Re: 'Wish were dead': Article on the McCarron Murder Trial

[Guest guest]

> I find it ironic that she's pleading insanity...

I'm not so sure. I agree she did a terrible thing, a really dreadful

thing. But what bothers me is her obsession with the little girl's

autism. It may be that she is prone to obsessing and she can't help

it. It's a horrid state of mind - I get it myself. It gets worse and

worse, and if someone didn't know about it being a mental illness they

would just identify with all the thoughts and scenarios that come up.

I used to do so. It contributed in a big way to my 12 years of self

harming. Now that I know those kinds of thoughts for what they are,

and it's not just thoughts of harming or killing myself but the

obsessive mental states that lead up to those, I can to a large extent

divert myself or ride them out. Without medication I quickly get into

a horrible emotional state, so painful, and even with it I start off

down that road often and catch myself before it's too late.

So while I don't believe she killed the little girl in a moment of

insanity, she may have had a progressive and intense insanity for

quite a while.

One thing that makes me think this scenario is possible is that in the

articles I've seen the little girl's behaviour isn't mentioned.

Usually when a parent kills an autistic kid family and neighbours

speak up about how the kid was such hard work, screaming, breaking

things, being violent etc. I've not seen anything yet that decribes

the little girl, only things that describe the mother's obsession with

the autism.

Genyin

--

" I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind!

The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. "

M. Schultz

[Guest guest]

It's ironic that she thinks her 'mental illness' should excuse her from

being removed from society, while she thought autism was grounds for

removing her daughter from society.

If she really believed that people with mental differences should not be in

mainstream society, shouldn't she allow herself to be locked up forever

where she could never harm another human being again?

This isn't about autism, or mental illness, or what passes for mental

illness in a court of law. It's about this woman lacking the intestinal

fortitude to accept the fate that she brought on herself. ly, it's

pathetic.

On Jan 11, 2008 1:35 PM, Kelsang Genyin

wrote:

> On 11/01/2008, De Carlo <ardecarlo@...<ardecarlo%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> > I find it ironic that she's pleading insanity...

>

> I'm not so sure. I agree she did a terrible thing, a really dreadful

> thing. But what bothers me is her obsession with the little girl's

> autism. It may be that she is prone to obsessing and she can't help

> it. It's a horrid state of mind - I get it myself. It gets worse and

> worse, and if someone didn't know about it being a mental illness they

> would just identify with all the thoughts and scenarios that come up.

> I used to do so. It contributed in a big way to my 12 years of self

> harming. Now that I know those kinds of thoughts for what they are,

> and it's not just thoughts of harming or killing myself but the

> obsessive mental states that lead up to those, I can to a large extent

> divert myself or ride them out. Without medication I quickly get into

> a horrible emotional state, so painful, and even with it I start off

> down that road often and catch myself before it's too late.

>

> So while I don't believe she killed the little girl in a moment of

> insanity, she may have had a progressive and intense insanity for

> quite a while.

>

> One thing that makes me think this scenario is possible is that in the

> articles I've seen the little girl's behaviour isn't mentioned.

> Usually when a parent kills an autistic kid family and neighbours

> speak up about how the kid was such hard work, screaming, breaking

> things, being violent etc. I've not seen anything yet that decribes

> the little girl, only things that describe the mother's obsession with

> the autism.

>

> Genyin

>

> --

> " I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind!

> The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. "

> M. Schultz

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

> So while I don't believe she killed the little girl in a moment of

> insanity, she may have had a progressive and intense insanity for

> quite a while.

To me that's still no excuse. She had plenty of support. Two sets of

grandparents, two nannies, etc. It's not like she was an overwhelmed,

stressed single mother trying to cope with an unmanageable child. Even then

there would've been other options besides killing the girl.

>

> One thing that makes me think this scenario is possible is that in the

> articles I've seen the little girl's behaviour isn't mentioned.

> Usually when a parent kills an autistic kid family and neighbours

> speak up about how the kid was such hard work, screaming, breaking

> things, being violent etc. I've not seen anything yet that decribes

> the little girl, only things that describe the mother's obsession with

> the autism.

I read about this case on alt.support.autism and in the article posted there

it mentioned that was a well-behaved child. Interestingly enough, I

haven't heard anything about this on the TV news or read anything in the

paper.

D.

[Guest guest]

Re:

> I read about this case on alt.support.autism and in the article posted there

> it mentioned that was a well-behaved child. Interestingly enough, I

> haven't heard anything about this on the TV news or read anything in the

> paper.

