Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Town saw wife change when husband vanished
AP ^ | October 26, 2003 | Mike Wilson

Posted on 10/28/2003 12:44:54 AM PST by witnesstothefall

DEFIANCE, Iowa -- Townspeople knew about Scott Shanahan's temper, that he was often moody and was anti-social. Some people said they saw the bruises that his wife, Dixie, tried to hide.

But authorities say Dixie Shanahan, 36, kept her biggest secret for the 14 months that followed her husband's August 2002 disappearance. This past week, Scott Shanahan's skeletal remains were found in a spare bedroom in their house. An autopsy showed he had been shot in the head.

Dixie Shanahan has since been ordered held on a charge of first-degree murder, and her children - ages 7, 5 and 8 months - have been placed in state custody.

Her lawyer, public defender Greg Steensland, did not return a message left Saturday seeking comment on the case.

In July, nearly a year after Dixie Shanahan had reported her husband missing, she told sheriff's Deputy John Kelly that he had left her and moved to the nearby town of Atlantic.

Neighbors had already noticed a change in her.

"She was free - like a weight had been lifted off her shoulders," said Mary Schmitz.

Schmitz and her son, Doug, said that they never saw Dixie Shanahan with bruises but that there were rumors that abuse was common in the household.

"I can see what she went through, and he got what he deserved if what they say is true," Mary Schmitz said.

Court records show that on several occasions Scott Shanahan beat his wife, leaving her bloody and bruised.

In October 2000, a friend of Dixie Shanahan's told deputies that he had dragged her to the basement, tied her hands with a coat hanger and told her he could leave her there for weeks and "no one would know the difference," court records show. She went to a women's shelter in Texas, near relatives, but soon returned.

Resident Mickey Kloewer said people knew of the abuse. "But you didn't want to intrude in their business," Kloewer said.

Dixie Shanahan had moved in with Scott Shanahan and his mother, Bev, in this western Iowa town of 350 people when she was a foster child about 14 years old. They married about eight or nine years ago and stayed in the same house, which his mother had left to him when she died.

Doug Schmitz and other neighbors described Scott Shanahan as moody and anti-social.

No one thought much about his disappearance until several months had passed and they noticed he had left his pickup truck and dog behind, Doug Schmitz said.

"People joked about it, that he was buried in the back yard, or buried in concrete in the basement," Doug Schmitz said.

Karen Kloewer said the case has shaken the town.

"It's heartbreaking to think she didn't think she could turn anywhere for help," she said. "I think the whole town stands behind her and is feeling for her and her children. I just wish she would have turned to the community for help."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last
To: Disgusted in Texas
She chose to flee not to murder, good choice. Sounds like the first one she has made.
21 posted on 10/28/2003 6:39:38 AM PST by Protagoras (Hating Democrats doesn't make you a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
That's good progress though! We need to take her and Randy shooting somewhere's soon.
22 posted on 10/28/2003 6:58:49 AM PST by biblewonk (Spose to be a Chrisssssssstian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kittymyrib
Do the math, her youngest child was 9 months in the womb and 8 months out of the womb. I don't think that it proves that she was "having fun."
23 posted on 10/28/2003 7:25:29 AM PST by jonboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Disgusted in Texas
At this point is it a given that she did not merely kill in self defense and hide the body due to panic? Murder in the first degree is not necessarily the only thing that could have happened (although he deserved what he got in my opinion).
24 posted on 10/28/2003 7:31:52 AM PST by jonboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: steve8714
Missed it, too, did you?
25 posted on 10/28/2003 9:51:51 AM PST by hotpotato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Any man who strikes a woman is not a man. Period.

As you leave the ATM, a woman walks up to you, pulls a kife, and demands all your money. Whatchagonnado?

26 posted on 10/28/2003 9:55:05 AM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Shoot the hell out of her.
27 posted on 10/28/2003 9:57:44 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
You're a scholar and a gentleman.
28 posted on 10/28/2003 10:01:31 AM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
"Mommy, what's that smell upstairs?"

"And how come there's so many flies?"
29 posted on 10/28/2003 10:17:16 AM PST by aShepard (-It's always about me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Dixie Shanahan has since been ordered held on a charge of first-degree murder, and her children - ages 7, 5 and 8 months - have been placed in state custody.

