published Tuesday, June 14th, 2011

Police: Man dropped cinderblock on newborn

A Pennsylvania man is accused of fatally striking his newborn with a cinderblock twice because he and his girlfriend couldn't afford a second child.

The parents of the man, Christopher Fitzpatrick, told investigators their son had admitted killing the girl May 28 and burying her near the landscaping business where he worked.

Detectives visited the home Highland Lakes, N.J., home of Fitzpatrick's parents last week seeking his girlfriend, Jennifer Barrise, on a domestic relations warrant, according to arrest papers.

Fitzpatrick's parents told investigators their daughter was with their son and Barrise when Barrise, 28, gave birth in a car. Fitzpatrick dropped them off at the couple's home in Lake Ariel, then left with the apparently healthy baby, a police affidavit said.

Investigators said the girl told her parents about the baby and when they confronted their son, he claimed to have dropped off the baby at a hospital. But he later admitted killing the baby, police said.

Fitzpatrick, 20, subsequently led state police to the baby's body, telling them he decided to kill the baby because the couple already had a 1-year-old child and couldn't afford another baby, according to police.

A police officer from Franklin Borough, N.J., told The Times-Tribune of Scranton for Tuesday editions that he helped Barrise give birth to the couple's first child last year after she went into labor and couldn't make it to a hospital.

Sgt. Jeffrey Smith told the newspaper the birth was a "little nerve-wracking" but "everything seemed normal."

Fitzpatrick and Barrise were arrested Friday. They are both charged with criminal homicide and concealing the death of a child. Fitzpatrick is also charged with abuse of a corpse. Online court records do not list an attorney for either of them.

Preliminary hearings were scheduled for Wednesday.

38
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

sickos! they need to be smashed with cinder blocks!!!

June 14, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.
rolando said...

So what's the difference between dropping a cinderblock and using a pair of scissors to snip the spinal cord and suck out the brain?

Really. What's the difference -- other than the former is illegal [because a doctor didn't do it] and the latter is legal?

Both take a viable life...does anything else really matter?

Is one "nicer" than the other?

June 14, 2011 at 11:37 a.m.
TieraBall said...

@Rolando, who does that??? The whole snipping the spinal cord and sucking out the brain?????

June 14, 2011 at 11:50 a.m.

scientifically a fetus up to four months cannot survive without the mother so it is not considered a viable life form until after 4 months. Murdering a living breathing newborn and aborting a fetus are not the same thing.

June 14, 2011 at 11:52 a.m.

@ TieraBall - exactly. If he is referring to abortion that is not how it works. They give u a pill to induce labor and a machine is used to suck the fetus out of the womb. The fetus isn't snipped or brain-sucked.

June 14, 2011 at 11:54 a.m.
grandmastaj said...

rolando is a sad man.

June 14, 2011 at 12:06 p.m.
rolando said...

It is called a "late-term abortion", TieraBall, and is perfectly legal in at least 17 states, although only one would be needed to meet the criteria of being in the cinder-block dropping category of insane brutality, regardless of what CashingRealityChecks would have you believe. The industry is not all honey and roses.

Another "cute" trick the [legal] abortionists use is to ignore a viable, breathing baby who has survived the abortion process. They let it die by his or herself while off somewhere out of sight. THAT method is truly cinder-block quality. But again, it is legal to "allow" the baby to die that way.

So once again, all you abortion worshipers out there, why can't you identify the exact difference between your choice of birth control of viable babies and that used by the cinder-block dropper? Other that "it wasn't nice"?

June 14, 2011 at 12:22 p.m.
rolando said...

If you support the indiscriminate and wholesale abortion of viable babies, you are the sad person, grandmastaj... I note you could not explain the difference, which is a gratifying thing...since there is no real difference, is there?

June 14, 2011 at 12:25 p.m.

I dont support late-term abortion Rolando for the record.

June 14, 2011 at 12:43 p.m.
dao1980 said...

rolando, you are so very kind to offer your resources to all children brought into this world by parents unwilling or unable to care for or feed them.

Do you have a number, or an address where poor stewards of procreation can send these children?... or the "upkeep" bills they were ill prepared for?

Since eugenics is an extremely taboo subject, individuals who would use cinder-blocks to rid themselves of unwanted kiddos are in possession of "baby making equipment, AND it's immensely immoral to abort....right?..er.. well, you see where I am headed here.

I just want to say thank you for saving the world with your morals.

It's truly super duper of you.

June 14, 2011 at 12:53 p.m.
rolando said...

Excellent, Cashing. I was referring to the viable ones, of course...

June 14, 2011 at 1:22 p.m.
rolando said...

And yet you offer no stated difference between cinder-blocking and late-term [viable baby] abortion, dao. Maybe there is hope for you,too.

As to taking care of the world, I already do that...my own world that revolves around my family, my friends, my neighbors, my local charity work, etc. How about you? Or aren't your morals up to it...pity, that.

