Wife gets 20 years for repeatedly running over husband

[Ghoulie Girl]

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

[Alanwench]

No disrespect for this woman's kids, that part of the story is tragic. However, I am reminded of a line from "Cellblock Tango,"
"He ran into my knife. He ran into my knife ten times!"

[Jenny Mulhenny]

I think as to the kid being there, when you are 17 and your parents are having trouble, even a step parent, you become part of the marriage and a confidant to the adults. It's not a good thing, but when you look like an adult people start treating you like one.

I wonder how often PIs help to cause murders of passion to happen?

[banedon]

I wish she had been found not guilty. Her husband betrayed, publicly, professionaly, and personally humiliated her and the kids. He made her snap. It was clearly a crime of passion. People need to realize they can enrage and torment others to do things they would never normanly do. He should have remained unmarried and childless.

Yeah. Because betraying someone's trust is justification for brutally running over them...MULTIPLE TIMES...with your automobile.

As I understand it, men often times go into a 'blind rage' and beat up their wives. No one is ever very quick to exonerate them from blame when the wife goes to the cops with a black eye and three missing teeth. But we're supposed to just gloss over the fact that this woman took another human being's life because she was pissed off at him? Nonsense.

I don't care what someone does to you. Unless they are personally attempting to take your life, the life of a loved one, or inflict lasting bodily harm on either, there is NEVER an excuse to use deadly force. Let alone drive over them repeatedly with your car while their child sits screaming in the seat beside you.

This woman has already demonstrated that she is unstable and is psychologically capable of ending a human life solely on the grounds of being angry and humiliated. She has no place in society at all. She has grievously broken the Social Contract that is required of all of us to live in a civilized world and should be locked away for a lot more than twenty years, in my opinion. How much of a leap is it going to be for her to run someone off the road for cutting her off in traffic? Or to beat her child to death because he was playing with matches and burned up her curtains? I've been in some pretty intense 'blind rages' in my life before. But I managed to overcome them without slaughtering the offending party. She has proven that she can kill without just cause. And that means that she can do it again.

Once you have clearly demonstrated that human life has no inherent value to you, you have effectively removed yourself from society. This wasn't a tragic accident. This wasn't a self-defense killing. This was cold-blooded (or in this case, hot-blooded) murder.

I find it laudatory that the man's family has forgiven her. I believe that we should strive to forgive people who inflict wrong upon us or our families. But that doesn't mean I want that woman walking the streets.

[Aries65]

I've been cheated on twice by two different women.
I've never ever cheated once on anyone.

I don't blame this woman for a second for what she did.
Her scumbag husband got what he deserved.
Good for her!

Honey - been there! I'm with you on all that!

Any fans of Wanda Sykes out there - she does a hilarious routine in one of her stand-ups about this case. Portraying the woman running over the man - over and over again.

Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh when I saw it. It was on one of her DVDs.

[lisalouver]

I think that way too. She wasn'tplanning on murder. Maybe she thought the kid finding out would bring him to his senses? I don't know but it all went horribly wrong. I don't think she should have gone to prison either.
The mental torment he put her through should hjave been enough for probabtion. By the way Betty also went thru face ilifts and all of that for Danny Boy , he pulled a lot of the same crap Dr Tooth did.

LMAO - Dr Tooth!

I agree with you though on all points!

[banedon]

Fortunately for society and our legal system as a whole, these 12 jurors were able to think clearly and rationally. I'm sure that at least one of them had been cheated on before, as well. Probably more than one. Yet they were somehow able to look past their own personal feelings and give at least a nod of respect to the law of the land.

I think what I find most frightening about all of this is that so many people in this thread are so unabashedly willing to completely disregard both the law and the entire concept of morality just because they want to stick it to some 'cheating bastard' of a husband.

Then again, I guess its a lot easier to be partial when you know that your decision has no actual consequences or merit. I wonder how many people would sing the same tune if they had to sit in court and watch that video over...and over..and over, then look out at that weeping, psychologically-devastated 17 year old child and listen to her try and describe what happened to her heart every time she heard her father scream underneath the wheels of the car she was riding in.

[lisalouver]

I watched the video, quite a few times.

