‘Family’ Violence Death Report 2010
The DVA and and the essence of its implementation and the industry around it are the main reason for the deaths statistics cited in the article below. Most of the deaths are a consequence of the brutish and violent Family Court intervention. I call the review panel to poke its nose inside the Family Court dodgy practices and money hungry lawyers.
Numerous analysis and comments here in this website point the finger at the Family Court and the domestic violence industry.
Note that suicides among kiwi dads did not make it into the reports stats.
By KATIE CHAPMAN – The Dominion Post
Figures that show at least 41 New Zealanders died at the hands of family members in 2009 have been labelled “staggering” by some working to stop family violence.
The Family Violence Death Review Committee issued the figures in its annual report to Parliament. But it says the number could still get higher, as some deaths at the end of the year have not yet been included.
The figure is made up of 16 children, 13 women and 12 men — 10 deaths above the national average of 14 women, six men and 10 children killed each year.
A family violence death is defined as “the unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a family or extended family member, caregiver, intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner”.
Committee chairwoman Wendy Davis said this was the first year the committee, which was established by the Health Ministry in 2008, had formally provided an official toll.
It was a shocking, yet unsurprising, result, she said.
“Nobody in New Zealand who works in the family violence area is surprised by these.”
The committee planned to analyse each death to highlight “crisis points” where intervention may have been possible, she said. The more information, the better equipped they would be to address the problem, she said.
“As a group we are very aware of the complexity of the problem we are helping to try and solve.”
Family violence researcher and campaigner Ruth Herbert, who is a member of the Round Table for Violence Against Women, labelled the figure “staggering”. “To actually hear it as an official number kind of makes me a bit weak at the knees.”
Now the information was public it had to be used to make a difference, she said.
“This country has to stand up, open its eyes, and realise what’s going on behind closed doors.
“We need to take a concerted approach to this. We need to base what we’re doing on evidence. It really needs a family violence programme. It’s all been rather ad hoc to date.”
The Family Violence Death Review Committee’s report says it aims to review each death and make recommendations by the end of 2010.
ATTN
Prime Minister John Key
CC, Earl Silverman Canada
NZ – ‘Staggering’ **my Bum** report shows 41 Kiwis killed by family – **Whats staggering is that the Govt continue to demonise Men** and thus we miss the main point in the STATS and continue to allow the FemiNazi to cash in on Gender Bias Government funds.
Ration Shed – Jim
Comment by Jim Bailey — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 10:18 am
NOte that in a footnote in the report family is defined as
‘Family or extended family member’ is used in the broadest sense and includes wha¯nau, hapu¯, mother, father, child, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle, step-parent, foster-parent etc.
The data provides no further breakdown of who is actually committing the violence. I have emailed and asked will let you know what the response is.
Regards
Scrap
Comment by Scrap_The_CSa — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 11:44 am
Interesting article see below written by ‘Claire Trevett’ in today’s N.Z Herald ….Opinions anyone…???
Here is my humble opinion……Here at long last, a bit of ‘Balance’ reporting concerning ‘Family Violence’…Do I see a ‘Glimmer of light at the end of tunnel’ as in, concerning the problem of ‘Family Violence’ in New Society…..
Kind regards John Dutchie
By Claire Trevett
4:00 AM Wednesday Mar 3, 2010
Abusive mums may be tracked through life
A panel of experts has recommended an alert system for all abusive mothers so officials know when they have more children.
The Experts Forum on Child Abuse report, due to be released today, said it was concerned that in some serious cases officials did not know when a further child was born into the same family.
It recommended cases remain open indefinitely so an automatic flag rose when a mother had another baby, to alert health professionals about the family history of abuse.
At present cases are closed when a child has died from child abuse or been removed by social services so the family were no longer being monitored.
The change would mean a mother was effectively tracked throughout her life and if she changed partners.
It could lead to a repeat of cases such as that of Chris Kahui, who was questioned by Child, Youth and Family staff at the bedside while his partner gave birth to a daughter last year.
Mr Kahui was acquitted in 2008 on charges of murdering his infant twin sons, Chris and Cru.
