Speaker 1: With Lucky Land Slots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 2: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 2: the bride and broom?
Speaker 1: Or sorry, we're here.
Speaker 3: We were getting lucky in the limo when we lost
Speaker 3: track of time.
Speaker 2: No Lucky Land casino with cash prizes that add up
Speaker 2: quicker than a guess registered. But in that case, I
Speaker 2: pronounce you lucky.
Speaker 1: Play for free at lucky landslots dot com. Daily bonuses
Speaker 1: are waiting. No purchase necessary boid. We're prohibited by long
Speaker 1: eighteen plus terms and conditions APPLA. See website for details.
Speaker 2: Lucky Land Casino asking people what's the weirdest place you've
Speaker 2: gotten lucky?
Speaker 1: Lucky in line at the Delhi I guess ah, in
Speaker 1: my dentist's office more than once.
Speaker 4: Actually do I have to say?
Speaker 2: Yes? You do?
Speaker 3: In the car before my kid's PTA meeting?
Speaker 1: Really?
Speaker 5: Yes, excuse me?
Speaker 2: What's the weirdest place you've gotten lucky?
Speaker 5: I never win?
Speaker 2: And tell well, there you have it. You could get
Speaker 2: lucky anywhere playing at lucky landslots dot com. Play for
Speaker 2: free right now? Are you feeling lucky? Nope? Not necessary boid.
Speaker 6: We we're gon be my low eighteen plus terms and
Speaker 6: conditions of plus zup to Canadian.
Speaker 2: You are now listening to True Murder, The Most Shocking
Speaker 2: Killers in True Crime History and the authors that have
Speaker 2: written about them Gaesy, Bundy, Dahmer, The Nightstalker DTK. Every
Speaker 2: week another fascinating author talking about the most shocking and
Speaker 2: infamous killers in true crime history. True Murder with your host,
Speaker 2: journalist and author Dan Zupansky.
Speaker 4: Good evening, This is your host Dan Zupanski for the
Speaker 4: program True Murder, The most Shocking Killers in True Crime
Speaker 4: History and the authors that have written about them. On
Speaker 4: January twenty eight, twenty and eleven, the Kappa Police Department
Speaker 4: received a phone call from a woman who was worried
Speaker 4: about her daughter, Julie Shaneker, a devoted army wife and
Speaker 4: mother of two, Julie had sent her mother an email
Speaker 4: that could be described as suicidal. When authorities arrived at
Speaker 4: shaneker home, they encountered a horrific scene. Sixteen year old
Speaker 4: Kalyx and thirteen year old Beaux Shaneker were found dead,
Speaker 4: both of them shot, then covered with blankets. Upon questioning,
Speaker 4: Julie admitted that she was tired of the kids talking
Speaker 4: back and just wanted it to be over. Had her
Speaker 4: manic depression driven her to the point of insanity or
Speaker 4: was hers a case of a cold calculated violence and manipulation.
Speaker 4: This is the shocking true story of motherhood, mental illness,
Speaker 4: and two charges of murder in the first degree. The
Speaker 4: book that we're featuring this evening is Sleep My Darlings,
Speaker 4: The true story of a mother who killed her children
Speaker 4: in cold blood, with my special guest journalist and author
Speaker 4: Diane Welcome back to the program, and thank you very
Speaker 4: much for agreeing to this interview. Diane Fanning.
Speaker 3: Terrific to be Richier again.
Speaker 4: Dan Well, thank you, thank you very much. Another great book,
Speaker 4: by the way, and our audience is in for a
Speaker 4: treat now. You portray, you paint a portrait of Julie Sheneker,
Speaker 4: And you've done exhaustive research here and had, of course,
Speaker 4: as usual, some incredible access to all the players that
Speaker 4: are the major players in this story. And I think
Speaker 4: it's important how long you spend and how exhaustive this
Speaker 4: research is to be able to tell us exactly who
Speaker 4: Julie Sheneker is. So tell us start in the beginning,
Speaker 4: who is Julie Sheneker, What is her background, Where does
Speaker 4: she come from? What is her roots? Tell us about
Speaker 4: Julie Sheneker.
Speaker 3: Julie Sheneker was basically a farm girls mile and she
Speaker 3: grew up out in the country, and she was very
Speaker 3: much liked. She was a very pleasant person. She was,
Speaker 3: as one of her high school classmates described it, the
Speaker 3: kind of daughter you wanted to have when you had children.
Speaker 3: So everybody wanted to be Jeweli or to have a
Speaker 3: childlike Jewelry someday. She was an athlete and a scholar
Speaker 3: and just an all round nice person. There was nothing
Speaker 3: in her early years to foreshadow any of this. Then
Speaker 3: she went off to university and excelled again in sports
Speaker 3: or the volleyball team, and did well academically. When she graduated,
Speaker 3: she joined the army and went into Army intelligence, and
Speaker 3: she had a very high pressure, prestigious position. She was
Speaker 3: based in Germany during the Cold War and her job
Speaker 3: was to interview people that were coming out from behind
Speaker 3: the iron curtains seeking asylum. She was a Russian specialist,
Speaker 3: so she could speak fluent Russian and she understood about
Speaker 3: the Russian culture and she could communicate with these people
Speaker 3: and basically debriefed them. When they were trying to find
Speaker 3: asylum in the United States, and that was the kind
Speaker 3: of job that really required a lot for a person,
Speaker 3: that required a lot of intellectual ability and a lot
Speaker 3: of staying power. And as one of her co workers said,
Speaker 3: everybody in that unit was a type a person and
Speaker 3: they all worked. And then they played hard too, with
Speaker 3: all the beer festivals in that part of and she
Speaker 3: had a bike as she rode recreationally. She captained me
Speaker 3: and coached the volleyball team. She was a very busy
Speaker 3: woman and it was in that capacity that she met
Speaker 3: the man she was married with, Chris Schenniker, And after
Speaker 3: she started having children, she became a stay at home
Speaker 3: mom taking care of her kids. Traveled across the United
Speaker 3: States in different bases where her husband was posted, went
Speaker 3: to Hawaii for a while, and eventually ended up in Tampa, Florida,
Speaker 3: where her husband was a colonel in Army intelligence. And
Speaker 3: she was very socially active with friends, got involved in
Speaker 3: in charitable events in volunteering there. She was not from
Speaker 3: the outside what anyone would have expected in the long term,
Speaker 3: and what actually happened to it was very much of
Speaker 3: a surprise to many people. People closest to her knew
Speaker 3: she was having problems, but I don't think anyone really
Speaker 3: understood the magnitude, severity, and life threatening nature of what
Speaker 3: was going on with her. She was diagnosed bipolar, and
Speaker 3: bipolar people have a particular challenge, and that is to
Speaker 3: be able to stay on medications, because the temptation is
Speaker 3: so extreme to get off the medications because they make
Speaker 3: for a lot of people with bipolar disorder, they make
Speaker 3: everything kind of flat. And yeah, the depressions of bipole
Speaker 3: are horrible, but also the hides can feel wonderful when
Speaker 3: you're in them. And so it's difficult for someone with
Speaker 3: that problem to maintain their medication and keep on it.