I still feel the same way.

[RaRaRamona]

Fortunately for society and our legal system as a whole, these 12 jurors were able to think clearly and rationally. I'm sure that at least one of them had been cheated on before, as well. Probably more than one. Yet they were somehow able to look past their own personal feelings and give at least a nod of respect to the law of the land.

I think what I find most frightening about all of this is that so many people in this thread are so unabashedly willing to completely disregard both the law and the entire concept of morality just because they want to stick it to some 'cheating bastard' of a husband.

Then again, I guess its a lot easier to be partial when you know that your decision has no actual consequences or merit. I wonder how many people would sing the same tune if they had to sit in court and watch that video over...and over..and over, then look out at that weeping, psychologically-devastated 17 year old child and listen to her try and describe what happened to her heart every time she heard her father scream underneath the wheels of the car she was riding in.

You're right; maybe they should have found video of him ridiculing her every day, calling her fat & worthless. Maybe they should have shown her before pic & the after, a visual of the surgeries she had to please him. Then maybe they could have watched a tape of him having adulterous sex with his mistress. Perhaps that would be a good time to listen to his promises that he'd break up with the tramp. Then another sex tape...then the car ride around the parking lot.

I'd love to see that.

[banedon]

You're right; maybe they should have found video of him ridiculing her every day, calling her fat & worthless. Maybe they should have shown her before pic & the after, a visual of the surgeries she had to please him. Then maybe they could have watched a tape of him having adulterous sex with his mistress. Perhaps that would be a good time to listen to his promises that he'd break up with the tramp. Then another sex tape...then the car ride around the parking lot.

I'd love to see that.

I didn't claim that the guy was a candidate for Husband of the Year award. But you cannot simply start excusing MURDER just because the victim was an asshole. Not if you want to maintain some semblance of civilization. Where the hell do you draw the line? MANY couples have marital problems. Many couples fight, sometimes very very harshly. My father had lots of choice words for my mother before their divorce. He called her every name in the book. That sure as hell didn't give her the right to brutally slaughter him. You know what she did do, though? She filed for a damned divorce. Same thing this woman could and should have done once she found out her husband was cheating. But no. She was too good and too humiliated to bother with that pesky LEGAL SYSTEM. Who needs a damned court and a divorce lawyer when you've got 4 wheels and a V8?

There's a guy in the office where I used to work who went out of his way to make life unpleasant for people around him. No one liked working with him. Some days, I didn't even feel like going in to the office because I didn't want to look at this guy's face. He ruined other peoples' projects, made an ass of himself, and made the company look bad when dealing with other people. You know how we handled it? Keeping complaint logs and reporting him up the ladder to corporate. Eventually his employment was terminated. No one just decided to SNAP, hogtie the guy, and hang him from the rafters, soaked in tar and pitch.

The law exists for a reason. It exists to protect and maintain a civilized society. You don't just get to arbitrarily decide that some people are above the law because they were angry or humiliated.

[lisalouver]

Hey Ramona,

Here's a site for freeing Clara Harris!

http://www.claraharris.org/

Also, she was found by the jury to have acted with "sudden passion" and that is why she got the 20 years. She comes up for parole after 10 years, which if my math is right is about in 5 years.

[RaRaRamona]

I didn't claim that the guy was a candidate for Husband of the Year award. But you cannot simply start excusing MURDER just because the victim was an asshole. Not if you want to maintain some semblance of civilization. Where the hell do you draw the line? MANY couples have marital problems. Many couples fight, sometimes very very harshly. My father had lots of choice words for my mother before their divorce. He called her every name in the book. That sure as hell didn't give her the right to brutally slaughter him. You know what she did do, though? She filed for a damned divorce. Same thing this woman could and should have done once she found out her husband was cheating. But no. She was too good and too humiliated to bother with that pesky LEGAL SYSTEM. Who needs a damned court and a divorce lawyer when you've got 4 wheels and a V8?

