R.I. father says he'll kill son's murderer if man is released

[The Straight Story]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - The father of a 5-year-old boy slain by a neighbor in 1975 - who then kept the boy's shellacked skull and bones in his bedroom dresser - says he'll kill the man who was convicted if he is released 12 years early from a 40-year sentence.

Michael Woodmansee confessed to killing Jason Foreman in South Kingstown in 1983 and was convicted of second-degree murder.

The Providence Journal reports that Woodmansee is eligible for early release for good behavior as part of a plea bargain struck to spare the family the pain of a trial.


Foreman's father, John Foreman, tells WPRO-AM on Monday that if that happens, he intends to kill Woodmansee as aggressively and painfully as he killed Foreman's son.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20040545-504083.html

[rfranklin]

1. Jury nullification for sure...

I wouldn't convict him.

[panader0]

2. Personally, I wouldn't hold it against the father.

Kept the shellacked skull and bones? If someone ever hurt my kids, I wouldn't be able to help myself as far as getting them.

[wtmusic]

5. +1

Self-preservation flies out the window.

[Jester Messiah]

22. Agreed.

If I were in the father's shoes, I'd have something very elaborate and prolonged planned out.

[msanthrope]

42. He ate the kid. He's a cannibal. Good luck finding a jury that wouldn't want to award the father a

medal.n/t

[Fire1]

62. Thought he just shellacked the bones. n/t

[msanthrope]

79. Nope. Google the guy's name. n/t

[Hawkowl]

3. At least the father is warning him

I would keep my mouth shut and wait for him to be released.

[get the red out]

12. +1

That was my thought.

[csziggy]

13. The warning is the father's attempt at self preservation

If the murderer is kept locked up, the father does not "have" to kill him and the father can keep on living.

[Liberal_in_LA]

52. +5

[varkam]

84. Should he be kept locked up until the father says otherwise? eom

[Hawkowl]

106. Indeed

I agree completely. And for that reason the convict should never, ever see the light of day, to prevent the father from self destruction.

[BanzaiBonnie]

4. Whose family were they sparing the trial for?

This does not sound right. Someone who would do such a thing should NEVER be let out of prison. I would not kill the murderer, but I would make it my job to never let him out of sight. I would worry continually that this person would kill again.

[msanthrope]

44. The family didn't want the cannibalism details out.

I don't blame them. Who knew the fucker would live this long?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

60. undoubtedly got better health care in prison

than many get on the outside...

sP

[LeftinOH]

6. Personally, I wouldn't have given a heads up.. just track him down quietly. n/t

[bluestateguy]

7. He'd be arrested, but a jury might cut him loose anyway

and that would be that. Not much you can do if a jury says No Dice.

[FLPanhandle]

8. This shit is why people support the death penalty

People getting out again is a major reason people support the death penalty.

No way this asshole should ever see the light of day again.

I wouldn't convict the father if he does what he says either.

[FBaggins]

9. One of my favorite West Wing moments

President Josiah Bartlet: Charlie, I'm going to ask you a question. And this is one of those times that it's OK to tell me I've stepped over the line, and I should shut my mouth, okay?
Charlie Young: Okay.
President Josiah Bartlet: What happened to the guy who shot your mother?
Charlie Young: They haven't found him yet, sir.
President Josiah Bartlet: If they did, would you want to see him executed? Killing a police officer is a capital crime. I figured you must have thought about it.
Charlie Young: Yes, sir.
President Josiah Bartlet: And?
Charlie Young: I wouldn't want to see him executed, Mr. President.
<pause>
Charlie Young: I'd want to do it myself.

[speltwon]

36. Riffs on the Dukakis question

when he, as an opponent of the death penalty, was asked what he would want if his wife was murdered to happen to the offender.

He answered it poorly, imo.

[devilgrrl]

72. That was the stupidest question at a debate ever.

Of course he answered it poorly.

How do you answer a hypothetical question correctly?