A final question: What do eugenics, cinder-blocking, and morals have to do with the issue here? Interesting train of thought you have there. Eugenics, of course, deals with race-improvement...perhaps we would have been better off if the cinder-block dropper had been "eugenicized" early on, huh?

In closing, if people cannot afford kids, they should practice restraint...provided they know what makes babies. Killing them isn't the answer.

June 14, 2011 at 1:36 p.m.
dao1980 said...

rolando,

The difference between "cinder-blocking" and abortion in my opinion, would be similar to.. say, the difference in a vasectomy, and shooting your wife.. to prevent unwanted little'uns. (I shouldn't really have to offer a "stated" difference, as you imply)

And, I mean the whole world... or any part of it that you believe should adhere to your thoughts and ideas on decision making. I personally have no desire to save the world from itself, no self righteous moral conundrum there.

Also, are you not imposing your morals/personal convictions upon others to say you are right in regards to what they do with their own bodies?

And to your "final question" on eugenics, who knows? It may have been better if there was some sort of qualifying process to procreate. Of course that is a sticky wicket for sure... since it would be telling others what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Oh, and all of the "should and shouldn't"ing one can muster didn't save this poor child from it's terrible fate.

June 14, 2011 at 2:13 p.m.
EaTn said...

Some states have a safely surrender law that allows newborns be left at certain locations without prosecution. This action was both ignorant and inhumane.

June 14, 2011 at 2:24 p.m.
Momus said...

Rolando's correct! Abortion, 'cinder-blocking', lethal injection, drone attacks etc are all the same! Taking a life is taking life.

June 14, 2011 at 2:39 p.m.
chet123 said...

where are the so-called pro-life people????hmmmmm

June 14, 2011 at 2:40 p.m.
disneydalton said...

if people used more common sense to prevent pregnancy in the first place they would not have to use abortion wether legal or illegal. there is also always adoption.

June 14, 2011 at 3:07 p.m.
Leaf said...

You've got to be about the stupidest person in the world to kill a newborn instead of giving it up for adoption. I mean, you've got months to come up with a plan, and this was what you decided on? Dummy.

June 14, 2011 at 3:18 p.m.
bluedagger said...
 Let's use @Cashing's logic... He wrote: "scientifically a fetus up to four months cannot survive without the mother so it is not considered a viable life form until after 4 months. Murdering a living breathing newborn and aborting a fetus are not the same thing." Sir, my grandmother cannot survive without taking one of her medications. If she were to skip it for one day, she would be dead by the next. Does that mean that she is not considered a viable life form because she must rely upon something else to survive?
 @Dao1980, in regards to your comment about the poor having babies when they cannot afford them...no one made them have sex. The woman chose to open her legs and the man chose to unzip his pants. That is the problem with welfare today. I hate seeing these "poor" people walking around with 6 uncontrollable children, smoking cigaretts, and drinking Old English 800 when I, as a hard-working man, can only afford one child. I KNOW I can only afford my one, so my wife and I are not going to try to have another. It's called self-control, something the liberals think that we are not capable of practicing on our own.
June 14, 2011 at 3:38 p.m.
chattyjill said...

Why is this story even on the Chattanooga Times Free Press? It is not a local story and is only used as a way to incense outrage from both sides. Shame on you times free press.

Women AND MEN should first be taught about safe sex and birth control. When that fails - as it sometimes does - early term abortion is a completely viable option. I'd have a ball of cells removed from my uterus but I would never bash an infant with a cinderblock. The ball of cells was just that - and nothing more. That's the difference. Adults can live with the consequences of their actions & choices but infants will always carry a heavy burden when they are not wanted or not adequately provided for or abandoned.

Look, abortion ain't the answer but it certainly isn't the worst thing that could happen. Hopefully never but the sooner the better, I say.

If Mr. Fitzpatrick and Ms. Barrise had parents that would accept their choice this situation would have never become this gruesome. But instead Ms. Barrise carried the child to full term and at its birth sent it with its father to be destroyed and then told their parents they took it to a hospital. If they could have cut their losses at 2-3 months and told their parents the truth that they aborted, this horrible disaster could have been averted before the brain developed.

On a side note, this story is poorly written: "Investigators said the girl told her parents about the baby and when they confronted their son, he claimed to have dropped off the baby at a hospital. But he later admitted killing the baby, police said." This makes it sound like the baby's mother and father are brother and sister.

June 14, 2011 at 3:43 p.m.
tarheeljosh said...

My heart hurts to read this story. I wonder why adoption was not in the cards for this child? It seems that we're seeing evil increase around us everyday. We've quit trying to teach responsibility and instead we fight for the ignorance we so lazily enjoy. First and foremost we need to teach the truth: If you aren't ready to be a parent, you have to keep your pants on. There will be no "mistakes" in that case. When there is an unintentional pregnancy, we need to begin adoption education as a very positive, viable option. I will keep my thoughts and comments on the reproductive parties in this story to myself; by my heart breaks for this newborn. She deserved better. She deserved to live. She deserved to be loved.

