Queens Man Arrested for Killing of Psychologist
A Queens man has been arrested (via Drudge) in the murder of NYC psychologist Kathryn Faughey:
It is unclear why the man killed Faughey if he was angry with psychiatrist Shinbach but the important thing is, the killer, hopefully was been found.
The NYPD arrested a 'mentally disabled' 39-year-old Queens man, David Tarloff for the murder of Upper East Side psychologist Dr. Kathryn Faughey.
Tarloff was taken into custody in the morning, after investigators matched his prints with three palm prints found at the bloody crime scene, said Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. Tarloff was questioned for about 20 minutes. The interrogation stopped when he asked for a lawyer. Kelly said murder and attempted murder charges were pending.
During questioning, Tarloff said he had gone to the office because Shinbach had him institutionalized in 1991. He said he planned to rob the psychiatrist and leave the country with his mother, who lives in a nursing home, but until recently had lived with him in an apartment in Queens.
It is unclear why the man killed Faughey if he was angry with psychiatrist Shinbach but the important thing is, the killer, hopefully was been found.
posted by Helen at 6:09 PM
36 Comments:
Well, our assumptions were close enough. But I'm thankful now that he has been caught. I don't have to see myself throwing a soda can at the TV.
I guess an institution for the criminally insane will be his next -and final- stop. And, from the reports, I can see that "hell hath no fury" like a husband made a widower that way.
Sounds like Dr. Shinbach kept him waiting too long, so Dr. Faughey paid the price. Mentally unstable people probably can't stick to their plans. Just like you wonder what the NIU shooter had against NIU.
If Shinbach confronted him and was even robbed trying to help Faughey, it's kind of surprising he wasn't able to immediately i.d. his former patient. Sure, people change appearance a lot in 17 years, but you have to wonder if Tarloff didn't shout anything, or otherwise verbally reveal himself as a former patient. (ie/ "You had me committed; you'll pay for that!")
Thank heavens for the recent arrest that had Tarloff's palm prints on file and led the police to him. God help the Faughey family at this time; what a vicious way to go.
Mary,
That man did shout something - "Nobody's helping ME!" - while attacking her, although I really don't think Shinbach would have recognized his voice or guessed his motives from it.
Terribly sad, all around.
And yet the bastard will not be executed.
This, remember, is "justice."
I hear you, man. I'm still a bit miffed at all of it.
I have never understood why insanity is a general excuse in cases like this. I could see it being acceptable if you had someone who was given a high level of a mood-altering drug that made them go nuts while on it, but that'd be because the person really was not acting in their normal mode. Those who are normally that unbalanced should be regarded as probable repeat offenders, not people who are just sick.
Well, thanks to Sen ChuchSchumer and Mayors Guiliani, Dinkins , Bloomberg, even people who work with dangerous people are not allowed to carry a pistol. So, thanks to these "esteemed" politicians, Dr Faughey wasnt even given a fighting chance to defend herself, and had to diein this most horribe manner.
Danny,
My guess is that even if NYC had laws that psychologists could carry weapons, the majority would not. They understand almost nothing about protecting themselves and truly believe for the most part that because of the "humanitarian" work that they do, they are invulnerable to violence. I have talked with many who say they would do nothing to protect themselves in any manner--other than have a buzzer or call 911. I found it interesting that the female patient who was waiting for the psychiatrist in the office was the only one not hurt, she fought back by kicking the killer in the groin when he tried to drag her into the bathroom and then she locked the office door.
I agree with you Helen, but who would really want to see a therapist who had a bulge in their waist from an obvious Glock?
Would give a whole new meaning to transference...
ipsedixiter,
Yes, I see your point. However, I do think psychologists, psychiatrists and others should be trained in self-defense--there are courses to take where you do not use weapons.
As my ex used to say, "Murderers aren't insane unless you find them sitting there playing with the body."
Anyone who has the capacity to go and do and then run and try to hide is obviously aware of the right and wrong of the situation. That in itself should remove the insanity plea.
I agree that the fact that he somehow planned his day - packed a suitcase, now evidently for his invalid mother - might make it difficult to prove insanity. What's the Doc say?
