Witches Kill Baby (40 puncture wounds & snapped neck)

Christian Underground ^ | Jan. 20, 2005

[Lindykim]

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 ========================================

[Liberator]

"Disagreement is NOT hostility."

No, but sticking words in the nouth of folks who disagree with you demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.

[MineralMan]

"If people only knew just HOW many, they'd be shocked."

No doubt, and some would probably want them killed. Oh, well...there are some clear heads here.

[Long Cut]

As I have repeatedly said, it is perfectly appropriate to proscribe murder, rape, and any OTHER such cruelties and activities, even if they are claimed as part of a religion. However, we cannot ban the religion itself.

" Having a religious belief in magic, psychic power or mysticism is not religion."

What comitteee would you appoint to decide what is and is not a religion? What criteria should they use?

What new wording of the first Amendment would we be using, as it would obviously need to be changed to allow this

[MineralMan]

As of 2001, I found this information:

---

The number of Muslims in the U.S. military is hard to estimate. Estimates vary from 4,000 to more than 12,000. Armywide, Yee knows of at least seven other posts with Muslim chaplains.

Qaseem Uqdah, a former Marine Corps gunnery sergeant who heads the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council in Washington, D.C., counts upwards of 15,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and Coast Guard members.

[hinckley buzzard]

Springfield township is an unincorporated area on the northern edge of Akron Ohio. It is a lower SES settlement, many of them of appalachian origin.
Scuzzy part of town. Just the kind of place one might expect this to happen.

[Long Cut]

"sticking words in the nouth of folks who disagree with you demonstrates intellectual dishonesty...."

What I posted was exactly what they were advocating. It is also intellectual dishonesty to ignore such things as "the government has a right to...outlaw Satanism..."

However, you obviously agree with it, so you do not find such things objectionable. Sad, that you find your Constitutional rights so worthless.

[Liberator]

"There are, however, Muslim chaplains in the U. S. Military, thanks. It's a religion followed by a fair number of U.S. military personnel."

I'm well aware there are many Muslim chaplains, since a fair number of U.S. military personnel are blacks who've adopted Islam.

IMO, blacks who've adopted Islam as their religion have done so in order so to completely reject "Western" values -- included that of the West's moral "guidebook" -- the Bible.

Personally I find the allegiance of Islamic military personnel in the U.S. Armed Services highly suspect.

[Liberator]

" It is also intellectual dishonesty to ignore such things as 'the government has a right to...outlaw Satanism...'"

How does one define "religion"?

Is the basis a "belief in higher power"?

Even if that "higher power" is considered "man"? Or the antithesis of "good," evil?

Could Nazism be considered a "reigion?"

How stupid do we want to get about sanctioning "religion"?

[MineralMan]

"Personally I find the allegiance of Islamic military personnel in the U.S. Armed Services highly suspect.
"

Interesting. Your personal misgivings, however, are irrelevant. Muslim military personnel serve in all branches of our military, with the same honor as followers of other religions.

I served, and I'm an atheist. I served honorably and well. My dad, also an atheist, flew B-17s during WWII on combat missions over Germany. I consider him a hero, as did our government in giving him several decorations.

Religion is not something you can equate with patriotism. One may be a patriot and be a follower of any religion. Isn't America great!?

[Reactionary]

"If the government (i.e., taxpayers) promotes one religion over others, it is by definition "establishing" a religion."

I see. So the premise is that if a nickle is spent on religious expression by the government the government has, in fact, "established" a religion.

Does this rule apply to politicians who derive their livelyhood from the people? You know, people like Jesse Jackson, Bush, the Reverend Al Sharpton? Hillary?

[ItCanHappenToYou]

"Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
Amen.



I'm curious. What does this mean?

[The SISU kid]

Gee that sound almost like 'enlighted'

I'm sure you mean "enlightened"

"The Enlightened take things lightly"

Most of the domesticated primates of Terra do not know they are primates. They think they are something apart from and "superior" to the rest of the planet....

[HairOfTheDog]

What and why is there such a thing as the "Christian Underground" as the source of such an article? If it's true, has it not been reported by a more verifiable source?

"All religions and/or belief systems are the same and therefore equally deserving of respect, sensitivity, inclusion, and tolerance," say multiculturalists. And because of this fairytale screed, radical Islam, Wicca, Budhism, {Satanism?}, Gaia worship, and all other pantheist beliefs have been made equal to our traditional Christian worldview. Of course, if these other belief systems truly were equal, then each of them would have been able to found a nation like the US, at least one time during the history of mankind. But truth shows otherwise. None of them have ever been able to do anything other than to keep mankind in bondage to the whims and fancies of whoever happened to be most powerful. So the multiculturalists are nothing but liars, and these pantheistic beliefs are nothing but the playthings of whoever dwells at the top of the heap.

