Karen McCarron’s Confessions Allowed

5 Aug

Over a month ago I posted an entry that detailed how the Mccarron family were being subjected to more court time as Katie’s killer, her mother Karen McCarron, decided to instruct her solicitor to try and block her admissions to Katie’s murder from the court record – that they would not be available as evidence during the trial proper.

On Friday, the court eventually decided that *all eleven* confessions will be allowed to be heard. These confessions are on video tape, in police records, in doctors records and in the memories of Katie’s family members such as Mike and Paul.

There are two aspects to this whole thing that bother me a great deal:

1) The local support group, ANSWERS, continue to openly support Karen McCarron and also testify in her defence at court. I would wager that not one member of this ‘support group’ has been around to see the McCarron family since Katie’s murder to offer ‘support’ to Paul McCarron. They are too busy defending the actions of child killers.

2) What sort of Judge takes over a month to make a simple decision? It is utterly cruel and heartless to the McCarron family to keep them hanging on in the manner they have been whilst this person dithered around making what should quite obviously be – given the fact there are eleven separate confessions – an easy call. Lets hope he pulls his finger out when it comes to the proper trial.

Most people who are regulars on this blog will know that I have a good relationship with the Mccarron’s. We are very close. They were asked by their solicitor not to discuss the case and so they have not but even though they have not, the pain they are suffering through is tangible. This ruling will not take away that pain but I hope it may finally offer them a little chink of light in the battle for Katie’s memory.

17 Responses to “Karen McCarron’s Confessions Allowed”

  1. Ms. Clark August 5, 2007 at 03:58 #

    I’m happy that the judge will allow these confessions. It’s not much compared to the loss of Katie, but seems like a little something on the side of justice.

    Hugs for the McCarron family from me. I hope this moves along faster now.

  2. Kassiane August 5, 2007 at 05:52 #

    Welll ANSWERS is still on MY shitlist…and I have, like, actual dirt on them. Ironic that they meet in a church and support a killer, eh?

    McCarron family-Mike, Paul, Grandma McCarron (your name slips my mind)-I hope and pray that justice is served, every day, for your little Katie. This is a step in the right direction, for sure. Squishy hugs to you and yours.

  3. Shinga August 5, 2007 at 08:18 #

    I hope that this signals a less traumatic court case for the McCarrons but if ANSWERS has the bad taste to take such supportive action then I am apprehensive for what the McCarrons may have to listen to over the course of the case.

  4. Bonnie Ventura August 5, 2007 at 12:15 #

    Kev, many courts in the United States have extremely overcrowded dockets and take a month, or more, to do almost anything. Most likely, the judge is just very busy, not cruel or heartless.

  5. Rose August 5, 2007 at 12:17 #

    I figure she’ll get by, by reason of insanity. You’d have to be insane to kill your child, no matter what.

    May something good come of this evil deed. Nothing can bring Katie back, but in her memory the world can become a better place. Maybe the ANSWER is to lay off the “tragedy” of autism.

  6. daedalus2u August 5, 2007 at 12:56 #

    daedalus2u – please don’t even post such self serving, self aggrandising crap on my blog ever again. Kev.

  7. brook trout August 5, 2007 at 13:14 #

    I’ve hired a couple of tutors to work with my daughters over the past six months or so. I live in Raleigh, NC, and it so happens that the two tutors that I’ve hired both work at the same school where Katie attended. Both, like Katie’s grandfather, describe Katie as a very happy, adorable child who was always smiling – not living in a “hell” of autism.

    I have to think that the desperation fomented by this endless quest for “curing” these children must have somehow contributed to this. I admit, I’ve felt it – when my daughters were first diagnosed – I felt desperation and urgency and a strong need to “cure” them – though, in times of calm, when I wasn’t obsessing, I did realize that the desperation that I felt was quite out of proportion with reality – my daughters, in simple terms, weren’t that bad. They’re happy, progressing, not too difficult to parent most of the time (and there’s two of them for crissake), so somehow, the message put forth by the cure groups contributes, I think, to unreasonable feelings of distress and despair amonst parents that really aren’t warranted – at least in most cases.

    It’s a real disservice when the very dark picture of ASD painted by these groups shade the feelings that parents have for their own children and their own children’s future.

    FWIW – the head of the school is a nice woman and a huge biomed supporter and has put her son through just about all of the treatments du juor. He’s still very autistic despite the aggressive treatments. The tutors that I’ve hired, who are VB therapists, are skeptical that biomed really does much of anything – other than make their students tired.

  8. mcewen August 5, 2007 at 16:30 #

    As Bonnie says the docket is backed up. Additionally, it is essential to ‘get it right.’ The rules of evidence are complex. Without muddying the waters unduly a simple telly example helps us all see why it’s so important to get it right.

