Attorney: Overton will appeal her life sentence
Husband now faces trial Sept. 24 in death of their foster child, 4
Michael Zamora/Caller-Times
Hannah Overton leaves the courtroom with her attorney Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, after receiving a life sentence at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi.
Michael Zamora/Caller-Times
Hannah Overton leaves the courtroom Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, after receiving a life sentence at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi.
Michael Zamora/Caller-Times
Judge Jose Longoria reads the life sentence to Hannah Overton Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi.
Michael Zamora/Caller-Times
Hannah Overton walks into the courtroom in handcuffs Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, during her sentencing hearing at the Nueces County Courthouse in Corpus Christi.
Handcuffed and shackled, Hannah Overton was led into the courtroom Wednesday to hear her sentence from the judge — life without parole.
It was the only option for her capital murder conviction because the prosecution already had agreed not to seek the death penalty.
Overton, who was convicted Friday by a jury in the death of 4-year-old foster child Andrew Burd, stood in front of 214th District Judge Jose Longoria’s bench to hear his decision. When Longoria asked if she had anything to say, the 30-year-old mother of five responded but spoke so softly her words were not audible to the audience.
Overton’s attorney John Gilmore said the case would be appealed.
“There was no evidence that she intended to kill (him),” Gilmore said. “It was a difficult case for the jury and I’m sure they did their best but I disagree with their verdict.”
After her sentencing, the courtroom stayed mostly silent except for the sounds of sniffles and crying from Overton’s family and friends.
Before she was taken away, Longoria allowed Overton to use an empty jury room to spend time with her husband, Larry, and other members of her family. Larry Overton, 31, who also is charged with capital murder in the boy’s death, will face trial on Sept. 24.
In her testimony, Overton admitted she gave Andrew a mixture of Cajun spices and water on Oct. 2, 2006, but said it was not meant to harm or punish him.
The prosecution has said the couple, who were in the process of adopting Andrew, waited more than 1 1/2 hours after he became unresponsive before taking him to a clinic. He died the next day.
Prosecutor Sandra Eastwood said the jury made the right decision.
“I was very grateful for the jury listening so closely to the evidence,” Eastwood said. “It was a very heartbreaking case.”
Overton’s brother, Nathan Saenz, declined to comment after the sentencing.
During the trial, several witnesses for the defense said the boy had an insatiable appetite and often ate from the trash and floor. Overton’s attorneys also argued he may have eaten something on his own to cause the toxic sodium levels in his system that caused his death.
Instructions to the jury pointed out that Overton could be found guilty either by intentionally or knowingly causing his death or by failing to seek medical care.
All 12 jurors said they found her guilty because of her failure to act.
Calvary Chapel Coastlands Pastor Rod Carver, who took in the Overtons after they were freed on bond last year, said the trial’s outcome was unjust. He released a typed statement after Overton was sentenced.
The statement read in part, “What is she guilty of? Not discerning the signs of salt intoxication from the signs of a common flu? Now five children are without a mother.”
Contact Mary Ann Cavazos at 886-3623 or cavazosm@caller.com
View latest stories with comments »
Before you post a comment, consider this:
- 1. Keep it clean.Comments that are obscene, vulgar, lewd or sexually-oriented will get the ax. Creative spelling of such terms also will be banned.
- 2. Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
- 3. Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything.
- 4. Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
- 6. Keep it local. Do not post direct links to sites outside of Caller.com.
- 7. Police yourselves. Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
- 8. Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
- 9. Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
- 10. Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
- 11.Help us get it right. If you find a factual error or misspelling, email newmedia@caller.com or metrodesk@caller.com, or call 886-3697.
Post Your Comments
Posted by arthur6889 on September 13, 2007 at 6:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This tragedy is beyond the scope of words and makes the phrase, "a failure to communicate" the ultimate human foible.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 13, 2007 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wouldn't you think Pastor Rod prayed to God for justice? If so, does he NOT believe in God? The outcome was not favorable to Pastor Rod, his followers, the Overtons and their friends. So now it is unjust?
What is unjust is that Andrew is dead. Friends of the Overtons and the people at that church seem to forget that. They've done nothing but talk about what a terrible child Andrew was. They've offered excuses for Hannah. How about accepting the decision and moving forward. Appeal if they must, but remember Andrew--a four year old child who was placed in a home where it was thought he would have a better life. Instead, he's dead.
Rest in Peace Andrew.
Posted by luckybryan on September 13, 2007 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mercy. Justice. Love.
Peace... work for it dance for it sing for it live in it fight for it fill aching hearts homes lands and lives with it ... Peace. We love you, Andrew. We will remember you.
Posted by emaldonado1 on September 13, 2007 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hannah got what she deserves. What she did to Andrew was mean and cruel. She does not deserve to be called mother. What did little Andrew get? He never got the chance to speak. Andrew is in heaven with all his little angel friends. We love you Andrew.
Posted by surfers77 on September 13, 2007 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, I love Pastor Rod. I listen to him on the radio alot, but to say the trial was unjust. It was JUSTICE, she neglected the boy as he was dying. That is the main point, the point is he suffered. As marlana said, "all people do is talk about what a bad kid he was". Kids love to eat, What's the problem? If he was so bad, why did she try and adopt him? <><
Posted by patricia.t.ornelaz on September 13, 2007 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I AGREE WITH marlana2002, its true what about Andrew's life now dead. Bottom line: YOU DO NOT GIVE A CHILD CAJUN SPICES OF ANY KIND IN WATER TO A CHILD FOR ANYTHING. CAJUN SPICES ARE HOT AND SHE KNEW THAT. Its also very and so sad that those five other babies have to be without their mother.
They will all be in my prayers.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a "new" respect for Judge Longoria. He discerned the law and respected the jury.
If this is truely unjust for Hannah to serve life in prison, the appelate court will change the outcome of her sentence.
Posted by narc on September 13, 2007 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And if her appeal is turned down you people will still cry about it. This was "a jury of her peers," as many of you stated. Well they have spoken.
Posted by df61743 on September 13, 2007 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This wasn't just a "failure to act". She tortured and killed that child!
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 13, 2007 at 8:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mercy. Justice. Love.
These are the things we should always strive for.
May God Bless The Body Of Christ.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The jury unanimously voted NOT Guilty to forcing spices or salt.
NOT guilty to blunt force head trauma.
The CPS dropped all charges of child abuse after they investigated & found nothing.
She was guilty of waiting, which is not a murder charge in the state of Texas.
She is not guilty of murder. She and our Andrew are both victims.
It is amazing all the local churches that are supporting Calvary & the Overtons! Thank you!
I believe there will be an appeal granted for a new trial (NOT in Nueces County) and she will be found innocent. Let's wait & see what the Lord does.
FREE HANNAH
Posted by enquiringminds99 on September 13, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp
I agree.. if it is unjust then the appeal will set her free.... We shall see... I wonder how long the wait will be before her new trial?
Posted by grimjack41 on September 13, 2007 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Jury has spoken. She was guilty and should be punished for it but of capital murder? In my opinion, a life sentence looks more like "revenge" then "justice" but if that’s what the law requires from the jury's verdict, then that’s what must happen.
I agree with rrempp, if the appellate court thinks the punishment is too harsh for the crime, they will change it otherwise we must respect their decision.
Posted by jadelikeslaughing on September 13, 2007 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Free Hannah!
Posted by jadelikeslaughing on September 13, 2007 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
oh and i agree that the jury has spoken, and we need to be obedient to the laws...but you cant blame people, who are friends and supporters of the overtons who feel like it was a tragedy of justice, for feeling pained for this situation. I believe in the appeal and still will continue to stand by the overtons.
have a nice day.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
enquiring:
I heard lawyers saying that the defense has 30 days to make the appeal, which has probably already been done. Judge Longoria then has 75 days to rule on the appeal. I hope he rules quickly. The rumor is that the Judge was also upset about the ruling, so we shall see how quickly he responds.
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 13, 2007 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Grim Jack:
"In my opinion, a life sentence looks more like "revenge" then "justice" but if that’s what the law requires from the jury's verdict, then that’s what must happen"
Revenge for what?
If the Law requires Justice then what is revenge?
Posted by lafs361 on September 13, 2007 at 8:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We all prayed that justice would be served. We all prayed and asked GOD to do his will in reference to this situation. A child lost his life because of the negligence of Mrs. Overton, her failure to act. She was too busy calling her husband or whoever she called instead of calling 911 and taking him immediately to an emergency room. I believe GOD answered our prayers and justice is served. It is unfortunate that her natural kids will be without a mother, but that is her fault not theirs or the judge or the jury's fault. She should of thought of the consequences when she was doing whatever she did to the poor foster child Andrew. She clearly did not treat them all the same, he was singled out from her natural children. We should all pray for the Overton children.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 9 a.m. (Suggest removal)
guest,
I don't think Hannah should be "Free", I most definitely think Hannah should serve some "time" for the awful way she treated this poor boy. Her actions led to his death. There should be a price to pay. I just think Life is too much time.
Posted by normac on September 13, 2007 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I dont think she is guilty of capital murder. I do beleive she was negligent, and probably should have been charged with a lesser offense, but to have to spend the rest of her life in jail. As far as the comment about Pastor Rod not beleiving in God. Beware to speak against the servants of God of which he is. I dont know him or Hannah or any body from their church. But I know the Lord and I have heard Pastor Rod speak the Word on the radio and I beleive he is a true servant of God. God didnt make that decision the 12 on the jury did. God does things on his time not ours. None of us know what trully happened but I honestly do not beleive she did it with the intent to murder him.. Little Andrew is in heaven now, God rest his soul. My prayers are with all the Overtan children and Hannah and all the rest of the family. The whole family suffers though these tragedies. God bless them all and keep them in his loving mercy.
Posted by stateoftexas on September 13, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I can't believe they've actually set up a website....I've never heard of punishing a child in this manner. Have any of you taking up for her punished a child in that way? Matter of fact, any of you that are taking up for her, would you punish a child in that way? All of these other things about CPS investigating, him having behaviorial problems...etc..etc...don't matter...She was wrong from the beginning....and now she got was she deserves.....Eye for an eye...
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:29 a.m.
She was guilty of waiting, which is not a murder charge in the state of Texas.
It is amazing all the local churches that are supporting Calvary & the Overtons! Thank you!
response to first item: Apparently in this case it is.
response to second item: NOT MY CHURCH!!!
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding Hannah's website:
6. Keep it local. Do not post direct links to sites outside of Caller.com.
I'm suggesting removal for this ridiculous site. Anyone want to back me up?
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lafs....Post 8:50 a.m.
You are so right.
Whose fault is it that the five children are now without a mother.
It is a heartbreaking tragedy no matter how one looks at this case.
There is so much emotion going on and now Larry is to go thru a trial very soon. Hannah may get off on appeal or a new trial or whatever.
One thing remains the same, Andrew is dead and he died a horrible death.
I still can't get the picture of his battered body out of my mind, of his still form with tubes in him laying in the hospital. Then there are the smiling happy photos of him, just breaks your heart because he should be alive right now.
How can anyone with a lick of common sense think that Andrew could have gotten all of that sodium on his own out of the trash or on the floor with Hannah right there that day, tending to him and showing him who was BOSS.
It insulted the intelligence of the jury for the defense lawyers to say his sodium poisoning was self injested.
Hannah gave it to him and forced him to drink her spice mix and she did not call 911 but called other people. She is guilty, period.
What we don't know is IF Hannah gave this spice at other times to Andrew and to the other kids for punishment.
She was clearly instructed by CPS not to use FOOD as a form of punishment. She knew what she was doing.
I feel sorry for her but she got what she deserved for taking a life of a child under the age of 6.
In Texas, that is called CAPITAL MURDER.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This website disturbs me too.
Ron Carver really seems to believe that the jury convicted Hannah only because she failed to act in 1 and a half hours. Does he really believe that these jurors did not take into account ALL the evidence? EVERYTHING came into play here. Andrew did not just start having flu like symptoms out of the clear blue. There are "several" events that led up to these symptoms! Nobody gives Zahterahns Spice Seasoning in water to a child! Its so plain and simple here I cannot understand that Ron Carver really believes that was normal? To burn the bedsheets was not normal. To let a child "in her words" help clean up his vomit! To place a thin piece of plywood under a foam mattress instead of box springs. None of this is normal. Not in the USA. Maybe somewhere else but not here. She does deserve to go to jail. If I was a juror I would say at least 10 years. Thats just me. But no matter how they twist this all up to make her look like Mary Poppins it just doesn't pan out that way.
Posted by rjorgensen on September 13, 2007 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1brother....you couldn't have said it better. Thank you.
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 13, 2007 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What was she waiting for?
When in doubt ...don't delay the health and safety of a child entrusted for you to care for that is what beauty the goal is in a 911 situation any thing else is delaying the inevitable!
A child's life is more important than any self preservation motivation.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 13, 2007 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if anyone thinks this is God's way of protecting Hannah's other children from her form of discipline.
Maybe these jurors prayed for guidance during their deliberations and they got their answer.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor......I second that. It specifically states, no outside links other than caller.com. The website is skewed and will not acknowledge any of the facts in this case. Even if Andrew LOVED Cajun spices and jalepenos, a parent should not give this stuff to a 4 year old, especially if he was feeling ILL!! (not to mention extra bottle of spice on the bookshelf) (also not to mention the "other childrens testimony was thrown out") Would siblings testimony have been thrown out if it was favorable to Hannah? The church did not see what she did while living in her home. Only her church persona. What churches our backing the notion that Hannah should just walk?
Posted by cacicc on September 13, 2007 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I would like to see the Overtons & that Rod Caca guy each drink a full glass of water mixed with cajun spices and see how they like it!
Justice is half way served.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:44 a.m.
enquiring:
I heard lawyers saying that the defense has 30 days to make the appeal, which has probably already been done. Judge Longoria then has 75 days to rule on the appeal. I hope he rules quickly. The rumor is that the Judge was also upset about the ruling, so we shall see how quickly he responds.
____________________________________________________
Courts of Appeals
State of Texas
The fourteen Courts of Appeals have intermediate appellate jurisdiction in both civil and criminal cases appealed from district or county courts. Each Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in a specific geographical region of the State. Each Court is presided over by a chief justice and has at least two other justices. The specific number of justices on each Court is set by statute and ranges from three to thirteen.
Presently there are eighty justices authorized for these Courts. Appeals in the Courts of Appeals are usually heard by a panel of three justices, unless in a particular case an en banc hearing is ordered, in which instance all the justices of that Court hear and consider the case.
_________________________________________________
Let's hope the three selected judges aren't a softie like Longoria.
Posted by arthur6889 on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Knowledge and understanding precedes Wisdom, Mercy, Beauty and Love.
The lack of Harmony created by Understanding creates a dichotonmy opening the door to the devil who is nothing more than the negative nature of man's duality.
May Higher Forces prevail, "Peace on earth to men of Goodwill".
Posted by luvcalico on September 13, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have been lurking here since last week, and quite frankly, I am appalled at what I have been reading. First of all, whatever happened to 'innocent before proven guilty?" Most of you have tried, convicted and condemned Hannah before the trial even started.
Most of you have gotten your information from what you've read in the newspaper and what you've seen on TV. Sorry, folks, but these news outlets just report what they want you to know. I have seen many wrong 'facts' reported on different shows.
The same holds true for most prosecutors. Most have an agenda- and that is to convict somebody for a crime. I've been in a courtroom where the defendant was charged for possession of stolen property, (i.e. he bought something that turned out to be stolen), but in the courtroom, the DA said that he kicked down the door and stole the property himself. The judge didn't allow that testimony because he wasn't charged with stealing. In a jury trial, and specifically this trial, I wonder just how much was thrown out there by the DA, only to have the defense object, and the judge agree, but it's too late - the jurors heard it.
Thank goodness my children are all grown now, and I don't live in Texas, but if I had small children in Texas, I would be very scared that I wouldn't diagnose a major illness in time, and if my child died that I would be convicted of murder. To me that's what this all boils down to - the jury poll basically indicated this last week.
Please think about what you are doing here - if it were you in Hannah Overton's situation - how would you want peope to treat you? Would you want them to try and convict you in the court of public opinion before the facts came out, or would you want an impartial jury to look at the facts and make a decision? Like someone said a few days ago, don't believe everything you read in the paper of hear on TV.
That to me shows a naivete that is indeed very frightening. I hope that none of you ever find yourself unfairly accused.
Posted by luvcalico on September 13, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I should revise my earlier comment to say that not everybody on this board has been condemning of Hannah from the beginning. So my comment about 'I hope none of you ever find yourself unfairly accused" does not apply to those who have been more fair on this board.
And to prove my point about "facts" being incorrect, even on this very board, the pastor has been referenced as Ron. His name is Pastor Rod, not Ron.
Posted by ccskibunny on September 13, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From my earlier post........
The "Hannah-backers" are out in force again, I see. It is sad they cannot accept the truth, that "good" people can do bad things and feign innocence. We must all take responsibility for our actions, and Hannah must take responsibility for hers. Her actions AND inactions resulted in the death of a small helpless child.
I just hope the next trial answers all those unanswered questions most of us still have. It will be interesting to watch Larry's trial (and of course discuss it on here !) I think the jury issued a fair verdict.
After listening to and reading the evidence (and a big thanks to those of you who posted some of the trial transcripts on here), nothing can convince me personally that there was not some sort of abuse going on in that household. She just finally got caught, unfortunately too late for Andrew. I wish someone had the courage to speak up for Andrew when he needed it.
p.s. sursumtx.......I don't need an explanation of magna cum laude. You just might be blogging with one..... :)
JUSTICE FOR ANDREW
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcailco ...post 9:40 a.m.
Would you want Hannah tending to your children IF YOU DID LIVE IN TEXAS, and feeding them the same amount of sodium she gave to Andrew that day.
Would you want your child's sheets burned in a barbecue pit and also sleep on plywood and all kinds of bizarre things. I bet you would be looking fast for another caregiver if your children went thru what Andrew did.
You say you are reading on these sites -- well read with an open mind, and you will discover that Andrew is dead and Hannah is alive and the kid did not kill himself, no matter if he ate off the floor or whatever they are saying to blame him for his own death.
He was 4 years old for pete's sake.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good morning rrempp, another day of Hannah supporters blaming everyone under the sun for her conviction and not admitting that SHE was and is responsible for her actions. I hope you have a wonderful day.
ccbrother posted: I believe there will be an appeal granted for a new trial (NOT in Nueces County) and she will be found innocent. Let's wait & see what the Lord does.
response: The Lord already did what he was going to do and Hannah is off to prison.
Posted by aalanisnorman on September 13, 2007 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You are right ccskibunny the "Hannah-backers" are back! Well, I'm glad the jury saw and convicted...I'm sorry but a 4 year old beautiful child is gone and didn't have to be treated that way. He was a child and SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ADULT....no excuse! Andrew can rest in peace and never be harmed again!
jenbarcor and rremp, count me in...the new guidelines specifically say no outside links....
Posted by aalanisnorman on September 13, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Right on jenbarcor (post 9:57am)!!! Have a wonderful day everyone!
JUSTICE FOR ANDREW!
Posted by beeleticia on September 13, 2007 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
All the Hannah supporters first stated, "don't be judging her....just wait for the verdict and justice will be served." Okay the jury has spoken, but because it wasn't in your favor, you all are still complaining. Why can't you all accept the fact the she was tried and sentenced. She is a proven murderer. Get on with it.
Mr. Rod commented that the jury was going by what the media was reporting......No they were'nt!! The jury was in the courtroom! They heard more than what we did!
Okay, it may seem harsh to say, "get over it", but in reality..it's the truth. "Get over it!"
Yeah, It's sad those bio kids have to be raised without a mom, but hey.....all fingers point to Hannah the killer.
She knew exactly what she was doing and now she has to pay for it. Now she wants help from the community and her family.....
who helped Andrew when he was begging for his life while getting tortured?
MAY SHE ROT IN JAIL
Posted by sandra.horine on September 13, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mothers are to protect thier children from anything bad,if we as mothers dont protect our inocent babies then who can they count on in this crazy world, full of sick people,that now some babies have worry abount thier own parents ,that is just crazy,as for her other 5 children,maybe they are now in better hands,i totally agree with the sentence as far as her neglect goes,,,,,,,neglect is child abuse,,,,,,,,,,u can now rest in peace little andrew,,,,,,,,,,and hannah u can now rest in jail
Posted by vanessadelasierra102981 on September 13, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jadelikeslaughing...
It is so sad that you supporters or friends of the Overton's are so self centered and all you care about is justice for Hannah but who cares about Andrew..he's already dead anyway right???
Well that is not how I feel ...all along I wanted justice for ANDREW....this is all about ANDREW...and if he had never been placed with the Overton's he would still be alive....and I believe you all know that.
I mean come on how do you explain since you are such good friends of the Overton's ...why did she wait to get him some kind of help..call 911...call his pediatric doctor....take him to the er...do something...why ..why did she wait more than 11/2 hours before taking him somewhere. and why the head trama..and why all those marks on this body...and why did her other children say that she would keep him in the room for 2 days at a time and he got no food..no water..and had to poop and pee on his bed ...why the closed circuit camera..and why in GOD'S name would you ever make a child sleep on a piece of plywood or on the floor for that matter??????????????????????????
Speaking for NORMAL, CARING parents the minute our kids have a slight fever or vomiting or any little thing we are at the doctors office or on the phone with the pediatrician or doing something....for gods sake he was unresponsive.................maybe she will get a new trial but I believe that she deserves to think everyday and everynight about the things that she knows she did to ANDREW....and the way she treated him and caused his dealth she better regret that for the rest of her life.
it's funny to me how Rod Carver can take in the Overtons...convicted MURDERS and yet he would not take in ANDREW because he so called had behavioral problems ...give me a break....that is sad and yet to speak the word of GOD.....i will just continue to pray for all of you including the Overtons and hope that your hearts can be cleansed from all evil.
but you all need to get some kind of help so that you all can come to the realization that Hannah is GUILTY of CAUSING ANDREWS DEATH and she is going to be punished some how or some way.
what you all need to be worring about is getting her 5 childrens back on the right track and show them what is like to live in a loving home with NORMAL, CARING parents. all I can say is Hannah better hope that if those kids get into CPS hands that they don't end up with someone like her!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you have a nice day :)
Posted by enquiringminds99 on September 13, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
At the beginning of this trial I was really upset over the circumstances that led up to Andrew's death. With that said after having time to think some more, I don't think "life in prison" fits the circumstances for what happened. I don't know Hannah and don't know anyone associated with the Overtons. I don't think Hannah willingly knew she was going to kill Andrew or was trying to kill him thus the Capital Murder Charge was not the approriate conviction in my opinion. I do feel there should be consequences so don't misunderstand me.
Point to ponder:
Convicted killer Mary Winkler who shot her pastor husband in the back with a shot-gun and blew him to pieces. The 31-year-old preacher had been shot in the back of the head and left to die on his bed, choking on his own blood. Despite this horrific act, Mary Winkler has been set free and is walking around a free person. She was even featured on "Oprah." There is no doubt that this women "willfully" intended to commit murder and yet she is free. I think she only spent 7 months or so total in jail.
Hannah, whose actions I feel had a part in leading to Andrew's death, did not deliberately or willfully/purposely set out to kill Andrew on that terrible day last year. Should she have been held accountable ? Yes, she should have. Not sure if Life in Prison and Capital Murder fit the crime/circumstances...
Our justice system isn't consistent but we already know that.
In regard to Mary Winkler, "divorce" is always an option but murder is not..... Wonder if the court/judge/jury that set her free considered that.
Posted by luvcalico on September 13, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not blaming everyone other than her under the sun for her conviction. And I don't know if I would want Hannah caring for my children (if I had young children). I don't know Hannah.
But neither do most of you (from your own admission). So if you can be so sure of her guilt, why do you not allow others who know her to be sure of her innocence? Seems like a double standard here.
By the way, I never said I was a supporter or not. I don't have enough information to know one way or the other. And, may I be so bold to say, that neither do most of you on this board.
My only point was that we cannot try and convict someone based on "supposed" facts that we read about in a newspaper or on TV. Some of you have really gone overboard, almost saying that she fully knew what she was doing and got her desired outcome. I think that is just downright mean and unjustified.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ccskibunny.....post 9:46 am
Your post is right on target as usual.
I believe Hannah just got caught this time too.
Of course people can put on a good act at church and in front of other folks. Child abusers can do that and get by with it and even pass inspections to foster or adopt kids. Happens more often than we know. CPS caseworkers get overloaded and don't inspect except at announced times. Hannah would NOT have been giving Andrew any spice that day if a caseworker was coming.
I think Hannah is truly sorry for what she did to Andrew and she is sorry for the price she will now have to pay. She might could have been rehabilitated in 20 years when her five kids are all grown......so the life wihout parole sentence was a harsh one.
However, wasn't it her lawyers who agreed to how she was to plea to the charges, couldn't she have taken a deal?
Can Larry still take one? I hope he is completely innocent and is not sentenced to prison and can raise his kids. But if he was a wimp and went along with Hannah mixing her spices -- and other mistreatments surface at his trial -- then that is a different matter.
I have no doubt of the sincerity of the church family and pastor who support Hannah and some even are out a lot of money to pay her legal fees. But the best of people can be fooled.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hannah Backers vs Hannah Haters
too bad so much anger...
Again the jury found her NOT GUILTY of forcing salt.
CPS has dropped all charges of child abuse due to no evidence way prior to the trial.
Anyone who continues to claim she forced salt for punishment on Andrew or that any of the other kids had any abuse are basing this on:
1. Previous media reports that were shown to be erroneous
2. emotionalism and wanting revenge
If you think Hannah was guilty of murder (as defined by State Law), you are basing this on the above, and not on jury decision or established facts.
Posted by vanessadelasierra102981 on September 13, 2007 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:29 a.m.
She was guilty of waiting, which is not a murder charge in the state of Texas.
It is amazing all the local churches that are supporting Calvary & the Overtons! Thank you!
response to first item: Apparently in this case it is.
response to second item: NOT MY CHURCH!!!
I could not agree more....my chrurch is not supporting them either ....quite frankly I don't know who would...................
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico regarding your statement: And to prove my point about "facts" being incorrect, even on this very board, the pastor has been referenced as Ron. His name is Pastor Rod, not Ron.
response: He is not my pastor and he is not the pastor of many on this site so why should he deserve the acknowledgment and our respect of calling him pastor? If his birth certificate proves his first name is pastor, then I apologize but until then to me he is just Ron. And Ron is in denial and using the name of the Lord to back up a woman who neglected and abused Andrew to death.
Posted by luvcalico on September 13, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But his name is not Ron, it's Rod.
Whether or not, you call him pastor is your decision. But at least get your facts straight!
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico,
Ron, Rod, Mike, Jim, Bob, Richard, Sam, Joe, Frank, Mark, Pedro, Sancho, Pasqual, Pepe, Francois, Jean-Luke, whatever is still backing up a woman who neglected and abused Andrew to death.
Now, does that satisfy you?
Posted by mom7kiddos on September 13, 2007 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor, I think that luvcailco was refering to someone calling him Ron (with a N) instead of Rod (with a D). I don't think that he was refering to Pastor, though he might have been.
In this case I don't think the punishment was appropriate. My aunt willfully and purposely shot and killed my grandfather she was sentence to just 25 yrs and will be up for parole in 12 1/2 yrs. In fact I believe that will be in 2009.
My granmother was also charged with murder because she helped to bury him. This is the part that really gets to me. She did NOT kill him, yet she was charged with his murder.
I don't think that Hannah willfully or purposely killed Andrew, there are much faster and easier ways than salt poisoning. I think life in prison w/ no parole was not the proper punishment. I feel the jury felt she was guilty of lesser charger, but had no other option. It was either guilty or set her free. The jury would rather see her punished, regardless of the sentence, than see her free.
Our justice system is not perfect. It fhe jury had the oppurtunity to choose a lesser charge I feel certain that they would have done just that. Now there will be an appeal. More emotional turmoil and money spent.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor:
It's sort or a Christian thing... to support others. If she is guilty of abuse she should be punished. If she is not guilty of murder she should not be in prison for life.
Christians are an odd lot who care for people, whether guilty or not. They have prison ministries, Hurricane relief agencies, medical missions, etc (which I have been actively a part of).
The facts show Hannah is not guilty of murder and we hope that a court of appeals will show that. If she is found guilty of abuse or neglect, we will still support her even if we don't support the sin.
John 13:35
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."
Posted by valc04 on September 13, 2007 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What about the statements given by her own children that this was a form of punishment for them and Andrew got in trouble alot so guess what he got punished alot. These are recorded statements made by them at the Childrens Advocacy Center.
Rob Carver did pray in church that GOD would prevail and justice would be served- guess what he did prevail and this is what he called justice. Are you asking him to reconsider? I think it is ridiculous that this church is so supportive of her I can see a church praying for a member of their congregation and that GOD will handle their situation but I thought Andrew was member also? I don't think her church lived with her when all this was occurring? They only knew them through church, he testified to that in the bail hearing. I know that Rob Carver does not have the respect of many people at Driscoll, CCPD, or CPS and the majority of this disrespect comes from statements he made at poor little Andrew's funeral- he was a troubled boy (as reported by Hannah) it was his time to go with GOD (it was his time because Hannah did not take him for medical care in time).
Posted by valc04 on September 13, 2007 at 10:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mom7kiddos- I think that your right our justice system is not always right. Your aunt should have gotten the same sentence Hannah did. They both killed someone.
I think that there are so many parents and family members that abuse and hurt children- not meaning to "kill them" and guess what it happens- does that not make it their fault. I think this is a billboard to child abusers- YOU WILL BE PUNISHED- THIS WILL NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY ANYMORE!!! Good Job to the Jury- We only know very little about what happend in that home and if poor little Andrew were still alive he would still be undergoing torture at home because it would have never been noticed by anyone. You know abuse is usually hidden in the home- and other's dont want to know about it. It's sad but true and I thank GOD that she is away from her other children so she cannot accidentally kill them.
Posted by sursumtx on September 13, 2007 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico, I'm with you 1000%.
Prior to this trial, I was guilty of some of the naivete you describe. I believed much of what the media put out, I trusted public officials to always do the right thing instead of doing the thing that gives them another point in their "wins" column.
I still believe there are reporters and police officers and CPS workers and district attorneys with integrity. The new DA in Dallas County comes to mind on the latter. But I see now there are some misguided individuals in those positions, too. When you make your living as a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
I am terrified of the precedent set by this verdict.
FREE HANNAH. FREE LARRY.
Posted by aquila on September 13, 2007 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ccskibunny:
- It is unfortunate that the police/DA's office released unsubstantiated information to the public. They acheived their goal, however, if they did this with the intent of ensuring that the local populace, including potential jurors, was inflamed with indignation and rage. Hannah didn't stand a chance for a fair trial.
- It is unfortunate that the local police department felt that they were entitled to intimidate potential witnesses, including a pastor immediately after Andrew's funeral while they were still at the cemetary. (what some have called stonewalling)
- It is unfortunate that the local ME assumed that Hannah murdered Andrew, and failed to complete the tests that would confirm this.
- It is unfortunate that EMT's reported marks on Andrew's body as "cigarette burns", but they turned out to be mosquito bites that had been scratched (and were being treated under a doctor's supervision
- It is unfortunate that the emergency room doctors immediately assumed physical abuse due to the marks on his face, head, and chest, but did not consider that these "bruises" would be consistent with the performance of CPR and never bothered to look at the initial report filed by the EMT's and which listed no bruising, but did list a bunch of other stuff. Also that the emergency room doctors cannot tell the difference between diaper rash and a bruise from abusive spanking.
- It is unfortunate that you can show someone a picture of a dead child with bruises, say "she did it!", and leave the accused to twist in the wind.
- It is unfortunate that people seem to be entertained by bringing up "genetics" as an explanation for "Hannah's behavior" or who feel that they can tell Hannah is evil because of how she looks in a picture or by how she reacts to a given situation in court. It is also unfortunate about all the IMOs stated as fact regarding Hannah beating, poisoning, or starving Andrew without a shread of evidence to support their opinions.
Posted by mom7kiddos on September 13, 2007 at 10:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If this form of punishment was used regulary in the Overton house were the other children's sodium levels tested? What were their levels. It seems to me that a sodium level as high as Andrew's was is an indicator of a more serious medical problem. Even if she had been using this punishment for more than just this one day if Andrew's systems were working as they should that sodium would have been flushed out.
Regardless, she was found guilty by omisson. I am still not clear on the timeline of events. What symptoms did the jury start their timeline at? I realize that Hannah was an LVN, how long had it been since she was a practicing LVN? Did she have an knowledge of what sodium poisoning symptoms look like? How common is sodium poisoning?
