A Queensland teenager who murdered her grandfather in Adelaide helped him apply a bandaid to one of his stab wounds, then washed the dishes as he lay dying in the kitchen, court documents have revealed.
Brittney Jade Dwyer was 19 years old when she murdered her 81-year-old grandfather, Robert Whitwell, at his Craigmore home in Adelaide’s north in August last year.
She pleaded guilty to murder and her girlfriend Bernadette Burns pleaded guilty to an amended murder charge, reflecting she intended to rob Mr Whitwell and commit violence.
Documents released by the Supreme Court have revealed the pair’s murderous plot.
They show the young women drove to Adelaide from Queensland with the intention of killing Mr Whitwell and stealing his life savings, nearly $114,000 which he kept hidden in cash at his home.
The documents reveal Burns originally said she wanted to watch Dwyer kill her grandfather, but then decided to wait outside in the car and put her make-up on while it happened.
After going into the house and looking at childhood photographs and videos with her grandfather, Dwyer sent Burns a text message saying she didn’t think she could go through with it, the documents revealed.
As Mr Whitwell began to walk Dwyer out she pulled out a knife and stabbed him in the neck, then in the chest and again in the neck, the documents stated.
They reveal that after being attacked Mr Whitwell managed to get himself into the kitchen, where Dwyer helped him put a bandaid on one of the stab wounds on his neck and handed him a cloth.
The documents reveal Dwyer washed the dishes while her grandfather died and then sent a text message to Burns saying “it’s done”.
The young women then searched the house but could not find Mr Whitwell’s life savings and instead stole $1,000 from his wallet and other valuables, the documents stated.
Family statements point to troubled history
Statements tendered to the court from Mr Whitwell’s family members said he was a generous and “old-fashioned man” who loved his family.
The statements reveal Dwyer had mental health issues as a teenager, had a history of self-harming, a “moody personality” and wrote some “very dark and moody” posts on social media.
They also revealed she used to chase her older brother around the house with a knife when she was about eight years old.
Dwyer and Burns remain in custody and will return to court for sentencing submissions next month.
Dwyer’s ex-girlfriend, Shelby Lee Angie Holmes, 19, received a suspended sentence for trespassing in Mr Whitwell’s home with Dwyer a couple of months before the killing when they had originally planned to rob him.
UPDATE (Nov. 12): Kenya’s government has launched an investigation into the Catholic Church’s allegations. See follow up article here.
Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.
According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.
“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”
Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4, “This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored.”
But the government says the vaccine is safe. Health Minister James Macharia even told the BBC, “I would recommend my own daughter and wife to take it because I entirely 100% agree with it and have confidence it has no adverse health effects.”
And Dr. Collins Tabu, head of the Health Ministry’s immunization branch, told the Kenyan Nation, that “there is no other additive in the vaccine other than the tetanus antigen.”
Tabu said the same vaccine has been used for 30 years in Kenya. Moreover, “there are women who were vaccinated in October 2013 and March this year who are expectant. Therefore we deny that the vaccines are laced with contraceptives.”
Newspaper stories also report women getting pregnant after being vaccinated.
Responds Dr. Ngare: “Either we are lying or the government is lying. But ask yourself, ‘What reason do the Catholic doctors have for lying?’” Dr. Ngare added: “The Catholic Church has been here in Kenya providing health care and vaccinating for 100 years for longer than Kenya has existed as a country.”
Dr. Ngare told LifeSiteNews that several things alerted doctors in the Church’s far-flung medical system of 54 hospitals, 83 health centres, and 17 medical and nursing schools to the possibility the anti-tetanus campaign was secretly an anti-fertility campaign.
Why, they ask does it involve an unprecedented five shots (or “jabs” as they are known, in Kenya) over more than two years and why is it applied only to women of child-bearing years, and why is it not being conducted without the usual fanfare of government publicity?
“Usually we give a series three shots over two to three years, we give it anyone who comes into the clinic with an open wound, men, women or children.” said Dr. Ngare. “If this is intended to inoculate children in the womb, why give it to girls starting at 15 years? You cannot get married till you are 18.” The usual way to vaccinate children is to wait till they are six weeks old.”
But it is the five-vaccination regime that is most alarming. “The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.”
It is HCG that has been found in all six samples sent to the University of Nairobi medical laboratory and another in South Africa. The bishops and doctors warn that injecting women with HCG , which mimics a natural hormone produced by pregnant women, causes them to develop antibodies against it. When they do get pregnant, and produce their own version of HCG, it triggers the production of antibodies that cause a miscarriage.
“We knew that the last time this vaccination with five injections has been used was in Mexico in 1993 and Nicaragua and the Philippines in 1994,” said Dr. Ngare. “It didn’t cause miscarriages till three years later,” which is why, he added, the counterclaims that women who got the vaccination recently and then got pregnant are meaningless.
