Teresita Andalis was murdered August 10, 1980.
Carmelita Lee was murdered on January 21, 1984.
Pauline Kelly was killed on December 23, 1986.
Nenita Evans disappeared on January 8, 1987.
Azucena 'Asing' Pollard and her son Harry jnr. disappeared sometime between January 8 and June 4, 1987.
Nenita Westhof was murdered on February 18, 1987; 9 days later her ex-husband was also murdered.
Rowena Sokol 17-years-old, was killed on February 23, 1987.
Lusanta de Groot and baby 1987, Lusanta survived; her baby died.
Bibiana Doria Singh was last seen in 1987.
Socorro North and her child were last seen in 1987.
Jean Strachan Keir was murdered on February 9 or 10, 1988
Bella Rodriguez Elmore was murdered on March 16, 1988.
Nanette Villani found dead in June 1989.
Generosa Bongcodin was killed on July 9, 1989.
Julietta Apacway Herring was murdered on November 25, 1989.
Milagros 'Mila' Dark found dead on February 17, 1990.
Eve Roweth found dead in March 1991.
Rosalina Canonizado found dead on April 13, 1991.
Teresita Matan Garrott and Normita Barrios Garrott died on May 1, 1991.
Pia Navida found dead in 1991.
Marylou Orton found dead on March 13, 1992.
Milagros 'Mila' Bordador Wills was murdered on April 3, 1993.
Elizabeth Mary Haynes and Yohana Rodriguez 5 and 12-years-old, were killed on April 24, 1993.
Elma Albarracin Young was killed on February 20, 1994.
Priscilla Squires died on November 29, 1995.
Susan Dimatulae Pecson was murdered on September 26, 1996.
Annabel Sabellano Strzelecki is missing since June 6, 1998.
Marie Ann Stanton was murdered on March 11, 1999.
Ruth Amores Butay was killed on June 23, 2000.
Loiva Gonzales, her husband and her 18-year-old daughter, Clodine, were murdered on July 10, 2001.
Jarrod, Ryan and Ashley Fraser 4, 5 and 7-years-old were murdered between 18-20 August, 2001.
Virginia Abad Frost was killed on February 16, 2004.
Flordeliza (Flora) O'Connor was killed on 7 July 2007.
Luvina Dayang was killed on 11 or 12 December 2007.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Domestic Violence
Shining a light into the murky depths of partner violence
- Katie Dunlop
- March 20, 2009
DOMESTIC violence, family violence, violence against women, intimate partner violence: we definitely have a range of phrases for the abuse men inflict on women and children within what ought to be relationships of trust and love.
Pity we don't use them to describe the murders we often see on our front pages — the kids driven into the dam or gassed in the car, the wife or girlfriend stabbed in her kitchen, thrown off a cliff or shot in scrubland. Aberrations? Love gone wrong? No. These instances of violence are just the tip of the iceberg. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is everywhere, even if you don't know it.
It seems the subject of IPV is taboo, so those who experience it assume the abuse is their problem and not the social and public health issue it really is. We need to start talking about IPV and we need to do it now.
I have long known that relationships could be abusive, but it had never occurred to me that IPV was a common experience for so many Australian women. More than a third of Australian women who have had a boyfriend or husband experience abuse. Most shockingly, IPV is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women aged between 15 and 44.
Since I began working with women who have experienced abuse, the reality of IPV has become even starker. Rather than numbers on a page, these are real women with faces and histories. Each of them has a unique but common story: of living with control, fear and abuse, and courageously doing all they can to look after themselves and their children who, as IPV witnesses and victims, also suffer devastating effects.
If you are surprised at the extent of IPV, you are not alone. Our awareness of IPV in Australia is very poor. According to a recent Victorian study, many think that women abuse their partners as much as men (false: men are the perpetrators 98 per cent of the time) or that IPV is excusable if it represents a "temporary loss of control", or if the abuser subsequently apologises (false: many IPV incidents, especially murders, are premeditated).
How can we work together to solve a national crisis if a significant portion of the nation is unaware of the crisis in the first place?
In an atmosphere where IPV is shrouded in silence and myth, asking for help involves the risk of being judged or misunderstood. We must aim for a society in which women can ask for help, secure in the knowledge they will be supported and respected.
Being equipped with the information and ability to talk about IPV also allows us to recognise and respond to the signs of abuse in our own relationships and in those of our friends and family.