Posted by grimjack41 on September 13, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dannoynted1 perhaps a "miscarriage of justice" would be a better term.
She is guilty of a crime and for that there should be a punishment. But should her punishment mean the end of her life and the lives of her family? Sending her to jail for the rest of her life isn't going to bring Andrew back but it will have severe affects on her family. Then what happens if he is convicted as well. We have 5 more children in the foster care system... What I was trying to get at is if that was the only option the jury had with the facts given, then so be it but the LAW in this case seems more interested in "revenge" then true "justice" just because a law calls for a certain crime, doesn’t make it “just”. Do you think the boy in Georgia who was 18 and got caught have oral s*x with his 16 year old girl friend should get the 10 years he got? He would have gotten less time if he had raped her and intercourse is LEGAL! Is that also “justice”? Of course that is just my opinion.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mom, luvcalico was referring to the pastor.
mom & brother, I have been posting since day one of the trail. Many times I have said that I did not believe she intentionally killed him. I don't think she woke up that morning saying "today is the day I will kill Andrew" but I have stated that I felt she was responsible for his death. I don't agree with the life sentence without parole. But that is the law and not just a bunch of our opinions. Everyone who has posted in her support have pointed fingers at everyone except Hannah. How many of you have posted sympathy and love for Andrew? You the people who knew him from church, knew him with the Overton family, knew him as just a handsome normal little boy. I don't recall seeing very many. I posted that I grew to love a little boy I never met. It was not his fault, he was just a baby. If he had the power to call 911 himself, or drive himself to the hospital, he probably would have but we all know that is ridiculous, he had a mother, whether it be a foster mother or real mother, she was the adult in that situation. For once I would like to see her supporters stand up and show love and compassion for Andrew and not just her. Yes I understand your support, I am not heartless, I began to feel sorry for Hannah but I will not try to blame a helpless little boy for her mistakes. Life in prison? If I had a vote on this, I would vote for many years in prison but life without parole is still hard for me to swallow. I was not a juror, I did not make that decision but they did based on the evidence presented to them. Were they tainted by the media and press as some of you have stated? I don't know. I read the paper daily, watch the news daily (both a.m. and p.m.). Did I form an opinion based on what I read and heard? No, I did not form my opinion until the evidence started coming forth. I heard both sides, and frankly the defense side sounded like a really good lie that no one believed.
Posted by beeleticia on September 13, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You Hannah supporters keep saying, " you all have convicted her without knowing all the facts"......
HELLO!!!! They jury knew all the facts and still found her guilty.
I know you all are saying, "guilty of this not guilty of that."
It's the same thing.
This innocent baby died because of abuse, torture, and neglect.
I don't understand why this is accepteble to ya'll. Do you all mean to say that her abuse is excusable? You all will back up this kind of torture?
I think sooner or later we are gonna be posting about you as well.
Posted by luvcalico on September 13, 2007 at 11:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you sursumtx. That's the only point I was trying to make on this board. I don't know all the facts of this case - and neither do most of other posters here.
The only fact we know for sure is that a little boy died. That in itself is a tragedy.
I think I've proven my point here that some of you can't even get the pastor's name right. So far he's been referred to as Ron, Rob, and Rod Caca. So you can see how easy it is to get things wrong. And jenbarco, you don't even care that you got his name wrong.
If you can't even get something correct as a person's name here, gee, is it even possible that the DA, hospital officials, newspaper reporters, police officers in this case got other things wrong??
Like sursumtx, I fear the precedent that this conviction has set. You parents better make sure that each time your child gets sick, you take him/her immediately to the ER; otherwise you could be charged with murder. And once your story hits the newspaper, you can be assured that you will be found guilty here in the court of public opinion.
I'm sure that most of you are glad I don't live in Texas, but I have to say that I'm sure glad I don't live in Texas either!
Posted by cmoreno on September 13, 2007 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
She was negligent and her negligence resulted in a child's death. That is why she should spend the rest of her life in prison, praying for that child and her salvation. Now if prayers were said for her before her sentencing, then those prayers have been answered. Just because the outcome was not what some people wanted, does not mean that God did not answer the prayers.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The REPUBLIC OF TEXAS!!!!! Long live TEXAS!!!! I love Texas,
I am a Texan, I've lived in other states including California, Michigan, Louisiana, Idaho, Georgia, and TEXAS is by faaaar my favorite of them all!!!! Yippeee Ki Yo Ki Yaaay!
Posted by rjorgensen on September 13, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Grimjack.....that's a very valid point. What does happen then, if Larry gets convicted also we will have 5 more children that wont have a mother or a father to raise them. Because I know the family, I know the children will be very well taken care of and provided for, but to not have your mother and father in your upbringing can be very tragic. Yes I am a Hannah backer. Yes of course my heart still goes out to Andrew because this was a tragic accident. However, nothing at this point is going to bring him back. I pray that Hannah gets the appeal that she deserves.
Posted by grimjack41 on September 13, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico
You are better off stopping while you are ahead. Me and a few others were trying to explain the difference between justice, revenge, and the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" early in the trial but we gave up after being accused of being Overton supports, members of their "cult church", child abusers, child haters, etc. This issue has created a mob mentality for many that attacks any but their own view point.
I do agree with you though in all of your posts. I also agree with, if what ccbrother said is true, the jury verdict of "guilty of neglect" but innocent of all other charges from what I have seen and read. In my opinion there were too many holes from the beginning to sustain a murder charge, in the court room may have been a different story though that’s why I've always deferred to the jury and now the appeals court. I still think life in prison for this crime borders on "cruel and unusual punishment" at the very least it’s excessive but of course that’s just my opinion. I’m sure there are others that think anything less than a tar/feather ripping out of all nails then left crucified (literally) would still be too nice. I'm also betting at least one person takes a stab at me as well. Regardless may Andrew rest in peace and may the Lord watch over the Overton children for both parents go to jail, they become the latest victums.
Posted by vanessadelasierra102981 on September 13, 2007 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico
lets get something striaght just for the record: when a child is sick you take them to the doctor...BUT WHEN A CHILD IS UNRESPONSIVE THEN YES....TAKE HIM/SHE TO THE ER IMMIEDIATLY OR YES YOU WILL TOO BE CONVICTED OF MURDER IF THE CHILD DOES NOT LIVE.
Don't change things around....once again another excuse for Hannah's neglect to get ANDREW medical attention when he needed it....instead she waited an hour and a half what was she doing reading a book until her husband got home and then they rushed to the hospital....come on people...get real already...she is guilty and why should she not get life in prison.....at least she has her life...maybe they should have given her the death penalty then would it have been fair????????ANDREWS not alive maybe she shouldn't be alive either huh?????????
Posted by yomamma on September 13, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The bottom line is that the child is dead, and he didn't do it on his own. Someone is guilty of something, and I think we can all eliminate the child!! Might not be murder, but the child didn't commit suicide, so there is a crime nevertheless. The entire bunch from the church are a bunch of cult cooks, and this may happen to others in their bunch. We don't need a local Jim Jones and Guyana here. Maybe after the husband's trial, they'll ALL leave.
Posted by valc04 on September 13, 2007 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
aquila- Wow how do you know all these things weren't done- and who are the professionals here. Did you know that the Child Abuse Team was involved in this case at DCH- the Team that evaluates physical abuse, sexual abuse daily and guess what all the Professionals were concerned. They were concerned because the scratches on Andrew back were in places he could not have reached himself and after seeing the picture of the plywood bed he was forced to sleep on it was obviuos where they came from. If your given 20 something teaspoons of spices would your body get rid of it in an hour. If you a physicain let me know your conclusion if not how can you believe they are incorrect. I will not act knowledge able about sodium levels and medical diseases I will rely on the experts. When you take your child to the doctor (pediatrician) do you believe their diagnosis or do question them also?
Posted by almlovesu on September 13, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just becuase she was found "Not Guilty " of forcing salt , doesn't mean it didn't happen dude...
Vanessadeasierra,
I agree with everything you said and I feel your anger. Hannah Overton knew what she was doing and who knows how many times she used this type of punishment on Andrew. This child never had a chance with her. All those Hannah supporters seem so concerned with the fact that "nobody knew her' Well, did anyone know Ted Bundy? or David Koresh? Did anyone know any of these people that commited such horrid crimes? Not really right? But hey, once they were gone what they were doing stopped. Same with this Hannah animal, she's been tried and convicted and what she did to Andrew will never happen again. Not by her anyway. We still have a lot of Hannah's out there but we just got lucky catching this one. Sadly though, we had to lose a child, but doesn't it usually happen that way? We have lto ose one to catch one. Yeah, we try to prevent things like this from happening, but when you have these Calvary people that choose to ignore whats happening and don't make any reports of abuse or neglect... well......you do the math. We have teachers, counselors, rental furniture collectors, cable installers, insurance guys, people that work in all different fields who actually go to the homes and see children unsupervised and/or physically abused or neglected at different hours of the day and night! And guess what? Even though they see these things they won't make a CPS report! So you see, I truly believe that the people that socialized with the Overtons, also knew a little bit of what was happening and they turned a blind eye instead.
So please people, if you see a child(ren) that is being abused or neglected, make a report! Don't have any resrevations what so ever!
Justice For Andrew!
Posted by vanessadelasierra102981 on September 13, 2007 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
yomamma - I have to agree with you on that note...and yeah hopefully they will leave because I would hate for my family to even have the same zip code as them.
I don't understand how they can sit there and blame ANDREW...he's so innocent here.....I wish that he would have never been placed with the Overtons....because just the way The Hannah Supporters think that she should have a life ...I think that ANDREW deserved one.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor........post 11:10 a.m.
You could not have stated it any better. Thank you.
If Andrew could have called for Help that day he vomited 8 times, he would have, but he was just a little kid who wanted to live.
He had to do what the BOSS who had power over him said.
He was alone with the BOSS. She had a free hand to deal with him after getting all the other children out of the home. Hannah needs to tell the truth about what she did to Andrew. Maybe Larry will speak the truth at his trial about everything that went on in that household. That is everyone's hope.
How long did it take Hannah to get Andrew to the point of death from the time he wanted something from McDonald's that morning to the time she called Larry at work and they got in a car and drove the unresponsive little boy to a clinic.
The defense would have people believe that Andrew did this sodium overdose to himself by getting in the pantry or eating off the floor or trash.
How ridiculous is that.
Posted by louie_8201 on September 13, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Andrew is dead bottom line; Hannah is still alive. I don't feel any sympathy for this woman or any person harming a child's life. Hannah has to pay the consequences for her actions. Lock her up and throw away the key, perhaps feed her the mixture she feed to Andrew and see if she thinks it was a good idea. RIP Andrew!
Posted by aquila on September 13, 2007 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Many people prayed that the truth would be revealed, and that God would work on the hearts of all the people involved in Hannah's trial. But God allows each of us free will, and every time that he speaks to us, we have the option of accepting or ignoring his guidance. Or, for that matter, God may have hardened the hearts of certain people (as he has done in the past) so that Hannah would be convicted only to have a greater truth revealed later. Job also wondered why everything that was part of his life was destroyed, but God had a purpose then. God has a purpose for everything (Romans 8:28).
Does anyone out there know how to get a copy of the transcript of the trial? I am hearing from people who were there that a lot of what actually happened during the trial was not reported or was only reported in part, giving a very slanted picture. Since what was initially reported was false and some of the rest was questionable, the logical thing to do would be to get hold of the actual transcript rather than retread the rumors, half-truths, and innuendos that have been published.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 11:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
guest__________________
Hannah's website is VERY one sided! It completely distorts all the facts. We need ALL the facts, not just how she acted at church.
Kinda reminds me of CNN giving a one-sided view of the world. We need fair and (balanced). Theres not an ounce of remorse for her actions what so ever on her new website.
You know, I know everybody does not act the same way in these situations, ie; ( your child dies) but your average response to being accused of murder and (knowing your innocent of all charges)...well let me put it this way,........I would be on that stand crying and pleading and begging for everyone to please believe me that I did not harm my child. (I would even beg to take a lie detector test). I know I could (never be so calm, cool and collected) when being falsely accused of a crime of this magnitude. I wanted to hear what her other children said when they were asked what when on in that house. This evidence has been suppressed.
Posted by almlovesu on September 13, 2007 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, I noticed during the trial, Hannah appeared emotionless, and unmoved. But once the verdict was read, her entire demeanor changed. I believe Hannah thought she was really going to get off!
Posted by vanessadelasierra102981 on September 13, 2007 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
almlovesu
Man I have got to give it up to you ...well said...it takes just one second to make a call and you might save a life..speak for a child who can't speak for themselves. Be the better person.
And yes I am angry about this case ....my husband doesn't understand why it has taken such a tole on me but for the love of God this was an innocent child who didn't deserve that. I have two babies of my own and I just can't imagine not getting medical attention for either one of them when they needed it....and more so I can not even imagine making a child drink spices and water...they should make Hannah drink that in jail ...daily.
The Calavary Church members did know more ....they are defending her probably because deep down inside they feel GUILTY themselves because if they had said something then maybe ANDREW would not be dead. It really bothers me that they blame ANDREW for Hannah's actions.....pretty crazy if you ask me. but then again they have to blame someone huh..........how sad.
REST IN PEACE ANDREW...WE ARE ALL FIGHTING FOR YOU NOW....FLY HIGH.
Posted by luvcalico on September 13, 2007 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you were in Hannah's situation, and let's just say that what Aquila posted was true or even could be a possibility, even a remote possibility, wouldn't you want those things to be considered? Don't even answer that question because of course, any one of us would want that. You would be lying if you said No. Please don't burst my bubble, I think most of you are sincere in your beliefs, but not liars.
Some of you are still posting things that are just outright wrong, and condemning based on wrong suppositions. Don't follow the mob mentality, just think about these things that have been presented.
I still have a problem with this precedent. This time, failure to respond was quantified by an hour and a half. How is a jury going to define "failure to respond" the next time?
Posted by aquila on September 13, 2007 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jenbarcor:
Andrew was loved by his church when he was alive, and he was mourned by his church when he died. What some view as "attacks on Andrew" are nothing of the sort. He wasn't a saint (what four yo is). He wasn't a devil. He was a boy who had had a rough life and some problems. Pointing out some of Andrew's problems does not mean that his loss was less tragic, that anyone loved him less, or that it was even his fault. It only means that there are other factors to consider.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Yes I am a Hannah backer. Yes of course my heart still goes out to Andrew because this was a tragic accident."
TO this poster I say, I am glad your heart still goes out to Andrew. This was tragic but what she did was no accident. She fully intended to give him the spice mixture she mixed up that day after the chilli/soup 'lunch'..... She just went overboard this time with her Cajun seasoning potion. I wonder if she or anyone else ever drank one of her Hannah's specials. Was this just for Andrew, even tho she was clearly told by CPS guidelines not to use food as a form of punishment.
_________________________________________
"The bottom line is that the child is dead, and he didn't do it on his own. Someone is guilty of something, and I think we can all eliminate the child!!....."
TO this poster, I don't think you can put it any plainer.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hannah Haters & Christian Bashers:
please note that there are at least 5 other local churches that are supporting the Overtons. Pastors & leaders of other churches have been at our prayer meetings.
2 of the lawyers go to these other churches. At my church, Calvary, there are CPS members that attend our church, not to mention law enforcement officers, doctors, etc.
So much for your cult charge....
Can you spell _ad hominem_ attack???
Posted by aquila on September 13, 2007 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
valc04:
If you were following this case closely (at least what was reported in the media), you would know that:
- Testimony indicated that Andrew did not sleep on a bare piece of plywood. He slept in a sleeping bag for a short period of time on the plywood, and then in the Overton's bedroom for the rest of the night. The last time I checked the criminal code,. sleeping on a hard surface in a sleeping bag was not considered child abuse.
- I don't question that the possibility of abuse being investigated. I only question the thoroughness of the investigation. It appears that they did not look at everything involved. I have heard that all pending charges(?) by CPS against the Overtons have been dropped. That speaks volumes as to the facts regarding any claims that Andrew was abused. And you have not addressed my comment on the inconsistencies between the two different medical teams, nor how the bruises were actually caused.
- It was never proven in court that Hannah gave "20 something" teaspoons of anything to Andrew. In fact, testimony suggested that it would have been impossible for Hannah to have forced Andrew to eat/drink this quantity without leaving any marks. There were no marks consistent with force-feeding found.
- The experts agree that sodium poisoning was the cause of Andrew's death. The question really is how did it happen. Irregardless, The jury did not find Hannah guilty of poisoning Andrew.
- Doctors are human and do make mistakes. They are trained to use the scientific method, but that does not mean that their findings are not colored by their preconceptions nor the distractions that happen around them. And this is not unique to the medical field. And yes, if I feel that the doctor has not been thorough, I do question his diagnosis.
Posted by yomamma on September 13, 2007 at 12:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a cult. Jim Jones followers probably didn't admit they were in a cult either. Look at the followers, they are complete weirdos who appear almost trance like. Just remember, DON'T drink the koolaid!!!!
Posted by grimjack41 on September 13, 2007 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
in regard to questioning doctors, I agree. If my mom had 'questioned' the doctor years go when cancer treatments were being given to my brother, he would be alive today...
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 13, 2007 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:44 a.m.
enquiring:
I heard lawyers saying that the defense has 30 days to make the appeal, which has probably already been done. Judge Longoria then has 75 days to rule on the appeal. I hope he rules quickly. The rumor is that the Judge was also upset about the ruling, so we shall see how quickly he responds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The Judge was not the fact finder in this case.
Why would the judge CARE, is there a comet he needs to catch?
Drink the "health" cajun nix water.
No thanks......not kosher
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yomamma,
ROTFLMAO, totally entertaining.
Hawaii-50....."just the facts Danno" the spicy concoction had a dietary requirement?
If he indeed had a "eating-disorder" or "diabetes" then as his "foster" parent she knew of the dietary requirements of said diagnosis. Y'all blaming Andrew followers will better off if they best stick to the facts.
________________________________________________
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What did the doctors miss when it came to Andrew in the hospital the last day of his life. What did the pictures of his dying body miss?
I feel sorry for Hannah. I do not hate her. I just hate that she gave Andrew her potion that day which made him so sick/sicker..... and I sure hate that she did not get help for his dying body in time.
Posted by mom7kiddos on September 13, 2007 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
valc04 "When you take your child to the doctor (pediatrician) do you believe their diagnosis or do question them also?"
I question them EVERY SINGLE TIME! My daughter walked around for almost a week on a completely dislocated hip that her pediatrician FAILED to diagnose. Even though it is not a rare occurance in a child with cerebral palsy and I specifically asked him if it could possible be dislocated. Maybe if he would have actually examined her he would have found it.
I only know of only ONE person that walked this earth that was PERFECT. Drs. are human they don't know everything and they do make mistakes. You would be wise to research your health desicions.
Posted by luckybryan on September 13, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
<>
good point almlovesu and you are so right... people need to know that they need to OUTCRY....
Hey there any person, If you witness behavior out in the community and you form a reasonable belief that something's just not right, OUTCRY. Call 9-1-1 and report it.
If you're on school property and you see something that makes you uneasy, OUTCRY. Go straight to the office and make your report straight to the principal. Document everything.
If what you see makes you think twice, do what you need to do right then and right there. Don't worry. The cop will write it up ... you could help save someone's life, or prevent an injury, keep an impaired driver off the street, even restore a kidnap victim or missing person to their loved ones. OUTCRY. 9-1-1.
We love you, Andrew. We will remember you.
Posted by robertnsheri on September 13, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HANNAH needs to rot in jail so she doesn't do this to another child. Apparently that day she was overwhelmed with Andrew and she flipped. The reason she probably waited so long to take him to the doctor was so that she could hide/get rid of evidence.
THINK ABOUT IT.......What type of loving, caring, compassionate mother makes a child sleep on plywood (even with a sleeping bag)? What type of loving, caring, compassionate mother gives a four year old child water with spices? Etc....you get the point!!
Just from personal experience....Some children that CPS places with foster parents/relatives can be very difficult and they may have extreme behavior problems. I had one child placed with me that had many problems and I got to the point that I couldn't deal with him. I loved him and still do, but I couldn't control him so after a year, I called CPS and told them I couldn't deal with this 14 year old child. I was very upset (feeling that I was giving up on him) but I knew my limits and I knew that I couldn't deal with him anymore. I felt that maybe someone with more experience and less children could deal with him better than I could. I only wish Hannah would have done the same so Andrew would be alive today.
Posted by beeleticia on September 13, 2007 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL yomama.
To aquila....
I can't believe you still want transcripts of the trial. What....you don't think the jury was there?
You state that we are going by what the media reported and false statements and that is why we have convicted her?
OH PLEASE!! THE JURY WAS THERE! We did not convict her from false statements or media reports.......the jury convicted her from evidence and facts!!! Are you that kidding?
I can't believe you Hannah supporters are pretending to believe Hannah is innocent.
Seriously, you all cannnot be that blind to see all the abuse that went on. Come on now.
Posted by rmetting on September 13, 2007 at 1:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i have been reading about this trial since i heard the aweful news. To the supporters of Hannah, i would suggest you read a book, "A Child Called It". It is about a boy who was abused by his mother for several years while his brothers went about their lives. No one knew or cared about him, it was like he didn't exist. My point to this, is you don't know what goes on behind closed doors. The only person who could truly tell us the truth is dead. It is too bad an innocent child had to die in order for this child abuser to be punished. I think she was given a fair trial and Capital Murder was sought because Andrew was under the age of 6. Now she has the rest of her life to think about what she did to Andrew. Andrew is safe in heaven....
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ccbrother wrote:
Hannah Haters & Christian Bashers:
please note that there are at least 5 other local churches that are supporting the Overtons. Pastors & leaders of other churches have been at our prayer meetings.
response: Are they real churches or store front churches?
2 of the lawyers go to these other churches. At my church, Calvary, there are CPS members that attend our church, not to mention law enforcement officers, doctors, etc.
response: Were these the same lawyers that got paid to defend her? At your church, maybe these CPS members, law enforcement officers, doctors,etc. are afraid of the church's mob mentality to speak the truth.
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 13, 2007 at 1:50 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 1:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aquila your post of 11:52 , Don't compare Hannah to Job. Next you will be saying Hannah walked on water.
Posted by txjd04 on September 13, 2007 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In the ER: ANY child brought in with any kind of marks are automatically ASSUMED to be related to abuse until investigated and proven otherwise. This is the way it is and there is no way around it wether anyone likes it or not. This is how a large majority of abuse cases are found out--sadly--too late in some cases. So, I completely agree with this procedure because often, medical personnel are the only line of defense and intervention for these children. I live in Texas and I love it except for the heat!!! Those who live anywhere else should just stick to making comments in their own community. And no, I'm not scared of this ruling making me run to the ER for any little thing or I'll be found guilty of harm to my child. There is a huge difference between the sniffles and something life-threatening like in Andrews case. Anyone with common sense would rush their child or ANY child to the ER or call 911 if that child became unresponsive or lose consciousness--not just with a child with the snots. And if this is not the way you would respond--then you would also be guilty just like Overton. Again, this is just common sense and I guess she did not have that.
Posted by hernandez8931 on September 13, 2007 at 2:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In the testimony from one of the officers he states he saw bruises on Andrews nose, who is to say they aren't from Hannah trying to force him to drink her "MIXTURE"?
Posted by sweetie3302 on September 13, 2007 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Being trained as a LVN, shouldn't she of all people have even better knowledge of something going horribly wrong with this "unresponsive" child? I think that in itself is very telling about her "motives."
Posted by luckybryan on September 13, 2007 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dave Pelzer lived through it all and wrote at least two books about his life. "A Child Called It" will give you a glimpse into what real life was for one person. " It " to his siblings and parents hardly ever got food at home and what he did get was nasty. Etc.
The reader will learn that in Mr. Pelzer's early years, school personnel suspected something but acted ineffectively. When long years later, he was saved, it was thru school personnel.
Mr. Pelzer once spoke at Barnes & Noble in Moore Plaza. I took my little kid. For months after, a meal or snack would be timely or the remark would be made, " ?? is my name IT !! "
Posted by ccskibunny on September 13, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with louiseshirley: We don't hate Hannah, we hate what she did. A child died at her hands. We simply want justice for Andrew.
For some of you posters who have recently joined in and don't think we are answering your posts, we have been debating trial info for weeks. It's all been said (over and over again). Go back and read all the posts for the last couple of weeks. Your questions have been answered.
Those church members blocking news crews and circling around Larry and scowling and standing in defiance or support or whatever you want to call it in the courtroom, it just looks a little "off" and seems a little "scary". I'm not trying to be mean, but if people are on here knocking your church, perhaps that is why. (Personally, it kinda reminds me of the Charlie Manson women.)
Posted by Phydeaux88 on September 13, 2007 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The prosecution was wrong in charging Capital Murder. That implies intent.
Ms Overton was guilty of gross neglegence, incredibly bad judgement, and quite frankly a good helping of stupidity; however, she did not intend to cause the childs death.
Her actions were much more analagous to a wreckless driver killing someone. The charge would be Vehicular Manslaughter, a stiff prison sentence would be warrented and assesed.
Her sentence should be similar to that.
Posted by grimjack41 on September 13, 2007 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I couldn't agree with you more Phydeaux.
Posted by ratpak13 on September 13, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
posted by aquilla:
"But God allows each of us free will, and every time that he speaks to us, we have the option of accepting or ignoring his guidance. Or, for that matter, God may have hardened the hearts of certain people (as he has done in the past) so that Hannah would be convicted only to have a greater truth revealed later. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That just might be the most ridiculous statement on ANY of the Overton message boards yet.
You contridicted yourself concerning 'free will' and the erroneous translation regarding 'hardening of the heart'. God didn't abitrarily make Pharoah turn, He 'solidified' Pharoah's position.
I find it repugnant to charge God with allowing Hannah to be wrongly convicted for the death of a small boy, thrown into prison, torn from her family, "for a greater truth to be revealed later".
Frankly, I'm quite worried that the cause of Christ would be better served by humility in the face of reality, instead of the blind allegiance to a reproachful woman. Yes, reproachful. I thought that Christians were supposed to live their lives 'above reproach'. Things came up during the trial that caused many in the community to scratch their heads in disbelief.
A good day for the Body of Christ? Hardly. A born-again Christian convicted in the negligent death of a 4yr.old. This is truly a sad day. I wonder how hard it's going to be to invite those sceptical family members and coworkers most of you have been witnessing to, to come to church with you.
A final note.
Pastor Rod Carver is a good guy. I listen to him and Pastor Chuck on the radio when I get the chance. He's also an excellent surfer. Rod is in between a rock and a hard place. I truly believe he thinks Hannah and Larry to be railroaded, a miscarriage of justice. Let's also remember, Rod was a witness and thereby unable to attend the trial. I think some doubt would have entered his mind had he been able to see and hear the things testified to in Judge Longoria's court.
Posted by annelise123 on September 13, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For all of you so sure that the facts show that it's obvious Hannah intended to kill Andrew, don't you think it should have been equally obvious to the jury? Tellingly, they didn't convict her on that. If she was so completely and thoroughly evil, proving intent should've been child's play.
Do you know how hard it can be to get charges dropped from CPS and get your children back? Incredibly hard. It takes some people years, even without the parents being formally charged with anything. The fact that the charge of abuse was dropped by them and the Overton's children were returned to them despite the looming trial speaks volumes to me. If CPS had been at all afraid that Hannah might harm another child, trust me, those children would NEVER have been returned. It actually shows a remarkable level of trust.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
robertnsheri_________
You are right about the sleeping bag. My children have had sleepovers and start out with a sleeping bag on the floor. That lasted about 1 hour before they opted to sleep in the same bed.
So I now have a sleeping bag with a blow up air mattress inside of it. Now they (will) sleep in it. Listen folks, us parents cherish the time of the day when our children lay their heads down to sleep. Its gives us that break we've been looking for all day. Point is, parents usually try to make their children as comfortable as possible during sleep time.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 2:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise123
You are right.
We were praying truth would be revealed and the jury did find her Not Guilty of forcing salt and CPS dropped all charges I think the appeal will show justice.
Too bad the Hannah Haters must now resort to Christian Bashing to "prove" their point. They never met our Andrew, yet claim we didn't love him. Such hate! So blind!
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ratpak....Post 2:30 pm..........you made good sense as usual.
Also have to agree, the post by aquila that time sure was way out in some left field somewhere........way out.......
I just hope that Larry reveals the truth during his trial. He is the one who lived in that house and knows what she did while he was home. He may not know what all she did on days he was at work. If Larry had been there, would she have mixed her spice potion for Andrew. You know, the mix that she said was to "soothe" him after his LUNCH.
She would have been better off getting the kid a McDonald's that day. Would sure have saved her and the taxpayers if she had been a normal acting mom and stayed away from her spice bottle.
Did she get to take it to jail with her so she could have the same diet she gave Andrew, in case she needs something to drink to "soothe" her.
I hate what she did to Andrew, but I do not hate her. I hope she has redeemed herself with the Lord. That however is between her and the Lord.
Posted by beeleticia on September 13, 2007 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise.....
"a remarkable level of trust"...
TRUST??? Would you trust your beloved children with Hannah?
If something were to happen to you and you were unable to care for your children and they ended up in foster care.....you would trust Hannah?
Andrew should've been able to trust his "mother"....Instead she killed him.
Posted by sweetangel220032003 on September 13, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
to the statement made by the pastor she is guilty of murdering a innocent child she had no remorse for what she did...you who speaks the word of the lord should know that the children are gifts from god and no where in the bible does it say to murder them or punish them so harsh the way she did..we are care for them and protect them with all are being...so make sure you are preaching that to people who attend your church in my opinio i would never attend a church like yours who thinks that a lady like mrs overton is innocent for what she did...and i think she should have got the death penalty for what she did but at least she can live her but i hope that every day and night she is haunted with the poor boys face
Posted by sweetie3302 on September 13, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm thinking that people "hate" Hannah because she has shown no remorse for her actions, or lack of...never did she seem to show any emotions until she was handed the verdict. I don't think she intended to have Andrew die, but come on...she can at least shown she is human.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise....
Please clarify.
Where are the Overton children, were they in the custody of Larry and Hannah as you said they were returned.
I read that Larry and Hannah moved in with the pastor as they were not allowed to live alone with the nursing baby.
I read that the other four children were placed with their bio grandmother, Hannah's mom.
I may be misunderstanding your 2:40 pm post about they got the children back. Please explain..
I thought they could not/were not allowed to be living alone with their children.
I am one of those who do not think she got up that day with some intention of killing Andrew. I do think she had enough training to know that a spice mixture drink was not going to soothe a child who had loose bowels and who later began to vomit profusely, something like 8 times. What did she think was happening to his Electrolytes during all this ......... Something does not add up.
I sure did not know the Overton children were returned to them as stated in your post.
I have no doubt the Pastor is a good man and he and his family took them and the nursing baby in.....that is my understanding.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
louiseshirley___________________
Now that would have been a sight! When Hannah was on the stand she should have taken all the props that were up there and showed the jury and people exactly how did she mixed this concoction together. Then she should have drank it and even served a little bit to all the jurors.
I just cannot imagine.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sweetie3302 :
you said: I'm thinking that people "hate" Hannah because she has shown no remorse for her actions, or lack of...never did she seem to show any emotions until she was handed the verdict. I don't think she intended to have Andrew die, but come on...she can at least shown she is human.
....................
How do you know she never showed emotions???
Because you saw TV!?
News bulletin: not everything on TV is reported accurate.
Only channel 6 (I think) showed the heart breaking account of Hannah on the stand when she told of Andrew's loss. It was a heart broken mom, in my opinion. And the jury was quite moved as well, I'm told (wasn't in court that day).
I actually examined Hannah after Andrew's death, she was in shock. I prescribed meds for her. Were you up with her all night long when she and Larry were crying??? The church was.
Were you up all night praying for our Andrew when in the hospital? The church was.
Do you really convict people becuase of their "smirk"? And because you personally didn't see her grief?
Shame on you.
Posted by annelise123 on September 13, 2007 at 4:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My understanding was that the children were returned to them this summer, at least for a short time. Is that not true?