[speltwon]

77. I know what I would have said (if an opponent of death penalty)

"Hell yes, I would want that guy dead. However, that would be an emotional response and isn't my belief on what policy should be"

That would have been honest and imo effective

[devilgrrl]

78. Had Dukakis done that - they'd find something else to lay into him over.

He could have done everything right and the "liberal" media would be all over him.

[speltwon]

87. It was a colossal fuckup, and I read an interview where he admitted as much

And god knows, it's a question he should have anticipated. The press and the political opponents will use their slings and arrows, of course, but that doesn't excuse such a boneheaded answer. Politics is partly theater and soundbites. Some use it to their advantage (Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) and some don't.

[Modern_Matthew]

10. Getting out early to make room for non-violent offenders, no doubt. nt

[bluestateguy]

16. Yep. Got to warehouse those drug users and possessors

nt

[H2O Man]

11. I understand why.

I hope the murderer is not released early.

[GKirk]

14. Isn't just making the threat

against the law? Not that I blame him, just asking.

[DirkGently]

27. Most likely. Putting someone in reasonable fear of harm can be assault, at the least.

[speltwon]

37. Not assault, because there is no imminence

it can be prosecuted as a true threat. Every state penal code criminalizes such threats. But it's not an assault because an assault (in those states that differentiate between Assault and Assault and Battery - mine doesn't) must place the recipient in fear of an imminent battery.

Generally speaking, the three prongs that must be met for a true threat are

1) threat is communicated (via third or fourth etc. parties is ok)
2) the recipient of the threat is in fear
3) the fear is one that a rational person would fear given their state of knowledge about the threatener (their history, etc.)

This is one of the few type of crimes where a defendant's past history is almost always admissible AS LONG AS the person threatened knew of it. I once investigated a witness intimidation case that was long and involved and I had several hours of testimony on it. I learned all you could ever want to know about the case law in these cases.

[DirkGently]

41. Maybe. I can see a problem with the imminence of the threat, but it's certainly credible, and

I'd think a rational inmate about to be released would fear the threat under these circumstances.

[speltwon]

46. True, but it's not an ASSAULT

it's a threat. Some states call it "harassment" some call it "terroristic threatening", but the point is that the crime is not assault. THat's the point. Is it illegal, generally speaking - yes.

Again, the recipient of the threat must actually be in fear, and the totality of the circ's under which the threat was made must support that his fear is rational. Those are general case law rules.

Again, I am not saying it's not a threat. I am saying it appears to be, just that it is not an assault.

TO differentiate. If I am standing in front you, fists clenched, in a boxer's stance, and say "I'm going to break your fucking jaw!", THAT would be much closer to the meaning of Assault.

[msanthrope]

49. I think your analysis is correct. It's not assault.

Possible he could be charged with threatening/harassment, but I can't imagine the jurisdiction that would take the report.

[DirkGently]

66. I think imminence is a little more flexible than that, but agree another theory would be stronger.

I'm not certain a telephone call announcing, "I'm on the way over to your house to kill you," wouldn't be prosecutable as assault in some jurisdiction. I think the definition comes from civil tort standards, which rely a lot on "reasonableness" standards.

But something like this would probably fall better into some other category of threat. I'd assume something is in place to deter all the angry families in the world from openly threatening to kill criminals convicted of harming their loved ones.

[speltwon]

76. I've never seen one prosecuted as "assault" when it's over the phone

I've seen scores prosecuted that were in person

[TK421]

99. imminence basically just puts the authorities on alert n/t

[Badfish]

35. yep.

the father is committing a crime and should be charged.

[msanthrope]

47. There's not a DA stupid enough to charge the father.

And with what?

Threats?

[Badfish]

70. Yes , threats.

making terroristic threats is a crime. http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=terroristic+&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4TSNA_en___US379&q=terroristic+threat

[DirkGently]

74. Is there a DA stupid enough to ignore it, & deal with the result if the threat is carried out?

I think the gentleman, no matter how well-understood his reaction, is likely to get a call suggesting he temper his comments.