Speaker 3: And Julie had a very difficult time with that, and
Speaker 3: she couldn't manage it. And after she was in an
Speaker 3: all car accident, she got some pain pills and so
Speaker 3: she was abusing those, she was self medicating with alcohol.
Speaker 3: She was doing all sorts of things that would not
Speaker 3: even be good if you didn't have mental health issues,
Speaker 3: but when you do, it's even worse. And I'll be honest,
Speaker 3: and when I sat down to write this book, I
Speaker 3: did not expect that I would have any compassionate all
Speaker 3: for Julie Schenneker in light of what she had done.
Speaker 3: But I've found myself having a lot of compassion for her.
Speaker 3: It doesn't mitigate anything that she did that is still
Speaker 3: absolutely horrible, But she really had a difficult condition. She
Speaker 3: was having trouble getting medications that were working right for her,
Speaker 3: and she really was, aside from what her mental illness
Speaker 3: stead to her, a really nice and good person. And
Speaker 3: the drug abuse and the alcohol abuse combined with her
Speaker 3: mental condition created a monster.
Speaker 4: Let's go back for our audience though, because we've kind
Speaker 4: of skipped over the story to a certain degree, so
Speaker 4: we'll go back a little bit and tell a little
Speaker 4: bit more of it. What I found interesting is that
Speaker 4: I've found it surprising what you just did. I did
Speaker 4: say that you found compassion for Julie Sheneker, and you
Speaker 4: in the initially didn't think that you would have any
Speaker 4: compassion for her given the crimes they were committed. What
Speaker 4: I wanted to get into a little bit is that
Speaker 4: we want to know when exactly this mental illness was diagnosed,
Speaker 4: and exactly how serious was the disease that was diagnosed,
Speaker 4: and of course what was she You talked about hospitalization.
Speaker 4: Of course, she was on a certain amount of drugs,
Speaker 4: but we want to talk about later about the actual
Speaker 4: amount of drugs and different variety of drugs that were
Speaker 4: found at the Shaneker home after police were called to
Speaker 4: the home. And we're not at that point yet, So
Speaker 4: let's go back a little bit. When was she first diagnosed.
Speaker 4: I know it was around the time that they were married,
Speaker 4: But tell us when that first diagnosis was, and what
Speaker 4: that diagnosis was specifically, and what was the course of
Speaker 4: action taken upon and recommended by the doctor at that time.
Speaker 3: At the time she was diagnosed, which was in the
Speaker 3: early nineties, she was it was recommended that she, you know,
Speaker 3: take medication to treat her illness. The first thing was
Speaker 3: that the diagnosis for at first was depression, so she
Speaker 3: put her in a depressant. And that's very common with
Speaker 3: people who are by a polar that they're first because
Speaker 3: that's when you go for help, is when you're depressed.
Speaker 3: You don't go for help when you're in the middle
Speaker 3: of the high So it takes a while for a
Speaker 3: doctor to recognize that it's more than just depression. But
Speaker 3: it took a couple of years in her case, and
Speaker 3: she was, over the course of twenty years, medicated, hospitalized,
Speaker 3: she went to rehab for drug abuse. It was a
Speaker 3: situation that you would like to hope that she could
Speaker 3: be getting better, but it seemed like every step she
Speaker 3: took forward, eventually she'd slide two back.
Speaker 4: There was no diagnosis, though, of violence or violent features
Speaker 4: to her bipolar disease, the depression or the bipolar diagnosis.
Speaker 4: There was no violent features in there was.
Speaker 3: There no There were times that it was thought she
Speaker 3: might be dangerous to herself. Now. The last time she
Speaker 3: was hospitalized, she would not give the doctor permission to
Speaker 3: speak to her husband, and in the because of the
Speaker 3: hippo laws in this country, he couldn't do that without
Speaker 3: her permission. And I often wonder if Parker and her
Speaker 3: doctor could have talked openly and freely about what was
Speaker 3: going on with Julie, if that would have made a
Speaker 3: difference in the track of her life. If Parker had
Speaker 3: realized the seriousness of her condition, I'm sure he would
Speaker 3: not have left her alone with two kids and gone
Speaker 3: to quit there. He could have gotten a family emergency leave.
Speaker 3: He could have called a family member to come in
Speaker 3: and stay with them. I just think he was not
Speaker 3: able to be fully informed. And as a result of this,
Speaker 3: you know, he now has no children, and that's really sad.
Speaker 4: It's very sad. But I also maybe it's just from
Speaker 4: living in camp. In my whole life, I did have
Speaker 4: sympathy for Julie Scheneker. And where my sympathy was lying
Speaker 4: was as the story unfolded, I said, I'd be awfully
Speaker 4: depressed myself. I've got a couple of kids, and no
Speaker 4: one can really depict because you didn't get to interview
Speaker 4: the children obviously what kind of family life they did
Speaker 4: have when they were all together, or what kind of
Speaker 4: family life they had when they were apart. But certainly
Speaker 4: a move must be traumatic for children. It's also must
Speaker 4: be traumatic for a wife. She gave up a career.
Speaker 4: She was a very important military She had a very
Speaker 4: important military career too. So it wasn't that she gave
Speaker 4: up something that wasn't a real passion of hers. She
Speaker 4: gave this up traveled the world. I guess she obviously
Speaker 4: knew that he was a career military man, and she
Speaker 4: understood that. But I thought, I think it's depressing just
Speaker 4: by nature of him not being there very often and
Speaker 4: her dealing with teenage, a teenager and another two teenagers actually,
Speaker 4: and and all the things that go along with a
Speaker 4: marriage or maybe a life just not so fulfilled. I
Speaker 4: thought that that was part of I think the thing
Speaker 4: that you probably couldn't get to unless you really spoke
Speaker 4: to Julie. And maybe that's just my imagination, but I.
Speaker 3: Do think I do think she had multiple stressors in
Speaker 3: her life. You know, the frequent moving is stressful, selling
Speaker 3: a house, buying a house is stressful. Having teenagers in
Speaker 3: the house is stressful. Being separated from your spouse is stressful.
Speaker 7: And so.
Speaker 3: You know, she had a lot on her. For any person,
Speaker 3: if she was a friend of yours, you'd be sympathizing
Speaker 3: with her a lot, because she did. She carried a
Speaker 3: heavy burden. And I think that a lot of people
Speaker 3: often don't realize. They look at a woman who gives
Speaker 3: up a career and stays them and goes. Isn't she
Speaker 3: lucky she doesn't have to work every day? But there
Speaker 3: is something there, Particularly if you have a fulfilling job
Speaker 3: and a demanding job like she did, you lose a
Speaker 3: piece of yourself and of your self identity, and you
Speaker 3: don't have as much fulfillment. I think when you're a
Speaker 3: parent and you look back at your parenting when it's
Speaker 3: over and you see that your children have turned out
Speaker 3: and it turned out to be really fine adults, and
Speaker 3: you go, wow, that was really fulfilling. But on a
Speaker 3: day to day basis, you don't really feel that so often.