Ngare said WHO tried to bring the same anti-fertility program into Kenya in the 1990s. “We alerted the government and it stopped the vaccination. But this time they haven’t done so.”
Ngare also contrasted the secrecy of this campaign with the usual fanfare accompanying national vaccination efforts. “They usually bring all the stakeholders together three months before the campaign, like they did with polio a little while ago. And they use staff in all the centres to give out the vaccine.” But with this anti-tetanus campaign, “only a few operatives from the government are allowed to give it out. They come with a police escort. They take it away with them when they are finished. Why not leave it with the local medical staff to administer?”
Brian Clowes of Human Life International in Virginia told LifeSite News that WHO was not involved in the Nicaragua, Mexican and Philippines campaigns. “They try to maintain a spotless record. They let organizations like United Nations Population Fund and USAID do the dirty work.”
In the previous cases, said Clowes, the vaccinators insisted their product was pure until it was shown not to be. Then they claimed the positive tests for HCG were isolated, accidental contaminations in the manufacturing process.
LifeSiteNews has obtained a UN report on an August 1992 meeting at its world headquarters in Geneva of 10 scientists from “Australia, Europe, India and the U.S.A” and 10 “women’s health advocates” from around the world, to discuss the use of “fertility regulating vaccines.” It describes the “anti-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin vaccine” as the most advanced.
One million Kenyan women and girls have been vaccinated so far with another 1.3 million to go. The vaccination is targeting women, according to the government, in order to inoculate their children in the womb against tetanus as well. The government says 550 children die of tetanus yearly.
In covering the contest of words the pro-government Nation found plenty of women who had been vaccinated and were now pregnant, even one who was the wife of a former Catholic priest who left the Church to marry. The paper ignored Kenya’s reliance on the Catholic medical system, while setting the bishops’ stand in a questionable historical context of irrational responses “largely based on religious beliefs,” the more recent murder of vaccination teams in Nigeria, and even of CIA conspiracy theories.
Why would the UN want to suppress the population in developing countries? “Racism,” is Brian Clowes’ first explanation. “Also, the developed countries want to get hold of their natural resources. And lately, there is the whole bogus global warming thing.”
Dr. Ngare said it was the Catholic Church’s hope that the government could have resolved the matter quietly by testing the vaccine. “But the government has chosen to be combative,” forcing Kenya’s bishops and Catholic doctors to go public.
WHO’s Kenyan office and several WHO media contacts in Washington, D.C. failed to respond to LifeSiteNews enquiries over a 24-hour period.
A once-famous man-hating lunatic has gone on to her eternal reward:
Kate Millett, a feminist writer and artist who gave the women’s liberation movement its intellectual cornerstone with the 1970 tract “Sexual Politics,” and whose later works laid bare the subjugation of gay men and lesbians, the mentally ill, the elderly, and victims of political oppression, died Sept. 6 in Paris. She was 82.
Her death was confirmed by Phyllis Chesler, a feminist writer and psychotherapist who said she had corresponded with Dr. Millett’s spouse, Sophie Keir, and that the cause of death was cardiac arrest.
The mention of Millett’s lesbian partner highlights the essential dishonesty of Sexual Politics. At the time the book made Millett nationally famous, she was married to a man, but was carrying on clandestine affairs with women. This was not really much of a secret among her feminist comrades, who confronted her at an event a few months after her book was published, a scene described in Susan Brownmiller’s feminist history In Our Time:
Minutes into the panel a voice from the back of the hall rang out, “Bisexuality is a cop-out!”
Sidney Abbott, another panel member, peered into the audience and recognized Ann Sanchez, one of the Radicalesbians.
The persistent voice catcalled, “Are you a lesbian, Kate? What are you afraid of? You say it downtown, but you don’t say it uptown. Why won’t you say it?”
“Yes,” Millett wearily replied. “You think bisexuality is a cop-out, so yes, I’ll say it. I am a lesbian.
A reporter from Time was at her door the next morning. The story ran in December. Millett’s disclosure of her bisexuality, the magazine intoned, avoiding the word “lesbian,” was “bound to discredit her as a spokeswoman for the cause.”
Dolores Alexander and Ivy Bottini of [the National Organization for Women] urgently called a “Kate Is Great” press conference. Artemis March and Ellen Shumsky of the Radicalesbians composed a statement of solidarity that was read to the reporters. . . . Gloria Steinem firmly held Kate’s hand for a significant photo for the Times. . . But the show of support did little to calm the fraying nerves of the woman who stood at center of the media storm. . . .
Sexual Politics would never be dislodged from its place as feminism’s first book-length bombshell, but the making and breaking of Kate Millett as the movement’s high priestess had run its course in four months.