June 14, 2011 at 4:06 p.m.
rolando said...

Well, dao, unless you are into carrying a baby to viability in your scrotum, that is hardly a valid comparison...but thanks for responding, anyway. Maybe letting your wife die [in childbirth or otherwise] to save the baby would be closer.

The entire purpose of my posts has been to generate thought outside the box on a contentious subject.

June 14, 2011 at 4:45 p.m.
rolando said...

You must be unaware of the most contentious, brutal, and sickening late term abortion going, wildman, that of actually delivering, feet first, all but the head of a viable baby, snipping his or her spinal cord at the neck, crushing the head, then removing the corpse. In my opinion, late term abortions in this manner are hardly done in the interests of "saving the mother's life" since the child is delivered through the normal birth canal. Admittedly, the crushed skull would probably prevent ripping...even so, that is -- or was -- a child delivered.

You made a faulty leap of logic in presuming everyone is like you and needs must pursue a woman for your gratification. There was no pursuit...nor was one needed.

June 14, 2011 at 4:58 p.m.
patriot1 said...

Something begins at conception...when that cell divides...hmmmm wonder what that is? How and who decided life begins at 4 months but at 3 months and 29 days it is just a ball of cells....Pardon me God, I didn't recognize you!!

June 14, 2011 at 5:05 p.m.
rolando said...

So far there is no reasonable difference proposed between cinder-blocking and late-term abortion...both kill a viable baby. Interesting, that. Think about it the next time someone undergoes a late-term abortion.

The SCOTUS has determined all abortions, including late-term abortions, are illegal unless they except cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother from severe injury or death.

Therefore, those exceptions are not part of this discussion.

Another thought provoker -- a shooter who kills a baby while killing the mother is charged with two murders while an abortionist who kills a late-term baby is charged with none. Why? Particularly if the "murdered" baby is not of viable age...

June 14, 2011 at 5:07 p.m.
rolando said...

EaTn -- Excellent point [as always].

June 14, 2011 at 5:12 p.m.
rolando said...

patriot1, I sympathize with your position; although [there is always an "although"] life begins immediately since the cells are independently dividing [fed by Mom], the zygote cannot survive without Mom supplying the necessary support mechanism. In my opinion, when the child becomes able to live without Mom, then he or she becomes a child. That period should be fairly easy to legally define, as well...something vitally necessary.

June 14, 2011 at 5:19 p.m.
rolando said...

Make that "...all anti-abortion legislation is illegal..." in my 5:07PM post.

June 14, 2011 at 5:49 p.m.
Johnnyhurst said...

If God wiped away all of these tears, and flew me far, far away from here. In my heart youd still be near. And after many more years and alot more tears your still the most dear to my soul, over this pain I have no emotional control. And though youll never have a chance, no not even a glance, at the life you were deprived of. I will remember you in all that I do, in this life and the next.

June 14, 2011 at 6:59 p.m.
nucanuck said...

With seven billion of us shooting, bombing, poisoning the environment, life doesn't seem to very precious in this world. Abortion seems no more horrific than the rest.

Jeremy Grantham was quoted yesterday saying that we have overrun the earth's population carrying capacity and need to find ways to lower population numbers. Clearly, educating women to avoid pregnancy would be the preferred method, but men seem to prefer wars and violence.

June 14, 2011 at 8:08 p.m.
mhbraganza said...

No No, life begins BEFORE conception. Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great; if a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

June 14, 2011 at 8:09 p.m.
j2006n said...

Another reason why there needs to be a reduction of the gene pool!!!!

June 14, 2011 at 8:57 p.m.
dude_abides said...

NO! to sex education

NO! to contraception

NO! to abortion

NO! to tax funded child care

YES!to more prisons

NO! to taxes to pay for the prisons

Welcome to Rolando's world

June 14, 2011 at 11:11 p.m.
rolando said...

Wildman -- legislation works just fine; not by punishing the mother but by jailing the abortionist and removing the profit from the act.

But we have gone far afield of the original contention that, absent any opposing idea other than moral belief, abortion of a viable baby is not much different than dropping a cinder-block on a delivered one...it is only a matter of degree.

June 15, 2011 at 7:51 a.m.
dao1980 said...

Mornin' rolando, looks like you went all "chet123" on us yesterday afternoon with the post explosion.

Anyways, I think you missed the point of my sarcastic analogy.. and maybe I am guilty of missing the point of yours.

June 15, 2011 at 8:06 a.m.
rolando said...

Yeah, dao, I did. Problem was there were so many different ones to address. My response to you was, ah, inadequate. Sorry.

Trying to get others to look at things a bit differently and think about what-ifs without forcing the issue or trying to indoctrinate is a tightrope. There is always the other side of the story. I sometimes find myself on the side I don't necessarily agree with or fully support. This is one of them.

June 15, 2011 at 8:17 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.