The search for missing pregnant Ohio woman Jessie Davis and the ongoing investigation into her murder has been all the rage recently on the twenty-four hour news networks, only surpassed by a few "choice" stories such as the coverage of the imprisonment of Paris Hilton. Not surprisingly, one network, CNN, used the murder of this young woman to forward a left-wing agenda. Two guests on Monday's "Paula Zahn Now" program warned that a "big risk factor" or a "big red flag" in cases of domestic violence and/or homicide against pregnant woman are "men who are gun owners."
Host Paula Zahn had three women guests on to discuss the question, "What is it about pregnancy that seems to increase a woman's risk of being killed by her partner?" The first guest to speak, Dr. Gail Saltz of New York Presbyterian Hospital, focused on the increased stresses on a woman and her "partner" during a pregnancy. The second guest, Jacquelyn Campbell, a nursing professor at John Hopkins University, was asked by Zahn if many of the murders of pregnant woman take place very late in the pregnancy. While answering, Campbell included in her list of risk factors "men who are gun owners as particularly dangerous in these cases."
The third guest, Pat Brown, went even further in demonizing male gun owners, even male owners of weapons of any kind. Zahn asked her, "are most of these crimes in some way linked to premeditation? Got to go out and buy a gun if you don't have one already." Brown's answer:
Well, I would say not necessarily, in the way we would think. I mean, most psychopaths, when they are manipulating people, they are always premeditating what they like and what they don't like. So, it is not something they necessarily do way ahead of time. But, before that actual event happens, they have probably gone through it in their minds. In other words, you don't do something you have never thought about. But psychopaths are also fascinated by weapons. I mean, they like the power and control that come with weapons. So, if you are hooking up with a guy who is really into a big gun collection or really into those ninja knives, it's a big red flag. He is not doing yoga, you know? (LAUGHTER) This is a guy who is not looking for the peaceful way out. He's looking for the power and control he gets. And, if he loses it with you and he loses it in his life, he may just eliminate you to get that power and control back.
So, "having a big gun collection" or being "really into those ninja knives" is a "red flag" or indication that a man is a psychopath? This is left-wing psychobabble. As a memorable quote from a movie released several years ago indicated, "you should never underestimate the predictability of stupidity."
[MRC intern Michael Lanza assisted in the research for this article.]
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Maybe I missed some numbers s
June 27, 2007 - 11:32 ET by BruzillaMaybe I missed some numbers somewhere, but when did pregnant women become statistically more prone to violence than non-pregnant women? Also, based on what I've heard so far, it would be incorrect to label this criminal as a pychopath. He is a sociopath.
CNN’s Zahn and Her Guests Use Death of Ohio Woman to Target Ma
June 27, 2007 - 11:32 ET by PamSo we are going to take guns away from cops?
Yeah, considering the statist
June 27, 2007 - 16:41 ET by mostlymoderateYeah, considering the statistics for marriage troubles among police officers is very high! I always THOUGHT the Brit's had something with "Bobbys". Ofcourse, all the criminals will still have their Uzi's, .223's, .45's etc...
Well, for those on the Left w
June 27, 2007 - 11:36 ET by Darth DutchWell, for those on the Left who are ultra-feminists, when you put men (who are evil) together with guns (which are inherently evil), you become a sociopath.
Nevermind that thousands of women give birth every day and do not end up murdered or kidnapped. The very fact that these news stories are so shocking is because they happen so infrequently. Plus, did Scott Peterson own a bunch of guns? I don't think so but he murdered his wife and unborn child.
Dutch
did Scott Peterson own a bunch of guns?
June 27, 2007 - 11:40 ET by PamGood point..
did Scott Peterson own a bunch of guns?
June 27, 2007 - 11:41 ET by PamGood point..
What gets me is that femini
June 27, 2007 - 11:41 ET by sarcasmoWhat gets me is that feminists -- who vociferously claim to be "against rape" every chance they get -- ignore the ancient feminist wisdom -- "God made men and women, but Sam Colt made 'em equal."
JMR
If that was the picture of th
June 28, 2007 - 05:52 ET by USA4freedomIf that was the picture of the woman talking in the interview, I think I would put the gun to my own head. Wow she really dressed up for the interview.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Guns today; ropes, knives, ta
June 27, 2007 - 11:44 ET by sunandsteelGuns today; ropes, knives, tarps, rocks, 2x4s, pointy sticks, garden tools, plastic bags, extension cords, forks, rolled up newspapers, flights of stairs, bare hands tommorrow.
