She Made Them Do It _VERIFIED_
Parents need to know that She Made Them Do It is a Lifetime movie about the true story of Sarah Jo Pender, a woman convicted of double murder who escaped from prison, was caught and returned, and proclaims her innocence to this day. It features multiple graphic reenactments of the murders, drug dealing, numerous scenes of implied intercourse, and mature themes and ultimately implies that Pender is a sociopath who orchestrated everything. There also is some minor profanity ("bitch," "damn") and smoking and drinking. Teens may be interested, since Jenna Dewan is the star.
She Made Them Do It
SHE MADE THEM DO IT tries to have it both ways, and it ends up a muddled mess. Pender is a gifted manipulator of others who excels at playing victim; no, she's an innocent who got mixed up with the wrong crowd and made some bad choices.
The letter showed that she could have been behind the homicide. Further, there are many focuses made against the legitimacy of that letter. In any case, all of that went to no end when Sarah was condemned to 110 years.
At the trial of an indictment for rape of a child in which the sole direct evidence against the defendant was the testimony of the alleged victim, admission in evidence of "fresh complaints" made forty-five months after the alleged incident was error. [215-217]
About a month after the latter incident, Gambino and the defendant moved to Providence. During the three and a half years that followed to February, 1989, Smith often visited them, sometimes staying for as long as a month. In turn they visited Smith's family in New Bedford. Smith testified that the defendant did not approach her in any sexual way between his departure from New Bedford in 1985 and Smith's visit to Providence in February, 1989.
Later, in July, 1989, again on a visit to Providence, realizing, Smith said, that she would be left alone in the apartment with the defendant, and fearful of what the defendant might do, she spoke to her brother Dennis, then eight years old. Smith told Dennis about the earlier events in New Bedford. [Note 6] Dennis wondered whether she might not have had a nightmare but told her to tell somebody. She spoke to a young woman, Rhoda, who was staying in the apartment; Rhoda gave her the same advice. Promptly she told Gambino that "Uncle Joey molested me," "made me put my mouth on his penis," and "touched me in my private part." Gambino immediately confronted the defendant. He said, "I'd rather murder somebody than molest anybody." Gambino telephoned Smith's mother, and Gambino and Smith told her what had happened. It was agreed that all concerned would meet in New Bedford. The defendant then drove Smith and Gambino there, and these three and Smith's mother sat around a table and discussed Smith's story at length. The defendant continued to deny the accusations.
Gambino, for the defense, talked of the good relationship between Smith and the defendant over the years. In July, 1989, Smith told her that the defendant had been touching her chest, and "when we was in New Bedford, he made me suck his penis." According to Gambino, Smith said that she hadn't told anyone sooner "[b]ecause he [the defendant] said if I ever said anything, that I'd never see you [Gambino] again." Gambino said Smith mentioned this alleged remark by the defendant at the family meeting. It may be noted, however, that Smith's own testimony did not refer to such a statement by the defendant; indeed, she did not testify to any explicit threat by the defendant. (Compare note 4, supra.)
In Commonwealth v. Gillette, where bad acts testimony was offered in a case of sexual assault on a child under fourteen, the court said, "[n]o case brought to our attention has dealt with an act done, or a statement made, more than a few months before or after the alleged offense." 33 Mass. App. Ct. 427, 431-432 (1992) (seven years too remote). See Commonwealth v. Bemis, 242 Mass. at 585 (four months not
In instructing on bad acts, the judge, in a rather confused passage, [Note 12] indicated that the jury might consider this testimony, "[i]n other words, to explain . . . [w]hy the incidents of 1985 came to light in 1989." The alleged incidents came to light in the victim's complaints, but the complaints occurred not at the time of the bad act -- the touching -- but about five months thereafter. Moreover, testimony about bad acts, inherently prejudicial, is not admissible to explain why a delayed complaint was made at a particular time or to show the victim's state of mind when he or she made the complaint. See Montanino, 409 Mass. at 505-507 (error to
[Note 3] A week later, according to Smith, as she was sitting fully clothed on the defendant's lap, he touched her vagina through her clothes. On cross-examination, Smith conceded that, when she told her aunt and mother, forty-five months later, about the defendant's misconduct, she didn't tell them about this alleged touching. Nor did she tell the representative of the Department of Social Services or of the district attorney's office during their separate interviews with her.
The physical improvements led to Wilma being able to do her own shopping and she did not have to eat the heated ready meals that she did not think tasted as good as her own home cooking. To make sure it was not too taxing, she came up with a new strategy for shopping and cooking. It meant doing the shopping one day, but waiting until the next day to prepare the food, making several portions that lasted a few days. Her improvements also meant that she could decline receiving help with showering and Wilma felt she retrieved control of her everyday life. You almost become like little children, you think like them, I can do this on my own!
Even if it takes a long time with the sewing, at least I've taken the initiative to get the bits of fabric out and cut them out and then I sometimes get the idea to sew them together as well. So I must have gotten a little more out of that thing [DCR] about doing something. That way I have something to keep me occupied and then the day becomes more meaningful.
A heart attack a few years ago had made him a bit more careful, he did not dare exert himself too much for fear of it happening again. After a collision with a cyclist a while ago, he also suffered from pains and restricted mobility in one of his shoulders. During the time before John applied for day care rehabilitation he felt low and disheartened and felt that his life was slipping away from him, he did not really have the energy to live. John felt that his state of health was worsening, he felt his limbs stiffening, his balance worsening, and that walking was becoming more difficult. He started worrying about the future, about how long he would be able to keep living in his house, or if he would be forced to move.
There were other explanations that appeared to have had an impact on the changes in the participants' occupational performance. The personnel's deliberate policy not to provide more help than necessary gave the participants opportunities to train physical functions such as getting up from a chair as well as the ability to perform activities in daily living such as dressing and undressing. The participants' belief in their ability to perform a certain task was enhanced when the training was successful. This may be explained as enhanced self-efficacy (Gage & Polatajko, 1994), which in turn was experienced as a factor that positively influenced their occupational performance at the DCR centre as well as at home. According to Bandura (1981), self-efficacy determines the amount of effort people expend before terminating the activity and how long they will persevere in the face of adversity. In the physical exercise group-training sessions the participants were inspired to do their best, which also allowed their perceived self-efficacy to be strengthened. They compared themselves with their fellow patients and saw that they could keep up with the group. Another event that could serve as an explanation could be the perception that the DCR centres provided a safe environment where the participants could experiment with their altered level of performance. The possibility of being able to experiment in a safe environment is essential for the individual's development of a new understanding of perceived efficacy according to Gage and Polatajko (1994). They also underscore the importance of personal performance accomplishments as well as observing successful performance of peers (i.e., vicarious learning), as two important strategies that occupational therapists can use in order to strengthen perceived self-efficacy. According to Gage and Polatajko (1994), it is essential for the practice of occupational therapy to recognised that perceived self-efficacy can influence the likelihood of an activity being performed outside of a protected environment.
The discussion group was another event, which may have contributed to the participants' resumption of and change of attitude to daily activities. The group was led by an occupational therapist with the aim to help participants resume an active and healthy lifestyle. Group counselling with similar objectives was recommended by Rejeski and Focht (2002). Such groups can, according to the authors, encourage individuals to be active and independent as well as encourage integration of physical activities into everyday life. The use of different types of groups in occupational therapy has been described as an important tool, especially in psychosocial occupational therapy (Cole, 2008; Eklund, 1997; Mosey, 1986) but also in occupational therapy for elderly people (Clark et al., 1997; Nilsson & Nygård, 2003). A positive experience of an occupational therapy group programme was described by participants in an activity group (Nilsson & Nygård, 2003). The group offered the individual an opportunity to compare his or her own situation with how others viewed and handled matters. An adaptation process was started and the participants contemplated and reflected on their own life situation in relation to the themes brought up during the group sessions. This is congruent with reasons listed by Cole (2008) describing why occupational therapists form client groups. The reasons include capturing the energy generated by interaction in order to support client's effort in coping with adversities and to motivate change. 041b061a72