Speaker 3: You know it's because there's so much detail and drudgery
Speaker 3: that goes along with it you've got to take care of.
Speaker 3: There are happy moments, there are loving moments, there are
Speaker 3: a lot of things, but it's not necessarily fulfilling something
Speaker 3: you look back and see what you've accomplished, whereas a
Speaker 3: job that you enjoy and love can be fulfilling on
Speaker 3: a pretty regular basis.
Speaker 4: Right now, two things I thought were important as well
Speaker 4: is that, and you know this is not the chronological
Speaker 4: order of the book, but I wanted to talk about
Speaker 4: when police actually go to the home. And we'll leave
Speaker 4: the murder for in a few minutes, but this variety
Speaker 4: of drugs and the volume of drugs that were there. Now,
Speaker 4: I understand people being prescribed antidepressants, but I'm not going
Speaker 4: to ask you off the top of your head the
Speaker 4: variety and the amount of drugs that were there, but
Speaker 4: safe to say there was say three antidepressants, at least
Speaker 4: a couple very very strong oxycotton cardon or whatever it's called.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there were the pain killers, which I do not
Speaker 3: think that her regular doctor was aware of all the
Speaker 3: medications she was taking. I think she had had different doctors,
Speaker 3: one because of her accident, and then a regular doctor.
Speaker 3: I think she had multiple doctors prescribing for her and
Speaker 3: nobody knew the whole picture. But she did have three antidepressions,
Speaker 3: she did have a couple of anti anxiety drugs, some
Speaker 3: pain killers. Topped that off with just some of cold
Speaker 3: medications which can make you a little loopy just by themselves,
Speaker 3: and all of that thrown together along with lithium, and
Speaker 3: it was just a nightmare pharmaceutical display all over her house.
Speaker 3: I mean, they found pills on the dead, they found
Speaker 3: him in the bathroom, they found him in her purse,
Speaker 3: and then on top of that, they go in the
Speaker 3: kitchen and they trash hands full of empty all the
Speaker 3: beer cans and wine bottles. And this was a woman
Speaker 3: that was obviously at the end of her leash, and
Speaker 3: she was self medicating in a very destructive way, and
Speaker 3: she had yes, two very very good children. They were
Speaker 3: well liked, they were well adjusted for teenagers, and they
Speaker 3: weren't causing any serious problems like going out and doing
Speaker 3: drugs and getting arrested or anything like that. But the
Speaker 3: friction between a sixteen year old daughter and a mother
Speaker 3: is often very extreme, and in this case, I think
Speaker 3: that Julie's mental illness played a role in it being
Speaker 3: even more extreme. Klex was trying to get into a
Speaker 3: boarding school because she did not want to live in
Speaker 3: the house with their mother anymore. There was no story, though,
Speaker 3: of any conflict with though, and that was kind of
Speaker 3: odd that she did kill thou because there had never
Speaker 3: been any educational conflict between them.
Speaker 4: The thing is, it doesn't really you know. Again, we
Speaker 4: should just wait for a moment. In terms of this,
Speaker 4: I'm trying to paint the picture that you have for
Speaker 4: the book with Bully. There is nothing in Julie's background
Speaker 4: that would predict anything like the last bit of her life,
Speaker 4: and so there is no ability to this insanity. And
Speaker 4: in terms of all the cases that you've covered and
Speaker 4: all the cases I have looked at, this is still
Speaker 4: and I think you're right about this as well, is
Speaker 4: that this is this is not typical. This is not
Speaker 4: the typical person that kills their children as well, and
Speaker 4: these are not.
Speaker 3: The It's not the typical person that would kill her children.
Speaker 3: There is no I mean usually when teenagers are killed,
Speaker 3: there's a history of violence towards them. There are two
Speaker 3: incidents of her slapping her daughter, that is it, and
Speaker 3: those were shortly before she committed this final act. Also,
Speaker 3: when you look at mothers who kill their children, the
Speaker 3: younger the child is, the more likely that a mother
Speaker 3: will kill the child. By the time children are teenagers,
Speaker 3: it's extremely rare for a mother to do that. If
Speaker 3: children teenage children are killed by a parents, it is
Speaker 3: almost always the father, So this is extremely unusual.
Speaker 4: Now, tell us what happens a little bit before this murder.
Speaker 4: There is concern from Parker Scheneker about his wife, of course,
Speaker 4: not enough to delay or postpone or cancel his work
Speaker 4: overseas in the military. But tell us what he does do.
Speaker 4: There's an email, There is talk among the families, and
Speaker 4: I found this very shocking, and some of it from
Speaker 4: her own brother. Tell us a little bit about conversations
Speaker 4: and how long that was before this tragic event.
Speaker 3: Well right before the event I meany days before he
Speaker 3: left the country, they were taught he was talking with
Speaker 3: the family about how she had the judgment of a
Speaker 3: ten year old, and no one was disagreeing with him.
Speaker 8: And they they were wondering, if you know, if he
Speaker 8: just had enough of critiquity more and it was going
Speaker 8: to be leaving her because of her drug abuse and
Speaker 8: having to be put in to rehab and uh getting
Speaker 8: into an automobile.
Speaker 3: Accident by driving crazy and uh drinking and driving and
Speaker 3: not being responsible for the children and at times and
Speaker 3: the family was getting garbled messages from her, and they
Speaker 3: knew that she her own family knew that she was
Speaker 3: not doing well. And yet Parker was the kind of
Speaker 3: guy if you if you said said yes, I will
Speaker 3: do this, Yes I can do this, no problem, he
Speaker 3: was going to believe you. And so when he asked, Julie,
Speaker 3: will you be okay if I go on this ten
Speaker 3: day deployment to the Middle East, and Julie said yes,
Speaker 3: for that time, I can handle that, and so Parker said,
Speaker 3: you know, okay, Well, then then you know I won't
Speaker 3: be gone long, just ten days. I'll be back. And
Speaker 3: I'm sure he never anticipated for one moment that she
Speaker 3: would not keep her work. But unfortunately she met something
Speaker 3: meant something entirely differently than what he different than what he.
Speaker 4: Thought before we get into the actual planning, which you
Speaker 4: know puts a big monkey wrench into any kind of
Speaker 4: insanity defense. That's for sure. I wanted you to convey
Speaker 4: to the audience because again, this is a dynamic that
Speaker 4: was awfully shocking to me is how this is a
Speaker 4: very religious family. We haven't talked spoken about that, and
Speaker 4: that permeates itself all the way through the entire story
Speaker 4: after the children are murdered and way beyond. But there's
Speaker 4: a letter from her brother I believe his name is
Speaker 4: Dave to Julie. And what is the tone of that
Speaker 4: letter from her own family member? And I think this
Speaker 4: may hopefully explain the kind of impression I got from
Speaker 4: this family dynamic.
