Pa. Man Kills Girlfriend Over Sandwiches

UNIONTOWN, Pa. — A man threw a microwave at his girlfriend, then fatally beat her after she refused to heat up sandwiches, police said.

Walter S. Fordyce, 58, of Uniontown, remained jailed without bond Thursday on a charge of criminal homicide. It wasn't clear if he had an attorney.

Fordyce told police he began arguing with his live-in girlfriend, Mary McCann, 58, early Thursday.

After throwing her to the floor, Fordyce threw a microwave oven onto McCann's chest after she refused to heat up sandwiches for him, he told police. Fordyce also said he stomped on McCann's chest repeatedly then banged her head on the floor until she lost consciousness _ but that he also said he didn't mean to kill her, police said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/3793987.html

--------------------------------
He goes on to say he didn't do it 'on purpose'. Then, after making sure she was dead, he had a BEER before calling 911.

Men just don't get it. This could happen to ANY woman. And it could be done by the majority of the men in this country. Then they complain about how men are so 'falsely accused' in rape and assault crimes, and how men are so abused in the court system. They don't have to live with the fact that they can be raped, beaten or killed at any time by their own spouse, loved one, or friend.

of a case where a women was confined in a trailer, raped and battered and the guy got ONE DAY in jail for it. And then he went on to do the same thing to other women.


It's appalling.

Those poor 'alleged' criminals might be spending years and years in jail just because some psycho woman completely made up things about those poor men.

Spare me.

Men get "abused by women" I accept the fact that this happens, and no one deserves to be abused.
But you might as well put a pebble on one end of a teeter-totter and drop a boulder on the other end and compare the equality of weight.

"A high % of rape allegations turn out to be false reports." Aside from not being able to cite definitive, peer reviewed sources to support this, they seem to overlook:

1) What's the definition of "false report"? If it's that the investigators didn't turn up enough evidence to charge someone with the crime, that does not mean the report was false.

2) The denominator of the % is suspect. Rape is one of the most underreported crimes. For every allegation made to the police, there are probably 5-10 events that are not reported. If we could somehow measure and count the non-reported actual rapes and add them to those that are reported, the % of "false reports" would likely be tiny.

consent. They go on and on about how many women consent to the act, then regret it and cry rape. :mad::grr: So fuckin' infuriating!

there is supposedly reasonable doubt, so you shouldn't be able to convict.

It's nice when you can stack the rules so you can never be held responsible.
:grr:

& here's a perspective:

police departments are inherently conservative and overly cautious. they also tend to base their defense of budgets on numbers. rape cases are often hard to win, and the numbers look better if you can categorize them as a "false report" rather than a failure to "clear" the case. hence, i have heard police dissuade victims from
pursuing a prosecution. the same applies to domestic violence cases, o/c.

additionally, the profession is overwhelmingly populated by men, especially men of mediocre intellect and education. (i had 1 psychologist, during the "psych eval" phase of recruitment, try to talk me out of applying to the department because i was "obviously to smart too be a cop".)

most departments rely on networking in their hiring practices, despite what they may say about "merit examinations". there's *always* a subjective component, usually board-interview, that weighs heavily in hiring. people that might "make waves" are rejected. people that can be vouched for by a "hook" or "rabbi" get hired.

given the culture and mediocrity of the police community, it's unsurprising that "false reports" applies more to the departments than it does to rape victims.


at 43, i retired. i was still quite capable of performing my duties and really loved police-work, but was unable to take the politics and hypocrisy of the job any longer.

about police officers being stupid. (Since my husband happens to be one.) But I can see how anything government run tends toward extreme bureaucracy, which tends toward corruption and really crappy tactics to increase funding and whatnot.

I read that Philadelphia police told rape victims they were working on their cases and had in fact done nothing whatsoever. This did come to light in the press...but I never heard what punishment these detectives received.

If this nation wanted to reduce the number of rapes by 50%, it could. The leaders of this nation don't want to....IMHO, the leaders of this country want women to live in fear.

should in no way detract from the fact that women get systematically abused.

Apologists use it as a diversion, or a way of changing the subject. We can't let them succeed in this, but we also can't belittle the abuse that anyone suffers. (I know you are not doing this. My statement is aimed more in general than at anyone in particular.)

What a horrible way to die. :cry:

How dare she refuse to do something he could easily do for himself. :eyes: :sarcasm:

Thanks so much for posting this here. It's nice to be able to talk about these sort of crimes without the idiots crawling out to do the usual song and dance of "...well, what if she yelled fuck you to him first, and then dared him to do it, then punched him in the face...what about that? Then it's her own fault..." blah, blah, puke. :puke:

Period. The man is a raving knuckle-dragging lunatic.

of his miserable life locked away.

That poor woman... x(

He didn't do it "on purpose", but he went as far as making sure she was dead before settling down for a celebratory beer.


That sounds very much like he did it on purpose.


IMO, we need to get rid of this paternalistic crap in religion and socialization. Young women need to be taught self-defense as a part of routine education, right along with "the facts of life". Teach them that if a man ever hits them, tries to rape them or whatever that they have the right to defend themselves--be he a stranger, a friend, a date or a relative.

If men stop seeing women as easy targets but rather as people who will readily fight back with whatever they have at their disposal maybe this sort of crap will stop.