Article continues below
Rotorua toddler Nia Glassie’s mother Lisa Kuka had previously had a child seized before Nia’s birth after suffering non-accidental head injuries. But CYF did not monitor her subsequent children. It is unclear whether CYF knew about the birth of Nia, with whom it had no contact.
The forum was a group of eight working in child abuse, including Starship hospital’s Dr Patrick Kelly, Children’s Commissioner John Angus, Principal Family Court Judge Peter Boshier, Archdeacon Dr Hone Kaa, Paediatric Society president Rosemary Marks and university academics.
The report also recommends all agencies involved in child abuse – including police, health workers, Child Youth and Family, and schools – be required to share information about an individual child.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, who convened the forum last November, said there was a case last year of a child who died in suspicious circumstances which was currently before the courts. CYF had removed two children from the same couple previously but had not known of the third.
“I found it pretty incredible when I became minister that we didn’t know about subsequent children, and that was because cases were closed.”
Dr Kelly acknowledged the proposals could raise civil liberty concerns. He said the intent was not to permanently taint a mother, but it would give health professionals all relevant information.
“Just because we are aware of that past history doesn’t always condemn her to having all the [her] children removed. But it is a safety issue. I don’t think that’s any different from someone’s past driving record being relevant to a job which requires driving.”
He also called for greater sharing of information, saying the balance at the moment was geared toward protecting adults’ privacy.
Children’s Commissioner John Angus said a formal register or database of parents would be fraught with problems.
“But there is sense in recognising child maltreatment isn’t about one particular child. If there is another child later, there should be some way of seeing what the risks are for that child.”
The forum was part of a wider review Ms Bennett is undertaking following findings that 1800 children subjected to abuse or neglect in 2008 were abused again within six months.
The report recommended schools and hospitals be given a legal responsibility for child abuse and neglect similar to the United Kingdom.
The forum recommended an initial assessment of a family’s ability to cope with parenting while still pregnant.
Once the child was born an intensive support service in which well-trained staff visited homes should be provided.
The Recommendations:
* Automatic “flag” to alert health workers when the mother of a child which has died or suffered abuse has another baby.
* Process to help prevent abuse, including assessment and advice before birth, followed by intensive support at home.
* Law change: more agencies, such as schools and hospitals, have a legal responsibility to protect children from abuse and neglect.
* All of those with involvement – including health workers, schools, police, and CYFs – share information on an individual child.
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 12:51 pm
A interesting comment by ‘Dr Kelly’ ….And my response to Dr Kelly is the following opinion ……….Funny ,but the ‘System’ doesn’t seem to have a problem at all as in ‘Tainting the Father’….’Tongue in Cheek’….Wonder why that that is………???????
Kind regards John Dutchie
‘Dr Kelly acknowledged the proposals could raise civil liberty concerns. He said the intent was not to permanently taint a mother, but it would give health professionals all relevant information.’
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 12:56 pm
Exactly what I was think John… again it’s a case of Father bad, mother good… even when she is bad!
Comment by Scott B — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 2:30 pm
Reply to Scott B
….L.O.L…Thank goodness I wasn’t the only person thinking like you Scott B…I had exactly the same thoughts as you…But wanted to hear other peoples opinions before deciding to admit myself to the ‘Funny farm’…L.O.L
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 2:38 pm
im surprised so few women have been killed
Comment by ford — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 3:05 pm
Bugger Off. Ms Wendy Davis is a Family Lawyer. She and her firm (Cuba Law) are the Wellington women’s refuge pet lawyers. Wendy herself is very pro Feminist jurispridence and is the author of many papers on the topic of Domestic Violence and the brutish behaviour of men.
Turkeys don’t vote for an early Christmas.
Comment by Ms IRD Officer — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 4:42 pm
Wendy Davis apparently says stupid contradictory things too –
“It was a shocking, yet unsurprising, result, she said”
Duh!
Who can trust a woman like that?
Comment by Skeptik — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 5:53 pm
Thankyou for doing that. Very interested in the response.