Nothing bolder than a prosecutor after a "vicious felon". ;-)

30 posted on 10/28/2003 12:23:34 PM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Run like hell or submit. Cowards are always looking to rationlize their behavior, aren't they?
31 posted on 10/28/2003 12:24:23 PM PST by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Run like hell or submit.
I'll put flowers on your grave.

Cowards
Fascinating choice of words...

32 posted on 10/28/2003 12:28:47 PM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
That's right pal. Why don't you contort yourself in more ways to explain the many situations in which it's advisable to hit women? That's what you're getting at right? Well go right ahead.
33 posted on 10/28/2003 12:49:51 PM PST by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
You're funny. Really.

You posted an unsupportable absolute statement. I replied with an unlikely, but possible, situation in which your ideas are really stupid. Assault with a deadly weapon and armed robbery are as much violent crimes when committed by Bonnie as when committed by Clyde. Bonnie deserves no more consideration during her crimes than Clyde (or after, for that matter), the extra "X" chromosome notwithstanding.

In other words, they both deserve two in the chest and one in the head.

Deal with it.

And consider what sort of creature inhabits womens' prisons. That should clarify the matter somewhat.

Now if you'd said "Any man who strikes a lady is not a man", I'd agree with you. There is a difference.

Go ahead, Mr. Toad, and puff yourself up and bloviate. It should be amusing...

34 posted on 10/28/2003 1:02:45 PM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
I'm bloviating now. Is it funny? I'm aware of the distinctions you draw; I've heard them drawn by knuckle-draggers before.

Don't let me distract you from constructing more violence-on-women fantasies.

If it's so important for you, then yes, extreme situations do occur when the physical submission of a female by a male is called for, even to the extent you fantasize about - 2 in the chest and 1 in the head. What wonderful imagery your fantasy provides.

You know what they call folks who like to deal in extremes? Extremists.
35 posted on 10/28/2003 1:21:38 PM PST by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Don't let me distract you from constructing more violence-on-women fantasies.

So a woman can threaten lethal harm to a man, in the form of a knifepoint robbery, but men cannot respond with lethal force? Funny, I've read the self-defense statutes from several states, and I've never seen a gender differentiation in those statutes.

36 posted on 10/28/2003 1:24:52 PM PST by dirtboy (Now in theaters - Howard Dean as Buzz Lightweight - taking the Dems to Oblivion and Beyond in 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Well the mysogynists (sic?) are coming out of the woodwork. To appease those who feel adamant about the necessity to make it clear that violence against women is sometimes highly commendable, let me amend my patently offensive statement made earlier.

Any man who strikes a woman who is not committing a violent felony against his defenseless person, is not a man. Period.

Is that modern enough for you?
37 posted on 10/28/2003 1:33:14 PM PST by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Well the mysogynists (sic?) are coming out of the woodwork. To appease those who feel adamant about the necessity to make it clear that violence against women is sometimes highly commendable, let me amend my patently offensive statement made earlier. Any man who strikes a woman who is not committing a violent felony against his defenseless person, is not a man. Period. Is that modern enough for you?

Let me ask you - if a female pulled a knife on you, was threatening to kill you and was making active attempts to stab you and you were blocked off from getting away from her, and you were carrying a gun, would you use it? How is a response to a self-defense situation a "violence on women" fantasy?

FWIW, not all women are the weak defenseless types. My wife could probably kick the rump of half the men on the planet.

38 posted on 10/28/2003 1:39:26 PM PST by dirtboy (Now in theaters - Howard Dean as Buzz Lightweight - taking the Dems to Oblivion and Beyond in 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: witnesstothefall
Bwahahahaha!!!!!! Are you trying to flame me, sonny-boy? You'll have to do better than that.

You posted an idiotic statement; I called you on it. It's no big deal. Or it shouldn't be. A gentleman would graciously admit it, and go on with life.

But nooooooo, that's not good enough! Instead, you have to regurgitate a steaming heap of hardcore feminist drivel. I almost feel sorry for you. Did you marry Katherine MacKinnon?

OBTW, Bustards don't have knuckles.

39 posted on 10/28/2003 1:40:07 PM PST by ArrogantBustard (Extremely extreme extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Knuckle-draggers think misogyny was invented in 1968 as part and parcel of feminism. It wasn't.

If you're an old timer with real world experience, you ought to know that.

I don't follow feminism Marxist crap, so I have no idea who Katherine MacKinnon is. And I'm not that curious to learn, thanks.
40 posted on 10/28/2003 1:50:11 PM PST by witnesstothefall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson