Witches Kill Baby (40 puncture wounds & snapped neck)

The Christian Underground http://www.christian-underground.com READ IT - LEARN FROM IT - PRAY OVER IT - SHARE IT --- Witches Kill Baby January 21, 2005

Little girl had 40 puncture wounds and a snapped neck Pagan tattoos may match baby girl's wounds Photos of couple's religious markings studied in probe of toddler's death

Prosecutors have obtained photographs of a Springfield Township couple's neopagan tattoos in an effort to match the markings to puncture wounds on the woman's slain year-old daughter. Daniel Duffield and Vanessa McGlumphy are charged in connection with the neck-snapping death of McGlumphy's 13-month-old daughter Jacqueline Mae Cooper.

Aside from the fatal neck injury, the toddler's body was also riddled with more than 40 puncture wounds, 12 broken ribs and a lacerated liver. Prosecutors last week received permission from Summit County Common Pleas Judge Marvin Shapiro to photograph the couple to determine whether their religious tattoos match puncture wounds that appear on the toddler's feet.

According to court records, the child had puncture wounds on her foot in the shape of a Wicca or Celtic symbol.

In addition, prosecutors say that Duffield and McGlumphy told investigators that they wanted to raise the girl in their Wiccan faith, an earth-based religion sometimes called ``The Craft´´ or the ``The Craft of the Wise.´´

Duffield told investigators that he placed the Wiccan pentacle symbol on the girl's feet, prosecutors say. Photos of the couple's markings were taken last week at the Summit County Jail, where the two are being held. Duffield's tattoos include a skull and dagger, an anarchy symbol, a demon and a Celtic cross, prosecutors say. McGlumphy's include a goat head, Medusa and a she-devil.

Prosecutors say a needle containing the child's DNA was found near her crib around the time of her death. The child's puncture wounds, prosecutors contend, are evidence of abuse at the hands of Duffield and proof that McGlumphy ignored the girl's injuries. ``For (McGlumphy), Wicca is nothing but an appreciation and love of nature,´´ said defense lawyer Tom Adgate, who represents the woman. Adgate said his client ``didn´t notice -- and she didn´t condone´´ -- the symbol puncture wounds. ``And she doesn´t know when it was done.´´

Duffield's lawyers could not be reached for comment. Duffield, 32, is charged with murder, involuntary manslaughter, child endangering and felonious assault involving puncturing the girl's feet and face. McGlumphy, 25, is charged with involuntary manslaughter and child endangering. Each has pleaded not guilty.

Both are scheduled for trial Monday, but Duffield has asked for a delay to allow his lawyers more time to prepare for trial. Shapiro is expected to rule on the request in a hearing.

The toddler died Oct. 6 from either a dislocation at the top of the spine -- from blunt impact to the head -- or a ``hyperextension/hyperflexion´´ of the neck, according to autopsy reports.

On Tuesday, a juvenile court judge granted temporary custody of the girl's twin sister to McGlumphy's father. The arrangement was agreed to by the child's biological father.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/m ld/myrtlebeachonl:ne/10569204.htm http://www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/009376.html moderator@christian-underground.com http://www.christian-underground.com/archive/read.php?sid=398 Posted to the CU: 2005-01-21 08:39:08 CST ======================================== We will Pray WHEN we want School - WHERE we want Work - The Street - The Mall - Persecute Us At Your Own Peril! The Christian Underground http://www.christian-underground.com ========================================

While some people may consider any kind of circumcision to be a form of mutilation, it is important to identify the distinction between male and female circumcision. One of the most compelling reasons for the distinction is that during fetal development, the genital tubercle — a fingerlike projection of tissue — forms the clitoris in girls and the penis in boys. So, female circumcision (also known as female genital mutilation) is equivalent to the removal of the shaft, not the foreskin, of the penis.

To learn more about circumcision, you can refer to the American Academy of Pediatrics Circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation Policy Statements. You can also check out the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers web site.

Happygal - Now that you know the difference you can see you are comparing apples to oranges....

Right you are...but he gave man/doctors the knowledge to perform it for their religious or medical reasons.

The religious origin of the Jewish practice of circumcision is written in the Torah where God promised Abraham,

I will make you exceedingly fertile, and make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you. . . . I assign the land you sojourn in to you and your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding. I will be their God. . . . Such shall be the covenant between Me and you and your offspring to follow which you shall keep: every male among you shall be circumcised. (Genesis 17:6,8,10)

That being said, what's a soft atheist?

I'll take this one - a "soft" or "weak" atheist is in contrast to a "strong" atheist. The majority of atheists are in fact soft atheists although many think that soft atheism is equivalent to agnosticism.

Here's the distinction as I see it:

Agnostic - Doesn't know whether there is a God or not and doesn't believe that we can ever really know. Will never take a position on whether or not there is a God.

Strong Atheist - Believes positively there is no God. If he sees any evidence for God, he will believe it is flawed because he knows there is no God. Most people mistakenly believe that the majority of atheists believe this, but these types of atheists are in the minority, and in fact, not looked that respectfully upon by many other atheists because making a positive statement that there is no God is very similar to making a positive statement that there is a God - both are just absolute beliefs that rely on faith. When people talk derisively about atheists and describe their beliefs, they are usually talking about strong atheism which is frustrating to the majority of soft atheists...

Weak/Soft Atheist (the majority of atheists) - They believe that there is no God because they have yet to see any compelling evidence of a God. They will keep an open mind as to the existence of God, but have yet to see evidence as of yet. If they are made aware of any compelling reason to believe in a God, then they will certainly believe. If God appeared to them tomorrow, they would cease to be atheists. They don't discount the possiblity of God exisiting, but in the same vein, they don't discount the possibility of the Loch Ness Monster or leprechauns existing. I'm not saying this to be flip. We might find out someday that there were a bunch of reclusive Irish midgets that could do things that regular people couldn't, and we might find out for sure some day that there is some great force out there that is intelligent and guiding us. Until then, soft atheists don't believe in God, and in fact, most are not even capable of believing in God as anything more than a vague and unlikely possibility.

Hope that helped!

Btw, just where does an Atheist derive their moral compass of what's "right" and "wrong"?

The rule of reciprocity, or in Christianity, the "Golden Rule" is generally a good moral compass. This precept predates Christianity and can generally be found in one way or another in just about every moral code, religious or secular.

More links, info about this at:

http://patriot.net/~bmcgin/underlyingrule.html

So what's your point? That Muslims should be judged by their worst members, and Christians judged by this noblest pronouncements?

That's a very good point that hasn't been answered. I do have my doubts about Islam though - I do think that it is a cancer. The silence of the Islamic community gives tacit approval of suicide bombers and terrorism.

Most Christian organizations, especially anti-abortion groups, are likewise silent when it comes to condemning the abortion clinics.

The Crusades were nothing more than an attempt by the Church--and her allies in Europe--to reclaim Christian lands that had been conquered and oppressed by the Arab hordes.

Christians in the holy land were being slaughtered, forcibly converted, and sold into slavery.

The great tragedy of the crusades was the sack of Constantinople, which weakened the citadel of Eastern Christendom and ultimately led to its conquest by the Turks.

Long Cut, I read the absolutely sickening, enraging article, then the whole thread that followed/is following. I agree with all of which you have observed and of which you've written, in your post, to which I am replying. I agree that the commentary of which you speak has been unfoldingly revealing. Goodness is in the heart. A good heart shows. My hand is out to you at any time of the day. I can see in your heart that your hand is also out to me. I thank you for that.

Sincerely,
Miss Behave
Roman Catholic
sinner (And as I mentioned once before, I work on that.)

These people no more represented Wiccans then Jim Jones represented Christianity. Wicca has clear moral guidelines that prohibit doing unnecessary harm to others. While I have encountered negative entities, since they insist in bringing up demons, a balanced Wiccan life protects you more from them then Christianity. These people are as poor of an example of modern Wiccans as you can find. Wicca is a new religion, made of many elements, that embraces a celebration of life and encourages all people to seek their own spiritual path. There are many military veterans and people who are generally conservative in the Wiccan path. Everyone in my group is a hardworking tax paying citizen.

"The rule of reciprocity, or in Christianity, the 'Golden Rule' is generally a good moral compass. This precept predates Christianity and can generally be found in one way or another in just about every moral code, religious or secular."

I don't doubt or question the existence of a "Golden Rule," or "moral code," -- but from whence did it fount?

And from what source?

If we accept that a "moral code" has been inately implanted into our psyche, does that then preclude a creator of the principle of creative design?

This is why every metaphysical characteristic of man -- and explanation thereof -- invariably leads back the Creationism.

Without a Creator, how can the immaterial world of "good-bad"; "right-wrong"; "beauty-ugliness" exist without "programming" from a Creator?

Hmmm, interesting.
First, naturally, I find this incident appalling, and wish for the harshest judgement for these people(if you can even call them that).
It's interesting you mention that they "haven't founded a nation like the US".
Could that be because Christianity pretty much obliterated many of the heathen cultures in Europe, and violently at that? Many of those cultures were family/clan orientated, and thanks to the governmental like power of the Christian church, were forced (physically many times) to convert to Christianity. Too bad, I think a truly FAMILY orientated religion is what is needed more than ever today....
And it's also interesting that if you're a true Christian, when these monsters are found, you'll be more than willing to "forgive" them, if they repent, and you'll be all for rehabilitation.
My belief system, on the other hand, allows for retribution. And if it were up to me, they'd get it

I don't doubt or question the existence of a "Golden Rule," or "moral code," -- but from whence did it fount? And from what source?

