ammmhmmmummhmmhammahmm

marriage and that the babies were probably someone else’s. DNA testing;
however, determined that all seven were his.
When investigators questioned Megan, she stated that there were as many as
nine bodies in the house. She seemed unclear as to how many babies she’d had.
She’d also given birth to three other children whom she’d let live; one of them
was born in between the other killings. It was not clear as to why she allowed
this daughter to survive.
The Aftermath
Megan admitted to killing six of her children. She blamed the deaths on her
drug-addled state of mind. The governor of Utah, Gary Herbert, called the case a
tragedy and stated that he was praying “for the families” and that he prayed “for
those who are struggling with this”. (McFall, 2014)
In 2011, Utah passed a Safe Haven Law which allows parents to drop off
unwanted infants at hospitals or police stations without any questions asked.
Megan’s bail was set at $6 million –$1 million for each of the infants who died.
Dora Luz Buenrostro
Spouse-revenge filicide is considered the absolute rarest form of filicide. It
occurs when one spouse seeks revenge on the other by killing at least one of
their children. Dora Luz Buenrostro, from San Jacinto, CA, stabbed three of her
children to death in 1994. The victims included her 4-year-old daughter, 9-yearold daughter, and 8-year-old son. She insisted she wasn’t to blame and that it
was her husband who’d killed the children.
The Murders
In October 1994, 9-year-old Susana, 8-year-old Vicente, and 4-year-old Deidra
were all stabbed in the neck. Vicente and Susana were stabbed in their sleep at
home while Deidra was killed in her car seat, the vehicle being discovered in a
parking lot ten miles away. Deidra was killed as early as two days prior to her
siblings, presumably after Dora drove home from visiting with her ex-husband.
The knife in Deidra’s neck was broken and there were also signs that she’d been
stabbed with a ball point pen. Their mother, the 38-year-old Dora Buenrostro,
took investigators to the bodies herself, claiming that her ex-husband had killed
them.
Investigators determined that Dora’s ex-husband was leaving for work in another
town when the children were killed, despite the fact that she claimed he had been
at her apartment, wielding a knife. She was later arrested due to her inconsistent
statements to the police. Police Sgt. Barry Backlund stated that she showed, “A
minimum amount of emotion during the day”. (Gorman, 1994)
During the trial, Deputy District Attorney Michael Soccio argued that Dora had
murdered her children after an argument with her ex-husband, Alex Buenrostro.
He insisted that the murders were premediated and carried out to both hurt and
implicate him. He told the jury there were, “No words to describe what she did”
and that the acts, “elevates evil to a level beyond human understanding”.
(Arballo, 1998)
Dora’s family were to testify during the trial, including Arcelia Zamudio, her
mother. Although they testified that she was generally a good mother, most
agreed that things had recently changed and they’d been concerned about her
mental health. Some described Dora as being “angry” and “distant” leading up to
the killings. (Arballo, 1998) Zamudio even said she thought Dora was “using
drugs” and that “something had happened to her” (Arballo, 1998) due to her
drastic transformation.
The Aftermath
The trial took three weeks from start to finish and Dora was found guilty. The
jurors recommended the death penalty, partly due to her lack of remorse over the
deaths of her children. After her conviction, she vocally lashed out at the
attorneys and police, claiming she was “framed” and that someone “wanted [her]
in jail”. (Arballo, 1998) She also claimed the police had planted evidence against
her. This also helped cement their decision. One of the jurors, Tia D-Errico,
stated that if Dora had shown remorse, or apologized then it would have, “made
it easier to vote for life in prison”. (Associated Press, 1998)
Michelle Kehoe
A common trend amongst maternal filicide cases is for the mother to blame the
killings on someone else, usually a stranger. In 2008, Michelle Kehoe of Iowa
claimed her two sons had been abducted. She was later found guilty of
murdering her 2-year-old son by slashing his throat and attempting to murder his
7-year-old brother in the same manner.
The Murders
Michelle claimed her boys were abducted by a “bushy-haired stranger.” Both
boys were discovered in the family’s van in an isolated area. Sean, age 7, was
breathing but just barely. His brother was dead.
After his mother tried to kill him and then killed his brother, Sean, according to
the Assistant Iowa Attorney General’s opening statement, had locked the doors
of the van. (Grinberg, 2009) Michelle, upon leaving the van, cut her throat with
the same weapon –a hunting knife she’d just bought. When she wasn’t able to
kill herself, she walked half a mile down the road and at the first house she came
to recounted the “stranger” story, and how her sons were gone.
It was thought Michelle had been planning the murders for a while –at least a
month, since that’s when she’d bought the knife. On the day of the murder, her
husband was at yoga and she told him she was taking the boys to visit her
mother in Sumner.
