Michelle Tharp

It is not uncommon for me to blog about a few cases, one right after another, that are similar in some way for a few reasons. One is that I tend to try to research at least two cases before I sit down and compose them so when one particular case seems interesting to me by the time I do the next one I am still interested in that topic. The second reason is how the cases make it to my list. There are many ways that I find the names of cases. Sometimes it is from a television show that I have watched, or a book I have heard about. Other times it may be from an article I have read online. Then there are the times I fall into one of my rabbit holes and may get on Wikipedia and look at some of the lists they compile of cases similar to each other. When that happens there will be a “block” of cases on my own list that had been discovered through one of those other lists. I would gander to guess that is how I came upon this case and the case before it. However, really the only two things that these cases have in common is that they involve women perpetrators and the women were sentenced to death.

The last case I published was about a woman who had conspired with her lover to kill her ex-husband. This case involves the death of a child. These are the most difficult types of cases to research and put together. We all know that the majority of murders are committed by people that are known and/or close to the victim. This is why these are the people who are interviewed first by investigators. This is never more true than in the cases that involve children. Most often one of the people who are in control of their care and well being are the same people who take their lives. This case my in fact be a bit more difficult for me because I feel as if the heinousness of the crime may cloud my judgment some. I have always said that I am just as much about a victim receiving justice as I am to ensure the integrity of the justice system. If, and I have to say this is a big if, the defense claims are true I am unsure that I agree with the death penalty in this case. To say the least this is case though were so many people failed a child and their failure cost her her life.

Tausha Lanham was seven years old when she died April 18, 1998 in her Burgettstown Pennsylvania home. She was thirty-one inches tall and weighed less than twelve pounds! Some research says that Tausha was the second child belonging to Michelle Tharp, while others say she was the third. It appears that this is because between her first child and Tausha, Michelle had given birth to a son, named Benjamin and had put him up for adoption. This would be brought up in her trial in 2000. She would go on to have two more children, the last being sometime in 1998. While information, thankfully is scarce when it comes to Michelle Tharps children it was said she had five children by four fathers but the only real information on any of them given would be on the last father, Doug Bittinger. Whether he was the father of the last two children is unclear.

Burgettstown apparently is much like the town in which I currently live in. It is on the edge of three states. While I live in Indiana, I live within miles of both the Kentucky and Illinois borders. It is nothing to travel through all three states on a morning drive. Burgettstown is about 15 miles from Steubenville Ohio, where Michelle and Doug would say Tausha had become missing and apparently, at least through the Panhandle Trail, less than ten miles from the West Virginia border, where Tausha body would be found later that day. Now this can become a huge headache for law enforcement officers because the number one rule in the courts and law involves jurisdiction. Jurisdiction determines what state, or even county, is in charge of the investigation and generally decides who to prosecute. More often than not the place in which the crime occurs takes precedence on jurisdiction. When that cannot necessarily be determined and it is not believed to be the same place the body was found, then that is generally the area who becomes in charge.

Tausha had been born prematurely and weighed just over two pounds at birth. It would be reported that she spent her first year in the hospital where she had a multitude of issues. Just to what extent those issues were seems unclear. My research was rather vague in simply saying she suffered from things such as “genetic abnormalities,” breathing issues, and things involving her gastrointestinal tract and nervous system. To what extent these issues continued to plague her is not clear, especially had she gotten the care that she needed. Her current boyfriend, Doug Bittinger moved in with her and her children in 1996. I think this is important because at her trial in 2000 her defense apparently focused on how overwhelmed Michelle had been with the care of her children and supporting them as excuses as to why particular things (that I will get into later) were done and one of the things they mentioned was she had these without support from the fathers. Well, Doug Bittinger was one of those fathers and he was living in the home, whether he worked or not is unclear but that would just mean that he was present in the home with help, if not financially. What we do know is that in April of 1998 Doug and Michelle were living together with four children. It was said they did not own a car but I have been left wondering if that statement referred more to prior to Bittinger moving in, but they also apparently did not have a telephone. Just where Michelle worked I cannot say, nor can I say how often she worked. It was reported by the defense that Michelle received, if nothing else, $539.00 a month from seemingly benefits due to Tausha's disabilities. I can only gander to guess that there were likely other government benefits given to Michelle and the children. I got the impression that the defense brought up these benefits only because they were “harping” on Tausha's issues and wanted to point out that she had received these benefits solely based on her medical records. I can only assume this was an effort to say … Hey, she was in such a bad way she did not even have to be seen by a government doctor to receive benefits. Keep in mind that in 2011 a judge, while responding to an appeal effort stated that the defense “threw in the proverbial kitchen sink” which is what many defense attorney's do. They will throw everything out and see what sticks. I get the impression this was part of that effort when they were discussing Tausha's benefit.