I'd also like to see women taught about money, as part of basic education. Too many women think they need a man to handle, earn or understand money issues for them. I know this sounds silly in 2006--but I was surprised how many women share the attitudes of their mothers and even grandmothers about money.

When we give away that power, or expect someone else to possess that power it is dangerous.

Many years ago, I worked for a bankcard customer service dept. I can't tell you how many calls I took from women calling--their husband had died or left them, and they didn't understand what their statements meant. I think things have changed considerably(or at least I hope so), but some of this fear women have about money and finance still exists.

That would be so unnerving and demeaning, having to ask them for money, justify everything I spent to them. Worse yet would be not having my own means of escape if I needed it.


As much it has stunk that I've had to work 40-90 hours a week since I turned 18, at least I've always been able to take care of myself.

I'm sorry, but I am completely offended by your comment. I am a stay at home mom, and my husband works full-time to support our family. I write all of the checks to pay the bills, and keep our financial matters organized, but I am technically "dependent" upon him financially.

This doesn't make me stupid or incapable of taking care of myself. It makes me part of a partnership that allows our family more time together and our daughter to have a parent with her, teaching her, engaging her, and caring for her in order to give her the best possible start in life.

My name is on our checking account, so should the need for "escape" ever arise, I can do so. I am no more required to justify my spending than my husband is (in fact, I think I am "allowed" much more leeway than I "allow" him). I don't ask him for money--it is understood that we both have equal access to any money earned by my husband, as we both work our asses off to keep this family happy and functional.

I am sure some women fall into this trap, but many do not, even when not working outside the home, and it is easy to throw all of us in together when that is a grave mischaracterization of what it means to be a non-working (in the traditional sense) mother.

In your situation, it's a partnership. You have access to the money. You have a joint checking account. I bet you and your husband actually sit down and talk about major purchases, the family budget, retirement and other financially-related stuff.

Having once been part of an abusive relationship, I can tell you that things are not always as they seem. Although I also had a joint checking account, I would also be subject to 'receipt inspection' after every trip to the store or gas station. I was not allowed to have more than $10 cash at any given time. From the outside, I'm sure it looked like a pretty "normal" family. I worked. He went to school. We had a daughter. blah-blah-blah -- what's behind the closed door is often more than anyone wants to know.

I don't think there is anything wrong with raising our daughters and sons to make their own way in this world. I don't think there is anything wrong with educating both sexes about finances, household duties/responsibilities, home repair, car maintenance and a myraid of other topics.

I also don't think anyone is trying to put anyone else down because they do or don't work outside of the home.

I've mentioned here and there that my husband has multiple sclerosis, and is unable to work. He was diagnosed quite young, so even his SSDI is not a large amount. So he is "dependent" on me financially. We use my insurance so he gets the best, most up to date care. So we work out little ways to "even" things out. He drives me to and from work. He pays the bills. He has complete and total access to our finances. (Both of us came from a place where we didn't know how to manage money so it's been a rough road at times. We learned, The Hard Way)

And it's him who took the kids to doctors and dentists, when something went wrong and trust me, with four kids something, sometime, somehow, is going to go wrong. He was there providing support way more often that I was. He also was better at the "tough love" a couple of our children needed, as my parenting style was lazziz-faire at times. He put in as much, as often as he could and I watched him go beyond and above what I considered his physical capabilities. And paid the price in fatigue and other symptoms later.

So I understand what you're saying. Even though for you it's a choice and for my husband it's not. We've made the best out of it. And it works.

Financially trapped women have a different outcome. The love and support the give and take, the balance isn't there. It's a frightening place to be.

Many years ago, I worked for a bankcard customer service dept. I can't tell you how many calls I took from women calling--their husband had died or left them, and they didn't understand what their statements meant. I think things have changed considerably(or at least I hope so), but some of this fear women have about money and finance still exists.

I would like to think it changed, but I don't think it has (although maybe this is a reflection on youth and not women). My mother started teaching me about budgeting in the 7th grade. I'd get a lump sum allowance for the month and I had to allocate my money for school lunches, tithes, and extra. If I didn't have enough to last for the month, i either didn't get any or could get an advance from my next month's allowance. I figured out really quick how much of a trap that was. Just recently, my mom was advising me to always keep at least the cost of 1 month's rent and a plane/train ticket in my savings, since you'll never know when you'll need it. Which I already knew, but she told me her mom had told her that which she took to heart.

Now, at college, I see so many people who get their refund check, spend it on frivolous stuff and then don't have money for necessary items, like books or rent. It seems like people don't have any impulse control, since they know that for the most part, their parents will bail them out. You wouldn't believe how many articles are written in our school newspaper about how to save, how to budget, how not to get in credit card debt, etc.

This may seem silly, but in HS, there was a class called personal economics, which could substitute for regular economics on your transcript. It was pretty much exactly what you're talking about, balancing a checkbook, opening an account, budgeting, all of that. But the school closed it because they said too many people were taking the class to get out of the real economics (the most useless class I've taken). Although, it may have been cut due to budget woes.

Nobody accidentally stomps repeatedly on someone's chest.

I can't believe he had the gall to say he didn't mean to do it.
:grr:

Oops! I didn't MEAN to grab the microwave, rip the cord out of the wall, lug that awkward square shape into a position to throw it and then actually throw it at you honey! Really I didn't.

God. Crock of festering feces.