There's a guy in the office where I used to work who went out of his way to make life unpleasant for people around him. No one liked working with him. Some days, I didn't even feel like going in to the office because I didn't want to look at this guy's face. He ruined other peoples' projects, made an ass of himself, and made the company look bad when dealing with other people. You know how we handled it? Keeping complaint logs and reporting him up the ladder to corporate. Eventually his employment was terminated. No one just decided to SNAP, hogtie the guy, and hang him from the rafters, soaked in tar and pitch.

The law exists for a reason. It exists to protect and maintain a civilized society. You don't just get to arbitrarily decide that some people are above the law because they were angry or humiliated.

Obviously I don't suggest people should arbitrarily go on killing sprees or shoot their neighbors, but I am saying BEWARE to those who think they can emotionally ruin someone & get away with it. Drunk drivers & pedophiles get less time than she did.

[lisalouver]

Obviously I don't suggest people should arbitrarily go on killing sprees or shoot their neighbors, but I am saying BEWARE to those who think they can emotionally ruin someone & get away with it. Drunk drivers & pedophiles get less time than she did.

Oh yea. All the time.

[RaRaRamona]

Hey Ramona,

Here's a site for freeing Clara Harris!

http://www.claraharris.org/

Also, she was found by the jury to have acted with "sudden passion" and that is why she got the 20 years. She comes up for parole after 10 years, which if my math is right is about in 5 years.

Twenty years was too long if you ask me. I agree that she should have done some time but that's more than enough.

[lisalouver]

Twenty years was too long if you ask me. I agree that she should have done some time but that's more than enough.

I totally agree.

[baroque1]

Obviously I don't suggest people should arbitrarily go on killing sprees or shoot their neighbors, but I am saying BEWARE to those who think they can emotionally ruin someone & get away with it. Drunk drivers & pedophiles get less time than she did.

Exactly- The problem with The Law- is that it doesnt always protect us. I have very little faith in it anymore. Its not really justice and about fairness and truth. People who emotionally ruin others know this and they have no real value on human life as well. I still believe he got what he deserved. If he had been female I would feel the same.

[baroque1]

ps I have never murdered anyone nor cause anyone harm intentionaly. Do no harm is my hippy mantra...however some evil bastards need to be stopped

[banedon]

Obviously I don't suggest people should arbitrarily go on killing sprees or shoot their neighbors, but I am saying BEWARE to those who think they can emotionally ruin someone & get away with it. Drunk drivers & pedophiles get less time than she did.

He only 'emotionally ruined' her as much as she allowed him to. If she'd had a backbone, any sort of self-image, or any respect for herself, she could have been out of that destructive marriage ages ago.

He wasn't beating her senseless every night. He didn't force her to get cosmetic surgery at gunpoint. She wasn't tied to the radiator and forbidden to leave the house. He didn't find her attractive anymore and he made that clear to her. Even after she knew he was cheating, she still couldn't get the backbone or self-respect to walk out on him.

Obviously, the husband was partially to blame for the situation, yes. But she systematically empowered every single 'emotionally destructive' act of cruelty that he 'inflicted' on her.

Like a certain well-known television personality is so fond of stating, "You teach people how to treat you." She clearly demonstrated to him that she didn't place any real value on her sense of self or her own life. Frankly, if my wife were that pathetic, I'd have left her or stepped out ages ago.

He was a jerk, sure. If he wasn't in love with her and found her as emotionally and physically repugnant as he claimed, then he should have just ended the marriage himself. By all accounts he was indeed ready to do just that when she showed up in a ranting rage and assaulted him and his mistress.

She had endless amounts of opportunity to resolve this situation the 'right' way. Instead, she continued to exhibit flawed judgment at every turn, eventually leading up to her making the conscious, voluntary decision to take another human life.

Both parties were obviously at fault for the situation. No marital problems are EVER one-sided, however you may wish to believe that to be the case. The difference is, he wasn't an unhinged lunatic. He was guilty of nothing more than being a crappy husband. She, on the other hand, is guilty of murder. Whether or not she intended to inflict harm upon him when she showed up that night doesn't absolve her of the crime of consciously and willingly taking another human life.

She deserves every single minute of that 20 year sentence.

[Daphne]

Forgive me for not reading all the posts here, but I remember seeing several TV shows covering this case.. ALL with the running over the husband a bajillion times...
I found it so sad, and albeit empathetic to Clara, she passed a boundary obviously..