.... and did you notice the mother's VERY gruesome motivation? As the

news-article (and other coverage) has stated, Mrs. McCarron said she

killed so the little girl could go to Heaven and there become

" complete. " (Mrs. McCarron appears to believe that God would undo

's autism in Heaven.)

Hmmm ... we learn all too often of parents killing, or

trying/threatening to kill, their autistic children: but I can't

remember ever having heard about a mom or dad deciding to kill a blind

child or a deaf child or a lame child in the name of making him/her

" complete " or for any other similar reason. Can someone please explain

why the kind of parent who objects to the alleged " incompleteness " of

an autistic child (to the point of killing the person because of it)

wouldn't also evaluate as kill-worthy/ " incomplete " /whatever a blind

child or a deaf child? What (in some people's viewpoints) apparently

makes autistic kids " okay to kill " but blind or deaf kids " not-okay to

kill " ?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

found a school out of state and was sent there, along

with her dad and her dad's parents. 's grandfather has told of

how loved she was and what a sweet little girl she was. They had only

weeks before her death returned to live with mom as a complete family

unit. This has nothing to do with 's behaviour or being

overwhelmed by . It appears had a much bigger problem with

*autism* than .

-jypsy

At 03:33 PM 1/11/2008, Delila wrote:

>----- Original Message -----

>From: " Kelsang Genyin "

><<mailto:genyinautscape%40googlemail.com>genyinautscape@...>

> >

> > So while I don't believe she killed the little girl in a moment of

> > insanity, she may have had a progressive and intense insanity for

> > quite a while.

>

>To me that's still no excuse. She had plenty of support. Two sets of

>grandparents, two nannies, etc. It's not like she was an overwhelmed,

>stressed single mother trying to cope with an unmanageable child. Even then

>there would've been other options besides killing the girl.

>

> >

> > One thing that makes me think this scenario is possible is that in the

> > articles I've seen the little girl's behaviour isn't mentioned.

> > Usually when a parent kills an autistic kid family and neighbours

> > speak up about how the kid was such hard work, screaming, breaking

> > things, being violent etc. I've not seen anything yet that decribes

> > the little girl, only things that describe the mother's obsession with

> > the autism.

>

>I read about this case on alt.support.autism and in the article posted there

>it mentioned that was a well-behaved child. Interestingly enough, I

>haven't heard anything about this on the TV news or read anything in the

>paper.

>

>D.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Genyin,

I agree. I believe that the whole attitude of some misguided people that a

parent should feel shame over having a child such as is a cancer, and it

would be great to treat it. What attitudes contributed to this? What can we do

to change society's attitudes so that no mother will feel judged by having a

child like us?

Still, I am not saying that this feelign, or any condemnation, excuses it.

Kelsang Genyin wrote:

> *'Wish were dead'*

>

> Mother-in-law testifies McCarron claimed she would prefer daughter to have

> cancer over autism

It makes me go cold. How on earth was the child not removed from her

before she killed her? Why didn't a relative or friend report it to

social services? Poor poor little girl :-(

Genyin

--

" I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind!

The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. "

M. Schultz

---------------------------------

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

The child was not removed simply " because " the mother was a person who so

badly wanted a cure.

Its as simple as that. She refused to see autism.

On Jan 11, 2008 7:02 AM, Kelsang Genyin

wrote:

> On 11/01/2008, Ari N. <Aneeman@... <Aneeman%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> > *'Wish were dead'*

> >

> > Mother-in-law testifies McCarron claimed she would prefer daughter to

> have

> > cancer over autism

>

> It makes me go cold. How on earth was the child not removed from her

> before she killed her? Why didn't a relative or friend report it to

> social services? Poor poor little girl :-(

>

> Genyin

>

> --

> " I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind!

> The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. "

> M. Schultz

>

>

>

--

" You must do the very thing you think you cannot do-- " Eleanor Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

> The child was not removed simply " because " the mother was a person who so

> badly wanted a cure.

> Its as simple as that. She refused to see autism.

Please tell me how you work that out as I haven't seen evidence of it

in the reports. As far as I can tell, *all* the mother saw was

autism, and she killed the little girl to kill the autism.

Genyin

--

" I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind!

The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. "

M. Schultz

[Guest guest]

My take was, that she was seen by the outside world as a wonderful person

because she

was the mother who wanted to find a cure. The mother who wanted to eradicate

autism.

