To be totally honest with you RM, I know several women that were victims of such explosive marriages, some of them are relatives. Some of them stayed and continued receiving the beatings, a few of them gathered themselves and said ENOUGH. They left that pathetic situation and that was the end of it. Sometimes, it takes finding that courage deep inside of yourself to say, that's it, I'm not taking anymore of this. It can be done, I've seen it. In these cases, "just leaving" was anything but naive, it was their freedom.

 

It wasn't always so simple. It sounds good to just say get up and walk out.

It wasn't always so simple. It sounds good to just say get up and walk out.

Not saying it's easy. Sometimes, the right thing is the hardest to do. It takes a lot of courage, I know that, but it can be done.

To be totally honest with you RM, I know several women that were victims of such explosive marriages, some of them are relatives. Some of them stayed and continued receiving the beatings, a few of them gathered themselves and said ENOUGH. They left that pathetic situation and that was the end of it. Sometimes, it takes finding that courage deep inside of yourself to say, that's it, I'm not taking anymore of this. It can be done, I've seen it. In these cases, "just leaving" was anything but naive, it was their freedom.

 

 

RTS, you seem to think that all you have to do is make your mind up and do it. It is NOT that simple. You are suggesting that a woman just leave her family, that it is just that simple. You aren't looking at all the underlying factors. You are someone who supports gun ownership. One reason you cite over and over is to protect yourself, protect your family, and protect your home. Why wouldn't a woman who's being abused be afforded the same right to protect her family and home, let alone herself? Threats are not always from outsiders breaking in to your home. Sometimes, they are part of your home.

 

You can stand as an outsider and preach "just leave". But until you've been in the situation, or been closely, CLOSESLY involved with someone who has, you can't understand. I don't fault you for your lack of understanding. But, there is much more to the issue, and much more that goes on behind the doors of a home to make a blanket statement that all it takes is to make up one's mind and find the courage to leave. For some women, the courage to leave is there. What takes the greater courage is to not abandon her children and stay to try and protect them.

 

This thread is a great example of what women face when trying to choose what road to take. The man who was killed has all the support, it seems, of the community. The BWS defense is being lambasted as hogwash. Some have said they don't think what any witnesses in her defense would have said, that they don't have first hand knowledge. Yet, these same posters did not live in the house either, and are convinced that whatever her defense, it's not true.

There are those on here not believing the abuse. There are those on here believing it. It sure would have been helpful if the defense attorneys would have used the opportunity to explore the home life while the children were on the stands.

RTS, you seem to think that all you have to do is make your mind up and do it. It is NOT that simple. You are suggesting that a woman just leave her family, that it is just that simple. You aren't looking at all the underlying factors. You are someone who supports gun ownership. One reason you cite over and over is to protect yourself, protect your family, and protect your home. Why wouldn't a woman who's being abused be afforded the same right to protect her family and home, let alone herself? Threats are not always from outsiders breaking in to your home. Sometimes, they are part of your home.

I couldn't agree more with you, RM. A woman should be allowed to protect herself and her family, this is why I said take the kids and leave. She should take pictures of her marks from being beaten, confide in family and friends so as to build her case and take the kids and go. She should obtain a gun and tell the coward husband if he comes near her, she will be forced to use the gun.

 

You can stand as an outsider and preach "just leave". But until you've been in the situation, or been closely, CLOSESLY involved with someone who has, you can't understand. I don't fault you for your lack of understanding. But, there is much more to the issue, and much more that goes on behind the doors of a home to make a blanket statement that all it takes is to make up one's mind and find the courage to leave. For some women, the courage to leave is there. What takes the greater courage is to not abandon her children and stay to try and protect them.

I've been close to a situation, my sister. Thankfully the lowlife killed himself and took care of the problem for her. I'm not trying to preach to anyone, I'm sorry if I come across that way, I'm just merely giving my opinion.

You're right, I really don't understand it, I can't for the life of me get why anyone would put themselves through that. I would think if the husband is being abusive by beating the wife, she should be able to take the kids and let the courts handle it. Now, sure I could be wrong, there could be many things I'm overlooking, so please don't misunderstand my comments as me being uncaring or a jerk. I really don't want you to think that.

 

This thread is a great example of what women face when trying to choose what road to take. The man who was killed has all the support, it seems, of the community. The BWS defense is being lambasted as hogwash. Some have said they don't think what any witnesses in her defense would have said, that they don't have first hand knowledge. Yet, these same posters did not live in the house either, and are convinced that whatever her defense, it's not true.

The problem I have with this case is that it's possible that she wasn't being honest. Looking up Amy Bosley on the computer before the shooting looked mighty suspicious to me for one. I'm sure you can see that there are women that would use the BWS defense to try to beat the murder wrap, the problem isn't always the guy. Sometimes it's the woman.

You're right though, I did not live in the house, so I don't really know one way or the other what really happened.

This is something I'd like to discuss with you over the phone sometime, if you're cool with that.

RTS, I'd be glad to talk to you about this.

 

First though, some comments/questions/points to consider:

 

In your last post, your idea of "defense" for the battered spouse is to leave. I'm not sure why you feel that is an adequate defense.

 

Secondly, you mention letting the courts sort it out. It takes forever (relatively speaking) for the courts to sort it out, especially if there are kids involved.

 

Thirdly, more often than not, if the battered spouse is the wife, she doesn't make the same kind of salary the husband makes. To leave often means a huge step down in living conditions, and if she IS able to take the kids with her, most likely means changing school systems as well. If the woman is leaving and has no emergency funds to draw upon, they often wind up in a shelter or a friend's house, or a family member's house. Imagine the difficulty of those kinds of arrangements with children. The logistics are much bigger than just where everyone sleeps. There is how she'll get them to and from school, or child care if they're not school age, so she can hopefully continue working (assuming she has a job). Now there are appointments with a lawyer, that she may not be able to afford. Court dates, maybe a trip to the police station to get an EPO. She could very well lose her job if she misses a lot of work.