The numbers as published suggest to me – based on broader stats as indicators – that about two thirds of these perpetrators are likely to be women. My cynical side can’t help thinking that if males were the majority of these offenders we would be hearing about it.
The report itself is here
It’s a wash as a broader statistical reference. Only the article’s cited figures are presented with the source being Preliminary count of family violence deaths identified by the Committee at the time of writing this report.
Best described as a political report in that it really only serves as PR for their agenda.
Comment by gwallan — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 6:15 pm
I should add…
Politicians only read the first couple of pages of these things. The 2009 numbers are on page seven. Right at the beginning in the Executive Summary, however, is…
Comment by gwallan — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 6:48 pm
She’s a lawyer?
Laugh. My. Arse. Off!!!
Must be a very shallow pool. Shark infested too.
Comment by gwallan — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 6:53 pm
gwallan, thanks for providing that addendum to the report. Police and domestic violence industry representatives have been parrotting for several years now statements like “half of the murders in NZ are family violence related”. Chinese whispers have often turned that into “over half” and even higher specified percentages, and I have even heard an “educator” claim that half of NZ’s murders are of women through domestic violence.
This report states “up to half” of murders are family violence related. Yet the very figures provided in the report show this was not the case: in 2007 it was 41% and in 2008 it was 29%, and that was based on their peculiar figures called “culpable deaths” identified by police, whatever that means. Government statistics record around 100 homicides per year, in which case the proportions due to domestic violence would have been 26% in 2007 and 19% in 2008.
So the “up to 50%” claim is simply the old marketing trick such as “up to 50% off” when actually nearly all of the specials are only 10% off. Except that if a business advertised “up to 50%” and did not actually provide a single item at 50% discount, it could be prosecuted by commerce authorities. No such prosecution being possible for managers of the domestic violence industry, they merrily throw around fictitious figures that best suit their calls for more funding and more draconian powers for police and other government agents.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 8:10 pm
Her honest reaction would probably have been “It was a surprising result and very disappointing that the figures did not support the feminist propaganda we have been peddling for years”. Or “Damn, why did we allow one or two honest scientists on this committee who wouldn’t doctor the figures to suit our preferred beliefs?”
Regardless, just watch how she and other domestic violence industry representatives talk about this report from here on in as if it did support feminist propaganda.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 8:19 pm
Attention drawn to male violence victims
United Future wants men who need protection from family violence, to be treated the same as women and children.
The call follows the release of figures showing 13 women, 12 men and 16 children were killed last year as a result of family violence.
Gender affairs spokeswoman Judy Turner says all 41 deaths are appalling but the high number of men killed that will come as a surprise to many.
She says although men make up nearly one third of those deaths, government policy and advocacy groups almost totally ignore the fact that men are also victims of family violence.
Comment by SicKofNZ — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 9:31 pm
Oh come on now… men are never victims! Tongue firmly embedded in cheek!
Comment by Scott B — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 9:51 pm
Bea-ti-ful find!
Comment by julie — Wed 3rd March 2010 @ 10:40 pm
In this country there is REAL domestic violence that is completely ignored by the violence industry because there is not money in it. So what do they do? They engineer violence in ‘normal families’. Say a woman calls a state agency saying my husband is very angry, I need someone to help him with his anger, he is going through bad times, no one from our families is helping. They, ‘state’ agencies send to her an outreach worker to convince her to leave the home to the refuge. If she resist and says all I want is some anger management course for my husband, they then resort to threats of the likes if do not leave the house immediately you will be prosecuted for negligence and the children taken from you. Frightened she gives in and goes to Women’Refuge with the children. In there she receives an education ‘violence’ because she is… worth it. In a week the husband receives protection orders papers where he is asked to leave his house before 5 pm. Starts a lengthy, traumatic, irreversible process of adversarial litigation in the Family Court. A real circus where tragically the victims are: not so bad parents and innocent children. The winner? the lawyer. The looser? the family, tax payer and the society at large. Poor mums, poor dads and yes poor children.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Thu 4th March 2010 @ 9:03 am
And a very good morning to all….
