-
You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
- Thread starter Satanica
- Start date
Olivia
Well-Known Member
Of course she isn't/wasn't remorseful!! Cunt is getting her damn hair braided in the slammer!!
sinfulplezurz702
Well-Known Member
I wanna fuking kill both of those smoked out pieces of shit.
I really would like to take a baseball bat to this bitches faces.
Satanica
Veteran Member
Mother, boyfriend who abused, murdered 4-year-old lose appeals
Matthew Longenecker has felony murder charge, life sentence upheld. Kelly Ballinger's involuntary manslaughter and first-degree child abuse charges also upheld.
www.mlive.com
From The appeal
the circumstances suggested that Longenecker had targeted DT for violence and that Ballinger
chose to go along with his plan, even if somewhat reluctantly.
The jury learned that DT had suffered injuries to her face and head. Although Ballinger
told officers that DT inflicted those injuries on herself, the jury saw text messages that indicated
that Longenecker and Ballinger were physically abusing DT. Indeed, the jury saw numerous text
messages in which Longenecker insisted that Ballinger violently punish DT. He stated that she
should beat DT and threaten to smash her teeth out. And Ballinger acquiesced to his demands; she
wrote in one text message that she wanted to hit DT some more but her hand hurt.
In a different set of messages, Longenecker mentioned the wound to DT’s head, which he
claimed she inflicted on herself. The pathologist described the wound as a “gaping laceration”
and opined that it would have required medical treatment to heal properly. He also stated that
DT’s blunt force injuries were not consistent with normal wear and tear. A reasonable jury
considering this evidence could infer that it was very unlikely that a four-year old would have
inflicted such an injury on herself. Considering the evidence that Longecker was caring for DT at
the time and that he believed that DT was “evil” and deserving of severe physical punishment, the
jury could reasonably have concluded that he inflicted the injury as a form of punishment.
Additionally, the jury heard and saw evidence that Ballinger refused to get medical
attention for DT’s gaping wound and took steps to prevent others from discovering that DT was
being physically abused. Ballinger acknowledged in text messages that she knew that
Longenecker had been injuring DT and did not take any steps to stop him. Instead, she asked him
to stop inflicting the injuries. On another occasion, Ballinger pointed out the implausibility of
Longenecker’s explanations for DT’s injuries by noting that DT would have had to have fallen out
of bed quite often to have suffered the injuries that she had. Ballinger further agreed that they had
been forcing DT to wear a diaper, ostensibly because she was not wiping herself well enough.
Ballinger even stated that she had been violent with DT: She admitted to grabbing the child by
her hair with both hands and swinging her to the ground where DT may have hit a rock or other
hard surface. Other text messages suggested that Ballinger physically struck DT. Moreover,
Longenecker’s mother testified that she had seen Ballinger slap and spank the children and
observed injuries on DT. Longenecker’s mother did not do anything because her son and Ballinger
always had an explanation for the injuries. The totality of the evidence permitted a conclusion that
Ballinger was a willing participant in Longenecker’s plan to humiliate and abuse DT.
Ballinger also admitted that she and Longenecker had been working together to wrap DT
in blankets—like a mummy—and then secure her in the blankets with tape. She stated that
Longenecker sometimes covered DT’s face with a blanket or other things to “get the devil out” or
make her “scream and shit.” The jury saw that Ballinger told officers that DT’s screams would
sometimes keep the other children up at night. The jury also read text messages in which
Longenecker bragged to Ballinger that his method of wrapping DT in tape was “genius” because
the more she struggled to move, the tighter the wrap would get. It is within common knowledge
that children can be suffocated if improperly restrained or if the child’s airways are obstructed.
See
Gould, 225 Mich. App. at 87 (recognizing that a prosecutor can prove an actor’s intent through
evidence that suggests that the defendant had constructive knowledge of the harm that might be
caused by his or her actions). This evidence showed that Ballinger knowingly and willingly
-4-
participated in the wrapping, knew that DT was dangerously restrained on those occasions, and
knew that it terrified the child and caused her to scream.
Moreover, the evidence from the night of DT’s death permitted findings that DT was in
particular danger and that Ballinger knew about the danger. Ballinger agreed that she was home
and that she helped Longenecker wrap the child. She told officers that she saw DT vomit while
being wrapped. Ballinger admitted that DT pleaded with her for help, but Ballinger refused to
assist her. Ballinger also told officers that she heard DT making an odd noise later that night and
that she again did not help the child. It was Ballinger who later discovered DT when she was
already “stiff as hell.”
