Daily Beast claims Triple Murder in 1991 not related to Waiting Period

Gun Watch ^ | 27 June, 2015 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On March 5th, 1991, a former police officer and firearm instructor named James Fendry received a call from a woman.   Her name was Bonnie.  She had a restraining order against her husband.  She was desperate to get a gun to protect herself.  The Instructor told her that Wisconsin had a 48 hour waiting period.  The next day, Bonnie Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her estranged husband, who then committed suicide.

The address in the map above is where Bonnie and her children lived.  The red arrow, at the bottom, is the reported location for James Fendry, the former policeman and firearms instructor, in 1991, when the call was reported.

After the murders, Fendry reported the conversation, which then became an example of how waiting periods can be counterproductive by denying people the ability to defend themselves.   The account became national and has been included in the debate about waiting periods and self defense.  It is included in web pages such as this one  that shows how waiting periods for handguns have costs.  The existing research shows that waiting periods do not have a measurable effect in preventing crime.

Bonnie Elmasri's brother, a few months after the murders, contended that his sister would never contact anyone about buying a gun, that she knew nothing about guns, and would never buy one.  Therefore, he contends, the story must be false.  Bonnie and her children are dead.  They cannot be questioned.  Phone records of the time are gone, and did not include the digital records of today, so we can never prove that Bonnie called Fendry, a prominent instructor who headed up a state gun organization. 

Bonnie Elmasri and her children lived at 2454 N. Lefeber Ave in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.  That is only 15 miles from Fendry, whose organization has a (414) area code, so it would have been a local call.   Fendry had been quoted in an AP story about gun control in a Milwaukee paper, on February 11th, less than a month before the murders.  From the journaltimes.com:

"When you pass a gun law, the criminal realizes an honest person is less likely to have a gun or use a gun," said Fendry, a former police officer. "Locally, statewide and nationally, people who focus on gun control don't care about crime control."

How many women named Bonnie had restraining orders against their husband in the local area is not known.

The Daily Beast claims that the brother's account must be the correct one.   But desperate people are known to step outside of their comfort zones.    It seems highly unlikely that Fendry would just make the story up.  The waiting period bill had been passed, 15 years earlier.  There was no bill pending in the legislature to repeal the waiting period in 1991.   We cannot prove that Bonnie Elmasri made the call.  Her brother does not believe that she did.  That does not make the assertion a lie or false.  From the dailybeast.com:

A shameful falsehood resides at the heart of the gun de-control bill that Gov. Scott Walker signed on Wednesday even as the nation still reeled from the reality of the nine innocents shot to death in a Charleston church.

In the law, there is the concept of "preponderance of the evidence".  That is, if there is a little more evidence on one side than the other, you accept the side with the little more evidence, in civil cases. 

This is not a civil case, it is not a court of law.  We have two competing claims.  Which is more believable?  That a desperate woman, not knowledgeable about guns, would reach out to prominent gun instructor who is a former policeman, who had been recently featured in the newspapers defending the right to self defense;  or that a grief stricken brother can be certain that the desperate sister would never do such a thing?  

I do not think either claim would be enough to put someone in jail, but I think a jury would find the phone call likely to have come from Bonnie Elmasri, by a preponderance of the evidence.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The preponderance of the evidence is that she called Fendry.

[Raycpa]

Using liberal logic it doesn’t matter if its true.

[Louis Foxwell]

It does not matter that she called or did not. The simple fact remains she was killed with no means of protecting herself or her children by a known enemy bent on her death. The mere possibility that she was prevented from doing so by a law blind to her protection is sufficient grounds for terminating that law.

[1010RD]

Imagine that the story or anecdote is false. It doesn’t change the logic or the reality one bit. I suspect projection since for liberals the emotional anecdote itself is reason to act, logic be damned.

[pgyanke]

Let’s assume she didn’t call Fendry.

1. She did have a restraining order against a violent husband.
2. She would most likely not merit ongoing police protection.
3. If she needed to defend herself, she would have to arbitrarily wait to buy a gun.
4. She would not have been able to get a gun on short-notice when she became desperate.

True or not... the result is reality.

[Mr. K]

We must repeal that law!!! (If only ONE LIFE is saved...)

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

After some consideration, some blame should be considered for the firearms instructor, for the simple reason that her call for advice was likely instead a call for help.

While he didn’t connect the dots, had he done so he shouldn’t have let the woman go during a window of vulnerability. He could have asked her questions and given her advice that might have saved their lives.

Move in with a friend for a couple of days. Or even a motel. Let other members of her family and close friends know that her ex is a dangerous risk, so to be wary around him. Tell the local police the situation and get their advice of what to do.

In effect, if someone tells you something like this, it should be taken as seriously as if they tell you they are contemplating suicide.

[CAluvdubya]

I can tell you that, as a mother, I would do anything to protect my children.

This woman may have been afraid of guns but she was, rightfully, terrified of her ex. She would want to learn how to protect herself and her children.

The brother has closed his mind to reality.

[JimRed]

In liberal “logic”, planning to defend yourself is the same as planning to murder someone. Maybe waiting will get you to change your mind, or get YOU killed instead!