Through a Mother's Eyes

by Cary Allen Stone

  Prosecutor Sedgwick is trying to establish if Julie is truly delusional about the facts. She suggests that only if Julie’s facts as she saw them were inconsistent with reality would she then be delusional. But if she agrees and recollects the facts as they actually were, then she is not delusional. Dr. Danzinger agrees with Ms. Sedgwick that Julie’s recollections are consistent and no more dramatic than can be corroborated.

  DANZINGER: In looking at the relationship between Chuck and the child, Charley, there is nothing that I have seen that suggests an ongoing pattern of abuse, mistreatment, and neglect. There was one episode of corporal punishment. If he [Chuck] did admit that one instance, and that was the one specific instance that she described, would that support the fact—would that give support to the fact that at least her—her thought processes concerning the history of conduct between her husband and her son was not delusional?

  SEDGWICK: Okay, was there anything about her thoughts that she gave in your interview with her, or in any of the reports that you read, about what she saw in the future happening as far as her getting arrested for drugs, going to prison and losing custody of him to her husband? Was there anything about that that you thought was delusional?

  DANZINGER: No, that seemed to be a realistic expectation.

  SEDGWICK: All right, so where does her delusional beliefs come in?

  DANZINGER: It’s my opinion that she’s suffering from a major depression with the psychotic features. So, first, she meets the criteria for a major depression. This is evidenced not only by her own report, but there’s some collateral reports, people noting that she’s losing weight, getting thin, being somber. I think there was a report from her schoolteacher before. If you look at the collateral information, there is enough there to first establish the diagnosis of a major depression. So, where she falls is within the group of an affective or mood disorder.

  First, we determine that threshold. The depressive syndrome then, we look at what is the level of severity. I’m of the opinion that the depression was severe. In psychiatry, we have mild, moderate, and severe. Her depression would have met the severe category, given the––essentially, the depth of her depression and the suicidal ideas. Next thing we look at is this a single episode or recurrent. She has had a past history. I would say this is a recurrent, rather than a single or first episode.

  SEDGWICK: Of depression.

  DANZINGER: Of depression, right, so at this point, in going through how we psychiatrists make a diagnosis, we’re up to major depression, recurrent, severe. Now, then we look at is there, or is there not, psychotic features. When people suffer from a bout of major depression, they can have psychotic features. These psychotic features can involve hallucinations, they can involve delusions. Often times the delusions are consistent with the depressed mood, though not necessarily.

  In this case, it’s my opinion that she had what we call a mood congruent delusion that the delusion was consistent in something that went along with the depressed mood. And the delusion that she had, which sprang out of her depression, was that, first, she needed to die, and then without her the child would suffer, be tormented, and that without her the only right and proper thing was for Charley to die with her, and they would be buried and go to heaven together.

  It’s still my opinion that what made the critical difference here for a mother who obviously loved her child to kill her son––the difference here was that because of the delusional element, this is what brought her past the threshold to have her do the unthinkable, that the only choice was to kill herself and thus, kill the child. It’s my opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the key issue here in her reaching that decision and seeing that as the only thing to do, and seeing that as the right thing to do, is because of the delusion that the child––the only future for the child was to join her in heaven and be dead together.

  The assistant state attorney then requested verification whether there was any truth to the fact that Chuck was abusive toward Charley or that he would kill him.

  DANZINGER: No. [He does remind Ms. Sedgwick of the factual abuse of Julie by Chuck.] And again, in my opinion, that if anything, supports the idea that there was a delusional component in Julie’s thinking and that her major depression did over that threshold to add psychotic features.

  SEDGWICK: Okay. At the time, she murdered her son, did she understand that killing him was against the law?

  DANZINGER: The way that I would answer that would be to say that she still thought that what she was doing was right, that it was the only thing to do, and that the thought of that what she was doing was wrong, was not anything she considered. She may or may not have recognized it was against the law. The reason being that because of her delusional state now, we’re not talking about someone who is rational or reflecting appropriately.

  This is someone who was psychotic. And in her psychotic state, as a result of her psychosis, believed that this was the only choice she had, and the only thing she could do, and that it was right. This was the only thing in her mind, and the only thing that mattered at the time.

  SEDGWICK: During this time period, did she know that her drug usage and drug obtaining was against the law?

  DANZINGER: Yes, I believe she did.

  SEDGWICK: Explain. Is it your opinion that she was in a mental state such that she could recognize that her drug obtaining and drug usage was against the law, but she did not recognize that it was against the law to kill her child?

  DANZINGER: With regard to the prescription drug use, this was something that had been waxing and waning over the years... yes, it’s my opinion that she knew she could get in trouble for it if caught. I’m not here offering an opinion on the episodes where she falsely called in prescriptions, that she was insane at the time of that offense. What I look at is the episodes the days before the death of her child. If you look at it, she was already depressed to begin with.

  She was also misusing significant amounts of drugs. What happened to throw her over into a psychosis––she’s facing going to jail; her parents, if I recall correctly, several days before, basically wanted––what was it? Over $80,000, or something dollars back, and essentially cutting off their support; her husband and she are getting divorced, and the husband is wanting custody. All of these things hit within a short period of time. You have someone who’s fragile to begin with, misusing drugs, already depressed, and all of the sudden facing a series of extreme catastrophic stressors in a short period of time. I believe that those pushed her over, to a sense, to a psychotic state. Again, as a result of that psychosis, she had the delusional belief that the right thing to do and the only thing to do was kill the child...I don’t think that she thought about, or reflected on, or considered, whether it was legally right or wrong, what other people would think.

  The discussion shifted away from Julie’s state of mind at the time of the murder to a conclusion Dr. Kirkland made referencing Dr. Resnick’s report. One of the various categories of filicide was “spousal revenge.”

  SEDGWICK: How do you consider any element that this––that killing her child provided revenge on her husband?

  DANZINGER: I really don’t see anything that fits the spouse revenge pattern.

  SEDGWICK: Do you consider it delusional thinking for her to think that if her child died at that point in time, from whatever means, that her child would go to heaven?

  DANZINGER: In and of itself, no, many people, probably most people in America of religious faith, believe that if you lead a good life you go to heaven. So that taken in and of itself is not a delusional belief.

  SEDGWICK: Is it, per se, delusional thinking to think that taking a living child’s life is better than letting the child live?

  DANZINGER: In and of itself, taken out of context, just looking at it alone, that might be delusional, that might not be delusional.

  As you can see at the end of this chapter, there are experts and theories, but it seems that there are few definite answers. The sub
ject is complicated. The subject is frightening. Our emotions often dictate our decisions.

  5

  There are many, many ways to be imprisoned. You don’t need fences, handcuffs, chains, or steel bars. Your heart, or your own mind can imprison you within yourself. Another human being can imprison you with their actions and thoughts. Julie was a prisoner in her life long before she was incarcerated for murder. Because of what she did to Charley, she will always and forever be a prisoner, no matter if there are steel bars, or open fields.

  Julie currently resides in a barracks inside a State of Florida correctional institution. She shares the barracks with other female inmates. Each are allowed one bunk. There are a variety of reasons why other inmates are in the barracks. There is a status among the inmates determined by the severity of their crimes. There are “short-timers,” “long-timers,” and an entire social structure within the prison that each inmate eventually will become accustomed to and operate within.

  Inside, the inmates surrender their rights as guaranteed by the United States and Florida State Constitutions. They no longer have the right to remain anything. Their lives will be controlled every minute of the day. Included in the control will be their attitudes, conduct, appearance, and time.

  Who is allowed to visit the inmate and when is severely regulated particularly if you are but a casual acquaintance like I was. There were a number of obstacles that I had to climb over to see her. Finding where she was incarcerated was also no easy task.

  It was early on in my research and I had not contacted her attorney Mr. O’Mara. Instead, I sought the information from the Orlando Police Department assuming that they would know. They did not. The crime and criminal investigation was long past and no one in OPD really cared where she was incarcerated. Their only concern was that she was incarcerated. The court records I had reviewed did not state where she was. The only thing inside the court records was the order to place her in the custody of the Orange County Sheriff to be transported to the Department of Corrections.

  Detective Jon Parks, after I had interviewed him, shed some light on locating her by providing me with an Internet address for the Florida Department of Corrections. From the website, I was able to tap into the Department of Corrections, Bureau of Inmate Classification & Management Information about inmates is available to the public over the Internet in the interest of public safety. In the interest of public safety, the Florida Department of Corrections makes available to law enforcement agencies and the general public, information and photographs of inmates who are incarcerated. From there, I was able to find Julie. The next step was to make some telephone calls to the Department of Corrections Central Office, Public Relations, in Tallahassee.

  I spoke with Mrs. Jo Ellen Rackleff who explained that even though I knew Julie, I would only be allowed to visit as a journalist if I had the proper credentials. If the visit was approved it would be for a one-time only, one hour period. Mrs. Rackleff was sympathetic and suggested that I petition the Public Relations office and state my case formally. She understood what I was trying to do, and what I had hoped to accomplish by interviewing Julie.

  I found another way in. I had obtained Julie’s inmate number and the address of the facility where she was incarcerated. I also had made contact with her attorney Mr. O’Mara by then and explained to him who I was, and what I wanted to do. He said that he would ask her if she wanted to be contacted by me. It made no sense to continue without Julie and her consent. But I needed to write to her personally and present my case.

  In my original letter to Julie, I explained my motives and exactly what I was asking her to do. I told Julie that I had three goals. I wanted to hear her words. The story would be an accurate portrayal and not sensationalistic. That the work was to be used as a guide, a teaching tool, in order to prevent what had happened to Charley from happening again. I wanted her to understand that if she agreed to help, she would have to expose everything about herself and what happened, but that it would be for the benefit of others who were contemplating her path. The letter I sent was dated March 15, 1999, the same day as her birthday. I included a recent photograph.

  It was the beginning. What I wasn’t sure about was how it was going to end. Julie had agreed to meet but not necessarily to authorize the story. I wasn’t sure how successful she would be in gaining entry for me to the facility. There were problems with the visitation approval. Julie applied to her Warden and was denied. He did not want Julie to profit from her crime. He believed that there would be an exchange of monies for her assistance with my project.

  There was no word from Mr. O’Mara’s progress in securing my visitation. Months passed and still no progress was being made. Julie planned to petition the state for approval but that would mean more time wasted. I decided to try to push things along.

  I wrote directly to Superintendent Duffie Harrison on May 27. I explained the reason for the interview, and that the purpose of the book was to provide others in Julie’s situation with information so that they would not make her wrong choice. I highlighted that Julie was willing to provide her words, perspective, and her insight and how critically important that would be. I emphasized that Julie would receive absolutely no compensation whatsoever or sympathy suggestions for an early release. I told Mr. Harrison in that letter that my intent was to keep other women out of his facility.

  Julie wrote to me a few days later and said that approval was granted. All I needed to do was provide personal information for a background check on me before I could enter the facility. And, that a Ms. Sherry Waters, head of Classification, would be in contact with me soon. In preparation, I read all of the visitor rules gathered off the DOC’s website especially those of particular interest to me.

  A few days later, my telephone rang and Ms. Sherry Waters was on the line. Ms. Waters explained to me her position at the facility and that she was placed in charge of my request to see Julie. She was extremely polite and helpful throughout and presented me with pertinent background information about incarceration philosophy that I had not been previously unaware of. She explained to me that I would be allowed to visit from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday as long as I gave her a heads-up 24 hours in advance. I was more than agreeable and appreciative.

  Then Ms. Waters explained to me the reality of this particular visitation. I was going to be visiting a woman who took the life of the son she loved so dearly. She told me that it was her experience over the years that women who commit such crimes do not discuss what they had done and exist largely in a fantasy world. It often takes many years for them to speak about it and then it is only done in a way that they can accept and live with. She wanted me to know that before I took the long drive to the facility. She wanted me to understand that my journey could very well be in vain, as Julie may not be able to do the interview after all.

  Ms. Waters said that she felt that what I was trying to accomplish with the book would be a good thing, worthwhile, and she would do everything within her power to assist. She also told me of her, and the states, concern for the welfare of the inmate. I didn’t quite understand as I thought they were merely there to punish. The institution has a responsibility, she said, to confine and punish, but it also has the responsibility to protect the person they are confining. If the interview were going to be harmful, or adversely affect Julie in any way, they would not allow it.

  In light of what she said, my mission took on a new perspective. Sherry Waters, from that telephone call forward, would prove to be one of my strongest allies.

  The curtain was about to rise. The preliminary research was complete. The concept was about to take form. I had fifteen pages of questions prepared for the interview. Technically, I was prepared. Intellectually, I was primed. What I wasn’t prepared for was the scope of emotions.

  On June 13, I made a call to Ms. Waters and told her I would be at the facility early the next morning. She advised me that we would meet in the main offices lobby.

  I wondered if she s
till was the person that I knew, or had the intensity of the events changed her? Was she cold and detached––a murdering monster? Was she coherent? Would she be able to converse about it? As I drove, I was hundreds of miles away in distance but a million miles away with my thoughts.

  On top of a ridge, I could see a water tower and the twelve-foot high fencing covered in razor-sharp barbed wire. As I got nearer, the facility appeared. In the foreground was a parking lot. Next came the brick Administration building with bright yellow flowers lining the walkway. A driveway led to the entrance gate with the twelve-foot high double fences to either side stretching around the entire facility. A guard shack stood at the gate. Guard towers with armed guards were evenly spaced throughout. A certain distance away, but surrounding the entire institution was more heavy woods.

  As I drove in, there was a sign with the Department of Corrections seal and the name of the institution prominently displayed. Next to it was a notification in large letters of the rules regarding conduct and behavior of those who were about to enter. I entered through the double doors of the Administration Building and spoke to the guard about who I was there to see. He telephoned Sherry Waters. Ms. Waters arrived and I had an opportunity to meet Superintendent Duffy Harrison.

  The gate drew back and I was escorted inside. On either side of the road were rows of wooden buildings. A steeple towered over one. Some were offices and others were classrooms where the inmates attended classes. The correctional institution is an all-female facility and inmates were walking single file along the furthest edges of the road while Ms. Waters and I walked down the center.