Brazilian mother and lesbian lover, 'tore off her nine-year-old son's penis before beheading him

a reply to: Nyiah

I read the Mail version only and picked up all that was pointed out by ArMapP from it. Sometimes, information is there, but you need a close reading to notice it.

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

What does this have to do with them being lesbians? Crazy is crazy, whether it's a straight or gay person we're talking about.

There is a particular psychology involved here which is directly related to the parents.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

So is there a particular psychology involved with straight people who murder/mutilate/molest children?!?!


Obviously they do it WAY more often...


The real truth is this is probably a fake story pushed by people despicable enough to try and blame whole groups for the actions of individuals..

originally posted by: Boadicea
It's not unusual for details to vary and be mis-reported. None of the details mis-reported change the horrifying nature of the crime. Especially that they mutilated his body over a year ago. Rather, the fact that this boy was so tortured and abused for so long makes it that much more horrifying.

Yes, and it changes what may have looked like a spontaneous attack to something that was happening for a long time, not only did the women mutilated and killed the boy, they did it as part of the way they acted throughout their life together. This is not a case of "temporary insanity", it's a case of two psychopaths using two children as objects, one suffering psychological and physical damages culminating in his death, the other "only" psychological damages.

I ignored nothing. I just didn't see anything at all that changed the totality of circumstances or the end result -- all of which were horrific. Including the motive, which you described as "completely" wrong, thus indicating that all the information in the title was wrong, and it wasn't.

No, what I erroneously described as "completely wrong" was the title, not the motive.

The one nitpicking over petty details while not once calling this the horrific crime that it is, and glossing over their own misrepresentation of the facts. And that's not me.

Be clear about and say the name(s).

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Creep Thumper

So is there a particular psychology involved with straight people who murder/mutilate/molest children?!?!

Obviously they do it WAY more often...

The real truth is this is probably a fake story pushed by people despicable enough to try and blame whole groups for the actions of individuals..

Don't blame me for your lack of education.

A lesbian couple + a father = a confused child

He was only nine. He was genitally mutilated. This is a sexual hate crime.

absolutely VILE how Certain Posters are trying so desperately to use this as grist in their anti-trans mill.
some people are just so full of irrational hatred that they can't even function as people anymore.

the poor child ;( RIP

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes, and it changes what may have looked like a spontaneous attack to something that was happening for a long time, not only did the women mutilated and killed the boy, they did it as part of the way they acted throughout their life together.

You're making a distinction without a difference... these are heinous crimes no matter how long a timespan. For the child, it was that much longer he had to live through this torturous hell, so that much worse. But the crimes themselves are horrendous no matter whether they spanned a day or a decade.

This is not a case of "temporary insanity", it's a case of two psychopaths using two children as objects, one suffering psychological and physical damages culminating in his death, the other "only" psychological damages.

Definitely. As I noted in my first response. These women are obviously bat# crazy. But they got the idea that this boy's sex could be changed from somewhere... gee... where could that have been?

No, what I erroneously described as "completely wrong" was the title, not the motive.

Now I'm even more confused. So the motive was right and everything else was wrong? Allow me to quote you:

And no, she didn't say she killed the boy because he wanted to be a girl, The Mirror title is completely wrong.

And the Mirror title: "Mum 'beheaded son, 9, after stabbing him 12 times because he wanted to be a girl"

So skool me: What besides the motive was wrong? Did the mother NOT behead the child? Did she NOT stab him 12 times?

Be clear about and say the name(s).

Okay.

The one nitpicking over petty details while not once calling this the horrific crime that it is, and glossing over their own misrepresentation of the facts, is the one minimizing and making excuses. And that's not me. It was you, ArMaP.

Now what? Why the need to make me jump through your hoops when you already knew perfectly well that I was speaking of you?

originally posted by: Boadicea
But the crimes themselves are horrendous no matter whether they spanned a day or a decade.

Sure they are, I was only trying to point that the boy was a victim for 5 years (I think), not just on the day he was murdered.

Definitely. As I noted in my first response. These women are obviously bat# crazy. But they got the idea that this boy's sex could be changed from somewhere... gee... where could that have been?

That you have to ask them. Although I agree it's likely they got the idea from the media I do not have any way of knowing it.

So skool me: What besides the motive was wrong? Did the mother NOT behead the child? Did she NOT stab him 12 times?

No. As I said before, the "completely" was the remnant of my previous version of the text, that said the article was completely wrong. When I reread the article I saw that it wasn't completely wrong but the title was wrong, as the motive was not the one presented in it. When I changed the text from "article" to "title" I forgot to remove the word "completely", so the word applied, erroneously, to the whole title. What I should have done was to also remove the "completely", so my post should have said "And no, she didn't say she killed the boy because he wanted to be a girl, The Mirror title is wrong."