By transforming our silence — which implicitly accepts and condones IPV — into a loud and clear conversation, we create a society where IPV has few places to hide. We create a society that expresses zero tolerance for violence against women. The reality is that the creation of this type of society is within our capacity.
Often the media contribute to the silence on IPV by failing to discuss it constructively or not discussing it at all. Rather than leaving us at an impasse, this points us to a valuable opportunity. Imagine the possibilities for socially responsible reporting that would arise out of a collaborative relationship between IPV experts, survivors and volunteers and journalists.
The IPV service community should provide journalists with training on IPV issues and support the media's coverage of IPV incidents. It should offer information about IPV, advice on sensitive and educational reporting, and the opportunity for journalists to personalise each story by drawing on the perspectives of IPV survivors.
Media collectives of this type would help smash the silence on intimate partner violence by ensuring that, where it is present in the fabric of society, IPV is also present on the pages of our newspapers.
This is one small idea, one small step, but one that might make us a bit more aware of IPV and with that, a bit more eager to act on a phenomenon that is destroying the hearts and bodies of so many Australian women and children. No idea is a silver bullet: solutions happen when small ideas act in concert. If we take this idea of IPV media collectives, add some national, ongoing, school-based healthy relationships education and opportunities for adults to engage with the issue of IPV in a constructive and personal way, I have great faith that we will be taking our first steps in a society where IPV is taken out of the hiding place that to date has afforded it protection.
Katie Dunlop is an outreach worker with the Eastern Domestic Violence Crisis Service and is a contributing author of The Future by Us, published this week by Hardie Grant.
If you are experiencing abuse, the Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service is a 24 hour/7 days a week telephone service providing support, information and accommodation. Call 9373 0123, or Country toll free 1800 015 188.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/shining-a-light-into-the-murky-depths-of-partner-violence-20090319-937y.html?page=-1
Monday, March 16, 2009
Abinesh Sharma New Zealand Slams 16 month oldd baby into wall.
National RSS Email Print
16-month-old slammed against wall, murder trial told New 11:58AM Tuesday Mar 17, 2009
A 16-month-old child was shaken violently and slammed against a wall making his head swell like a balloon, a jury was told today at the start of the trial of the man charged with the toddler's murder.
Fiji-born Abhinesh Sharma, 37, a plumber, appeared in the High Court at Auckland today, charged with the murder of Sachin Dhani, who died at Auckland's Starship Hospital on June 21 2007 of head injuries.
The jury, of eight men and four women, heard Sharma plead not guilty to the charge of murder.
Opening the crown case, prosecutor Phil Hamlin told the court the Dhani and Sharma families were close, as the wives were sisters, and both families had moved to New Zealand from Fiji in 2006.
The Dhani family lived in Remuera and had a cleaning business, and the Sharma family often helped with babysitting in the evenings when they were out working.
Mr Hamlin said that on June 19 2007, Sharma was babysitting his nephew Sachin, along with his siblings, a five-year-old girl and a three-year-old boy. Sharma and his wife Dorin also have five-year-old twins.
Mr Hamlin said Sharma became frustrated and angry with Sachin.
"He picked him up and shook him violently. He slammed him against the wall and floor. His body went floppy, and his head became swollen like a balloon. He rapidly lost consciousness, and he never recovered from his fatal injuries," he said.
Mr Hamlin said Sachin died two days later in Starship Hospital.
He told the jury they had to decide whether Sharma intended to kill Sachin when he slammed him against the floor and wall.
Mr Hamlin said Sachin was a happy and healthy child, who was beginning to take a few steps on his own and saying a few words.
Sometime between 7pm and 8.06pm on June 19 2007, Sachin suffered irreversible head injuries.
Sharma made a telephone call at 8.06pm to Mrs Dani to tell her Sachin was unwell, and insisted that she came home.
When Mr and Mrs Dani arrived at Sharma's address in Mt Wellington, they saw Sachin was not responsive or reactive and he was floppy. They all got into the car and headed to Ascot Hospital, the nearest hospital to that address.
On the way to the hospital, they were stopped by the police because of erratic driving. When they explained where they were going, they were taken to the hospital by police car, while Sharma followed behind with the children.
Doctors at Ascot Hospital found a damaged 10cm diameter area at the back of the boy's head.
Sachin was transferred to Starship Hospital where he had surgery to relieve the pressure on his skull.
He was placed on life support, but it was clear there was no brain activity.
"The boy was effectively brain dead and there was nothing more they could do," Mr Hamlin said.