Point: if you want to end someones life bad enough, there are always ways to do it. Guns dont make you a murderer, being a sick piece of feces makes you a murderer.
Texas has a population of nearly 21 million people, all of whom are ashamed to be from the same state as the Dixie Chicks. (IMAO.us)
various
June 27, 2007 - 15:02 ET by tejanodiabloyou forgot barrels of concrete .. also, the guy was a COP, after all ... and have they even said a gun was the weapon used ?? ... and there was the wrester the other day who killed his wife and son without a weapon and then hung himself .. soooo ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail ..
I forgot about the concrete,
June 27, 2007 - 15:21 ET by sunandsteelI forgot about the concrete, although I did mention ropes and bare hands. Its just the stupidity of the left, how many thousands of people own guns and never kill anyone, how many thousands of pregnant women suffer no harm, how many families live day to day in relative peace, but let a couple of nutcases kill people and "We should ban guns."
Texas has a population of nearly 21 million people, all of whom are ashamed to be from the same state as the Dixie Chicks. (IMAO.us)
Let's look at the Peterson ca
June 27, 2007 - 13:45 ET by BruzillaLet's look at the Peterson case for a moment. I think he didn't do it, but that's a seperate issue. By all acounts, Peterson was a loving husband, never had any signs of being abusive, and liked to fool around on the side... which most likely his wife didn't know about. Now let's compare that to this new case. Here's a guy with a very well-established track record of being controlling, abuseive, intimidating, threatening, and on and on.
Whether Peterson actually did it or not, it's hard to find any fault with Lacy Peterson as there were no signs, that anyone saw, that there was a problem. Now let's look at this woman, and all the other pinheads who went before her. What were these women thinking about when they got involved with this guy? I know lots of guys like this, and it's not like you can't tell they're total jerks from the time you meet them. Yet these gals seem to thrive on being with a Bad Boy.
If I point a loaded gun at my head and pull the trigger, I shouldn't be surprised that I get shot. And it should come as no surprise to these women who get hooked up with these nutjobs that they end up beaten or dead.
You really think Peterson is
June 27, 2007 - 13:51 ET by florida_chadYou really think Peterson is innocent? Why?
For several reasons:1. The
June 27, 2007 - 15:14 ET by BruzillaFor several reasons:
1. The cases of spouses killing each other where these is no history of mental illness, drug abuse, or escalating violence are so few as to defy mention. There are almost always motivators or signs, and there were just none for SP. Granted he was having an affair, but it wasn't his first, and he had always come back to LP, so why would this time be any different? In summary, people just don't go from being civil spouses to murderers in one jump without reason.
2. LP's body was found sans head, hands, and feet, yet there was not a shred of physical or trace evidence found on anything SP had. Not in his house, his car, his boat, the yard, the drains, his clothes, bedding, nothing. Completely clean. So how was he able to kill and dismember LP without leaving even a single trace? He's either the criminal mastermind of the century... or he's innocent.
3. He offers an alibi that provides an area the cops are guaranteed to search, yet supposedly that's where he dumped the bodies. I don't know how stupid you would need to be to do that, but I know for sure someone that stupid isn't going to pay close enough attention to pull off item 2 above.
4. The bodies were found less than a mile apart, and right where the media had been reporting SP said he went fishing. This in an area that's known for its extremely strong currents, yet these bodies defy those currents and come ashore right where SP supposedly dumped them. I've dropped lots of stuff off boats, but I've never seen it wash ashore where I dropped it. Also, the body of a spontaneously-aborted baby, which would be light and probably floating, comes ashore less than a mile from the weighted and ruptured body of the mother. How does that happen??? Lastly, the video I saw of the body of LP being recovered showed cops and the body several feet above the high-water mark. How does a body wash ashore and get above the high-water mark???
5. Much was made about SP fleeing to Mexico, but this was a guy who had spent months and months being hassled and hounded 24/7 by the media, cops, family members, onlookers, etc. Who could fault him for wanting to change his appaearance and take off? I know I would have done the same thing in his case.
So, you've got a guy who's extremely unlikely to commit the crime, you have a 100% abscence of any evidence, you have bodies showing up as if on cue after defying every known law of physcis, and an alibi that would be absurd if the guy were guilty. That to me is easilly grounds for reasonable doubt and a strong case of being innocent. So if he didn't do it, who did?