Finally, the jury heard from the pathologist that DT had numerous physical injuries, which
included the gaping wound to her head, and that she had vomited and aspirated some of the vomit.
The pathologist opined that DT died from a combination of factors, including asphyxiation and
physical injuries. He also stated that hyperthermia—high body temperature—may have played a
role in her death because hyperthermia would have raised the child’s heart and respiration rates.
The pathologist noted that asphyxiation can occur from an obstruction in the airways and/or as a
result of constriction of the torso. He noted too that DT had a torn frenulum, which is indicative
of suffocation because a person will frequently shake their head violently in an attempt to clear an
obstruction.
This evidence permitted findings that Ballinger intentionally participated in the wrapping
of DT. She also knew that her head was likely covered, that DT had vomited, that she was suffering
from physical injuries, and that she was distraught. A reasonable jury could find that Ballinger
had constructive knowledge that wrapping a child in layers of blankets on a warm summer night,
taping her torso, and covering her head—especially under circumstances in which the child may
be ill or nauseous from other physical injuries—posed a significant danger of serious physical
harm. From the evidence that Ballinger ignored all the signs that DT was in physical danger, the
jury could further infer that she intended to cause serious physical harm to her or knew that the
likely result of her actions would be to cause serious physical harm to the child. See
McFarlane, 325 Mich. App. at 516 (noting that only minimal circumstantial evidence is necessary to prove
intent). Moreover, even if Ballinger did not herself intend to cause serious physical harm to DT
through her actions, the evidence from the text messages strongly indicated that Longenecker
intended to cause DT serious physical harm or acted with the knowledge that serious physical harm
might result and that Ballinger aided and abetted his efforts despite knowing his intent. See
Robinson, 475 Mich. at 15. As such, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to allow a
reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Ballinger had the requisite intent to commit first-degree
child abuse, or aided and abetted someone who had the requisite intent. There was sufficient
evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Ballinger committed first-degree child abuse.
C. LONGENECKER’S CHALLENGE
Similar to Ballinger, Longenecker argues on appeal that the prosecution failed to present
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that he intended to cause serious
physical harm to DT or knew that serious physical harm would result from his actions. Although
he argues that this Court should vacate his conviction of felony murder, he does not contest the
elements of murder. Rather, he maintains that this Court must vacate that conviction along with
continue reading at link
www.courtlistener.com
the circumstances suggested that Longenecker had targeted DT for violence and that Ballinger
chose to go along with his plan, even if somewhat reluctantly.
The jury learned that DT had suffered injuries to her face and head. Although Ballinger
told officers that DT inflicted those injuries on herself, the jury saw text messages that indicated
that Longenecker and Ballinger were physically abusing DT. Indeed, the jury saw numerous text
messages in which Longenecker insisted that Ballinger violently punish DT. He stated that she
should beat DT and threaten to smash her teeth out. And Ballinger acquiesced to his demands; she
wrote in one text message that she wanted to hit DT some more but her hand hurt.
In a different set of messages, Longenecker mentioned the wound to DT’s head, which he
claimed she inflicted on herself. The pathologist described the wound as a “gaping laceration”
and opined that it would have required medical treatment to heal properly. He also stated that
DT’s blunt force injuries were not consistent with normal wear and tear. A reasonable jury
considering this evidence could infer that it was very unlikely that a four-year old would have
inflicted such an injury on herself. Considering the evidence that Longecker was caring for DT at
the time and that he believed that DT was “evil” and deserving of severe physical punishment, the
jury could reasonably have concluded that he inflicted the injury as a form of punishment.
Additionally, the jury heard and saw evidence that Ballinger refused to get medical
attention for DT’s gaping wound and took steps to prevent others from discovering that DT was
being physically abused. Ballinger acknowledged in text messages that she knew that
Longenecker had been injuring DT and did not take any steps to stop him. Instead, she asked him
to stop inflicting the injuries. On another occasion, Ballinger pointed out the implausibility of
Longenecker’s explanations for DT’s injuries by noting that DT would have had to have fallen out
of bed quite often to have suffered the injuries that she had. Ballinger further agreed that they had
been forcing DT to wear a diaper, ostensibly because she was not wiping herself well enough.