On June 21 2007 his life support was turned off and he died shortly after.
Mr Hamlin said medical professionals who dealt with Sachin said his brain tissue had become very swollen and soft, and his brain had moved considerably because of the swelling.
He said the brain had moved down towards the brain stem, causing coma which eventually lead to death.
Sachin also suffered external haemorrhaging to both retinas, with ruptures to his eye and optic nerve, which showed the force used to cause the damage, Mr Hamlin said.
At the hospital, Sharma suggested the child had fallen off a couch and hit his head on a coffee table.
"All the injuries came within seconds of each other, and would not have been caused by the child falling and hitting his head," Mr Hamlin said.
The jury was shown photographs and were told they would be hearing from 50 witnesses throughout the trial.
- NZPA
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562127
16-month-old slammed against wall, murder trial told New 11:58AM Tuesday Mar 17, 2009
A 16-month-old child was shaken violently and slammed against a wall making his head swell like a balloon, a jury was told today at the start of the trial of the man charged with the toddler's murder.
Fiji-born Abhinesh Sharma, 37, a plumber, appeared in the High Court at Auckland today, charged with the murder of Sachin Dhani, who died at Auckland's Starship Hospital on June 21 2007 of head injuries.
The jury, of eight men and four women, heard Sharma plead not guilty to the charge of murder.
Opening the crown case, prosecutor Phil Hamlin told the court the Dhani and Sharma families were close, as the wives were sisters, and both families had moved to New Zealand from Fiji in 2006.
The Dhani family lived in Remuera and had a cleaning business, and the Sharma family often helped with babysitting in the evenings when they were out working.
Mr Hamlin said that on June 19 2007, Sharma was babysitting his nephew Sachin, along with his siblings, a five-year-old girl and a three-year-old boy. Sharma and his wife Dorin also have five-year-old twins.
Mr Hamlin said Sharma became frustrated and angry with Sachin.
"He picked him up and shook him violently. He slammed him against the wall and floor. His body went floppy, and his head became swollen like a balloon. He rapidly lost consciousness, and he never recovered from his fatal injuries," he said.
Mr Hamlin said Sachin died two days later in Starship Hospital.
He told the jury they had to decide whether Sharma intended to kill Sachin when he slammed him against the floor and wall.
Mr Hamlin said Sachin was a happy and healthy child, who was beginning to take a few steps on his own and saying a few words.
Sometime between 7pm and 8.06pm on June 19 2007, Sachin suffered irreversible head injuries.
Sharma made a telephone call at 8.06pm to Mrs Dani to tell her Sachin was unwell, and insisted that she came home.
When Mr and Mrs Dani arrived at Sharma's address in Mt Wellington, they saw Sachin was not responsive or reactive and he was floppy. They all got into the car and headed to Ascot Hospital, the nearest hospital to that address.
On the way to the hospital, they were stopped by the police because of erratic driving. When they explained where they were going, they were taken to the hospital by police car, while Sharma followed behind with the children.
Doctors at Ascot Hospital found a damaged 10cm diameter area at the back of the boy's head.
Sachin was transferred to Starship Hospital where he had surgery to relieve the pressure on his skull.
He was placed on life support, but it was clear there was no brain activity.
"The boy was effectively brain dead and there was nothing more they could do," Mr Hamlin said.
On June 21 2007 his life support was turned off and he died shortly after.
Mr Hamlin said medical professionals who dealt with Sachin said his brain tissue had become very swollen and soft, and his brain had moved considerably because of the swelling.
He said the brain had moved down towards the brain stem, causing coma which eventually lead to death.
Sachin also suffered external haemorrhaging to both retinas, with ruptures to his eye and optic nerve, which showed the force used to cause the damage, Mr Hamlin said.
At the hospital, Sharma suggested the child had fallen off a couch and hit his head on a coffee table.
"All the injuries came within seconds of each other, and would not have been caused by the child falling and hitting his head," Mr Hamlin said.
The jury was shown photographs and were told they would be hearing from 50 witnesses throughout the trial.
- NZPA
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562127
John Abbott Melbourne THE BLACKSHIRTS
From the Blackshirts website:THE
BLACK SHIRTS
Thank God for the Black shirts. The only real power that can put an end to the evil imposed on marriage, family and children and bring back family values.
Don't be intimidated by restraining orders, family court applications or for that matter - members of the legal profession.
