Dora Buentrostro and Socorro Caro
As
I sat down today I planned to compile the Buentrostro case but
instead thought that I would research the next one on my list. In
the end I am doing something I do not believe I have done before. I
am composing two different stories together not just because the
similarities are so extensive but also because I think there is
almost a bigger story behind the crimes, one that is often ignored,
domestic violence from women.
We
all know about domestic violence. It has been around for centuries.
It was first often encouraged, then expected, sometimes even legal,
and later often ignored. But most of us were raised in an era where
it was believed that domestic violence only occurred from a man to a
woman. It seems authorities did not start taking domestic violence
serious until more like the 1980's. What began as a movement per se
to curb domestic violence in turn became an new kind of ignorance.
Shelters and help lines were created.... for women. Police officers
were encouraged to arrest men even simply on the word of a woman
saying that he had hit her in some manner. Even when some
authorities began seeing abuse coming from the female it was
dismissed, often believing the man did something to deserve it. This
had often been the thought behind domestic violence in times past
when it was just simply accepted that men abused women.... they did
something to deserve it. Now we were at a time where things were
still not equal, but had gone exactly the other way when it came to
gender. Even today if you turn on an episode of Dr. Phil you will
hear him say that a man should never ever put his hand on a woman in
anger and hear him chastise men who have been accused of domestic
violence but then you will hear him all but slap the woman on the
hand like you do a toddler and tell them “no.” As the mother of
boys I have always told my sons they are never to hit a woman first
but if a woman comes after them they have the right to defend
themselves. In the same respect I remind them nine times out of ten
no matter the size a man is going to be stronger and while a woman
may have hit them with all their might, they should not do the same.
It
was not until about the 1990's that you would hear about men being
abused by women. Men are less likely to report domestic violence
than even women were for decades. This is often because of shame and
guilt but it is also out of fear... and while those were the same
reasons that women in past decades did not report violence, it is a
different kind of fear that prevent men from reporting. Men know
that we still live in a time that if he were to report domestic
violence against himself, or even children shared, that if the wife
or girlfriend were to tell authorities it was not her, but him, that
it is more likely that they would believe her. In the same respect
while violence is violence, women tend to be injured more, or seek
treatment after a domestic incident. Men are expected to have
scratches or bruises or can play them off easier than women, not to
mention their injuries are not often severe.
According
to reports issued in an article I read (although in fairness the year
was not listed it was likely around the year 2001 when Socorro Caro
was on trial), 70% of all confirmed cases of child abuse and 65% of
parental murders are committed by mothers. While this is not
traditional domestic violence, like that I have spoken about to this
point, it is still domestic violence. Many of these women have been
known to be abusive, whether it was reported or not, and in both of
the cases I am discussing here the women, while convicted in the
deaths of their own children, to this day maintain that the father's
of the children committed the crimes and “framed” them for the
murders. In both cases, the prosecutors maintain that the murders of
their children by their mothers were attempts to “get even” with
the father and the failed relationship.
The
case of Dora Buenrostro took place first in San Jacinto California.
On the morning of October 27, 1994 at about 6:30 in the morning she
went to the local police department and reported that her estranged
husband, Alejandro, aka Alex, was at her apartment where her children
were and was threatening. She led the police back to her home saying
she believed the children were in danger. When officers arrived they
found the bodies of nine year old Susana and eight year old Vicente
laying in the front room of the apartment. They had both been
stabbed repeatedly in the neck with a knife. The interesting thing
was that Dora's four year old daughter, Deidra was no where to be
found.
Police
did not know what to think about the situation but they immediately
thought that Dora's behavior was unusual. One officer from the scene
would later testify that Dora “went from laughing and joking to
being tired and nonchalant but never showed remorse or sadness.”
Within a few hours the body of Deidra was found. Reports say that
she was found in a parking lot some ten miles from Dora's home, still
in her car seat (although I could not determine officially if the car
was there also or just her in the seat). She too had been stabbed in
the neck and the blade was still in her neck. A medical examination
would determine that she had likely died two days prior to the other
children.
Alex
and Dora had been separated for over a year at the time of the
murders. While Dora and the children lived in San Jacinto, Alex
lived some eighty to eighty-five miles away in Los Angeles.
Authorities immediately wanted to find him and talk to him. While
reports say that Alex was initially arrested I am unsure this is
officially true. I believe authorities brought him in for
questioning and kept him until they could establish an alibi. They
spoke with Alex's boss who stated that at 7:40 that morning when
others arrived Alex had already been at work for quite some time. It
did not take long for authorities to determine, at least from their
perspective that Alex was not involved in the murders of his
children.
On
October 29, 1994, two days after the discovery, Dora Buenrostro was
arrested and charged with three counts of first degree murder.
