Skip to main content

Andrew Overton... and the excuses

Andrew Burd, was a rambunctious happy child. He'd lived with his biological mother until chil services removed him from the home due to neglect. His mother, who is reported to have had drug problems couldn't care for Andrew, so he was placed with a foster mother- Sharon Hamil. During the capital murder trial of Hannah Overton, Mrs. Hamil was asked:

How would you describe his disposition?


She answered:

Happy. He was always happy. He was always happy. I didn't find him to have a bad disposition. If he were corrected, he was like any other child. He didn't like it.
Then she was asked about his health.

Was Andrew healthy?

Yes, yes, he was.

And as part of your duties as a foster parent, ddo you have to take him for healthy child wellness examinations?

Yes. And also he was on WIC, where he got a check every six months, I think. So he was always healthy.

Did he appear to you to have any type of mental retardation?

No, no, not at all.

Did he appear to you to be intelligent?

Yes.

Did he appear to you to exhibit any signs of autism?

No.

Did he appear to you to have any kind of mental issue, mental disability?

No, no.

Sharon Hamil had taken in over 300 children in her time as a foster parent, many of those children were taken from abusive homes, and it's likely that some had mental disabilities. Both her son and daughter in law work with children with disabilities. It should be apparent that she, better than most, could tell the difference between a child with special needs, and a healthy, happy, well adjusted little boy.

But the portrait of Andrew that Sharon Hamil shares, isn't the same that the defense would like to paint. They want you to see this child- this four year old boy with no documented health - physical or mental- issues was so disturbed, so completely out of control that he went on a rampage and ate enough salt laced seasoning that he killed himself.

This child:















Did this to himself:



















That is the explanation that Hannah Overton's lawyers want you to believe. That her church has paraded out to the mass media as the Gospel Truth.

And the other details of the case? The ones that seem almost impossible to explain away?

Andrew's bed, a sheet of plywood with a video camera pointed directly at it? They'd like you to believe that it was only that way for a moment. Andrew, the four year old boy who'd been potty trained, who wasn't a child with mental issues, wasn't prone to acting out during the 18 or so months he'd lived with Sharon Hamil... he'd given to willingly soiling himself. In fact, according to Hannah it was so bad that she was sure he was doing it to spite her. Of course, these reports come out later- not during conversations with case workers, not during conversations with doctors- but later, as an excuse to explain the rough plywood bed labeled as Andrews bed.


The defense would like to you believe that the sheets, which had been on a mattress, which had at some point been on the sheet of plywood, had been disposed of. Andrew's special sheets. His favorite ones with super hero's on them. They'd gotten so dirty because of his soiling himself- the only reasonable way to 'take care of the sheets' was to burn them. Some parents might wash them. Others might throw them away. And, a few out there might actually burn dirty sheets... but I wonder- how many would burn soiled- we're talking soiled as in the child had had a bowel movement in them- on their grill. Presumably, the same grill they cooked their food on.



And, then there is the excuse about how the kids said pepper, and everyone but the Overton's misunderstood. Because you see, the family drank Dr. Pepper, and so the kids when talking- became confused and said their parents gave them pepper. Not the burning, spicy pepper you use when cooking, but the drink. Yes... the kids must have been confused during those interviews with investigators, the kids must have been talking about Dr Pepper. After all- as Issac Overton stated- it's spicy and burns your mouth.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sen. Kennedy

empirical- ADJECTIVE: Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine Kennedy hate crimes rider may doom Hatch's sex offender bill By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - A fight over federal hate crimes legislation could torpedo Sen. Orrin Hatch's push to strengthen the nation's sex-offender registries and clamp down on sex crimes. The Senate Judiciary Committee gave quick, unanimous approval to Hatch's bill Thursday, clearing its way for consideration by the full Senate. But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said he plans to try to attach language to a bill that would require tougher sentences, provide federal assistance and offer grants to prosecute hate crimes - those motivated by hatred for a race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The White ...

WTW Someone Please Help Us

There's so much to work with, I'm going to just hit as much as I can. Ashely Simpson decided to pick a fight at McDonald's. Betting millions that if the employee would just go and get the manager- the manager would just love her. Simpson's climbing on the counter and irate behavior where in typical White Trash Style. Great coverage at Stereogum. Tom Cruise has decidedly canned his sister for her inability to help him keep his mouth shut. Evidently he needs a real professional as his PR person- in order to keep him in line. It's just not right firing family because you're and idiot. Kate Hudson is suing someone because of photos of her in which she looks like a starving actress. She claims the images suggest she has a eating disorder- no Kate, it's not the images, it's the you. One should not sue because they have starved themselves to the point of it being noticeable in photos. Please stop by these other great sites to read more WHITE TRASH WEDNESDAY B...

Boyfriends...

I sometimes wonder if certain men have some sort of animal DNA breed into them. The type of DNA or whatever it is that makes animals ritually preform certain actions. Like lions, when a male lion takes over a pride it'll often kill the offspring of the previous male, before mating with the female lions and creating cubs of it's own. I only wonder this, because it seems like there are an overwhelming number of men out there that end up killing the children of their girlfriends, not all of them do- but on a case by case comparison between girlfriends killing their boyfriends offspring and boyfriends doing it, it just seems that it's a lot more common amoung men. NOT THAT ALL OF THEM DO THIS... there are some great boyfriends/stepfathers out there that actually take care of kids as if they are their own... but then we have cases like Christopher Thunborg and Kashon Scott. Thunborg was babysitting his girlfriend's 11 month of baby in March when police say he caused ...