The one nitpicking over petty details while not once calling this the horrific crime that it is, and glossing over their own misrepresentation of the facts, is the one minimizing and making excuses. And that's not me. It was you, ArMaP.

Now what? Why the need to make me jump through your hoops when you already knew perfectly well that I was speaking of you?

Thanks for the clarification. I like things, as we say here in Portugal, "black in white", or for those on ATS that prefer the dark theme, "light grey on dark grey", meaning that I like things written and not just implied.

Now, can you tell me where did I minimised the crime and made excuses? Thanks in advance.

a reply to: ArMaP

No. As I said before, the "completely" was the remnant of my previous version of the text, that said the article was completely wrong. When I reread the article I saw that it wasn't completely wrong but the title was wrong, as the motive was not the one presented in it. When I changed the text from "article" to "title" I forgot to remove the word "completely", so the word applied, erroneously, to the whole title. What I should have done was to also remove the "completely", so my post should have said "And no, she didn't say she killed the boy because he wanted to be a girl, The Mirror title is wrong."

Okay... now I've gotcha, and my apologies for being slow to understand what you were saying. I've done accidentally left remnants like that before. And that "remnant" is why I thought the punctuation was odd. I just didn't put it all together. But I get what you're saying now. So thank you -- and, again, my apologies.

(ETA: I actually left a remnant in the comment addressing the remnant!!! "I've done accidentally..." Shaking my head at myself now...)

Now, can you tell me where did I minimised the crime and made excuses? Thanks in advance.

That would be where your focus initially was only on details and mis-reporting -- "distinctions without a difference" -- while not addressing the horrendous and horrific nature of the crime.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

I doubt it....


If this were a real story Fox News would be playing it on a loop...


Assuming it is a fake story, it is despicable garbage being pushed by the same..

originally posted by: Boadicea
And that "remnant" is why I thought the punctuation was odd.

I wouldn't be surprised if my punctuation or grammar was wrong, as English is not my natural language and I learned it by watching movies and TV shows.

I just didn't put it all together. But I get what you're saying now. So thank you -- and, again, my apologies.

No problems, it happens.

(ETA: I actually left a remnant in the comment addressing the remnant!!! "I've done accidentally..." Shaking my head at myself now...)

That would be where your focus initially was only on details and mis-reporting -- "distinctions without a difference" -- while not addressing the horrendous and horrific nature of the crime.

I didn't (and still do not) think it's necessary to point that it was a horrendous crime, and, besides that, it's not in my nature to talk about what I feel about something.

On the other hand, I hate misrepresentations and misunderstandings, so I will always try to find if the information presented is correct or not, and if it's not, to correct it.

originally posted by: Nyiah
ArMaP pointed out where they took the info and either lied by omission, misrepresented info, or outright changed the info just enough to make it look like psycho lesbians Lorena Bobbited the kid before they went whole-hog on the murder.

I agree that some of the sources used are far from the most reliable, but some of the misrepresentations may have been the result of bad translations, like saying that the woman said the boy reminded her of her father when she said that he reminded her of the boy's father.

Never underestimate the power of incompetence.

Absolutely horrific. Man..that poor boy..
Does anyone know how in the HELL she would still have custody if they removed his penis years before? Good God..why weren't they in jail already?! I'm not able to read the links Armap cited , maybe there is more info there?
I hope this is fake news honestly but it doesn't appear so . R.I.P young Rhuan

originally posted by: Starcrossd
Does anyone know how in the HELL she would still have custody if they removed his penis years before? Good God..why weren't they in jail already?!

They were fugitives for the last five years, since they took the boy from his father and ran away. Whenever they found some sign of anyone knowing who they were or where they came from they would move to a different location.

More information I found.

- Both women had taken their children from the parent's custody. They had lost the children's custody because of their "religious fanaticism". Although they were raised as evangelic they had their own version of religion, and they used it to support their own ideas (obviously). At more than one occasion they presented themselves as "pastors";

- One thing that I couldn't understand was why there were several versions of when they cut the boy's penis, some months, one year and two years. I found out today that that's probably because they only have an approximate date based on the forensic analysis of the boy's scars;

- When the boy's father got the boy's custody, one of his witnesses was the mother of Rosana (the boy's mother), that testified that he man was a good father and that the stories Rosana told about him (she pressed charges against him for physical abuse against her but never appeared in the audiences) were not true;

- Two fake news related to the case have appeared. The first says that a human rights organisation asked for the women's release from jail. That's not true, a look at the process shows that no petition was presented to the judge. The other fake news says that they were beaten by other inmates, which cannot be true, as they are isolated, one in each cell, and do not have any contact with the other inmates;

- One article I saw says that she killed the boy because it reminded her of her father, so now I'm not sure of what was really said;

- The boy had a slight autism that prevented him from attending school when he was younger. When the father got access to special education for the next year the boy's mother kidnapped him, her girlfriend did the same with her daughter and they both ran away.