Why did this “discredit her as a spokeswoman for the cause”? Because in her book, Millett had hypocritically concealed her personal bias. “Her only mention of lesbianism was a single dismissive footnote near the end of the book,” as I wrote in my book Sex Trouble. While other feminists (notably Adrienne Rich) made interesting arguments about the social pressures that led lesbians into such shams as Millett’s marriage (her husband, Fumio Yoshimura, was a Japanese avant-garde sculptor), this wasn’t mentioned in the book that made Millett famous, nor did she disclose her lesbianism to Time magazine or in any of the other press coverage that accompanied publication of Sexual Politics. Millett’s anti-male arguments, which had been presented to the mainstream press as being made by a heterosexual woman with a husband, took on a whole new meaning in light of the revelation of her lesbianism. It was somewhat like the discovery that Rev. Ted Haggard was hooking up with rentboys.
If the personal is political, as feminist Carol Hanisch famously said, then Millett’s lesbianism was certainly relevant to her arguments. Her resentment of “male supremacy” was quite personal, and yet she deliberately concealed the circumstantial nature of her resentment.
When she condemned “our system of sexual relationship” as “a relationship of dominance and subordinance” (Sexual Politics, pp. 24-25), Millett presented this as a universal indictment of “patriarchy,” as though all women shared (or should share) her resentment. Yet the fact was (and is) that the vast majority of women have no political grievance against “our system of sexual relationship.” Whereas Kate Millett evidently never felt any authentic sexual desire toward males, most women do feel such desires, and feel no such sense of personal humiliation as Millett seemed to express in denouncing heterosexuality as “a relationship of dominance and subordinance.”
The biological reality of male-female differences, and the necessity of psychological adjustment to adult roles — as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers — can be analyzed rationally and objectively, without disparaging either men or women, and certainly without resorting to inflammatory rhetoric about male sexual “dominance.” However, the vast majority of people don’t analyze their own preferences and behaviors; they simply act on their feelings, without wondering too much why they feel the way they do. When a man experiences “a complex interaction of psychological, neural, vascular and endocrine factors . . . initiated by the parasympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system,” to quote Wikipedia’s description of the “physiological phenomenon,” he isn’t likely to subject his condition to critical analysis. “Me Tarzan, you Jane.”
If you don’t want to swing with the ape-man, stay out of the jungle.
This primitive understanding of human sexuality is perfectly acceptable to most people, but intellectuals always have to overthink everything. To examine sex from a perspective of politics — especially from a left-wing “social justice” perspective of radical egalitarianism — will inevitably give voice to the grievances of those who, for whatever reason, are discontented with their circumstances. People who are successful and happy with their lives, or who at least are able to cope with their disappointments, do not write radical manifestos denouncing “society,” nor do they join movements dedicated to revolutionary agendas.
This was the real issue with Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics — it was a lesbian’s indictment of heterosexuality, written from within the closet.
We might compare Kate Millett to another sexual revolutionary. Alfred Kinsey struck a public pose of a sensible Midwestern scientist, but in reality he was a voyeuristic pervert with all kinds of kinky fetishes.
It was not until decades after Kinsey’s influential “research” had normalized sexual deviancy that biographers revealed the startling truth of Kinsey’s perversity, along with the fact that much of Kinsey’s survey data was badly skewed, with reports obtained from serial child molesters cited as scientific “evidence” of childhood sexual responses.
Kinsey’s perversion obviously provided an ulterior motive for his advocacy of greater tolerance of deviant behavior, in the same way that Kate Millett’s attack on “our system of sexual relationship” was motivated by her discontent as a closeted lesbian unhappily married to a man.
Millett’s status as the “high priestess” of feminism (as some in the press had called her) was sabotaged by radical lesbians resentful of the high profile Millett had gained through her hypocrisy. In this, they were aided by a media establishment which wanted feminism to be “mainstream,” and believed that lesbianism would harm the movement. And the personal damage inflicted on Millett by “outing” her? This was considered irrelevant, both by her enemies within the feminist movement and by the media, for whom public figures are always more or less disposable. By the time it became apparent that Kate Millett was mentally ill — a story that her younger sister Mallory Millett told in 2014— the media generally ignored this evidence that the leaders of the feminist movement were lunatics. Millett’s bipolar disorder, like Shulamith Firestone’s schizophrenia, was scarcely a coincidence. Malcontents and deviants are always attracted to radical movements, and sociopathic personalities are by no means rare among the leaders of such movements, as any student of Joseph Stalin’s career must recognize.
Like most other famous feminists, Kate Millett never had children, so that her death is mourned only by her lesbian partner and by elderly comrades in the movement of which she was once “high priestess.” Most young feminists have little knowledge of the true history of their movement and, not knowing history, they are doomed to repeat it.