| Author | Message | ||
     Mr. Big Poppa Citizen Username: Big_poppa Post Number: 861 Registered: 7-2004  |
If the neighbor really did molest the daughter, I'd say he deserved to die. However, it is probably pretty difficult to determine the validity of the molestation based on the below. Lawyer Charged With Murdering Neighbor Email this Story Aug 30, 4:14 PM (ET) By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN FAIRFIELD, Conn. (AP) - A lawyer climbed through a neighbor's bedroom window and stabbed him to death after being told by a family member that the man had molested his 2-year-old daughter, authorities say. Barry James, 58, was stabbed in the chest nearly a dozen times Monday. The lawyer, Jonathon Edington, 29, was charged with murder and burglary and was released on $1 million bail Wednesday. Capt. Gary MacNamara said that police had not received a complaint about the child being assaulted before the killing, and "we have no indication it's true or not true." Edington's attorney, Michael Sherman, said the information came from Edington's wife. "The daughter gave the mother information which was alarming and disturbing. The mom relayed it to her husband. That was the spark," Sherman said. James' 87-year-old mother discovered his body. When officers went to Edington's home, they found him standing by his kitchen sink with what appeared to be blood on him, and a large kitchen knife next to him on a counter, authorities said "He's in shock," Edington's attorney said. "This is the most unexpected turn of events one can imagine with this young man's background." Police had gone to the neighborhood before, when Edington called to complain that he could see James through a window, police said. "Either he was partly clothed or revealed parts of his anatomy that were inappropriate," MacNamara said. Edington, a graduate of Syracuse University and Fordham University Law School, has been practicing patent law, Sherman said. Police said Edington has no criminal record. Rita James declined to comment on her son's death. James served two days behind bars in 2001 on a drunken driving charge, according to the state Correction Department. "He had some bizarre behavior over the last month," said Darrell Maynard, a neighbor. "He drove his car through his garage, hit the other neighbor's building." Another time a neighbor found James intoxicated on the street, Maynard said. James shouted obscenities at children, he said. As for Edington, Maynard said: "Something had to happen that was terrible for this to have occurred." Edington "seemed like a computer geek or something. He was not anybody you would ever feel you were threatened by." | ||
| Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 1060 Registered: 7-2003 |
No, I cannot blame him if it is true. But you had better make damn sure it is the unvarnished truth before you go and commit a homicide. And the word of a two year old translated by her mother does not seem to meet that standard. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 9294 Registered: 5-2001  |
My theory on these things is that, after a very, very thorough investigation (and there had better be hard evidence), the molester should be locked in a room with the victim's parent(s), who would be given baseball bats. Why waste taxpayer money on a trial? I know that this is one news blurb and we don't know most details, but one would think that the first thing to do would be to rush the child to the doctor or ER for an exam. Or call the police. Or both. Maybe they did. But still, get the evidence before you kill him. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1977 Registered: 12-2003  |
I think it's silly that we go through a lengthy and expensive legal process just to kill someone. If you think someone deserves to die, you should kill them. Simple as that. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1484 Registered: 2-2004 |
cmonty, He did. Now a jury will not convict him. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5700 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's disturbing that he didn't even try to go through the system. Maybe ... maybe ... as a very last resort, when all else fails and the molestation is irrefutable and ongoing, maybe. But this? Southerner is partly right. He'll cop to a manslaughter plea to save his wife and daughter further publicity and serve time for that. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1277 Registered: 6-2001 |
Well, that's four clear votes for throwing the jury system out. Pitchforks and torches anyone? TomR | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3018 Registered: 6-2002 |
So if the dead guy was totally innocent should his relatives have the right to kill Edington? | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 5374 Registered: 7-2001  |
Can you blame him if it's not true? Hell Yeah!!!! I'm amazed when people jump on the bandwagon and talk about beating someone to death. An affected parent would often have feelings of revenge they would like to carry out. There is a reason we have a legal system. We no longer live on the Frontier. | ||
| combustion Citizen Username: Spontaneous Post Number: 483 Registered: 4-2006  |
I remember years ago my cousin went through a lying phase. One time she accused a friend of the family, a tea-totaler, of giving her beer. We all new the woman well, so there was NEVER any doubt that it was just fantasy. I'm not saying this child in the article wasn't molested, but killing a man solely on the word of a two year old is frightening. Was the child ever examined by a doctor to see if the allegations were true? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1278 Registered: 6-2001 |
Spontaneous, Does it matter? TomR | ||
| combustion Citizen Username: Spontaneous Post Number: 485 Registered: 4-2006 |
Does it matter if the child was molested? Uh, yeah. I'm not advocating vigilantism, but if the father had clear cut evidence that his daughter had been molested, then a lesser sentence would probably be in order, based on the mental anguish he likely suffered which would have impeded his judgement. He shouldn't get off scott-free, but considerations should be made. However, if he went went out and committed murder SOLELY on the word of a two year old, then he should have the book thrown at him. My humble opinion, of course. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1280 Registered: 6-2001 |
Spontaneous, I'm going to place you in the group that's in favor of throwing out the jury system. The good news is that your viewpoint seems to have a lot of company on the message board. The bad news is that your viewpoint seems to have a lot of company on the message board. TomR | ||
| combustion Citizen Username: Spontaneous Post Number: 490 Registered: 4-2006 |
I never said throw out the jury system, I said the circumstances should be taken into consideration, something that is already done by our current jury system. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1282 Registered: 6-2001 |