[MbalmR]

I agree with banedon. There's no excuse for murder, period. Spin it any which way you want, murder is WRONG and AGAINST THE LAW.

[Daphne]

TOTALLY agreed Mbalmr!!

[Queen_Death_Hag]

I wouldn't have ran him over a kick in the nads would be sufficient for me.

[APYGirl]

I just don't think that murder is an appropriate response to anything. Not cruelty. Not adultery. Nothing.

Put it this way, if the roles were reversed, and David had run Clara over, after she had cheated, and his response was "she made me do it. She said terrible things and banged that guy in the same hotel where we got married!", would anyone still be so quick to excuse? I know that some of you had said you would.

But as I said earlier, I don't think his adultery has anything do with it. She was pissed, and in anger, she killed him. She deserves to be in jail for that.

[Jason]

considering she knew of this affair and the husband told her he was going to end it meanwhile he's still banging this chick and when caught tells his wife "IT'S OVER!!" I can understand why she snapped and killed him, he deserved it for not just ending the marriage in the first place as well as tricking his wife into thinking he was going to end the affair.

[lisalouver]

considering she knew of this affair and the husband told her he was going to end it meanwhile he's still banging this chick and when caught tells his wife "IT'S OVER!!" I can understand why she snapped and killed him, he deserved it for not just ending the marriage in the first place as well as tricking his wife into thinking he was going to end the affair.

I totally agree Jason. Thanks for a males opinion. He promised her he was ending it that night and he loved her and his kids and was going to save his marriage.

Instead, he screwed her again in the same hotel he married his wife in!

[banedon]

From Wikipedia's definition of an 'internet troll':

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem.
Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer's motives. Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities.




Good to see, I suppose, that so many of you in here are lending credence to that definition with these repeated ad hominem attacks.




Rather than bombarding some poor moderator by using the Report feature on no less than five posts in this thread, I think I'll just politely ask you people to start addressing my points themselves, rather than continually attacking my character just because you happen to disagree with my viewpoint or my verbiage. It is insulting to me and demeaning to the very nature of healthy discussion.

[RaRaRamona]

Ramona did you forget to put out your troll repellent??

Thanks for reminding me! It's called "ignore."

[Queen_Death_Hag]

Already used that feature myself.

[lisalouver]

I'm on my way to use it now too ladies!!

[MbalmR]

This may have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but bear with me.

If we assume that other people's opinions are baseless because they conflict with our personal feelings about something, then we effectively shut down meaningful dialogue, message boards and chat rooms all over the place. Give people with whom you disagree a chance to voice their opinions before you hit the report or ignore buttons. If everyone agreed all the time about all things, there'd be little point to these discussion boards. Hell, there would be no reason for politics or religion either.

Getting back to the current debate, it's true that what that man did to his wife was despicable. However, SHE owned her feelings and actions. I'm going to assume that everyone here has felt absolute humilation and rage at one time or another, due to something someone did to them, but none of us have resorted to murder--especially not "over kill" murder, like running someone over repeatedly with a vehicle. Other than self defense, I'm curious to know why anyone would justify this act based on a woman's (or a man's) "hurt feelings?"

Isn't there an "off switch" for rational people to use when they want to strangle someone? No one can destroy your life (outside of TAKING it) without your permission. Feel free to send hate messages to my pm box.

[RaRaRamona]

He wasn't as bad in this thread - in others he is insulting, antagonistic, provoking, slanderous, and just outright rude. I disagree with a lot of opinions & that *is* fun; going back & forth with arguments backed up by actual ideals, not just hateful words with intent to rile people up.

[lisalouver]

This may have nothing to do with the topic at hand, but bear with me.

If we assume that other people's opinions are baseless because they conflict with our personal feelings about something, then we effectively shut down meaningful dialogue, message boards and chat rooms all over the place. Give people with whom you disagree a chance to voice their opinions before you hit the report or ignore buttons. If everyone agreed all the time about all things, there'd be little point to these discussion boards. Hell, there would be no reason for politics or religion either.