Other signs indicating Michelle as the killer were found on the scene, including a
note she’d written that documented the event. In the note, Michelle talked about
how she’d stopped at a gas station and a man had accosted her, forcing them to
the secluded area. When she tried fighting him off, he knocked her out. Later,
investigators stated that Michelle had told them she wrote the note and left it at
the scene so that others who stumbled upon the van would know what happened.
The note ended with the words, “Oh no, here he comes again”. (Grinberg, 2009)
She described the man as having long hair he wore under a cap and a trench
coat.
When she finally admitted to the crime, she told the investigative agent, "Please
kill me or lock me up forever”. (Nelson, October 30, 2009)
The Trial
Michelle was ultimately charged with murder, attempted murder, and child
endangerment resulting in serious injury. Her interview took place while she was
still in the hospital, recovering from her neck wounds. At this point, since she
wasn’t able to speak yet, she wrote out her answers. These were used in a Power
Point presentation at the trial.
During the trial, the jury was able to listen to an audiotape of Michelle’s son,
Sean, describing how his mother had duct taped his mouth and tried to slash his
throat. They were clearly able to hear him state, “She cut me” when referring to
his mother’s actions. (Grinberg, 2009) He also said that she’d placed duct tape
over his eyes and mouth but that he’d removed these once she was gone. Sean
admitted that the blanket and first aid kit found near his younger brother were
items he’d placed there, leftover from his attempt to save his brother. (Nelson,
October 30, 2009)
Michelle’s husband, Gene, pleaded for mercy on his wife’s behalf. He asked the
judge to sentence her to life in prison and allow her to have contact with Sean.
He stated that her actions were caused by her "profound mental illness” and was
“an act of great hopelessness and despair”. (Carlin, 2009) The request was
denied. Instead, Judge Bruce Zager gave Michelle life without parole as well as
an extra 25 years for the attack on Sean. (Carlin, 2009) In addition, a 10-year
sentence was handed down for the child endangerment injuries on Sean. This
sentence would be served concurrently. Gene also asked that he be allowed to
hug Michelle and the request was also denied by the judge.
After the trial, when juror Barbara Beenken was interviewed she stated that the
case was “difficult” and that she didn’t know why “a person does something like
that. It’s hard to imagine unless they were insane”. (Mehaffey, 2009) Still,
despite the fact they might have found her actions reprehensible, and even crazy,
the jury did not find insanity a justifiable defense. They ultimately felt that while
she might have suffered from a mental illness, she wasn’t insane and therefore
she was accountable for her actions and aware of them at the time.
Michelle’s attorney, Andrea Dryer, maintained that Michelle didn’t try to kill her
sons out of anger, but out of a warped sense of love brought on by her mental
illness. She argued that Michelle, “Truly believed killing the children and herself
was the right thing to do” and that she, “Wanted to spare her children the
lifetime of pain she endured.” (Mehaffey, 2009) Michelle, who suffered from
mental illness and knew it, was afraid it might have been something that she’d
pass on down to her children.
Christina Miracle
In a religious ceremony that’s been called “bizarre,” Christina Miracle of Ohio
killed her 6-year-old son, Brandon. He was first beaten then suffocated in an
attempt to resurrect Christina’s dead brother.
Who was Christina?
Christina and Brandon’s father, David, met in 1996. When Christina was a high
school senior, she discovered she was pregnant and dropped out of school. Her
relationship with David, however, was rocky, and when Brandon was two David
moved out. The couple shared custody of him, with Brandon living with
Christina and visiting his father on the weekends.
David later stated that Christina was a good mother and “a soft touch”.
(Coolidge, March 2004) She wasn’t known to drink or engage in any illegal drug
activity. Both sides of the family saw Brandon frequently.
There was a point in 2003, however, when Christina did act “irrational” and
became paranoid that someone had drugged her water. (Coolidge, March 2004)
She was hospitalized at this time for two days. When she was released her
symptoms seemed to worsen and she was consequently re-hospitalized for a
week. Upon her discharge, the doctors told Christina’s family that she suffered
from depression. She was given a prescription and advised to seek counseling.
But according to her sister she quit taking the medication and only attended
counseling once.
On David’s last visit with Brandon they went shopping, watched cartoons and
ate spaghetti. When he took Brandon home, Christina appeared “out of sorts”
(Coolidge, March 2004) but David chalked it up to jealousy since he was seeing
a new woman.
The Murders
When Brandon’s school called David to ask why the 6-year-old wasn’t there, he
immediately called Christina. She informed him Brandon was “playing in his
tent” but on speaking to his son David found Brandon worrying about his mother
“talking freaky”. (Coolidge, March 2004)
The next day, police were called to the apartment complex where Christina and
Brandon lived. Amanda Vox, a neighbor, had seen Christina carrying Brandon
out of their building. He was wearing boxers and socks. She’d watched as
Christina laid him down on the ground and then placed a pillow under his head.