Have just read this article on ‘yahoo’ ….And Mensline funding as been cut..Grrrrrrrrrrrrr….!!!…Now I really pissed off on this one…!!!!!!
My question is….????? I wonder how many Men who are separated Fathers, committed suicide because of there dealings, with in the ‘unbiased,as in gender’ the Family court system…
Kind regards John Dutchie
‘Health Ministry figures show that an alarmingly high number of suicide victims are men.
Seventy seven percent of the 483 people who killed themselves in 2007 were men. The worrying statistic comes along with news that the Mensline help service will be suspended from today, because of a lack of funding.
Suicide Prevention Information New Zealand director Merryn Stratham says there is not a culture among men to seek help. She says rather than a courageous and good survival manoeuvre, many men see asking for help as a very difficult and challenging thing to do.
Ms Stratham says that promotion of help-seeking behaviour is very important. She says the suspension of Mensline will be a loss to the provision of specialist men’s health services.’
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 8:25 am
men are a second rate citizen…can see why some decide to top themselves…can see why theres so many angry frustrated fathers out there…then the system has to have anger management programmes to sort the shit out the system created in the first place…itll never come right in my life time..so fuck the lot of them…fuck the system too..also could do with 27% more females topping themselves too…even up that p[laying field
Comment by ford — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 10:31 am
Reply to Hans
….Yes,it the same attitude from the Feminists who have actually stated the below statement publicly to the media,this quote below was from a famous American Feminist..
‘A Man can learn from the experience of been falsely accused of Rape’……
That quote above,just me so sick in heart to think that vile Feminist crap can be justify by Feminism……
Kind regards John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 10:39 am
Reply to Ford
Ford unfortunately your comment ‘Men are a second rate citizen’ I do concur with you,and sad to say this….. ‘Fathers’ here New Zealand and other Western Societies are deemed,and viewed as ‘Evil monsters’……..
Kind regards to you John Dutchie
Comment by John Dutchie — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 10:47 am
reply to John D.
Can you imagine saying, a woman could learn a lot from being raped? Wouldn’t be worth living after saying something like that I think!
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 1:36 pm
Not only are we deemed 2nd rate citizens, we are also just used as sperm donors by a good many woman………
Can you imagine the outcry if in fact the government were cutting all funding to a womans equivalent to Mensline……
Comment by Whafe — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 8:48 pm
But men aren’t victims so why would we need a mensline?
Comment by Scott B — Fri 5th March 2010 @ 9:13 pm
Disagree. Men exist within a culture that denies they have anything to seek help for. This culture is enforced by men and women alike and is aggressively pursued by feminists in particular who actively deny men and boys access to taxpayer funded services.
Two of the primary causes of male suicide are having their children stolen and being victims of abuse, particularly at the hands of women. Just where are they supposed to go to get help?
Even on this issue we still resort to holding men responsible for their own pain and suffering. Disgusting.
Comment by gwallan — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 1:08 pm
Yup… you aren’t allowed to talk about your family court case, not that you can really even discuss it in court either!
And as for abuse, nowhere for men to go, and no laws to protect them.
Comment by Scott B — Sat 6th March 2010 @ 1:28 pm
why do men and woman now days turn against eachother? we have the masculinists and the feminists when you get right down to it they want the same thing: equality. yet they, instead of helping eachother and lifting eachother up and acknowledging and respecting differnces, they turn on eachother like kids arguing over how got the biggest piece of cake. what is the world coming to?
Comment by tessa — Mon 28th June 2010 @ 11:22 pm
Good question, IMO. “What shall we do now?”, could be another.
Comment by julie — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 12:26 am
Help. trying to assist a friend in real trouble. need urgent legal advise (possably unorthodox) regarding: handeling protection orders / parenting orders / considering uplifting an at risk child to protect their wellfare. can anyone out there help us, really desperate to make informed decission.
Comment by Mat — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 12:33 am
Just in case you haven’t been contacted already ….
You came to the right place Mat. A good place to get help with what you need is paul’s news. You’ll need to join and when accepted walk them through what’s happening and they’ll walk through what to do.