Speaker 3: Well, basically he was telling her to shape up, that
Speaker 3: you know, you had no more patience with her, you know,
Speaker 3: And this is so common in how family members react
Speaker 3: to someone with a mental illness, to expect them to
Speaker 3: pull themselves together and stop jerking around and stop like
Speaker 3: her brother felt that she was because of the way
Speaker 3: she was acting. She was causing Parker to retire before
Speaker 3: you made general. And that had been Parker's desire for
Speaker 3: years and years, and everybody in the family knew he
Speaker 3: wanted to be a general. And so it was all,
Speaker 3: you know, look what you're doing to Parker, and look
Speaker 3: what you're you're causing him to give up. And nobody
Speaker 3: was really looking at what she'd already given up for
Speaker 3: one thing, right, And nobody was ever looking at the
Speaker 3: mental illness as not being some sort of weakness but
Speaker 3: a serious biochemical problems.
Speaker 4: And I think that this, well, maybe I'm going to
Speaker 4: get ahead of myself if I if I comment on
Speaker 4: that anyway, Now, there are some I just mentioned that
Speaker 4: there are some plans. There's some premeditation here that really
Speaker 4: makes you wonder when you're following this story, and it's
Speaker 4: amazing how it's laid out, and it's very, very surprising
Speaker 4: that this happens. Tell us about the premeditated plans for murder.
Speaker 3: Well, when Parker left for all of his deployments, Julie
Speaker 3: went three counties away to a gun store. I mean,
Speaker 3: there were a lot of gun stores closer to her home,
Speaker 3: but she chose this one that was a little further away.
Speaker 3: She went in and she bought her gune and was
Speaker 3: very disappointed to find out that she had three day
Speaker 3: waiting period. So she went home and wrote in her journal,
Speaker 3: the massacre will have to be delayed. And so it
Speaker 3: was obvious usually in a lot, in most possibilities of
Speaker 3: domestic violence, that three day waiting period can save lives
Speaker 3: because it's it's sort of the heat of the moment
Speaker 3: kind of thing. I'm going to kill my wife, and
Speaker 3: they go out to get the gun to kill her,
Speaker 3: and they come if they can get it right away,
Speaker 3: to come over and kill her, but if they have
Speaker 3: that waiting period, they think better about it. With Julie, though,
Speaker 3: that waiting period didn't impact her state of mind. And
Speaker 3: I know that for the prosecution who's trying to get
Speaker 3: the death penalty, that they say that proves premeditation and
Speaker 3: she deserves to die for it, and I disagree with
Speaker 3: that in that I think that she was in a
Speaker 3: state of mental illness, unclear thinking through all of what
Speaker 3: they're calling premeditation. And yes it is premeditation, but it
Speaker 3: was all created by a mere psychotic state of mind.
Speaker 4: Well good luck with that. But yeah, Now, the thing
Speaker 4: is that she waited the three days she got her gun,
Speaker 4: bought her ammunition. And these guys were key guys testifying
Speaker 4: or at least giving their testimony to police, and that
Speaker 4: was part of the evidence gathered against her. Now, what
Speaker 4: does she do and on what day and under what
Speaker 4: circumstances Take us back to that faithful day and recreate
Speaker 4: that horrible experience for us.
Speaker 3: It was a Thursday in January and towards against January,
Speaker 3: and she picked up the gun at the gun store.
Speaker 3: She came home when it was time to take go
Speaker 3: to his soccer game. She was driving down the road
Speaker 3: with him and suddenly fired a shot into the windshield,
Speaker 3: which terrified Bow and he turned towards her and pleaded
Speaker 3: with her to put down the gun, and she shot
Speaker 3: him in the head. Then she with him sitting there,
Speaker 3: she drove home, parked the car in the garage, went
Speaker 3: into the house, walked up the stairs to where Klex
Speaker 3: was busy in front of the computer work in her
Speaker 3: Homewark shot Kaelex in the head. When Kaylex swung around
Speaker 3: in an automatic physical response, she was shot again in
Speaker 3: the face. She was sitting on a rolling chair and
Speaker 3: Julie rolled her down the hall and into her bedroom,
Speaker 3: picked her up and laid her in bed, got a
Speaker 3: white cat blanket out of the cap in the bathroom
Speaker 3: and stretched it out over her, put the chair back
Speaker 3: where it belonged at the desk, got another white blanket,
Speaker 3: went downstairs, out into the garage and covered up. Though
Speaker 3: then she went and detailed everything that happened in her journal.
Speaker 3: She sent some very very garbled text messages and email messages,
Speaker 3: and then sometime after that she ended she had written
Speaker 3: that she was going to commit suicide, that was going
Speaker 3: to be the final act of violence that night. But
Speaker 3: it said she passed out on the concrete apron of
Speaker 3: the swimming pool and it was the next morning the
Speaker 3: police found her there.
Speaker 4: Now in the journal, was there talk of why she
Speaker 4: wanted to kill the children.
Speaker 3: She said that she was tired of them talking back
Speaker 3: and it had to end, and that was it.
Speaker 4: Now, did she send an email to Parker just sort
Speaker 4: of foreshadowing this?
Speaker 3: She sent an email to Parker telling him to herry home,
Speaker 3: they missed him, and that was after she killed the children.
Speaker 4: Incredible.
Speaker 3: Now, Parker's viewpoint in his lawsuit was that she did
Speaker 3: that to torment him. But the other possible meaning of
Speaker 3: that is that she was already in total denial about
Speaker 3: what she had done. And in a lot of cases
Speaker 3: of mothers killing children, there is often a plan of suicide,
Speaker 3: but the emotionally draining nature of shooting their kids or
Speaker 3: killing their kids, whatever way they do it is it
Speaker 3: just wears them out and they have absolutely no energy,
Speaker 3: and it's very often they go to sleep or pas
Speaker 3: us out.
Speaker 4: Now before we get to this lawsuit, because again I
Speaker 4: found this quite shocking and some of the behavior as well.
Speaker 4: Tell us about the course of events, because early in
Speaker 4: your book we talked about how while you talk about
Speaker 4: how the police are first notified, and tell us about that.
Speaker 1: With Lucky Landslots, you can get lucky just about anywhere.
Speaker 2: Nearly beloved, we are gathered here today. Has anyone seen
Speaker 2: the bride and groom?
Speaker 3: Sorry? Sorry, we're here. We were getting lucky in the
Speaker 3: limo and we lost track of time.
Speaker 2: No Lucky Land casino with cash? Is that add up
Speaker 2: quicker than he gets registered?
Speaker 4: Well, in that case, I pronounce you lucky play for.
Speaker 1: Free Lucky land Slots dot com. Daily bonuses are rating
Speaker 1: no purchase necessary, boyd, We're prohibited by lack eighteen plus
Speaker 1: terms and conditions applak see website for details.
Speaker 2: Step into the world of power, loyalty and luck. I'm
Speaker 2: gonna make him an offer he can't refuse. With family,
Speaker 2: canoli's and spins mean everything.
Speaker 4: Now you want to get mixed up in the family.