 

To just leave in the manner you suggest requires money, and not an insignificant amount. To leave WITH your kids requires even more money. It also requires an extraordinary amount of emotional backbone, as dealing with the kids emotions and all the challenges that face building a new life from scratch are (to say the very least) daunting.

 

And then, I just don't understand where the justice is? Why is it that the abuser is allowed to go relatively unscathed? He stays in his home while the wife and/or kids are adrift, yet he is the cause for the whole scenario.

 

The abusive husband is innocent until proven guilty. And the proof society demands of his guilt are bruises, cuts, or possible death of the person he abuses?

Yes. Why should self-defense change just because its physical spousal abuse?

 

Better to be judged in a courtroom by 12 then carried out in a coffin by 6.

 

We didn't he get his chance in court???

If you have seen too many times of the spouse getting killed, how many times have you seen it where the restraining order works, the wife moves out, goes to court, custody is decided, they get divorced and nobody gets killed in their sleep? I think that happens a lot more than what is highlighted in the media. We have a court system for a reason.

 

Seriously, would you want to run the risk that the court system was going to work in her situation? I would not. And running and hiding as I understand RTS to be proposing, isn't guaranteed to protect her and the kids either.

 

I've stayed out of this discussion until now as I have close friends on "both sides" in this matter and knew Bob and Cheryl through mutual friends. But IF Bob did hit her and assault her and IF he did threaten to kill her and their children, then he got what he deserved. Please note that I said "IF" in big, bold letters.

 

I'm sure that will offend/infuriate some/many (including some mutual friends), but I have zero use for a man that hits and abuses a woman. Period. End of story. No convincing me to the contrary. If I ever lay a hand on Henry, I hope she shoots me (not only because I will have deserved it, but also because it will be a quicker, more humane death that what my father and family members would do to me. Seriously).

 

If I've gotten so upset with things in my marriage to the point that I am hitting my spouse, I should be the one packing my bags and leaving; not her. And there is no excuse (not writing checks on my account; not supporting my child's activities that I don't support, not spending too much money or incurring too much debt; not anything) that justifies me hitting my spouse.

Seriously, would you want to run the risk that the court system was going to work in her situation? I would not. And running and hiding as I understand RTS to be proposing, isn't guaranteed to protect her and the kids either.

 

I've stayed out of this discussion until now as I have close friends on "both sides" in this matter and knew Bob and Cheryl through mutual friends. But IF Bob did hit her and assault her and IF he did threaten to kill her and their children, then he got what he deserved. Please note that I said "IF" in big, bold letters.

 

I'm sure that will offend/infuriate some/many (including some mutual friends), but I have zero use for a man that hits and abuses a woman. Period. End of story. No convincing me to the contrary. If I ever lay a hand on Henry, I hope she shoots me (not only because I will have deserved it, but also because it will be a quicker, more humane death that what my father and family members would do to me. Seriously).

 

If I've gotten so upset with things in my marriage to the point that I am hitting my spouse, I should be the one packing my bags and leaving; not her. And there is no excuse (not writing checks on my account; not supporting my child's activities that I don't support, not spending too much money or incurring too much debt; not anything) that justifies me hitting my spouse.

 

Well stated, my friend. :thumb:

There are those on here not believing the abuse. There are those on here believing it. It sure would have been helpful if the defense attorneys would have used the opportunity to explore the home life while the children were on the stands.

 

They were prevented from doing so by the trial judge. In error, from my perspective.

Seriously, would you want to run the risk that the court system was going to work in her situation? I would not. And running and hiding as I understand RTS to be proposing, isn't guaranteed to protect her and the kids either.

 

I've stayed out of this discussion until now as I have close friends on "both sides" in this matter and knew Bob and Cheryl through mutual friends. But IF Bob did hit her and assault her and IF he did threaten to kill her and their children, then he got what he deserved. Please note that I said "IF" in big, bold letters.

 

I'm sure that will offend/infuriate some/many (including some mutual friends), but I have zero use for a man that hits and abuses a woman. Period. End of story. No convincing me to the contrary. If I ever lay a hand on Henry, I hope she shoots me (not only because I will have deserved it, but also because it will be a quicker, more humane death that what my father and family members would do to me. Seriously).

 

If I've gotten so upset with things in my marriage to the point that I am hitting my spouse, I should be the one packing my bags and leaving; not her. And there is no excuse (not writing checks on my account; not supporting my child's activities that I don't support, not spending too much money or incurring too much debt; not anything) that justifies me hitting my spouse.

 

 

AMEN!

Cheryl McCafferty seeks new trial | NKY.com | cincinnati.com

 

 

She claims she received ineffective counsel from her defense team, led by Deanna Dennison, in 99 pages of pleadings filed Monday in Campbell Circuit Court. The filing includes eight exhibits and four motions that also asks that the presiding judge, Julie Reinhardt Ward, and the prosecutor, Commonwealth’s Attorney Michelle Snodgrass, be removed from the case.

 

“Cheryl McCafferty is a battered woman who was silenced for years by her husband’s abuse,” McCafferty’s new attorney, public defender Amy Robinson Staples, wrote in the pleadings. “Defense counsels’ ineffectiveness and the trial court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings precluded Cheryl from telling the jury her full story and led to an unjust verdict.”

Oh brother! :ohbrother:

They were prevented from doing so by the trial judge. In error, from my perspective.

 

Hearsay called this one almost exactly three years ago!

Hearsay called this one almost exactly three years ago!

 

I thought the same thing as I read back through things when I posted the update article.