Prosecutors say that the motive behind the murders was a possible
child custody issue and that Dora had killed her children to hurt
Alex emotionally and then planned to frame him. Dora, and her
attorneys attempted at her trial in 1998 to continue to maintain that
Dora was innocent and that Alex was the true perpetrator. It
seemingly took so long to go to trial because at some point Dora was
claiming she was not competent for trial due to the fact that she was
“psychotic” and yet she continued to claim innocence.
At
her trial, prosecutors would claim that Dora and Alex had previously
had a fight and that she had killed the children in a rage but that
rage had continued for two days. Prosecutors would point out that in
the two days between the murder of Deidra and then the murders of her
other two children the time allowed two things. One the time could
have caused her to calm down and thus not murder the other two
children or two, it allowed her the time to plan her strategy as to
what she planned to say and do to frame Alex. Neighbors testified
that while the night before the murders in the apartment had been
quiet they had often heard Dora arguing and screaming loudly at her
children. Whether this was to an abusive manner or was simply used
at trial to show behaviors seen by others is unclear.
The
jury deliberated for 90 minutes before pronouncing Dora guilty on all
three counts of first degree murder. Soon after, on July 31, 1998
the jury recommended death to be her sentence. On October 2, 1998
the judge in the case agreed. After her conviction, but apparently
before her sentencing Dora continued to “lash out.” She blamed
the police, prosecutors and even her own attorney's for her
conviction and maintained that Alex was the true perpetrator.
Appellate courts have upheld her conviction.
To
be fair I found little reported forensically that tied Dora to this
crime. It appears that not only her behavior but the conclusion that
she lied about Alex being at the apartment at the time she said he
was, as well as apparently proof that he could not have also killed
Diedra. There was talk that Dora accused the San Jacinto police
department of planting evidence but I am uncertain what evidence she
claimed this to be.
Then
some 500 miles and just over five years later a similar crime
occurred in Santa Rosa California. This time prosecutors claim the
perpetrator was Socorro “Cora” Caro, the wife of a prominent
rheumatology specialist. Unlike the Buenrostro's, the Caro's were
still married although “happily” was not a word that would be
used to describe the marriage. The couple apparently argued often
and by 1999 it seems everything was an argument from finances to how
to discipline their children. In fact, they had one of the latter on
the evening of November 22nd. It was custom of Xavier
Caro Sr. to often leave the home for a few hours after an argument.
Some say it was to get work done at his office in the San Fernando
Valley while others suspect it was to spend more time with a woman he
was having an affair with.
The
Caro's were very well off and lived in what has been described as a
mansion. Cora had been a nursing student when she and Xavier married
in 1984 but she quit to become his office manager. The medical
practice was apparently hugely successful but at some point leading
up to that late November night Xavier had actually fired his wife
after prosecutors say he discovered her “funneling” money to her
parents and the business seemed to be suffering financially. He also
took the checkbook and credit cards so that Cora could not use them.
Prosecutors say this angered Cora and she became even more angry when
she found paperwork from an attorney and discovered Xavier was
considering a divorce.
Cora's
mother would later testify that she was present on November 22nd
when her daughter and Xavier had an argument over punishment of one
of their children and by all accounts it sounds as if the
mother-in-law said her peace to her son-in-law herself. She would
then testify that soon after Xavier left the home, she too left and
went to her home. Xavier stated he went to his office and while
reports vary, returned home somewhere between 11:00 and 11:20pm.
Xavier would say that upon his return home the house was quiet and he
intended on making up with his wife but when he entered the bedroom
he found her on the floor bleeding from a gunshot wound to the head.
A .38 caliber handgun lay next to her. Xavier grabbed the phone and
called 911. While on the phone the operator asked him about his
children, who he had not checked on yet. The couple had four boys,
eleven year old Xavier Jr., eight year old Michael, five year old
Christopher and one year old Gabriel. As Xavier Sr. talked to the
911 operator and went to check on his children he would find the
three oldest children in their beds, all with gunshot wounds to their
heads. Baby Gabriel would be unharmed. Cora was rushed to the
hospital where she would survive but where she would also be
arrested. Like Dora Buenrstro she would ultimately be charged with
three counts of first degree murder. And, like Dora Buenrostro she
would be convicted, sentenced to death and maintain that she was
innocent and that the real perpetrator of the crime was her husband.
