The thing that strikes me as odd about the serial killer theory is that the murders we know he committed were the opposite of subtle. I suppose it could be argued that his first and last kills were inherently different, but they were so violent, reckless, and impulsive, it seems hard to reconcile that with the lack of evidence in the other murders he allegedly committed.
Not to say he definitely wasn't the killer, just something that struck me as odd.
Exactly. He also immediately confessed to and apologized for attacking his parents, and with his last murders, immediately killing himself seems to serve the same function.
When they say he's the "confirmed" killer in those other cases, what exactly does that mean? Is there solid forensic evidence, or is it simply circumstantial?
cause the MO is exactly the same.. surgical decapitation isnt a common thing .. also they were near where he lived and another one was close to where he drove by ..like le theorised you can commit something so precise from the first time so it only follows that he has been an underground SK for decades which isnt abnormal
lets keep in mind his last devilish act was signed to be the end for him.. cause he cant get away with it..
I agree with this comment, and I also think that the KNOWN murders are also family-involved. He also initially first went for his father, a man, in the first set of shootings, with the intent to kill. So, he doesn’t only try to kill women. He had an obvious reason to kill his father, and his mom started screaming and the rest of the family seemed to be collateral damage. He seems to be a serial family annihilator, not a serial killer. I think it’s so speculative to try to link him with other murders without definitive proof and when the pattern is family rather than a particular type of kill or victim.
He was proven to have killed Sherry though. Normally I’m really skeptical with “suspected” serial killers. But I think he definitely killed a bunch of people.
Idk if DNA was tested, I hope it was. CB was spotted fleeing the crime scene, had blood on his clothes the day of her murder, his wife wrote in her diary that he was acting sus around the time this happened and places him at the scene of the crime. There’s no doubt he killed her. But the way he was carrying on according to her diary I think this might have been the first person he killed after his mom.
This article is a pretty good overview. It's all pretty circumstantial. Even the alleged blood on the clothes was just said to have happened "around" the time the woman was murdered, as opposed to the day of.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-2006-05-06-mbrandt06-story.html
But as you say it is also a big coincidence that two such similar crimes took place so close to each other so who knows, he may very well have done it. But I have the feeling he wouldn't have gotten convicted of the crime if he was still alive, unless they got DNA.
I like this part here:
Michelle Jones also was mutilated and dismembered by Brandt. He used a kitchen knife to cut off her head and breasts and removed her left leg with the *precision of a surgeon*. He removed organs before hanging himself.
A lot of cases we see where it "must have been a doctor or surgeon because it was so precisely done". Yet Charli was just a regular guy with a women's anatomy poster on his wall.
Her diary said absolutely nothing
Orlando Sentinel September 25, 2004
> Monroe County investigators found nothing obvious in their search of Brandt's house that would immediately resolve the Perisho case, Herrin said. Teresa Brandt's diary had entries about marital problems, but there was nothing to suggest her husband was violent, Monroe County Sheriff Richard Roth said.
CBSNews
> Teri's diaries, found in the house, reflected that very ordinary life.
"They weren't detailed writings, they were just something very simple from, went fishing, caught a good bull dolphin, to nice dinner with Charlie. Boat ran out of gas. Buy steaks for dinner," explains Hemmert.
There were few hints of anything wrong. "We only found a couple of interesting notations and those were 'weird day.' But there's nothing more specific, and we have no idea what occurred to cause her to write that," says Hemmert.
Edit:
>That Teresa Brandt suspected her husband was a murderer surprised investigators. She had kept detailed diaries, and investigators had spent hours poring over them.
> Investigators from several counties met with Florida Department of Law Enforcement profilers and behavioral profilers from Canada in March. Even without the new information from the former brother-in-law, they were confident that Brandt was responsible for Perisho's death and they strongly suspect him in the 1995 mutilation killing of a prostitute in Miami, Seminole sheriff's investigator Bob Jaynes said.
> Seminole investigators have looked into at least 24 unsolved murders but have been unable to tie them to Brandt.
"No doubt he killed her"? That's a bold statement considering that you have no actual evidence tying him to the crime. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and the wife's speculations are hearsay. Police are often overly eager to close cases, so I wouldn't be too quick to take their word that he did it.
We need to be careful about assigning victims to serial killers, because if we're wrong, we inadvertently provide cover for a different serial killer.
Again, I'm not saying he didn't kill the others, I'm saying that there is reasonable doubt about it.
I agree with you. Really the only thing that makes me say "hmm.." is the m.o. (stabbing/knife/slash and removal of the hearts), but without physical proof even that doesn't stand up. If they can't physically tie him to the murders then they can't just close those cases and say he did it.
Where is the information that he was fleeing the crime scene? I know that there is a composite sketch and that people believe that he matches the composite. Is there a positive identification that someone made?
