[webstersII]

"You just choose not to see the problem with a woman who needlessly mutilated fellow human beings"

I thought she mutilated dead bodies, not "fellow human beings". She killed them (which was justifiable IMO but you may disagree with that, too) and then she scalped them. Presumably she scalpled them for a purpose as was mentioned in one of the stories about it, she didn't scalp them just for fun and sport like the savages did.

And, yes, I see a vast difference between what she did and what they did to her baby. Perhaps you should judge the difference between those two acts.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I thought she mutilated dead bodies, not "fellow human beings".

The article that started this thread doesn't make that clear - in one account, she befriended several of the Indians, got them drunk and then killed them. It's not clear if the scalping took place during the killings.

She killed them (which was justifiable IMO but you may disagree with that, too)

No, don't disagree - she probably had to kill them to escape.

and then she scalped them. Presumably she scalpled them for a purpose as was mentioned in one of the stories about it, she didn't scalp them just for fun and sport like the savages did.

What was this purpose?

And, yes, I see a vast difference between what she did and what they did to her baby.

I see a difference as well. That still doesn't make what she did any less savage.