[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I just heard on FOX the authorities know the motive. It was not adultery. One of them went on to say a psychologist called her yesterday stating there is one reason a woman shoots her husband in the back--to protect her children.

I do not know if this is the case or not, nor am I saying this "excuses" her or absolves her in any way. I do think if in fact, the husband was a threat to her kids, or if his daughters were victimized by him in the worst possible way, those girls deserve a full airing of the facts first. We also owe it to the father to allow all facts to come out in case he was everything a father should be.

We can all say none of us would resort to cold blooded murder, not we do not know what we would do.

When this story broke I saw this picture of the family and thought "What a sad face the little girl in front of the baby has.

The little girl in front of her father may have a smile on her face, but it seems as if she is pulling away from his hand and her entire body is tense.

[Dustbunny]

Actually, it was the look in the eyes of the middle child that caught my attention.

[Arizona Carolyn]

What has been bothering me is these little girls have been handed over to their father's father.

[Uri’el-2012]

When this story broke I saw this picture of the family and thought "What a sad face the little girl in front of the baby has.

The little girl in front of her father may have a smile on her face, but it seems as if she is pulling away from his hand and her entire body is tense.

105 posted on 03/25/2006 5:55:18 AM MST by Protect the Bill of Rights

On another blog (Huffcrimeblog) it has been stated that the photo
was taken at a funeral for Matt's grandfather and
it was probably the first funeral that the children attended.

There would be mixed emotions.

b'shem Y'shua