The source is ourselves. Even people who believe in a religion, believe it because it feels right to them. This is the same for athiests. Athiests aren't given a moral code - they have to decide for themselves what they believe in and what is moral. I brought up the rule of reciprocity because I was asked what basis atheists use to determine morality, and that concept is one that atheists use. But yes, at the end of it, it is a decision that we make for ourselves.

I understand that you believe that for us to have come to this result, it would have to have been put there (or programmed) by a creator, but I don't share this conclusion. I think people are capable of coming up with moral codes and rules without the help of a God.

If we accept that a "moral code" has been inately implanted into our psyche, does that then preclude a creator of the principle of creative design?

I'm not sure I accept your premise. But if so, I think it is possible that one of the survival traits that ended getting selected for was reciprocity - caring about one's fellow man. That would clearly be a strong survival trait and I can see how those without it would not have survived very long.

"So what's your point? That Muslims should be judged by their worst members, and Christians judged by this noblest pronouncements?"

"That's a very good point that hasn't been answered. I do have my doubts about Islam though - I do think that it is a cancer. The silence of the Islamic community gives tacit approval of suicide bombers and terrorism."

Huh?? It's NOT a "good point"; It's an absurd analogy that does violence to proportional analyses and mathematics.

Comparative to the same ridiculous conclusion that leads one to accept the following as true: 1 = 1000.

But don't let me stop the two of you from watching al Jazeera while guzzling a six-pack of Kool-Ade; They'll also tell you Islam -- the "Religion of Peace" -- has been unfairly maligned, and it was Jews who masterminded 9/11....

Bottoms UP!

snip..You have been posting things which lead to some ugly conclusions about you on my part...one such being that you have NEVER in your life met a Buddhist, and are completely ignorant of their faith. The other is that you are a complete bigot, albiet a religious, as opposed to racial, one. Actually, the two frequently go together so often I'm not sure about the second

LK....Wrong. I spent three years living amongst Buddhists on the island of Okinawa. I know FIRST HAND how male Buddhists regard females as subhumans. Got that? Two years of my life were also spent living amongst Islamics in Adana,Turkey. I know some things about them as well.

You asked me what I know, and I told you the blunt truth. Truth can be a very ugly thing sometimes.

I suspect your sensitivites are wounded. But when I consider the decayed condition of America and the horrendous things occuring as a result thereof, people's 'sensitive' feelings will need to take a back-seat to truth and reality.

"The source [of moral code] is ourselves. Even people who believe in a religion, believe it because it feels right to them. This is the same for athiests. Athiests aren't given a moral code - they have to decide for themselves what they believe in and what is moral...I think people are capable of coming up with moral codes and rules without the help of a God. "

Couldn't "ourselves" be considered "inate"?

Wouldn't that logic lead to being "programmed" or "implantation" -- whatever moral code the psyche accepts as "truth"?

The metaphysical is just as real as the physical -- is it not? BOTH have had to be created by...someone OR some thing. WE are not our own creator in a physical sense, nor then mental.

I think it is possible that one of the survival traits that ended getting selected for was reciprocity - caring about one's fellow man. That would clearly be a strong survival trait and I can see how those without it would not have survived very long.

Again, the circle leads to WHO created those "traits" or "instincts"?

On the subject of "will," yes, that is "us" -- unquestionably our essense.

But don't let me stop the two of you from watching al Jazeera while guzzling a six-pack of Kool-Ade

Maybe you should actually read and UNDERSTAND most post before commenting on it. You even included this part of my post when you quoted me:

I do have my doubts about Islam though - I do think that it is a cancer. The silence of the Islamic community gives tacit approval of suicide bombers and terrorism.

Now who is drinking the "Kool-Ade" ?

Since my point went totally over your head last time, I'll try to make it a little more simple this time. Like the original post said, there are many that want to judge others by the worst members, but Christians by their noblest pronouncements.

People who profess to be Christians don't exactly have a spotless record in history. Jim Jones comes to mind - so does the Spanish Inquisition. How about when Bruno was burned at the stake for believing that the Earth revolved around the sun? How about the witch hunts of the 17th century? The Branch Davidians? The molestation of boys by Catholic priests? The use of the bible to justify slavery?

Christianity isn't exactly lilly white. As I said, I believe Islam is a cancer but the point stands.

Couldn't "ourselves" be considered "inate"? Wouldn't that logic lead to being "programmed" or "implantation" -- whatever moral code the psyche accepts as "truth"?

Well, like I said in my last post, "I understand that you believe that for us to have come to this result, it would have to have been put there (or programmed) by a creator, but I don't share this conclusion. I think people are capable of coming up with moral codes and rules without the help of a God."

We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one - to me, the fact that we have these thoughts in no way implies that they were "programmed" by a higher being.

The metaphysical is just as real as the physical -- is it not? BOTH have had to be created by...someone OR some thing. WE are not our own creator in a physical sense, nor then mental.

No, but I believe that we create for ourselves the thoughts that we think.

Again, the circle leads to WHO created those "traits" or "instincts"?

Well, you think it's a "WHO" and I think it's a "WHAT!" : )

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.