This is a rather bizarre first response to a story about some obvious whackjobs to committed a horrendous act. Agenda-bias-driven perspective is just that. I am Christian, but please do not think for a second that this act represents any commonly held rituals of even Pagan Wiccan types any more than the religious but delusional Christian man who killed his whole family including his children so that they would be innocently guaranteed a spot in heaven.

Of course, if these other belief systems truly were equal, then each of them would have been able to found a nation like the US, at least one time during the history of mankind. But truth shows otherwise.

I'll concede that though successful for longer than the United States, China is rather oppressive. But Japan seems to be rather successful.

[Long Cut]

I do not understand your question. None of those you cited, especially President Bush, are promoting any ONE religion over another. Jackson and Sharpton of course, despite their "reverent" titles, are longtime hustlers and conmen. They do in fact rob the government of taxpayer money and should be prosecuted for fraud at the least and usury at the worst. That's not to say that their religions should be outlawed, of course. If a paerticular church is engaged in criminal behavior, its heirarchy can be prosecuted, and it can be atacked under RICO statutes. It can be shut down. However, the religion itself cannot be banned.

The Catholic faith, for example, will not be banned no matter how many corrupt dioceses or pederast preists are found.

My point was that the government, being financed by everyone's tax dollars, is establishing a religion if it proclaims one religion or even having a religion as somehow "better" than all other belief systems. It is simply wrong and unConstitutional to ask people to support a religion that is not theirs with their money in that fashion. It is also extremely divisive to create a circumstance where a person might doubt his equal treatment under the law due to his not being a member of the "official" religion.

[R. Scott]

… glad I didn't major in that stuff.

I changed my major so many times – theology, police science, psychology, finally ending up with a degree in sociology and an huge excess of credit hours.

[The SISU kid]

A good example is the animal sacrifices done by followers of Santeria. Some localities have attempted to make such sacrifices illegal. They have lost in court.

Case in point, the Makah Indian Nation on Washington States Olympic Peninsula killing eastern Pacific or California gray whales using ties to "culture & religion" for justification.

[Liberator]

Atheism -- the last I looked -- had no such commandment to "kill infidels," had it?? Just when will "serving" their religious commandment supercede their duty? Who knows?

And though my personal misgivings about Muslims serving may be "irrelevant," the opinions of troops who were blown to smithereens by the Islamist GI with the grenade are not.

There are enough other "incidents" that have gone un-reported as well...

All Americans owe you and especially your dad a great debt of gratitute for serving. I assume both he and you loved your country and abided by and appreciated it's principled virtues -- which are largely grounded in the Judeo-Christian bible.

"Religion is not something you can equate with patriotism. One may be a patriot and be a follower of any religion. Isn't America great!?"

Yeah -- America is "great." But becoming less so as it tumbles into an abyss of moral relativism and diluted common sense in the name "tolerance."

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

Is it an inate quality or is learned from observation?

[Long Cut]

"How stupid do we want to get about sanctioning "religion"?"

Depends upon whom you get to decide what is and is not a "religion". They you'll REALLY see stupidity.

As an alternative, why not simply allow people to worship as they choose, or not, so long as they do no harm to the rights of another person? They can establish churches and whatnot as they will, subject as always to fraud laws and tax laws as appropriate. The government, other than taking care to enforce the laws regarding fraud and murder (among others), does not elevate ANY religion over any other in preference or law, and simply stays away from it altogether.

Oh, wait...that's how it's SUPPOSED to be anyway!

[Lindykim]

You've still not responded to the question I asked you in post #44.
So how about it?

"Your reasoning is flawed. It implies the possibility that our gov't can function as a morals neutral entity. If so, then tell me what guides the reasoning of this morally 'neutral' entity?"


Tell us the source of the 'morality' our morals neutral gov't should use. Or are you one of those who believe it's possible to make morals-neutral judgements? And if so, then give me an example of this by telling me what your reasoning is in regards to abortion.

[Long Cut]

"tell me what guides the reasoning of this morally 'neutral' entity?" "

The Constitution, plus common sense and reasoned thought?

We once again come to that old discussion of "morals". Whose? When? Based on what?

I assert that the government has no business making people's morals for them. The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, defend them from external attack, and otherwise "ensure the blessings of Liberty". Laws, therefore based on common sense (murder, stopping at a stop sign) and the idea of protection of those rights are entirely appropriate. Those seeking to regulate what a person does to HIMSELF (or to his "soul") are not, if he is doing nothing to harm another. In fact, they come uncomfortably close to tyranny.

As for abortion, leave it for another thread. With someone else playing me.