[msanthrope]

82. There's no complainant. He would do best to ignore it. n/t

[Xithras]

86. DA's don't usually waste their time on unwinnable cases.

The guy hasn't hurt anybody, and the DA must realize that putting together a jury willing to convict him would be an insurmountable task.

[varkam]

81. Depending on the laws in the jurisdiction, it could be.

Most likely a misdemeanor (e.g. terroristic threatening), but even still.

[flamin lib]

15. In his place I'd want to do the same thing.

It's called vengeance and given the opportunity I'd happily carry it out regardless of the consequences to myself.

That said, I live in a society that I expect to protect me, however imperfectly, from acts of violence. To do that society must also protect "the other" from me.

It's not perfect but the alternative is vigilante anarchy.

[The Straight Story]

17. Sometimes we have things like 'one-offs', document them and move on

:)

[FLPanhandle]

18. I would expect a society to not let the child murder out again in the first place.

Life in prison is justice. If people don't see justice being served, then that society is encouraging vigilante justice.

[joshcryer]

20. Have you seen Dear Zachary? Don't read about it if not, and see it.

[Bunny]

26. Incredible movie.

That was a local story for me, so I was somewhat familiar with it before I saw it. Absolutely stunning, especially the ending.

[joshcryer]

38. *minor spoilers don't read*

Yeah, the grandfather, how he plotted, how he was so angry. I wish he did it.

[disillusioned73]

19. Who can blame this father?? Suprised he didn't find a

way through the prison system.. if you know what I mean..

[WingDinger]

21. We have spent damn good money keeping that ghoul alive.

He would be instantly killed, if he was allowed in general population. He prolly costs us Obama's salary.

[crazyjoe]

23. should have kept his big mouth shut, now it's premeditated.

[closeupready]

43. But what if the stress has driven him insane?

nt

[crazyjoe]

116. then i guess he should be instituionalized immediatly. good luck with that defense.

[DirkGently]

24. Revenge is a strong drive; maybe genetically hard-wired. The question is

... what do we DO with that drive? When might it accomplish something positive, or necessary? At what point is it simply a destructive impulse incompatible with society?

We all can understand it instinctively. It may have some important place, in deterrence, or simple self-defense.

But more often, it seems to just add fuel to the problems and feed rage. Some people develop a taste for it, I think. Sitting at home, stroking the Rage Gland, dreaming of violence. Maybe acting on it, eventually.

On-line newspaper comment sections, those pits of the ugliest human impulses, are crawling with people salivating with fantasies about torturing and savaging wrong-doers. People whose vengeance bellies are never full. There was something recently about a rape (another righteous-enough source of the impulse for revenge) but the comment section I saw filled with gleeful descriptions of something truly stomach-churning that the "KKK" supposedly used to do to accused rapists involving nails and a tree stump and fire that seemed to bother no one.

There's a point where we're no longer reacting as good people who have been pushed into a primal place, but as primitives hooked on feeling good about hurting someone.

It's part of the ideological divide in the country, too. American conservatism celebrates harsh punishment and scoffs at any flinching away from doing the horrendous in the name of justice or security. I remember before the War on Islam-oops-Terrorism how conservatives used to fantasize about those countries where "they chop off your hand for stealing a loaf of bread." "There's no 'repeat-offenders' there, I'll tell ya!" Right. Except that's not true, and brutality doesn't deter -- it just soothes the offended party's need for payback.

I once got into it with a bunch online who were defending parents jailed for cramming a child's mouth full of soap (and making her chew and swallow it) to the point where she was vomiting and passing out. The argument was the same -- justice / disicipline / deterrence -- but the glee and sort of damaged psyche I was hearing from people who were beaten "soundly" in childhood and NEEDED to see that done to other children, including their own, was disturbing.