You have a girlfriend who's known to be less-than-stable and who has had co-dependency issues, who lawyers-up the minute cops take notice of her, and instances of women, especially those with "issues", becoming enraged with jealousy and attacking/killing a rival are far more common than guys going from peaceable husband to murderer in one jump. Plus after all the searching by cops of the area, the bodies suddenly turn up shortly after Frey starts getting questioned by the police. My guess is that Frey found out SP was lying about his wife and got jealous and enraged... doubly so when she found out LP was pregnant as that further reduced her chances of getting SP away from her. She stalked the house, waited for an opportunity, lured LP out, and killed her. She dumped the bodies in the woods somewhere after removing parts to prevent ID. When the spotlight was turned on her, she recovered the bodies and dumped them exactly where the cops hoped to find them. She wasn't strong enough to carry LP's body all the way to the beach, so she took her as far as she could and dumped her in the rocks. Pour a lot of salt water and sea weed on her, let the crabs do their thing, and voila! The cops expect to see a body wash ashore and there's just enough evidence to lead them to that conclusion. As for the infant, currents would hava carried the body miles and miles down the shore, but how far do you think a woman would be willing to carry the decaying corpse of a child? Probably less than a mile?
The likelyhood that Amber Frey got enraged and jealous, and killed LP and her child so she could have SP, is a MUCH more likely scenario than SP just up and killing them without leaving any evidence.
You raise an interesting alte
June 27, 2007 - 15:28 ET by dscottYou raise an interesting alternate theory of this case. I did not know: Also, the body of a spontaneously-aborted baby, which would be light and probably floating, comes ashore less than a mile from the weighted and ruptured body of the mother.
Do you have any knowledge of past cases where we have heard of women kidnapping a pregnant woman, killing her and delivering the child? How were those children usually delivered? C-section or via the normal route? When you say: ruptured body of the mother, any details of this rupture as in was she cut open?
I reserve judgment as to Peterson's guilt or innocense given the Nifonging of numerous people in the past. I know lawyers are very clever at manipulating the facts to fit the theory.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
In most cases where a mid- or
June 28, 2007 - 11:05 ET by BruzillaIn most cases where a mid- or late-term mother dies, the body will try to give the baby a chance by spontaneously aborting. Depending on how the mother dies, this may or may not happen. Looking at what is known, that the baby was not found in the uterus, two things could have happened. If you follow the prosecution's theory, the body, or bodies, we're dumped into the water. If LP spontaneously aborted, the baby would have immediately departed from LP, especially if LP's body were weighted as the prosecution claimed. LP would go to the bottom, the baby would travel with the current. The other option is that LP either did not abort, or was wearing clothes that prevented the baby from escaping the birth canal. In this case, the baby would have stayed in LPs body until enough decomposition gases created enough pressure to rupture the body and the baby was released. Again, LP would stay put but the baby would be carried by the current. In either case, with the strength of the currents in that area, there's no way I see that baby washing up at the same time as LP and within a mile of her. No way.
When I went through National Crime Information Center (NCIC) training a while back, we were asked to enter a report of a found head into the Missing Persons fields, which would make the system search for cases of bodies being found but not the head. How many of these could there be right? There were over 1,000 reports of bodies being found without heads, and almost all of them were in California. The instructor speculated that this was some sort of gang thing, but there are lots of gangs across the country, but almost all the missing heads were in CA.
So supposing the prosecution is right, and Petersen weighted down her body, why add a lot of trace evidence risk by removing the head, hands, and feet? To prevent identification? He's weighing her down and dumping her in the bay. What are the odds of her ever being found, yet alone while the body is intact enough to get prints? That just makes no sense. What does make sense would be to remove the head, hands, and feet if you were dumping a body in the woods somewhere, and weren't strong enough to dig a deep hole, and we're worried that someone might come along and find the body.
Whoa! Are you indicating th
June 28, 2007 - 11:36 ET by dscottWhoa! Are you indicating there seems to be a fetish type killer(s) whose MO is dismemberment focused on CA? Talk about the land of fruits and nuts. Is it possible that law enforcement in other states are not entering the data in a manner for your search to pick up the dismemberment occurance in those states? Would that be a possible explanation of this anomaly? Are these all unsolved murders?
Also why would Peterson risk increased evidence trails by dismemberment when hiding the body in the water was easier and less risky? Occam's Razor. Unless the killer had one plan and then changed their mind? The more locations you hide various parts, the more likely a part is to be found, at least I would think so.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Bruzilla - very interesting r
June 27, 2007 - 15:36 ET by florida_chadBruzilla - very interesting reply. Thanks for taking the time to write it. If you are right, I would think that Frey will kill again in the future.
Same in Boston
June 27, 2007 - 11:43 ET by exLiba little 7 year old boy was shot by his brother, or so the story goes today and Boston Mayor Menino blames guns!
