Man kills four kids and himself in Murder Suicide, Merced

KSEE-NBC ^ | March 26, 2002 | KSEE-NBC

[FresnoDA]

Man kills four kids and himself in Merced murder-suicide
Four Merced children are dead after what police believe was a murder suicide. Just after 7 a.m. Tuesday, a man went to the home of his ex-wife at Lecco and Piedmont Streets in Northeast Merced, where he allegedly shot his own child, three other children in the home and himself. Merced County Sheriff's Deputies say the man's ex-wife, Christine McFadden, came back from a morning walk to find her ex-husband and her five-year-old daughter lying dead on the floor. McFadden went to a neighbor's house to call police, then returned home to find her three other children dead in other bedrooms. Authorities say the dead include the five-year-old girl, a 17-year-old girl, and 14- and 15-year-old boys. Those three teenagers were not children of the man who apparently committed the murders. Police say the man had been living in Kern County. How, why and when he arrived in Merced are unanswered questions at this time.

[RobRoy]

Hmmmm... nope, I don't buy this at all. Give me one instance where a step-parent has been forced to pay for someone else's children.

My personal friend is, for three kids...

[flyervet]

Yes, yes, yes! That is because bears are too stoopid to look beyond the immediate. They are not even self aware, they simply want to stop the source as they see it.

Because bears wish to end it, period. But this guy didn't want to end his pain, he wanted to spread it around, not only to his ex-wife but to the father of those three other children he so coldly and callously murdered. This wasn't a man "pushed to the breaking point" as some here have alleged. This was a cold-hearted murderer who didn't want to live anymore and wanted to cause as much pain as he could before ending his own life.

[flyervet]

What's his name? What's the jurisdiction? When was the decision handed down? Who was the judge?

[RobRoy]

This wasn't a man "pushed to the breaking point" as some here have alleged.

So, you knew him then?

This was a cold-hearted murderer who didn't want to live anymore and wanted to cause as much pain as he could before ending his own life.

Yep, I totally agree. Of course, under the right circumstances, we all are...

[demnomo]

Ok, I'm not trying to flame you since you are making a bit more sense regarding the excuse/justification angle.

However, you have just brought up another point which I have very little hope for. As much as I pray for the entire world to mend it's evil, selfish ways, I do not believe that any law or wholesale change in societal attitudes towards human beings will stop some human beings from making EVIL choices or stop certain people like wife and husband abusers from blaming the victim or doing harm towards the one (and those close to the one) that they feel is the cause of all of their troubles. This stuff has been happening since the dawn of time. It's only recently that we have had more access to knowing quickly that it occurred (mass media saturation) and more Oprah's and lawyers to convince us that the twinkies (or ex-wives) caused these people to go off the deep end and that it is becoming an epidemic.

[flyervet]

So, you knew him then?

I know his as well as you or pillar.

[RobRoy]

What's his name? What's the jurisdiction? When was the decision handed down? Who was the judge?

Your kidding, right? Trying to prove this to you, whoever you are, does not rise to the level of exposing that kind of personal information, even through email. You can accept or reject it as it stands. Ask around though, you might get educated. It is, in fact, quite common, in a relative way. The courts can justify some of the most inane decisions I've ever seen on flimsy heresay. Happens all the time.

[GodBlessUSA]

There is absolutely no excuse - not one for murdering children. The government has nothing to do with this SICK BEHAVIOR. People do not kill children, NO MATTER WHAT HEARTBREAK, PAIN - NOTHING

[flyervet]

Your kidding, right? Trying to prove this to you, whoever you are, does not rise to the level of exposing that kind of personal information, even through email.

If you aren't willing to back up your claims with proof, you shouldn't make them. Period.

You can accept or reject it as it stands. Ask around though, you might get educated. It is, in fact, quite common, in a relative way. The courts can justify some of the most inane decisions I've ever seen on flimsy heresay. Happens all the time.

If it happens all the time, then there should be no problem proving it happens, right?

[RobRoy]

Oh, I whole-heartedly agree that there always have been, and always will be, people who do evil, and those who blame others for it. I also agree that our media has escalated the problem, and that there are plenty of lawyers ready to throw accelerant on the flames, to make a buck. However, I also believe that our courts have put laws on the books that are so biased, and so one-sided, that it has definitely had an affect of pushing some people to the breaking point. As Robroy pointed out in an earlier post, courts now have metal detectors at their entrances. Why? Because there have been so many incidences of people being completely devastated, and helpless, that they have attempted to take the law into their own hands.

I agree that it's becoming an epidemic, and it makes me incredibly sad. Our children are growing up in a world where they're not even safe in their own homes. Shame on all of us.

[Valpal1]

Hey, a vicious ex may be a reason to kill the ex, but it is no reason to kill four kids.