Ballinger even stated that she had been violent with DT: She admitted to grabbing the child by
her hair with both hands and swinging her to the ground where DT may have hit a rock or other
hard surface. Other text messages suggested that Ballinger physically struck DT. Moreover,
Longenecker’s mother testified that she had seen Ballinger slap and spank the children and
observed injuries on DT. Longenecker’s mother did not do anything because her son and Ballinger
always had an explanation for the injuries. The totality of the evidence permitted a conclusion that
Ballinger was a willing participant in Longenecker’s plan to humiliate and abuse DT.
Ballinger also admitted that she and Longenecker had been working together to wrap DT
in blankets—like a mummy—and then secure her in the blankets with tape. She stated that
Longenecker sometimes covered DT’s face with a blanket or other things to “get the devil out” or
make her “scream and shit.” The jury saw that Ballinger told officers that DT’s screams would
sometimes keep the other children up at night. The jury also read text messages in which
Longenecker bragged to Ballinger that his method of wrapping DT in tape was “genius” because
the more she struggled to move, the tighter the wrap would get. It is within common knowledge
that children can be suffocated if improperly restrained or if the child’s airways are obstructed.
See
Gould, 225 Mich. App. at 87 (recognizing that a prosecutor can prove an actor’s intent through
evidence that suggests that the defendant had constructive knowledge of the harm that might be
caused by his or her actions). This evidence showed that Ballinger knowingly and willingly
-4-
participated in the wrapping, knew that DT was dangerously restrained on those occasions, and
knew that it terrified the child and caused her to scream.
Moreover, the evidence from the night of DT’s death permitted findings that DT was in
particular danger and that Ballinger knew about the danger. Ballinger agreed that she was home
and that she helped Longenecker wrap the child. She told officers that she saw DT vomit while
being wrapped. Ballinger admitted that DT pleaded with her for help, but Ballinger refused to
assist her. Ballinger also told officers that she heard DT making an odd noise later that night and
that she again did not help the child. It was Ballinger who later discovered DT when she was
already “stiff as hell.”
Finally, the jury heard from the pathologist that DT had numerous physical injuries, which
included the gaping wound to her head, and that she had vomited and aspirated some of the vomit.
The pathologist opined that DT died from a combination of factors, including asphyxiation and
physical injuries. He also stated that hyperthermia—high body temperature—may have played a
role in her death because hyperthermia would have raised the child’s heart and respiration rates.
The pathologist noted that asphyxiation can occur from an obstruction in the airways and/or as a
result of constriction of the torso. He noted too that DT had a torn frenulum, which is indicative
of suffocation because a person will frequently shake their head violently in an attempt to clear an
obstruction.
This evidence permitted findings that Ballinger intentionally participated in the wrapping
of DT. She also knew that her head was likely covered, that DT had vomited, that she was suffering
from physical injuries, and that she was distraught. A reasonable jury could find that Ballinger
had constructive knowledge that wrapping a child in layers of blankets on a warm summer night,
taping her torso, and covering her head—especially under circumstances in which the child may
be ill or nauseous from other physical injuries—posed a significant danger of serious physical
harm. From the evidence that Ballinger ignored all the signs that DT was in physical danger, the
jury could further infer that she intended to cause serious physical harm to her or knew that the
likely result of her actions would be to cause serious physical harm to the child. See
McFarlane, 325 Mich. App. at 516 (noting that only minimal circumstantial evidence is necessary to prove
intent). Moreover, even if Ballinger did not herself intend to cause serious physical harm to DT
through her actions, the evidence from the text messages strongly indicated that Longenecker
intended to cause DT serious physical harm or acted with the knowledge that serious physical harm
might result and that Ballinger aided and abetted his efforts despite knowing his intent. See
Robinson, 475 Mich. at 15. As such, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to allow a
reasonable finder of fact to conclude that Ballinger had the requisite intent to commit first-degree
child abuse, or aided and abetted someone who had the requisite intent. There was sufficient
evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Ballinger committed first-degree child abuse.
C. LONGENECKER’S CHALLENGE
Similar to Ballinger, Longenecker argues on appeal that the prosecution failed to present
sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that he intended to cause serious
physical harm to DT or knew that serious physical harm would result from his actions. Although
he argues that this Court should vacate his conviction of felony murder, he does not contest the
elements of murder. Rather, he maintains that this Court must vacate that conviction along with
continue reading at link
People of Michigan v. Matthew Ryan Longenecker – CourtListener.com
People of Michigan v. Matthew Ryan Longenecker — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
Another one that I wish I had kept missing... 
put those pole smokers to work in a latrine or chain gang goddammit!!