We're fighting those impulses every time we try to shut down Gitmo or call for war crimes prosecutions for the Bush regime's torture program. "How can we stop 'terrorism,' if we're not willing to act like terrorists?" Sounds almost like logic, but of course the opposite is true. More brutality and more violence just feeds the fire. Maybe that was Bush / Cheney's real goal. Endless war IS profitable, for some.

There's a place, maybe for vengeance. The parent of a murdered child certainly has the greatest claim to it I can imagine. But it's a dangerous, open-ended road to travel, and one we seem to have gone down too far already in a lot of ways.



edited for speling.

[smokey nj]

45. +1 Great post.

[canetoad]

51. +1,000

Excellent post. Thank you

[Angry Dragon]

25. An eye for an eye

says so right there in that Bible, as long as so many want to make this a christian nation

[flamin lib]

30. Two things about the "eye for an eye" argument:

First, that was Jesus taking a step back from tribal justice wherein the injured tribe would try to wipe out the offending tribe to the last child and last livestock; taking "and the horse you rode in on" to it's logical conclusion. He was urging an end to asymmetrical retaliation.

Second, this leads to a society of blind toothless angry people.

Yer rite, no need to be a Christian nation.

[Angry Dragon]

33. We are not a christian nation

We are a land of laws that are suppose to be applied equally to all

If some of those laws happen to dovetail with things from the Bible that is okay

...........................

[Bluenorthwest]

85. Good fucking gravy! Jesus did not say 'an eye for an eye'!

He said 'turn the other cheek'. Eye for an eye is very, very Old Testament. Jesus lived under Roman rule and Roman law.

[flamin lib]

93. Yes, you are correct. it is old testament. I confused a story my FIL

related to me with Christian tradition breaking from the older and more savage ways of the OT. He told the story correctly, I repeated it wrong.

[Badfish]

110. what about all the old testaments references ?

Nice try.

[yawnmaster]

71. Thats Old Testiment; Christianity, being based on the New Testiment should tend...

to follow:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

[underseasurveyor]

28. And who could blame him

Can't say that I wouldn't feel the same way.

[Ikonoklast]

29. If that was one of my children, there would be no place on Earth that man could hide.

God is all forgiving.


I am not God.

[VoteProgressive]

31. I would feel the same way. No way a murderer should be released.

[Fla_Democrat]

32. Well.. I wouldn't have said it

:smoke:

[old mark]

34. K&R- He kills a 5 year old and keeps the skull in his house and they

want to let him out?

They used to do this bullshit in PA, too, till 3 guys on early release for violent felonies killed a Philly cop while robbing a bank days after being released for "good behavior"...

They had the sense to change the parole system here. Evidently they have not so much good sense in RI...


mark

[msanthrope]

40. It's not parole. I think this guy is maxxing out....

I'm not sure he's even going to be on parole. His plea agreement allowed him to accrue 'good time.' He's mananged to accrue the max, 30%.

It may be a straight release.

[old mark]

57. I can not believe they actually want this guy in public again-do they think he is rehabilitated?..nt

[msanthrope]

58. I don't think anybody 'wants' this asshole out. I think it's a plea deal

that did not follow the script...

He was given 40 years with the ability to accrue 'good time.' Now, who would think that a cannibal child-killer would be a model prisoner? He simply accrued max good time, and, by the terms of the plea, he's served 70% of his sentence. He's out, probably as a matter of law.

I don't think anybody thinks this guy is 'rehabilitated.' He wasn't habilitated to begin with.

[msanthrope]

39. Releasing a 52-year-old cannibal? I give this guy under a week

before he's back in protective custody, or dead.

[northernlights]

97. preferably dead

he should have had the death penalty to begin with. There is nothing to be gained -- and everything to be lost -- by keeping a perveted psychopathic child murdering cannibal alive.

[provis99]

48. Woodmansee has paid his debt to society.

This father that wants to kill him is nothing but an animal. He should be in prison for making the threat to Woodmansee, and a permanent restraining order placed on him.

