I would imagine there are some readers that think what the title of this book alleges is more conjecture than fact.  You might think that in this day of equality of the sexes that a male or female taking the life of the other would never be able to get away with murder and for the most part you would be right with the exception of a justifiable homicide ruling. However, once we change the terminology of a female to a wife or lover, and a male to husband or lover, this conjecture is turned upside down with the introduction of the Heat of Passion Doctrine. From the first documented case of this doctrine in the Daniel Sickles murder case spanning as far back as 1859 (in which a distinguished Congressman from New York, brutally killed a man allegedly sleeping with his wife in open daylight on the streets just outside the White House). One can find countless cases across the nation that involve rulings from all forms of criminal courts which have allowed for a spouse charged with the murdering of their spouse (as well as their paramour) with a lesser crime. In some cases, this has included the complete dismissal of the case and the charge.

For instance, there is a 1987 a Tennessee case (which will later be discussed) still on record that details the basic “step-by-step,” rules or cannons on how to murder a lover and in using the “Heat of Passion Defense,” got away with murder. In that case, the defendant was instead charged with Voluntary Manslaughter shifting his time in jail from a couple of decades to just a few years.  One would think that as time progresses, that the laws of this land would change for the better, sadly, this is not the case. In Maryland, for instance in 1994, Kenneth Peacock returned home to find his wife of several years in bed with another man.

After chasing the man out of the house at gunpoint, he spent several more hours drinking and arguing with his adulterous wife before shooting her in the head with his single shot rifle (the second shot killer her as the first was shot hit the wall just above her head). Thanks to the Heat of Passion Defense, Peacock was able to get his first-degree murder charge reduced to voluntary manslaughter.

At his sentencing the persecution had requested a three to eight year sentence, however, the sentencing Judge, judge Cahill stated that he couldn’t, “imagine a situation that would provoke an uncontrollable rage greater than this… for someone who is happily married to be betrayed in your personal life, when you’re out working to support the spouse, I seriously wonder how many men married five, four years would have the strength to walk away without inflicting some corporal punishment (Corbin, 1994).”

He went on to further say, “I am forced to impose a sentence only because I think I must do it to make the system honest.”  Kenneth Peacock was sentenced to serve 18 months in a work-release program. During the sentencing, the judge further stated that Mr. Peacock’s actions were, “non- criminal,” stating that the incident was, “Similar to decisions he must make in drunk driving cases (Corbin, 1994)."

This ruling became a public debacle and had every feminist group across the nation up in arms (rightfully so) as it was inferred that Judge Cahill gave all married men or even men in romantic relationships a “get away with killing your wife (lover),” card.  However, in all fairness this is truly not the case, as that card was around for more than a century before this case even saw the light of day.

Although the Heat of Passion Doctrine (Defense) has been used in the defense of men more so than women, there are cases across the nation where the wife has claimed and used the Heat of Passion Defense when killing her adulterous husband and/or paramour. For instance, in the case of  State v Felton, 110 Wis. 2d 485 (1983) where Rita Felton shot and killed her (TOTALLY DISABLED) husband in the head with his own single gage shotgun, after a domestic altercation between the two.

Although in this case there was no act of adultery taking place, the court later determined that the use of the Heat of Passion Defense could have been used; instead however, the wife claimed that she was a battered wife, and waited for her husband to fall asleep before she killed him.  Furthermore, it should be noted that women have increasingly begun to use the “Battered Wife,” defense which entails similar sentencing as the Heat of Passion Defense, even when it has been discovered that there was no hard evidence of actual abuse in the marriage. Again, just as with the Heat of Passion Doctrine, there is another law that demeans the moral obligation of a murderer being charged with a less significant charge, as well as making it more difficult for those actually being abused to be believed with all the false “Cry Wolf,” claims.

Thus, the purpose of this book is not to make light of these cases or to show people how to get rid of the lovers but to invoke a sense of disgust and distain for these laws which lessen the intentions of murder.  Thus, this small book is my way of showing the layperson of this nation just how perverse the laws that are based on hard moral strength and values in America could (and have) so easily been corrupted by the mere idea of re-interpretation.  All one need do to perverse any law in this nation is to attack the general principle of the law with its own morality and potential meaning rather than its intended implication.

On a more personal note, I have had friends in the past who have been in similar situations that could have led to them killing their lover due to their spouse’s adulterous actions.  Yet, with the exception of one, these friends were able to walk away, walk out of the bedroom after finding their lover in the throes of passion with another instead of acting on their emotions.

Why is that?  Why were they able to walk away and not blindly act on their rage like the people in the cases we will be talking about in the next few chapters? Personally, I think it has to do with self- control and being responsible for our own actions, as well as owning up to the potential punishment and liability of those actions.  Sadly again, I think this is a growing epidemic in our society where several of us lack self-control and responsibility of our actions, thus having to blame the victims instead of ourselves.  It has become a societal norm these days to blame others for our own actions, thus relieving us from ever taking real responsibility for those actions.