I'm not sure how relevant the gun control debate is in this case. This guy used a meat cleaver. What needs to be controlled is not guns or sharp objects - it's psychos. That obviously brings up civil rights issues. Is it better to deprive a minority of certain rights in order to protect everyone, or to deprive everyone of their rights in order to protect a minority? Or is a compromise possible?
Bugs,
Insanity is fairly difficult to prove. Mental abnormality, such as schizophrenia, etc. alone does not excuse according to any standard of legal insanity. It must also cause the futher condition of incapacity to appreciate right from wrong. He is obviously capable of planning, but then again, so was Andrea Yates and she got off. We don't know all the facts of the case, someone, I assume will evaluate him and let the court know.
I found it interesting that the female patient who was waiting for the psychiatrist in the office was the only one not hurt, she fought back by kicking the killer in the groin when he tried to drag her into the bathroom and then she locked the office door.
...
However, I do think psychologists, psychiatrists and others should be trained in self-defense--there are courses to take where you do not use weapons.
Helen,
I'd caution you from assuming Dr. Faughey too didn't attempt to "fight back" when the man was hacking away at her with a cleaver and knife. No matter her obvious Christianity, I am certain she acted in self defense to the best of her ability.
From the pictures, he looks pretty big and strong. Plus that cleaver and knife... Chances are the woman you are crediting with saving herself via the groin kick and lock was just luckier in the sequence of events. That is, the man was arrested with cuts to his hands too, reports say. If he first took on Dr. Faughey, then the male doctor, and then the woman patient, surely she was dealing with a different monster -- somewhat subdued by the cuts, his own energy expended, and whatever blows the two doctors were able to land.
It's much easier to defend yourself against someone you know to be a threat via screams and perhaps viewed actions than it is to be the first to confront a "fresh" threat wielding a cleaver and knife. Somehow, I don't think we can lay blame on Dr. Faughey here for not assessing the threat quickly enough and simply responding with the groin kick and locked door. I mean it's ugly sure, but think about it in detail -- one well placed whack of the cleaver that she didn't see coming, and no matter all the training in the world she is at a sufficient disadvantage in defending herself. Sometimes, horrible things happen no matter the prior training, and it sounds like this was a risk in her work that Dr. Faughey not only understood, but consciously chose to take in performing her job. God bless her for that, instead of choosing a safer, perhaps less effective path as no doubt other doctors do.
Sadly, in your efforts to explain what you know from your experience, there is a bit of "blame the victim(s)" coming across from those doctors who were unable to defend themselves. Maybe if you really feel strongly about your position re. mandatory self-defense classes or concealed-carry, you could pursue consistently and not use the occasion of such a vicious violent murder to cast indirect blame on the more liberal cohorts in your profession?
Just sayin', that's how it's coming across so soon after the body has gone cold. Luckily, it sounds like Dr. Faughey's spirit lives on, according to descriptions of her funeral service and testimonies by friends and former patients of her life.
*They understand almost nothing about protecting themselves and truly believe for the most part that because of the "humanitarian" work that they do, they are invulnerable to violence. I have talked with many who say they would do nothing to protect themselves in any manner--other than have a buzzer or call 911.*
Specifically, comments like these might come across as more effective if you didn't link them to the occasion of this doctor's meat cleaver death.
Let's not forget: it was the mentally ill sick man at blame here, not the good-hearted doctors who apparently just don't have enough self-defense training, or make naive choices, according to your opinion.
*He is obviously capable of planning, but then again, so was Andrea Yates and she got off. We don't know all the facts of the case, someone, I assume will evaluate him and let the court know.*
Let me just go out on a limb here, not having your scientific evaluation training doctor, and make a prediction: the meat cleaver killer is no way going to "get off". No matter what another doctor might find. Some things are just a bit too obvious: forest from the trees, so to speak.
Mary,
I never specifically "blamed" the professionals involved. I agree that it is 100% the fault of the killer in this case. That said, I do think mental health professionals should be more aware of what can happen in this profession. I think what I am responding to is the denial on the part of many in the field who think that because they do good work, they will not be harmed. This is simply not the case. I certainly did not mean to come across as blaming either of these doctors. Horrible things do happen but what we learn from them is important in preventing other such tragedies.