Apparently this was a house-hold of thieves and murderers that this kid lived in. Hard core criminals who initially lied about what happened, and we are not so sure they are telling the truth now.
But of course, it's time to use this incident as a reason to get "serious" about gun control.
We all know that guns have de
June 27, 2007 - 11:49 ET by Clear thinkerWe all know that guns have devious minds. Guns have figured out how to jump into people's hands and force the hand to force the finger to pull the trigger. Guns need to get right with God!
Prove you can secure our borders first. The only legislation that counts!
watch out for people with white smocks
June 27, 2007 - 11:52 ET by Ten7sPregnant women had really better watch out for people with white smocks! Those people have murdered 40,000,000.
And here's a novel idea. Let your father, grandfather, brothers and uncles vet your boyfriends. AND then MARRY them before you have sex with them. There might just be a reason that such used to be popular.
You hate-filled right-wing Na
June 27, 2007 - 11:56 ET by sunandsteelYou hate-filled right-wing Nazi you. How dare you suggest that people go back to traditional values. LOL
Texas has a population of nearly 21 million people, all of whom are ashamed to be from the same state as the Dixie Chicks. (IMAO.us)
C'mon!!!! Let's completel
June 27, 2007 - 11:57 ET by SoftRightC'mon!!!! Let's completely ignore the fact that 99.99 out of 100 men would do ANYTHING to protect the women bearing their children and focus on the extremely rare cases of a few psychopaths. Nice work, very objective case of journalism there......
Hmmmmmm..... what are the stats? Aren't approx 50% of all men gun owners? So they are suggesting that women should avoid fully half of the male population because they own guns?
Frankly, I have taught the last 4 or 5 girls I've dated how to shoot. I'm certain everyone of them would not only say "thank you" but would recommend me as a great, caring guy to date (good referrals are worth their weight in gold). These sort of lunatic left feminists are so misrepresentative of our society that only big media types cloistered in NY,NY or LA could even begin to accept them as potential spokepersons for women over the whole country.
Congress: Do your Duty! Enforce Article 4 Sect 4 of the Constitution!
So basically what you are hin
June 27, 2007 - 12:26 ET by dscottSo basically what you are hinting at is confiscating every gun owned by a male based on the actions of a few bad actors? The Precautionary Principle run amuck.
Never mind that most of the 80 million legal gun owners haven't commited a crime; never mind that anyone convicted of a felony loses their 2nd amendment right of gun owership; never mind that even now most women who are married have statistically very little chance (around 4% I believe) of being involved in DV. Never mind, that most (96%) DV occurs in non married situations.
Now let's deal with the real issue of why a male would use a gun in a so called DV situation. Normally, most of these offenses are commited directly as a result of the Court's prior ham handed approached to dealing an allegation of DV. You know how the Court handles an allegation of DV? They use the Precautionary Principle, the male get's kicked out of the house for one week before the DV hearing. The male is homeless for one week dealing with the emotional upset of being forcably removed from his home usually without him physcially striking the female. In many localities, the first 24 hours you are in jail as a so called cooling off period (preventative detention). At the DV hearing, the same standards used in accepting the Ex Parte' request ejecting the male in the first place are also used virtually guaranteeing a finding against the male. If you don't already know it, any time you as a "male" say anything or hand gesture the female petitioner claims made her "feel fear" you are guilty of DV, period. Your guilt is strictly based on the "feeling" expressed by the female no physical striking, no evidence or no witness is necessary, it's her word, period. Anything you say in such a hearing is evidence against you as a male, there is nothing you as a male can say that would exhonorate you.
Now having gone through that DV hearing, then being found guilty under the Civil standard of evidence and presumptions on the "probability" you did what she said not anything related to the facts or truth, some males go off the deep end, killing everyone. Quite frankly, given the behavior of the Courts and the police, I am surprised it doesn't happen more often. When you push people over the edge or corner them, don't be surprised when some respond with violence, it's called baiting.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
When a woman picks up a load
June 27, 2007 - 12:47 ET by Subsailor599When a woman picks up a loaded gun, that is good. But if a man picks up a loaded gun, that is bad. I stand corrected, I always thought it is what a person did with the gun that determined good or bad. Now I know.
You mean like this woman who
June 28, 2007 - 10:08 ET by dscottYou mean like this woman who shot her husband in the head while he was sleeping, then claimed it was an accident after the police didn't buy the first story?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Dear Paula Zahn
June 27, 2007 - 13:20 ET by Lame CherryDear Paula Zahn,
I know you are not this ignorant Ms. Zahn and only playing a media whore for the globalist cartel whom you sold your soul for.