Whenever I have sat in on a murder case and have seen the verdict stated before the court, I get an odd chill as to how the friends and family of the accused react to the victim’s friends and family.

Its seems to be a growing plague to blame the victim and the victim’s family for the actions of the defendant, as if the victim and the victim’s family and/or friends are fully responsible for the lack of self- control the defendant had shown when faced with such an egregious issue, find these actions horrendous, and quite honestly distressing.

Maybe the reason I feel this way is that I have become prejudice.  In the late summer of 2010, I lost my Cousin, Jeff Dryden to an act of domestic violence. I became a statistic; I became a family member who had a family member murdered in a domestic. Jeff was murdered after returning home to his soon to be ex-girlfriend (Chiquita Fizer) after he had caught her earlier that month in bed with another man.

Over the course of their relationship, there had been other criminal indications that this woman (yes a man being the abused and not the abuser is a growing issue these days) was abusing him. Court records earlier that year, showed that in one incident the defendant chased Jeff with a knife over an argument about finances, (Jeff was the only person working, and the defendant was currently unemployed with no aspirations of obtaining employment) forcing him to jump from the balcony window injuring his ankle in his attempt to flee.

The defendant was charged and convicted of domestic assault, put on probation for a year and informed to have no further contact with Jeff.  It should have ended there but just like a battered wife that goes back to her abusing lover, so too did Jeff return to her, asking the court to remove the restraining order.

Sadly, less than a few months later when he returned home from his brother’s house that night she stabbed him in the neck. A complete autopsy report was performed and during the preliminary hearing on August 19, 2010, in a Michigan courtroom, the Medical Examiner, Dr. Stephen Cohle, of 28 year’s experience stated that there were, “bites marks and scratches from fingernails on the left nose, bite and scratches on lower left of area just above the left eye. Bite mark on right side of face near right eye.

The linear area of the neck, the left side of neck also had scratches across neck from fingernails brazening across the neck in a “V” like formation. The right chest bite mark, this one detracted and used with more force (digging through the flesh and into the muscle). A bite mark on right side of hip and the left lower back, the right knee bite mark and left toe bite mark. The left outer hand, and on the left bicep was a ¾ inch scrape by fingernails.” Cohle also stated that the blunt force trauma did not have a time to heal and thus occurred 3 to 4 hours prior to death.

Furthermore on the topic of the death blow, Cohle noted, one laceration on the left side of neck 1 ½ inches in width single edged blade that pierced 2 to 3 inches into neck (Prosecution entered into evidence a photo marked exhibit 1 of a picture of the injury and was asked to describe this laceration in greater detail). Cohle stated that the blade cut through the left internal vein, or rather the jugular, the main vein that returned blood from the brain back to the heart

The blade continued through the jugular, cutting into the cartilage of the thyroid and Adams apple, and ended into his trachea.  The blade cut through the neck on a steep inward thrust moving in slight left to right angle as it traveled through the neck. Cohle stated this one laceration as the cause of death. No other injuries present. Cohle’s medical opinion as to the cause of death was Homicide, due to being stabbed in the neck.

Cohle stated that, “hypothetically, given the way that the knife entered through the body, the degree of the entry of the knife, that the path of the blade was insufficient with what his seen in a self-inflicted stabbing, and thus self-infliction was ruled out in his opinion.  Hypothetically, given the scenario given by the accused as to how things happened. The holding of the knife in the left hand by the victim, the blade could not have entered into the neck as even with the arm fully extended the forearm from the midline of the arm extends away from the neck.

Thus the way that the blade entered through the neck, even in a struggle the blade could not have “slipped,” as stated by the defendant.  Furthermore, Cohle concluded that the blade of the knife would have had to been slammed into the neck by someone with an adult strength in order to cut through the cartilage of the neck as it did in this case, as again the direction and force needed was inconsistent with the scenario given by defendant.

On June 14 2011, Chiquita Fizer, pled “No-contest,” to the charges of second degree murder of Jeffrey Scott Dryden.  In the eyes of the law and the court a plea of no-contest is the same as a plea of guilty, as such she was sentenced to server 14 to 45 years in prison. (to read more about this case please read “The Murder of Jeffrey Dryden: The Grim Truth Surrounding Male Domestic Abuse,” available online through kindle and Nook).

During the course of court dates that lead up to the sentencing, Chiquita’s family gave demeaning, evil gazing eyes towards my aunt and the rest of us as if blaming my aunt for her son causing the imprisonment of their beloved family member.  Just as they did after the preliminary hearing, when they cursed the victim for taking their loved one, never thinking or asking for her to take responsibility for her actions.  This is the sad world we have come to live in thanks to such laws as the Heat of Passion Doctrine, which continues to allow people to falter in taking responsibility for their actions and in so doing become contributing members of society as well as true adults