Posted on 06/19/2002 7:50:51 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
It has been less than 48 hours since we learned that U.S. Forest Service employee Terry Barton intentionally started a forest conflagration which has burned more than 100,000 acres of precious forest land in the pristine Rockies. Known as the Hayman Fire, it has already cost an estimated 52 million dollars and is just 25% contained.
But the vindication of this female arsonist has already begun. She is not only being portrayed as merely a caring person who made an unfortunate mistake, but as of this morning (June 18) The Denver Post, under the headline "Forest Job Sustained Barton As Marriage Faltered," has now indicted the husband as the likely source of her tragic downfall.
The Russell Yates defense has begun:
" Family members say John sometimes drank too much. His brother said he was sometimes verbally abusive to Terry, but it never became physical."
"As the relationship deteriorated, John was arrested in Saguache County on suspicion of drunken driving on Sept. 10, 2001. He pleaded guilty Jan. 14 to driving while ability-impaired and was sentenced to probation, 24 hours of public service, court costs and fines."
— The Denver Post, 6/18/02The Post's foregoing brief, stealth indictment of the husband is nested amongst glowing reports of the unflagging goodness and victimhood of the tragic heroine:
"For one minute of anger or frustration, they are going to put her away for 30 years." said Wanitta Barton, Terry's mother-in-law in Squaw Valley, Calif. "It's just an unfortunate, unfortunate accident."
"The Forest Service has been her life. She does her jogging in the winter because she knows she has to get ready for the summer in case something like this happens," neighbor Kathleen Grenfell said Monday, gesturing toward the smoke plume rising from the Hayman fire.
"She's not a full-fledged jerk or anything. She's a caring person who made a mistake," the pastor said.
"She's not the type to hang out at a bar or restaurant. Her family is fire and forest," said Lake George Fire Chief Dutch Kleinhesselink."
"Reports that Barton was in distress - officials say the fire started after Barton burned a letter from her estranged husband - created some sympathy for her."
" 'It's almost a little more understandable,' Carol Simone said. 'Not forgivable, but more understandable than somebody who just wanted to heat up some hot dogs or something.' "
"Dianna Barney, one of Barton's co-workers, asked evacuees to withhold judgment.
'The media has a way of skewing things sometimes,' she said. 'You have to make up your own mind. Terry is a part of this community and a part of the U.S. Forest Service. Don't prejudge. Don't let the media make up your mind for you.' "
— The Denver Post, 6/18/02
So a woman who intentionally set fire to more than 100,000 acres, because she received a "Dear Jane" letter is a more compassionate figure than somebody whose barbecue got away from them?
A coworker goes before EVACUEES to plead the arsonist's case?
Surely NOW will soon be sending emissaries to applaud the Post's "balanced" reporting.
So before this charade gathers too much momentum, let's just consider some lesser known facts and reported speculation. First, Terry Barton tried to look like a hero in reporting the fire. But after the forensic investigation began to point up some inconsistencies in her story, she finally confessed to her crime. In fact, one investigator went so far as to speculate that she started the fire, expecting to quickly douse it, and then report her success - in order to be seen as a hero.
Let me enlarge a bit on that speculation. Imagine the reaction to the Dear Jane letter by Ms Forest Service as being one of revenge ... "I'm gonna start this fire, put it out, become a hero, and then you'll be sorry you sent me that letter." Sound like a tedious and all-too-common grudge response?
And what about the husband? Could it be that he and his wife grew apart because he thought he married a girl, but found out she was more interested in becoming a real "Man's man". Or maybe he just got tired of being the involuntary Mr. Mom while the dedicated forester was out there 14, 18, 24 hours a day tending her forest family.
We may never know what soured the marriage, nor will there be much interest in unraveling the causes for the husband's "sometimes drinking too much". Hey, he's a drunken abuser, nuff said.
But what is really staggering about this story is its chilling resemblance to the 1984 wife-abuse saga The Burning Bed — on an incredibly grander scale.
Is it possible that a woman who is capable of setting her beloved forest on fire in a fit of pique just happens to have a really, really bad temper? Is that worse than shouting?
There is a lesson here for those who believe in parables and such, and that is that America's social experiment with feminism is producing a conflagration of virtual burning bed relationships and broken marriages, and more often than not, falsely indicted husbands.
Interesting.
Wives are almost never reported as being verbally abusive. Apparently this ability is sex-linked.
Well, isn't it obvious what happened here? The husband, like so many others, was upset at President Bush's failure to stop the coming terrorist attack. Heck, it even drove him to drink (errr.. or rather it appears he drank and then drove himself)
President Bush is really responsible for this fire. Clearly this calls for congressional hearings and hand wringing NY Times editorials!
Maybe like saying "don't start forest fires, dummy".
Where is the evidence that it was intentional? No one dislikes NOW more than me, but 30 years for an accident?
She should have learned to control her temper. If she can do this because she's "angry", no wonder her husband drank! Imagine having to live with her!
Starting one of the biggest forest fires in history because she's pi$$es off is really not a very good defence.
AND, what "accident?" She did it on purpose! She chose to do it!
What's this world commin to? Her husband was NOT THERE!
ABSOLUTELY. As a married woman, I can say my husband is one of my lifes greatest treasures. Those who mess up their marrages looking for something else have no idea the pearls they've lost.
Right here.
We got one sick puppy here.
In advance, even before the p*ssing and moaning of her lawyers begin, I reject that, too. And if NOW is implying that women are too unstable to hold responsible positions, let them advance the theory that the "poor dears" should be kept out of such jobs.
Otherwise let's have the standard of "equal pay for equal jobs" extended to criminal responsibility. Let's call it "equal punishment for equal crimes." That would be in accord with the priciples of NOW -- if they had any principles.
Congressman Billybob
Click for: "Speaking without Talking -- Hearing without Listening."
My guess is the Bush tax cut.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.