[msanthrope]

50. No. I think that 28 years for killing and eating a 5 year old isn't enough.

I think you go beyond the pale in your characterization of the father.

[provis99]

54. well them I'm glad the justice system doesn't depend on your opinion.

[msanthrope]

59. I think you are cruel to characterize the father as an 'animal.' I can see how that opinion might

be unwelcome.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

56. The problem with your statement is

that the 'debt to society' is the wrong debt. His debt is to the boy he murdered and ate. That debt can never be repaid and forgiveness cannot be obtained from the true victim. There is also a debt to the boy's family due to the injury done them by his acts against the boy. They CAN choose to forgive. Or not. And I am sure the father of the murdered and eaten boy is more than willing to face the consequences of his announced action...though I doubt any jury in the world would convict him because that word 'justice' you throw about below...people have a funny notion that justice just might be served by the father...after all these years.

sP

[Fire1]

64. "Time to Kill." n/t

[ProdigalJunkMail]

65. Never saw it...never was a fan of the Grisham stuff

but the storyline does sound interesting.

sP

[northernlights]

68. +1,000,000,000 nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. I think plenty of juries would convict if the father followed through with the threat to torture

Remember, this isn't just a 'vigilante' "apply the death penalty" action; the father wants to cause the murderer extreme pain and suffering too, and it's pre-meditated. I'd be appalled at any jury letting someone off if he actually did that.

How often have juries let people off pre-meditated murder because they think the killing 'served justice'? I think it must be pretty rare (let's limit this to the 20th and 21 century).

[northernlights]

67. I'm not interested in a debt to society

I'm interested in keeping a known, viscious killer from every harming anybody ever again. Period.

[yawnmaster]

73. I don't think the debt to society has been paid. eom

[yawnmaster]

75. This is definitely not the action of an animal. This is a purely human reaction...

To carry this feeling, these emotions so long is so very, very human.

[Rebubula]

88. Wow...

...just wow.

A man has his child kidnapped, murdered and eaten. The killer keeps his bones as a trophy. He lives with this for almost 30 years (failure to protect his son etc) and then, when his killer is about to be released - the father makes an emotional statement of revenge - and you can HIM an animal and want to see HIM in jail???????

So wanting to kill the person the murdered and ate your child makes one an ANIMAL???


What would you do in his shoes? Give the guy a party? Forgive him?

I just do not even know what to say to your post other than wow...If this were FARK, I would call you a troll - looking for hits. But I think that you are serious and that is really frightening.

What if the father had found his son's body in the man's house and killed him then? Would he still be an animal in your eyes?

[MikeW]

94. sometimes the law and justice DONT intersect

In this case they are far apart. Justice was NOT served and will not be served through his release.

This sicko is a danger to children and should never be released.

From a native of RI, even the local police chief from his home town doesnst want him back here, has said so in the local paper.

[TK421]

100. yes...clearly, this Woodmansee poses no threat to anyone n/t

edited to add: did I really need to edit this for the sarcasm tag? REALLY? you got problems, then






























:sarcasm:

[LWolf]

111. What debt?

Why would someone who did that to a 5 yo, or to ANYONE, get 40 years instead of life without the possibility of parole? In this case, I think it's more a matter of protecting the public from a sick individual who has proven his danger to the public than it is about his "debt."

I certainly hope no one would release him early. If the only concern is his "debt," it's not paid until he's served the full sentence.

[hamsterjill]

53. I can certainly understand the father's feelings

If he were to act on his words, I certainly couldn't convict him if I were part of a jury.

Maybe it's wrong to feel this way, but I would not stop a fair fight between the convicted killer and the father if the father wanted it that way.

[Rex]

55. You know what? I cannot condemn his thoughts or future actions.

If I ever had children and someone murdered one/all, I would want their entire being to suffer in ways no one should even think about.

[guitar man]

61. I don't blame him

I'd probably do the same...