Your lame analogy about gun owners does not equate at all to numbers as there should be 30 million pregnate women murdered each year according to you and they are not and yet it is only YOU, MS. ZAHN who is part of a butcherous campaign in aborticide ending real lives every year.
Scott Petersen bashed in Lacey Petersen's head, no guns, just him swimming in a swimming pool. Perhaps swimming pools are dangerous.
Chris Benoit, strangled his wife and suffocated his son, no guns, just him going to they gym. Perhaps all of you liberals going the gym are dangerous.
There was not a gun involved in the murder of Jessie Davis as has been reported. What was though involved is YOUR ROCKEFELLER BASE CARTEL MAKING ALL LOCAL POLICE TAKE FBI SWAT TRAINING WHERE THEY ARE TAUGHT TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND KILL PEOPLE.
Now this is not the police officer's fault, but your globalist government fault in teaching police to shoot to kill. Why don't you do a story on your bosses advocating this policy which turns Andy Griffith into Ivan Speznat of the KGB.
Let us go to the source of violence which is your media Ms. Zahn in removing the Christian moral safegaurds of respect for all, American safegaurds of life for all and Greek safegaurds in doctors do no harm to the patient which you have degraded and ruined. YOU Ms. Zahn and those two idiot guests are the reason Jessie Davis is dead, because your policies cause all of this mayhem.
The world knows the truth Ms. Zahn and it will keep being printed all over the internet as the Truth prevails over propagandists like yourself.
God bless you Ms Zahn and enjoy your day as you look into your teleprompter knowing the people are on to your lies.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Hey Lame Cherry... where did
June 27, 2007 - 13:53 ET by BruzillaHey Lame Cherry... where did you hear about Scott Petersen bashing in his wife's head in a swimming pool???
Let us also add that Mary Win
June 27, 2007 - 13:58 ET by dscottLet us also add that Mary Winkler killed her husband and was given a pass because she blamed the victim (her husband) by claiming she was a victim herself of DV. Women repeatedly commit murder and get a pass, this isn't the first time the claim of DV was used to justify killing someone. But yet, we as males aren't allowed to defend ourselves. If I remember the stats correctly more males die from their female partners than visa versa. The perfect double standard.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
I am still shocked by her lig
June 27, 2007 - 14:01 ET by florida_chadI am still shocked by her light sentence. She Kills her husband and got NOTHING (basically). Think DIVORCE not MURDER
Yes, it's absurd, yet for som
June 27, 2007 - 14:15 ET by dscottYes, it's absurd, yet for some reason any of the male perps already mentioned here, even the Peterson guy, if they claimed DV, it wouldn't even factor in the decision to find guilt. Apparently, it's perfectly ok to murder a person as long as it's a male and the perp is a female. A Double Standard, which I blame feminists and liberals for promoting. It's open season on a male, but cries of jihad are heard when it's a woman as the vic.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
bravo Lame Cherry
June 27, 2007 - 14:10 ET by vrwc13"...your media Ms. Zahn in removing the Christian moral safeguards of respect for all, American safeguards of life for all and Greek safeguards in doctors do no harm to the patient which you have degraded and ruined. "
Bravo, Lame Cherry. Got Godless, babykilling, and socialism zinger all in one quote. Is this you Ann?
Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened. -Winston Churchill.
Well that is an interesting i
June 28, 2007 - 05:49 ET by USA4freedomWell that is an interesting idea. Rule #1: men bad, men with guns extra bad. Got it. How does that explain my x-wife pushing me down the stairs, from behind, when I was walking away from a physical confrontation. I know refer to rule #1. I’m 5’ 10” 250lbs all city linebacker in school, wife- 5’2”110 lbs swinging haymakers over my daughter’s head trying to stand between us. Yelling at her mom to stop.. I know refer to rule #1. After walking away from an argument the wife gets into SUV and drives up on the curb and sidewalk, to try to run me over.. I know rule #1. Moved my guns over a friends house for safty, could not find one, found it in her closet, hidden in the wall. Moved out with the kids, she moved in instantly with her boyfriend/idiot. Weird things these rules.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I'm sorry you had to go throu
June 28, 2007 - 09:13 ET by dscottI'm sorry you had to go through that experience, however, without sounding dismissive of your pain and the pain of your children; would you have ever believed, guessed or imagined the response of the Law to her actions if you had not personally experienced it yourself?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Probably not, unless he'd first
June 28, 2007 - 09:16 ET by sarcasmoProbably not, unless he'd first seen this divorced man's thoughts on marriage-law...
JMR