Speaker 2: Business, Introducing the Godfather at Champa Casino dot com. Test
Speaker 2: your luck in the shadowy world at the Godfather Slough.
Speaker 8: Someday I will call upon you to do a service
Speaker 8: for me.
Speaker 2: Play the Godfather now at Champacasino dot com.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Family vdW group. No purchase necessary. I
Speaker 3: believe we're pribited by loss.
Speaker 4: He terms and conditions eighteen plus ooters? How many you say?
Speaker 4: Julie passes out by the pool. Tell us about the
Speaker 4: other course of events that come for the police and
Speaker 4: for the family to discover Julie Scheneker and the whole that.
Speaker 3: Well, Julie Oh.
Speaker 7: Had not.
Speaker 3: Really told anyone what she was going to do, I mean,
Speaker 3: so it was a big surprise to everybody and how
Speaker 3: they found out. She did send an email to her
Speaker 3: mother that saying this is this is all got to end,
Speaker 3: and it sounded to her mother as if Julie could
Speaker 3: have been contemplating suicide. Her mother did not suspect that
Speaker 3: she would ever do anything to harm the children. So
Speaker 3: it was her mother that called the police because she
Speaker 3: was very worried. Her mother, religion Iowa, was vacationing in Texas,
Speaker 3: and she called the Florida police to go check on
Speaker 3: her daughter. And they did go over there, and the police,
Speaker 3: I mean, they thought the worst thing they would find
Speaker 3: is the suicide. That was, you know, the only thing
Speaker 3: that they could imagine. So when they found the first
Speaker 3: body they found was Klyx's upstairs in the bedroom, and
Speaker 3: at that point, since Beau was not in his bedroom,
Speaker 3: they had great hope that that Beau would be found
Speaker 3: hiding somewhere scared, but instead they found him dead in
Speaker 3: the car.
Speaker 4: Now, what was Julie's reaction when they did discover her there?
Speaker 4: You describe in the book what was what was her
Speaker 4: sort of what was her behavior? What was her reaction
Speaker 4: when police found her there?
Speaker 3: Well, at sorst, I mean, she identified herself and they
Speaker 3: asked to go into our house, and she said that
Speaker 3: was fine. But then once they all got into the house,
Speaker 3: she started fighting the police. They ended up having to
Speaker 3: forcibly cuff her because she was resisting them, but eventually
Speaker 3: she told them what she had done. She told them
Speaker 3: that they were talking back and she wasn't going to
Speaker 3: take it anymore.
Speaker 4: Now, what is Parker's reaction, How does he find out?
Speaker 4: How long after and what is his immediate reaction.
Speaker 3: Parker found out while he was deployed or receives that
Speaker 3: his family was gone basically, and and he came right back.
Speaker 3: It was due to come back anyway, actually, but he
Speaker 3: went to the base and he all was there for
Speaker 3: the community memorial service for the one that the military had.
Speaker 3: He was also willing to go to Fort Worth for
Speaker 3: the official funeral. He was there, He spoke at all
Speaker 3: of these. He was very open to Bow and Kalyx's
Speaker 3: friends and was very welcoming to them. He would go
Speaker 3: to games that were played by those soccer team and
Speaker 3: cheer the kids on there. When March came around and
Speaker 3: came the event that Klyx was in charge of for
Speaker 3: the American Heart Association, he showed up and he did
Speaker 3: the walk with all of the kids, and he was
Speaker 3: there all night with them, just as he would have
Speaker 3: been if Kalyx was there, and he gave a big donation.
Speaker 3: He was through the foundation he started for Calyx and Bow.
Speaker 3: He gave a big donation to that event to Relay
Speaker 3: for Life, and he has been very involved with those
Speaker 3: children and with his foundation and wanting to do good
Speaker 3: things in the name of his children.
Speaker 4: My question is is that who visited Julie Sheneker and Parker.
Speaker 4: How long was it before he visited Julie Shenneker And
Speaker 4: what was the nature of the visit once he did
Speaker 4: visit her.
Speaker 3: Well, when they first got together, it was right after
Speaker 3: the two memorial services and the funeral. He went into
Speaker 3: the jail to visit her. And normally in the jail
Speaker 3: all visits were by a close circuit television and you
Speaker 3: never actually physically saw the people. But they made special
Speaker 3: arrangements so he could actually sit down in the same
Speaker 3: room with her, and he talked to her about the
Speaker 3: memorial services and about all the kids and all the
Speaker 3: love for Calyx and Bow, and he updated her on
Speaker 3: all of that, and then he informed her that he
Speaker 3: was filing for a divorce, and she seemed to take
Speaker 3: it okay at that time. She just nodded her acceptance,
Speaker 3: and he pretty much thought she was okay with it,
Speaker 3: and then the demand started coming from her lawyer as
Speaker 3: far as what she would get out of the divorce.
Speaker 3: They went money immediately to pay for her defense, and
Speaker 3: they wanted him to have a life chose policy with
Speaker 3: hers beneficiary. And it seemed very odd to me that
Speaker 3: those demands would be made, that anyone would expect a
Speaker 3: father to pay for the defense of the person who
Speaker 3: took his children's lives.
Speaker 4: I was surprised that the court didn't. I was surprised
Speaker 4: that these cases were sort of mixed up a little bit,
Speaker 4: or not a little bit. They were kind of connected
Speaker 4: in terms of if she's looking for a proper defense,
Speaker 4: and she's has to raise the money, the funds to
Speaker 4: be able to do that, and she gave up a career,
Speaker 4: she's entitled to a substantial portion of his or fifty
Speaker 4: percent of his earnings. And so I thought that it
Speaker 4: was odd that this type of civil case was again
Speaker 4: connected with the criminal case in terms of if she
Speaker 4: has success with this, then she might have the funds
Speaker 4: to be able to defend herself much better. I found
Speaker 4: it odd. I found odd that.
Speaker 5: These trials had other Yeah, the whole thing.
Speaker 3: Was very odd in that, on the one hand, you
Speaker 3: look at Julie, who, as you, gave up her career
Speaker 3: for the sake of their family. And yet that would say,
Speaker 3: on the one hand that she deserves half of their assets,
Speaker 3: just flat out without questions. But on the other hand,
Speaker 3: the only reason her husband is getting divorced at this
Speaker 3: point in time is because she killed their children. So
Speaker 3: in order to divide that money, that means that half
Speaker 3: of the money he earned is not just going to
Speaker 3: his strange spouse, it's going to the killer of his children.
Speaker 3: So it's brought all sorts of emotions into it that
Speaker 3: shouldn't have been there. To look at it.
Speaker 4: Objectively, I'll tell you I find it odd. And again,
Speaker 4: anyone who listens to this program knows I'm not a
Speaker 4: bleeding her liberal by definition, but I found it odd
Speaker 4: that Parker didn't visit his way. It's almost like he's
Speaker 4: married to this woman, but she is the nanny. She
Speaker 4: is diagnosed with mental illness. And there is again the
Speaker 4: letter with Dave and some intimation with Parker as well
Speaker 4: and from the family that somehow or Parker had said that, well,
Speaker 4: she was mentally ill before I got married to her.
