Shame on you.

To the jurors who wrote here: thank you for your thoughtful service.

My post, Katie McCaron’s Murder is the #3 post that comes up; it was written on May 25, 2006, and is chiefly a timeline of events.

No conspiracy there: I had no reason to mention vaccination, mercury, or thimerosal in that post. I was going for factual, not speculative. Also, I don’t recall Karen McCarron’s claim of “guilt because I vaccinated her” argument being mentioned until the trial.

You will also note from that post that Mr. McCarron filed for divorce on May 25, 2006.

I’ve been following the McCarron case regularly since May of 2006 and have tried to post about new developments as they have occurred over the past year and a half. The recent trial received much more coverage in the media than the killing of Katie back in May of 2006; from my own reading around the Internet and communications with other families with autistic children, I got the sense that many people did not know about, or had forgotten about, this case.

My husband used to occasionally suggest, when our own children were toddlers, that the nice thing about car seats, for toddlers, is that they’re the only socially acceptable way of tying them down. I can assure you he was joking. I can also assure you that he’d be just a tad bit nervous to know that anyone would suggest he might in any way think of abusing his children.

I am also educated enough, however, to understand that it apparently IS socially acceptable to inject someone else’s child with dangerous levels of neurotoxins. Levels that leave the child a mere shell of what he or she once was. It is then socially, (and legally too it seems) acceptable, in the US in 2008, to do everything within my power to shut up anyone who tries to speak of what I’ve done. It is socially acceptable to pay off anyone who helps me to cover up my crimes.

Hope that helps.

Didn’t think so.

It wasn’t about vaccines. It wasn’t about being “alone”. It was about a selfish woman wanting the above average nothing out of the ordinary here life in middle America.

If you did a Google U study on KATIE McCarron (you know, the person involved who the media never talked about) you’d know that.

I’ve had people tell me it’s not that odd, really, that ten days before her conviction was the first I’d heard of Karen McCarron. The pathologist who killed her three year old autistic daughter Katie by suffocating her with a plastic bag.

I’ve also had a person tell me (it was my husband as it happens) that it’s not really that odd that, on the day of her conviction, when I went to Google her name in order to find a particular Associated Press story I’d seen about her online a week earlier, I could no longer find that particular story. Not by doing a search—either a Google web search or a Google news search—on her name. No, I had to actually do a search on these words, which I cut directly out of the AP story of a week earlier

‘McCarron, a former pathologist, testified she felt responsible for Katie’s autism because she allowed the child to get vaccinated.’

to find that particular AP story via a Google search.

The story, which you can see here

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gzi4G83F97PxaZn6ctuLeZ9l5tkwD8U453JG0

also speaks of a videotaped confession which Karen made, sitting next to her husband from her hospital bed, where she’d been taken after a suicide attempt.

I read of this confession and I have to say that I felt a small stab of relief to hear that her husband, Paul, was sitting next to her, when she made the confession. I know that many women with autistic children face their ordeal alone, and I told myself how very nice that, finally, it seemed that some of the men seemed to be getting on board.

However when I learned of Karen’s conviction, a week later, I did some more reading about her, on the internet, and I learned some new things. I learned that her husband Paul is going to divorce her. I learned that she could face as much as forty to one hundred years in prison. (Well, says my husband, of course he’s going to divorce her. She’ll be spending the next few decades at least in prison, and she did murder his child.)

I wonder if Paul, who I have now learned is divorcing his wife, was sitting beside her when she testified about her belief that she was responsible for her child’s autism since it was she who took the child to be vaccinated.

Well, the whole story is really very sad, and it’s understandable I suppose that many wouldn’t want to speak of it, and I suppose there really isn’t anything left to say about it anyway.

Of course then I’ve always had this problem where I never really seem to understand just what is socially acceptable to do, and what isn’t. And so I keep on talking about it. At this point, one thing that I would like to know is this. Who is responsible for sentencing Karen? The judge, or the jury? I guess I would expect it would be the judge, simply because it’s the judge who so often determines which expert testimony is allowable in cases which involve a great deal of scientific controversy. I can’t understand why that is, really, but it’s what I have heard. What your typical judge knows about science that your average American doesn’t know is beyond me. But, as my husband said, somebody has to decide which expert testimony is admissible, and which isn’t. You’d think perhaps the defendant or the prosecutor might have a say. But I’m not a lawyer, and these things confuse me.

Just out of curiousity, I had a look at the sites that Google did turn up, when I searched the words ‘Karen McCarron’, immediately after I learned of her conviction. I clicked on all of the top links that came up, and I did a word search on each of the pages for the word ‘vaccine’. I did this for the top six or eight sites that came up, for both the Google news search, and the Google web search.

The word ‘vaccine’ did not show up on any of those sites, even once.

Sheesh, and just when I’d started telling myself that perhaps I’m too focused on thimerosal, and perhaps I should be thinking more about fish, or light bulbs, or aluminum, or bismuth or something.

My husband says he doesn’t find this at all odd. He doesn’t see this as a spin of omission. (He understands a great deal better than I do, he seems to think, how it is that sites get to the top of the Google search engines. While he didn’t do a very good job explaining it to me, I think that it is supposed to have something to do with which sites people look for and visit the most.) Oh well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, I guess. I find that I can’t help wondering, though, if the fact that some of the work he does at NASA, involving funds which come from people at the Cleveland Clinic, has some impact on his thoughts about this topic. I don’t know if this would have any affect on his views on this matter, or not. I like to think it wouldn’t. All I know is that the whole icky story and the whole icky outcome has put me in rather a funk.

Which I have to say I’m a bit afraid to speak of. Lest someone express the opinion that perhaps a Doctor could ‘fix’ me up, with just the proper drug.

Robin Nemeth