As mothers or fathers, you have a right and indeed a duty to defend your marriage - family and especially - your children.
The Black shirts are dedicated to support any and all who crave to bring back the very term marriage and family and stand against any force or power bent on corrupting children or the dismantling of the family unit or the destruction of the marriage.
The fundamental code of the Blackshirts is to always stay within the bounds of the law but to carry out within those bounds actions that will highlight and expose those who dare to try and undermine marriage, family and corrupt children.
Do not feel alone when you are faced with intervention orders (AVO) for there are over 1,000 applications per week. Do not be frightened when you are faced with family court proceedings especially when divorce is an issue for there are over 1,000 divorce applications per week. Do not be dismayed when they threaten to take your children from you for well over 1,000 fathers and mothers are faced with the same prospect each week. Do not be intimidated with the Child Support Agency for over 1,000 parents a week share your concerns. In short, you are not alone.
The answer, fight the good fight together for united we stand and put this attack on family values to an abrupt end. In short - put those who would corrupt our children, undermine our marriage and compromise the family unit into sewers where they belong.
It is the contention of the Blackshirts that restraining orders are a blemish to the very term democracy and freedom. Let the individual who has been accused of any crime be dealt with by the letter of the law and be given his or her right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty and not be restrained of their freedom on heresay and innuendoes only to be denied of what is rightfully theirs.
Let a man or woman rear their children without third party interference.Let a man or woman enjoy their entitlements in their marriage without being forced to accept a wife/husband swapping game which they call divorce and impose adultery upon them.
Let the law protect the innocent and condemn the guilty and stop what the has done in the family court in many cases to condemn and penalize the innocent for the sake of the guilty.
The Blackshirts say enough is enough. What do you say?
Had enough? Join us and put this tragedy to an abrupt end and reinstate family values back where they should be.
The children are waiting for us - the family unit is waiting for us - the marriage is waiting for us and we are waiting for you. ACT NOW.
Simply write your name and phone number or your address and a member of the Blackshirts will contact you in about 3 days.
email to: secretery@blackshirts.info
Since 1975, there have been over 1 Million divorces:
Since 1975, there have been 200 divorces granted every working day.
Since 1975, there have been 1000 divorces granted every working week.
The family breakdown has now reached epidemic proportions and such epidemic continues unchecked to this day.
Is there help for the Family; is there help or home for our marriages? Is there help or hope for our children?
THERE IS ONLY ONE HOPE, ONE CHANCE, AND ONE OPPORTUNITY!
The only natural force available to protect children is the father and family.
It is the duty and obligation and the right of every father to protect his children against any moral and physical harm.
We, the men, have for too long neglected our children and it's time that this is corrected.
It's time that we, the men, protected our children.
It's time that we, the men, protect our families.
It's time that we, the men, protect our marriages.
We, the men, cannot protect our children unless we first protect our marriages and our families.
The issue is not whether we are able under the so called present system of Law to protect our marriages - families - children; For when it comes to protecting our children, the Law must stop at the gate and the Law can only question as to whether there was excessive force. The question then remains, what force was necessary? And in my view, a jury would find it difficult to place itself in the shoes of a father who at the time was concerned only with the protection of his children.
Some men believe that they cannot protect their children without offending society. But they are wrong in this conception. Society expects fathers and indeed parents and families to protect their children and this can be clearly seen when we take into account that society all too quickly expresses; The welfare of children is the paramount consideration.
In such expression, we can find the true intentions of society and what it expects from the father, the family and society as a whole.
In the event that a man, a father, finding himself in a situation that implicates his children, does society expect such a man to consider first his welfare? The answer is NO; Society expects such a man to "put the welfare of the children first".
No man can claim that he was unable to protect his children because the 'Law' might penalise him. Society expects that man to "Put his children's welfare first" above his own welfare and interests.
The law is based on moral grounds and not on technical grounds. It is not for a man, a father, to first study the law and then decide if and when and what means to use to protect his own children. Every man has the God given knowledge, and facilities to protect his children, and the ability is the embodiment of his conscience.
Where does a man who believes in his children go to be amongst other men who have the same intentions of protecting their children - families - marriage?
Where does a man go to reverse the injustices imposed on him, his children, his Family, his marriage?
Where does a man go to re-unite his Family so that his children may dwell?
Where does a man go to get support to so "protect"?
Where does the buck stop?
WHY BLACK?
What colour do judges and lawyers wear? What other colour would one wear when mourning the loss of a loved one?