Getting back to the current debate, it's true that what that man did to his wife was despicable. However, SHE owned her feelings and actions. I'm going to assume that everyone here has felt absolute humilation and rage at one time or another, due to something someone did to them, but none of us have resorted to murder--especially not "over kill" murder, like running someone over repeatedly with a vehicle. Other than self defense, I'm curious to know why anyone would justify this act based on a woman's (or a man's) "hurt feelings?"

Isn't there an "off switch" for rational people to use when they want to strangle someone? No one can destroy your life (outside of TAKING it) without your permission. Feel free to send hate messages to my pm box.

I appreciate your thoughts Mbalmr. I do. You and I had a nice thoughtful exchange over in another thread. However, more than just myself have had an issue with this someone we have had to put on ignore.

That said, on this issue, I don't justify her act at all. I just state that like some others here, I can see where she lost it. Along with eveything else he did to her, he lies and tells her he is ending it with the other woman that night, then he takes her to bed in the same hotel he married his wife in! I can totally see how she snapped. I really can. On a different note, the ME did state that her husband was only ran over twice (I know, it is still bad) but it was not the overkill that was first thought.

But back to the opinions, yes everyone should be able to state what they think even if it seems crazy to others!

[lisalouver]

He wasn't as bad in this thread - in others he is insulting, antagonistic, provoking, slanderous, and just outright rude. I disagree with a lot of opinions & that *is* fun; going back & forth with arguments backed up by actual ideals, not just hateful words with intent to rile people up.

ITA Ramona.

[RaRaRamona]

P.S. I can either choose to ignore him, or let him bother me with his rudeness & report him when he gets out of line. I thought it'd be more peaceful to ignore him.


Also, yes murder is absolutely wrong & she did deserve time but I think she got too much time for her actions. She was reportedly in some sort of trance when she ran him over - she just plain lost it.

[MbalmR]

Thanks everyone. You see, I welcome these exchanges! I get an education, which I find valuable.

RaRa.........I think 20 years IS a bit harsh. Gotta agree there.

Hey, thanks everyone again for letting me state my "side" and for sharing your thoughts on it all. That's why I love this forum so much--we gots us some good 'uns in here.

[lisalouver]

Thanks everyone. You see, I welcome these exchanges! I get an education, which I find valuable.

RaRa.........I think 20 years IS a bit harsh. Gotta agree there.

Hey, thanks everyone again for letting me state my "side" and for sharing your thoughts on it all. That's why I love this forum so much--we gots us some good 'uns in here.

And no hate mail to your PM box!!! Well maybe another day!

I think the 20 years was a harsh too. I actually hope she gets out on parole in 5 years when she is up for it. I wonder if it will happen?

[RaRaRamona]

And no hate mail to your PM box!!! Well maybe another day!

I think the 20 years was a harsh too. I actually hope she gets out on parole in 5 years when she is up for it. I wonder if it will happen?

We can hope so; if she does get early release then kills another man, I will recant my previous statements of support. How's that?

[lisalouver]

We can hope so; if she does get early release then kills another man, I will recant my previous statements of support. How's that?

Me too.

[ManUnitedRedDevil]

It was the 'lose weight and get breast implants' that drove her over the edge.

That's what I was thinking too! What a jerk! "Sure honey, I won't break up our marriage and destroy our family as long as you get bigger boobs and drop a few pounds." It was like the guy was justifying why he had cheated on her. Don't know if I would/could do what she did, but then again I have never been put in that situation.

[lynnsworth]

Harris' Lover Testifies About Relationship

Bridges Thought Marriage Was 'Open'
DAVID was my cousin





HOUSTON -- The receptionist whose affair with a Houston-area orthodontist led his wife into a deadly rage last July testified Tuesday at the spurned woman's murder trial that she believed their marriage was "open" to other romantic relationships.






Gail Bridges, who acknowledged having an affair with David Harris beginning last May, said she assumed Clara Harris knew she and David Harris were having a sexual relationship based on his statements to her.


"That's what I was told," Bridges said under questioning by defense attorney Emily Munoz.

Munoz asked Bridges, "You knew David Harris was married, father of twins, husband to Clara? And yet, despite everything you knew, you thought it was OK to date David?"

