a shorter sentence however he was sentenced to 170 years without parole when he was 15 and his accomplice got a much lesser sentence and was released after a few of years. The case has always left me really torn. Yes of course, he should be punished for his crime but also, he was 13
Was the friend equally complicit too? Unbelievable the differences in sentencing there.All this death row talk has reminded me of the case of Ronald Sanford in the US. He was interviewed by Trevor McDonald for his death row series. He, along with an older friend, murdered 2 elderly sisters when he was 13 for $5. He was encouraged to admit responsibility on the understanding that his age and lack of conclusive evidence would lead to a shorter sentence however he was sentenced to 170 years without parole when he was 15 and his accomplice got a much lesser sentence and was released after a few of years. The case has always left me really torn. Yes of course, he should be punished for his crime but also, he was 13
I don’t believe a 13 year old should be given a whole life sentence like that.
That’s a very good point regards James Bulger’s killers, I hadn’t thought of that and I certainly don’t think they should have been released as quickly as they were. I’m definitely more conflicted (rightly or wrongly) because of how Sanford came across in interviews. He seemed, yeah I’m gonna say it, like a nice genuine guy who’d made a terrible decision. I’m not sure a convicted murderer can be a nice person though.
---
The friend was arrested a year later and, from what I’ve read, put all the blame on Sanford. The legal representation Sanford received seems questionable at the very least.
Thanks for posting that, my browser only threw up very limited results.
This is what I’ve found..
Ronald L Sanford has been imprisoned for nearly 3 decades for a crime he committed at the age of 13. He was sentenced at 15 to 170 years in prison, so he is eligible for parole at age 100. The heinous crime, a double homicide, was committed by Ronald and an older boy when their plan to earn money for the fair by cutting grass was interrupted. The boys ended up with $5 after robbing and murdering two elderly women. The older boy was arrested first, immediately bacame a witness for the prosecutors, blamed Ronald (2 years younger), and was out of prison in 2 years.
His “friend” took a plea deal that’s why he got out earlier.
In doing so he also implicated Sanford for the more severe allegations. Sean Rowe claimed to be a witness to the double homicide, stating that both were committed by Sanford alone. The murder charges against Rowe were dropped, and Sanford took the brunt. His friend got just over 5 years was out in 2.
you’d think with living in America you’d be more cautious about killing people as you’re guaranteed to be put on death row, depending on the severity of the murder and well depending on what state as I know not every one does have the death penalty. I know not everyone will think like that but you’d think they would think twice surely.
Last edited:
I don’t think people commit murder with the idea of their future sentence in mind. It’s been shown time and time again that the death sentence is not a deterrent for crime.
Not having a go, I realise my tone could come off a bit sarky! Not intended!
- Status