|
Post by delorian on Jun 5, 2006 6:04:00 GMT -5
I'm writing to Michelle Tharp since the beginning of 2006. She's an Inmate at Muncy. I only know a little about her case, only what I've found on the internet. I didn't talk about with her, but I think she need's help. She told me that there are no friends and family for helping her. She's so nice and I think she's not guilty of what they accuse her. So, is there someone who knows Michelle too? I could need some help because I'm from germany and know less about the american law, moreover I think my english is full of mistakes. If there's someone who interested, please answer. Maybe there are people who are helping her and I can follow.
|
|
|
Post by requiemoftwilight on Aug 25, 2006 1:53:08 GMT -5
I think she's not guilty of what they accuse her. So who else could have starved Ms. Tharp's daughter to death? ....and please don't even start with the defence's BS theory that this child died from a prexisting condition that prevents the body from absorbing nutrients. If you think she's innocent, read this: www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-13-2002mo.pdf#search=%22Tausha%20Lanham%22There were plenty of witnesses that observed Michelle mistreat and withold food from the girl. Child protection had been called numerous times before. At the time of her death she was emancipated and her teeth were ground down.
|
|
|
Post by pollypolly on Aug 25, 2006 2:42:27 GMT -5
So who else could have starved Ms. Tharp's daughter to death? ....and please don't even start with the defence's BS theory that this child died from a prexisting condition that prevents the body from absorbing nutrients. If you think she's innocent, read this: www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-13-2002mo.pdf#search=%22Tausha%20Lanham%22There were plenty of witnesses that observed Michelle mistreat and withold food from the girl. Child protection had been called numerous times before. At the time of her death she was emancipated and her teeth were ground down. Yes it is all very disturbing and horrible. I have two young children and it took me awhile to decide if I would write to Michelle or not. After alot of soul searching I DID write her. I'm not perfect and noone here is, I'm not a higher being so I have no right to judge someone for their actions no matter how horrible they may be Guilty or not guilty its not up to me to decide. What about the system that allowed the child to slip through the gap??? Are they accountable too??? Should the officals be on DR as accessories?
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Aug 25, 2006 7:31:53 GMT -5
I agree with you - how about the system failing the child in question. We have instances of that constantly in the UK and all one gets at the end of the day is a 'public enquiry' highlighting the errors of officials and red tape that got in the way of no nonsense intervention where it was necessary. I once spoke to the head of legal at a large local authority in London and raised some issues in relation to alleged child abuse concerning my client's daughter. The woman was dismissive of my client's concerns and threatened to seek costs against me personally if I sought an order for social services intervention in the matter, via the family courts. Her precise words to me were' well how are you going to prove the blood is a result of abuse, regardless of its location? We don't have time to waste on cases like this, we have enough to get on with already'. If the perpetrator is culpable, so should others who had a reasonable ground for concern be, when it comes time to handing out the punishment. Does Ms Tharp express any remorse for her actions, in her correspondence or do you both shy away from the conviction and facts surrounding it?? I have noticed my penpal is at pains to avoid any discussion of issues surrounding his conviction or the original crime, just as if it all happened to someone else.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Aug 25, 2006 21:55:59 GMT -5
I think she's not guilty of what they accuse her. So who else could have starved Ms. Tharp's daughter to death? ....and please don't even start with the defence's BS theory that this child died from a prexisting condition that prevents the body from absorbing nutrients. If you think she's innocent, read this: www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-13-2002mo.pdf#search=%22Tausha%20Lanham%22There were plenty of witnesses that observed Michelle mistreat and withold food from the girl. Child protection had been called numerous times before. At the time of her death she was emancipated and her teeth were ground down. Oh my god, how sickening! I have a 3 year old daughter, so I find that very disturbing. This crime had to have been premeditated. Well, I applaud those of you on here that are big enough people to actuallly look beyond that, and still be pen pals with this woman. I know I never could.
|
|
|
Post by pollypolly on Aug 26, 2006 17:07:34 GMT -5
With all my penpals I never discuss the crimes for which they are sentenced to DR. I write to them as people who might be abit lonely and like a natter and some mail.....prison, sentences, crimes etc might get mention once every 4 letters or so.
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Aug 27, 2006 3:50:14 GMT -5
I was watching a documentary the other night about Richard Kuklinski the so called 'Ice man' mafia hitman who killed something like 100 people, a large number for no reason other than his taking a dislike to them on sight. Despite this and his being a wife beater and psychopath, in interview, he came across as quite a charmer and there were even moments of amusement in his conversation. One could actually WARM to this guy, despite his criminal history. I therefore concede that even those guilty of dreadful crimes, can be capable of maintaining a perfectly pleasant exchange with others, as Ms Tharp appears to do. I think though, that being a mother of a very young child, I too would feel uncomfortable about corresponding with this person. Think you are really brave to do so.
|
|
|
Post by xyntax on Aug 28, 2006 16:31:26 GMT -5
I think she's not guilty of what they accuse her. So who else could have starved Ms. Tharp's daughter to death? ....and please don't even start with the defence's BS theory that this child died from a prexisting condition that prevents the body from absorbing nutrients. If you think she's innocent, read this: www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-13-2002mo.pdf#search=%22Tausha%20Lanham%22There were plenty of witnesses that observed Michelle mistreat and withold food from the girl. Child protection had been called numerous times before. At the time of her death she was emancipated and her teeth were ground down. ....and please spare me of this BS post that obviously shows you have less than none real understanding of what might be going on in the body before it is found in a state such as this child's. I have taken some interest to this case and have not yet found good evidence she WAS starvED to death. That she starved is obvious but that does NOT mean for certain she WAS BEING STARVED by her mother. It's sickening to read posts like this one, and it makes me seriously angry. This is a very serious accusation and it has been made far to quickly by everyone posting in opposition of Michelle Tharp.