Bridges answered, "Yes. It was told to me by David that they had an open marriage."

Munoz told jurors that Bridges was the only person in the front office to get a bonus every month and received a raise shortly after she began dating David.

"Is it safe to say that as your relationship with David intensified, your salary increased?" Munoz asked.

"Yes," Bridges testified.

Clara Harris, accused of murder after she ran over and killed her husband July 24 in a suburban Houston hotel parking lot following a scuffle in the lobby with Bridges, averted her eyes from Bridges. Similarly, Bridges never appeared to glance in the defendant's direction.

Bridges, wearing all black, took jurors through the time she was hired at David Harris' orthodontic practice in August 2001, to a blossoming romance last April and finally a sexual rendezvous at the Westin Oaks Galleria hotel in Houston on May 4.

At a party later that month attended by both Harrises and Bridges, Bridges said she didn't tell Clara Harris about the relationship.

"I don't understand why I would," Bridges said, because the marriage was supposed to be open. But then she acknowledged to Munoz that she "did feel guilty."

David Harris admitted to the affair on July 17, and Clara Harris fired Bridges that day. When Clara Harris confronted her about the affair, Bridges said she should take it up with David Harris.

When Munoz asked Bridges if she blamed Clara Harris for being angry, she said, "No ma'am, I do not."

A week later, Clara Harris tracked down her husband and Bridges after, according to Bridges, the two spent time in a hotel room at the Nassau Bay Hilton after a romantic late lunch at a lake-view table.

Clara Harris and Bridges tussled in the lobby, and then Bridges returned to her sport utility vehicle in the parking lot, she said. She was standing inside her driver's side door when she said she saw Clara Harris churning through the parking lot in her Mercedes-Benz.

Bridges, fighting back tears but calmly fielding questions, said she did not see David Harris struck by his wife's car.

"Gail Bridges is severely traumatized and has been since the death of the man she loved. She has come in here with post-traumatic stress disorder. She is trying very desperately to do the right thing. She is also trying to protect her children," said Valerie Davenport, Bridge's attorney.

Defense attorney George Parnham has said it was an accident when Clara Harris fatally injured her 44-year-old husband with her Mercedes-Benz.

Prosecutor Mia Magness disagrees, saying Harris, 45, meant to kill her husband.

Earlier, the nanny who cares for the Harris' twin boys testified Clara Harris called her on the afternoon of July 24 with unusual orders: Pack a week's worth of David Harris' clothing in an old suitcase and throw away the rest of his wardrobe.

Maria Gonzalez, who smiled when she described the order, later denied smiling under cross-examination by Magness.

"I put them in the trash can," Gonzalez, through a translator, said, testifying she followed orders without questioning Clara Harris' reasoning.

She said she didn't detect anger in Clara Harris' mobile phone call, which came within an hour of David Harris' death.

Also Tuesday, pathologist Paul Radelat testified his review of autopsy records and more than 50 photographs indicates Harris was run over once, not two or more times as concluded by Dr. Dwayne Wolf of the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office.

However, Magness blistered Radelat on cross-examination, noting his 40 years of expertise primarily was not in forensic pathology, the study of deaths by unnatural means.

Radelat relented that the number of times David Harris was struck "was an area where reasonable minds can disagree."

If convicted, Harris could face up to life in prison. But if jurors decide she acted as a result of sudden passion, she could get between two to 20 years behind bars or probation.

Sudden passion is legally defined as the following:

• Accused was provoked by the victim
• Crime happened at the time of the offense
• Provocation made an ordinary person so enraged that he or she was incapable of cool reflection

[lynnsworth]

David was my cousin..

[lisalouver]

Weird.

I was just thinking of Clara this morning and here the thread pops up.

[cash]

she has been released

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/cl...d-from-prison/

[pkstracy]

I hope she can do well in life, and make up for lost time with her sons and that sucks she can do longer be a dentist, hopefully she can find other work.

[JimC]

I hope she can do well in life, and make up for lost time with her sons and that sucks she can do longer be a dentist, hopefully she can find other work.

Yeah.
Taxi or limo driver maybe.

[theotherlondon]

So when will Melania Trump wake up?