I've read here and elsewhere that they were all staying together at the Carver's house for part of the time before Hannah's trail. I still maintain that if CPS thought the other children were at risk for abuse from either Hannah or Larry, they would not have been allowed to live together.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Many of us have been posting since the beginning. We all recognize each other by our screen names, i.e. skibunny, arthur, rrempp, louise-shirley, beeleticia, marlana, etc., and we have all stood by our beliefs and opinions supported by the evidence and truth. What I find odd is that last week there were so many posters in support of Hannah bashing us with bible verses and so on. Where are they now? I only recognize/see just a couple. ccbrother has held strong to his opinions but where are all her other supporters? Where have they gone? Could it be that they finally recognize the truth and gave up? Maybe one or two still lingering on, hum, makes you wonder? Oh someone set up a website, big deal, Scott Peterson's family set up a website, Yolanda Saldivar's brother set up a website, and several other notorious murderers have websites set up by someone who believed they were innocent. I admit, I was curious, I looked at Hannah's website, it won't make a difference, she like the others will remain in jail. The number of visitors to a website doesn't mean the number of supporters. Her supporters will eventually dwindle down to a few church members, family, a few friends perhaps but she will continue to sit in jail and those of us who continue to believe in the truth will move forward with our lives.
Posted by aquila on September 13, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
beeleticia:
If someone showed me a picture of a bruised child, and then said "she did it!", that image and the words would be burned into my head, and every word spoken by the defense after that point would be colored by that image, even if the evidence/testimony indicated that the bruises resulted from medical treatment--not physical abuse. Many of the posters have commented on the picture. I don't think that the jurors could not viewed that picture and not have been impacted.
I know people who attended the trial. There was a reason they were surprised at the conviction. They tell me a different story about what happened in the courtroom than what was published. I want to determine with my own eyes, ears, and brain what happened and form a firsthand educated opinion rather than just accept like a sheep what is being fed to me.
Posted by sweetie3302 on September 13, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1brother:
Get off your high horse! I'm am only giving you a theory as to why people "hate" her. Did I say I hate her?! No, I did not. Yes, I am telling you want I saw in the media...Even Susan Smith was seen several times in the media crying and I think what she did was far more horrific. I personally think that she made some major mistakes that lead to Andrew's death and now has to pay the price of living with that mistake the rest of her life whether she is in prison or not. I agree with most everyone on site with the fact that she should be punished, but not the extend that she was sentenced.
Because you don't know me, or my views, or anything about me, don't cast any stones...
Shame on you!
Posted by txjd04 on September 13, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry.....no matter how "close" anyone here is to Overton or how well one might think they might know her...no one knows the heart of a person--the inner soul. WE DO NOT KNOW the "intent" of a person or the "intent" of someones actions. No one will ever know. So it is foolish for someone to state she she did not intend to kill Andrew--we do not know this nor will anyone ever know this. She was tried on her actions and they resulted in a guilty verdict. Thats it. Those that say its "unjust" just merely don't agree with it-no reason to drag the good name of the Lord through all this trash.
Posted by kwork25 on September 13, 2007 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For me to believe that Hannah was innocent I would have to believe that EVERYONE that came in contact with Andrew that day was either incompetent, lying or biased against Hannah … I would also have to believe that Andrew had several undiagnosed problems that caused him to be battered INSIDE and OUTSIDE of his body and that still wouldn’t explain everything wrong with him. I would have to believe that an educated LVN had no clue that this boy had medical problems for the months leading up to that day and the day he died … I would have to think that all 28 witnesses for the prosecution including Hannah’s sister-in-law and the ex foster Mom were lying … I would have to turn off my common sense and turn my back on the professionals that looked at Andrew that day …I would have to ignore a jury of 12 peers that heard all the testimony and came to the verdict of capitol MURDER … I would have to believe that reality changed that day as I knew it to be in all the days before it…. I would have to be pretty isolated and against the real would to believe that Hannah was innocent … it’s us against them … WOW … sounds pretty cultish to me or at least clannish. I’m betting this is how the Heaven’s Gate and Warren Jeff’s follows think and feel.
Posted by ric74a on September 13, 2007 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
free Hannah?! Hannah is a sick woman who did horrific things, and is ultimately a KILLER. An innocent child died at the hands of Hannah Overton. Justice was served up hot and fresh. Drink that, Hannah!
Posted by arthur6889 on September 13, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"......."He said that when his soul left the body he went on a journey with a great company, and that they came to a mysterious place at which there were two openings in the earth; they were near togerther, and over against them were two other openings in the heaven above. In the intermediate space there were judges seated, who commanded the just, after they had given judgement on them and had bound their sentences in front of them, to ascend by the heavenly way on the right hand; and in like manner the unjust were bidden by them to descend by the lower way on the left hand; these also bore the symbols of their deeds, but fastened on their backs. He drew near, and they told him that he was to be a messenger who would carry the report of the other world to men, and they bade hear and see all that was to be heard and seen in that palce. Then he beheld and saw on one side the SOULS departing at either opening of heaven and earth when SENTENCE had been given on them; and at the two other openings other SOULS, some ascending out of the earth dusty and worn with travel, some descending out of heaven clean and bright.. And arriving ever and anon they seemed to have come from a long journey, and they went forth with gladness into the meadow, where they encamped asa at a festival; and those who knew one another embraced and conversed, the SOULS which came from earth curiously inquiring about the things above, and the SOULS from heaven about the things beneath. And they told one another of what happened by the way, those from below weeping and sorrowing at the remembrance of the things which they had endured and seen in their journey beneath the earth (now the journey lasted a thousand years), while those from above were describing heavenly delights and visions of inconceivable beauty. The story would take too long to tell; but the sum was this: He said that for every WRONG which they had done to anyone they suffered tenfold; or once in a hundred years--such being reckoned to be the length of man's life, and the penalty being thus paid ten times in a thousand years. If, for example, they were any who had been the CAUSE of many deaths, or had betrayed or enslaved cities or armies, or been guilty of any other evil behavior, for each and and all of their offences they received punishment ten times over, and the rewards of beneficence and justice and holiness were in the same proporation. I need hardly repeat what he said concerning young children dying almost as soon as they were born......".
The judgement is not ours to make.
Posted by narc on September 13, 2007 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Deep arthur, that brought tears to my eyes
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sweetie3302 said: Get off your high horse! I'm am only giving you a theory as to why people "hate" her. Did I say I hate her?! No, I did not.
...........
Sweetie, but you DID say:
"but come on...she can at least shown she is human."
That is what you said that I thought was shameful.
I can't judge you, but I can judge the words you type. You appeared to say you think she is acting inhuman because of your perceived lack of emotions on her part. Am I correct? This is a common misconception based on those who only know what the media reports.
If this is not what you think, then I apologize.
So, do you think she acted inhuman, yes or no?
Posted by narc on September 13, 2007 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1brother:
I would say waiting to long to help someone, or even an animal is inhuman. Isn't a mothers natural instinct to help her young?
Posted by rjorgensen on September 13, 2007 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor......have you ever thought maybe other people work.....
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rjorgensen, yeah, so do I. But were they ALL off from work last week?
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor____________
You always make sense. keep up the good work!
Posted by sweetie3302 on September 13, 2007 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1brother:
As I said before, I am going by what I see in the media because I do not have the luxury of being able to get information first hand in the courtroom. Let me ask you this? What do YOU think of someone who is responisble for the death of a helpless, innocent child? Do you think them inhuman? Besides, I never actually used the word inhuman...you change, "show she's human" to me accusing her of being inhuman, when all I was trying to state was show some emotion for what happened.
Posted by marisalazar002 on September 13, 2007 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
normac, you contradict yourself.
God didnt make that decision the 12 on the jury did. God does things on his time not ours. None of us know what trully happened but I honestly do not beleive she did it with the intent to murder him..
*****************************
I served as a juror on a homicide case a few years ago. And let me tell you, just by what you said, you've never served on a jury. It is one of the most heart-wrenching experience I have had. At the young age of 20, I was asked to judge and decide a man's fate. I wasn't making life altering decisions in my own and I was asked to decide someone else's. Basically decide the fate of his family. It's not easy, but guess what? Before, during, and upon getting the case for deliberation, we prayed to God to enlighten us with His wisdom, so that we made a fair decision. So your comment is an insult to the integrity of twelve people who had to make one of the toughest decisions in their lives. Don't blame the jury. They did their job and decided with what God enlightened them to do...After all this is man made justice. True justice will be when Hannah meets her Creator. And God is a loving and forgiving God, so she will have justice by God's hand.
Posted by sidlisa02 on September 13, 2007 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1brother, you seem to be delusional..........name the churches, PLEASE !!
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ATTN: CULT BUSTERS & Theologians:
I suggest anyone looking into UFO cults/ Applewhite read:
"UFO Cults and the New Millennium" by Dr. William Alnor.
Alnor reported on the Applewhite cult prior & after their mass executions. He was on 20/20 and other news TV shows.
Bill is a renouned cult expert and has written a few books and magazine articles on the subject. Bill was former journalism professor at Texas A&M Kingsville, and, is a memeber of a Calvary Chapel in the Oakland, Calif. area now.
If you don't want to get it from Amazon or his ministry, The Calvary Chapel Coastlands bookstore has copies, next time you're in church.
Posted by sidlisa02 on September 13, 2007 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
vanessadelasierra, good point about the Pastor taking THEM into his home but not a 4 yr. old child with so called "problems".....a lot of things about this whole tragedy have seemed strange from the very beginning and this just sheds more light on the subject..........
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 5:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sweetie said: What do YOU think of someone who is responisble for the death of a helpless, innocent child?
...all I was trying to state was show some emotion for what happened.
................
sweetie:
I think if someone hurts a child deliberately they should be punished. I do not think Hannah deliberately hurt the child. I base this on first hand knowledge of the medical facts.
You appear to be judging her on her assumed lack of emotion. This is known as subjective, not an objective evaluation. As I said this morning there are two reasons you & others probably believe this:
1. Previous media reports, that were shown to be erroneous
2. emotionalism and wanting revenge
She did show emotion, it was not on TV. Do not judge her for this.
Posted by sidlisa02 on September 13, 2007 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor, that was great !! so his name was misspelled,I have found numerous errors in these posts but the points were still made and understood :-)
Posted by marisalazar002 on September 13, 2007 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok people follow this......
1 - a child is dead---according to forensic evidence presented by the Medical Examiner;
2 - Hannah is arrested;
3 - the CCPD and DA investigated and came up with what they belived was the crime here----that is their job....they didn;t convict Hannah...
4 - the DA had to present the evidence to Grand Jury, and THEY found enough evidence to indict Hannah..
5 - the DA had to file motions to the judge on the crime to be charged here....
6 - Once the case is presented, the judge instructed in a jury charge that they consider her guilty of capital murder if she intentionally killed Andrew OR she did not get medical treatment for him, which caused his death.
**The DA did not prove intent, but he did prove the latter!!!! The defense attorney did not prove their case.....
7 - the jury made a decision based on the evidence presented.
Let's move on,.....
She may have another shot at freedom and her life through the Appellate Court, if they decide to hear the case...Andrew doesn't get a second chance....
7 - A jury of her peers followed the letter of the law here...
Hannah is the adult, andrew was the child. God gave everyone freedom of will. Her will was not to provide the immediate medical attention for this child...it's not his fault he died!...
Again, this is man-made justice....her justice will be in front of our loving and forgiving Lord.
Posted by kwork25 on September 13, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ccbrother said:
"Bill is a renouned cult expert and has written a few books and magazine articles on the subject. Bill was former journalism professor at Texas A&M Kingsville, and, is a memeber of a Calvary Chapel in the Oakland, Calif. area now."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe he's investigating....
I have serious doubts about anyone who leaves Texas and moves to CA ... it’s just not natural unless he is from there to begin with and then that brings another whole set of problems. Applegate left Texas and went there ... we all know what happen to him.
Posted by sursumtx on September 13, 2007 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MORE CHILD KILLERS!!!
from KVUE.com -- 03:37 PM CDT on Wednesday, September 12, 2007
A boy who was pulled from the San Marcos River during a tubing trip has died, San Marcos officials said Wednesday.
Officials say the boy was swimming with his family when he started waving his arms and disappeared. Family members told police they thought he was playing.
He was underwater for at least 10 minutes by the time he was found.
Park rangers performed CPR until he was taken to the hospital.
__________________________________________________
Can you believe it? Oh, sure the family thought he was playing. As IF this could be what we used to call a tragic, tragic accident. I'm not buying it. This family intentionally ignored his cries for help. Since he's not under 6, it won't be Capital Murder, but they sure oughta charge them with murder, send them to prison and throw away the key.
[in case you can't tell, the above is a sarcastic post]
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Questions...........Is Larry Overton allowed to be alone with the baby as of right now, or be alone with any of the four older children?
Was Hannah allowed before her trial to be alone with the baby or with any of the four older children?
Is it true that they could only be with the children in the presence of the Pastor and family or with her mother who has the four older children living at her house, while the baby lives at the Pastor's house?
It is true that to most viewers Hannah did not appear on tv to be emotional but then that was only a small segment of the trial...... and I will take ccbrother's analysis that she was very emotional and then in shock when she realized Andrew had lost his life.
The medical treatment in the hospital did not come in time to save him and she had to be very upset.
I think just because we did not see it on the tv segments -- we were not privy to when she did show a human side and bawl her eyes out over this terrible tragedy like most normal people would do.
Has Hannah ever said she fixed a Cajun spice potion before for herself, for Larry, for any of her bio children, for guests, or only for Andrew?
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Relator, through the District Attorney, requests this Court to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the Honorable Mike Westergren, Presiding Judge of the 214th District Court, to vacate a judgment of acquittal entered for the defendant in Cause No. 84-CR-892-F, The State of Texas v. Margaret Covington. After careful consideration, we deny the request.
A writ of mandamus is an order from a court of competent jurisdiction requiring a person, ordinarily a public official, or an inferior court to perform a duty required by law. The writ will lie to compel a public official to perform a nondiscretionary duty where relator's right to have the duty performed is clear. The writ will not lie to compel an official to perform some act unless its performance is clearly imposed upon him by law.
A recitation of the events preceding the complained-of judgment of acquittal is necessary. Margaret Covington was tried for burglary. She elected to have both the guilt and punishment phases of the trial submitted to a jury. The trial never reached the punishment stage. During the guilt stage of the trial, at the close of the State's case in chief and after both parties rested and closed, defendant presented motions for an instructed verdict. Her primary contention was that the State's case rested on the testimony of Terry Noah, an accomplice as a matter of law, and that there were insufficient corroborating circumstances; therefore, it was alleged, in accordance with TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art. 38.17 (Vernon 1981), the trial court had the duty to instruct the jury to render a verdict of acquittal. The court overruled the motions for instructed verdict and submitted the case to the jury. The jury returned a guilty verdict. Defendant immediately renewed her motion for an instructed verdict of acquittal. Before the State had the opportunity to respond to the motion, the court granted it and ordered the defendant discharged from all further liability.
Posted by almlovesu on September 13, 2007 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh wow! CPS didn't "drop" charges! Once it became criminal, and the Over tons hired their bulldog attorneys, CPS was no longer allowed to conduct anymore interviews. If things had turned out differently and Andrew did not die, an investigator would have validated the abuse, taken Andrew from the Overtons, placed out their children, and this would stay on their record for life. You guys seem to forget that CPS did not place Andrew with the Overtons! It was the adoption agency, Hello!
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Article 38.17 provides that "In all cases where, by law, ... one (witness) with corroborating circumstances, are (sic) required to authorize a conviction, if the requirement be not fulfilled, the court shall instruct the jury to render a verdict of acquittal, and they are bound by the instruction."
The first two times the motion for instructed verdict was presented, the State argued that it had fulfilled the requirement for corroborating circumstances.
The State does not dispute the power or authority of the court to exercise its judicial discretion and grant the instructed verdict after the State rested or at the close of all the evidence. It also concedes the court may exercise such discretion when considering a defendant's motion for new trial or motion in arrest of judgment. See TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. arts. 40.01 et seq. and 41.01 et seq. (Vernon 1981 and Supp.1986.).
If the State is correct in its assertion that the trial court had a ministerial duty to enter judgment on the jury's verdict, mandamus is proper to direct a district judge to enter or set aside a particular judgment when the directed course of action is the only proper course and petitioner has no other adequate remedy If, however, the State is incorrect and the trial court has authority to enter judgment non obstante veredicto, the propriety of the trial court's exercise of that power would not be the type of issue subject to review through mandamus. Fenner v. Brockmoller. Thus, if the trial court possesses this authority, its entry of a judgment n.o.v. is effectively unreviewable because the State is explicitly denied the right to appeal in Texas. TEX.CONST. Art. V, Sec. 26; TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art. 44.01 (Vernon Supp.1986).
Respondent argues that Article 38.17 is silent as to the time at which the trial judge shall instruct a verdict of acquittal and reasons that the court has the power to exercise its
judicial discretion in this regard at any time when the court is satisfied that the circumstances contemplated by the rule exist.
It is the responsibility and duty of the trial judge to make rulings on all motions and objections presented during trial, to maintain order, to see that the trial is conducted in the proper sequence and to instruct the jury as to its proper function, the manner in which it is to conduct its deliberations, and the law applicable to the case. It is the jury's duty to weigh the evidence presented, follow the instructions of the court and render a verdict in accordance with its collective experience, common sense and judgment. When both judge and jury properly perform their tasks, the result is usually not only just, but gains the
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
respect and acceptance of the litigants and the community, which is so necessary for the survival of order in our free society. The existence of this Court and courts of higher level is testimony enough that occasionally both judges and juries fall short of perfect performance in their tasks.
When Judge Westergren granted the instructed verdict of acquittal he admitted, "It should have been granted a long time ago." In discharging the jury he also acknowledged that "The court erred in giving it (the case) to you in the first place. It was not fully aware of that until a time after you received it." Courtesy and proper court procedure would also dictate that prior to making this final ruling, the State should have been permitted to be heard on the matter.
Nevertheless, we hold that the trial court had the power and authority to render a judgment of acquittal after the jury verdict of guilty and prior to submitting the question of punishment to the jury.
Nothing in Article 38.17 sets a specific time for the court's action. TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 36.01 (Vernon 1981), merely sets out the order of proceeding in a criminal jury trial. However, it does not mention when objections or motions of any kind may be made or ruled on. We conclude that a motion for directed verdict properly can be acted on at any time after the State rests.
The Code of Criminal Procedure is silent as to when a motion for instructed verdict may be presented. It has always been the rule that the common law is applicable in all matters not changed by the Code. TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC. ANN. art. 1.27 (Vernon 1981). While the defendant and the trial court designated the acquittal in terms of an instructed verdict, the action of the trial court was actually in the nature of a judgment non obstante veredicto. The entry of such a judgment not on the verdict was authorized under early Texas law. Hays v. Stone, 36 Tex. 181, 186 (1871). The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure specifically authorize such a judgment. As stated in Cline v. Insurance Exchange of Houston,
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In legal contemplation there is no difference between the action of the court in peremptorily instructing a verdict and then rendering judgment on such verdict, and the action of the court in dismissing the jury and rendering judgment. (Cites omitted.) In order to instruct a verdict, or to dismiss a jury and render judgment, the court must find as a matter of law that there is insufficient evidence under the pleadings to raise an issue to go to the jury.
Where the trial court has the authority to instruct a verdict for insufficient evidence, a directed verdict is also appropriate. Hendrix Originally, the court was required to instruct the jury to return a verdict and could not simply discharge the jury and enter judgment. In modern times the court has simply been permitted to enter the appropriate judgment.
The correctness of the trial court's evaluation of the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is not before us. It was its duty and responsibility to make a determination. Having done so, it entered a judgment of acquittal. We agree with the observation made by the State that a jury verdict should only be set aside after careful and thoughtful consideration of the evidence, applicable law and argument of counsel. The burden of following this path rests with the trial judge. The burden and responsibility is always heavy and becomes even more onerous in a well-tried, well-publicized case such as the one under consideration. The fact that the State has no right of appeal often adds to this burden. Nevertheless, it is ingrained in our jurisprudence that the State is entitled to but one trial in which to produce sufficient evidence to convict an accused of a particular crime. TEX.CONST. art. V, § 26; TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 44.01 (Vernon Supp.1986); Both the Texas and U.S. Constitution ban a second trial once a defendant has been acquitted. U.S. CONST. amend. V; TEX.CONST. art. V, § 26.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwork25 said: I have serious doubts about anyone who leaves Texas and moves to CA ... it’s just not natural unless he is from there to begin with and then that brings another whole set of problems. Applegate left Texas and went there ... we all know what happen to him.
.......
Kwork: HA! point taken! he is originally from the east coast and was a Calvary pastor in Pennsylvania. He is a U. Calif. professor now.
But don't say anything about him being an Aggie, instead of U.T.!
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no question that Judge Westergren's judgment was an acquittal in substance as well as form. It is plain that the trial court had the authority to evaluate the State's evidence and make a determination as to its legal sufficiency to sustain the conviction. The proceedings ended with an instructed verdict based on the trial court's determination that the evidence was insufficient. We are precluded from reviewing the trial court's basis for his determination.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED.
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez and Garza
Opinion by Justice Garza
A jury convicted Leviyas Jamail Clayton of murder, and he was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Clayton now appeals his conviction, arguing that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to prove he committed murder. Because we conclude that the evidence is legally insufficient, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter a judgment of acquittal.
I.
At approximately noon on June 14, 2001, Angela Davis, an employee of the City of Houston Animal Control Department, stopped near the entrance to Brock Park in Houston to aid the driver of a pickup truck which had overturned and landed in a ditch. Davis’s partner, Glen Hudson, was in another vehicle behind her and stopped as well. After being on the side of the road for roughly ten to twenty-five minutes, Davis looked off into the park and noticed something peculiar waving in the air. She drove over to investigate and discovered James Playnonero laying in the grass, bleeding. Davis called 911, but Playnonero died about ten minutes later.
Playnonero was found next to a white 1995 Toyota Avalon, which had been rammed into a tree. The trunk and rear passenger door of the car were open. A tire rod was found in the driver’s seat, and a bloodied tire iron was found in the car’s trunk. The fuel intake manifold was open and had singe marks around it. Police discovered a wad of burned paper lodged in the manifold and suspected that someone had tried to destroy the vehicle by igniting the gas tank. The vehicle’s backseat and rear floorboard were soaked with blood, and blood was found on the vehicle’s exterior. A two-foot wide trail of blood led from the backseat of the car to Playnonero’s body, indicating that Playnonero might have crawled from the backseat of the car to the spot where Davis found him.
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The medical examiner determined that Playnonero’s death resulted from loss of blood caused by multiple gunshot wounds. According to the examiner’s autopsy report, Playnonero was shot eight times: in both legs, the forearms, abdomen, penis, and neck.
The ensuing police investigation yielded few leads. No eyewitnesses were identified. Police forensics could not determine whether the gunshot wounds were inflicted by a single gun or multiple guns, and no weapons were ever linked to the shooting. In addition, the police could not determine whether Playnonero was shot inside or outside of the car or whether the shooting took place in the park or at some other location.
The fingerprints of two individuals other than Playnonero were discovered inside the vehicle. The first set of prints belonged to Angel Ayala, the owner of the vehicle. Ayala was initially investigated for the murder but was ultimately cleared of suspicion. Apparently, he had allowed Playnonero to borrow the car on the morning of the murder, and Playnonero never returned it.
The second set of prints belonged to appellant. They were found on the vehicle’s steering wheel and gear shift and on the middle console between the front seats of the car. The prints were what forensic experts call “transfer prints.” They resulted from appellant touching objects in the car with blood on his hands. The blood belonged to Playnonero.
A warrant was issued for appellant’s arrest, and appellant was ultimately indicted for the murder. At trial, the State offered no evidence other than the bloody fingerprints to connect appellant to Playnonero and the murder. A police officer testified that Playnonero was involved in the illegal drug trade. The officer speculated that the shooting resulted from a drug deal gone bad. No other explanation for the murder or connection between appellant and the victim was offered.
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
At trial, appellant took the stand in his defense. He testified that on the morning the murder occurred, he drove to Brock Park to visit a female acquaintance named Tiffany Woods. The couple had planned to meet at the park at noon. As he approached the park’s entrance, appellant observed a “newer model” blue car rapidly exit the park. After he entered the park, appellant looked for his friend but did not see her. He spotted a white Avalon with its trunk and rear passenger door open. The vehicle was rammed against a tree and its wheels were spinning. Appellant exited his vehicle and approached the Avalon. As he drew closer, he saw a man sitting in the backseat with his hand hanging outside the vehicle. The backseat was “full of blood.” Concerned for the man, appellant grasped the man’s hand with his hands. He got into the driver’s seat and tried to drive the car back onto the street, but the car was stuck in mud and would not move. Appellant put the car into neutral gear. He then heard a loud noise and saw a pickup truck traveling at a high rate of speed. The truck overturned and landed in a nearby ditch. This frightened appellant and he fled. He drove a few miles to his home, where he went to his room and cried. He never called the police and never told anyone about what happened. After being arrested, appellant maintained that he did not know Playnonero and had never seen him before the morning the murder occurred.
II.
When reviewing the legal sufficiency of evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Sanders v. State, 119 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We are not fact finders; our role is that of a due process safeguard, ensuring only the rationality of the trier of fact’s finding of the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Moreno v. State, 755 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In purely circumstantial cases such as this, it is unnecessary for every fact to point directly and independently to appellant’s guilt; it is enough if the conclusion is warranted by the combined and cumulative force of all the incriminating circumstances. See Johnson v. State, 871 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Russell v. State, 665 S.W.2d 771, 776 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (en banc).
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To support a conviction for murder, the State had to prove that appellant (1) intentionally or knowingly caused the death of James Playnonero by shooting him with a firearm or (2) intended to cause serious bodily injury and committed an act clearly dangerous to human life that caused the death of James Playnonero by shooting him with a firearm. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 19.02(b) (Vernon 2003); Sanders, 119 S.W.3d at 820. The State failed to meet this burden.
The evidence produced at trial establishes that someone attacked and killed Playnonero with a firearm. Use of a firearm to cause death establishes that the perpetrator acted with intent to commit murder. See Medina v. State, 7 S.W.3d 633, 637 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Womble v. State, 618 S.W.2d 59, 64 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The deficiency in the State’s evidence is that it does not establish that appellant was the person who used a firearm to kill Playnonero. As the court of criminal appeals stated in Jones v. State:
The main fact to be proved was that the appellant fired the bullet which killed the deceased into the deceased’s forehead. None of the evidence connected with the murder directly demonstrates the main fact. The fingerprints that were “lifted” from the cold Schlitz beer can proved that the appellant handled the beer can sometime during the morning of the murder, but prior to the time when the police arrived. They did not prove that the appellant fired the bullet which killed the deceased.
Jones v. State, 568 S.W.2d 847, 859 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (en banc). Similarly, in this case, the fingerprints do not prove that appellant fired the weapon that was used to kill Playnonero.
The bloody fingerprints prove that appellant was with the victim after the shooting; however, they are not evidence that appellant was with the victim before the shooting, and an inference to that effect can be reached only by first assuming that appellant was the perpetrator of the murder and then working backwards. The evidence does not prove that appellant had an opportunity to kill the victim. Instead, it proves that appellant was present at the crime scene after the murder, but mere presence is not enough to prove guilt. See Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); Medina, 7 S.W.3d at 641; Miles v. State, 918 S.W.2d 511, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Failing to notify authorities of a crime is also not enough. See Medina, 7 S.W.3d at 641.
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Although courts have upheld murder convictions based solely on circumstantial evidence, such cases have often involved proof of motive in addition to other incriminating circumstances. See Ates v. State, 21 S.W.3d 384, 390 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2000, no pet.) (holding that proof of motive could be inferred from absence of victim’s purse and victim’s refusal of defendant’s sexual advances); Reeves v. State, 969 S.W.2d 471, 479 (Tex. App.—Waco 1998, pet. ref’d) (holding that defendant had motive because victim did not love him anymore and did not want to be around him and defendant was jealous of victim’s other intimate relationships). Although motive is not an element of murder, when identity is called into question, as it is here, proof of motive might be the glue that holds the entire case together. See Guevara v. State, 152 S.W.3d 45, 50 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (“Motive is a significant circumstance indicating guilt.”); King v. State, 29 S.W.3d 556, 565 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000 ) (noting proof of motive along with other incriminating evidence, including DNA evidence and a letter admitting involvement in the murder). At trial, the State produced no evidence that appellant was connected to the victim in any way. In fact, the testimony from the State’s witnesses indicated that the police had investigated the relationship between appellant and Playnonero and uncovered no connection whatsoever. A detective who investigated the murder opined at trial that because the victim was involved in the illegal drug trade, the murder could be drug-related. Such strained speculation is far too weak and attenuated a connection to prove a motive sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt appellant’s identity as the murderer.
The State has produced no precedent to establish that the evidence in this case is sufficient to prove appellant committed the murder, and we are unaware of any case upholding a conviction based on similar evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and order a judgment of acquittal.
_______________________
DORI CONTRERAS GARZA,
Justice
Posted by bradcondit on September 13, 2007 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Unusual Suspects: Men Exonerated By DNA Evidence File Civil Rights Suits Against Attorneys
By Mark Donald
Texas Lawyer
Monday, September 10, 2007
It had to be expected. Thirteen DNA exonerations in Dallas County in recent years; 13 men declared actually innocent by a criminal justice system reluctant to admit its mistakes. It seemed just a matter of time before some of these men turned to lawyers to redress the years of wrongful incarceration they had suffered. Three exonerees have filed civil rights suits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against those entities and individuals whom they believe were responsible for their wrongful convictions. Two more are planning to file civil rights suits within the next several weeks, their attorney says.
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 13, 2007 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1 brother: "I think if someone hurts a child deliberately they should be punished. I do not think Hannah deliberately hurt the child. I base this on first hand knowledge of the medical facts."
Are you aware there is a dead baby?
The medical facts? So Hannah knew of the "medical facts" first hand? Sounds like you were there when "medical facts" needed to be
conveyed to the medical non first hand medical experts but I bet they could have used your "first hand knowledge of what exactly the "medical facts" were exactly.
cc1brother:
You appear to be judging her on her assumed lack of emotion. This is known as subjective, not an objective evaluation.
Well usually when a(child) or loved one is hurt or injured the first reaction is an "outcry" at the fact that a child is hurt, injured and react in anger at the freaked up sheet that no child should be dead when his dietary requirements did not include "Cajun water".
The "soothe" mixture should be viable if it is true but the fact that iy should know will it "soothe" these very people that proclaim "Hannah is innocent"?
Some one buy some spicy water to soothe these people in need of "soothing".
To all those in need of a "soothe" drink up!
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kwork25....your 6:15 post: that crossed my mind too, but I didn't want to stir up the pot. Thanks for bringing that out in the open. California is where this all started, Can you tell us where Calvary churches are located in California?
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, what is all this legal mumbo from bradcondit:
Is this a Hannah supporter? Our these cases above an example of why Hannahs conviction can and will be aquitted? (supposedly?)
Posted by marlana2002 on September 13, 2007 at 7:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So, Mr. Condit, do you think the decision will be upheld or overturned?
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dannoynted:
I was a volunteer consultant for the legal team, including Brad Condit, and have reviewed the autopsy, lab results, ER records, etc. and gave my opinion on the medical facts. These were used by the legal team.
So... what's your question?
Also, please look up Ad hominem argument and tell me what you think.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bradcondit, my head is spinning. Exactly what are you trying to say?
Posted by ratpak13 on September 13, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Brad, I may not have stayed in a Holiday Inn, so could you please get to the point?
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh now I get it, brad must be one of the attorneys ccbrother mentioned earlier in one of his post.
Posted by rrempp on September 13, 2007 at 7:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
His point is:...............He's a Hannah supporter!
If she walks she better move to California like the rest of them. I don't even know how she could walk the streets of Corpus Christi a free woman and not feel shame. All eyes will be on her forever.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 7:20 p.m.
I was a volunteer consultant for the legal team, including Brad Condit, and have reviewed the autopsy, lab results, ER records, etc. and gave my opinion on the medical facts. These were used by the legal team.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you & Brad did a lousy job because she still got convicted.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 13, 2007 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, I didn't realize Mr. Condit was one of the defense attorneys. I knew he was an attorney, didn't realize he was on this case. So never mind about my question above.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 7:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp said:
Can you tell us where Calvary churches are located in California?
..............
I'd be glad to. There are over 400 Calvary Chapels in California, a dozen with over 10,000 members. The original one is CC Costa Mesa, started by Chuck Smith with a weekly attendance of over 35,000 people. Others include CC Riverside, Pastor Greg Laurie- Harvest crusades (works with Billy & Franklin Graham). Pastor Rod Carver came from CC Chino, achurch of about 8,000 people.
