Christines plead guilty to starving daughters

Oregonlive.com ^ | 7/2/02 | AP

[RGSpincich]

Already imprisoned for seizing three of their daughters at gunpoint from state child welfare workers, Ruth and Brian Christine pleaded guilty today to charges that they starved two of the girls.

Josephine County Circuit Judge Gerald Neufeld sentenced them to 14 and 13 months but ordered them to serve the time concurrently with an earlier sentence.

Brian Christine pleaded guilty to criminal mistreatment for withholding food from his eldest daughter, Bethany, and refusing to stop for police. He was sentenced to 14 months.

Ruth Christine pleaded guilty to criminal mistreatment for withholding food from her daughter, Lydia, and got 13 months.

They were convicted May 10th of robbery, custodial interference and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle for taking their children at gunpoint from state child welfare workers.

They each were sentenced to seven and one half years in prison. Brian Christine got an extra five years for threatening social workers with the gun.

[RGSpincich]

Should be more information soon.

[Sally II]

That is strange that one parent is charged with starving one child, and the other parent is charged with starvig the other. Why wouldn't they both be responsible for starving both children? They make it sound like they were conducting the same pumishment in different houses.

[RGSpincich]

FYI Not much information available yet. Last week Steele said he would have a big announcement today. Guess this is it. Haven't seen anything from him yet, though.

[Illbay]

"Christines plead GUILTY to starving daughters!"

[concerned about politics]

Plea bargan. Social Services has them over a barrel with the gun incident. Cover the Social Services butt, or get hit heavy for the rest.
I saw pictures of those kids. They weren't starving. They were nice and healthy looking.

[Illbay]

Why wouldn't they both be responsible for starving both children?

I admit this is an aspect of these kinds of cases I don't understand either. For example, Andea Yates was charged and convicted with murdering TWO of her children, not all four. Why? I don't know. It's as if they other murders are "unsolved."

I'm sure there is a valid legal reason for this, but I am clueless as to what it might be.

[Illbay]

I saw pictures of those kids. They weren't starving. They were nice and healthy looking.

I don't know how many times we have to repeat this. The photos you saw were of the children MANY WEEKS after they were taken from their parents. During that time they were fed and given water, okay?

The Christines pled guilty because they are GUILTY. All this complicated fol-de-rol about "covering butts" doesn't alter that. They did it, and they're being punished for it, though they would have served the time anyway (concurrent sentences).

[Catspaw]

From what I read, the prosecutors "held back" some of the charges in the Yates case, in case she was acquitted or found insane. That way, they could try her on the other counts before another jury or juries.

[Catspaw]

Ah, so the prosecutor dropped some of the charges in exchange for the plea bargains--and they're going to serve the sentences concurrently.

Looks like Steele got them a two for one deal.

[amused]

While it is an obvious plea bargain, why were they each charged with starving a different child? That seems strange.

I guess more info will hopefully be on the way.

Thanks for the update.

[LWalk18]

Regarding Yates, I believe the theory was that if Yates was somehow acquitted, she could be charged with the other children's deaths, without it being double jeopardy.

[RGSpincich]

I saw pictures of those kids.

Post 'em. Bet they were taken while the kids were in protective custody. Being fed by their foster parents.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

You have a very strange concept of healthy

[amused]

Looks like Steele got them a two for one deal.

At least he seems to actually be serving his client's interest.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

Did the Christines ever explain why they decided to starve their children?

[johniegrad]

I have to admit to following this case peripherally. However, why has there been so much antagonistic discussion here on what, at face value, seems like such an obvious case?

[concerned about politics]

The photos you saw were of the children MANY WEEKS after they were taken from their parents.

Na. These kids would bring Social Services $8,000 in funds from Uncle Sam. $4000 for each adoption. This was a case of child theft for profit.

[Catspaw]

Who adopted the Steele children?

[AppyPappy]

I saw pictures of those kids. They weren't starving. They were nice and healthy looking.

I guess that's why they pled GUILTY. Because they were so obviously innocent. Occams Razor.

[Sally II]

I didn't know Andrea Yates was only charge with two murders. That is strange. Sometimes the way the law works seems so contrary to plain facts.