His selfish intent was to punish her and escape punishment for his actions. He's a sorry B****** that is burning in hell for eternity.

[SuziQ]

I just lost my job today

OK Folks, let's keep lormand in our prayers so he'll find a new AND BETTER job real soon!

[let freedom sing]

Condit Country?

[let freedom sing]

Case closed.

[EggsAckley]

Don't know much about the crime there, BUT, it IS the site for a new UC campus. Sounds perfect.

[RobRoy]

If you aren't willing to back up your claims with proof, you shouldn't make them. Period.

That's one of the silliest assertions I have heard on FR

Baloney, bologna, Use google yourself. I only have so much time to invest here. Just like in my work, some tasks justify more thouroughness than others. To me, this doesn't. You may disagree, and that is fine. But it's my time and my choice. Deal with it. You wanna know this stuff, do some research, don't just resort to "I don't buy that."

I repeat, this doesn't rise to that level for me. You, on the other hand, may choose, and have chosen, to refues to believe it without sources. That is your right and choice.

[flyervet]

Baloney, bologna, Use google yourself.

Let me explain how this works: you make an assertation, the burden is then on you to prove it's true. Otherwise, it remains nothing more than an assertation. There's no shame in that, Lord knows there are plenty on the web. For instance, on another message board I frequent, there's a man who claims the US government uses the Ark of the Covenant to sink invisible enemy ships. Ironically, his defense is similar to yours.

You wanna know this stuff, do some research, don't just resort to "I don't buy that."

Just where did you get the idea that I haven't done research into just this area?

[lormand]

Thanks to all of you.
This demonstrates some other values of FreeRepublic. We are a community of people willing and able to help each other out. Although I can't personally hug and shake your hands, you bring great comfort to me. Things will work out....I just got a call from my former Director on a job lead. Now I have to do some research on the company and tailor my resume for them.

Thanks again fellow freepers!

[RobRoy]

Just where did you get the idea that I haven't done research into just this area?

By your response to Pillars, and I quote, " Hmmmm... nope, I don't buy this at all. Give me one instance where a step-parent has been forced to pay for someone else's children.

If, during debate, you cannot respond to the other side, other than to say, "I just don't buy that." You will lose. Why don't you buy it? There are lots of people out there that can verify it for you. If you had researched it, you could have and, I assume, would have explained the reason why you "don't buy it." Without that information, a reasonable reader would assume you just find it hard to believe.

That may be, but I ain't gonna prove it to ya. It doesn't rise to that level of importance. I'm not gonna try to prove that men really did walk on the moon, or that there really was a Jewish holocaust. You gotta do the research and make up your own mind. I have personal experience with it, and that's all your gonna git here.

But thank you for your interest.

[flyervet]

If, during debate, you cannot respond to the other side, other than to say, "I just don't buy that." You will lose.

Actually, I have won. Both you and Pillars made assertations that you have utterly failed to back up. I am waiting for some sort of citation, but at this point, I am not holding my breath. In the meantime, I find it unacceptable to simply take someone's word for it. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.

Why don't you buy it? There are lots of people out there that can verify it for you.

Actually, there are a lot of people out there who are more than willing to pass along word of mouth, FOAF stories that simply don't hold up to examination.

If you had researched it, you could have and, I assume, would have explained the reason why you "don't buy it."

Er... no. Once again, if you bring up an unsupported assertation, it is up to you to support it.

I have done quite a bit of research on this topic and while I have found too many unsubstantiated WOM and FOAF stories such as yours to count, I have never, ever found an actual documented instance of an ex-step-parent being forced to pay child support for a child with whom s/he had only a temporary relationship by marriage, interrupted by divorce. Does the possibility exist that someone, somewhere has been on the losing end of just this sort of court decision? Certainly. But with every one of these claims that melt under examination, the likelihood declines.

Without that information, a reasonable reader would assume you just find it hard to believe.

I do, in fact, find it hard to believe. Next to impossible, in fact. That may be, but I ain't gonna prove it to ya. It doesn't rise to that level of importance.

And that, I also find hard to believe. If this issue simply isn't important enough for you to bother trying to support your point, why expend the time and energy in multiple posts proclaiming how unimportant it is? I would think that if this situation were as common as you claim, you could have easily provided a citation in the time you've spent asserting that you will not provide a citation. The fact that you have not is telling.

I'm not gonna try to prove that men really did walk on the moon, or that there really was a Jewish holocaust.

No one has asked you to do anything of the sort. Simply put, all I am asking you to do is behave with honor and support your assertation, or drop it, as Pillar has apparently done.

I have personal experience with it, and that's all your gonna git here.

Actually, you don't even have that. Your friend is the one who allegedly friend has the personal experience.

But thank you for your interest.

Not at all. It is I who must thank you. Have a good day!