Mark Kerrigan: Troubled Man

by Diane Dimond

There’s one in every family – the black sheep, the bad seed, the troubled child who keeps the parents awake at night worrying and praying.

In the household headed by Daniel Kerrigan and his wife Brenda of Stoneham, Massachusetts, it was their son Mark (above left). While they reveled in the accomplishments of their two other children, TV producer, Michael, and figure skating Olympic medalist, Nancy (below right), it was Mark who had long caused the couple sleepless nights.

Who knew the heartbreaking secret the famous Nancy Kerrigan’s family endured all these years? While she was winning medals for her breathtaking ice skating and giving her parents three beautiful grandchildren, her older brother was causing the family nothing but sorrow. In 2008, the Kerrigans had to sue Mark to get him to repay $105,000 they loaned him from their retirement fund. The suit was dismissed on a technicality. Even after that, they lovingly took Mark back into their home.

When I caught sight of 40-year-old Nancy leaving her parents' house that week, I saw etched in her face the pain and weariness that comes to those who must deal with a mentally ill criminal in the family.

A 28-page court document shows her brother Mark’s police record stretches back to at least 2004, pockmarked with charges of marijuana possession, multiple drunk driving charges, episodes of vicious alcohol-fueled domestic abuse, and a two-and-a-half year stretch in prison on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon. Over the years, when police responded to 911 calls, Mark would become belligerent, and taunt them with foul language. Once Mark menaced officers with hunting knives, another he ordered his Rottweiler dog to attack. And, according to police reports, Mark literally begged officers to put him out of his misery. “Shoot me. I want to die. Kill me, please!”

In the early morning hours of Sunday, January 24, 2010, things went from bad to deadly. Mark had been out of prison just about two months and was living in the basement of his parents' tidy Cape Cod home in a quiet cul de sac in Stoneham. The unemployed plumber was getting psychiatric treatment, but he’d begun to drink again.

At one o’clock in the morning, Mark told police, he came upstairs to use the telephone. His father (left, with Nancy) objected. There was a struggle in the kitchen, pictures on the wall were knocked askew, and there was blood on the floor near where Daniel’s body fell. Responding officers found the 45-year-old son hiding in the basement, clutching a bottle of scotch. They had to pepper spray him to place him under arrest. Mark admitted he shoved his 70-year-old father and put his hands around Daniel’s neck. When the old man fell, Mark told police, he was “faking it.”

Mark’s legally blind mother called paramedics, but it was too late. Daniel Kerrigan died. According to the medical examiner, who ruled the death a homicide, the autopsy showed Kerrigan died of a heart-rhythm problem caused by neck compression that damaged his windpipe. Or maybe it was a broken heart.

Mark was charged with assault and battery, sent to a psychiatric facility for evaluation, and then released on $10,000 bond and permitted to return to the family home pending further charges. His next court hearing is scheduled for April 9. His lawyer said he suffers from post traumatic stress disorder stemming from his military duty in Egypt. Kerrigan spent part of his Army tour in that country.

There are countless other American families suffering through similar hardships with uncontrollable family members. They struggle mightily to figure out what to do when things turn ugly. Do they keep the offender close or practice tough love and turn them out until they straighten up? The remaining Kerrigans, including Nancy and her mother (right), insist Mark is not to blame and welcomed him back home. 

Do they call police knowing it could result in years behind bars for their relative? Many grasp to find a reason for the inexplicable behavior – childhood abuse, addiction or mental defect. There are no easy answers and I offer none, I only recognize the suffering of these families.

No matter what may be at the root of the criminal behavior, it certainly can’t be excused or mean the perpetrator shouldn’t be punished. We can feel for their mental struggle, but we can't let sympathy be the reason they remain free to harm others.

Tweet

Love Letters, Flowers and Bullets

by Diane Fanning

Julie Abbott loved rock music, great novels and her bright red convertible.  It seemed as if everyone loved the 47-year-old physician with an uncommon intensity: the patients as well as the other doctors and staff in her internal medicine practice, the parishioners at Community Bible Church and, most of all, her husband Ben Abbott.