What I am saying is, she didn't 'see' autism, she never did. Not how " we "

do.

If she did, she would have accepted it. She saw a vile nasty disease. that's

what she saw.

If she had accepted it. Then she would've seen further: a person.Because you

must see autism for what it is. And i don't mean seeing it as being a vile

evil cancer, that's not autism.

If she had accepted it, she may have realized that by eradicating autism-you

eradicate the person.

That's the danger in curemingers anyway, eradicating the person.

But this is a case gone way too far too the extreme.

no one saw that was the case, in their eyes she was doing right because she

ahted autism and that was right in everyone's eyes.

i say she didn't see it, because she didn't accept it.

K

On Jan 14, 2008 7:01 AM, Kelsang Genyin

wrote:

> On 14/01/2008, KayeT

<kgtconeywheel.kaye@...<kgtconeywheel.kaye%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

> > The child was not removed simply " because " the mother was a person who

> so

> > badly wanted a cure.

> > Its as simple as that. She refused to see autism.

>

> Please tell me how you work that out as I haven't seen evidence of it

> in the reports. As far as I can tell, *all* the mother saw was

> autism, and she killed the little girl to kill the autism.

>

> Genyin

>

> --

> " I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind!

> The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. "

> M. Schultz

>

>

>

--

" You must do the very thing you think you cannot do-- " Eleanor Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

Sorry for jumping in on this at a late stage in the thread, but I wanted to get

my thoughts in order before writing them down and sending them...

One of the things I certainly find troubling, not just about this case, but

about the " autism is bad " debate in general is that like KateT said, many of

those that aren't on the spectrum view autism as a horrible disease, en par with

AIDS and cancer. Having spoken to several others on the spectrum, I can say with

some certainty that those of us on the spectrum don't see autism that way, since

unless I'm vastly mistaken, a person cannot die as a direct result of autism.

It's not a disease that's terminal, nor is it contageous, but from where I stand

and with my own experiences of having AS, it is something else entirely. And

what really gets me is, like in the commercials, the ones where they show the

odds of something being vastly smaller than having a child diagnosed with

autism, is that it also portrays autism to the populus in general that it's

something bad to be cured and eradicated just like AIDS and cancer. If people

want to eradicate terrible

diseases, they should concentrate on the ones people can die from, or other

conditions such as paralysis, deafness, blindness, spinabifida, etc., not

autism.

It does leave me wondering when organizations such as Autism Speaks will come

and ask us for our opinion on the matter. I do know that should they do so, I'll

tell them that my having AS is as much a part of my identity as is being 5'9 " ,

being of Polish heritage, or having long sandy blonde hair & bluish-grey eyes.

" It is better to allow others to believe you're an idiot, than open your mouth

and remove all doubt. " - Mark Twain

Debogorski

elcap1999@...

http://www.houseofgamerz.com

Re: 'Wish were dead': Article on the

McCarron Murder Trial

My take was, that she was seen by the outside world as a wonderful person

because she

was the mother who wanted to find a cure. The mother who wanted to eradicate

autism.

What I am saying is, she didn't 'see' autism, she never did. Not how " we "

do.

If she did, she would have accepted it. She saw a vile nasty disease. that's

what she saw.

If she had accepted it. Then she would've seen further: a person.Because you

must see autism for what it is. And i don't mean seeing it as being a vile

evil cancer, that's not autism.

If she had accepted it, she may have realized that by eradicating autism-you

eradicate the person.

That's the danger in curemingers anyway, eradicating the person.

But this is a case gone way too far too the extreme.

no one saw that was the case, in their eyes she was doing right because she

ahted autism and that was right in everyone's eyes.

i say she didn't see it, because she didn't accept it.

K

On Jan 14, 2008 7:01 AM, Kelsang Genyin <genyinautscape@ googlemail. com>

wrote:

> On 14/01/2008, KayeT <kgtconeywheel. kayegmail (DOT) com<kgtconeywheel.

kaye%40gmail. com>>

> wrote:

> > The child was not removed simply " because " the mother was a person who

> so

> > badly wanted a cure.

> > Its as simple as that. She refused to see autism.

>

> Please tell me how you work that out as I haven't seen evidence of it

> in the reports. As far as I can tell, *all* the mother saw was

> autism, and she killed the little girl to kill the autism.

>

> Genyin

>

> --

> " I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind!

> The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. "

> M. Schultz

>

>

>

--

" You must do the very thing you think you cannot do-- " Eleanor Roosevelt