On that April day in 1998 Michelle Tharp and Doug Bittinger would report to the police that she had been abducted, or appeared missing, while they had been in a mall in Steubenville Ohio. Later that day Tausha body would be found in a bush, along the side of a road in West Virginia. Both Doug and Michelle would be arrested the following day. An autopsy would reveal that the young child had been starved to death and had not had any food in “several” days. Michelle would claim that the child was fed the day before but again the medical examiner disagreed.

It does not really seem that in the end anyone disagreed what happened on April 18, 1998, only what led up to that day and just how culpable those involved were. It was said that on that morning Michelle Tharp had gone into Tausha's room and found her dead in her bed. Now she would claim that she had gone to retrieve the girl for breakfast but I am sure there may be only a few who believe this part. At any rate, regardless of her intention it seems clear that she was the one to find her daughter. Michelle would later say that she did not call 911 because she feared that her other children would be taken from her. So, she and Bittinger put Tausha's body in the car (hence why I believe this was likely his car since reports say she did not have one). Reports say that they first went to Michelle's grandma's home where Michelle would call into her work saying she would not be coming in (this is how we know she had a job). The couple then drove around aimlessly apparently trying to decide what to do. They ultimately decided to dump her body in a bush on the side of the road somewhere in West Virginia. It appears that the body was found fairly quickly but whether that was the intention is unclear. At some point, either before or after dumping the body they decided to report Tausha missing.

Both Doug and Michelle would be arrested for first degree murder among other things including endangering the welfare of a child and abuse of a corpse. Doug would strike a deal to testify against Michelle later in her trial. Michelle's defense would later claim that the investigators had obtained false information from Doug so he could get a more lenient sentence but that has not been proven. Michelle would go on trial in late 2000. The prosecution had several witnesses who took the stand and spoke about how Tausha had been treated differently than the rest of Michelle's children. The other children seemed to be at least fairly well taken care of but there were allegations that Tausha had expressed resentment towards Tausha since the day she was born. Doug testified that Michelle withheld food from Tausha and that while the rest of the family ate she was often kept in the pantry or in a corner of the kitchen in essence trapped behind furniture. He would claim that he would be instructed by Michelle to not feed Tausha while she was gone. It would also be claimed, likely by him that she was often restrained in her bed at night to prevent her from getting out to get food. It was alleged that Tausha would sometimes sneak food, whether it be from the pantry, the trash or even from the dog dishes. It was said she would also sometimes even drink water from the toilet just to get nutrition. What Doug's defense to his action was is unknown.

The prosecution would show that friends and family had allegedly called child services but that Michelle had actively avoided them and that this behavior had gone on for years. They also showed the jury that Tausha had not been to the doctor since October of 1993, when she was barely two years old. I believe that part of the reason the prosecution brought these things up was to show that her behavior and lack of care to Tausha began long before Doug Bittinger entered the picture or her life. This of course was not to excuse Bittinger's behavior but in essence could prevent the defense from putting all of the blame on him, as prosecution likely expected them to do. An old high school friend would testify that Michelle had said that Tausha belonged “six feet under in a body bag.” Michelle's step-mother would testify that she had once said she hated Tausha so bad she “could kill her.” Social workers would testify and the prosecution would show that Michelle had repeatedly missed appointment with various social agencies and their ability to reach her was difficult. They would allege that since she did not have a phone they would make unexpected trips to the home but would never receive an answer at the door. The prosecution would allege that on many of these visit Michelle was in fact home but refused to open the door.