 

Julie and Ben fell in love decades ago, while making angels in the snow on the campus of Texas Tech University.  They'd been happily married for 28 years.

Nearly everyone who met Julie Abbott was enchanted by her.  Unfortunately, one of those people was 52-year-old Tim McCloskey.  His wife, Ellen, had worked for Julie as a receptionist for the past six years. But it wasn't until the holiday season of 2007 that Tim met Julie at a company Christmas party.  At that moment, his obsession with her began.

Tim, with a long, documented history of mental illness, was drawn into a downward spiral by this fixation.  He sent the doctor love letters and flowers.  She did nothing to encourage him, but knowing of his illness, she hesitated to do anything to embarrass him or his wife.

Tim's mental state worsened; he stopped leaving the house and refused to bathe or brush his teeth.  In his mind, he was a spurned lover and Julie his cruel tormentor.

His escalating inappropriate behavior became a source of constant stress in Julie's life.  She and the staff sought a quiet, in-house solution.  When she went to work on April 4, 2008, she was looking forward to leaving early to go on vacation with her husband, Ben.

On that same day, Tim McCloskey emerged from his home for the first time in weeks.  No one is certain how long he waited in the parking lot of Julie's office before the target of his passion and his rage stepped outside.

Tim, with unkempt gray hair and a thick beard, confronted Julie.  Valerie Cantu, a nurse from another office, walked by the volatile pair.  Julie warned her that the large man had a gun.  Valerie looked in Tim's cold, emotionless eyes.  Fearful, she dialed 9-1-1.

Tim pulled the trigger, shooting Julie in the abdomen.  He stood over her fallen body and shot her in the shoulder.  San Antonio Police Officer Michael Blanquiz squealed into the parking lot.  Tim turned, smirked at the officer, and delivered a third bullet straight into Julie's head.

The patrolman squatted behind his car for cover and demanded Tim drop his weapon.  Instead, the killer walked towards him, gun in hand.  As the distance closed, the policeman had a serious decision to make.  "Honestly," he said,  "I wanted to run like everybody else was, but I didn't have anywhere to run. He had to be stopped."  He fired six times, hitting McCloskey with four shots -- two in his legs, one in his hand and a providential hit in Tim's gun hand that sent the weapon clattering to the pavement.

Julie was rushed to University Hospital, where she was pronounced dead at 2:27 that afternoon.  After emergency surgery, McCloskey was in critical condition.  He was charged by proxy with murder and capital murder.  He spent a full year in the hospital recovering, but his injuries left him in a wheelchair, capable of walking short distances only on his tiptoes.

In January 2010, the case went to trial.  The prosecution team asked for life in prison for Timothy McCloskey.  Defense Attorney Tony Cantrell did not argue for the innocence of his client on the homicide charge but claimed he was not guilty by reason of insanity.  Tim McCloskey, he said, had a psychotic break and didn't realize what he was doing.  On the second charge of assault, he called witnesses whose testimony contradicted Officer Blanquiz when they said that McCloskey never pointed the gun in the policeman's direction, and thus, was not guilty of that crime.

On Wednesday, January 13, closing arguments ended and the decision was in the hands of the jury.  The jury deliberated for several hours before going home for the day.  On Thursday, the debate remained contentious.  At one point, the panel sent a note to the District Judge Ron Rangel saying they were hopelessly deadlocked.  The judge ordered them to continue.

After fourteen hours over two days, they reached a verdict: legally sane and guilty of murder and aggravated assault on a police officer.  The punishment phase of the trial began the next day.

Jurors listened to emotional testimony from Julie's husband and Tim's sons.  Several members of the panel wiped away tears throughout the morning.