[Fire1]

63. I don't think anybody would. n/t

[Mimosa]

69. Woodmansee is a monster who murdered more than one child

There were at least 2 boys horribly abused and murdered. In these kind of cases plea deals are not appropriate. Personally I believe these type of crimes-when proven with irrefutable evidence- deserve the death penalty.

More info on Woodmansee:

http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/03/john_foreman_vows_to_murder_mi.php

[fishwax]

91. I though he murdered one child

and it was when he tried to strangle a second boy (who got away) that they discovered he was responsible for the first boy's disappearance and death ...

[JVS]

80. That R.I. father should be jailed.

[msanthrope]

90. For what? For wanting to kill the man who raped, murdered, and ate his 5 year old?

Let me know when you find an LEO interested in giving a shit.

[MikeW]

95. for?

[varkam]

83. And if he kills Mr. Woodmansee, I'd argue he should go to prison as well.

Not that he is out of line in his emotions, but murder is murder is murder.

[msanthrope]

89. Not all killings are murder. n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

119. No, but this one would be.

Deliberate, pre-meditated, cold-blooded murder at that.

"He was a bad person" is not, and cannot be, a mitigating circumstance for murder.

[fishwax]

92. Woodmansee oughtn't be released, imo, but I hope Mr. Foreman doesn't actually do

what he's said he will do (in no small part for Mr. Foreman's sake).

[TNLib]

96. What's scary is they are releasing this lunatic out into the public

What if he kills another kid?

[MikeW]

98. whats more scary is that anyone would even consider it

[TK421]

101. Oh, that's nonsense!!! He's done his time!!! Leave him be!

:sarcasm: if this were my kid, slow torture would come before death

[Kurovski]

102. enough "good behavior" crap for child murderers.

There were no five year-olds for him in prison, god effing dammit.

[Vehl]

104. +1000

[Vehl]

103. Why did he openly state this? serves no purpose.

Isn't Revenge supposed to be a a dish best served cold ?

[HEyHEY]

105. How can this guyonly get 40 years for that? He should be in for good and studied.

[NobleCynic]

107. Good behavior? Good luck with that

I've never seen a parole board let someone out early on a murder or rape charge here in Nevada. Not once. And somehow I suspect the parole boards in RI aren't that different. I sincerely doubt the parole board is going to let this guy out early, especially given how heinous the crime was.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

109. If there's a serious chance he means it then he'll need to be jailed.

The law is the law.

It is entirely irrelevant if the person making the death threat is a good man and the person being threatened is a bad one. It has to be - the law *can't* (and mustn't try to) distinguish between good and bad people, only between people who break the law and people who don't.

And making death threats - especially with intent to carry them out - has to be a serious crime.

I can entirely understand the father's motivation, and even sympathise with him, but that doesn't change the fact that the law must stop him.

[nomb]

115. Jail the father while the murderer walks free? You forget, prosecuters are elected officials.

Still if there were a genuine case to answered and not just, as here, the utterances of a mourning parent in torment - I would regretfully find myself in support of the law.


But I don't see that here.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

117. This is one of the main reasons why prosecutors shouldn't be elected.

One of the ways in which I think the British system is superior to the American one is that our prosecutors are appointed civil servants, not elected; they're answerable to the law rather than to the press.

People who *make* laws should be elected and be democratically accountable, but people who *enforce* them - prosecutors, judges, etc - should be accountable only to the law.


Incidentally, the murdered didn't walk free; he's already served 28 years in prison and may serve another 12.

[MikeW]

118. laughable

Oh yes thats right a threat should get you life I forgot

If you kill a 5 year old and eat him then keep the bones in your room

You only get 40 and get off early for good behavior.

My mistake.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. And do you have anything to say in response to what I actually said? N.T.

[Chalco]

112. Justifiable homicide. nt

[closeupready]

113. As I asked above, how can stress like the father has been through NOT make one insane?

Seems to me, the stress of his son's murder HAS driven him effectively insane.

[ileus]

114. Kill and eat my child and I'd feel the same way....nt