Cora's
defense attorney's would claim that there was evidence that Xavier
returned home at least thirty minutes prior to making the 911 call,
giving him time to commit the crime himself. They would claim that
phone records, parking lot surveillance photos and witnesses at the
medical center prove he would have been home earlier than he had
stated. They also claimed that a GSR test done to Xavier's hands had
come back as positive and that he had the blood of one of the
children on his pants. Both of Cora's parents would testify on her
behalf. Her mother would testify about the fight that had occurred
just hours before the murders and her father would testify that yes,
Cora had given them money, but that it was for labor and supplies he
had provided when re-doing their home when it was damaged in a 1994
earthquake. Prosecutors would say she had given them in excess of
$100,000. Although the defense did apparently have a few things on
their side, or at least they said they did, as far as testifying as
to what happened on that night Cora claimed to not be able to do so.
She had initially pleaded not guilty but would later change that plea
to not guilty by reason of insanity. She would claim that the bullet
wound had caused brain damage and had left her without a memory as to
what happened on that night. Now of course this could have been
absolutely correct, but research did not indicate if conveniently
this was the only night she could not remember. She, and her defense
however, would maintain that Xavier was the perpetrator.
Unlike
the Buenrostro case I was able to find some information about
forensics in this case. As I stated above, Cora's attorney's would
claim that Xavier Sr. had GSR on his hands. Prosecutors would admit
to this but their claim was that it had come from him touching the
gun soon after it had been fired, but not from firing it himself.
They would also claim that the blood DNA from one of the children on
his pants came from him touching the child after, which they did not
consider to be unusual nor of vast amount. Prosecutors say that Cora
had blood DNA from two of the boys on her clothing (remember he only
had one), as well as under her fingernails, and both those boys'
blood DNA was found in the master bathroom sink. I can only theorize
that the fact that more blood (and likely GSR also) on her than what
was found on Xavier is what was able to prove to investigators and
prosecutors that she was the perpetrator. Obviously the defense
disagreed. Just as in the Buenrostro case however, Cora and her
attorney's apparently still maintain that Xavier was the killer and
attempted to frame her.
While
in the Buenrostro case there was apparently only reports from
neighbors as to behaviors towards her children, in Cora's case there
were apparently several witnesses who testified to her behavior in
general. It was said that on at least eight other occasions Cora had
expressed violence towards Xavier or others. There was testimony
that she had used “weapons and element of surprise” in her
attacks and caused several injuries. One incident apparently caused
serious injury to Xavier's eyes. Whether any of this was reported
prior to the murders is unclear. As I stated above we have gotten to
a point where we look at domestic violence in a complete opposite way
than we used to. Now instead of the woman staying because of fear,
embarrassment and guilt, and not reporting issues, it is now often
the man in that position. It is not unheard of for an abused woman
to seek medical attention but lie to medical professionals as to how
the injuries occurred. Men now often do the same. The difference is
that the fabricated stories the men state are often more believed
than the ones that women told.
Some
believe that had Xavier reported his wife's behavior to the police
the children would be alive. There were reports that at some point
Cora had issues and was placed on Prozac and then also another
anti-depressant. To be fair I am surprised that the defense did not
use this as mitigating circumstances or blame the medication.
Instead they focused it seems solely on blaming Xavier.
After
a four month trial Cora was found guilty on three counts of first
degree murder and sentenced to death. Her friends and family still
support her and believe her story, despite the fact that even she
claims to not remember what happened due to her brain injury.
The
thing I found interesting about these cases was not that the mothers
killed their children, because as I said earlier, 65% of parental
murders are committed by mothers. And, they are often done so for
one of two reasons.... to rid themselves of the burden of children or
to get even with the fathers. What I find interesting about these
cases is that although Buenrostro did claim to be “psychotic”
after her arrest and prior to her trial, and Cora had evidence of
being on medication, neither woman has ever admitted their role and
continues to blame the father of the children as being the
perpetrator. In Buenrostro's case, her story of seeing her estranged
husband at the home was proven to be impossible. In Cora's case, the
DNA spoke for the prosecutors.
Remember
when we were teenagers and we lied to our parents? They were the
worse lies ever but we were convinced that they would buy it. That
is how I feel about these two women. Although it appears obvious
that they both wanted to punish the father emotionally, as well as
frame them for murder, they did not think things through obviously.
Neither woman was successful in this quest. I have to wonder too if
Cora knew of the Buenrostro case and thought she could “do it
better” so to say. You know, we look at these cases and critique
what they did wrong in what got them caught. Of course we will
likely never know because it seems unlikely that either woman will
ever tell the truth. It seems just as likely in California that
neither will ever be executed.
I think that, in Buenrostro's case, the moment the jury learned that at least one of the children, Diedra, was dead at least two days prior to the deaths of the other two, no performance on Dora's part could have been good enough to explain why she apparently wasn't concerned about the whereabouts and well-being of her daughter Diedra for about 2 days, so she was probably convicted in the minds of the jurors rather quickly. I suspect that most of the deliberation time was for donuts and coffee, etc.
ReplyDelete