Previous post
Just when you think you’ve heard it all…you hear something like this.
A transgender woman accused of being a serial killer is blaming the 1990 murders of three prostitutes in Washington State on her past male persona…Donna Perry, 62, had gender reassignment surgery in Thailand and said when a person transitions from male to female, “there’s a great downturn in violence.”
She also told police that she intentionally had the operation, which she underwent in 2000, “as a permanent way to control violence” purportedly perpetrated when she was her male self, Douglas Perry.
What’s interesting about this is that the case, which went unsolved for 20 years, broke open because Perry was tied via DNA to the killings. You know, the DNA that does not change regardless of which equipment you remove or attach. That’s what it comes down to, really. DNA belonging to one person was found, and that DNA belongs to that person. It doesn’t matter if that person is running around with Tab A or Slot B, the DNA is them. Naturally, this doesn’t stop Perry from claiming that his/her other self did it, and now that he’s a she, he/she is just fine to be in society. Try saying all that five times fast.
The fact that this defense is even being put forth is a testament to how stupid our society is. The fact that it’s being allowed is a testament to how stupid our judicial system is. Here’s what the defendant had to say:
“I’m not going to admit I killed anybody, I didn’t. Donna has killed nobody,” she told police. When pressed if “Doug did” the killings, Perry replied, “I don’t know if Doug did or not, it was 20 years ago and I have no idea whether he did or did not,” according to the affidavit.
In 1998, Perry served 18 months in an Oregon prison. The affidavit says that when Washington detectives interviewed a cell mate, she told them that Perry allegedly confessed to killing nine prostitutes “because she couldn’t breed and the women had the ability to have children and they were wasting it being ‘pond scum.'”
Take a very close look at that statement. “Donna has killed nobody.” Referring to him/herself in the third person. Removing themselves from the crime–typical. Then referring to himself as Doug also in the third person but also claiming that “I have no idea whether he did or did not.” That’s an evasion, not a denial. What’s really important is the statement made to the cellmate. That speaks to a very specific problem with women.
This person deserves to be put to death, not pitied as some champion of the transgender movement.
VALman says: “Donna” looks like a dude with long hair. Of course, when a president makes a claim that what he does in his private life is just that and has no bearing on his public one, it’s really not as much of a stretch as one might think. You see, it was Clinton’s public self who was saying he didn’t have sex with that woman. How could he “rat” on his “private” self?
Kit wrote:
The fact that this defense is even being put forth is a testament to how stupid our society is.
But it doesn’t mean that the lawyer is stupid. The lawyer has no case, because his client is undeniably guilty. Maybe, just maybe, this argument could somehow sway a jury; it just depends on how collectively stupid they are.
The attorney’s job is to get his client off, or, failing that, with the lightest possible sentence. He’s doing the best he can with what he has.
hockeydad says: Not surprising in the 90’s I worked on a system for DC Court’s where information on those serving parole or probation was kept and updated. I still remember the day I was told we had a problem.
That problem consisted of the fact that while we could track gender states and changes one way (male to female or female to male). Yet we had an individual that had gone from male to female and was now going back to male. The code didn’t allow for that transaction to happen, my response was “You can do that? Who would do that?”, the answer…any criminal who thought it’d help their case or keep them out of jail.
While I knew people would go to great lengths not to go to jail, this was an eye opener.
3 Comments