If you want personal assistance, there are many groups around NZ that can help. Just say where you live.
While you’re waiting, you can read things here by entering words in the search box like ‘protection orders’ etc.
Comment by julie — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 9:57 am
On the surface feminism may seem to want equality, but the reality is that this is simply not so.
Feminism may have started as a movement that sort equality but it has mutated into a modern hate movement that seeks female privilege at the expense of male human rights. Feminsim now manages to blame men for all the woes of society while simultaneously managing to be the source of most of the problems we now have.
Feminsim is of course an irrational stance in the first place. Equality means treating men and women exactly the same. But the reality is that men and women are not the same, and by default will never be equal. Men have certain strengths, and women have certain strengths. To seek equality is foolish in the extreme and would lead to laws such as women having the right to have sperm count tests and men to have abortions. That is EXACTLY the sort of stupidity that equal rights will cause.
What we need is to acknowledge and celebrate the differences between the genders. And to make sure that the needs of both genders are met, this can only be done by inequality, and in certain cases totally different laws for men and women.
This would mean for example that it is acknowledged that women have certain rights in terms of the workforce, pregnancy etc, while equal emphasis is put on mens rights in regard to home and family and our own unique medical needs.
While women have succeeded in regards to the workplace and have campaigns to deal with specifically female issues such as breast cancer men have largely had their needs ignored. When was the last time a campaign was run to deal with issues such as prostate and testicular cancers? Or the much higher level of male suicide? Has it ever happened?
There are numerous examples of where male needs are being ignored. Another good one is the resistance to proper DNA paternity testing to establish biological fatherhood, despite the fact that in international surveys a minimum of 10-15% of birth certificates have the wrong father on them. Then we have the biased family court system that in around 90% of cases in relationship break-up gives full custody to the mother, often making a decision on this based on accusations from the mother that have no evidence to back them up. Father’s are systematically removed from their children’s lives through this system and 40% of us have no meaningful contact with our children within 2 years.
We even have sexist laws within out country that are designed against men. On top of that we have a human rights organisation that regularly omits certain facts in public campaigns, such as the recent white ribbon campaign that presented men as the only perpetrators of domestic violence despite overwhelming evidence that this is not true.
All these imbalances need to be rectified. Which is why the men’s movement is rapidly taking hold. Is the men’s movement anti women? I don’t think so. But we do want equal representation of human rights.
Feminists don’t want this. They are not interested in equality at all and are doing everything they can to try to keep the current situation as anti men as possible. They are even pushing for the introduction of laws that allow women to murder men with little consequence.
Comment by Phoenix — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 11:37 am
If everyone is suffering a common adversity, it brings them all together. Even former enemies can put their differences aside to face off a shared threat.
The converse is also true. If some people are suffering more than others and there is no common threat, those worse off will turn against the others.
Efforts to advance the well-being of women, with no regard to the welfare of men, divide society more surely than declaring war on it.
Comment by rc — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 1:21 pm
Hi Tessa, Feminists don’t want equality. They have not wanted equality for 30 years. They want special privilege and selected outcomes.
I can’t speak for women. Although there is a lot of evidence women do it because they have the power without the responsibility.
For men, it is more and more about survival or at least happiness. Men look at the risk / reward and see that it is overwhelmingly stacked against them.
What does a women bring to the household that is a value to a man?
Answer: children.
BUT she can and will take these way on any whim and at any time. The costs of that whim to the man are enormous and last 19 years.
For a small fraction of that cost the man can obtain a child through surrogacy, marry overseas or more likely simply manage without.
Put simply women themselves and feminist,chauvinistic policies have priced women out of the equation. I wouldn’t say men have turned against women per se. They just realise that in general women are not worth it.
What men have turned against is the extremely non-equal treatment they get from institutions.
Comment by Dave — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 3:43 pm
Mat – we need to know what city you are in to direct you to the right resources. Someone needs to understand the situation in some detail to suggest a course of action. The “orthodox” approaches are often fraught with traps but no one can promote an unorthodox approach without knowing the full story.