Spontaneous, What about the dead guy and his trial for molestation? TomR | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 1400 Registered: 5-2003 |
Edington is a lawyer. He, of all people, should know that you can't go around breaking into someone's house and stabbing someone to death on the word of a two-year-old. That's why we have laws and courts and police and the judicial process. Now he's a murderer, sitting in jail, one hopes, and his two-year-old will very probably spend a good part of her chldhood seeing him only on her visits to him in jail. He wasn't smart. He should pay for what he did. | ||
| combustion Citizen Username: Spontaneous Post Number: 494 Registered: 4-2006 |
OMG!!! Fine. I'm wrong. We should have the same sentence for everyone, regardless of the circumstances that led to the crime. An abused wife who kills her husband in self defense should get the same sentence as the drug dealer who kills a rival for being on his turf. Judges and juries shouldn't be allowed to have any leeway in sentencing. Happy? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1283 Registered: 6-2001 |
Spontaneous, What about the dead guy and his trial for molestation? Talk with you more later in the day. Good night. TomR | ||
| combustion Citizen Username: Spontaneous Post Number: 495 Registered: 4-2006 |
If the guy was guilty, he's already been punished more than any child molester in the US would expect to be. The only difference is that he was judged by one man instead of a court of law. If he was innocent, then the father who committed the murder should have the book thrown at him. | ||
| Cynicalgirl Citizen Username: Cynicalgirl Post Number: 3144 Registered: 9-2003  |
I wonder if it would be considered a "crime of passion?" While not the way to go, a defensive, heat of the moment thing. Sounds like there was some history, too, that lead Edington to think James's behavior would go unchecked. Not defending murder as a legitimate reaction. Hasn't come up much for me, but I have found that extreme threats (a bullying episode my kid experienced when we first moved here comes to mind) to one's child, especially when they're little, evoke some seriously gut reactions that are pre-rational -- often made the worse by people telling you to calm down and offering excuses for why the other person did what they did. | ||
| Bailey Citizen Username: Baileymac Post Number: 468 Registered: 3-2005 |
How does a 58 year old man who you have called the cops on because he "revealed parts of his anatomy that were inappropriate" get to spend even one second alone with your two year old daughter? Geez.. | ||
| Alleygater Citizen Username: Alleygater  Post Number: 2550 Registered: 10-2004 |
If he would have tried to find evidence or prove that the neighbor did it, then he would not be able to use an insanity defense because then the murder would be considered pre-meditated. | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 2022 Registered: 10-2004  |
I agree with Bailey. How does any neighbor get into your house and then be allowed free access to your children? WTF? When I have company over unless they are longtime friends they get the host treatment. How is it possible for someone that has already exhibited signs of mental imbalance get any access to your children? Next unless my child exhibited serious signs of being raped or molested that I could know with 100% certainty, how could you confront the neighbor for sure? Verbals from a 2 year old are meaningless. Then to actually murder the guy regardless is reprehensible. Sorry TomR but it would be much more satisfying to cripple him Then I would call the cops about both things. I believe in the jury system and would certainly do whatever time a judge meted out for my assault. | ||
| mlj Citizen Username: Mlj Post Number: 422 Registered: 6-2001 |
gee, maybe it would have been smarter to move away at the first signs of perverse behavior. seems a better way to handle than goddam stabbing murder, and consequent trial, prison time and wrecking your family. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1284 Registered: 6-2001 |
Spontaneous, Two problems with your analysis. 1). We'll never know whether the dead guy is guilty. 2). Without regard to whether or not the dead guy is innocent, the not dead guy might still have acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance. TomR | ||
| combustion Citizen Username: Spontaneous Post Number: 505 Registered: 4-2006 |
I'm not defending the murderer. I would never do something like that myself, but I'm trying to say that I can understand how a parent would be driven to do something like that IF THE ALLEGATIONS ARE TRUE. Also, why does the dead guy have to be alive to find out if he is guilty or not? | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1286 Registered: 6-2001 |
Connecticut can't put a dead guy on trial. TomR | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 3026 Registered: 6-2002 |
greentree: Because you are usually very sensible I don't understand your post: My theory on these things is that, after a very, very thorough investigation (and there had better be hard evidence), the molester should be locked in a room with the victim's parent(s), who would be given baseball bats. Why waste taxpayer money on a trial? Without a trial how do we know if the accused is guilty? What happens after the "thorough investigation"? Who decides the results of the investigation? The police? The media? The parents? Or maybe a Jury? That's what a trial is. A person is caught on video tape walking into a conveniemce store with a gun in order to rob it and killing the owner or an employee or a customer. That person gets a full trial with all procedural rights. A "terrorist" is caught on a battlefield where he believes he is "fighting for his country" or defending his religious beliefs. He is not entitled to a full trial like the convenience store murderer, but he is entitled to some "limited" form of due process before a military tribunal. A citizen is suspected of child molestation. He should be beaten or executed without any semblance of a trial. How can we afford an accused child molester the same rights as a terrorist or a common murderer? Please explain how that makes any sense. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1492 Registered: 2-2004 |
TomR, I don't want to throw away the jury system. This guy should go to a jury trial and then the jury can not convict him. Like you, I like the jury system and this guy shouldn't plead. Let the people of his community decide if he needs to be punished or not. | ||
| SO Ref Citizen Username: So_refugee Post Number: 2174 Registered: 2-2005  |
But the community doesn't know if the victim actually committed the crime for which he was accused... Essentially, the killer's defense will include "trying" his victim without him being able to defend himself [remember innocent until proven guilty?]. |