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Aug 28, 2006 16:35:20 GMT -5
Its great youre writing to sweet Michelle, Vallie girl and Im sure your letters please Michelle enormously. Ive been writing to Michelle since June 2005. She is a delight and has enriched my life.
There's some arrant nonsense on this thread from people who do not know Michelle at all and systematically believe everything in the media and the prosecution playbook. The paucity of the evidence against Michelle was such that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needed to use THREE jailhouse snitch witnesses to secure a conviction. Lets be clear about this..one jailhouse snitch = shaky case.......two jailhouse snitches = HELP!!! .... 3 jailhouse snitches = case with more holes than a Swiss cheese !!!
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Aug 29, 2006 5:40:00 GMT -5
So who else could have starved Ms. Tharp's daughter to death? ....and please don't even start with the defence's BS theory that this child died from a prexisting condition that prevents the body from absorbing nutrients. If you think she's innocent, read this: www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-13-2002mo.pdf#search=%22Tausha%20Lanham%22There were plenty of witnesses that observed Michelle mistreat and withold food from the girl. Child protection had been called numerous times before. At the time of her death she was emancipated and her teeth were ground down. ....and please spare me of this BS post that obviously shows you have less than none real understanding of what might be going on in the body before it is found in a state such as this child's. I have taken some interest to this case and have not yet found good evidence she WAS starvED to death. That she starved is obvious but that does NOT mean for certain she WAS BEING STARVED by her mother. It's sickening to read posts like this one, and it makes me seriously angry. This is a very serious accusation and it has been made far to quickly by everyone posting in opposition of Michelle Tharp. Great stuff Xyntax. Some of the nonsense written about this case really beggars belief. It comes from those who have never scratched below the surface of the hopelessly biased media reporting and the prosecution desperation to see someone punished to the full extent of the law, whether justified or not. Im not claiming Michelle is entirely innocent; but I will swear that the death sentence in this case is so totally disproportionate to the reality of this case that any justice will see a re-trial or at minimum a re-sentencing for Michelle. I hope so. It is approaching six years since she was sent to death row, Michelle's first meaningful appeal still hasnt seen a courtroom.
|
|
|
Post by legallybrunette on Aug 29, 2006 8:02:38 GMT -5
Yikes, folks calm down. I know that it is distressing for those of you who have befriended Ms Tharp through correspondence or otherwise, to read others' negative views about her and/or her actions/omissions. However, one can understand some of the dismay that has been expressed by posters on this and other threads, in relation to the accounts given of a child being starved. I have no idea whether the media accounts of the child weighing no more than a few pounds is true or whether she really was discovered dead at a road side. However, if those are indeed facts, at the very least, people have the right to question the lack of humanitarian feelings in anyone, who could allow an innocent child to endure so much and be dumped in such a callous fashion. As a mother myself, I can recall all the times I have been less than fair or kindly to my small daughter and have every sympathy with mums out there who are either so stuck in bouts of depression that they lose control or those stuck in abusive relationships who fail to act effectively when their young ones are hurt by third party abusers. If either of those elements was present in Ms Tharp's case, then I am sure that even those posters who expressed negativity about her, will concede that the lady cannot be condemned entirely for what happened. Can those of you who are supporters, cast any light on these factors so the rest of us learn about what may have really been going on which the prosecution perhaps conveniently overlooked, when preparing their case against her? When all is said and done however, I don't think killing the lady, is going to resolve anything. Just plain revenge to satisfy the blood lusters in society.
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Aug 30, 2006 15:51:21 GMT -5
Its very good of you to tread a moderate path over this case but it is an emotive subject. Emotions will run high.
If the prosecution were confident of its case it would be keen for the appeals to proceed. The prosecution has asked for 180day and 90day continuances in the time Ive been friends with Michelle. They know they have a flimsy case based on the shakiness of 3 jailhouse snitches and Michelles partner turning states evidence against her. With so much self-serving testimony, when the case finally gets heard we will see how much stands proper scrutiny from a proper lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 30, 2006 16:32:08 GMT -5
Quicksilver, I don't know much about Michelle's case, but I agree with you about jail house snitches... I don't think people should EVER be given deals for testimony. I hope you will keep us posted on the appeal.
|
|
|
Post by quicksilver0901 on Aug 31, 2006 6:50:22 GMT -5
Well thanks Maggie. Jailhouse snitch testimony is the most self-serving, unreliable form of evidence out there. It features strongly among the cases that have been proven mistaken or are conspicuously unsafe. Most of all it was highlighted by the Illinois Moratorium Commission as being so unreliable that evidence from such witnesses should be validated before trial; among their recommendations.
In this case, the Commonwealth felt the need to use three. That's enough said about the lack of credibility in their other evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Aug 31, 2006 7:05:22 GMT -5
Hi QS,
What is the status of Michelle's case now as far as the appeal process?
|
|