Comment by Dave — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 3:46 pm
Yes, I agree Dave. Spot on.
Only thing I’d add is that I’m beginning to think that big business and government won’t fix the problem by giving men due rights (paternity, reproductive, health etc) because it suits them just fine.
As men and women are separated from each other big business can oftentimes sell more items to two households instead of formerly only one.
As men and women separate it’s yet more laws and bureaucracy for government (Nanny state).
I’d like to see much LESS government and a cap on the amount of advertising people are exposed to. For self empowerment we can turn off the TV and talk to our neighbors instead. This does two things. it’s lessens the grip corporations have on our thinking and it brings us back into community (where men and women will meet).
Returning to topic – ‘Family’ violence death report I have a big problem with the definition given for a family violence death. For it is defined as quote :-
“the unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a family or extended family member, caregiver, intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner”.
Notice the term suspected perpetrator. Weird, and kind of spooky huh?
So that means a person doesn’t even have to be prosecuted for causing another’s death to be counted in the statistics.
Let’s unpack this a bit further.
Matthew is suspected of killing his de-facto wife in an argument whereas she dies for some other unexplained reason.
He gets called into the local police station for questioning and bingo ends up being one of the statistics.
Which goes to serve the point I made earlier.
By turning suspects into actual perpetrators for the sakes of statistics government bureaucrats can then use such as justification to further bankroll DV services.
If it looks like a scam, smells like a scam, feels like a scam……
then it’s a ………..?
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 4:14 pm
Potential cost to a man of having a child:
At an average income of $30,000 per year a single man will pay approximately the following in child support alone:
$70 per week child support * 52 weeks * 19 years.
This equates to $69,160.
This does not include lawyers fees and property loss due to a relationship ending. And 75% of relationships are ended by women.
If the relationship does end then for his money he gets in return a 40% chance that he will lose all meaningful contact with his child. Probable ongoing accusations, including the possibility of false domestic violence charges.
He will be forced into poverty and expected to live as a second class citizen, with none of the help available to the mother. Then when he is having to make decisions such as whether he goes flatting and owns a car or sells his car and has a rented flat of his own he will be labelled as a deadbeat dad despite meeting all his obligations.
With no family tax credit, and no accommodation supplement. It will create a financial situation that forces many men to the edge of bankruptcy.
And on top of all this, he will probably never even know if the child he is going through all this for is even biologically related to him.
So why would most men risk this?
Because at some level us men actually WANT a good relationship and to have children. We want it so badly that we are willing to risk such dire consequences.
But don’t think ladies that we are fools and will continue to bother if the situation doesn’t change.
Comment by Phoenix — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 7:04 pm
Great financial analysis Pheonix.
Thank you.
And that’s for only one child right?
Comment by Skeptik — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 7:54 pm
Australia has seen a number of prostate related campaigns over the past couple of years. Nothing on the scale of the various breast cancer campaigns of course.
There have been some attempts at male suicide related campaigns but they were totally emasculated by Michael Fl**d. What we’ve been left with is severely weakened campaigns that only refer very generally to “depression” and never even mention suicide.
Comment by gwallan — Tue 29th June 2010 @ 9:33 pm
Nothing contracdictory about those words. Can you trust Wendy Davis? YES absolutely. BTW I am a man.
Comment by DJ — Fri 10th September 2010 @ 12:39 pm
I realise it was a while ago but who would have thought a woman would poisen somebody and get away with it.
I wonder if they will update the statistics.
Maybe poisoning somebody (very female method of murder) isn’t violent enough.
How many other dead men out there?
No tests when they die?
Does a large insurance policy and unusual, early death raise no red flags?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/104830930/police-probe-christchurch-medical-researcher-over-poisoning-of-partner-death-of-husband-years-apart
Comment by DJ Ward — Wed 20th June 2018 @ 1:52 pm
I wondered this too when the Black Widow case surfaced.
Hospital death from a seemingly natural cause, and a death certificate that helps avoid detection, and all the information is at their finger tips as nurses.
Comment by Downunder — Wed 20th June 2018 @ 2:08 pm