Before I get into what the defense would allege I want to put something into perspective. As I stated very early on Tausha was said to be thirty-one inches tall and weighed less than twelve pounds at her death. An average seven year old female is anywhere from forty-six to forty-nine inches tall and weighs between forty and sixty-nine pounds. Now, seeing as she was born prematurely and had so many health problem I would not expect her to be on the high side of either of these statistics and maybe will all her issues she could have been below the low average but these numbers give you and idea of things. As I said earlier I have no idea what kind of lasting effects her birth issues had on her, nor can I tell you what they would have been had she received proper healthcare and just care in general, throughout her life. There seemed to be no indication that Tausha was unable to feed herself. I never saw any kind of report that there was any sort of brain damage that would have made eating an issue. I point this out because there are some who have experienced brain damage in way that not only can affect how they are able to move their limbs (to say get a spoon to their mouth), but it can also sometimes prevent the person from realizing when to stop eating, entirely or at the moment. I have personally seen people who have experienced brain damage continue to shove food into their mouths but have forgotten how to swallow and hence choking occurs. Again though I found nothing that says Tausha had any of these issues. In contrast to that the defense would argue she simply had “failure to thrive” which I will get into shortly.

At trial the defense for the most part would argue that Michelle was overwhelmed in her life between having to be solely responsible for her children, with allegedly no help from any of the fathers, which included not just obviously their care but their financial well being also. They would use this, along with pointing out she had no vehicle or telephone to apparently express just how poor she was, as her reasons for not obtaining proper healthcare for Tausha as well as why and how she would miss so many appointments over the years with social services. They would stress all of Tausha's medical issues but as I stated earlier they were less than specific on just what those issues entailed or just to what extent they caused issues. In my opinion it was a ploy to simply express sympathy from the jury. They would claim that Doug Bittingers testimony was untrue and that Tausha was not deprived of food. It is unclear how or if they even attempted to dispute the medical examiner's determination that she had not had food for several days leading up to her death or the fact that her teeth had been worn from grinding, something that is common in cases of juvenile starvation. The defense would bring up the issue of the child that Michelle had put up for adoption saying that this proved she had a love for children and knowing she could not provide for this child rather than have an abortion or bring the child home with her knowing her situation she had given him to people who could provide for him better than she could. They would also present at least a few witnesses (it was unclear who they were) who would claim that Tausha was well taken care of and Michelle was a good mother.

Prior to the trial the defense had a psychologist examine Michelle to see if she was fit to stand trial. Allegedly the doctor, Michael Moran, had claimed that Michelle's IQ level was 71, which made her “borderline mentally retarded,” that she had impaired logical thinking and analytical skills. But the Moran had found her fit to stand trial and the defense did not call him. The issue of Moran would come up later in appeals. All in all the defense would argue that Tausha was not mistreated, at least not to the extent of death and despite any report that she was fed properly. Now, I mentioned “failure to thrive” earlier and that the defense brought it up. I would gander to guess that many of the readers would know what this means but if you do not, I will try to explain a bit. Failure to thrive is most often mentioned in infants and to be fair I am not sure I have ever heard of it being referred to in a child beyond infant age. Basically it means that no matter what is ingested into the body is not absorbed, meaning the body does not get the nutrition that it needs to survive despite eating. Now you can sometimes hear this phrase used now when it comes to the elderly but in most of those cases there are things such as dementia and other ailments involved. Of course Tausha was said to have other health issues but as I mentioned earlier we only know those she suffered at birth and not later on. Had this been the cause of death with in the first year or two of her life I could have maybe seen it as a valid defense. However she would have not lived until the age of seven if she had this condition brought on by her birth and aliments. To add to this even if we were to believe that Tausha had this condition there is absolutely no record that Michelle ever took the child to the doctor after October 1993, some nearly five years before her death. If prior to this time the child seemed normal and then suddenly developed the condition the weight loss alone should have been visible and at the very least Michelle failed to get her medical attention. Of course maybe, although not specifically stated, the defense was going more for a verdict of Michelle not providing adequate care as opposed to purposely starving the child causing her death.

The jury took less than three hours before they found her guilty on all charges. On November 14, 2000 Michelle Tharp was sentenced to death for her crimes. Sometime after her trial Doug Bittinger would plead guilty to criminal homicide of a child, child endangerment and abuse of a corpse. He would receive a sentence of 15-30 years and in my search on the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections website I could find no sign of him. It appears that he has either died or been released. I also never saw any indication of an appeal, which is often the case when a plea deal is made, but I was very curious about Bittinger. As I stated earlier a psychologist allegedly tested Michelle and stated her IQ to be 71. I would be curious to know if any such tests were given to Doug Bittinger and what those results were. It is interesting, although not unheard of in cases like this, that she, despite her alleged low mentality, was able to control him and his actions. I do believe the prosecution was successful in convincing the jury, and myself that Michelle's behavior began long before Doug Bittinger was in the picture so it would appear she was the more dominant of the two.

As the years have gone on of course there has been appeal after appeal presented to the courts. A September 2011 appeal was completely denied and was the one in which I mentioned the judge inferred that the “proverbial kitchen sink” had been mentioned by the defense. They argued a lot of things, that is for sure. First they argued that mitigating circumstances had not been presented to the jury or not presented strongly enough. They would claim that going back to her childhood Michelle had been abused. Her mother had allegedly abandoned the family, her father was apparently a drug dealer and she alleged physical abuse by her stepmother. Now, remember these were the allegations made and not necessarily the entire picture. Also keep in mind that the stepmother, who apparently at the time of her testimony was separated from the father, testified against Michelle at her trial. Did she really abuse Michelle or is this just an allegation to discredit her previous testimony? I do not know the answer to this. The defense also alleged Michelle was abused by many men in her life when she was an adult, presumably including the fathers of her children.

Next they would argue that Michelle was psychologically “unstable” and referred to her apparent low IQ level. This was an important point for the defense because the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional in essence to execute a mental disabled person. This is what recently executed inmate, John Battaglia, had attempted to say for many years, staying at least one execution while authorities looked into things. And, while the standard IQ level to determine at least intellect is considered to be 70, the Supreme Court has also said that this number alone is not necessarily to be used in decisions. It seems though that there is always someone, somewhere ready to argue against something no matter what has been determined. This appeal also had the allegations that prosecutors had “cut deals” with people, specifically Doug Bittinger, for false testimony. The defense would go on to argue that the sentence was “disproportionate” because, and get this, no one in the state had ever been executed for the starvation of a child. And we wonder why the judge made the statement that he did. The judge had also added that he felt it was the goal of the defense to “impede and sabotage” the death penalty in Pennsylvania.

While the 2011 appeal failed, the same could not be true with the appeal filed in 2014. And strangely, much of the information was the same as what was alleged in the 2011 filing. This time however the courts determined that Michelle was entitled to not a new trial, but a new sentencing hearing based on the fact that they felt not enough mitigating evidence had been presented such as her troubled childhood and her “diminished mental capacity.” The courts stated “there is a reasonable probability at least one juror” may have voted against the death penalty and that vote had to be unanimous to be given.

As of October 2017 not only had Michelle not received a new sentencing hearing but her attorney's were arguing against ever having one and asking that her sentence simply be commuted to life. Their claim now would be that since so much time has passed and so many friends and family had passed away in the last twenty years it would be a violation of her rights to not be able to present all of the evidence they could as to her mental state in 1998. Michelle had been given an execution date in 2005 but that was obviously stayed. It appears as of now (February 2018) that no decision has been made.

While I discount many of the defense ideas as simply ways to save their client from the death chamber and find little to no excuse as the the treatment that Tausha received, it is on the issue of her mental capacity that has me on the fence with this case, not in her conviction but in her sentence. But, in the same respect I feel as if her mental capacity was as the defense described that there were plenty more people complicit in this crime. Family members claim they made reports to social services but nothing came of it. Social services claim they attempted to reach Michelle but she avoided them at every turn. Could everyone have done more? It seems so. However, I am left with a lot of questions that make me wonder if the issue of her mental capacity also was not something that was exaggerated or even faked at least for criminal purposes. I find two things odd that make it hard for me to believe these allegations were true. First, how were Michelle's other children apparent so well taken care of? And secondly, if she was of so low intelligence how would she have come up with the thought of not calling 911 when she allegedly found her child dead, claiming it was because she did not want her other children taken. I have had experience with people with true low mental capacity and I find it hard to believe that this is something they would have immediately thought of in the throws of a traumatic event. I feel as if this answer is something that could have been fed to her, likely by lawyers. I can fully see being asked why she did not call 911 and her answer being “I do not know” and then being asked “Was it because you feared your other children would be taken?” At this point people of true low mental capacity have an ability to tell you what you want to hear or to be fed information and it be relayed later as their thoughts. In the end none of it excuses what was done to this child whatsoever. She failed.... period.