Speaker 4: She was damaged goods, So somehow trying to wash their
Speaker 4: hands of this woman somewhere along the line after she's
Speaker 4: been a caregiver, but she's been a lot more than
Speaker 4: a caregiver. And the thing that I found missing from
Speaker 4: your book, and again I guess it's just how much
Speaker 4: can you really get? But the one thing that just
Speaker 4: not at my brain was what kind of relationship did
Speaker 4: he have with his wife? It didn't seem like he
Speaker 4: had much of a relationship with his wife really, And
Speaker 4: then at some point when she commits this, of course
Speaker 4: a heinous crime, the most intolerable crime of all, still
Speaker 4: it's like he didn't have a wife.
Speaker 3: There is there was some suspicion to me that things
Speaker 3: were In addition to the notes, he didn't have his
Speaker 3: wedding ring with him when he went overseas. It was
Speaker 3: in the bathroom. Now I believe there was a story
Speaker 3: put out that, you know, he didn't wear his wedding
Speaker 3: ring when he was deployed, and that was just to
Speaker 3: have it. And so I don't know if anything could
Speaker 3: be read into that, but it almost seems symbolic to me.
Speaker 3: And yes, he seemed to have absolutely no respect for
Speaker 3: her as a person anymore. And you wondered how long
Speaker 3: that had built up. Was that just a result of
Speaker 3: recent events or is it more or a reflection of
Speaker 3: how he saw her more as an underling than as
Speaker 3: a partner. And you don't know, because even if he did,
Speaker 3: he's how could admit it and everything he was in
Speaker 3: their states at all.
Speaker 4: Another question I had too, was that given what you
Speaker 4: just admitted, that may have been the situation in that
Speaker 4: he didn't respect her enough in this marriage, and that
Speaker 4: certainly didn't help her mental disposition at all, their mental
Speaker 4: state whatsoever. But this also could have been passed to
Speaker 4: the children, where the children saw the father as this
Speaker 4: sort of hero rule compared to the mother that was
Speaker 4: the drunk, the pill taker, or the insane mother, one
Speaker 4: of those three. And again not to say that the
Speaker 4: normal dresses and strains of a relationship between a mother
Speaker 4: and a teenage daughter would not be enough, But if
Speaker 4: the father didn't have enough respect for his wife, referring
Speaker 4: to her as having the decision making capabilities of a
Speaker 4: ten year old, maybe that was rubbing off on Klyx
Speaker 4: as well. Do you think there might be something to that?
Speaker 3: I it seemed as if Parker was taking Kalyx's side
Speaker 3: in her conflict with her mother, which is always a
Speaker 3: bad thing in a family when that's going on.
Speaker 7: And if he had an attitude towards his wife that
Speaker 7: was anything short of what a spousal relationship should be,
Speaker 7: then yes, the.
Speaker 3: Children are going to pick up on that. They always do.
Speaker 3: Children pick up more than we know, and when they're
Speaker 3: teenagers they pick up even more. And perhaps some of
Speaker 3: her disrespect for her mother all they are, it's natural
Speaker 3: for teenagers. Maybe some of it was a reflection of
Speaker 3: how a father was feeling. It seemed like that that
Speaker 3: relationship was clearly on the rocks. If the children were
Speaker 3: still living, they'd still be married. Maybe not, maybe they
Speaker 3: would have separated regardless of what happened. It's hard to know.
Speaker 4: The thing I think that we shouldn't, we should let
Speaker 4: the audience know, is that this email that I spoke
Speaker 4: about where the brother was chastising his sister, and it
Speaker 4: to me it was I would have called my brother
Speaker 4: and said, listen, you don't be talking to me ever again,
Speaker 4: because I couldn't believe the tone that he was using
Speaker 4: as a brother to his grown sister, responsible sister and
Speaker 4: talking to her like this was wrong. On so many levels,
Speaker 4: But tell us, didn't she ask and then get the
Speaker 4: contents of that letter? Oh?
Speaker 7: Yes, yes, she wanted to see it if she asked.
Speaker 3: All that email to see copies of it.
Speaker 5: And initially she was told no, and then Parker said,
Speaker 5: go ahead, let her see it, and so she thought,
Speaker 5: I mean, she knew, and quite frankly, I think she
Speaker 5: had to have been feeling as if she was pretty
Speaker 5: much all alone in the world, and you know, there
Speaker 5: was nobody for her to turn to.
Speaker 3: It seemed like they were all ganged up against her
Speaker 3: to some degree.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean again, I understand it. You know the
Speaker 4: insanity defense. Again, you pointed it out in your book.
Speaker 4: Less than one percent of all the murder cases trials
Speaker 4: and insanity defense is put forward, and out of that
Speaker 4: a fraction of that one percent actually succeed with the
Speaker 4: insanity defense. So it's I don't know if it's worth doing,
Speaker 4: but certainly a defense lawyer has a responsibility to defend
Speaker 4: his client to the best of his ability, and if
Speaker 4: he believes his client to be insane, then certainly he
Speaker 4: should present insanity defense.
Speaker 3: Now, I think that there's a difference between being medically
Speaker 3: insane and legally insane, and it always doesn't make sense
Speaker 3: psychiatrically when they say they were legally saying.
Speaker 4: Well, what the difference is is that in different jurisdictions
Speaker 4: in Canada, the insanity defense is successful quite a bit.
Speaker 4: And what I sent you in an email just for
Speaker 4: an example of a case that I covered on a
Speaker 4: on a program itself, it was a doctor Turcotte from Montreal,
Speaker 4: Canada or Quebec anyway, the province of Quebec in Canada,
Speaker 4: and he had killed his two children. Again we won't
Speaker 4: get into the details, but it's compaable enough in that
Speaker 4: a respectable, otherwise law abiding I don't believe he was
Speaker 4: diagnosed previous to this with any kind of mental illness,
Speaker 4: but he used the insanity defense as this temporary insanity
Speaker 4: and he was successful with it and he was released
Speaker 4: after four years from a mental institution. So you can
Speaker 4: see that there's a difference in jurisdictions using that, and
Speaker 4: certainly if that worked once, then it can work again.
Speaker 4: And the precedent has been set and there as many
Speaker 4: different insanity defenses that have been used in this country successfully,
Speaker 4: So you can see that, and you write about it
Speaker 4: in your book as well, that there's a reason why
Speaker 4: juries don't go along with this, even though they are
Speaker 4: sane and logical and intelligent and have been instructed otherwise.
Speaker 4: As you write in your book, they're fearful of what
Speaker 4: maybe possibly somebody letting the people out again. So they're
Speaker 4: afraid of the person that's insane.
Speaker 3: Wet doctor Michael Sterne, who is a forensic psychology.
Speaker 6: You're dedicated to building a bright financial future. Grow your
Speaker 6: investments with Millibank's high Yield Savings account.
Speaker 2: Earn a highly competitive.