WHY THE CAP?
It gets hot standing in the sun in summer and it keeps the head warm in winter! It helps to identify us to each other and the public! Police wear hats don't they? So does the salvation army!They look better than wigs, don't they?
WHY THE FACE COVER?
Section 121 (family law act) prohibits us from identifying ourselves. We would gladly step forward and identify ourselves and the abuse being inflicted on us and our children were it not for corrupt laws being used to hide the abuse of children and families.
WHY "THE BLACK SHIRTS"
Our members needed a name that would stand out. A name that immediately identified us when in the public arena. We think its much better than the names given to loving fathers by other gutless members of the legal fraternity.
In spite of the fact that we live in a Christian democracy, or at least we are led to believe that we live in a Christian democracy, here are two examples on how the Chief Justice and the family court have interpreted the terms:
"Christian Democracy and The Family Unit"
Case 1
A father's application to the family court was to have contact to his two sons. The family court rejected the application even though there were no allegations of any wrong drawing towards his children. The presiding judge noted that the father had great love for his children. The only criteria for the father to comply with was that he first change his attitude towards his wife's partner and companion.
The father could not change his attitude towards the wife's partner and companion as that would be to accept and teach adultery, the breakdown of the family unit and the corruption of the marriage, to his own children. This father was a practicing Catholic. The result was that the father did not have contact with his children for over 10 years. So much for a Christian democracy.
Case 2
A father made application to the family court to enforce existing family court orders for contact with his son. The family court set aside all existing orders and ordered psychiatric assessment for his son and himself. The psychiatrist made recommendations that the father not associate or be a member of an organisation called "the black shirts" this was a pre requisite to supervised telephone calls and one hour of contract.
The father claimed his democratic right to be a member of any organisation he chose. The family court did not allow him to challenge this issue and no proof was provided of any wrong doing by the named organisation. The father's application was dismissed. This father has not seen his son for more than nine months. So much for democracy and freedom of will.
We could list hundreds if not thousands of such cases and those who have tasted the poison of the system know only too well that the above two cases are not only believable but also very true.
These actions by family court judges are supported by corrupt legislation. Society pays dearly for the privilege, to the tune of over one hundred million dollars per year, with the overall expenditure relating to the so called family breakdown, rising each year with over fifty thousand divorces rising to over 9 billion dollars.
This money should be spent on families, the elderly, children and the welfare of the nation.
The black shirts are proud to oppose the current legislation and the attitudes and actions of judges of the family court.
The children of Australia are in desperate need of rescuefrom this Government's blatant abuse of power.
We invite all loving parents to join us in our fight to protect the traditional family unit and our precious children.
For more information (the truth) go to www.blackshirts.info or phone 0414886776 / 0402623800
Solution
The solution;
Reinstate marriage as recognised by law.
The Marriage Act:
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Reinstate the family as the fundamental group unit of society and most be protected particularly while it is responsible for the care of dependant children.
We, the Black Shirts ask no more but will settle for no less.
The first port of call must be to create an inpregnable human shield against any and all intrusions.
It is not the concern of the Black Shirts as to whether a husband and wife live together or not, and nor should it be the concern of anyone else. However, it should and must be the concern of every degent person if the family, marriage and children are corrupted.
Especially by an intruder who would dare to try and replace the mother or the father to the children.
Such a creature must realise that no one can replace the mother or the father and such an attempt will inevitably incur the wrath of the Black Shirts and every decent Australian.
The Black Shirts stand ready to make the lives of such creatures as difficult as possible within the bounds of the law.
The Black Shirts are adamant to bring back to fundamentals all institutions that have a direct and indirect impact on marriage family and children. Whoever and what ever they maybe - No exceptions.
Reason
The reason for the Blackshirts
It is ardent belief of the black shirts that the family court and the legal profression have failed the family - the Marriage and the welfare of children and it appears that they (the family court and the legal profession) have no intention to change the status quo.
We also believe that parliament, although desperate to find a solution to this ever growing problem, have lost hope in trying to stem the (so called) breakdown of the marriage which has been and presently is at 200 per day, at 1000 per week and 50,000 per year.
The future, it seems, holds no hope for the marriage, the family, and of course the children.
We are mindful that our children are taking their lives, abusing drugs, suffering abortions at a disturbing level and many of our children are being treated as hostages by their own parents more often than not by the mother.
The above reasons are just some of the reasons why the Black Shirts exist. But even more importantly is the fact that our children are made to suffer the intrusion of strangers into their lives who more often than not are imposed upon the family by their mother.
We say that the "intruder" corrupts the morals of young by mere fact that they are there, because all children are loyal to their mother and their father.
When a (so called) man is imposed into the family home, the children automatically see this as a betrayal to the father and if a (so called) woman is imposed into the family home the children automatically see this as a betrayal to the mother.
We, the Blackshirts say that if we want our children to be morally bound, decent, dignified, honest, loyal, law abiding and responsible.
We the parents must first be all of the above because all children see adults as an example on how to behave.
This is so. Especially in their own parents
3/ To date, and especially since 1975, the example has, to say the least, not been good.
The Black Shirt Code:
1. Protect marriage - family - children
2. Re-instate the meaning of marriage, family and children.
3. Discourage any intrusion into the family home
4. Promote the best of human traits to children and discourage any alternative
5. At all times promote and stay within the bounds of the law
Which is the fundamental reason as to why the Black shirts sometimes wear masks and that is to ensure to not offend section 121 of the family law act in that indentities of parties may not be divulged.
email the Secretary at secretary@blackshirts.info
and we will answer any questions and/or offer assistance if we are able.
http://www.blackshirts.info/index2.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/19/1040174344351.html
http://www.personsmissing.org/blackshirts.html
Domestic Dispute Miami 5 Dead
Domestic dispute in US leaves five deadMarch 16, 2009, 6:43 am
A man barged into a birthday party in a Cuban neighbourhood of Miami early on Sunday, shot dead his estranged wife and three others, then went home, set his truck and house on fire and killed himself, police said.
Witnesses described a chaotic scene that started when the man showed up uninvited at the party and told about a dozen people there he blamed them for his wife leaving him, said homicide detective Ervens Ford.
Then he opened fire. Some took cover while others, including a pregnant woman, ran into the street.
"It was chaotic," Ford said. "I can't imagine what it was like in there."
The man also killed his 51-year-old wife's mother and daughter and her daughter's boyfriend, whose birthday they were celebrating, Ford said.
Police did not release the victims' names because other family members had not been notified. They said the man and his wife were married about four years and they were not sure when she left him.
Officers got a call shortly after midnight that numerous shots had been fired and a red pickup truck had been spotted leaving the scene.
Juan Sosa, who lives a block away, was out walking his dog early on Sunday when he heard two shots and saw people running toward him, screaming. Then he heard as many as two dozen more shots and ducked behind a large tree to call
police.
"I didn't want to get hit," he said.
Soon after, someone called police to say a building about 5km away was on fire and more shots had been fired. That's where officials found the alleged gunman dead. Ford said the man set fire to both his truck and the building he lived in before shooting himself.
Janseen Almodovar, who lives across the street, rushed outside when he heard people screaming and honking. He said the entire building and a truck out front were in flames.
"We thought the truck was going to blow up," Almodovar said.
Panicked neighbours were not sure if anyone was
inside the one-storey ivory stucco building, but they could not knock because the fire was so intense.
Landlord Abel Loredo, who owns the building where the alleged gunman shot himself, said the man had lived there for five years and had always been on time with the rent for his one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment.
Loredo declined to identify the man but said he had moved from Cuba about a decade ago and seemed very nice. The man was a cook at a restaurant in nearby Little Havana for a time before becoming an electrician a few years ago.
Neighbours said there had never been any problems with police and the man and his wife were often seen in their yard barbecuing. Loredo said the man's wife and her son had lived with him at some point, but he did not know if they were still living there.
Sosa, who lives in the quiet neighbourhood where the family gathering took place, said about 20 people ran into the street after the shots were fired. The last person he saw was a limping man who got into a red pickup truck and sped away without turning his lights on.
A man barged into a birthday party in a Cuban neighbourhood of Miami early on Sunday, shot dead his estranged wife and three others, then went home, set his truck and house on fire and killed himself, police said.
Witnesses described a chaotic scene that started when the man showed up uninvited at the party and told about a dozen people there he blamed them for his wife leaving him, said homicide detective Ervens Ford.
Then he opened fire. Some took cover while others, including a pregnant woman, ran into the street.
"It was chaotic," Ford said. "I can't imagine what it was like in there."
The man also killed his 51-year-old wife's mother and daughter and her daughter's boyfriend, whose birthday they were celebrating, Ford said.
Police did not release the victims' names because other family members had not been notified. They said the man and his wife were married about four years and they were not sure when she left him.
Officers got a call shortly after midnight that numerous shots had been fired and a red pickup truck had been spotted leaving the scene.
Juan Sosa, who lives a block away, was out walking his dog early on Sunday when he heard two shots and saw people running toward him, screaming. Then he heard as many as two dozen more shots and ducked behind a large tree to call
police.
"I didn't want to get hit," he said.
Soon after, someone called police to say a building about 5km away was on fire and more shots had been fired. That's where officials found the alleged gunman dead. Ford said the man set fire to both his truck and the building he lived in before shooting himself.
Janseen Almodovar, who lives across the street, rushed outside when he heard people screaming and honking. He said the entire building and a truck out front were in flames.
"We thought the truck was going to blow up," Almodovar said.
Panicked neighbours were not sure if anyone was
inside the one-storey ivory stucco building, but they could not knock because the fire was so intense.
Landlord Abel Loredo, who owns the building where the alleged gunman shot himself, said the man had lived there for five years and had always been on time with the rent for his one-bedroom, one-bathroom apartment.
Loredo declined to identify the man but said he had moved from Cuba about a decade ago and seemed very nice. The man was a cook at a restaurant in nearby Little Havana for a time before becoming an electrician a few years ago.
Neighbours said there had never been any problems with police and the man and his wife were often seen in their yard barbecuing. Loredo said the man's wife and her son had lived with him at some point, but he did not know if they were still living there.
Sosa, who lives in the quiet neighbourhood where the family gathering took place, said about 20 people ran into the street after the shots were fired. The last person he saw was a limping man who got into a red pickup truck and sped away without turning his lights on.
Stepfather Central Coast NSW
Stepfather jailed over girl's murderMarch 16, 2009, 4:29 pm
In 2005, a worried neighbour made a triple-0 call saying: "He's got a little girl in there about three, and she has been screaming for over half an hour.
"I can't understand what he's doing to the little child, and he keeps screaming 'get up, get up'," the caller continued.
When emergency workers arrived at the blood-stained NSW Central Coast house late on October 29, they found a three-year-old girl dead on the floor. She had been brutally beaten.
As workers tried to revive the infant, her drunk stepfather was berating her nine-year-old sibling, saying: "What did you do to her, what did you do to your sister?"
Despite the stepfather's contention that the older child must have been the culprit, a NSW Supreme Court jury last November found the now 33-year-old guilty of the horrific murder.
On Friday, Acting Justice Jane Mathews jailed him for at least 20 years, setting a maximum term of 26 years.
The victim's injuries were too numerous to quantify and resulted in hundreds of bruises on her body and severe haemorrhaging into her brain.
"... one can barely contemplate the horror she must have experienced when the person who was charged with keeping her from harm and protecting her from violence turned on her and inflicted extreme violence over a sustained period," the judge said.
On the afternoon of October 29, the stepfather had been drinking and after arguing with the mother of the girls, she arranged to stay at a local refuge for the night.
The sisters were alone with him and the oldest was twice sent to a neighbour's to ask for beer and cigarettes for him.
In her evidence, the woman who made the triple-0 call said: "I heard a lot of banging going on, like the walls were being broken and a lot of crockery being thrown around."
The stepfather later went to another neighbour's home, asking for the police and ambulance to be called as his daughter was not breathing.
They found the little girl lying on her back on the kitchen floor, while her older sister was kneeling over her crying.
When told the infant was dead, the stepfather became particularly upset and aggressive, punching the side of the house, and saying to the older girl: "Go on, tell them what you did."
Justice Mathews referred to photos showing considerable damage to walls and doors, and bloodstains in various parts of the house.
The surviving stepdaughter denied any involvement in the killing.
The judge noted the man's relationships had been marked by domestic violence, exacerbated by his use of alcohol and cannabis.
He has continued to assert his innocence of the murder.
"I think it is highly possible that the offender was in such an advanced state of intoxication that he had no precise memory of these events," the judge said.
While he had frequently expressed grief over the death, he had expressed "no remorse whatsoever".
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5393997/stepfather-jailed-girls-murder/
In 2005, a worried neighbour made a triple-0 call saying: "He's got a little girl in there about three, and she has been screaming for over half an hour.
"I can't understand what he's doing to the little child, and he keeps screaming 'get up, get up'," the caller continued.
When emergency workers arrived at the blood-stained NSW Central Coast house late on October 29, they found a three-year-old girl dead on the floor. She had been brutally beaten.
As workers tried to revive the infant, her drunk stepfather was berating her nine-year-old sibling, saying: "What did you do to her, what did you do to your sister?"
Despite the stepfather's contention that the older child must have been the culprit, a NSW Supreme Court jury last November found the now 33-year-old guilty of the horrific murder.
On Friday, Acting Justice Jane Mathews jailed him for at least 20 years, setting a maximum term of 26 years.
The victim's injuries were too numerous to quantify and resulted in hundreds of bruises on her body and severe haemorrhaging into her brain.
"... one can barely contemplate the horror she must have experienced when the person who was charged with keeping her from harm and protecting her from violence turned on her and inflicted extreme violence over a sustained period," the judge said.
On the afternoon of October 29, the stepfather had been drinking and after arguing with the mother of the girls, she arranged to stay at a local refuge for the night.
The sisters were alone with him and the oldest was twice sent to a neighbour's to ask for beer and cigarettes for him.
In her evidence, the woman who made the triple-0 call said: "I heard a lot of banging going on, like the walls were being broken and a lot of crockery being thrown around."
The stepfather later went to another neighbour's home, asking for the police and ambulance to be called as his daughter was not breathing.
They found the little girl lying on her back on the kitchen floor, while her older sister was kneeling over her crying.
When told the infant was dead, the stepfather became particularly upset and aggressive, punching the side of the house, and saying to the older girl: "Go on, tell them what you did."
Justice Mathews referred to photos showing considerable damage to walls and doors, and bloodstains in various parts of the house.
The surviving stepdaughter denied any involvement in the killing.
The judge noted the man's relationships had been marked by domestic violence, exacerbated by his use of alcohol and cannabis.
He has continued to assert his innocence of the murder.
"I think it is highly possible that the offender was in such an advanced state of intoxication that he had no precise memory of these events," the judge said.
While he had frequently expressed grief over the death, he had expressed "no remorse whatsoever".
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5393997/stepfather-jailed-girls-murder/
Friday, March 13, 2009
St. Charles County deaths ruled murder-suicide (MO)
Husband kills wife, then himself March 13, 2009
Original: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/617C34B921108547862575AE0063B5CE?OpenDocument
ST. CHARLES COUNTY - The deaths of a married couple found shot in March inside their home was a murder-suicide, authorities said today.
According to the St. Charles County medical examiner's office, Michael Costello, 53, shot his wife, Joyce Costello, 36, before shooting himself March 13 inside their home near St. Peters.
Both had gunshot wounds to their heads, authorities said. Neighbors found the bodies inside the Costello home on Carpenter Drive. They found Michael Costello slumped by the front door and Joyce, lying on the couch, covered up to her neck with a blanket.
St. Charles County Medical Examiner Dr. Mary Case said crime scene evidence supported her conclusion, but she would not elaborate.
Investigators have described their deaths as a case of domestic violence and that no third party was involved.
Michael Costello lost his job with a roof truss company within the past two years, neighbors have said.
Joyce Costello had been in a custody fight with her ex-husband over a teenage child. She was also the subject of several restraining orders by Michael Costello's ex-wife.
Joyce Costello was a 1990 graduate of St. Charles West High School and had worked at a nearby AutoZone.
Original: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stcharles/story/617C34B921108547862575AE0063B5CE?OpenDocument
ST. CHARLES COUNTY - The deaths of a married couple found shot in March inside their home was a murder-suicide, authorities said today.
According to the St. Charles County medical examiner's office, Michael Costello, 53, shot his wife, Joyce Costello, 36, before shooting himself March 13 inside their home near St. Peters.
Both had gunshot wounds to their heads, authorities said. Neighbors found the bodies inside the Costello home on Carpenter Drive. They found Michael Costello slumped by the front door and Joyce, lying on the couch, covered up to her neck with a blanket.
St. Charles County Medical Examiner Dr. Mary Case said crime scene evidence supported her conclusion, but she would not elaborate.
Investigators have described their deaths as a case of domestic violence and that no third party was involved.
Michael Costello lost his job with a roof truss company within the past two years, neighbors have said.
Joyce Costello had been in a custody fight with her ex-husband over a teenage child. She was also the subject of several restraining orders by Michael Costello's ex-wife.
Joyce Costello was a 1990 graduate of St. Charles West High School and had worked at a nearby AutoZone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
