Saturday, December 21, 2013

Ohio Woman Who Compelled 10-Year-old Stepson to Kill his Father Gets Life Sentence


A prosecutor says a northern Ohio woman who compelled her 10-year-old stepson to kill his father in a shooting initially ruled accidental has been sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Defiance County prosecutor Morris Murray says 46-year-old Oakwood resident Judith Hawkey was sentenced Thursday.

Hawkey was convicted last month of aggravated murder, insurance fraud and child endangering in Robert Breininger's 2003 slaying. Her attorney hasn't returned a phone call seeking comment on Thursday's sentencing.

Murray says the case was reopened last year after authorities learned of new evidence indicating Hawkey physically and emotionally abused the boy and compelled him to shoot his father and directed him to say it was accidental.

Murray says at least part of Hawkey's motive was nearly $500,000 in insurance money.

25 comments:

  1. I wonder how many "accidents", are not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Given that the number of accidental deaths is around 600 per annum, the answer is likely not many.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't looking for guesses, but thanks for playing.

      Delete
    3. That wasn't a guess. It's a fact. Look up the WISQARS Injury Mortality Report.

      Delete
    4. Is that another one of your sites I have to pay to get your figures?

      Delete
    5. First of all, Greg the Deceiver, I've mentioned before that recent studies have shown that the number of "accidents" may be under-reported by as much as 100%. That means the accidental deaths would be over 1,000. Secondly, and for the tenth time, the harm done by accidental gun incidents is not limited to deaths. Your career as a spin doctor is in serious jeopardy. You're not convincing anyone with your twisted bullshit.

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, you claimed that accidents are under-reported. My critical thinking skills are working just fine, thanks. A claim requires proof, and you offered none, other than your guesses. But even if the number is off by as much as you say, that still leaves accidental gun deaths as the smallest category by a large margin. And since it would reduce the size of the homicide category, I don't see how that helps your cause.

      Delete
    7. Another statement by the site coward, that he could care less about needless gun deaths. It's just a number, no reason to care about gun deaths.

      Delete
    8. Mike, again if something is "under reported by 100%" that means nothing is being reported. What is 1000 minus 100% of 1000? Zero.

      Delete
    9. If the true number is double what's being reported, then the thing was under-reported by 100%. Is that wrong?

      Delete
    10. No, Mikeb, that would be underreported by half--50%. Of course, you're only guessing in any case.

      Delete
    11. Let's try it this way, If my company has 100 customers and it grows to have 200, what's the increase percentage-wise? It's a 100% increase. Whenever you double or halve something, you're talking about a 100% change. TS was just trying to use his math-voodoo on me and you're just being contentious.

      Delete
    12. Greg, I'm getting tired of pointing out your lies.

      "A claim requires proof, and you offered none"

      You do remember our two or three posts which included actual images of the death certificates that were wrongly or ambiguously filled out, don't you? Is that not proof of under-reporting "accidental" as the cause of death?

      Delete
    13. If you halve something, you decrease it by 50%. Mikeb, that's math, not being contentious. And your post about death certificates showed nothing of the kind, as we pointed out to you then. You showed a few errors and claimed that the error rate is 100%. The source didn't say that. Besides, whether the death is ruled accident, suicide, or homicide, it's still listed as a gunshot death.

      Delete
    14. "Greg, I'm getting tired of pointing out your lies."

      Yes, it is tedious to constantly point out the site liars lies, especially sine the proof is overwhelming and he keeps repeating the same lies.

      Delete
    15. Mike: "Whenever you double or halve something, you're talking about a 100% change."

      Uh, no. In the doubling case you are talking about adding 100 employees, while halving is losing 50 people.

      Delete
    16. I think where you are getting mixed up is that if you double something and then halve it, you are back where you started. But your reference point is changed at the second step. You are now starting from 200 employees instead if 100. For your accidental gun death example, you could correctly say what you meant to in two different ways: "accidents are under reported by 50%", or you could say, "actual accidents are double that of the reported ones". In the former, your reference point is 1200 "actual" accidents, and you are telling is what percentage of them aren't reported. This cannot be greater than 100% (because the absolute most you could NOT report is all of them, which would mean no accidents are being reported. In the later, your reference is the reported accidents (600), and you are saying the percent increase from that. Perfect increases are mathematically limitless, while percent decrease is bound between zero and 100 (provided the variable can't be negative).

      Delete
    17. What does it mean for the percent of increase to be 100%?


      Rod Mac answered 6 years ago
      An increase of 100% is another way of saying

      Twice As Many

      OR

      Twice As Much

      Delete
    18. That means doubled. But you said 100% decrease (or under reported by 100%) which means it goes to zero.

      Delete
    19. Who is Rod Mac?

      But Mikeb, here's a case where you should defer to the expert, TS, on the subject of math.

      Delete
    20. TS an expert on Math? Laughable HA HA HA HA
      His Math has been proven wrong before.

      Delete
    21. No, Greg, you should defer to TS as the master of stubborn refusal to admit when someone else is right. He's also better than you at double-talking off-topic bullshit.

      Delete
    22. I don't have to be an expert at math to know what 600/1200 is.

      Mike, if there are 1200 accidents, and 600 of them are reported, what percentage of accidents are reported?

      Delete
    23. I don't know why I bother asking, but would you care to show us this proof of wrong math that you are talking about?

      Delete
    24. "Mike, if there are 1200 accidents, and 600 of them are reported, what percentage of accidents are reported?"

      That's your slick double-talking right there. It's not the percentage reported, it's the difference. We have 1200. We have only 600 reported, the difference being 600. That's 100% underreported.

      This is my last comment on this. Feel free to have the last word, you and Greg can fight it out for that victory.

      Delete