Speaker 6: Annual percentage yield with no fees or minimums. Getting started
Speaker 6: is simple to download the app, link your account and
Speaker 6: start growing your money. Welcome to a new way to
Speaker 6: save more for the things that matter most. Welcome to Millibank,
Speaker 6: visit Milli dot bank or download the Milli app today.
Speaker 3: Bia trist And works does a lot of work in
Speaker 3: a hospital for the mentally insane. He a prison hospital.
Speaker 3: He says that Julie Schniker definitely is mentally ill and
Speaker 3: should be should be found not guilty by reason of insanity,
Speaker 3: but that she is the type of person that should
Speaker 3: never be let out of the institution again because she
Speaker 3: cannot control herself sufficiently. And cannot be trusted to take
Speaker 3: medications if she ever were stabilized.
Speaker 4: Now, with your experience with these death penalty cases, these
Speaker 4: capital cases, and with you know how many women are
Speaker 4: actually executed, and how many women are actually sentenced to death.
Speaker 4: Given all the mitigating circumstances that are involved here and
Speaker 4: the kind of counsel that she may have, what do
Speaker 4: you think the chances are that the death penalty will
Speaker 4: will defeat her sentence.
Speaker 3: I think it's highly unlikely that a jury would give
Speaker 3: her the death penalty. Quite frankly, I think it's a
Speaker 3: little bit of overreached by the prosecution too. And I
Speaker 3: and it seems as if perhaps the only reason they
Speaker 3: are seeking the death penalty is in order to have
Speaker 3: a jury that tends to side more with the prosecution.
Speaker 3: As death certified juries. Do I really believe that, you know,
Speaker 3: if we're going to have a death penalty and we're
Speaker 3: going to be executing people, then it should be reserved
Speaker 3: for the kind of people that like tommylo Sales in
Speaker 3: that book, I went through the window. He's somebody who
Speaker 3: gets actual pleasure from killing, and he just kills over
Speaker 3: and over again, and that is just what he likes
Speaker 3: to do. That is his reaction to stress. He tortures
Speaker 3: and kills. And although you could although the murders of
Speaker 3: her two children were horrible and they both had a
Speaker 3: moment of total terror in their lives and betrayal, they
Speaker 3: were not tortured. They died quickly. And I really think
Speaker 3: that if you're going to kill a person for taking
Speaker 3: a life, it should be reserved for the most severe cases.
Speaker 3: And in this horrible as it was, just did not
Speaker 3: measure up to the horrors that have been inflicted on
Speaker 3: people by those like tomulent cells.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I know you're right, And the thing is, I
Speaker 4: think it's overreached as well by the prosecute prosecution in
Speaker 4: terms of this is not again the typical kind of
Speaker 4: person that you would find being on death row again
Speaker 4: going and putting blankets on her deceased children and not
Speaker 4: doing anything of the jackal type sort of thing that
Speaker 4: serial killers and some heinous vengeful killers do. This is
Speaker 4: a clear case of mental illness having some you know,
Speaker 4: something to do with this case, and at least that
Speaker 4: will be a mitigating circumstance. And like I say, in
Speaker 4: other jurisdictions, at least I know in Canada, we would
Speaker 4: be the jury would be feeling sympathy for Julie Scheneker,
Speaker 4: and they would bring up all the kinds of things
Speaker 4: that are some of the kinds of things that we'd
Speaker 4: spoken about today. And I wanted to say too as well,
Speaker 4: is the defense has already spoken about in terms of
Speaker 4: this statement that they have in terms of Parker's responsibility,
Speaker 4: tell us about the contents of the gist of what
Speaker 4: that statement is in terms of Parker's responsibility in the
Speaker 4: murder and the deaths of his own children.
Speaker 3: Well, they pointed to Parker and what he said about
Speaker 3: Julie like not having the judgment or the ten year
Speaker 3: old and saying that it was extremely irresponsible for him
Speaker 3: to have left her with those children, to take care
Speaker 3: of those children, and to lead charge them that she
Speaker 3: should have never been left there alone with them. And
Speaker 3: maybe they are right, but I think that Parker was
Speaker 3: blinded a bit because he didn't have full disclosure from
Speaker 3: her position about the state she was in. I think
Speaker 3: that he never for one moment thought that he would
Speaker 3: she would physically harm the children in any way, and
Speaker 3: I think it's a little harsh on him. But by
Speaker 3: the same token, going for the death penalty for her
Speaker 3: is a little harsh. I really don't think the defense
Speaker 3: is going to succeed with the insanity defense, and I
Speaker 3: also don't think the prosecution's going to succeed with the
Speaker 3: death penalty.
Speaker 4: Right. Well, I mean, I believe that you're correct too.
Speaker 4: There's enough mitigating circumstances that she is very unli likely
Speaker 4: to get the death penalty, I believe. And uh, and
Speaker 4: certainly the insanity defense has too many you know, the
Speaker 4: premeditation again.
Speaker 3: That it all yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And what you wrote in the book too, is
Speaker 4: that when they were set for Core two, there was
Speaker 4: initially some data retrieved from emails and all computer data,
Speaker 4: and then of course there was a snap woo in
Speaker 4: terms of nobody could read the data. And then he
Speaker 4: realized this is going to take a year to look
Speaker 4: at the data and read the data and prepare the data.
Speaker 4: And so again they're going to be rolling up their
Speaker 4: sleeves for a big, protracted trial, I hope, though, because
Speaker 4: I don't know, I mean, I haven't done the research
Speaker 4: in terms of what's the media doing in terms of
Speaker 4: this story. Maybe you can tell us a little bit
Speaker 4: about that. But how big is this story? Do you
Speaker 4: believe going to get by the time it gets to trial.
Speaker 4: There's other trials that have captivated the American audience. But
Speaker 4: do you think this may captivate the audience and raise
Speaker 4: the issue of mental illness or what do you think
Speaker 4: about it the prospect of history in any kind of
Speaker 4: big way.
Speaker 3: I'm hoping that it does raise awareness of the problems
Speaker 3: with mental illness. I don't and it all depends on
Speaker 3: how the media handles it. It can be handled so
Speaker 3: that some sort of ugly shadow is cast on anyone
Speaker 3: that has mental illness, and people tend to forget that
Speaker 3: the average person with mental illness never hurts anyone. People
Speaker 3: with depression who they hurt usually is themselves and they
Speaker 3: commit suicide. But most people with mental illness are not violent.
Speaker 3: It's a possibility with a small percentage. And I think
Speaker 3: that if the media focuses on her mental illness by
Speaker 3: pointing out red flags and danger signals and the importance
Speaker 3: of noticing things in your family and friends and those
Speaker 3: around you, that maybe it can serve a very good
Speaker 3: purpose if we can get people to realize that mental
Speaker 3: illness isn't something that someone can just get over. It
Speaker 3: isn't something that you can just pull yourself up out
Speaker 3: of it and you stop messing around and just act normal.
