I’ve been thinking this story through for the past two days. I finally decided it’s best to handle it in two parts.
It’s an important story to look at, since it shows multiple factors affecting some highly (to say the least) questionable coverage of suspicious deaths in a nursing home in Woodstock, Illinois.
News first emerged in late 2006 announcing the investigation into suspicious deaths at a nursing home in Woodstock. Many of the articles announcing the investigation carried the term “mercy killing” in the title, suggesting that the perpetrator – if any – was performing a “merciful” act.
Here are a few of the links and headlines from back then, still accessible:
Authorities Investigate Possible Mercy Killings in Woodstock (NBC5.com)
Were deaths at nursing home mercy killings? (Chicago Sun-Times)
Often the term was left out of the headline, but was prominently featured in the story itself as in this story from the Northwest Herald reporting the exhumation of bodies as part of the investigation:
One of the nursing home’s owners has said she thought the mercy-killing accusations came from a disgruntled employee.
(Although the articles are inaccessible to me, my memory of the Chicago Tribune coverage is that they played the story “straight” – as one about an investigation into deaths and neglect and didn’t use the term “mercy killing.”)
Initially, I assumed this was just another example of reporters operating on the default assumption that the murders (or suspected murders) of old, ill or disabled people are “mercy killings.” It’s happened before. Chicago Reader columnist Michael Miner wrote about our criticisms of the media treatment of the murder of Shirley Harrison in “No Mercy,” back in 2002. The subject of reporters asking about “mercy killings” in the context of a serial murder investigation came up there, too:
Drake pointed out to me a telling passage from the first Southtown article: “Oak Lawn police released few details of the investigation. They would not say whether Harrison shot his wife out of mercy for her suffering.” Then he showed me an AP story from Texas, where a former nurse had recently been charged with killing four patients using lethal injections and was suspected in 16 other deaths. The district attorney “would not discuss a possible motive or say whether the nurse might have considered the deaths ‘mercy killings.’ Most of the victims were elderly.”
The leading questions of reporters tell Drake what angle they’re working on. Could the nurse have been acting out of mercy? one of them asked the DA. “This was in the context of a serial killer! It’s like, what the hell’s going on there?
“However, in this case, it appears that reporters have been given multiple excuses since this case began to inject the “mercy killing” term.
Chicago Sun-Times reporter Dan Rozek pointed to the source for his use of the term in this article from November 18, 2006 – Deaths spike at facility in mercy-killing probe:
Authorities are probing allegations that a nurse there gave lethal doses of morphine, a pain-killer, to some patients in what law enforcement sources said may have been mercy killings.
This is what I would call a “smoking gun.” Someone in “law enforcement” threw out the term, and severely affecting the coverage of an ongoing investigation by planting that term into press coverage and the public consciousness.
I don’t work in law enforcement, but I would think this kind of loose talk during an investigation is unprofessional. Wouldn’t the professional and appropriate statement be something like “this is an ongoing investigation and it’s much too early to speculate on motives”??
I wish I could say that this kind of unprofessional behavior is unusual, but it doesn’t seem to be when it comes to cops saying stupid things in the cases of old, ill or disabled people who have been murdered. In the case of these particular types of victims, too many law enforcement officials see all too willing to venture an opinion on “motive” at a time when they know absolutely nothing.
For example, in April 2006 Betty Whitten was charged in the stabbing death of her 34-year-old daughter, who reportedly had cerebral palsy and intellectual disabilities. Dan Rozek, of the Sun- Times, was one of the first to write about (sadly, this story isn’t accessible and the quotes are from an archived copy):
Worn out and depressed after years of caring for her severely disabled daughter, Betty C. Whitten fatally stabbed 34-year-old Nyakiambi Whitten, then apparently tried to kill herself by driving off a bridge, law enforcement officials said Tuesday. But Betty Whitten survived what authorities said appeared to be an intentional crash in west suburban St. Charles and was charged Tuesday with murdering her daughter.
“She was depressed, she just snapped,” a law enforcement source said.
Further down is the stupid comment from aforementioned law enforcement professional:
Whitten, who was the primary caretaker for her daughter, was struggling to cope with her daughter’s medical problems, Ramsey said.
“I think the health issues were a big factor in this,” Ramsey said, adding: “The family was struggling.” (“Ramsey” refers to Kane County Sheriff Ken Ramsey)
Why was this “stupid”?
Because in subsequent articles the family itself denied that Betty Whitten was particularly stressed by the support she gave her daughter. Not only that, Whitten was experiencing a mental breakdown so severe that it was several months before she was declared fit for trial. She had to be placed on a regiment of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics. Eventually, she was convicted in her daughter’s death, but earned a rare “guilty but insane” verdict from the jury, meaning she will get treatment while she serves her sentence.
“Caregiver burden” doesn’t appear to have been a factor, but that didn’t stop one thoughtless cop from jumping to that conclusion and then having it become part of the press coverage.
Tomorrow, I’ll continue with the Woodstock nursing home case. Charges have been filed now. And members of the press have new reasons to perpetuate the “mercy killing” label in their coverage. But the “reason” still doesn’t let them off the hook. –Stephen Drake