They say Calvary Chapels are the largest denomination/group in California. (Calvary Chapels are not truely a denominational church)
Calvary Chapel Ft Lauderdale, Fla. is the third largest church in the USA with over 20,000 members.
In Texas there are about 50 CC, largest are in Freindswood, Austin Plano. The Plano pastor Rick spoke at Coastlands last Sunday.
Hey why don't you all listen to Calvary Chapel radio 91.1 FM in Portland/ Corpus.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sidlisa02, they want to pick at me for mispelling a name and yet they support Hannah for causing the death of a child. Go figure.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 7:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ccbrother, where does Bennie Saenz fit into your church?
Posted by marlana2002 on September 13, 2007 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm curious==does the Calvary Church teach the 10 Commandments of God? Like Commandment No. 6 that says "Thou shalt not kill".
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 7:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm curious too Marlana. Also I am curious as to what they prayed for last week:
1. That Hannah be set free
or
2. That the truth be revealed
Posted by marlana2002 on September 13, 2007 at 7:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
MORE CHILD KILLERS!!!
from KVUE.com -- 03:37 PM CDT on Wednesday, September 12, 2007
"A boy who was pulled from the San Marcos River during a tubing trip has died, San Marcos officials said Wednesday.
Officials say the boy was swimming with his family when he started waving his arms and disappeared. Family members told police they thought he was playing.
He was underwater for at least 10 minutes by the time he was found.
Park rangers performed CPR until he was taken to the hospital.
__________________________________________________
Can you believe it? Oh, sure the family thought he was playing. As IF this could be what we used to call a tragic, tragic accident. I'm not buying it. This family intentionally ignored his cries for help. Since he's not under 6, it won't be Capital Murder, but they sure oughta charge them with murder, send them to prison and throw away the key.
[in case you can't tell, the above is a sarcastic post]"
Well, they didn't wait 1 1/2 hours to call for help now did they? Did they make him go in the water as punishment? Did they call everybody and their dog before calling 911? When interviewed by whoever (Law Enforcement, etc.) did they giggle?
Posted by marlana2002 on September 13, 2007 at 7:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'm curious too Marlana. Also I am curious as to what they prayed for last week:
1. That Hannah be set free
or
2. That the truth be revealed"
I think it might have been number 1.
I think the truth was revealed. And I believe in God and I believe God (and Andrew through forensics) revealed the truth.
Again, if the decision by the jury would have gone the other way, I would still respect the jury because I know this had to be a very difficult case to hear and to decide. I think they took their time and made the right decision based on the evidence.
The defense attorneys, of course, will say the jury was wrong because they will continue to be paid until the appeal is over.
This can be long and drawn out and the legal fees will be more than the average joe could afford.
Posted by luvcalico on September 13, 2007 at 8:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor - again you miss the whole point
I never said I was a Hannah supporter.
I just cautioned against forming a case against her by info you read or hear through the media.
And think , if you were in Hannah's place, and there were questions about the reliability of police reports, hospital exams, etc., you would want those thoroughly checked out.
To all who have bashed Calvary Chapel and have called it a cult, please do some research on it before you say anything more.
Isn't internet technology wonderful that people from all over can engage in these types of conversations?
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana2002 said:
I'm curious==does the Calvary Church teach the 10 Commandments of God? Like Commandment No. 6 that says "Thou shalt not kill".
..................
Yes and don't forget Exodus 20:16 (NKJV)
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
If Hannah is guilty of murder she should be punished. I don't believe she is, but I do believe you are guilty of #9 above.
O.K. forgive me for the diatribe above. Let us not play these silly games. Let's instead try to get to the truth. Ask real questions and I'll try to answer them.
Matthew 22:36-39 (NKJV)
"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" [37] Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' [38] This is the first and great commandment. [39] And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 13, 2007 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Brad Condit and CC1Brother are blind. They are completely blind about the facts. They feel guilty that this woman is a convicted killer because they cannot distance themselves from the case to be objective about it. This lack of objectivity is accentuated by their relationship at CC and the powerful force that unites them. I cannot believe that one of the attorneys on this case and one of the physicians on this case have the time and impetus to argue their losing case in the caller times blog????? This is nothing short of pathetic.
Mr. Condit: Is it true that you are not even a criminal litigator? Perhaps the defense team should have had more criminal lawyers than civil litigators. I believe that Mr. Peneda is also not a criminal lawyer, but at least he gave us the Betty Crocker defense, which is priceless and I think was a major turning point on this case by insulting the jury's intellect.
CC1Brother: You reviewed the records and you can't see the signs of abuse, the salt poison and the fact that Hannah confessed to having given the child a mixture of water/spices/salt? You are delusional and I feel really bad for your patients. I sure hope you are NOT a pediatrician or an ER doc, but an interested allied professional or an adult medicine specialist. I am a part time nurse who attended the trial and have all the time in the world to provide a counterpoint to your web of lies and deception. You bring it on and I will Iron it out.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 8:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcar.....I wonder now if the lady Magna Cum Laude doctor from California was a church member and donated part of her services. I wondered why the California connection and why they did not hire a ME closer to Texas. .
marlana.....I also wonder why Hannah giggled, or how that came about. Remember, she may be on medication or was at the time.
I am curious if Hannah ever fixed her spice mixture for any of her friends and family or just for little Andrew.
I too think his body spoke for him in the end.
Some of the ones who write here are just not getting it that this homicide is a capital murder charge because the victim was under the age of 6.
The 4 older Overton children are in the care of Hannah's mom as far as I've heard, and not with a foster family, and so far Larry has the baby at the Pastor's house. Our concern is for those children, no matter what happens in the trials. They have a long way to go and a lot of counseling will be needed. I sure hiope it turns out Larry is innocent of all charges. But that is for a jury to decide, so we just won't know much on that for awhile.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor said:
Also I am curious as to what they prayed for last week:
1. That Hannah be set free
or
2. That the truth be revealed
.........................................
We did pray for both. We also prayed for healing in the community and that God would give us & Hannah the grace to endure what we see as persecution. It was a blessing to have pastors and leaders from other local churches stand with us.
....................
jenbarcor said:
ccbrother, where does Bennie Saenz fit into your church?
......................
Good question. Saenz has never been a part of Calvary Chapel Coastlands. I don't think anyone from that church 20 yrs ago is a part of CC Coastlands now, which started 10 yrs ago- except for Hannah's mother.
20 years ago the Calvary Chapel movement did not "ordain" many so-called pastors, and a few wolves in sheep's clothing started churches and started calling themselves Calvary Chapels on their own. I think this is what Saenz did. Hey there are 2 other Calvary churches in Corpus- one Baptist, one Pentecostal- none related to us.
Calvary Chapels are non denominational fellowships of believers. The individual churches are independant. Somewhat like the Churches of Christ. Be careful not to let anyone accuse CCCoastlands with some other church with a similar name. Saenz has no connection to us as the Tennessee Church of Christ minister's wife, Ms. Winkler, has anything to do with the Chuches of Christ here in this town.
Posted by marisalazar002 on September 13, 2007 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Condit.....in layman's terms. Pleeeease......I think you could prove your point better,if you just write plain English..
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico what point is that? Don't make me go back and read through dozens of postings to find yours. Brad Condit has my head spinning with all his legal mumbo jumbo. ( I see he and ccbrother did an excellent job for the defense). I'm tired so I'll banter with you tomorrow.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint said:
Brad Condit and CC1Brother are blind....This lack of objectivity is accentuated by their relationship at CC
..........
Brad is not a member of Calvary & has no connection to it. He is a member of a lareg denominational church and just happens to love Jesus. Must you continue your fabrications?
About my abilities as a practitioner, your words could be considered liable, be warned.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 13, 2007 at 8:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ccbrother, thank you for clarifying the Saenz connection or should I say non-connection.
This is it for me tonight. See y'all tomorrow.
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 8:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint:
If you would like to discuss / debate some of the medical findings (1 at a time) in a friendly manner, then I think this would benefit all on this board. That, I think would, be good.
The charges of abuse were based on cigarette burns, blunt head trauma, beatings, scratches, bruises, forced feedings.
Pick one, or something else, and I will try to explain, as far as I know, the defense position and the findings of the medical examiner, etc.
Perhaps I could start: The child had glucose readings of 300s and 400s. he had a hemoglobin A1C of 8.4%
What can you conclude from this?
I'll pick up tomorrow. Good night.
Posted by marisalazar002 on September 13, 2007 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Found her website.....not very impressive....supposedly Hannah wrote a letter that Larry wanted to share with all, but no such letter on the web-site...Goodnight all....rest peacefully...say a prayer for Andrew, and even many wouldn't want to, even for Hannah and all involved...
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 13, 2007 at 9:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK, CC1Brother. I'll play nice. But when we disagree I will push just as hard in the other direction to keep the counterpoint.
1) Did you examine the child while ill and alive (you sound like you did) ? How could you categorically state that he had no signs of abuse in case you did not examine the child? There were physicians, nurses and EMTs who examined this child while alive and were concerned enough about physical signs of abuse to call the police/CPS.
2) The burn marks are a shady issue. The ME testified that it looked like burn marks under the microscope. The critical care/ER expert testified that he could not tell if they were burns but that they could very well have been infected mosquito bites. He is probably right.
3) The HbA1C is a tricky issue. I do not remember any testimony from the doctor that a HbA1C was done while Andrew was alive. There would not have been any reason to do one, as this is not a diagnostic (but a monitoring test for diabetes). I remember the doctor mentioning that there was a high HbA1C done on postmortem blood (do not know if ordered by the defense or the ME) that was done over a month after death. He mentioned that this was an absolutely unreliable sample as it had stayed at room temperature for over a day and then kept in a refrigerator (not freezer) for over a week before being sent to whoever requested it (and there it might have stayed above -70 for even longer). The HbA1C of 8.4% (as you stated) is what you would have expected as a result for red cells that were incubated for this long period of time under improper storage (greater than -70C). I have seen a reference that HbA1C is not reliable after just a few days of contact with blood containing high sugar under improper storage conditions (it is OK if frozen immediately at -70C for as long as several months).
4) The high blood sugar is exactly what you would expect after the stress of arrest. I am sure you have seen that in your practice if you care for acutely ill children or adults.
5) Furthermore, even if the defense showed this child had diabetes what would be the relevance to this case. You are not going to tell me that he ate a lot because he was a diabetic and he just happened to eat a huge load of salt one day, are you? Oh no, forgive me... he had PICA... no my mistake, Prader Willy Syndrome, no, no, a brain tumor, or perhaps the unfortunate combination of being a PWS patient with a brain tumor, diabetes, PICA and a huge craving for salty foods.
Your turn...
Posted by luckybryan on September 13, 2007 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
God help the judge, in Jesus name I pray. Amen.
Posted by arthur6889 on September 13, 2007 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Jesus the Christ would appear in physical form in this the Body of Christ (Corpus Christi), would there be a traffic jam of churches claiming supremacy?
Would there be a congregation of Pastors claiming ultimate authority? And, if each and every Pastor was questioned down to the bone, would there be any contention?
Which "clique" of Pastors would demand first audience?
Would there be a city traffic jam? Could the city handle the mulititude of millions?
Who would police the beggers, the infirm, the lame, the proud, the vain?
So, Jesus the Christ is coming soon?
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 13, 2007 at 10:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does it really have anything to do with his death if it turns out that somehow the child had a disease like diabetes or some eating disorder. None of those things if he even had them caused his death. Hannah caused his death and she needs to just admit it and tell the truth, that is what most people believe. That is what I believe unless proved otherwise. The little boy did not kill himself, his medical condition or non medical condition did not kill him. He had sodium poisoning. How did he get it that day? Back to Hannah again. Therefore a verdict by the Jury that sends her to jail for life without parole in a capital murder case.
So again, what does it matter if he had high blood sugar levels or not. What is the defense trying to say with that finding.
He had a cardiac arrest and that brought his levels up. End of story.
Oh yes, why did he have a cardiac arrest in the car before he even got to the clinic? Because of what Hannah gave him while alone with hiim in the home that day..... Second end of story.
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 13, 2007 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
louise_shirley2000 ...
You are 100% CORRECT
Posted by kwork25 on September 13, 2007 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico said:
“Isn't internet technology wonderful that people from all over can engage in these types of conversations?”
Funny you mention that …I was doing a google search and I typed in “Larry Overton”, Corpus Christi (with the quotes) and on the third page was a link to a forum for a breasting feeding website called breastfeeding dot com (the word dot is suppose to be a period not the word dot … this post can be deleted if it’s a link so this is not a link)
Any way there is a thread called “This has hit me hard” … the woman who started the thread claims to be from Corpus and says she is the best friend of Larry’s sister and she is saying some very interesting things on there about the case, family and the church … I found it to be very informative and sincere.
Jenbarcor that may be where all the church members went to so they could defend the church …
Posted by springsnow417 on September 13, 2007 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm confused, why would they even order an A1c? THANK YOU factualcounterpoint for explaining it so well. I couldn't have said it better. What kind of "practitioner" is ccbrother? Is someone trying to say that diabetes contributed to his death? Are they really grasping at that straw?
I saw the "Free Hannah" website. Why does Mr. Carver compare Andrew's symptoms to the flu? Are people really that ignorant about symptoms of the human body in distress? What he was going through being compared to the flu is like comparing apples to oranges.
Everyone is typing about who to pray for. I wonder how many times Andrew's BIOLOGICAL family has been prayed for? Were any of them present at the trial?
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana2002, your post is a perfect case in point of several persistent untruths that have plagued this entire matter.
Hannah did not give Andrew water with spices sprinkled in it as punishment. That myth began with a false news report last October and has persisted until now.
She did not wait 1 1/2 hours to call for help. She first thought Andrew had an upset stomach from emotional distress (fits) and then she thought he was coming down with something like the flu. When she & Larry realized that Andrew's condition was more serious, they drove him to what they thought was an emergency medical facility. The jury did not say she "waited 1 1/2 hours," they said she "waited too long." A fine point, I'll grant you. I believe that the actual timeline was not made clear enough to them during the trial.
The Overtons called: Larry's mom, the caseworker from the adoption agency, and their youth pastor and close friend as they were driving to what they thought was a pediatric emergency clinic. None of those people, by the way, asked whether they'd called 911 or offered to call.
Hannah's nervous laugh is a family trait. Her mother and her grandmother both tend to do that when stressed. It is not a "giggle." I've heard her giggle and it's completely different.
My point about the tragic loss of the 12 year old boy in San Marcos is that here is a case where parents misread the signals their child was giving them and the result is that he died. It's much the same situation as the one with Hannah, Larry, and Andrew. They didn't realize Andrew was "drowning" in sodium from either undiagnosed diabetes or something he'd eaten.
By the way, if you think she made him ingest 23 teaspoons of Zatarain's -- and the jury did not think so beyond a reasonable doubt -- then you'd actually have to believe she gave 2 to 4 times that much, because he vomited 2 or 3 times that afternoon, so he'd have to have been fed much more sodium in order to have retained the lethal dose in his system.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Spring … Hannah was a LVN ... SHE KNEW ...
It's all spin and damage control with Mr. Carver ... are you dizzy yet … I am! Maybe Mr. Carver should spend some time explaining to his congregation that Spare the rod and spoil the child doesn’t mean cayenne pepper/salt in the mouth. Maybe he should explain to them that the rod is not meant to beat a child but to guide a child … just as a sheep herder would do with his sheep … he would never strike his sheep with it.
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 14, 2007 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumtx, please do not insult our intellect by implying that she gave him a mixture of water and spices to soothe him. C'mon, that is infantile.
The pastor's statement was designed to confound the issue and detract from the facts. It was meant to engage any parent of small children into being afraid that they too could miss something wrong with their child and be thrown in jail. The Overtons ARE NOT GUILTY of misdiagnosing the signs of salt poison. Hannah is guilty of not getting help for the 4 year-old that was getting sicker by the minute due to the poisonous mix that SHE gave him. Do not be so naive as to think this is not what the jury pinned her on. It was failure/delay in seeking help IN THE CONTEXT of her causative actions.
Enough with the diabetes thing. How can someone possibly "drown on sodium" from diabetes????? That would be an entire new discovery in medicine.
Other misconception: That CPS dropped the abuse charges (and therefore there was no abuse). This became a criminal matter. A person was convicted of MURDER. Is that abuse enough for you or would CPS have to act on top of that? This child was scratched and bruised beyond belief, and the best argument from the defense was that the hospital team caused it???? Let's be real.
The fact is, countless supporters saying the same things over and over, before you know it some would believe it as the truth.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 12:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"IT WAS FAILURE/DELAY IN SEEKING HELP IN THE CONTEXT OF HER CAUSATIVE ACTIONS."
PERFECTLY SAID FACTUALCOUNTERPOINT....
Posted by veronica.rocha on September 14, 2007 at 1:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SO HOW MUCH DO THEY PAY FOR BEING A FOSTER PARENT?
IF SHE HAD HER OWN CHILDREN WHY WOULD SHE PUT UP WITH HIM? AND WHY ARE HER CHURCH PEOPLE BEHIND HER SO MUCH? IM GUESSING THEY ARE PAYING FOR HANNAS EXPENSES? MANN I NEED TO GO TO THAT CHURCH!! SO IF I GIVE MY ADOPTED KID SOME SPICES WITH WATER AND WAIT WILL HANNAS CHURCH PUT A WEB SITE FOR ME TOO?? I HAVE ADOPTED A LITTLE GIRL AND I COULD NEVER NEVER GIVE MY 2 YEAR OLD FREAKIN SPICES WITH WATER NOT EVEN MY OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILD!!! WHAT KIND OF PUNISHMENT IS THAT? PUT THE KID IN TIME OUT OR GET SOME THERAPY SOME HELP!!! OH AND I DO BELIVE ON DISCIPLIN BUT IF SHE WAS OVER WHELMED ALREADY WHY TAKE ON ANOTHER CHILD IF YOU CAN NOT EVEN HANDLE THE ONES YOU HAVE? I THINK THAT SHE DID NOT DO IT ON PURPOSE I DO BELIVE IT WAS AND ACCIDENT BUT HEY YOU NEED TO PAY FOR YOURE ACTIONS.... AS A NURSE HER SELF SHE KNEW...... BUT THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT.......THATS OK HER TURN WILL COME WHEN SHE MEETS OUR CREATOR AND LITTLE ANDREW... HER TIME WILL COME.......
Posted by natesaenz on September 14, 2007 at 1:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
enough with the caplocks :) calm yourselfs
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 14, 2007 at 2:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by cc1brother on September 13, 2007 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
dannoynted:
I was a volunteer consultant for the legal team, including Brad Condit, and have reviewed the autopsy, lab results, ER records, etc. and gave my opinion on the medical facts. These were used by the legal team.
So... what's your question?
Also, please look up Ad hominem argument and tell me what you think/?
~~~~Hannah's Defense and her technique to "soothe" via a "cajun cocktail" required
the ad hominem attack was done to a 4 year old child in the hope that it would be taken as "truth".
eating disorder? diabetes? and his allegedly "loving" paid foster parent blames her "cajun cocktail" as a "soothe" technique?
I guess my question is ......Why don't you try to soothe yourself with a big '"cajun cocktail" and quit trying to blame the "baby" for his own death.
I have not heard any gumption from you regarding this poor baby's death.
Only for the paid adult now alleging Andrew had a "disorder" ?
I guess this disorder required a "cajun cocktail"?
The ad hominem attack withe only defense to the prosecution? As usual it was all Andrew's fault he is dead.
He was so irritating he needed a "cajun cocktail" to soothe.
This has to be the stupidest defense ever....was it not enough that the baby boy was dead but then these adults as well as legally trained individuals had to have the nerve to blame a dead baby for his own death because Hannah's "soothing"?
Soothe your self and drink up........if Andrew drank it then surely it will soothe you too!
Drink up brother it just might soothe you..
Posted by eaobanion on September 14, 2007 at 2:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
factual:
And by "part-time nurse", you mean "home-health aid"?
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 14, 2007 at 3:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
eaobanion:
No, I do not measure words or play word games. Had I meant a home health aide I would have written home health aide.
By part time nurse I mean an RN who works at a hospital but instead of working 72-80 hours per pay period (2 weeks) works 36-40 hours per pay period. Pretty standard.
Posted by meluvmycat on September 14, 2007 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My whole world has turned UPSIDE-DOWN
This is all just SURREAL!
This is all just UNBELIEVEABLE!
What has Corpus Christi, the Body of Christ, come to?
From what I can tell, there are people here who serve the SAME GOD that believe the WORST about Hannah AND others that believe the BEST (most who know her).
I’m just wanting/waiting to wake up from this NIGHTMARE and this NIGHTMARE isn’t even MY nightmare!
My heart is broken, broken for the people who knew Andrew and mourn him, broken for Hannah, Larry and their children. Broken to see what people believe. There seems to be so much HATE! My heart is heavy - sooooo many tears!
Luvcalico – you give me some hope for one that doesn’t know Hannah, doesn’t assume the worst
luvcalico wrote: I don't know Hannah.
But neither do most of you (from your own admission). So if you can be so sure of her guilt, why do you not allow others who know her to be sure of her innocence? Seems like a double standard here.
By the way, I never said I was a supporter or not. I don't have enough information to know one way or the other. And, may I be so bold to say, that neither do most of you on this board.
My only point was that we cannot try and convict someone based on "supposed" facts that we read about in a newspaper or on TV. Some of you have really gone overboard, almost saying that she fully knew what she was doing and got her desired outcome. I think that is just downright mean and unjustified.
I KNOW HANNAH and I have to honestly say, some of the things I’ve read about her (newspapers, TV, comments, etc.), ALMOST had ME doubting her. It’s just really hard to believe how so many things can get twisted and blown out of proportion. Knowing Hannah, I’d like to believe the best about her. I’d like to believe that she is not evil like most of you are making her out to be.
For those of you who soooooo STRONGLY believe she is GUILTY, have you asked yourself “What IF she IS INNOCENT!” What if it were all just a mixture of bad circumstances that ended in tragedy? There has been known cases of people being innocent and found guilty. This could well be one of those cases. It HAS happened before.
HOW VERY, VERY, VERY SAD that she is taken away from her family and her children that NEED her and must spend the rest of her life in prison.. God give her strength! God give her peace! My heart is so heavy, oh so many tears – for Andrew, for Hannah, for Larry and for their children.
Lord, please wake us up from this NIGHTMARE!
Posted by arthur6889 on September 14, 2007 at 6:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Christian church is made of many branches (vines). Some of these vines dead-end. They do not catch enough energy from the Son to support the health and vitality of the roots.
Some become gnarled and stunted and are called sects. They too do not draw energy from the Son. The roots not having the life giving energy withers the whole plant which becomes pale from a lack of Light.
Then some branches become cults. First killing the flowers and then any surviving fruit.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 14, 2007 at 6:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sursum, in a quote after the trial Pastor Rod even said the drink was for discipline.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 14, 2007 at 6:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
louise_shirley, wasn't Hannah pregnant at the time of Andrew's death? I'm not so sure she would have been on any mood altering meds at that time although I'm not a medical expert on what kinds of drugs you can take during pregnancy. There is not denying, she did giggle in that interview. Now one would think, being pregnant, she would have been overly emotional.
When I was pregnant, I saw a news story about a pregnant woman who was shot and killed in a bank robbery in some other state and I sat down and bawled my eyes out. Of course, we're all different, but usually when you're pregnant, your hormones tend to make you cry more.
Let me make one thing clear here-I do not wish any ill will to Hannah or her family. I prayed for Justice for Andrew during this whole ordeal. I thought about the way Andrew died and how this little 4 year old boy didn't have loving arms wrapped around him as he was passing into the arms of the Lord. I thought about how his last hours must have been. I also believe Hannah abused him. I think he was her scapegoat. I hope she gets the help in prison that she needs. Maybe one day she'll be out and she'll be a better person. Maybe it's the way she was raised. Maybe it's her "religious" beliefs. I don't know. I'm not a psychiatrist, but I'm smart enough to know that something went terribly wrong that day and there are just too many factors that point to abuse.
Posted by bubbadog on September 14, 2007 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Life without parole is to much but she should get twenty years without parole for waiting. When your child suddenly becomes unresponsive something is BAD WRONG. You call 911. You do not wait. (maybe the potion is working, he's not hyper any more.) DUH! Ya think?
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kwork, thanks for the info on that site, I will check it out.
ccbrother, you say that Andrew's blood glucose was 300 and 400's and an A1C of 8.4, I'm a diabetic, just had an A1C done on 8-28-07, I was at 9.5 with an average of 250 so I want to know how his levels were higher with a lower A1C? The math doesn't add up but I am not a doctor so this is not being sarcastic. I pose the same question to factualcounterpoint as she (I'm assuming a female) seems to be extremely knowlegeable.
You stated yesterday evening that you volunteered for the defense and reviewed medical records, etc. please let us know exactly what kind of "doctor" you are. Several posters last week asked the same question including myself but never received a response. You may have been in court that day I don't know. But I and I know several others would like to know what kind of training, education etc. you have for the defense to ask you for help. Are you a trained forensic scientist? Are you a past medical examiner? Please elaborate.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
meluvmycat you said you have been waiting to wake up from this nighmare, I suggest you go back to sleep and wake up in the REAL WORLD.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumt, you posted that Hannah and Larry called several people on their way to the clinic, you questioned why they (the people they called) didn't call 911 but why was it up to those friends/family to call 911? I cared for my mother until the day she died, many times I was rushing her to Spohn (at least once a month) I would call my sisters, brother, and uncle to let them know, I didn't expect them to call 911 for me. I was her caregiver, I was responsible, I did my duty as a loyal daughter, so why would I have to count on someone else to take the responsiblity that was mine? Oh, I forgot, Hannah and Larry were not responsible, they didn't know their duties as a parent.
Posted by luckybryan on September 14, 2007 at 7:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Might be time to go into large group. Mercy. Justice. Love.
Voices... (and may I say, you ROCK) ... would you agree, just for this morning, to pause focus thoughtfully uplift Judge Longoria ArticleComment this afternoon
God help the judge.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 7:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lucky, the voices in my head are saying to the voices in your head “What”???? ☺
Posted by bebel0203 on September 14, 2007 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by meluvmycat on September 14, 2007 at 3:18 a.m.
For those of you who soooooo STRONGLY believe she is GUILTY, have you asked yourself “What IF she IS INNOCENT!” What if it were all just a mixture of bad circumstances that ended in tragedy? There has been known cases of people being innocent and found guilty. This could well be one of those cases. It HAS happened before.
*************************************************************************
I guess burning the sheets in the BBQ was innocent? What was that all about meluvmycat? What kind of punishment did you give your kids? Did you approve of hot spices like Hannah used? Mabe your parents were better than that, so you don't know what some people are capable of. I know first hand, I survived a parent that had their beliefs of sometimes worse than what Hannah was doing with spices. Our things dear to us were burned also instead of being taken away for awhile, that hurt us more than the beatings of slap across the face.
I'm not saying that what you feel about Hannah is wrong, but, can you see why some of the posters can feel the way they do? Some of us know first hand of parents that are that way, and some cannot believe parents could be capable of harming their child. Children are precious gifts from God and some people take that very seriously.
Bad circumstances that end in tragedy, that's what happened to a lot of the little Angels in Heaven.
Posted by cc1brother on September 14, 2007 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let’s all try to do this friendly—
I enjoy debate & discussion to try to learn from you, and perhaps you can learn from me. Could I have been misled or have a wrong conclusion from the evidence? Sure. I’m not perfect. But also try to be open minded yourselves and see if there are things that could be misinterpreted in this case.
For those who don’t know, a hemoglobin A1c is a laboratory test that measures sugar level averages for the last 90 – 120 days. A regular glucose/sugar level measures the sugar at that moment. Everyone has glucose floating around in their blood. A small amount of this sugar will crystallize on the hemoglobin of the red blood cells. The red blood cells have a 90-120day life cycle. So, we can measure the percentage of this crystallized sugar and extrapolate an average blood sugar from this. It was discovered in the 1970s and is pretty accurate. In my younger days, as a medical technologist- lab tech., I ran these A1C tests on an analyzer the size of a small refrigerator, it would take me all afternoon. Now, you can get home A1c analyzers at HEB and stick your finger to get the result in 5 minutes.
A normal A1C level for a child is around 5% Diabetics that are controlled should be around 6%. Anything above 7% is, by definition, uncontrolled diabetes. Andrew’s A1C measured 8,4% while he was alive in Drischol. The highest I’ve seen in practice is around 14%.
Blood sugars / glucose levels vary from hour to hour and depends if one has eaten or not, certain drugs and stress can raise sugar levels. I have never seen a chronically ill patient with sugar levels as high as Andrew’s UNLESS they had diabetes. By definition, a person who has a sugar level of over 200 has diabetes. The American Diabetes Assoc. and others have made these definitions. See their site.
Andrew’s blood sugars were mid 200s at the ER ( and yes, this may possibly be due to stress from CPR), but then rose to 300s and then 400s while in Drischol - EVEN WHEN HE WAS GIVEN INSULIN. In my opinion this could not have been due to being chronically ill, but only from type 1 diabetes.
Posted by cc1brother on September 14, 2007 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But the interesting thing is the A1C. Type 1 (used to be called juvenile diabetes), comes on immediately and these patients MUST have insulin to live. They will usually die in 2-3 months after onset, unless they have insulin. So Andrew could not have had diabetes for more than 2-3 months, because he wasn’t on insulin. But his A1C was elevated- and this is an AVERAGE crystallization of sugars on his blood cells. It could not have been from 24 hours’ worth of elevated sugars, but must have been from elevations for the last few weeks or months.
That, I think is key. The A1c proves he had diabetes and that it wasn’t from the “stress” of the trauma. Besides stress wouldn’t get a non diabetic’s sugar in the 300-400 range anyway.
I do think it can be shown that this had a part in Andrew’s demise. One point of this is that Dr Rota did not did not diagnose Andrew, as far as I know, with diabetes and would therefore be another error (of which I will discuss later) of the medical staff.
The importance of diabetes is just one piece of the puzzle, how it fits in is yet to come.
I prefer not to discuss my background in detail, because I may work with some on this board. I have never examined Andrew and did not know Overtons prior to his death.
I have to go out of town this weekend, and may not be back on this board for a while. God Bless!
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor, did you call 911 each time you rushed your mom to Spohn?
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 14, 2007 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1brother:
You are incorrect to state that the stress of arrest does not elevate the glucose levels to the 300-400 range. Look it up or ask a coleague that takes care of critically ill patients. When I worked at Driscoll, I saw numerous cases such as this. Too numerous to count, so it DOES happen.
Would you please address the storage issue (the fact that the test was done over a month after the colelction date and that the blood was improperly stored for such a test, showing exactly what you would have expected: elevated A1C for elevated bodd sugar with which it was incubated for that month.
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bebel0203, I am so sorry about your experiences as a child. I am for doing everything we possibly can to end child abuse forever. Ninety percent of convicted felons were abused as children. Even from a cold-hearted economical point of view, it's far less expensive to intercept and stop child abuse than it is to incarcerate someone. There are many, many areas of society and government where the priorities are completely upside down, in my opinion.
You said "Children are precious gifts from God and some people take that very seriously." Those of us who support Hannah are with you on that statement 1,000,000,000% +. We take that very seriously.
In this case, Hannah did not give Andrew the water sprinkled with spices as punishment. That was a heinous rumor started by an Oct 20, 2006 KRIS TV report. The information in that report was never substantiated by the "court documents" it referred to as a source. Those documents never materialized, to my knowledge. On the witness stand in family court, Detective Hess admitted that he did not know where that information came from.
Yes, I do understand how the perceptions in the public and to some extent, among the jury, were created. That is what concerns me, as much as I am concerned about Hannah, Larry, and their children.
Some people, who may indeed be well-meaning, misinterpreted a situation, jumped to a conclusion and, because of their positions of power, ran with that conclusion to this tragic point. We cannot allow this in a free society. We cannot stand by and watch it happen.
As my Jewish brothers & sisters celebrate Rosh Hashanah, they often read the following poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemvller (18921984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
I want there to be someone left for me to speak out if I ever need it.
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana2002, I beg to differ. That may have been what was reported, but I have checked with a knowledgeable insider and was assured that was not what was in his written, pre-prepared statement.
I have not seen where it was reported that he said the spices & water were used as "discipline" -- please tell me where you saw that.
Posted by larbot on September 14, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I noticed that she wasn't smirking this time.. She thought she would get off and just walk free... Something that Andrew will never do.. Negligence in calling 911 IS murder when you get right down to it.
As Andrew is a child of Heaven, Hannah will serve another master...