Speaker 3: It just doesn't happen, and we need to take it
Speaker 3: more seriously and encourage people to get help and not
Speaker 3: expect them to do it all on their own. People
Speaker 3: would mental illness needs strong family support, and they also
Speaker 3: need strong professional support.
Speaker 4: I think the lesson in this as well is that
Speaker 4: one of these striking events that happens in this book,
Speaker 4: in this story, is that when police find all the medications,
Speaker 4: and there's again voluminous mounts of pills, three type of
Speaker 4: antidepressants and a couple of the most potent pain killers
Speaker 4: on earth, that alone can create some things. Every recreational
Speaker 4: drug user, every prescription drug overuser knows that. But again,
Speaker 4: whose finger we're going to point who we're going to
Speaker 4: point the finger at is she's also drinking and she's
Speaker 4: combining alcohol. You know, not too many juries are sympathetic
Speaker 4: about that. The thing that I have the sympathy for
Speaker 4: and the understanding. Again, I can't comprehend murder and I
Speaker 4: can't justify it. I can just that there certainly was
Speaker 4: some circumstances that obviously led to this, and you do
Speaker 4: a great job of having access to that and telling
Speaker 4: that story. But the thing is, what I found was
Speaker 4: is that it almost seemed like this poster perfect family,
Speaker 4: this military man, and that even after the murder of
Speaker 4: his kid, that's all more to me. This is my
Speaker 4: impression that it was all more about the impressions, it
Speaker 4: was all about image. It was more about ritual. You know,
Speaker 4: he's a military guy, he's a religious person, and then
Speaker 4: they have these fundraisers and then they dress all in
Speaker 4: Harry Potter costumes and all these memorials. But yet he
Speaker 4: didn't have any time, any comprehension, any compassion or empathy
Speaker 4: for his wife whatsoever, the mother of his children, the
Speaker 4: person that he was with. He didn't contemplate divorce before this.
Speaker 4: He wrote this email and then got and then what
Speaker 4: was silly enough to think that somebody wouldn't just blow
Speaker 4: their top reading the email and the brother is chastising her.
Speaker 4: So all I know is that if if you want
Speaker 4: to push someone and push someone and push them away
Speaker 4: and treat them like nothing despite this image that's probably
Speaker 4: still out there of Parker Penneker and the Angelic kids,
Speaker 4: is that somebody should have a little bit of sympathy
Speaker 4: for this mother. That's my impression out of this whole thing.
Speaker 3: I really have certain compassion for the whole family, sure,
Speaker 3: you know, And it is hard for me to put
Speaker 3: myself in any of their shoes and try to understand, well,
Speaker 3: try to say how I would react in any of
Speaker 3: in any of their positions and with any of their burdens.
Speaker 3: I just am glad. I am grateful that I never
Speaker 3: had to face this of a spouse that filled my children.
Speaker 3: I am grateful that I never had to carry the
Speaker 3: burden of serious mental illness. And I'm glad that I
Speaker 3: never had to live with a parent who was abusing
Speaker 3: drugs and alcohol like that. I mean, you know, everybody
Speaker 3: in that family had a difficult road to ho and
Speaker 3: I think that there should be enough compassion for all
Speaker 3: of them.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just see it odd that the courts are
Speaker 4: involved in the civil suit in the criminal case which
Speaker 4: is connected to the civil suit in terms of he
Speaker 4: wants to not support again, you say, like the killer
Speaker 4: of his children, Yet it's still the mother of his
Speaker 4: children at the same time time, and she could have
Speaker 4: a bushel full of money, she could use every penny
Speaker 4: that he had it still wouldn't get her free. She
Speaker 4: wouldn't be a free woman. So defense is only really
Speaker 4: all she can ever hope to get is a fair
Speaker 4: trial and taking in, you know, the circumstances of her
Speaker 4: mental illness and considering them in the sentencing itself, because
Speaker 4: she is facing the death Tunnelly, or facing the rest
Speaker 4: of her life in prison without any kind of possibility paroleso.
Speaker 4: These mitigating factors such as mental illness may make the
Speaker 4: difference between life and death for this woman.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it is a It is a shocking situation
Speaker 3: to see a woman who is solid middle class, up
Speaker 3: standing in her community, with with the background of no violence,
Speaker 3: is really facing nothing that you would have ever imagined
Speaker 3: for her to be facing as she goes into her fifties.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's an amazing story. I thought when I first
Speaker 4: read this that, oh, I think I can tell what's
Speaker 4: going on from just the basic details. And again, you've
Speaker 4: done an admirable job of sucking the reader myself right
Speaker 4: into this story. And it's an incredible, incredible journey that
Speaker 4: you take us in to find out who Julie Schenecker
Speaker 4: is and that this is where all this empathy comes from. Again,
Speaker 4: I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but you've bought that
Speaker 4: character to life and showed so much humanity in expressing
Speaker 4: who she really was and really is even at this time.
Speaker 4: And so I have that empathy for this woman, and
Speaker 4: again you're right, I should really feel equally for everybody
Speaker 4: involved here. It's just a strange, strange situation of a
Speaker 4: slice of American life that if you look on the
Speaker 4: underbelly of it, it's not so picturesque.
Speaker 3: Yes, things are not always what they see.
Speaker 4: Yeah, certainly, certainly. Now, Diane, we just got a couple
Speaker 4: of minutes. I wanted to congratulate you to it. This
Speaker 4: is your twentieth book, Sleep my Darlings.
Speaker 3: Yes, it certainly is.
Speaker 4: Congratulations on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I have a hard time believing it myself sometimes. Well,
Speaker 3: I've never imagined.
Speaker 4: How many do you have? Twenty books been in how
Speaker 4: many how many years has that been spanned over?
Speaker 3: It's been in twelve years.
Speaker 4: In twelve years. Wow, that's very very prolific, like a machine.
Speaker 4: I want to thank you very much, Diane for coming
Speaker 4: on the program once again and talking about this your
Speaker 4: latest and greatest Sleep my Darlings. Again, great job, and
Speaker 4: thank you for this interview.
Speaker 3: Thank you Dan, it was great talking to you again.
Speaker 4: Now do you have maybe you just leave our readers
Speaker 4: with an email address or Facebook or how's best to
Speaker 4: contact you and find out about new and latest and
Speaker 4: greatest projects and things coming up in the near future
Speaker 4: for you.
Speaker 3: Oh my, my Facebook page is real simple, it's just
Speaker 3: you know, the regular Facebook address with the slash on
Speaker 3: me in die In dot Fanning. Oh. My email is
Speaker 3: Dian at die in Fanning dot com. My website is
Speaker 3: diy Infanning dot com. So if you can spell my name,
Speaker 3: you can find me on the internet. And if you're
Speaker 3: not sure how to spell my name, just go online,
Speaker 3: find one of my books and read the cover. So
Speaker 3: it's pretty easy.
Speaker 4: You're easy to find. Yes, yes, well, I want to
Speaker 4: thank you very much Dan, and have yourself a great evening.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much again for this interview.
Speaker 3: Good thing. Thank you Dan.
Speaker 4: Okay, good night, good night,