The jury's ambivalence about the verdict was obvious in their decision on sentencing.  Rather than imposing life in prison, they gave him a thirty-year sentence for Julie's death -- half of which had to be served before he would be eligible for parole.  They also levied ten years probation for the assault on Officer Blanquiz, to be served concurrently with his imprisonment on the homicide charge.

No matter how you view the verdict or the sentence, one thing is indisputable: a wonderful, compassionate woman is dead and nothing can bring her back to the many who loved her.  The big question for me is this: could something have been done before that fatal day to prevent her murder?

When involuntary commitment was too easy, its abuses were plentiful, cruel and unjust.  But now, is it so difficult that the same adjectives apply?  Is there a middle ground where we can protect the rights of the mentally ill -- most of whom will never harm anyone -- and, at the same time, protect society from the violence perpetrated by a few seriously disturbed individuals?

I am convinced that there has to be.  Finding it would require a concerted effort by victims' advocates, mental health professionals and informed legislators.  Are they up to the challenge?  Or are we doomed to see these senseless crimes repeated again and again?

Tweet

Who's Crazy? And Should the Jury Be Told?

by Women in Crime Ink

In the first of an ongoing series asking WCI contributors to weigh in on cases and issues, we posed the question: While not legally insane, some murderers have other types of mental illnesses, personality disorders and the like. Should those be considered when deciding guilt/innocence? What about sentencing?

Read on, to find out what WCI's bloggers think about this important issue:

Laura James: A defendant's "personality disorder" falls under the "so what" category for me. I'd bet half the people I know could be diagnosed with a "personality disorder."

Kathryn Casey: It’s not relevant. We're not talking about severe mental illness here, where someone doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong, which is the legal test for insanity. These people are capable of working with attorneys to defend themselves, although their frequent tendency toward pathological lies can get in the way. (It's not smart to lie to one's own lawyer and leave him/her unprepared.) Lots of folks have personality disorders, yet they don’t commit murder. Should this come up at all, it should be in sentencing. I honestly think severe poverty and childhood abuse are more mitigating factors.

Andrea Campbell: I do believe that the mentally ill fall into a crevice when it comes to society. No one wants to claim or protect them most of the time. And I do think their mental condition should be made known during trial. But I don't think we need to cut slack for heinous crimes or felonies. I've always been torn on this issue, but justice needs to keep dangerous people out of society. I guess that either means a mental health facility or incarceration.

Diane Fanning: Murderers, with anti-social personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder and perhaps even borderline personality disorder, are people who understand the difference between right and wrong but just don’t care about the law, about the people around them, or about their victims. A violent offender with one of these disorders is a danger to society but also to those who guard them in prisons. They should not be viewed as equal to a person suffering from severe mental illness, who if given proper treatment and medication may be able to lead positive and productive lives. Adults with severe personality disorder are unlikely to ever move beyond their condition and thus, it should have no bearing on guilt or innocence.

In sentencing, juries should consider the personality disorders of violent offenders, but not to mitigate the offenses. Instead, it should help deliver sentences that ensures these individuals are not allowed to roam free and prey on innocent victims.

Robin Sax: Everyone who commits a murder MUST have a personality disorder; the personality disorder makes him a murderer who should be punished.

Tweet

It's An Outrage

by Lucy Puryear, M.D.

"Woman Who Cut Off Baby's Arms to be Released," Houston Chronicle, November 7, 2008. Dee Schlosser was arrested in Dallas, in November of 2004 for cutting off her daughter Maggie's arms, resulting in her death. In the aftermath of the Andrea Yates case in Texas, several women have been found not guilty by reason of insanity after killing their children. All of these women, including Schlosser, were psychotic at the time of the killings. Schlosser believed that by cutting off her daughter's arms she was making a more perfect offering to God. The police came to her home and found her soaked in blood humming along to a hymn.