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
veronica.rocha, I agree with your statement that you need to go to that church. Personally, I'm not a member there and my beliefs would not entirely jive with theirs on every theological or doctrinal point. But in my view, those differences are very minor.
And you know what? If your church doesn't support you the way Hannah's church supports her, I say find another church. I've never been so impressed with a Christian fellowship in my life. All people of good will everywhere should look to these folks as a model.
They were supporting her prior to Andrew's death, by helping out with the kids after the car accident in which she was badly injured -- teeth loosened, jaw nearly broken, neck brace required. There were, however, obviously times when someone was not there with Hannah and tragically that is when this tragedy occurred.
I know a bit about how they've supported her financially, and once again, it isn't what so many of the conclusion-jumpers have decided that it is. It's not my information to share, however, so I'll let them make that info public if and when they see fit.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
OOh boy,...lol....
as I read Jenbarcors posts at 6:41 and 7:38 I have to chuckle.
bubbadog....6:33......your right on spot. She should not do life but she should absolutely do 10 to 20 without parole.
factualcounterpoint,.......so glad you are here to make some sense of all this. You couldn't have made a better statements than: IT WAS FAILURE/DELAY IN SEEKING HELP (*IN THE CONTEXT OF HER **HER** CAUSITIVE ACTIONS!) Thats it in a nutshell folks. Thats why she sits behing bars at this very moment. Why do the Hannah supports leave out that main ingredient? Causitive.
ccbrother needs to anwer your question about "What kind of doctor he/she is. He has hands on information and seems to be scowering the blogs to elaborate on each and every post with medical evaluations and assumptions. He's part of this Free Hannah website which is distorted in my eyes. It does'nt elaborate on anything except distortion. (Theres even a page asking for our donations). They've got the Paypal/Credit Card site hooked up and ready to take your cash for her defense.
I guess when you mortgage your home to help somebody you do everything in your power to recoup those funds.
Marlana2002 at 6:24................Your very inquisitive thinking is right on target. If I remember correctly ccbrother said he had written a prescription for Hannah to "calm her down" (she was in shock).
That doesn't sound right when you are pregnant. I would think Hannah's pre-natal care physician would take care of her. Did she have pre-natal care? Was Mrs. Beth Overton her pre-natal care giver? Was she on medication when she was on the stand? Supposedly she is nursing the baby. That is not good for the baby.
This story has so many twist and turns.
aurthur6889......your post @ 6:07 is very deep. Religion plays a big part in this story. Religion is the backbone of this family. When a church is so involved as Calvery Chapel is, then its only natural for people to ask questions. I myself have never seen a church get so involved with a members personal life. Not to mention the church helps Hannah with her defense, websites, children, medical attention. The church is her whole life. Nothing wrong with that but its something you don't see everyday.
Kwork....thanks for the one up on googling that Larry Overton website. I'm off to see if I can find it. You keep things on this blog fair and balanced so I can decipher truth from fiction.
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 14, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay cc 1 brother, since you insist on pulling a Quincy, i will indulge you.
How do you explain the fact that "Andrew was vomiting and crapping" just to get to her?
Medically speaking, if a child vomits more than twice ....halo, something is wrong. maybe it was the jalepenos?
To now medically diagnose a dead baby's "possible" medical chemistry will be a lesson in futility,
The time has passed to assess his "disorders".
Now, why are you not drinking a ragin cajun cocktail to "soothe" yourself?
If it was good enough to "soothe Andrew", Hannah I am sure has the recipe.
Poor baby , who would not vomit after drinking gross "to soothe" BS?
Soothe a baby......sing a song, play a "I spy" game, cry along with him, but if he is vomiting i guarantee he ain't doing it so his PAID foster parent can "soothe" himself, much less "get to her"!
Your ad hominem attack on a 4 year old was the missing piece that only solidifies why his PAID provider is guilty.
No tears for Andrew, there were plenty in Heaven, i am so sad just thinking that all this baby wanted was a home and love and some good food to put in his belly.
How could you blame a child for what his Paid provider did to him?
Soothe yourself.........drink up!
I prefer not to discuss what your blindness is doing to you, but are you really going to be deaf and dumb?
Posted by ccskibunny on September 14, 2007 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
re this post from sursumtx: "When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out. I want there to be someone left for me to speak out if I ever need it."
Too bad Andrew is not alive today to speak these words.........
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 14, 2007 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cc1brother: I get it now...
You protect yourself under the veil of anonymity but have no problems pointing fingers at the medical staff (who you think you might work with).
You did not examine this patient, the physicians that testified for the defense did.
You clearly have no knowledge of the relationship of stress and glucose after an arrest, but the people that testified see that on a daily basis.
You are about to go on a public forum, naming people and questioning the accuracy of a diagnosis (which you clearly cannot make other than your simple logic of "an elevation of A1C a glucose above 200 is diabetes". It is not. ).
You did not like when I touched a nerve about your professional prowess (...be warned, you said) but you are about to touch one of mine when you make unfounded statements about one of my places of work, some of my colleagues and some people who have earned my immense respect and admiration.
Think twice about what you say, because I know EXACTLY who you are.
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
mom7kiddos, you brought up another miscarriage of justice. There is an alarming increase in these cases, it seems. Have you heard of the Jena 6, the boys in Louisiana sentenced to 20+ years for a high school fight in which the victim attended a party that night?
And the Duke U. lacrosse players and their families can tell us about overzealous DA's.
The new Dallas County DA is working for change. Read about him Texas Monthly this month. More people have been exonerated through DNA in Dallas County than in any other county in the nation.
It terrifies me to think what would have happend to Hannah & Larry & their children had they not had the support of their church, family & friends, and good legal council. Yes, I know, they lost the case. But all is not lost and even well-meaning, well-educated, dedicated people make misjudgements. That's essentially what this whole case is about, from the beginning to where we are now.
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 14, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I meant: "You did not examine this patient, the physicians that testified for the PROSECUTION did."
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 14, 2007 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ccskibunny,
That is why it is up to us to speak up for those who can not speak up for themselves.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 14, 2007 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Someone posted that Andrew vomited 2 - 3 times, but wasn't it something like 8 times.
The kid was very sick and it wasn't the Flu and Hannah knew how much sodium she had given him, yet she did not tell that right off to the medical staff. She minimized her actions, still hoping she would get by with her deed.
It does not matter what condition Andrew might of, could of, had. He died as a result of Hannah's kind and loving care that day.
She should return any Foster money she was paid for Andrew to live in her loving home.
And also, she should have to replace the sheets she burned in the barbecue pit, just as a matter of principle.
babel.....you have made some very good points about parents burning things to punish kids. Just "sick" isn't it to do that, but it does happen.
And factualcounterpoint.........you are AWESOME in your answers. The supporters are believing their own fairy tales and it is difficult to imagine such gullible people. But then there were plenty of gullibles in the churches where Kool Aid became the final drink.
How can any of those supporters possibly say that she gave Andrew the sodium overdose to "soothe him" and keep a straight face. ........And to further claim on TV that she did not know the flu from sodium overdose -- when she knew full well what amount he had ingested, and still kept that information from the doctors trying to save his life.
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ccskibunny, I would do anything to have been able to save Andrew. Anything. The thing is, I know Hannah & Larry would, too. I know the pain of losing a child who is not born of your flesh but whom you have taken into your heart as your own.
Now all I can do is stand up for Andrew's new mommy & daddy, the forever family he wanted so badly. That statement will sound strange to many and will no doubt be attacked.
I, too, wondered at first what had happened. I read the media reports. But attending the majority of the trial and being able to talk with those knowledgeable about the facts of the case convinced me that there was no purposeful wrongdoing here. They did the best they knew how to do, given the information they had at the time.
Got to go now. I actually work for a living.
Posted by bebel0203 on September 14, 2007 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint I have a question for you. Andrew was given condensed veg. w/beef soup with Zaterains seasoning, followed by a cup of water seasoned with Zaterains seasoning. He had not eaten, he was hungry. I cked the soup; 690 mg sodium for a 1/2 cup (4 oz.) the Zaterains spice has 290 or so mg. per. 1/4 teaspoon. To me it looks like he ingested a lot of sodium, how much of the concoction would it take to overlosd a child with nothing else in his system?
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 14, 2007 at 9:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bebel0203, good question.
This is beyond my scope of training. However, I remember Dr. Rota stating that it would have taken at least 20 tsp of spice to raise the sodium level that much. So by those calculations, teh amount of salt in the condensed soup is equivalent to less than 1 tsp of zatarains. Therefore, in my view, there is no way this could have caused it.
He was made to ingest a very large amount of zatarains. Teh staff at the urgent care center testified that he was covered in chile/spice.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumtx!!........
Theres no over zealous prosecuter here! There is a dead 4 year old boy with marks all over his body, his butt bruised beyond comprehension, and Hannah stated that she did indeed give him the ragin cajun concoction. She had him under surveilance, she bb'qued his sheets! Her bio children gave statements that were thrown out because they backed up the prosecutions findings of abuse! Put all this together and top it off.................. drum roll please..........................SHE DIDN'T CALL 911 for over an hour. She stated in her own words that Andrew was trying to get to her, trying to tork her off with his poop and his vomit. This whole recipe spells HOMICIDE. She caused Andrew to DIE. I do not know what is so hard to comprehend.
Larry's trial better have Zahterauhns cajun spices on the stand and they better show us how it was made. Then they need to drink it before our eyes and tell me that this soothes them. I'm so tired of being told that this is perfectly normal and that Hannah was a great mom. No matter how many times you tell this story I will still be able to see through the fog.
Posted by arthur6889 on September 14, 2007 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
dannoynted1,
"deaf and dumb"?
In Mark 7:34 Jesus the Christ uses the few remaining words of Aramaic in the Bible. Aramaic, His spoken language, later translated into a polyglot surpassing the Tower of Babel.
And they brought to him a man "deaf and dumb" to be healed. He (Jesus) looking upward said, "EPHPHATHA" which means Be Opened. And, the "deaf and dumb" man' ears were opened and his tongued loosed, so that he could hear the word of God and speak of it plainly, without contadiction and contention.
The Billions (?) of Moslems utter FATHIHAH at the beginning of their prayers, which has the same root meaning as EPHPHATHA.
They cry out to ALLAH, Jesus in His language, cried out ALAHA.
The vines need pruning in order to turn clay pots of water into wine.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint,......................................
You mean to tell me Andrew was "covered in chili/spice? Thats what the urgent care center testified? Was it fresh powder on his face and body or vomit that smelled like chili/spice? This is so outlandish and pathetic. They also testified she had a disconcerned smerk on her face. These people that have testified to this have no beef with Hannah. They just spoke the truth. They see parents everyday. They know how concerned parents act when coming into their facility.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumtx, no I did not call 911 every time I rushed her to the hospital because I was smart enough to take her when she began to get violently ill. She had ovarian cancer that spread into her intestines. (I could go into the numerous operations and the removal of 75% of her intestines but I wont.) She would began to vomit uncontrollably but I didn't sit around waiting for it to pass. I didn't ask her to help clean up her own vomit and poop. And I sure as heck didn't make up a concoction of spices and water for her to drink before or after.
Posted by myharmonylane on September 14, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Don't know if this counts for anything at this point, but for all of you who keep asking "who puts cajun spices in water and gives it to a kid to drink?" I have an answer. LOTS of folks. I was surprised by how many people I've talked to about this case said their kids like it and ask for it all the time.
Maybe there should be some warnings put on these common food products. The reason you don't hear of this kind of poisoning more often is that the body has a natural response to rid the body of excess sodium EXCEPT in rare cases of underlying illness /medical conditions, such as cancer, diabetes insipidus etc. I'm not saying Hanna's an angel or a villain, (probably somewhere in between just like the rest of us). Only God and Hannah know for sure.
But consider this, THE SODIUM CONTAINED IN MCDONALDS MIGHTY KIDS DOUBLE CHEESEBURGER KIDS MEAL IS 1440mg!! Little Andrew would have been in way more danger if she'd let him eat @ McDonalds that day! There had to be something going on in that child's body that was not working properly for his sodium levels to be that high. Otherwise McDonald's would have already killed 90% of the kids in the USA via sodium poisoning.
Posted by morgsuz on September 14, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey people, ever hear the adage, "People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones." or "those without sin cast the first stone."?
Give it a rest folks and let the system do it's job.
Find something else to be outraged over........................
Posted by sweetie3302 on September 14, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ccibrother (re: post at 5:36 pm 9/13/07):
"You appear to be judging her on her assumed lack of emotion."
Yes, that is the whole point I am trying to make. I, like many people in Corpus Christi, have only the media to rely on our information. I was just tossing a theory as to why people "hate" her so much. I am not longer going to debate this issue with you because it seems I'm "beating a dead horse." You have your mind set and that is fine, but please do not try to convince me that a LVN
could not see the signs that this poor child needed medical assistance. Neither of us were there for the hour and a half she waited to seek medical attention for Andrew, so maybe BOTH of us should let God be her judge.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, for the sake of all arguments, let's just say Andrew had juvenile diabetes that no one knew about, he was sick, he was uncontrollable, he had a wild child mentality, he pooped and vomit just to get to her, everything her supporters want us to believe is true but the fact is that she did nothing to seek medical attention until it was too late.
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 14, 2007 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
myharmonylane
Don't be silly.
The amount of sodium that Hannah gave the child was an incredibly high amount, many grams, not milligrams.
But go ahead and continue to believe her story, believe against ALL evidence. Actually, believe against all evidence is faith, something many of you here are very proud of.
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sweetie3302 on September 14, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. said:
"Yes, that is the whole point I am trying to make. I, like many people in Corpus Christi, have only the media to rely on our information."
And therein lies the problem. That's the long and short of my whole point and my presence on this board.
You can't rely on the media to give a fair and balanced viewpoint.
Yes, the jury heard the evidence. And yes, the jury convicted her of murder - but, only because of her failure to respond. And I'm fully aware that it was capital murder because of Andrew's age.
Yes, the defense will be filing an appeal. We should see what happens then. In the meantime, I urge you to stop perpetuating rumors, and details that were erroneously reported about this case, and passing off IMO's as fact.
Again, think about if this was you or one of your family members. You would not want people making their determinations based on what has been reported in the media, would you?
And I'll be honest - I don't understand the personal attacks on those who are trying to keep an open mind. I believe that we have tried to stick to the facts, but yet we get attacked personally or told to go back home.
If you who continue to disparage Hannah without any knowledge of her or the situation (other than the media) are so right, then why are you so afraid of those of us who are trying to keep an open mind?
Why resort to personal attacks on us - that we're just Hannah supporters drinking the kool-aid, religious freaks, gullible, etc?
I have not told you my personal opinion about this case, nor have I told you my religious beliefs, but yet I'm lumped into the group with all the rest.
Please just think about what I have written here. I still fear for what this might mean as far as precedent in Texas (and possibly the United States), and I hope that none of you ever find yourself in a situation like this and incur the wrath of so many people 'relying' on information from the media.
That is all I'm trying to say.
Posted by myharmonylane on September 14, 2007 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint..... just stating facts. After 15 years in health care profession the one thing I've learned is that things are not always what they seem. I'm not standing in blind faith on Hanna's side, notice I wrote, "I'm not saying Hanna's an angel or a villain, (probably somewhere in between just like the rest of us). Only God and Hannah know for sure." You seem to stand in the same blind faith you rail against when you believe all that you hear is truth. Otherwise it wouldn't make you upset when someone suggests you give consideration to another possibility, contrary to your personal belief.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kwork, I have just read Larry Overtons transcript on "his take" on religion. I went searching around on google site,
What I read is creepy to say the least. He states that his church has a "Vision" and that Vision is Restoration. They want to go back to the origional origins of the Old Testament 1st century teachings only. They want to throw out the New Testament with the bath water. They want the church to go back to its UNIMPAIRED condition.
They want to get away from demonational churches. They want their followers to start meeting in homes instead of the pulpit type preachings. They want to only be led by Elders. They feel they can get their teachings across better if they meet privately in their own homes so the so called outsiders cannot just show up any ole time with their different beliefs. They want to spread their network here in Corpus Christi to (other like-minded people). Larry also plays a major part in Beth Overtons Gentle Beginnings web site and goes on and on about how birthing at home is better for your baby than going to institutional hospitals. Larry's writings put the Biblical aspect and birth together hand in hand. If he is a strong proponent of this why were his children born in the hospital as Stevesouth said?
I can only conclude by reading some of his writings that this church is very unusual and has very different beliefs than the churches most people are accustomed to. I don't want to say anything to demean CC but sounds like your steering in a direction that is entirely different from the mainstream. I remember Lester Roloffs strict preachings from the old testament. Where girls should never wear pants. Music was the devil, newpapers were the devil. He lived in his big mansion next to the Rebekah Home For Girls which was eventualy shut down from allegations of abuse. The girls were beaten and locked in dark rooms and fed scripture through their walls non stop. Religion can take a very dark turn if you let it.
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by myharmonylane on September 14, 2007 at 11 a.m.
factualcounterpoint..... just stating facts. After 15 years in health care profession the one thing I've learned is that things are not always what they seem. I'm not standing in blind faith on Hanna's side, notice I wrote, "I'm not saying Hanna's an angel or a villain, (probably somewhere in between just like the rest of us). Only God and Hannah know for sure." You seem to stand in the same blind faith you rail against when you believe all that you hear is truth. Otherwise it wouldn't make you upset when someone suggests you give consideration to another possibility, contrary to your personal belief.
------------------------------------------------
Exactly!
Posted by arthur6889 on September 14, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Too much salt will make a grown man throw-up. And, before that sick to the stomach.
To call or not to call that is the question:
One day at work the owner's son called in and said their duck was missing. We jumped like a M.A.S.H unit. Off to hunt a duck. The emergency was caused by a roaming dog who could jump or dig under fences.
Their house sat on a couple of acres and had the feeling of farm life. We spread out looking in every direction. A couple of houses over I saw something white that looked like crumbled newspaper.
That was brought to their attention. Without hesitation the son bounded over three fences picked up the duck and we all rushed to the vet's office. The duck survived the ordeal of being drugged by a dog.
The point. Any kid regardless of circumstances deserves more than a duck.
Posted by myharmonylane on September 14, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp ... you wrote "If he is a strong proponent of this why were his children born in the hospital as Stevesouth ?" there's an article online telling exactly why. Look it up on the same web site you're referring too in your post.
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp,
I believe the papers you found written by Larry Overton may be the father-in-law of Hannah, not the husband. Please check this out and see if this is the case. I want to make sure that I found the same papers that you were referring to.
Posted by arthur6889 on September 14, 2007 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp,
When you googled around did you go to rick ross with the name of this "church"?
One sign of cult mind is the leader cannot be question. His understanding of the Bible is final authority.
An elder is anyone regardless of age who not only knows the exoteric meaning of the Bible but also it's esoteric interpretations.
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I want to clear this up quickly so that this information is not perpetuated on this forum.
If the papers that rrempp found are the same as the ones I found, and I believe they are, because I read about his beliefs on 'restoration' , etc. - these papers were written by Larry G. Overton, the father-in-law of Hannah, not her husband, who is clearly identified on the same website as "Larry D. Overton (who is married to Hannah)".
So rrempp, I'm not sure what your point was about these papers other than to call Larry Overton (husband) a religious freak, (and thereby assuring their guilt in this case) but this is exactly the kind of thing that I have been referring to all along.
This kind of mis-information is exactly what we must be careful of.
Please don't continue to refer to these papers, obviously not written by Larry D.
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't believe that Larry G. Overton (father-in-law) is affiliated with Calvary Chapel based on his statement that he is against denominationism like the other mainstream denominations (i.e. Assembly of God, Calvary Chapel, etc)
So please don't think that his views are what Calvary Chapels believe in, because according to my research, they are not.
Posted by annelise123 on September 14, 2007 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When my four children had the stomach flu last year, the first one threw up 10 times, the second one seven times, the third one probably 8-10 times, and the fourth one close to 13 times. It was horrible, it was nasty, it seemed unbearable--and it was the common stomach flu. It didn't even occur to me to take them to the ER, although I did call the doctor's office after a few hours to see if I could get them phenergen or something for the nausea. I was afraid they were getting too dehydrated.
I have many friends with small children and the above scenario is not at all uncommon.
Hannah acted a lot fast than I did.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey sweetie3302 … you say whatever you want here … WELCOME to the board! Just know that there is a army here from the Calvary that were sent to squash the truth and silence anyone that agrees with the verdict and especially those who think Hannah ABUSED Andrew.
Rrempp…. That is Larry SR … I think someone forgot to tell him and Beth it’s 2007 not 1968 …….. but it’s a good insight into how Larry Jr were raised,
RRempp I can’t believe you brought up that devil Lester Roloff ……. WOW that is a blast from the past. I can remember my family from Lexington, Texas saying he started a church there in that area … once they figured out what he was about they ran him out of there and he that’s when he came to Corpus. I’ll never understand why Corpus put up with him for so many years.
Posted by ratpak13 on September 14, 2007 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ya, Larry Sr. has his own thing going on. He may attend Calvary Chapel, but he in no way represents the typical church member. CCCoastlands just happens to be the fellowship he 'hangs his hat on' for the time being.
I would absolutely have no problem whatsoever attending CCCoastlands, except for this Overton thing. Pastor Rod walked away from a rather secure co-pastor position in his home state of California to answer the Lord's calling for the Coastal Bend. He has my respect for stepping out in faith. It's a doggone shame he had to get mixed up in this mess. He's shouldering a burden NO pastor should have to, that of defending one of his flock. I don't think they have a class on the "How To" in the seminary.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I never called anybody a freak. You put words in my mouth. I said this church has taken over "EVERY ASPECT" of the Overton family.
There seems to be a "blind faith" and as I read on these sites it states exactly what you have just portrayed.
CC and its affiliates get very upset when you question "their" practices. Very defensive.
I will have to go back and read again, but Larry "is" the father and this is the way Larry Jr. was raised, and Larry Jr. goes to the same church and Larry Jr is very close with his Dad and the church. Freak no, Zealot or possibly that other dirty word, I don't know. Nobody knows until something goes wrong. Thats why this country is so great. We have Freedom of Religion. But when outsiders are shunned because they have different views or believe the New Testament should be studied. Well, I'm going to keep reading the testimonies of CC members who have been told their services are no longer needed and the rug pulled out from underneath them.
Like someone posted here on this site, You very rarely see church members outside the courtroom controlling every aspect of a persons life, including criminal activity. Acting as body guards for Larry Jr. , Setting up web sites for Hannah, paying for defense, Calling in the army from California, distorting the facts as a Hannah supporter up above stated "spices and water is a perfectly normal thing to give your child" We do it all the time! That is ludacris.
And for those of you that say jury's sometimes get it wrong? Everything comes back to you eventually. It sound like OJ Simpson may be feeling some Karma right about now. Authorities are looking to arrest him for armed robbery at this very minute. Maybe he will be behind bars where he belongs soon.
Posted by normac on September 14, 2007 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marisalazar002 you are absolutely right I have never had to serve on a jury, and I trully apologize if my comment came out the wrong way. I had no intention of insulting the integrety of the 12 jurors. I can only imagine how hard it must have been. I only meant that God makes the final decision, and on his own time. As you said After all this is man made justice. True justice will be when we meet our Creator. I was just commenting on my feelings. This case has really brought so many mixed emotions on so many people. God have mercy on us all.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrrempp ... you just keep digging ... the website I told you about has more insight than the one you found.
Posted by reason.able on September 14, 2007 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Maybe it's just me, but does this whole Overton trial thing seem a little creepy to anybody else? I've read all the posts and all I could about this case, and it just doesn't add up to me that this Overton girl killed her son. It looks like the little boy just loved to eat and ate his poor self to death with salt. I got to agree with what the calico lady said... folks need to look at all the facts and slow down a bit and realize that we are all gonna be changed by this trial if it stands.
Posted by sweetie3302 on September 14, 2007 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
luvalico (09/14/07 at 11am):
Whoa! Retract your claws! Talk about personal attacks! Dang!
To answer your question, If it was my family, I'd be in front of every camera that would sit still long enough to be heard. But, I understand that everyone has different views from myself, I also understand that I don't have to listen to them either.
And, kwork25, thanks for the support, think I hit a nerve?
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp
I apologize - you did not say freak, but you did say this:
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 11:04 a.m.
....I can only conclude by reading some of his writings that this church is very unusual and has very different beliefs than the churches most people are accustomed to. I don't want to say anything to demean CC but sounds like your steering in a direction that is entirely different from the mainstream.
------
Besides clearly stating that these beliefs are not mainstream, you clearly lumped Larry Sr with Calvary Chapel, and according to this website, he is not in agreement with CC. He may "go there" but please don't take his views as the view of CC.
Also, I hadn't heard of bodyguards for Larry Jr., but IF it is true, I have to say that based on reaction on these boards I don't blame him at all.
As far as kwork's comment about us wanting to 'squash the truth' - quite the contrary - my only point is make sure you have the truth (and so-called truth from the media does not count, especially when it's been said that some reports were false) before you try, convict and condemn someone in the court of public opinion.
I think most of you have tried to "squash" the rest of us who don't necessarily have your viewpoint in this case.
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wish everyone here would retract their claws in this case instead of ripping the Overton's apart based on media reports that may or may not be true.
I'm not trying to make personal attacks, but just trying to say that I think it's wrong to rely so heavily on media reports that could possibly be slanted.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico ... I'm not going to waste a lot of time with you because I know what your agenda is here but based on your statement below by your own admission you want to make sure everyone believes YOUR truth .....
you said:
"my only point is make sure you have the truth (and so-called truth from the media does not count, especially when it's been said that some reports were false) before you try, convict and condemn someone in the court of public opinion."
Personally I think the people on this board are smart enough and ethical enough to gather information and decide how much weight it should carry ...... please don't insult our intelligence by controlling what is said and what we should believe. The fact that you have totally dismissed anything that the news outlets have reported is a contradiction by you being here posting on a news site. If the news reports aren’t creditable then why are you here … why would you even waste your time looking at a news paper????????????????
Posted by grimjack41 on September 14, 2007 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Something my grandpa use to tell me growing up "Believe nothing that you read and only half of what you see. People will write from their point of view, not necessarily the truth and even your eyes may play tricks on you...."
I believe this was the point that luvcalico was trying to make. Not that we shouldn’t "believe" what the media says, but question it. Only a fool would follow some one off the harbor bridge, how is blindly accepting a reporter and/or a DA who may or may not have their own agenda any different?
I'm not saying anyone’s views are wrong, right, or anything else, they are their own and are entitled to them but look in the mirror before you do. Many accuse CC of being a "cult" for blindly defending Hanna and her family and claiming their innoncence, but many here are showing the same "cult" mentality but against her claiming she is a guilty monster.
Again I’m not defending Hanna as I’ve said before I don’t know what happened nor is it my concern but remember number 4, be nice.
In my opinion that’s all luvcalico is trying to say.
Posted by reason.able on September 14, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What seems a bit interesting to me is that ccskibunny, beeleticia, louise_shirley2000, aquila, rmetting, jenbarcor, ratpak13, cc1brother, marlana2002, sursumtx, factualcounterpoint, veronica.rocha, dannoynted1, rrempp, myharmonylane, and yes, even kwork25 all mentioned that the "truth" needed to be discovered in their posts, but only luvcalico was jumped on for it.
My, there's balance.
Posted by sweetie3302 on September 14, 2007 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
grimjack41 (9/14/07 at 1:39 pm):
I was being nice...well, maybe not nice, but at least civil...it's a shame that we are not able to "hear" our tone in what is being typed.
Posted by luvcalico on September 14, 2007 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I apologize for not making my position more clear.
I’m not against news outlets for reporting the facts of a case. In fact, that’s why I came here to find out if Hannah was convicted or not, and this week - to find out what the judge sentenced her to.
I’ve always been interested in how these difficult and tragic cases affect the general populace of the particular venue or city. So I read some of the message boards regarding this case. What troubled me was the fact that some here had already found Hannah guilty based on news reports of the trial. I might add, that these comments were made even before the guilty verdict was reached by the jury.
As I continued to read, it was discussed that some of those reports were found to be erroneous, but yet, some here continued to interpret those ‘facts’ as truth. There are many suppositions here on this board about what Hannah did and didn’t do to that poor little boy; and those opinions seemed to piggyback off each other, building an air tight case that Hannah knew what she was doing and intended to hurt little Andrew.
And most of these opinions were based on what the person heard on the TV or read in the newspaper. Probably most newspapers or other media outlets do a good job at reporting the facts on any given story. But I’ve also known many that were wrong.
Kwork, I strongly disagree with your statement that I want everyone here to believe MY truth. Fact is, I don’t know what MY truth is in this matter. I wasn’t there the day Andrew died. I don’t know what happened.
Posted by grimjack41 on September 14, 2007 at 2:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I apologize I didn't mean to single anyone out. I was just meaning to state my general observations from this thread and perhaps clarify my interpretation of luvcalico's comments. (I'll admit I've been guilty of getting upset and typing things I shouldn't. It’s one of the reasons I got out of this conversation during the trial and have been avoiding post about it. No one is perfect) I think everyone could stand to take a step back and take a deep breath. What's done is done and ranting about it would only raise blood pressure.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well grim that is one way of seeing it ... not mine. I'm tired of being preached at ... that includes what you said about being nice and looking in the mirror ... I have been nice ... but the preaching is tiresome................
How To Win a Debate In Spite Of Knowing Nothing
This how-to is the product of years of observing, even participating in, battles of wits against unarmed opponents.
Sometimes it's okay to skip some of these steps, but it's generally best if you follow the general order of things.
1. Make wild, unprovable assertions about the subject of your choice.
2. When your adversary counters your assertions with documented facts and case studies, just repeat your assertions.
3. When pressed by your adversary to provide documentation for your assertions, call him biased. Discredit his sources, too, by making nebulous accusations of bias or incompetence.
4. When challenged to prove your statements against your adversary or his sources, simply reply that "everybody knows it" or "any fool can see it for himself." Bystanders who didn't already know it or who couldn't see it for themselves will immediately be enlightened.
5. Put your adversary on the defensive. Accuse him of bias, insensitivity, hatred, bigotry, or whatever sounds good at the moment. The whole discussion will then be taken away from the original subject, and everyone will forget that you were dead wrong from the beginning.
Posted by reason.able on September 14, 2007 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said, grimjack41, well said.
Posted by reason.able on September 14, 2007 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
These posts remind me of the guy who was walking toward an open New York subway car when he felt a body brush by him. Instinctively, he reached for his pocket and discovered he didn't have his wallet. Shouting and running, he grabbed the person who had bumped against him. He tugged wildly at the stranger's sleeve, trying to stop him from escaping into the departing subway. The subway door slammed shut, but not before he had ripped off the suspected pick-pocket's coat sleeve.
Later that night at home the man discovered his "stolen" wallet had been on his dresser all day. He had left home without it.
I bet there are alot of broken legs from all this "conclusion-jumpin'" going on in here.
Unless you were in the court room and heard all the testimony to include the juror briefs, you really have no idea of the guilt or innocence of this lady.
Fact is, she was found guilty of killing her child by an act of omission, not commission; and that is a scary bit of business that any of us can be found guilty of murder in this state by not getting our kid to the emergency room quick enough. I hope this conviction is overturned not for Mrs. Overton’s sake, but for the rest of our sakes.
Posted by rjorgensen on September 14, 2007 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jenbarcor.....do you know the Overtons? because if you don't, I am curious as to why your so obsessed over this case? Do you not have anything better to do?
Posted by ratpak13 on September 14, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
posted by reason_able:
"Unless you were in the court room and heard all the testimony to include the juror briefs, you really have no idea of the guilt or innocence of this lady."
----------------------------------------------------------
That's goes for Pastor Rod and anyone else called as a witness for the defense.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When this all started three weeks ago all I heard was wait till you hear all the evidence … well we heard all the evidence … we have seen and read it in several ways … news articles, TV news reports, pictures, videos, testimony, eye witness accounts from the courtroom from both sides. The verdict is in … and now we are told wait for the appeal, don’t believe what you have seen and heard … it’s not creditable … and I love this one “you weren’t there’ … “nobody knows the truth” …. Well based on that logic why even arrest a person for a crime?
Posted by reason.able on September 14, 2007 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No argument on that one, ratpak...fair is fair.
Posted by marisalazar002 on September 14, 2007 at 2:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by meluvmycat on September 14, 2007 at 3:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
For those of you who soooooo STRONGLY believe she is GUILTY, have you asked yourself “What IF she IS INNOCENT!” What if it were all just a mixture of bad circumstances that ended in tragedy? There has been known cases of people being innocent and found guilty. This could well be one of those cases. It HAS happened before.
HOW VERY, VERY, VERY SAD that she is taken away from her family and her children that NEED her and must spend the rest of her life in prison.. God give her strength! God give her peace! My heart is so heavy, oh so many tears – for Andrew, for Hannah, for Larry and for their children.
Lord, please wake us up from this NIGHTMARE!
*****************The problem here ist that there were too many of the "mixture of bad circumstances" that don't add up to just an accident. Look I agree with alot here it is an unfortuante tragedy for Andrew, for Hannah, for the families, the church, and the community involved. But someone was responsible for a four year old child...Hannah....what makes it difficult for alot of people to believe that she is innocent ARE the mixture of circumstances...what she did (give a child a mixture of cajun spices, burn sheets, sleep on a plywood board, in a sleeping bag, her discpline system, her Not getting this child immediate medical attention, CPS' involvement, the ridiculous attempts at what looks like justifying her actions or non actions by blaming Andrew ---he had an eating disorder, he had this---he had that---he could've had this, he could have had taht----....A jury has spoken....it's a tragedy....If she is innocent, she has the burden of proof now....if she's guilty, she can never repay Andrew's death to his family....Man judged her.....God will judge her...and He will be fair..
Posted by grimjack41 on September 14, 2007 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwork25
I have desire to argue with you or anyone else. I wasn't preaching and unless you missed it, I included myself as well. As I said before we are all entitled to our own opinion and as such we should respect others for theirs. In my opinion, I think we all could all use a little "looking in the mirror" from time to time.
I like quotes so here are some more:
"Its easier to find faults in others than to find faults in ones self."
"The beginning of wisdom is admitting that you don't know everything"
“People in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks”
And that your honor as well as the comments above is why I am removing myself from this trial.
Good Day!
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rjorgensen said:
“Jenbarcor.....do you know the Overtons? because if you don't, I am curious as to why your so obsessed over this case? Do you not have anything better to do?”
That’s none of your business … why are you making this personal and being rude?
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 14, 2007 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I have said is that Hannah needs to tell the truth, and that Larry in his upcoming trial needs to tell the truth, and nothing but.
Andrew's little body spoke for him,
None of us were there when she was soothing Andrew with Cajun spice. Hannah was.
Did she drink the spice herself that day, she needed soothing.....? No
Did she admit to the ER just how much she had given him, in truth, so they could more quickly treat him for sodium overdose......................................... ....? No
What was Larry doing all this time and at other times when the sheets got burned, etc? We don't really know much about that at all. So will he tell the TRUTH in sworn tetimony at his trial.....? Yes or No.
Posted by reason.able on September 14, 2007 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwork, I retired from law enforcement (Texas state) with 25 years in and I can tell you that you never have all the facts. I imagine you are responding to this trial to the best of your knowledge, but that knowledge is limited at best. For instance, did you know that there are 11 reasons why a person can be convicted of a capital crime in our state? Can you name the one used in this case? If you can, then you are a rare bird indeed. Fact is that most folks simply respond to what others are doing or saying with no real understanding of the facts in a matter. Are you suggesting that all the folks who have been found guilty of a crime in this great state we call home have been in fact guilty? I sure hope not...let's wait for the appeal. Overton's not going anywhere, and neither will we. I for one am ready to wait until the last turn of that pancake before I reach for the syrup.
BTW...we arrest folks under a reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.
Posted by aquila on September 14, 2007 at 3:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwork25:
Goodness! I couldn't agree more with what you stated in your 2:11 posting. It seems that the majority of the reaction that I receive to my posts in which I discuss items that came out Hannah's trial (in her defense), the responses have been to repeat the horrible things that were published prior to the trial but which were never submitted as evidence in the trial. When I asked one poster to specifically refute anything I said, I got back from the poster how he/she felt. Hardly logical. Hardly analytical. Highly emotional. Add to that ad hominem (thank you cc1--I like that) attacks on churches, friends and families which bear no relevance to the case under discussion.
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 3:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor,
In response to your post:
"no I did not call 911 every time I rushed her to the hospital because I was smart enough to take her when she began to get violently ill. She had ovarian cancer that spread into her intestines. (I could go into the numerous operations and the removal of 75% of her intestines but I wont.) She would began to vomit uncontrollably but I didn't sit around waiting for it to pass. I didn't ask her to help clean up her own vomit and poop. And I sure as heck didn't make up a concoction of spices and water for her to drink before or after."
My sincere condolences on the loss of your mother.
You've made my point which is that, in the future, if this verdict stands, you could take in someone who's in the same condition as your mom and if they happen to die, you could be charged with murder. If it's a child under 6, it would be capital murder.
I drove my own mother to the hospital two years ago, thinking it would be faster than calling an ambulance. She ended up in ICU for 3 weeks. She had pneumonia. Her doctor didn't think she'd make it. He told me that with bacterial infections in older people with compromised immune systems, the rate of infection and onset of severe symptoms can happen very, very rapidly. I didn't know that.
So, had my mother died -- and I am grateful she did not -- but had she not made it, I could have been charged with murder under the law now in Nueces County.
We have already decided, based on this case, that in all future events we will call 911. To protect me, not her.
Some of the things you noted are not accurate per Hannah's testimony: Hannah did not say she asked Andrew to help clean up his vomit. He did that himself. She gave him the water sprinkled with spices in an effort to satisfy him and get him to stop eating as he'd already eaten a great deal that day and had an eating disorder.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by rjorgensen on September 14, 2007 at 2:37 p.m.
Jenbarcor.....do you know the Overtons? because if you don't, I am curious as to why your so obsessed over this case? Do you not have
________________________________________________
Aparently you have not read all my postings but to answer you questions, no I do not know the Overtons. Yes, I have become obsessed over this case because an innocent little boy has died due to Hannah's neglect and abuse. The defense wanted us to swallow bullc...p. Do I have anything better to do? Yes I do, many things including volunteering for the Angel Food Ministries. Care to come join me on the 29th?
To avoid going back and reading through dozens of post, refresh my memory as to why your obsessed with this case.
Posted by myharmonylane on September 14, 2007 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I came in on this case late in the game, but curiosity pushed me to research it a bit. It seems the media and "coffee shop/internet gossip" played a big part in villainizing this woman before her trial. From what I've been able to see, it was probably unrealistic to think she could possibly have gotten a fair, completely unbiased trial in Corpus Christi, considering what all those jurors must have seen and heard before they were ever selected for jury duty. Now, looking at all that's being posted here, it appears the same kind of pseudo witch hunt is happening again by all the conjecture about Larry and his family. The facts regarding THIS CASE are ALL that matters. The point is not to see how many lives and families can be ripped apart and destroyed here. It's to objectively look at the facts and make a fair and moral decision based on those facts.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
reason.able said:
“kwork, I retired from law enforcement (Texas state) with 25 years in and I can tell you that you never have all the facts”.
Thanks for your service … I have been a Mother and Grandmother in Corpus Christi, Texas for 32 years and I can tell that giving a 4 year old child cayenne pepper is abuse.
“I imagine you are responding to this trial to the best of your knowledge, but that knowledge is limited at best.”
You don’t know what I know … I guess that makes your knowledge of me limited.
“ For instance, did you know that there are 11 reasons why a person can be convicted of a capital crime in our state? Can you name the one used in this case?”
Yes I can … I have posted them in previous posts ... So most of the regular posters on here know too.
“Fact is that most folks simply respond to what others are doing or saying with no real understanding of the facts in a matter.”
Like I said before you don’t know me or what I know.
“ Are you suggesting that all the folks who have been found guilty of a crime in this great state we call home have been in fact guilty?”
Of course not but they are guilty in the eyes of the law until it’s over turned and that’s rare. By the way … you do know this is a comment board not a court of law right?
“I sure hope not...let's wait for the appeal. “
Feel free to wait for an appeal … just don’t tell me too.
“Overton's not going anywhere, and neither will we. I for one am ready to wait until the last turn of that pancake before I reach for the syrup.”
OK….
“BTW...we arrest folks under a reasonable suspicion that they have committed a crime.”
And in this case the suspicion and arrest were warranted.
Posted by eaobanion on September 14, 2007 at 3:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
factual:
Get a full-time job! And we know EXACTLY who you are! You started the accusations toward ccbrother. You are entirely too emotionally charged over this case. To be such a "seasoned" medical professional that has seen so much, you cannot detactch yourself from fact or fiction. If you do not have personal ties to this precious baby or the family, you are obsessed, and I would recommend addressing this behaviour.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 14, 2007 at 3:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I've read all the posts and all I could about this case, and it just doesn't add up to me that this Overton girl killed her son. It looks like the little boy just loved to eat and ate his poor self to death with salt. I got to agree with what the calico lady said... "
..........Well reasonable.....while I respect your opinion and your 25 years experience in law enforcement, I have to say, I cannot see it that the little boy could possibly have eaten himself to death with salt on his own.
Hannah had a big helping hand. When she got thru with him he was so sick, and then he was dead..
Posted by reason.able on September 14, 2007 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we all know you a bit better now, kwork25, bless your heart.
Posted by rjorgensen on September 14, 2007 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Because I do know the Overtons...and if any one of the people in this chat actually knew them, they would know the truth. That Hannah did not abuse her children. This happened to be a tragic accident. Yes, I do grieve for Andrew, but I also grieve for Hannah, Larry and their children. So I am here to support the Overtons through thier difficult time because I do believe that Hannah is innocent. This case has been exploited to its fullest, why doesn't everybody give it a rest?
And no I don't want to join you for AFM, I have plenty of things going on in my own church community, and for those who want to know, it isn't the same church that the Overtons attend.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey new talking points!!! "Get a job and your obsessed" ... these people are funny ....
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumtx, thank you for your condolences. If we want to stick to the truth and nothing but the truth then your statement which reads: "Some of the things you noted are not accurate per Hannah's testimony: Hannah did not say she asked Andrew to help clean up his vomit. He did that himself." How do you know 100% Hannah was telling the truth? Everyone in support of her as pointed out that everyone else (except Hannah) lied. How is that possible? She is so perfect that she would not lie to save herself? You don't have to answer me because this is turning out to be a battle between us, not just you and me but something like us against them (which ever side you are on). I will admit, no one, including myself knows the real truth. One child is dead, one woman is in jail, and one man will be fighting for his freedom in a week. Believe it or not, I have asked God to forgive me if I am wrong. I think we all should no matter which side we are on. There are no winners in this sad situation.
Posted by rjorgensen on September 14, 2007 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So nice to see a different side to jenbar....
Posted by deprecain on September 14, 2007 at 3:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We at Calvary Chapel do not have a blind faith. We simply study God's word and to the best of our ability live by it. I did not know Larry and Hannah, so I watched them for the months leading up to the trial. Because I didn't have facts I attended the trial everyday
to make an informed decision on my own.
l. Pastor Rod chose to not adopt Andrew because he and his
wife had recently gone through a very traumatic time and they
felt that adoption would be hard at that time.
2. Jury found her innocent of blunt force trauma to the head -
there was no evidence to substantiate that acusation.
3. Jury found her not guilty of any abuse - the marks on his
body were explained during trial: frantic attempts at CPR,
mosquito bites being treated and those pictures channel 10
continued to show were taken after Andrew's demise, 1 or 2
days later and as explained by ME blood coagulates in places
coagulapathy which explains the bruising.
4. Video camera - Hannah had been injured in a car crash and
was ordered to bed rest so Larry put up the camera so Hannah
could watch the kids, all the kids, their oldest son would move
the camera to different parts of the house to monitor the kids
activities.
5. Plywood - Andrew had soiled his bed deliberately as viewed
by Hannah on the monitor and then Andrew smeared it every
where, walls, bed, mattress before she could get to him. Larry
came home from church and cleaned it all up and put sheets
in a bag in the trash. Andrew kept trying to get the sheets out of
the trash and Andrew had other sets of
Spiderman sheets,they were not the only ones. The mattress
was taken outside to be cleaned, mind you it was only the day
before. That night he slept either on blankets on the wood
or a sleeping bag.
Posted by deprecain on September 14, 2007 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
6. Oct. 2, 2006- Don't know the exact timeline but these are the
events that occurred to my recollection from trial: Hannah gave
1/2 can of veg. beef stew, he wanted more so she opened
another can of the stew, he wanted more (because they would
be going to Gatty Town later for a birthday celebration she
didn't want him to fill up on the stew) He began to have a
tantrum and pooped on the floor, her younger child was getting
in it so she asked her neighbor to come watch her son while
she tried to manage Andrew. At some point she had made
a sippy cup of water with, NOT MORE THAN A TEASPOON of
Zataran's, hoping the taste of the seasoning in the water would
squelch his hunger. After that he vomited, continued his
tantrum and fell to the ground and when she knelt down to
check him he told her he was cold, sometime in all of this
she had called Larry to come home because he wasn't acting
right. Because he was cold she put him in a warm shower
or bath, about this time Larry got home and took over while
Hannah tried to read in her medical material about shock
or whatever might be causing the situation, she gave a
nebulizer treatment and his breathing, which had become
shallow, responded they dressed him and took him to the
Urgent Care Clinic which they believed could handle the
trauma.
I put my faith in God, not men and I believe God is not done in
this matter, God does not work in our time, he has his own
plan and time frame. I believe Hannah will be found innocent
I do not believe the jury wanted to sentence her to life, but according to the instructions from the judge and the prosecution
closing statement this was all they could do. They voted by
emotion, not by the law of the land.
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp, I know full well that a 4 year old boy is dead. I met him and I mourn him. Did you ever meet him? Or Hannah or Larry?
Every child's death is a tragedy. But that doesn't make it murder.
The marks on Andrew's body were not there when he arrived at Driscoll Children's Hospital Urgent Care clinic, other than a bruise on the knee and sores on his arms which were picked-at mosquito bites. This is per the paramedics report.
The marks occurred due to coagulopathy -- failure of the blood to clot -- as the sodium in his body and stress to it created that condition in his blood. The blood became so thin that when he was moved or touched by tape and fingers, and Hannah's hands as she gave him CPR. This is per testimony from Dr. Melenik.
The "surveillance" you mention was a baby monitor camera purchased so that Hannah could keep an eye on the kids while she was recovering from injuries sustained in a car accident. She had oral surgeries and a neck brace. The caseworker from the adoption agency testified that she saw the camera & approved of its use. It was pointed at Andrew's bed at night because he would tend to get up and forage around for food sometimes at night, due to his eating disorder (which may have been exascerbated by undiagnosed diabetes)
Hannah testified that Larry took all Andrew's bedding outside covered in poop. Larry may have decided that the sheets were stained beyond cleaning and decided to throw them away. Sounds like a husband's reaction to me, as he knew they had other sheets just for Andrew, from the baby shower the church gave them when Andrew came to live with them. He may have stuffed them in the BBQ pit to hide them from Andrew, who went outside several times to find the sheets. Burning sheets or throwing them away is not chid abuse, nor is it murder.
I can't speak to the Overton chidren's statements except to say that they were included in a news report that contained a "confession" that was later proven to be pure conjecture. Their ages of 7 & 5 make them somewhat unreliable. I know these children and the 5 year old is a darling little girl with a 5 year old's vivid imagination. The 7 year old is not all talkative, especially with strangers and I have a very hard time imagining him getting a whole sentence out to strangers, much less the sentence that was attributed to him. If you ask those children whether they think their mother and father killed Andrew, the answer would be an emphatic "no."
Finally, if a 4 year old in my care pooped and smeared it everywhere and said "I'm going to poop on you" I would also assume he was doing it to get to me.
Have you raised any children? Have any of them come from backgrounds with abuse or severe neglect?
I do not know what is so hard to comprehend about the facts stated above.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwork________________
I'm glad you keep searching for facts. These folks here will never accept the verdict. She is behind bars where she belongs. When her appeal comes up she will most likely be granted a new trial in a new venue and tried for Negligent Homicide. Then she can sit behind bars for a good 10 to 20.
As for Googleing "Larry Overton" Corpus Christi 3rd page? theres a link to breast feeding dot com, then you say a link to a forum.
For the life of me I cannot locate it. I wanted to hear what Larry's sister had to say. Can you help? Thanks
Keep up the good work. No matter how much evidence there is against Hannah these CC folks are never going to believe it.
Nobody believed Lester Roloff could be involved with child abuse. I for one know that there was abuse out on Old Brownsville Road.(They always refused to be inspected by the authorities. They would form a human chain around the compound to keep the "bad guys out" They even believed on Sunday that the girls that attended his Rebekah Home for Girls should not recieve dinner. Only an apple.
They were fed goats milk with homegrown food, (no crime in that but just big time fundamentalists.) Punishment there would be doled out for saying something as simple as Gosh. If they mis behaved they were thrown in a dark room with no windows and no mattress and whipped with a board on their behinds and not just normal whipped, black and blue whipped. Roloffs religious beliefs and Brother Camerons beliefs were, well lets just say, a little brutal at times.
This is one of the reasons I ask questions and have every right to ask them. Child abuse can happen under the veil of religion without checks and balances. Long story short......I am not going to believe folks who just went to church with her because they know just as much as the media, or they know only what they want us to know.
Posted by sursumtx on September 14, 2007 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor, I actually believe that most, if not all, of the witnesses in this case told the truth as they perceived it to be. Have you ever heard the story about the 5 blind men who come upon an elephant? Each one feels just one part of the elephant and is sure that the elephant is like a tree, or a fan, or a rope, etc. Each person in this incident saw just a piece of the story.
If Hannah or Larry intended to harm a hair on Andrew's precious head, I would agree they should be punished. I don't believe that to be true. May God forgive me, and them, if I am wrong.
They are not perfect people. None of us are. They did the best they knew how to do with the information they had.
Peace be with you. I've got to sign off now.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rjorgenson, I understand Hannah is your friend and I understand your loyalty. Hannah is not my friend and that is why it is easier for those of us on the outside looking in to see what is what. I will give it a rest for today as I am on my way out the door. I also volunteer for the American Cancer Society driving patients on Friday afternoons. I have to pick up a patient at 4:30 from the cancer center (after a day of chemo) and drive them home. We can banter later. I will be willing to have an open mind to listen to you if you will agree to do the same.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumtx________________
here you go again with the "eating disorder". Theres no proof of that. Give me proof. What CC witnessed in childcare during church? Mrs Hamil said he was a perfectly typical normal child. What part of that do you not understand. She said this under oath and she is also a one of your church members. She had this boy for 18 months. Hannah supposedly had him for 3 months.
Please make sense of that? You can't. Don't even try. The jury tried and they came up with the same conclusion. The jury spoke and they will have to speak again. We need hard facts, not opinions or Calvary Church members telling us so.
Posted by rrempp on September 14, 2007 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Kwork,....I'm sorry, you can't help but get knee deep in this stuff when you start diggin around and reading some of these web-sites with Larry jrs. parents producing them and all the reading I have been doing today about the Calvary Chapels and California and inside bickering and fundamentalist ways and the backing away from all kinds of institutions such as schools, hospitals pulpit churches with demoninations and elders only being in charge and California this and California that. I'm knee deep in this research. You just want to know more everytime. We have several players in this scenario that come from California and that just peaks your interest even more.
Thanks aurthur for the one up on Rick Ross. Interesting to say the least. Its hard to get through it all but slowly I will pick at it here and there.
Posted by ccskibunny on September 14, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Re posted by rrempp: "Long story short......I am not going to believe folks who just went to church with her because they know just as much as the media, or they know only what they want us to know."
EXACTLY! I could not agree more. My church folks (or even my own parents) do not have any idea what I do in the privacy of my home. They may think they know me, but in reality they don't. While it is nice that they support one of their own, they simply can't possibly know what happened in that house. All they can do is guess just like the rest of us.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 14, 2007 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have a question--is this Calgary Church like or a part of the Bay Area Fellowship Church?
Posted by marlana2002 on September 14, 2007 at 5:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My personal opinion--Hannah had entirely too much on her plate and she saw Andrew as doing things "to get to her". I think she snapped.
She was dealing with a car accident, a pregnancy, 4 bio children of her own (very young I might add) and then Andrew. I think that's why she sent the other kids away. I think she was going to deal with him. And by God, she did. Now, the justice system has dealt with her.
Again, I wish her no ill will, but I do believe she needs to be held accountable.
Rest in Peace Andrew.
Posted by ratpak13 on September 14, 2007 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you ccskibunny.
And now dear hearts, we are reliving those ghastly days in the mid 80's when Hannah's own father, continued to decieve his family and church. We have much the same scenario playing out even today.
Bennie, when confronted with his responsibility in the pregnancy of a young teen, lied and convinced the elders and other church members his innocence. The truth eventually revealed 9 months later, after trashing the reputation of the teen.
Years later, after being found guilty of the brutal bludgeoning of another teenage girl, there were those who continued to believe Bennie was innocent. Falsely accused and convicted.
Now, here we are.
The same battle lines are drawn.
Sad how history seems to repeat itself.
But let's not beat a dead horse. We're treading ground that has been gone over far too many times.
Hannah will appeal, as she surely has a right to.
Larry will face the judge on the 24th.
It's far from over, and to some degree, never will be. There are those who still believe Bennie's story. Some will never be convinced regardless of the evidence.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 14, 2007 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor Post 3:58 pm........."rjorgenson, I understand Hannah is your friend and I understand your loyalty. Hannah is not my friend and that is why it is easier for those of us on the outside looking in to see what is what."
That's about it jenbarcor........ some have blind loyalty and some are very open minded and have made some very good points as to why they believe the way they do regarding Hannah is innocent in their eyes.
It's just very sad that Andrew did not get to stay with Mrs. Hamil and he would still be alive right now, but instead he was under the Adoption Agency and in the care of the Overtons. A foster parent should know by the CPS and adopton agency guidelines not to punish a kid with food in any manner. --And if someone actually thinks that Cajun spice was to 'soothe' Andrew as Hannah testified, then there is some Oceanfront property out in Arizona........
We will find out more what went on in that home when Larry's trial begins. Some things are still a matter of opinion right now and who to believe.
And I can just see poor little Andrew going outside and keep on looking for his Spiderman sheets.
Rest in peace little Angel ....you will never be hungry again.
Posted by deprecain on September 14, 2007 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Explain to me, the day the verdict was read that the channel 3
reporter, Katy Kiser and the reporter from the Caller Times
were crying alongside all the Calvary chapel supporters.
Many of you will say because its justice for Andrew or maybe
at that moment they realized their biased reporting sent an
innocent woman to jail for the rest of her life simply because
she waited too long to seek medical attention for andrew.
She was found not guilty by the jury of all the things you keep
going over here: her sentence was handed down because
she waited too long to get Andrew help.
Posted by martinj100 on September 14, 2007 at 6:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Judge and jury for this conviction! I read all these inputs and some of them are just wow. I don't agree that she should be free of anything. What she did was horrible. Just because a little boy is bad you don't give him CAJUN SPICES and water. Even if that didn't kill him, and he did suposedly pick something up off the floor and eat it, she waited to get medical attention!!!! As a mother, she should of seen signs that something was not right with this little one. Someone commented that he was such a bad kid and had bad eating habbits yet she was trying to adopt him. That doesn't make any sense. If she could not handle him, she should of contacted the Foster care office and been honest. Instead, she kept him in her so called care and now look where it led this child. May Andrew rest in peace. This lady and her followers need to stop crying about how she is not guilty of killing him, and face the facts the she is and so is her husband.
Posted by e2inc.net on September 14, 2007 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Look guys, John Gilmore was the woman's attorney and we have the resultant guilty verdict. John Gilmore is one of the most capable attorneys one can have as representation facing a murder charge. I have seen him perform wonders for the criminally accused. It don't get any better for Hannah than she has right now.
I dont think she intended to kill the little boy but I dont think a parent soothes her toddler child with such a concoction. It is obvious she blames the child for things for which only the adult can be responsible.
Andrew is not the one on trial.
Another thing, I know Dr Ray Fernandez. There is no way he would stand by the results, if he believed otherwise. Not just to convict a person.
D1, I dont see anything positive coming from continuing this discussion. Endeavor elsewhere unless.............
You just like arguing with the unreasonable.
Her advocates will never change public opinion and Hannah will remain in a cage where she belongs.
Now it is the father's turn.
He knew what was going on and allowed it to continue and escalate.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 14, 2007 at 6:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
deprecain.......Post 6:03 pm........When I heard the verdict I cried.
Where I heard the verdict was in my own home. The emotion of caring so much for the life and death of little Andrew since all this happened and it being on my mind every day just really got to me. No one was around. It was not for a tv camera or fellow mourner that I cried. It just hit me.
I can imagine the reporters crying too. We are all human. Andrew's pitiful death has saddend a whole community, not just those who knew him up close.
I do not rejoice in Hannah going to prison. No one does. This affects 5 other children. But everyone wants justice. It is a matter of opinion now about the jury verdict. Some respect it and others do not. It was indeed an emotional time waiting for the verdict to come in and then hearing it.
Actually, I don't think humans crying that day of the verdict needs any explaination, no matter what one's opinion of Hannah may be.
Posted by kwork25 on September 14, 2007 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp said:
"As for Googleing "Larry Overton" Corpus Christi 3rd page? theres a link to breast feeding dot com, then you say a link to a forum.
For the life of me I cannot locate it. I wanted to hear what Larry's sister had to say. Can you help? Thanks"
Just click the link to brestfeeding dot com and that is the fourm. The name of the thread is "This has hit me very hard" ... the poster's name is Love_Monkey ... hope you find it ... I also found it by typing in google the name of thread like this with quotes "this has hit me very hard" ... it came up on the first page of google ... there are 67 pages to that thread once you are on the fourm just make you you start reading on page one. I didn't read all the other comments from the other users ... it was too long to do that. Let me know if you have problems.
Posted by aquila on September 14, 2007 at 9:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
**********************************************************************
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rjorgenson, I understand Hannah is your friend and I understand your loyalty. Hannah is not my friend and that is why it is easier for those of us on the outside looking in to see what is what.
***********************************************************************
Jenbarcor: Let me get this right--you didn't know Hannah, but based on false reports published in this paper and shown on TV, you feel that you and others that didn't know Hannah can better evaluate Hannah than all the people that knew her? This is pretty twisted logic. It would be like a doctor who diagnosed a patient by asking random strangers what they thought the patient's symptoms were. BTW, I didn't know Hannah either. All my arguments for Hannah's innocence are based on testimony/evidence presented in the trial. This cannot be said for many of the posters who are relying on information not presented in the trial or "personal research"--not of Hannah but of her family.
BTW, It is pretty telling that even the prosecution's witnesses (neighbor and family) thought highly of Hannah as a mother.
ccskibunney: Please don't take this wrong, but not everyone is like you. I am hoping that there is someone in your church that you feel you can talk with and be totally honest with. if you do not have any sort of close relationship with any of the folks you attend church with, that is pretty sad. Church should be about more than sitting with a bunch of strangers for an hour and then going home--whatever church it is that it is that one attends.
Posted by springsnow417 on September 14, 2007 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marlana-
No, Calvary and Bay Area Fellowship are not at all affliated; however, the Overtons were counted among the core members of Bay Area in 1998 when the church began. They were the first youth leaders there and Hannah also sang in the worship band. Bay Area Fellowship is a baptist church, but they won't tell you that until you go to their membership class.
Posted by jenbarcor on September 14, 2007 at 11:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aguilla, yes you have it right, I do not know Hannah but here we go again. I will admit I was not on the jury, I did not know her, I have never heard of her until Andrew’s death, I did not form an opinion of her guilt or innocence from any news reporting, news paper, posters, friends, family or countrymen. I don’t care who her father, mother, grandfather, in-laws, or church are.
I’m sure it’s frustrating for you and her supporters to not understand why I don’t get your belief in her innocence. I’ve read your postings (speaking to all supporters), it just does not make sense to me that you want me to believe that every single person involved in the medical field, investigation, and prosecution has lied and only Hannah has told the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help her God.
Sursumtx post at 3:55 stated: Have you ever heard the story about the 5 blind men who come upon an elephant? Each one feels just one part of the elephant and is sure that the elephant is like a tree, or a fan, or a rope, etc. Each person in this incident saw just a piece of the story.
Ok, no, I have never heard of this story but the jurors were not blind, they were not 5 of them, there were 12 and they all felt the elephant and they all saw not just a piece of the story but the whole story. They based their conclusion on the elephant that every other person has seen except those who support her.
For those jurors to be wrong they would have to be complete idiots and unable to think for themselves, they would all have to be puppets of the prosecution. Please don’t insult those jurors. And don’t assume they were tainted by the media. They worked hard, they listened carefully to both sides, they went over all evidence and they found her guilty not of abuse but of failing to seek medical care. She waited too long and a little boy died. You may not think that is worthy of going to prison but it wasn’t up to me or you it was up to those jurors. They did their job and now they deserve our respect.
Posted by ccskibunny on September 15, 2007 at 6:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
aquila: I appreciate your comments, but you missed my point and have read other things into my post which I clearly did not state.
I did not say I was not close with any of my church family......... I simply said they don't know what I actually do in the privacy of my own home.
Therein lies the rub...........you see only what you WANT to see or read into something and have made incorrect assumptions. We all want to believe the best in people, but real life does not work that way. Perhaps that is why you don't WANT to see Hannah as a child abuser. The jury did not make incorrect assumptions as you have, they listened to the evidence and facts presented to them and made a difficult but correct decision.
A child died at Hannah's hands, and whether his death was intentional or not, she must face responsibility for her actions and / or inactions. I don't believe she intended to cause his death. I think the abuse just finally went too far, RESULTING in his death. There is a fine line between the two. I truly believe if Andrew had been with the previous foster mom, he would still be alive today.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 15, 2007 at 8:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
springsnow--thanks for the answer.
I did not sit in the courtroom during the trial so I don't know all the testimony, but there is something that troubles me.
One of the nurses from the urgent care clinic testified to the vomit smell on Andrew's shirt and body.
If Hannah took the time to show Andrew how to clean up the vomit off the floor, wouldn't she take the time to help him clean it off himself?
Also, LE testified there was no poop smeared on the walls or bedding or floor. Did Hannah & Andrew clean that as well before the trip to the Urgent Care Clinic? If she took the time to show him how to clean vomit off the floor, why not go a step further and show him how to wash his sheets instead of burning them--I'm sure they cost money.
And for those people who think Hannah was some kind of martyr, there's a disease that describes that. Maybe Hannah fed him certain mixtures to make him ill so she would look like the saint people thought she was when she took care of the messes he made.
I don't know Hannah. But I know the jury must have heard enough to find that Hannah went too far (as stated above) and caused the death of Andrew.
Maybe it's time for Hannah's church to step up to the plate, accept the decision until the appeal is made, and help the Overton children (the true victims--Hannah is NOT a victim--time to see that).
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana2002, Hannah testified that Andrew vomited in the car on the way to the clinic, twice. First he vomited, aspirated it, and stopped breathing. Hannah gave him CPR. As she was doing that, he vomited again. Vomit in his lungs found during the autopsy and the testimony of the medical assistants supports her testimony.
The poop incidents occurred the day before and earlier that day, She & Larry had already cleaned up the poop.
From Hannah's testimony, it sounds like Larry thought the sheets were too stained to try to salvage so he threw them away. I gather they didn't have a specific conversation about the sheets. Larry came home from church to find Andrew with poop all over his bed and himself, with Hannah gagging when she tried to clean it up as she was pregnant. Larry took Andrew, the sheets, and the foam mattress outside and hosed them all down after the first poop incident. That's when he apparently decided not to try to wash the sheets. She said Andrew kept going to get them out of the trash and she was not sure how they got into the BBQ.
I don't know the martyr complex to which you're referring. The idea that these two young parents were trying to be "saints" by cleaning up poop and vomit is odd to me. I certainly cleaned up poop & vomit when my child was young and didn't consider myself particularly virtuous for doing so.
As to why the people of Hannah's church and those who love her and those who disagree with the injustice she has gotten continue to protest and defend her, well, it's because we believe so strongly in her innocence that we are willing to risk our reputation on it.
Yes, there will be an appeal. The appellate process can be very slow. Meanwhile, this young woman is in prison, her 5 young children are without her and suffering the pain of losing their mother, and her husband awaits trial as well.
If you believed her innocent, would you not do the same?
Posted by marlana2002 on September 15, 2007 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sursum--perhaps you should have testified if you did not. Maybe the jury would have bought all your explanations.
I don't. But we're all entitled to our opinions, aren't we?
Posted by kawyam on September 15, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hannah was not found guilty of any abuse - her sentence was
handed down because she waited too long to get him medical
attention. After almost 3 weeks of testimony, the jurors could
NOT find her g uilty of any intent or abuse. But as the laws are
written they could only make a judgement on capitol murder
with intent or with ommission. Since they did not find her guilty
of any intention they were only left with omission. Yes, the jury
has made its decision but it seems a bit harsh when she was
never fould guilty of all the things many of you keep going over.
I believe Andrew had an underlying disease, to do with salt in
his body that nobody was aware of. The entire system has let
Andrew down, somewhere somebody should have noticed he
ate and drank excessively . I know this won't chane any of your
closed minds - but I repeat the JURY did not find her guilty of
abuse, intent or salt poisoning; if anything it was a bad judgement
does that deserve life? This sets a precedent - if a child of
yours becomes ill you better get him medical attention quickly
oh and by the way what is the responsible time allowed by
law?
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Spiderman sheets did not belong in the trash or the Barbecue pit. They most likely could have been washed. I could recommend a good detergent with bleach.
It is very difficult to perform CPR on a vomiting child in the car.
At least he was still alive long enough to vomit two more times on the way to the CLINIC.
We will soon find out from Larry''s testimony more details of what happened resulting in the death of little Andrew.
He must have been weak from so much pooping and vomiting.
His last hours on earth were not pleasant ones.
How he must have suffered being so sick.
None of this was his fault, no matter how he was painted by the defense.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kwork, ......All of Beth Overtons children were homeschooled including Larry. There is no outside influence. Just home and church.
This is a very tight knit family. I guess Hannah's children were
homeschooled too? I agree public school is not always good
for our kids, we have to choose whats best for us. But some-
times its just too much to have 6 children at home and 4 of them
are ready to attend school. Things can get very chaotic.
Posted by yomamma on September 15, 2007 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I stand by my cult statements earlier.....these people are weirdos and i don't thinkI've ever seen such "unChristianness" from "alleged Christians." They ignore those not of their cult which is not a Christian attitude. And you cult members know i'm right!!!
I have changed my penalty thoughts though. I believe that Hannah should be given a "punishment" adult dose of the cajun spice mixture. If she survives, she doesn't have to serve a life sentence...just 20-30 years or so. If not.......
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
jenbarcor,
Based on your 11:43 p.m post, I surmise that your opinion is based on the jury's verdict. They found her guilty, so she must be – is that what you mean?
That’s a reasonable assumption, given what we've all been taught about how the legal system is supposed to work.
I’m sure it’s frustrating for you and her detractors to not understand why many of us don’t support the jury's decision.
Simply on the face of it, there are some documented notable exceptions to the wisdom of juries and the integrity of prosecutors, such as:
1. Despite the fact that the jury worked longer than in the Overton case, the jury in the OJ Simpson case found him innocent. Most of the US populace disagreed.
2. The Duke lacrosse players case illustrated how an overzealous prosecutor can overstep the bounds.
3. In Dallas County alone, 13 innocent men have been freed after they were exonerated through DNA tests.
I don't believe most of the prosecution’s witnesses told the truth as they know it. One of the most vexing aspects of this case is the number of well-meaning people who did the best they could yet added to the problem.
I do believe there was something amiss in the way the charges were brought about, and the conclusion that was reached so quickly by the authorities. With CPS, it seems you are guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps that's best for most cases, but it sure can hurt the innocent.
My faith in the justice system has been shattered by this case. I used to be a strong proponent of the death penalty. Not anymore.
The jury heard each person's perception of one part of the story. If the jury were listening to the blind men who felt the elephant, they would hear one say the elephant was like a long hose, the next say the elephant was like a short rope, the next say the elephant was like a palm leaf, the next say the elephant was like a tree. Each felt only one part of the elephant -- just the trunk, the tail, the ear, or the leg.
The jury was then charged with figuring out what the elephant really looked like, based on the blind mens' testimony.
The jurors have my respect. They are not complete idiots. They did the best they knew how to do. A little boy’s death was categorized as homicide by the Nueces County ME. I believe they felt they had to find someone responsible. They found Hannah guilty of omission, not of poisoning Andrew. For reasons that I do not understand, they had no other options -- it was capital murder or nothing.
I also believe the jurors did not know the mandatory sentence for the crime for which they were finding Hannah guilty was life without parole.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 9:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
kawyam......I respect our opinion and your loyal support. I grieve that five children will be without a mother and may even be without a father soon.....They are the victims of what Hannah and maybe Larry did or did not do that day ......However.......Would you or anyone of us like to try drinking the same dose of the same potion that was given/forced on Andrew that morning by an LVN who should know better, and see if you think that amount was normal even to an adult, much less a little kid the age of 4.
And oh yes, if you or anyone drinking the spice mix should get cold and weak and vomit a lot, really a lot, don't confuse it with the Flu. Seek medical help immediately. Better yet, call 911.
However, if a person who intakes the Cajun seasoning potion actually feels "soothed" by so much sodium, then scratch the above.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 9:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's hard for me to imagine how Andrew could have been cold and unresponsive at home if he was still vomiting in the car. Has it actually been proven that he was unresponsive at HOME?
And I hate to say this, but if you gave my *husband* a choice between really working to get stains out of poopy sheets or throwing them away, he would throw them away every time regardless of cost. Were the sheets actually burned?
Posted by springsnow417 on September 15, 2007 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To the supporters:
I knew Hannah in the early Bay Area Fellowship days and I personally don't think that she or Larry would ever intend to do something to cause a child's death; however, have you ever heard the saying that you never know someone until you live with them? Every year there is a story that generates national news regarding a member of a church. We hear of a pastor's wife killing her husband, Andrea Yates (very active in her church) killed her children, the BK killer was "a very active leader in his church". He was a serial killer for YEARS and also VERY INVOLVED in his church and community. No one at his church, and no one at the churches of the other examples I provided, wanted to believe that a member of their flock could have possibly done the actions of which they were accused of. All I am saying is that you never REALLY know someone AND we all have free will. I learned a very hard lesson about putting faith in people. People will ALWAYS disaapoint you. You all need to trust that God is in control and that He knows what's best in this situation. The bottom line is that the jury found her guilty of waiting too long. This FACT can't be DEBATED. If she hadn't waited, we wouldn't be talking about CPR given in the car and we wouldn't talk about bruises from CPR.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise 123, you are right, If the sheets were soiled beyond imagination, then yes, I too would opt for throwing them away, but never in my wildest imagination would I burn them in the BBQ pit.
Most people would put them in a trash bag, tie up the trash bag and place it in your big GREEN trash can. My 5 year old would never be able to retrieve anything out of that huge trash can, It would fall over and crush her. So the sheet thing was probably mental punishment. Maybe Andrew didn't know that he had more of the same spiderman sheets in the linen closet. It sounded like it was emotional abuse.
When you take something away from a child for punishment, you do not destroy the toy in front of the child. That is cruel and wrong.
I will say again, she does not deserve to go to prison for the rest of her natural life. She does deserve some kind of punishment for her negligence.
I read some of the timeline of events that took place in that hour and a half that Andrew needed medical help. It states that she was on the phone quite a bit during that time.
It also states she called an EMT friend in Oklahoma 450 times from the time of 3:29 to 4:16 p.m. That sends up a red flag for me there. She knew Andrew needed help but opted to call someone in Oklahoma instead of our local 911. This is proven on her phone records. That reaks of panic and coverup or maybe she just couldn't afford the ambulance (they are expensive). I don't know.
But let me say this, if my child was in this situation I would not let money be an issue. I would figure out how I going to pay for it at a later date. None of it makes sense. None of it.
I hope she has a new trial with a lesser charge. I do think some punishment is in order here.
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 10:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
e2inc.net, John Gilmore is an excellent attorney. He personally believes Hannah is innocent. Even excellent attorneys lose cases. Nobody bats 1000%.
Dr Ray Fernandez, the Nueces Count Medical Examiner may indeed be a fine person. The facts are that he performs more autopsies per year than the National Medical Examiner's Association allows, to the extent that his accreditation with them is under review. He works for not only Nueces County but also for 14 surrounding counties. To me, it seems way past time that he got some help, considering his workload.
I don't particularly care for arguing with the unreasonable. But if you believed her innocent, what would you do?
Your comments that "Now it is the father's turn. He knew what was going on and allowed it to continue and escalate." indicate that you have already tried & convicted Larry Overton in your own personal court of opinion.
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My dearest rrempp,
Some items in your post are inaccurate.
She did not call her EMT friend 450 times. The "450" is an indication of what time she called, per someone's post on here. It should have read "4:50." I don't have the timeline details yet, but I do know your supposition is off-target.
Hannah testified that the showed Andrew the other sheets he had. Young children, in my experience, do not always listen to reason when they are emotionally charged about something. This doesn't make them "bad" children --it just means they are children. don't believe there are "bad" children, and neither do Hannah or Larry.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
springsnow417__________Well said.
And just yesterday, I was shocked while watching the news about the Jeff Warrens trial.
Up there in Utah this religious fanatic aides and abetts little girls marrying old men, couisins, and so on. In the name of religion.
The judge in this trial is another one of those liberal judges and is being brought out to the forefront for what he said to the jury.
He had the audacity to tell the jurors that: "Poligumy is a form of civil disobedience, the same as that of blacks sitting in the back of the bus during times of segregation. Poligumists also preach about Black people being the devil. How can "Judge Shumete" tell the jurors that what is going on in Jeff Warrens compound is normal? The raping of 12, 13, 14 year old girls who are forced into incestual marriages? This goes on in the USA and I am appalled that nothing can be done about it. This group shuns outsiders and have their own little world within our world. Religion cannot prove that you have a good soul. Bottom line, Jeff Warrens will probably walk. Watch and see.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp, do we know that the sheets were actually burned? If they were, do we know that they were disposed of in front of Andrew? I have small children and it's not hard for me to imagine my dh saying--and it wouldn't have to be done nastily either--something like, "I'm sorry, but these sheets are so yucky we have to throw them out." And I can also see the 4yo trying to drag them out of the trash anyway.
I'm not from CC, so I'm not familiar with your trash can set up. We have a large bin here that's picked up by a device on the garbage truck. Our container is also big and heavy, but while my smallish 3yo couldn't get into it, it's very possible she could grab the handle and pull it down on its side, if it wasn't too full, open it that way, and get something out.
As the parent of young children, the above scenario isn't at all beyond my belief. Prove to me that the sheets were actually burned in the BBQ, in front of Andrew, and my feelings about this case would totally change. If that has been proven, I would have to agree that it would be emotional abuse.
I'm trying to imagine the stink from burning poopy, printed sheets--you'd about destroy your BBQ doing it.
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana2002, yes we are all entitled to our own opinions. That's one of the things that makes this a great nation.
And I do understand the questions on everyone's mind under the circumstances. That's why I am taking so much time to answer as many questions as I can.
I was not asked to testify as I did not have much first-hand experience about the matter. I did, however, follow the case closely, through the media and through friends who were present in the courtroom. I attended 4 days of the trial myself.
As I've written before, that even as well as I know Hannah, I also had some doubts before I heard her entire testimony and that of other witnesses.
Posted by springsnow417 on September 15, 2007 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
....and burning poop sheets on the grill you cook food to EAT? Yuck!
Posted by marisalazar002 on September 15, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by kawyam on September 15, 2007 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
.......somewhere somebody should have noticed he
ate and drank excessively . ....This sets a precedent - if a child of
yours becomes ill you better get him medical attention quickly
oh and by the way what is the responsible time allowed by
law
**************************************************************
That first someone was Hannah and Larry, as adoptive parents....I agree with you that he was a hard child to deal with, may have had an eating disorder, maybe even some emotional issues (given all the turmoil in his short life), but even you have to admit that these were just assumptions.....no diagnosis were made to support those assumptions....so that defense goes out the window.....this may have been an accident, but apparently the testimony and evidence was enough to convince the jury that she did not get him the medical attention he needed......as for the precendent that is supposedly is going to be set....I don't belive that....there would have to be a series of unexplained or incredible situations happen for a medical professional to suspect of child abuse or endangerment.....I think there should be some faith in medical care that Driscoll Children's hospital or other medical facility provides its patients....
Posted by deprecain on September 14, 2007 at 3:48 p.m..provides somewhat of a credible history.....but that would mean you would have to discount every single shred of evidence and testimonyand history gathered and believe that this entire situation is a conspiracy.......I am not judging Hannah, that's been done in the court of public opinion AND in a court of law....it's unfortunate....Hannah has the right to appeal her guilty verdict...to her loyal supporters, respectfully, I say to you that anything is possible under the sun....she may have been wrongly accused, tried and convicted OR she was capable of fooling everyone....I don't know which, and it's not for me to judge, but keep praying, the truth will come out some day...soon I hope.
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kawyam, I agree with you 100%. Every parent in Texas (and ultimately the US) better make sure they know exactly what is going on with their child in a reasonable timeframe (and what is reasonable according to the law?) and get them to a medical facility, and pray they don't die.
Notice, the ruling was not that Hannah gave him the spice mix, and then was unresponsive for 1 and 1/2 hours, and that's why she was convicted - the jury poll clearly indicated that she was convicted because she failed to act.
So louise_shirley - your argument is moot - it's not if you give your child a spice cocktail and then can't figure out whether he has salt poisoning or the flu and fail to take him to the hospital - but rather this precedent is if your child is sick and you don't get him to the hospital within a reasonable time, then you could be held liable for capital murder (if he's under six).
Most strains of flu nowadays last longer than the one and a half hours of Hannah's 'unresponsiveness' ; and these strains can make one violently ill - but, now according to this precedent, you better make sure that you get medical attention within the first hour and a half.
I guess the ER's in Nueces County and Texas will be full now of kids who have the 24-hour bug, because, parents might be scared to death (pun intended) to let it run its course.
I don't know why some of you think that the Overton's are so terrible for getting rid of dirty sheets. If it were me, and I had other sheets to use, I would probably throw feces covered and stained sheets away too. Even if I didn't have other sheets readily available, I might even come up with makeshift sheets just to avoid handling dirty sheets - that's not unreasonable at all to me.
And, contrary to popular belief, I believe that Hannah and her church have accepted the decision - after all, what choice do they have? But I also am glad that they are going to appeal, after all, it is their right to do so.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
annaleise.....post 9:40 am.
Hannah testified he was cold at home, she got him a warm blanket. He coded out in the car, was revived and vomited some more. That had to be a horrible trip by car to a CLINIC. If she had called 911 then she would not have had to perform CPR in the car while Larry was driving. The kid was sick. But was it the Flu or anything close to the Flu. No, as it turned out it was sodium overdose. Was Hannah truthful to the medical staff about how much sodium she had given him that very day?
The truth might could have saved him. Calling 911 in time might could have saved him. How much can a little boy vomit and still live without medical intervention.
It is all so tragic and we can't stop analyzing this horrible loss of life. Because the victim was a small child.
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana2002, Hannah testified that Andrew vomited in the car on the way to the clinic, twice. First he vomited, aspirated it, and stopped breathing. Hannah gave him CPR. As she was doing that, he vomited again. Vomit in his lungs found during the autopsy and the testimony of the medical assistants supports her testimony.
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by springsnow417 on September 15, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How many of the 12 disciples who were with Jesus were shocked that Judas betrayed Jesus in the ultimate way? My guess would be 11.
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ratpak13, per your 5:28 p.m., you are the only one who seems to be "reliving those ghastly days in the mid 80's when Hannah's own father, continued to decieve his family and church."
You say "But let's not beat a dead horse" yet you are the only one who continues to present the horse.
Do you have some kind of personal vendetta against her father?
Remember that when you make these "crime is genetic" arguments, you are, by default of your logic, condemning 5 children under the age of 9, as they got half their DNA from their mother Hannah who has now been convicted of capital murder. Their father is also accused of the same crime. If he is convicted, then by your reasoning, they will be 100% "tainted" and I cynically suggested in an earlier post that you might prefer they all be locked up immediately.
Are you subscribing, perhaps, to the gospel of Shakespeare?
"The sins of the father are to be laid upon the children." - Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice," act III, sc. V, l. 1
In the Old Testament, I found these passages:
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin" (Deut. 24:16).
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him" (Ezek. 18:20).
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumtx_______
thank you for clearing that up. I thought that sounded impossible.
Maybe she just stayed on the phone with this EMT from Oklahoma from 3:29 to 4:16. That still sends up a red flag. Remember,
Andrew is needing medical attention while she is on the phone with this EMT from Oklahoma.
And "just because Hannah said" does not make it the truth. She will say whatever it takes to cover her butt. Of course she's going to say she told Andrew he had other sheets! (While on the stand) (Why not take a lie detector test?)
She told Larry's sister that Andrew had pooped and smeared it just to get at her. Was this not true? She was upset that Andrew had done this on purpose. I don't see how that corelates with telling Andrew "here honey, I've got some fresh brand new ones for you"
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp,
If the judge in Utah did what you reported, then I am appalled beyond description. Polygamy, especially with underage girls, is not civil disobedience in this country, as far as I know. If it is, then some laws need to be re-written.
gotta go, all, as I still have a life.
Posted by sursumtx on September 15, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
one more thing . . .
I am told the Nueces County DA was on Spanish-language radio this week, proclaiming how tough his office is on child abuse, pointing to this case and saying the jury found her guilty of poisoning Andrew.
If the report is true, then that's a lie right there. The jury found her guilty of omission, not of child abuse or poisoning. Judge Longoria was careful to clarify that, and I am grateful that he did so.
Can anyone confirm or deny the report about the DA's statement on Spanish-language radio?
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
annaannelise123______________-You are grasping at straws.
Common sense must prevail. An adult is much bigger and stronger than a 4 year old child. You make this small child look as if he was a little monster controlling everything that went on in Hannah's presence. Give me a break. I guess the authorities who searched Hannah's home just made up a lie about sheets being in the BBQ pit. They thought (police, DA) they'd throw that in for fun I guess.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
louise_shirley wrote:
Hannah testified he was cold at home, she got him a warm blanket. He coded out in the car, was revived and vomited some more. That had to be a horrible trip by car to a CLINIC. If she had called 911 then she would not have had to perform CPR in the car while Larry was driving. The kid was sick. But was it the Flu or anything close to the Flu. No, as it turned out it was sodium overdose. Was Hannah truthful to the medical staff about how much sodium she had given him that very day?
The truth might could have saved him. Calling 911 in time might could have saved him. How much can a little boy vomit and still live without medical intervention.
***********************
Saying he was cold does not mean he was unresponsive at home. Do you have young children? Do you have friends with young children who get the stomach flu? I have had kids with the common stomach flu vomit up to 13 times and I've never taken them to the ER. After a few hours of vomiting, I did call the pede's office to see if there was something they could take for the nausea, because I was afraid they were getting dehydrated, but that was not even as fast as Hannah reacted with Andrew. How I responded is not unusual, I don't think, from how my friends with kids with the stomach flu would respond. It didn't even occur to me to take them to the ER.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's just assume that Hannah did not mean to harm Andrew. Let's assume that she gave him just one teaspoon of the seasoning, as she said she did. Combining that teaspoon with the amount of sodium in the soup adds up to a lot right there, but how many of us are keeping track of the sodium our kids ingest unless we know there's a reason to? As someone else pointed out, a Mighty Kids meal at McDonald's would've had even more.
And let's assume that he did have an underlying medical condition that made his body react fatally to the amount of sodium he'd ingested. If she actually did only give him a teaspoon of it, there would be no reason for her to think that she had done something that had the potential to kill him, and she might very well not have connected the dots. It is honestly not that unusual for a child with the flu to throw up many times, and it's not necessarily a dire emergency.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok annelise 123___________I'll try to assume. Its hard, I'm trying, but.........
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Somewhere along the line this point is being missed......and that is.....Hannah KNEW how much sodium she had just given Andrew. If she had connected the dots then she would have gotten him help sooner and not been on the phone to Oklahoma or anywhere else. She, being an LVN, would have considered the possibility of sodium overdose.
Back to the sheets, one more time.....I guess I am like a lot of others on here who can just picture a little boy crying for his FAVORITE Spiderman sheets he got from the aunt for his birthday. Of course most kids don't care which sheets they use if they are every day sheets, they can be blue or white or whatever. But apparently, he wanted THOSE sheets and it was important to him in his little 4 year old mind.
Back to him being cold......after he said he was cold and could still talk to even say he was cold, after that he became unresponsive. Then Hannah, being an LVN, knew she had given him a ton of sodium and then it was time to connect the dots. She did not have her other children present in the house to take care of and go change a diaper, etc. She only had Andrew to think about, and apparently, she did not think he was sick enough to dial 911. Big mistake.
Does it warrant being sent to prison for life without parole. The jury who heard all the evidence said yes.
What is NOT MOOT is that if it were not for the sodium overdose and Hannah's obsession with giving him Cajun spice he would be alive today.
Now my question remains......was this the very first and only time she gave the potion to this child, or any other child for that matter. Also.....did she or Larry ever drink the potion to soothe themselves so therefore she would relate it to Yes....give hungry little Andrew some spice potion to SOOTHE him. After all, wasn't a medicine bottle of the spice handy for such a purpose right on the bookshelf. True or false.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise........You have hit the nail on the head.......when you wrote........"If she actually did only give him a teaspoon of it, there would be no reason for her to think that she had done something that had the potential to kill him, and she might very well not have connected the dots."
However,
Maybe that is not what she actually did. Maybe she gave him a very large dose for his 4 year old little body. Maybe she should not have given him any dose at all.
Posted by springsnow417 on September 15, 2007 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that we should disregard the fact that Hannah is an LVN. "Common Sense 101" is not a course offered or required with the Del Mar nursing program. Common sense is something you either have or don't have. Lack of common sense is what I think this all boils down to.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LVNs are not RN's. You would not find LVNs in emergency rooms or trauma wards doing anything other than basic care. Prove to me that she studied salt poisoning as part of her training. I'm not a nurse, but I had never even heard of salt poisoning prior to this case. I seriously doubt that Hannah ever personally took care of someone with salt poisoning and would know the signs.
My mother is an RN (no longer practicing) and half the time when I call to ask her something about a medical problem with my kids she'll say, "Honey, I don't remember." How many of us actually remember the stuff we learned in college unless we're usining continually as part of our jobs? I do not think it's reasonable to say that just because she was an LVN she would recognize the signs of salt poisoning and be able to differentiate it from the stomach flu--which is a far more common scenario when you have kids in the house..
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So your reasoning, Louise_shirley is that because Andrew wanted his feces covered Spiderman sheets, that Hannah should have given them back to him - all dirty, and gross? Then you would have accused them of abuse by not providing clean sheets.
Your logic that a 4 year old boy wanted these sheets and it was mean of the Overtons' to deny them (for good reason in my opinion) does not hold any water in my opinion.
So you mean to tell me that you give a 4 year old everything he wants? To extrapolate on your logic, if all a 4 year old wanted to eat was chocolate, then you would give him chocolate for breakfast, lunch and dinner, because after all, he would be 'crying' for chocolate.
Again, you do not know how much of the cajun spice she gave to Andrew and again, the jury did not convict her of poisoning.
I will keep repeating the truth of this case as long as the lies keep being repeated.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like Jack Sparrow said in the move "Pirates of the Caribbean"
WHY MUST WE BURN THE RUM?
Now we find ourselves saying.......
WHY MUST WE BURN THE SHEETS?
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The sheets, to me, are the linchpin evidence. Because, in my mind, you have to be twisted to burn sheets in front of a child, ruining your grill in the process.
But if you didn't do that, and Larry's explanation is true, you have to look at the rest of the evidence. This is not just a case about someone snapping, and hitting and killing a child. If Hannah truly forced Andrew to consume 23 teaspoons of seasoning, that is not something you can just snap and do in a moment of rage. It would take serious work. Something like that would take time, as much time or more as it would take to smother or drown a child. I can't even imagine the struggle. Hannah was probably still in pain from the accident three weeks before, and she herself would surely have had scratches or shown signs of a struggle and the seasoning would have been all over her and her clothes. It's not something a semi-OK person would do in a moment of being overwhelmed.
So if Larry's sheets explanation is true, there's precious little evidence left that Hannah/and/or Larry were the kind of parents that would do that kind of thing.
*There's no evidence that Hannah or Larry smoke or had cigarettes in their home. The "cigarette burns" had been seen by a doctor.
*There's no evidence that they made Andrew sleep on bare plywood every night.
*There's a reasonable explanation for the video camera
*the bruises that were photographed on his body after his death were not noted by the paramedics and there is a logical medical explanation for them being there.
So what do you have left to prove that Hannah's a monster who would forcefully and methodically murder a little boy? Only two things: giving him any seasoning at all, and the delay in getting to the hospital. If she did give him a only teaspoon of seasoning, and his system went haywire, there would be no reason for her to think she had poisoned him. No reason to cover herself by not going in. Every reason to think he might have the common stomach flu, and thus NOT to rush him to the ER. Every reason to call someone else for help first.
If the evidence for her being an chronic abuser is gone, you've got to explain why this woman, who has many, many people willing to testify that she was a good mother, not only snapped one day when she was overwhelmed, but knowingly, deliberately, and with a lot of force made a little boy eat 23 teaspoons of seasoning and then watched him die. Where is your evidence that she was that kind of monster? From what I've read here, not much.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typo: move is movie
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
springsnow417
I totally agree with your post of September 15, 2007 at 9:56 a.m.
We truly don't know people at all, and the examples you gave are very frightening indeed as all professed some sort of church involvement. It's interesting that the Bible even tells us to 'trust no man whose breath is in his nostrils." Isaiah 2:22
I admit openly that I don't know Hannah, nor what happened that day. But neither do the majority of posters here, who continue to perpetuate proven lies, and other misinformation, and have tried, convicted, and condemned her in the court of public opinion. She was left to rot in prison by some here (by their own admission) long before the jury reached their verdict.
Yes, what happened to Andrew is very upsetting. But I think this injustice done by perfect strangers to the intimate details of this case is equally disturbing.
Posted by kwork25 on September 15, 2007 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sum said:
“I am told the Nueces County DA was on Spanish-language radio this week, proclaiming how tough his office is on child abuse, pointing to this case and saying the jury found her guilty of poisoning Andrew.
If the report is true, then that's a lie right there. “
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s amusing … so only one side is allowed to lie?
I have a question … I want to know what advice Pastor Rod and fellow church members gave Hannah on Andrews behavior? What did they tell her to do about it? How much pressure was put on Hannah to get Andrew to be obedient? How much pressure was put on her to adopt Andrew or was she just trying to keep up with the Jones?
I agree rrempp … isolation with a house full of kids can be rough … I read the Overton side of the family had concerns.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After typing out my previous post, I was curious. I got out a teaspoon set and the measuring cups. Twenty-three teaspoons is almost 3/4 of a cup. And that's not taking into account how much more than that he would have had to have eaten to throw up eight times and still have the 23 teaspoon level in his system. If there was nothing wrong with his ability to process salt, just how much more than 23 teaspoons would she have somehow had to force down him?
How big are the bottles of the seasoning Hannah gave him? I read here that it was found half full. Most of the seasonings in my cupboard are in 3.75 oz. or less. Was this a huge, Sam's Club sized bottle?
And another question. Was Andrew's mouth burned? Was the lining of his stomach starting to eat away? What about his esophagus from throwing up 3/4 cup or more of chili seasoning?
It just doesn't add up.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Annelise123 Give it a rest______________________________
Stay tuned for September 24, and maybe we will hear all of the story. Till then.......Stop it already, the jurors made their decision.
Accept it and move on.
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, I get it rrempp - 'your' side is allowed to continue on with lies and misinformation, but the other side needs to stop now. Incredible.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 2:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I do get it, You think its ok to give a 4 year old a teaspoon of Zahterahns spicy seasoning to soothe him.
Cum bye ya my lord cumbaya.
Too many variables in this equation. To many what if's.
I say Lie Detector Text and well take it from there.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 2:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So was a lie detector test given?
And how is it suddenly 1 teaspoon of seasoning? I thought it was 23+ to give him sodium levels that high.
Is it illegal to give your child a teaspoon of seasoning? Would it kill a normal child?
rrempp, you can't have it both ways. If you don't want to discuss this case, how come you haven't moved on?
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp,
Please show me where I said that it was ok to give a child spices? This time, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said that.
You're right - too many variables in this equation, too many what ifs.... and you see those all adding up to abuse, and others of us freely admit that we don't know what happened.
But because we don't know what happened, and I will say it again, neither do you, I refuse to base my opinion on a bunch of known lies and misinformation.
And you know what, rrempp, if this was you in jail, and so many here were saying these horrible things about you, I would still caution others not to condemn you without having the whole story.
Posted by aquila on September 15, 2007 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise123:
It is unfortunate, but most people made up their minds prior to the trial and based on all the false stories that were published (ie the supposed confession, "cigarette burns", and the "beat the blankety-blank" comments by an unnamed source). The presentation of evidence/testimony did not change a single mind. Even after the verdict came in, they still continued to call Hannah an abuser who tortured Andrew, and justified the jury's verdict based on their preconceptions.
I have, on several occasions, posted why I feel Hannah is innocent and used the testimony/evidence from the trial to support my view. No one has ever tried to refute me based on the evidence. In fact the only dialog I have seen arguing the facts is between cc1brother and factualcounterpoint, and that discussion turned ugly and much worse (on the part of factual) when factual (an RN) disagreed with cc1brother (a doctor).
Most posters have decided that rather than discuss the facts, they will just create and repeat stories which they have made up in their heads to justify their IMOs rather than base their IMOs on the evidence/testimony.
Most most amazing, many seem to be "researching" Hannah's family, church, etc.. in order to smear anyone who feels that Hannah was convicted unjustly. Surprisingly, none of these folks seem interested in doing real research, and I was really surprised at the reaction I received when I asked how to get a copy of the trial transcripts (one poster said pretty much for me to get over it, Hannah was an abuser and convicted by a jury of her peers).
No one seems truly interested in finding or discussing facts that would impact their existing opinions on this case.
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I totally agree with you aquila. It is sad what I have seen here. And I too am alarmed at all the 'research' designed to smear Hannah, her family, church, and anything they can find to support the justification of their IMO's.
God help us!
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We have discussed the "facts" till were blue in the face and you
aquila and annelise123 have distorted the facts. The "facts" were presented in court over a 3 week period and the jury heard the "facts" and that is the same conclusion that I came too. They did not want her to walk. She is guilty of Negligent Homicide and that should have been the charge, not Criminal Homicide. She should be granted a new trial with the lesser charge. I have not presented any distortions in my post. But bet your bottom dollar your gona come back and say I did.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
luvcalico________________-
In response to your post up above: If this was me sitting in jail at this very moment (which is unconceivable because I don't give spices to soothe my children and then wait 1 and a half hours to call 911) But lets just suppose I was sitting there, I WOULD BE SCREAMING FROM THE ROOFTOP THAT I WILL TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST!!! You can submit my other childrens testimony!! You can ask my other friends and family AND school teachers and my childrens friends if they ever saw me abuse them.
You could have the reciept of when I bought my surveilance camera and have the tapes that go with them. This whole thing is just WEIRD to say the least. Its doesn't make sense. I would never take 5 children into a store without their shoes on, or in diapers, or buy myself and icecream at McDonalds in front of my kids if they were not going to get one too. I would make sure my children (which they do) had a box spring to go with their foam mattress. I don't believe the police can just accuse you at random.
Too many variables that caused Andrews Death are what has her in jail right now. What are the odds of all these things taking place right before a child dies? Even Hannah's own sister in law stated that "she thought it was strange that Hannah claimed Andrew was not sick, he was just trying to tick her off" Too many variables.
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No distortions, huh rrempp?
How about this one
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 9:59 a.m.
"It also states she called an EMT friend in Oklahoma 450 times from the time of 3:29 to 4:16 p.m. That sends up a red flag for me there. She knew Andrew needed help but opted to call someone in Oklahoma instead of our local 911. This is proven on her phone records. That reaks of panic and coverup or maybe she just couldn't afford the ambulance (they are expensive). I don't know."
According to another post, she didn't call her friend 450 times, but rather the time was 4:50 - but no apology from you for either distorting this fact to justify your opinion, or at the very least for a typo.
Also, you distorted my view just a few posts up..... I never said that I agreed with her giving Andrew spices - and again, no apology for the 'distortion'......
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I made a mistake , sorry, I already said that but guess you didn't read all of my posts The fact remains, she was on the phone with somebody who could not get her the help she needed.
She had the wrong people on the phone while Andrew was dieing.
She needed 911 emergency, not EMT from Oklahoma.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp: So it's abusive if your child doesn't have a box spring? Do you realize what percentage of kids in America sleep on bunk beds without box springs? You are really grasping at straws here to prove somebody's guilt of murder.
I have four kids and I would and have bought ice cream for some of them without everyone getting one. Once you've got more than one child, and one of them has lost privileges, what are you going to do--punish everyone because one child has misbehaved? That's not fair to the children who have done whatever they needed to in order to earn a treat. I can promise you that if one of my children had smeared poop around earlier in the day, or pitched a fit, they would not be getting McDonalds. Would you rather she had spanked him?
Aquila, I'm not from Corpus Christi and I have no connection with the Overton family. I found out about this case several weeks ago and thus hadn't heard the initial stories about Hannah and Larry's supposed abuse until most of them had been rebutted. I can see that if it was anything like what keeps popping up here that finding an impartial jury would have been a challenge--to say the least. I'm appalled and only hope Larry's attorneys have learned something.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise123, she didn't have ALL the kids with her when the icecream incident took place.
Do you put plywood under them on your bunkbeds? I've got bunkbeds, and theres no plywood.
No none of this is abuse, just mean and unthoughtful to a foster child who has just moved in with you with no previous problems with his foster mom of 18 months Mrs. Hamil. Stranger than fiction isn't it.
If she is innocent then the appeal process will set her free. Won't it? So let it all play out. Then we'll debate it some more.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp: Are you saying that only Andrew's bed was constructed this way? I know I've read here that several of the children slept on homemade bunkbeds.
Andrew's social worker would have been in and out of that home. Either they were hiding the bed he slept in, or she had seen it and deemed it appropriate.
My kids don't sleep on bunkbeds. I don't like them for safety reasons, but it never occured to me that putting plywood under the mattresses would be worse than slats, which is all most of them have. If anything, plywood is safer.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. His behavior at Sharon Hamil's means nothing and everything. He had spent half his life with her. When he left there, the second major bond of his life had just been broken. Just because he adjusted once didn't mean it wasn't traumatic for him to switch homes a second time. It's actually demeaning to Andrew (and to Sharon Hamil) to assume that breaking that bond meant nothing to him and his behavior in the next home wouldn't reflect that hurt. He was ripe for RAD after leaving his first foster home in a way that he would not have been if he had never left the Hamil's. Children aren't puppies that can just be shuffled around with no scars to them.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise123__________-
You have just replied with a logical and most likely a truthful observation. I cannot imagine my children being uprooted from their home and not having issues with it. That bond that we share with our children is inseperable. It would be like ripping my heart out and theirs likewise. What you just said in your 3:48 post does make sense to me. You hit a homerun with that one.
I would never....and I do mean never want an innocent person to sit in jail and have her children taken away from her because of a mistake. Lets leave this in Gods hands and let him work through the Appeals Process and maybe things will work out for her.
Have a nice day. #: >)
Posted by aquila on September 15, 2007 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rrempp:
I'm going to surprise (but hopefully not disappoint) you. I did a quick review of your comments on this thread, and based on what I reviewed, I can say that based on the facts, your comments do not fall in the same category as some of the other posters who appear to be attempting to smear Hannah's family or church. I would say, however, re: your 13 Sep 11:54 post, that Hannah did react how you feel she should have reacted (cry) during her testimony--you just never saw it on TV.
There has been no real discussion of the facts. To say otherwise is intellectually dishonest. There has been two sides making comments, and if you are honest with yourself (as I expect you will be) you must admit many of the comments have been stories made up in poster's minds. No one has seriously tried to refute any of the items I have posted based on what we know of the trial. And I stand by my statements regarding cc1brother/factual.
Probably most telling, is your accusation of my having "distorted the facts" without identifying anything specific that I have posted. If you are as honest with yourself as I expect, you will see that your response to my posting directed at Annelise is consistent with what I said in same posting.
You are entitled to your opinion, but if you seriously wish to have a discussion as opposed to just restating your opinion, I would challenge you to review my 13 Sep 11:54 posting, and tell me specifically which items you find distorted, and to back up your position based on what was presented as evidence/testimony during the trial.
Posted by dsmyle1ncc on September 15, 2007 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just my two cents for today..... I wish they would take this blog down. It has become a battle ground with no chance of a winner. I see nothing on here other than belittling of others. The facts are what they are. Everyone can argue this until they are blue in the face, but the point is.... a little boy died due to..... do we truly know what? Sodium poisoning? Underlying illness that was never detected? A mother of 4 has been sentenced to life in prison.... now 4 more children in this world are motherless.... and I am still completely unsure how she got life in prison when others who INTENTIONALLY murder others with their drunk driving and other hate do not receive the same. A father is now standing trial for??? If he wasn't there I am not sure why he is being held accountable for this as well... but then again.... I don't truly want to hear about this case anymore. We need to move forward and take care of those who are living and do something to improve the world instead of spending countless hours and keystrokes that are not producing anything productive.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks, rrempp, I appreciate that. As a result of Hannah's conviction last week, I've been putting myself in her shoes thinking of all that's she's missing and all that her children and husband are missing and will continue to miss. I'm living in the moment with my kids and am deeply grateful for them and for my life with them in a way that I don't think I was before. That's probably something we can all agree on, whether we think Hannha is guilty or innocent.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I stand by my posts of 11:23 am and 11:33 am. today.
I still would like to know if this was Hannah's first potion, or did she ever at any time at all give to Andrew or the other kids, or did she or Larry ever drink it?
And I agree with whoever wrote that LVN or no LVN or RN or any kind of education, commom sense could have saved the day. Just a lick of common sense. Especially from the very person who knew FULL WELL just how MUCH cajun sodium seasoning she had actually given to Andrew. She has not admitted to the true amount it seems to me. I could be wrong of course, but that is what I think. Hannah and only Hannah could tell the truth about that.
No sense in mentioning the sheets anymore. Most kids don't care about sheets but Andrew did. And most people can find some detergent and bleach, but they chose not to. No big deal. It is just strange to some of us the way the Overtons did, but to others it is not.......Little Andrew had an attachment to those Spiderman birthday sheets. Some kids are like that, some aren't.
Posted by luvcalico on September 15, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When I started posting here, I told myself that I would be fair minded, objective and not resort to personal attacks on anyone.
With my last few postings, I see that I need a break from this forum and from those who would continue to misrepresent and perpetuate lies about this case.
The only point that I have been trying to make in the last few days is that we all need to be careful not to judge someone without knowing all the facts in the case. And, we can't know all the facts just by reading something in the paper or watching news reports.
By the way, I have never meant to disparage the jury in this case. I think they had a extremely difficult decision to make, and I think they probably did the best they could with what they were given. I'm thankful that I wasn't on that jury.
But again, there are just so many details that aren't known, but others here and on other boards have so vehemently stated that Hannah should rot in jail with a cajun spice cocktail even days before the verdict was read in court.
That to me is so unfair, and so wrong. It is appalling when the response to Aquila's wanting a transcript of the trial is met with such hatred and lies.
I would even go so far to say that one of you made a legally slanderous statement on this very board, and I would caution against that. The post of September 13, 2007 at 10:09 a.m. says that Pastor Rod took in convicted murders (I guess it should be murderers)...well, that first of all regarding Hannah - that statement isn't even true as she went directly to jail after her conviction, but it is slander about Larry, as his trial has not even started yet. Again, you have tried, and convicted someone even before the jury warms up the seats in the courtroom.
Yet another example of what I am talking about here. More lies, slander, distortions.
I, for one, look forward to the appeals process.
Peace out.
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lousie_shirley, it really doesn't matter what Hannah said she gave him. If you're going to go by the medical testimony, it was 23+ teaspoons, or about 3/4 a cup, assuming he had no problems processing salt. If he did have a salt processing problem, even the soup he'd had that day could have killed him.
And I ask again. Just HOW did she get 3/4 of a cup of seasoning into a 4yo boy without it being all over her, all over the kitchen, and without it doing serious damage to his mouth, esophagus, and stomach?
Posted by annelise123 on September 15, 2007 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And another thing. If she was trying to cover herself, I would think that the very first thing she would've done was changed his shirt and thrown it into the wash to get rid of the evidence. The fact that it didn't seem to occur to her to do that weighs in her favor, IMO. The fact that Larry didn't do it either to me means that they weren't sitting around trying to figure out how to cover themselves.
Posted by aquila on September 15, 2007 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
After reading dsmyle1ncc's comments, I find myself in agreement with his/her comments. I finally realized how many hours I had spent attempting to use reasoned arguments to support my position and in my honest attempt to better understand what happened. I now realize that that is impossible in this forum.
to rrempp and all the other posters who I believe have tried to stick to the facts but who have come to different conclusions than I: I believe that I have attempted to be as intellectually honest in stating my conclusions as you have been, and at this point, I am hoping that we can agree to disagree.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
annelise, I appreciate your comments. However, I do believe that it matters what amount Hannah has owned up to that she gave him. It had to be more than she originally told the doctors upon his admittance. If she had truly told just how much, and only she knows just how much, Hot Cajun Spice she had actually fed the child. then they would as medical people been more alert to his sodium poisoning. Even tho all the doctors involved are Emergency Room qualified, they just dont want to think a Mother would give a four year old Child that much spice. It happens.....but just not every day.....
So yes, her true admission of her true dose is revelant, IMO.
We are all trying to use reasoned arguments.
No one wants to believe that a woman of even somewhat intelligence would give a sick pooping/vomiting kid Cajun spice to SOOTHE him, as was testified to in open court..
I find that hard to comprehend.
So I bow to the ones who can comprehend such a thing.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aquila.....I agree to disagree.
I have learned things from posters with views different from my own.
I just want honesty, especially on the part of Hannah and Larry.
I hope his trial outcome will prove him innocent of involvement in the death of little Andrew.. Larry has five small children to raise.
If it doesn't I will respect the jury's verdict as they will have heard all the evidence.
Hannah was not thinking about she had five children to raise when she was giving Andrew his spice drink and when she was delaying getting him to emergency treatment when he was so very sick.
If she is truly the good church woman that her church friends think she is, then I hope she wins her appeal. If not, then I hope she pays dearly for her role in Andrew's death as determined by the jury.
All that is expressed here are opinions.
This is a comment board, so everyone please lighten up.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 15, 2007 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Re: the plywood UNDER the mattress. I don't find that unusual. What I find unusual is making a kid sleep on plywood. I know, I know he started out on the plywood then slept on the floor. Sleeping on the floor in a sleeping bag doesn't mean child abuse, but there are so many other things that point to abuse in this case.
You can only explain away so much and then it starts to look like puzzle pieces coming together.
What bothers me the most about her church going friends that come here and post is the fact they think they knew what went on in that house. There is absolutely NO WAY they could have known unless they were living there themselves.
It also bothers me that they think because she was a church going, baby bearing woman who volunteers her time, that she's a saint. She's not a saint.
And this case is personal to me because I was adopted and I had a mother who believed in very unconventional methods of punishment that today would definitely be considered abuse. It took me a long time to get past the way she was and to realize that that was how she was raised and she continued the pattern.
Andrew never got the chance to grow up and see that Hannah's way was not necessarily the right way.
Posted by e2inc.net on September 15, 2007 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"already tried & convicted Larry Overton in your own personal court of opinion".
Not I, but that the verdict of the wife engulfs the husband. The Husband is responsible for his family and the known acts of "parenting" his wife practiced as if he condoned it.
At first, I felt that he was not there he should be outside of the prosecution for the horrible events that led to the death of Baby Andrew.
Then, I spoke to some of my most trusted and wisdomatic.
I realized. "I know how my wife parents our children".
If I allowed her to continue down any path of questionable action, then I would be allowing her to act in said fashion.
If I know she is conducting illegal activities at our home while I am at work then I am guilty as well. Maybe the crime I commit is different from hers but I am culpable.
So is Larry if by nothing else than by collateral estoppel he is held to some level of guilt.
Posted by e2inc.net on September 15, 2007 at 7:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Hannah did nothing wrong and if Larry did nothing wrong the who is at fault for the suffering this baby endured?
The State of Texas
CPS and other state agencies?
All share in the responsibility?
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 15, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aquila,
Thanks for your comments. The discussion turned ugly when cc1brother made an empty threat about libel. How can you libel someone under the shroud of anonymity is a mystery to me, but so is life.
I stated from the very start that I would provide a counterpoint to his arguments (which are flawed, btw). He stated the child was a diabetic (which is irrelevant in this case) and refused to address the abnormal result on the HbA1c due to improper storage (it does not help his case).
Then, last night, a friendly eaobanion wrote "Get a full-time job! And we know EXACTLY who you are! You started the accusations toward ccbrother. "
How much I work is completely irrelevant. Thankfully I am independently wealthy and work only as I see fit, to stimulate the mind. I highly recommend that, eaobanion.
I did not start accusations about cc1broither. It was he who started badmouthing very competent staff (by name) at a most excellent hospital. To do that behind the shadow of a nickname is wrong.
Speaking of competent people, John Gilmore is an outstanding attorney
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana..........thank you for sharing your insight, your experience, your wisdom and understanding, and your pain.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint, man, where the heck have you been all day, If you here the same argument over and over and over, then maybe ccbrother thinks you'll start to believe it.
when dsmyleincc came on and said we need to get back to our life I felt that was my time to back down. He/She was so right. Got on the treadmill and got some work done and I will just read these posts from now on. It kind of became a what if game today. I realized that Hannah supporters are not going to let you get the last word in. I gave up. I will let Kwork and Factualcounterpoint and Shirley counter all the fabrications. Actually, Hannah and her followers have everything to lose right now and their the ones with the dog in the fight. Hannah is in prison right now and thankfully none of this bull on theses threads go into the courtroom. Only the facts, as they did during the trial.
e2inc.net......thankyou for your insight. I have told myself the same thing many times. If my husband ever had an inkling that I was abusing the children he would be the first to turn me in. He gets mad when I make them eat their vegetables much less spices. I just don't understand what there is to argue about that.
Posted by smelly_putrid_brown_farts on September 15, 2007 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"the plywood UNDER the mattress"
In all my years of sleeping on beds, I never encountered having to sleep on a plywood surface... That is truly sad...
2 comments:
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 15, 2007 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
aquila,
Thanks for your comments. The discussion turned ugly when cc1brother made an empty threat about libel. How can you libel someone under the shroud of anonymity is a mystery to me, but so is life.
I stated from the very start that I would provide a counterpoint to his arguments (which are flawed, btw). He stated the child was a diabetic (which is irrelevant in this case) and refused to address the abnormal result on the HbA1c due to improper storage (it does not help his case).
Then, last night, a friendly eaobanion wrote "Get a full-time job! And we know EXACTLY who you are! You started the accusations toward ccbrother. "
How much I work is completely irrelevant. Thankfully I am independently wealthy and work only as I see fit, to stimulate the mind. I highly recommend that, eaobanion.
I did not start accusations about cc1broither. It was he who started badmouthing very competent staff (by name) at a most excellent hospital. To do that behind the shadow of a nickname is wrong.
Speaking of competent people, John Gilmore is an outstanding attorney
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 15, 2007 at 7:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
marlana..........thank you for sharing your insight, your experience, your wisdom and understanding, and your pain.
Posted by rrempp on September 15, 2007 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint, man, where the heck have you been all day, If you here the same argument over and over and over, then maybe ccbrother thinks you'll start to believe it.
when dsmyleincc came on and said we need to get back to our life I felt that was my time to back down. He/She was so right. Got on the treadmill and got some work done and I will just read these posts from now on. It kind of became a what if game today. I realized that Hannah supporters are not going to let you get the last word in. I gave up. I will let Kwork and Factualcounterpoint and Shirley counter all the fabrications. Actually, Hannah and her followers have everything to lose right now and their the ones with the dog in the fight. Hannah is in prison right now and thankfully none of this bull on theses threads go into the courtroom. Only the facts, as they did during the trial.
e2inc.net......thankyou for your insight. I have told myself the same thing many times. If my husband ever had an inkling that I was abusing the children he would be the first to turn me in. He gets mad when I make them eat their vegetables much less spices. I just don't understand what there is to argue about that.
Posted by kwork25 on September 16, 2007 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rremp ... Don’t sweat it girl … they can scream, whine and spin all they want because it doesn’t change a thing … anyone who sees those pictures and reads about the damage done to Andrew’s body will know the truth … it really is that simple.
e2inc.net you have a good point …it’s not like she hide it … there is video on the KRIS website of a medicine bottle filled with the spices … if I remember correctly it’s sitting on a bookshelf near the kids bedroom …
Also KRIS and the Caller times reported there was an affidavit for an arrest warrant and there are statements from some of the other children saying they were given the spice too as punishment … those statements weren’t allowed into court because the judge would not allow the children to testify …so if the children couldn’t testify then the statements couldn’t be admitted … the judge was pretty hard on the prosecution … but my hunch is there were friends and family that knew there were problems … but who would admit that now? IMO he knew …
Posted by dannoynted1 on September 16, 2007 at 3:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Annelise:
"Aquila, I'm not from Corpus Christi and I have no connection with the Overton family. I found out about this case several weeks ago and thus hadn't heard the initial stories about Hannah and Larry's supposed abuse until most of them had been rebutted. I can see that if it was anything like what keeps popping up here that finding an impartial jury would have been a challenge--to say the least. I'm appalled and only hope Larry's attorneys have learned something."
~yeah, you know what they have learned they best blame it all on "Ragin Cajun Concoction" or "his wife" or he is going to need the same amount of money to fund these legally trained individuals.
But it would be wise to consider independent counsel as there might be a conflict of interest in representing Larry Overton by first representing Hannah.
Quick question annelise........do ya'll people , where ever it is you come from use this type of "brew" as a drink to "soothe" your children?
Who gives a baby "something" a dog would not drink?
And in their cuppy?
Weird.....I do not know one child that would VOLUNTARILY drink something gross.
This ain't "fear factor"!
Posted by sursumtx on September 16, 2007 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Correcting Factual Errors:
kwork25 on September 16, 2007 at 1:59 a.m.
- the photos of Andrew's body show marks due to coagulopathy of his blood; those marks were not there when he arrived at the clinic, per the paramedics' report
- the bottle of spice to which you refer is not a medicine bottle, but a jar from a spice rack. It matches all the other bottles on the spice rack. Hannah testified that she did not know why it was found on a bookshelf. You are free to believe she was lying, of course. In my experience, in a home with lots of small children, I can't explain how many things get where they end up. The discussion is moot, however; the jury did not find her guilty of making Andrew ingest anything, but rather of Omission -- not seeking medical help soon enough.
- the KRIS report, to my knowledge, was disproved in family court. Did you attend any of the family court hearings, by the way? Detective Hess testified on the stand that he did not know where the information in the affadavit that was attributed to someone in the police dept came from. The statements in question had to do with her reported "confession" to "beating the sh^t out of him." Hannah never made that statement, nor did she say that she gave Andrew water sprinkled with spices as punishment. Still, those myths were repeated in the media over and over for months. That same erroneous report included the statements from the children. Given the other factual errors in the news report, and the fact that i know the children personally, I am highly skeptical of the statements they were reported to have made. Do you know the children? Or do you believe the children, being Hannah's children, are prone to diabolical lying, as you believe Hannah to be?
- Judge Longoria ruled that the children could not testify because of their ages. The eldest is 7. IMO, that shows a great deal of common sense and compassion on his part.
Posted by sursumtx on September 16, 2007 at 8:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
smelly_putrid_brown_farts
Wow, what a screen name, I'm truly impressed. Did you come up with that all by yourself? How old are you, about 13?
FYI -- In our pop up camper, purchased new for about $20K, we sleep on plywood boards covered with a foam mattress. That would be directly comparable to the sleeping arrangements the Overtons made for Andrew and their other two boys. It's very, very comfortable.
You can go back to your video game now.
Posted by sursumtx on September 16, 2007 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
factualcounterpoint, your medical opinion on this matter is in direct contrast to two leading medical experts in the field. Medicine is not an exact science, as I'm sure you are aware, and there can certainly be disagreements. Doctors make misdiagnoses all the time, so it is not surprising that there is controversy about this case from a medical standpoint. One of them testified at the trial, Dr. Judy Melenik. Did you hear her testimony? One of her statements under oath was "they [the ME and others that examined Andrew] did not take into account the diabetes this child had" and then explained how undiagnosed diabetes could have been a contributing factor in the high levels of sodium in his body. The other expert, an internationally-known pediatric specialist, was prevented from testifying due to very clever delays on the part of the prosecution who took advantage – and I hope this was merely circumstantial – of the illness of one of the jurors.
Posted by sursumtx on September 16, 2007 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
e2inc.net,
Your excellent questions speak directly to the heart of the matter.
I don't believe we know those answers yet.
And I believe it is important that we find out.
That is one of the main reasons it is important to keep following this case. Perhaps some good can eventually come out of this terrible, terrible tragedy that will help other foster children and adoptive families.
Peace be with you.
Posted by marlana2002 on September 16, 2007 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm on the fence about Larry. I'm sure there's a lot that went on in the house while Larry was at work that he quite possibly didn't know about. And who is he going to believe--his wife or the kids?
I guess his trial will give us some answers about him.
Posted by luckybryan on September 16, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm like a flag on a flagpole about the Voices on this blog ... gotta love you guys ... the pros knows ... the moms-n-dads see what don't add up ... the researchers bring in their harvests in holey baskets ... there would be those left to mourn, Andrew's bio families, diversity of adult friends; idk, did Andy have a pal his own age.
Thank you Andy, because you lived, all that's posted about your untimely death (God let this boy be in Heaven), these blogs would make a doozy parenting course.
The Foster Care industry in Texas, policies and protocols of adoption agencies and state regulatory agencies, medical diagnoses and emergency care providers, child abuse, legal system re: childrens issues in Nueces Co. The advocates who work with the nice and the nasty cases involving foster care, by the score, year after year.
Has one ordinary person in these blogs said to any advocate, I did not know. Because of Andrew, now I see. Can I help you in your work with kids in foster care.
I'm not - are you - helping one child, or a group of siblings, assigned to foster care in this county?
Posted by sursumtx on September 16, 2007 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
luckybryan, you make an excellent point.
In the other cases, when my heart has been broken by sad news of child abuse or murder, I have sent donations to local organizations that support and shelter children. My letters with the donations have said that, while I cannot help the children in the Andrew Yates case, for example, I can do what I can to help others.
I'm sure there are many, many worthy organizations in the Corpus Christi area and if not, there are many worth state & national organizations.
In this case, I believe that not only do we have the tragedy of Andrew's death but we also have the tragedy of innocent people wrongly convicted. That is my personal focus with regard to this matter. I believe it is an indicator of some deep dysfunction in our legal system.
I believe Andrew's death was a tragic accident. It might have been prevented with earlier intervention about his eating disorder and earlier detection of his health problems and perhaps more help for the Overtons as they tried to deal with his issues. Remember, Hannah reported her concern to the adoption caseworker just days before Andrew's death. And CPS didn't make it to the Overton home in September, as they were supposed to do.
The foster care system needs help, badly, badly, badly. Caseworkers have too many cases, and they're underpaid. They may not have enough training. Many come from homes where they themselves were abused -- can you see how this might make them see every situation as one of abuse?
Children are categorized by their behavior issues, and moved from home to home with sometimes as little as 3 hours notice and often only a garbage bag in which to put their few belongings.
This goes on EVERY DAY in Texas, with 25,000 foster children in the system. Do you ever hear news stories about it ? Do people get on the boards and post comments about that? Where is the public outcry?
Sometimes children who start out categorized as having a higher level of problems get better in a particular foster home. Then they get moved to a different home because they're re-categorized. Then, guess what? They often revert to the old behavior.
My information on the foster system comes from web searches and a documentary that a friend is working on, based on her personal experience.
I believe our society does not value children as we purport to do. If we did, we would care more for those who cannot care for themselves, we would have better public education, we would have guaranteed health care for every child with no lengthy paperwork & approval cycle to get it, and we would not try to raise foster children by checklist and without any sense of belonging or security.
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 16, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Then are you saying the bottle shown on TV on the book shelf by the bedroom was just a coincidence that it contained spice. And, that no one knows how it got there. Weird.
There is no way that Andrew could have willingly and with enjoyment drank all that spice water from his sippy cup.
He did not eat that much sodium from the trash can or floor to cause him to die of a sodium overdose.
.
It was given to him in some manner. Period. Who gave it to him, Hannah, that's who.
Who did not get him medical care in time, Hannah, that's who.
All an accident that day? The jury did not think his ultimate death was an accident. They gave a verdict that he died by Omission, failing to seek medical treatment when he still could have been saved.
The intent might not have been proven beyond a reasonalble doubt in the courtroom -- therefore she was not found guilty on intent, but on Omission.
What were Hannah's true intents that day? I think only Hannah can answer that.
However, most likely it was to show Andrew she was the big Boss in the house.
But to insult the intelligence of the jury and anyone else and say she gave him the concoction to 'soothe' him is just too off the wall.
Now a jury has to decide the fate of Larry. Will he tell what all really went on in that house, or did anything much at all go on which could put the lives of any of the children in danger?
Remains to be seen. Since his trial involves the life and death of a small child, the community will stay interested, tho there are news of other crimes which come and go every day. This one is haunting.
Posted by factualcounterpoint on September 16, 2007 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
sursumtx ,
Thanks you for your comments. I just want to clarify a couple of things.
1) The ME from SF did not examine this child. She took bits and pieces of the autopsy from the local ME and picked the parts that would help her case. For instance, she never addressed the improper storage of the HbA1c. Furthermore, she never addressed the issue that the slides of this child's pancreas were NORMAL. No destruction of the islet cells that make insulin. You would think that if the child had diabetes, she woudl be able to show destruction of the islet cells under the microscope. She did not, because theiy were normal.
2) The international and renowned expert was not prevented from testifying because of delay in the prosecution's side. This is when it pays off to sit on the second row in court. I overheard that this expert was being deposed in a different room while the trial was going on upstairs and that the sodium expert "dug himself a hole" so big that the DEFENSE decided not to bring him in front of the jury. Just another part of the truth the jury will never hear.
Posted by kwork25 on September 16, 2007 at 12:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sursumtx … why don’t you try using the open records act instead of spreading the spin of the day. You never know … you may be surprised at what you find. Honestly I quit reading your long repetitive spin along time ago.
Posted by rrempp on September 16, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ooohh, factualcounterpoint, Thanks for letting us hear "the rest of the story."
Shirley, sursumtx has an excuse for every weird horrible thing that happened that day. The spice was put on the bookshelf by one of the children. I've heard it all now. I have two high strung children myself and I keep them out of the medicine cabinet, the solvents and chemicals and the spice rack. Its called proper supervision.
Give me a break, this is starting to insult my intelligence. Sursumtx has a made up excuse for everything presented in court. The facts are being twisted into a big knot.
Sursumtx...........My family had a pop up camper too, with plywood under the foam mattress. Yes, it was way better than sleeping in a tent. It was great for taking a 3 day camping trip. But boy let me tell you, we couldn't wait to get home and sleep in our own beds before all was said and done! Those beds are NOT comfortable to say the least. Thats why we sold it and bought a real travel trailer with real mattresses. So throw that argument out the window.
And luckybrian, I have a big stack of like new toys and clothes, books and games that I am going to donate to the Child Protection Services, along with a money donation. I only had 2 children because I feel thats all I can take care of. But I can give of my time and help the cause. Thank you for pointing that out.
Now I will let Kwork and factualcounterpoint and Shirley fight the good fight with FACTS and COMMON SENSE. After reading sursumtx my fingers couldn't control themselves, they headed straight for the keyboard. go figure
dannoynted is certainly right about Larry's trial. I think he should get a change of venue.
Posted by ratpak13 on September 16, 2007 at 1 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once and for all....
This is a crock o' shayt............
by sursumtx: "It might have been prevented with earlier intervention about his eating disorder and earlier detection of his health problems and perhaps more help for the Overtons as they tried to deal with his issues"
------------------------------------------------------
Andrew was never diagnosed with an eating disorder. Moreover, he was given a complete physical just prior to his placement with the Overtons.
Give it up, Hannah is in prison.
Posted by rrempp on September 16, 2007 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL......hey smelly, I thought that too, for 20,000 I got a (brand new) 29ftTT with a slideout and surround sound dvd player and mattresses to boot. Somebody indeed got ripped off!
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 16, 2007 at 2:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
smelly you make some good points and have interesting posts.
Are you sure you want to stay with that unpleasant sounding name on here?
I also think a steady manner of sleeping on plywood would cause some backaches. In a camper and temporarily then that would be different.
I mentioned I would not bring up the sheets again but really, that is a bummer for the little kid who wanted them. Another kid might care less.......but Andrew did, and he had a rough beginning, so why not let him have his darn Spiderman sheets if they had to go the extra mile and WASH them......I did say I could recommend a good detergent with bleach..
Posted by marlana2002 on September 16, 2007 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you know, it's not just the plywood bed. it's not just the drink mixture. it's not just the bruising. it's not just the scratching. it's not just the sores that look like cigarette burns. it's not just the waiting to take him for medical attention. it's not just the burning of the sheets. it's not just the giggles during the interview with law enforcement about a dead 4 year old child. it's not just NOT showing emotion in court until found guilty. It's all of those added together.
And if you read up on her grandpappy Applewhite, I think she's a lot like him. He was said to be schizophrenic and that leads me to believe it was passed down in the genes.
Posted by enquiringminds99 on September 16, 2007 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just popping in so check things out.. Wow lots has gone on in here... Some new names in here I see...
uhh Smelly? now that is a name LOL
I am also on the fence about Larry too as to whether they will be able to get a conviction on him.. As "smelly" said, It appears that as soon as Larry was informed or told that something was wrong with andrew, he did what he could do for Andrew by leaving work and then taking the boy to the hospital...
Posted by enquiringminds99 on September 16, 2007 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
louise_shirley2000
<.......but Andrew did, and he had a rough beginning, so why not let him have his darn Spiderman sheets if they had to go the extra mile and WASH them......I did say I could recommend a good detergent with bleach..>
You know the way I see it, if it was just a matter of disgarding or throwing away the sheets because they were covered in fecal matter I could understand that, however the fact that the sheets were put in the bar-b-q pit and supposedly "burned" to me suggest being callous and mean. I know I have thrown away blankets that my pets ruined, but never did I feel the need to burn them.. I think the burning of the sheets was to convey something such as "see what you get" type of thing...
Posted by ccskibunny on September 16, 2007 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, anybody want to go have a cookout on that barbecue pit ???? I think not !! WHY on earth would someone burn "poopy" sheets knowing they would ruin their barbecue pit, unless.......... wait..........it was child abuse in action ??!!!
You all know my thoughts on this one.
p.s. Great comments, Marlana !
Posted by bebel0203 on September 16, 2007 at 8 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ya know..........my dad burned our stuff to show us who was the boss (5 kids)....that's what got me going, I was thinking poor lady until I heard about the sheets. I can just about know why her biological kids were well behaved......everyone told my dad how well behaved (coached) his 5 kids were! RIP baby Andrew
Posted by louise_shirley2000 on September 16, 2007 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bebel.....I will listen to you anytime......you have been there and done that when it comes to being on the abusing receiving end of a child abuse scenerio.......thanks for always adding to the discussion with information that you know something first hand about.
We just have to wait and see what happens at Larry's trial. I somehow think now....ahead of time.....that he did as he was told.......he even wanted Hannah bailed out in front of him......he may have been manipulated for years by her, or they may have been two peas in a pod and both loving, caring parents. It may just be that Hannah rocked the boat when she got out her spice concoction that day. --I don't think she or Larry ever drank any of it, however. ..... But what do I know. Only they know what went on in that house. The jury verdict after hearing testimony in the courtroom was a guilty verdict for Omission and it sent Hannah off to jail. If she does not belong there, then I hope she gets out. But if she does, then justice was served by the jury. Most people agree with the jury verdict.
My heart goes out to the five children left without a mother, and possibly without a father if testimony shows Larry as guilty as Hannah in Andrew's death.
It was Larry who put the Spiderman sheets little Andrew was crying and looking for in the barbecue pit, but at whose instruction?
I just watched about this case on 20/20. It is very sad that the little boy died, & was born to a druggie who ruined his health, mental & physical. The foster parents did not know what they were getting into, by trying to raise and love this little messed up boy.His biological parents should be in jail. Not Hannah & all of you people out there quick to stone her should be ashamed of yourself.
Sandra Eastwood is a horrible human being and I'm sure is headed to hell by here evilness of condemning a woman for murder when both the doctors on the different sides told the attorneys the little boy was suffering from Pica and the foster parents didn't know the severity of his mental condition
Post a Comment