    If she wasn’t mirandized [cautioned] prior to the confessions / asked for an attorney and none was provided prior to the confessions, then this would mean that if the confessions were allowed into evidence [wrongly] then this would be grounds for appeal later.

    Best wishes to them

  9. daedalus2u August 5, 2007 at 17:53 #

    Huh? “self serving, self aggrandising crap”? It is your blog, you can delete what ever you like, and if you don’t want to hear what I have to say you can ban me if you like too.

  10. Kev August 5, 2007 at 18:47 #

    I don’t want to hear what you have to say when its your pontifications about ‘postpartum depression in the thread concerning the murder of the granddaughter of a friend of mine, no. Take it somewhere I don’t have to look at it.

  11. Leanne August 7, 2007 at 15:46 #

    I think of Katie almost daily. She comes accross my mind at random….often when I see something beautiful. I’m glad her killer’s confessions will be allowed.

  12. Lurkinggherkin August 9, 2007 at 23:54 #

    Kev,

    I see you link to Ben Goldacre in your miniblog. I have a lot of respect for Goldacre’s work. (Though maybe he should have listened to my tip-off that the electrosensitivity thing was about to blow up again….but that’s another story…)

    I understand that you are writing about a subject that is very emotive for yourself and many others, but I think you do yourself a disservice by dismissing Daedalus2u’s comments as ‘self-serving, self-aggrandising crap’.

    You are absolutely 100% entitled to feel angry about the death of your friend’s granddaughter. But if you take the time to read his blog on this subject (which does get a bit heavy on biochemical descriptions but avoids mathematical detail), you’ll see that he makes it quite clear he is not seeking to ‘justify’ infanticide, but is rather investigating the physiological basis of the phenomenon.

    Surely when we read of these awful crimes we think ‘What can possibly drive a mother to take the life of their own child?’ Some might want to decide it’s simply because they made a free-willed choice to commit an act of evil. Others, like Daedalus, may want to dig a little deeper into the causes, not to justify the actions of those individuals, but to ask whether these terrible incidents could in some way be prevented.

    Daedalus’ comments might not make for comfortable reading, but they are sincere and well-meant. I’m sure he doesn’t think infanticide is acceptable or excusable in any way. Rather, he hopes for its future prevention, and does not believe that this will be achieved through the threat of punishment alone. If a mother is in such a state of mind as to deliberately take her own child’s life, she probably isn’t acting rationally enough to be deterred by fears of society’s retribution against her.

    You’re perfectly entitled to disagree with him, of course, but surely deleting his comment and dismissing what he has to say as ‘crap’ isn’t the way forward, is it? It’s not like he was trolling you. He isn’t one of the bad guys, Kevin.

    Like others here I hope that somehow, some good may come from this tragedy.

  13. Bink August 10, 2007 at 01:14 #

    I read Daedalus’s original post. I was wondering how it applied. Katie was THREE. That is not “infanticide.” That is killing a child whom one finds inconvenient.

    If a father had killed his differently-abled preschooler, would anyone be saying “oh, it must be insanity, and that parent has been punished enough?”

  14. David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction) August 10, 2007 at 05:26 #

    I don’t think that Karen McCarron was acting in a way that suggests her thinking was rational, but she could detail what she did when questioned by police (and even, if I recall correctly) lie about it; this is not suggestive of any sort of psychotic episode (peurperal or otherwise)… it suggests that – as Bink says – getting rid of a child who was inconvenient.

    Katie was not in pain, and nor was she ‘suffering’ in this so-called ‘abyss’ that is autism (if New Hampshire’s favourite piss-take is to be believed, and he isn’t!). She was simply inconvenient as an autistic child. Not perfect, and so not acceptable. In Karen McCarron’s eyes.

  15. Kev August 11, 2007 at 06:09 #

    Lurkin’ G – I’m sorry I disagree. I’ve read many of Daeldus’ comments over the recent past and what I see is a guy who has an unestablished, unsupported and unverified hypothesis that he enjoys touting at every available opportunity, espousing it as ‘the’ explanation for autism. As far as I’m concerned he’s not that much different than a DAN! quack.

    But that is fine, every one has their own ideas. What is not fine is to utterly hijack a thread that is about the murder of a child and (one more) talk about onesself and ones pet hypothesis in an utterly insensitive manner. It was offensive. I deleted it as I would be ashamed had any of the McCarrons read it on my site.

  16. Lil (Lilly Jill) September 9, 2007 at 14:25 #

    Karen McCarron was due to appear in court on Sept 7. I have not been able to find out from the Peoria Journal Star. Did she appear? What was the disposition?

  17. Regan September 9, 2007 at 20:36 #

    News story.
    Trial scheduled to start October 1.
    http://www.pekintimes.com/articles/2007/09/08/news/news2.txt

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: