The Bagbys kept half of Zachary's ashes. They gave the other half to Dr. Turner's family, who slipped them into her casket before she was buried in August.
Let's first make the assumption that there is an afterlife, that burial remains mean something after we're dead, that the soul of a one year old is aware of what has happened to it as it's existence is ended. Would it really want its remains tied to the person who killed it? This is so wrong.
"Mom and Zach, we love you always," reads the wooden message erected on the mound of still-fresh earth in Parson's Pond. There is no monument yet, just a picture of Dr. Turner and her youngest son, smiling on a swing.
Painful as it is, "Mom" killed this child. She is a murderer. She should not be buried with the remains of her victim, because now she wins.
She has him forever. Yes, I know. The family chooses how to dispose of its loved ones, no matter how inappropriately.
Why Dr. Turner killed herself and 13-month-old son is hinted at in the diaries she began keeping in January, 2002, when she was three months pregnant and fighting the extradition application to have her tried for murder in Pennsylvania. The entries continued sporadically until a couple of days before her death, which occurred while she was out on bail pending an appeal of the extradition order.
No one thought that an accused murderer shouldn't be looking after a baby? Even her own?
She wrote about Andrew's offbeat sense of humour, and how delighted her youngest daughter, now 12, was one Easter, when, in addition to hiding Easter eggs, he hung some from the ceiling so they bobbed against her little head.
How nice. Too bad she killed him.
Threaded through the entries are her fears for her baby's future. Before Zachary was born, she believed the Bagbys loathed her, and wrote of "long hard looks of hatred" from them during court appearances in St. John's. She expressed surprise and disappointment in this.
This proves she's out of touch. She was accused of
MURDERING THEIR SON. And she's surprised? The whole incident was to keep CONTROL of her baby; this whole stupid "she loved her baby so much she couldn't bear to part with him" crap is so fucking wrong. Parents who love their children would do anything
for them, not
to them.
And out of the woodwork come the neighbours/relatives/bystanders:
She was a brilliant young woman who overcame the poverty of her upbringing to fulfill, in middle age, her lifelong dream of becoming a doctor, said Mrs. Shears. Shirley and her four siblings lived for periods of time on welfare in Portland Creek and Daniel's Harbour after her parents split up when Shirley was seven. She was smart as a whip, said Mrs. Shears.
I love how they always write this in sympathetic articles. Like it's some big tragedy that the
MURDERER has fallen so low. Plenty of people grow up this way. They don't kill their own children.
Suddenly, at med school, Dr. Turner was fulfilling her life's dream and, with her youthful appearance and manner, began dating a kind of man more fitting to what she hoped would become her station in life, Mrs. Shears believes.
Oh, so this was all about
SOCIAL CLIMBING!
By the time she died, her life had instead become a carbon copy of the one she had been trying to escape. She was a poor, single mother, living on social assistance.
Why? Because
SHE KILLED SOMEONE. The poor single mother thing wasn't an accident, wasn't some kind of random happening...She killed a man, and was going to be found guilty of
MURDER. Who the hell wants a murderer as their doctor? Oh, sorry: accused murderer. No committing murder = no welfare mother situation. Boo-fucking-hoo.
Why is this in here? To elicit sympathy for the poor woman who decided to
KILL HER BABY!
And when she died, she had been dating a 27-year-old, and police told the family she may have been trying to frame him for her death and Zachary's murder, according to her son, T.J. Shears, 21
Oh, no premeditation there! What the fuck did she do this for? To strike back at something, anything out of spite? She was losing
CONTROL, which is what this was all about in the first place. Control of
HER baby.
And what the fuck is this "when she died, when she died" crap? Like it was something that happened to her, not that she chose it. The author is showing where her sympathies lie.
And, oh she cared so much for her children! She had two others that she obviously "took care of"
She left him saddled with debt, including a $400 cellphone bill, a cable bill and a heating bill, all of which were taken out in T.J.'s name because her credit was so bad. At one point, her U.S. creditors were taking money from his bank account to pay her bills.
Gee, thanks Mom!
Why the rant on this particular woman? I don't have a particular grudge against this woman. This story just illustrated my problem with how society and the media portray female murderers.
They always look for root causes: she was battered/abused, she was a trapped welfare mother, she was depressed. On and on. Many in society suffer these "root causes" without killing the innocent.
Susan Smith kills her two children by drowning them in her car, frames every black man in the state because of her lie about a supposed "car-jacking" and everyone starts making justifications because of past sexual abuse trying to spread the blame over everyone else in her life. Except her.
A different crime, a different trial. I remember Bernardo's trial and the "news blackouts" that restricted public information. I remember how willing everyone was to believe that Paul Bernardo beat Karla Homolka into submission, that she was an unwilling participant, that she wasn't as bad as he was...It was generally accepted that he was much much worse than she was - until the tapes came out.
Then the [gasp] shock and outrage! that a woman could be capable of this...
Call me a feminist, but I believe that these women should be subject to the same contempt and justice as any man that commit these crimes. Too bad society in general is still looking for excuses rather than confront these monsters with pretty faces.
« less
It just really made me sick the way they turned things around like that.
Trial starts, prosecution attempts to show that psycho is a psycho. Met 21 year old in bar, swept her off her feet with his tales of being a hit man, working for FBI & CSIS etc. Eventually rapes tenant, terrorizes 21 year old for days.
Defence paints portrait of a abused child, pyschological problems etc. Goes for insanity plea.
Questions not asked. Why would any woman go out with a guy who describes himself as a hitman? Aren't you asking for trouble? Wasn't this inevitable? Therefore should the 21 year old be partially culpable for the rape of her Mom's tenant?
But she was stupid. Very very stupid. That's not a crime (even though in some cases it should be.)
And in my unasked for opinion, not speaking ill of the dead only applies to those persons who didn't commit a crime that should be spoken of. There is a difference between not speaking ill of the dead and facts. Facts are good, outrage over things is good, but just random bitterness isn't good for anyone over anything. Sorry I am not making much sense and am rambling, it's late, I'm tired. G'nite!
PS enjoyed the birthday family pics! Quite the family you have there!
I will remember Susan Smith. And the others too.