Schlosser was sent to a state mental hospital where she received treatment and continued to be under the jurisdiction of the court. According to law, persons found NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) must remain in a state mental hospital indefinitely until it is determined by their psychiatrist that they are no longer a danger to themselves or others and can be maintained in outpatient treatment. Schlosser will be released into the community where she will be mandated to meet with a psychiatrist weekly. She will no longer be allowed to have contact with her other two children, and may not be in close proximity to any other children. It is unknown where she will live when released. She will remain under the jurisdiction of the court permanently and will be forced to return to the hospital if she again becomes dangerous.

Understandably the prosecutors of Collin County are unhappy with her release and wish the laws were different. Understandably the citizens of Dallas are unhappy that she may released into their community. Understandably there may be some renewed talk about having the laws changed. Maybe Dee Schlosser should have been committed to a state psychiatric facility for the rest of her life? It is an outrage that a mother who killed her children is free to walk the streets.

I am going to ask you to believe that Dee Schlosser should be released and be free to live what ever kind of life she is able to piece together for herself. She is no longer psychotic, she is on medication, she will be monitored by a psychiatrist to make sure that she remains well. So why should she remain in the hospital; just so our sensibilities are appeased? That's a waste of money. Her being in the hospital does not protect you or your children. Dee Schlosser has no intention of coming to your house to cut off the arms of your child.

Many of you would say she should be in jail, or even executed for what she did. That would solve the problem. She did something bad and she should be punished. Does it matter that her brain was malfunctioning? That the blood flow to certain areas of the brain were increased where they shouldn't have been and decreased to other parts? Was this happening to her because she chose to be crazy or decided that hearing voices and was a good idea?

Let me ask you to fantasize for a moment. What if you had a hundred and four degree fever and you became delirious. You were hearing someone walking into your room in the middle of the night and when you looked up you saw a masked man carrying a gun. You reached for your gun on the bedside table and shot. Only later when your illness was treated were you aware that you had shot your husband. Death penalty? Think that's not possible? Hallucinations happen all the time with high fevers and brain infections. Your brain is malfunctioning.

Let's speculate again. You are driving in your car and have a heart attack. You swerve off the road and plow into a group of people standing on the corner of the street. A mother and her young child are killed. Death penalty? Clearly you didn't do this on purpose. Your heart was malfunctioning and caused behavior that was out of your control. Let me go a little further. What if you knew you were at risk for heart disease but declined diet and exercise and didn't take your heart medication because you didn't like the side effects. Death penalty? Surely you knew you were at risk for a heart attack. In fact you doctor warned you on numerous occasions. The fact that you had a heart attack isn't all that surprising. Are you responsible for those deaths?

Mental illness is a brain disorder. The symptoms are behavioral, and often the symptoms are horrific. No one wishes to be mentally ill, anymore than someone asks to have diabetes or heart disease or meningitis. And untreated the symptoms of mental illness can be deadly, just like any other medical illness. Not just for yourself, but as I described above, for others. Why do we treat the mentally ill as criminals?

Dee Schlosser will never live a care free life. She must live with the knowledge and memory of killing her child. She will no longer be able to care for or have contact with her other children, and her marriage ended in divorce. What kind of life will she have? Can you imagine waking up every day to that horror? As a matter of fact, most mothers who have killed their children eventually end up killing themselves.

Let me let you in on a secret. Every single one of you reading this has a mental illness, has a family member with a mental illness, or knows someone who has one. And if you don't know someone who does that's simply because they don't talk about it. The stigma of mental illness is so great that we can't face admitting that we are all affected. This is not unlike epilepsy in earlier times. Until the cause of and treatment for epilepsy was discovered family members were hidden in asylums, attics, and weren't allowed to marry into good families. That is where mental illness is today.

Dee Schlosser deserves to be released if she is no longer suffering from her symptoms. She is medicated and no longer poses any danger to anyone. Don't worry, if you feel the need for her to be punished she already has been. She will continue to suffer every day of her life no matter where she is living. She needs our prayers. And we need to pray that some day we can find the cause of and a cure for mental illness so that no one kills their child because they're sick.

Tweet