I never specifically "blamed" the professionals involved.
And for the record, I never said you specificially blamed the dead doctor.
Just that you might want to be aware that was how you were coming across.
Why not continue to pursue your beliefs in the months to come if you feel so passionately, not only when they make a timely blog post, or can be tied to a high-profiile incident.
I think what I am responding to is the denial on the part of many in the field who think that because they do good work, they will not be harmed.
You might start by investigating your theory here. That is, are these professional such as Dr. Faughey in denial of the risks, indeed thinking "because they do good work, they will not be harmed."
Or perhaps it might be more complex than that? That some fully realize the risk, however low, they are taking with their lives, but believe it some important they are willing to risk death in order to perform their work.
(Think of those who believe that young soldiers are stupid to volunteer for a dangerous mission. Or firefighters or police officers working dangerous beats. One might assume they really don't know what they're in for, while others can understand that their fear levels, however high or low, can be overcome because they believe they are performing a higher service with their lives.)
Again, thank God we've got all types working, and maybe spend a little more time trying to understand the mindset of others, specifically those who would choose roads we would not risk travelling ourselves? I suspect there are more doctors like Faughey who see their job as something more than just a paycheck and more a spiritual calling than you might believe.
Maybe it all hinges on one's belief in an afterlife? :-)
Or the suggestions that we may yet identify a "fear gene", present in some and not so identifiable in others?
So much to learn; only so much you really can do when confronted with a unknown man who suddenly reveals a meat cleaver and is wicked enough to begin swinging it at you. Groin kicks, heck, even fully loaded hidden handguns sometimes can only do so much...
The fact is, we don't really know her personal beliefs about her profession, self-defense, or firearms. Maybe she understood the risk. Maybe she was taking krav maga classes and keeping a hogleg in her desk drawer. Maybe she was ready for anything - except for the very specific thing that happened on the day she was killed.
What I do know, however, is that dead people are out of the game. Faughey's "spirit" doesn't "live on" enough to actually help anyone anymore.
"More liberal" members of the profession should probably keep in mind that they can't make the world a better place if their high principles have gotten them killed.
The fact is, we don't really know her personal beliefs about her profession, self
I read an article, NYT, I think, that painted an impressive picture of what this doctor though of her work. And it certainly sounded to me it was more a "calling", rather than a paycheck. Also, as it was a Catholic funeral, and one of her best friends, a nun, spoke about the doctor and her life, we might be able to speculate on her beliefs.
And I don't think it takes a great leap of faith to disagree with this crass statement of yours: "Faughey's "spirit" doesn't "live on" enough to actually help anyone anymore"
You might want to tell that to her friends, family and former patients who packed the pews for her funeral mass, which quite rightly in Catholic tradition is a celebration of life. She lives on, her spirit is with them/us today. I'm truly sorry that your cynicism prevents you from seeing/believing that.
More liberal" members of the profession should probably keep in mind that they can't make the world a better place if their high principles have gotten them killed.
Again, you're indirectly implying here that "high principles" may have killed Dr. Faughey. Not true. A big man, full of anger and sickness and armed with a meat cleaver and a knife and the element of surprise killed the good doctor. Not any "high principles". Please take care of doing a bit of honest thinking before you write. And perhaps you should crusade for change within the profession independently, without glomming on to a high-profile murder to make your dubious assertations. Thank you bugs, and I know it sounds cliched, but I will pray for you and your ignorance. "Forgive them, they don't know what they're doing" and all that...
Don't get your rosary in a bunch, St. Mary. I'll re-write my last comment in simple terms you can understand.
1. The doctor's death was not her fault. The killer was after her colleague; she just got in the way.
2. People who allow themselves to be killed because they believe non-violence is a way of life are no better than suicides.
Thanks for the chastisement, by the way. I hope that someday I'll be as good a person as you.
"Faughey's "spirit" doesn't "live on" enough to actually help anyone anymore"
You know, bugs? You really know not which you speak. Her spirit does live on; otherwise, many of her patients, friends and family would not have showed up at the funeral home, or at the service, or even phoned or e-mailed.
I've been mourning Dr. Faughey, even though I live about two thousand miles too far from the Upper East side and have not seen her in a long time. My sister was friends with her for around thirty years, and I knew her, too. I'm sure my sister is doing or has done something in her memory right now.
So, I'm vouching for her spirit living on. Too bad I can't tell it to pull your shirt and give you a scare... ;-)
2) People who allow themselves to be killed because they believe non-violence is a way of life are no better than suicides.
Thanks for the chastisement, by the way. I hope that someday I'll be as good a person as you.
Oh, I'm not saint. Many of those in the pews are sinners, that's why they're there...
Btw, as not a saint just a critical observer, your second point above is still way weak. Name me 10 people who "allow themselves to be killed".
And again, I'd very much caution you from lumping Dr. Faughey or say, the nuns slaughtered in El Salvador, or even Rachel Corrie say, in that category. (Or the soldiers who volunteer for dangerous missions, or the firefighters who rushed into the Trade Center when others were running out to save their lives, etc etc.)
Sometimes the ones who fear the most and have the biggest guns are the ones who "drop out", either by refusing to do the necessary, potentially violent work or by cowering behind walls, domes, security gates, or just staying inside and reading books about playing "dangerous" games out of doors.
Mary,
Rachel Corrie was pro-terrorist psychopath, please do not lump her in with those other people. She deserved everything she got. People who play with bulldozers get squashed.
I'll pray for you too, alex...
When you don't respect the value of life, someday it comes back to bite you.
I saw an article in our local (Utah) newspaper about catching him and I immediately thought of your blog.
Mary - Do you believe that because you cannot always defend yourself that you shouldn't worry about learning self-defense techniques? You dismiss the patient who protected herself and yet say the other woman died because she was incapable of defending herself. Who do you think is more likely to survive: someone who is afraid of guns and believes only criminals and police have them or someone who is comfortable with using a gun and practices using it several times per month? I'm sure whatever university you went to promoted some type of defense program for women since 1 in 4 is raped, or whatever ridiculously high number they claim.
That some fully realize the risk, however low, they are taking with their lives, but believe it so important they are willing to risk death in order to perform their work.
I was thinking about this when I first heard about the murder. Dr. Helen and other forensic psychologists are brave for dealing with the worst people in our society. But apparently it is relatively safe based on how many they have to deal with.
Serket,
Yes, for the amount of clients many of us see,it is amazing that these stories are so very rare. Some types of cases are more dangerous than others such as workplace violence, fitness for duty etc. to determine if people have emotional problems that preclude them from working at their job. People can get very upset about those--very understandable though.
mary --
Name me 10 people who "allow themselves to be killed".
The names can be found, just google a bit on Jamestown. Hundreds.
If psychologists are mainly just talking with people and helping them to solve their problems, then they probably don't expect to be attacked. I think it would be good if once a year or every few years, they are reminded of possible dangers and make safety plans or train in self-defense to be prepared for the few times when they are in danger.
Oh, I'm not saint. Many of those in the pews are sinners, that's why they're there...
A lot of them are terrible, self-righteous nags, too.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm sure whatever university you went to promoted some type of defense program for women
A private university, not a state school. But safe to say, I knew self-defense well, well before hitting the campus at 17.
Public speaking skills too... I really do think there is something to carrying that "fear" gene, that holds plenty of women back though, until they maybe meet a man later in life and have their confidence boosted a bit.
Plenty of young women enjoy more "dangerous" outdoors and physical activities heck even in grade school, contratry to those gender theories so many like to schill based on their own limited experiences, perhaps.
And I'm pretty good at loading a dishwasher, and knowing how to wash dishes/investigate product appliance purchases before purchasing as well. My fella kinda likes to be with an independent woman who doesn't lean on him too much to teach her some things. ;-)
A rather outrageous level of stereotypes, bigotry and stigmatizing of the "mentally ill".
A. The "mentally ill " are no more dangerous or likely to commit violence than any one else. That has been repeatedly demonstrated. Its simply a very dangerous ignorance ( as a basis for limiting another's civil rights) to represent or assume that "sickos", " psychos" are in someway inherently violent.
People with severe substance abuse problems constitute the folks more at risk of violence-- see January 2008 Journal of Clinical Psychiatry" ( a flawed study).
"Clearly, the public health burden of violent behavior can be largely attributed to alcohol and drug use disorders ".p 20
" The majority of individuals with psychiatric disorders do not engage in violent behavior, and public perception associated with stereotypic violence among individuals with psychiatric disorders appears unwarranted." ( Abstract,p.12)--
read STEREOTYPIC --like this incident. Think of the amount of violence that occurs everyday by run-of-the-mill folks known as criminals...
Sociopaths don't count-- because they are not "mentally ill"-- eg they rarely suffer distress and are often quite functional-- if they don't get caught-- and a part of their "diagnosis" involves commiting exploitive acts.
B . Another stereotype-- that those in the "mental health profession" are uniquely at risk. Thats also offensive and bigoted. Its nonsense. You are far more at risk as a cab driver dealing with non-'Sickos"-- or working at the post office in the 1990s... or being a sales rep in the Women's Department when clothes/accessories go 75 % off... And the risk of death is profound when ladies shoes go on sale...
Its offensive for anyone to represent that those in the mental health field shoud be trained in self-defense, firearms, etc. That is the most ourageous , ignorant and bigoted statement I have read. In prison and explicit forensic settings that is rational, but the person you WANT to see coming at you on a dark street is a guy with schizophrenia-- he will want a cigarette and thats about it- and probably entertain you with some conversation- like an aerospace engineer I know who worked for Boeing.
C. Also-- though I know nothing of this woman-- the idea that the "mental health " field is composed of humanitarians and do-gooders per " the caring profession"-- is laughable.
State psychiatry is a veritable police stae with violation of human and civil rights the norm. The civil rights of the "mentally ill" don't exist now in that context.
see, -- the absurd claim that Britney Spears was a proper subject of involuntary commitment... having "bipolar disorder". Thats chilling. I did not follow closely, but the media wondered why she was released against "doctor's" ( the clown who invented the "bipolar" dignosis to justify locking her up) orders-- she had the money to hire a lawyer and he informed the hospital of the obvious-- they were holding her illegally.
Private 'professionals are typically in the field becasue they have no marketable skills and can sell the snake-oil of psychotherapy. Psychiatry still lacks a rational foundation-- though perhaps in 200 years it will. They are typically hiding out from the demands of regular medicine that they produce measurable outcomes. Psychiatrists are very much the bottom-feeders of the medical profession in talent.
D. Indeed-- I would suggest that when visiting a "mental health professional"-- it is the patient/client/employer who might consider self-defense traing and arming himself-- sexual abuse is distressingly common and emotiomal abuse is extremely common.
Its sort of inherent in a business where you claim you "care" about a stream of strangers for money.
It may be argued that even going to a MHP is inherently a degrading experience-- being effectively judged by people who have little if any demonstrable knowledge or skills. And once 'diagnosed" -- for insurance purposes-- you never "recover". You are forever stigmatized.
From a Woman's View
----If this was a woman bearing the meat cleaver-- she would have a good chance of women's univeral " I wonder what that mean, bad male doctor did to her to make her do that "-- the good female psychologist was a victim, too-- of the same mean , bad boy doctor .. prosecute the male psychiatrist for killing the female psychologist because he 'made" the female "victim" use the meat cleaver when she accidentally attacked the female doctor victim.
Yes-- but since a woman was killed-- even a woman perpetrator would not fare well. Women value other women's lives-- and would never blame a female victim for her own murder-- like women routinely do with men.
By the way-- there was once a guy who had alleged psychotic episodes... was virtually always clincally depressed.. was put on watch by his community due to suicidal behavior... was bed-ridden for 6 months due to mental illness ( aka a breakdown ) and taken car of by a friend... was beaten by his wife so badly and so often that his friends/co-workers noticed the bruises... and he could have been committed several times today.
That man was Abraham Lincoln.
"You people" need to lose your disgraceful, dehumanizing stereotypes about "mentally ill" people.
Post a Comment
<< Home