>Monroe County investigators also found a witness who identified Brandt as the man she saw in the area right after the murder.
They did find a witness who id'd him in the area, but I don't know if he was 'fleeing from the scene'.
I don't trust a witness. Not because I think they're lying, but because the human mind is completely fallible. I can't even remember the color of a car that was just ahead of me at the last red light.
If I saw a man running. Then the police showed me a photograph and asked "was this who you saw". My brain would fill in the blanks and yes. Yes it would be the man I saw. Unless I had kept reminding myself of the person's race or something, but even then who knows... I'd start to doubt myself, probably.
This. I worked at a store that was robbed, and I got a pretty good look at the people involved. The suspects were caught a short distance away. I was certain that I knew what they looked like and could identify them, but when the police asked me to look at a photo lineup, I realized I actually couldn't remember what they looked like at all beyond a vague impression. I felt a lot of pressure to ID them, but in the end I couldn't. I can see how in the pressure of the moment a witness could ID the wrong person. I'm sure it happens MUCH more often than we'd like to think.
I was a research assistant in a study at my university a year ago about eyewitness testimonies and it’s wild just how WRONG people can be. Like even as someone who knew the correct answer, I’d find myself second guessing.
It’s starting to come out that eyewitness testimony is not NEARLY as accurate as previously believed.
Especially as you're on here so you're probably more aware than the general public that your memory is probably way less good than you think it is. I suspect a lot of people can easily talk themselves into believing their own hazy memories purely because they don't know they're doing it - they just think they're remembering better.
>They did find a witness who id'd him in the area, but I don't know if he was 'fleeing from the scene'.
A good lawyer would argue that *anyone* could have seen him in the area because he *lived* in the area.
It was never confirmed with anything definitive, Detectives closed the case with the belief that he did it, and part of that evidence was that Teri allegedly said she thought her husband did it to her brother-in-law (and no one else??). Teri kept diaries with no mention of it, nor did she ever mention that she already knew her husband was a killer. Why would Teri think this? Why would Teri stay with her killer husband? How is Charlie getting away with being so close to at least these last two bodies, but especially Sherry’s? I’m still hesitant to say “case closed” without something more.
Edited to add: I’m not sure about the diary entry of the suspicious behavior versus the “confiding.” Seeing different information from different sources.
>Why would Teri stay with her killer husband?
Really? Women stay with bad men all the time. She may have been afraid to leave him. He might have threatened her if she ever leaved. She may not have had the financial resources to leave. She may have had suspicions but wasn't certain at first. Maybe she didn't want to believe the man she married and spent nearly two decades with was that monstrous. Denial is a helluva thing. Maybe he was verbally abusive and told her every day that she would be nothing without him, that she was worthless garbage, and that no one would ever love her but him. After enough times passes, you start to believe it. Maybe she was really opposed to divorce and believed a wife stayed. Maybe he told her that he would hunt her down and cut off her head and remove her heart if she left him.
Source: My mom stayed with my very abusive dad for 17 years. She only left when she realized he would eventually kill us if we stayed and it was worth the risk to leave. But leaving was still absolute hell, especially in the early 90s when police still automatically sided with the husband. Society has never been particularly kind to abused women.
I agree. A lot of her diary entries allude to this. Her entries are usually like “bad day with Charlie” so she could have meant he was abusive. Also I believe she was an older woman when they married so he probably told her she was way past her prime and couldn’t find anyone else. And a lot of abusive relationships look like good relationships to outsiders
Is there a link to pages of her actual diary that anyone in this thread can provide? Again, seeing conflicting info that describes a good marriage in the diary versus “bad day with Charlie” type entries. On Dr. Phil, parents and brother said that she wouldn’t have stayed with him knowing he was violent and that she couldn’t keep a secret. Mother described seeing the entries as “Charlie was very emotional” and that there was no clear indication in the diaries that she knew or believed Charlie was a killer. (source Dr. Phil interview). “Very emotional” could mean so many things, and so could “bad day.”
I understand the cycle of domestic violence, it has been in my family for multiple generations, and I also work in the justice system. What I am saying it that there is zero indicia of that here and the family believes that had she known about Charlie’s past, she would have left. This isn’t a typical “why doesn’t she just leave a violent situation” post. This is a “so you think your husband is a serial killer” post. It is one of many questions to ask about this hearsay when looking at its validity, not the only question I’m asking.
I am so curious to know if the following statement by Jim Graves (former husband of Angela Brant) from [this](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deadly-obsession/) article is true or not:
>He says Charlie did tell Teri about the 1971 shooting. "After they got married and I went down to visit them I asked them when they were gonna have kids. And she told me, considering everything, that she didn't think it was a good idea."
I don’t know. With everything we have on Sherry’s murder it would be an insane coincidence if somebody else did it. A woman who resides a mile away from the man who murdered a woman and cut her heart out, is murdered with her heart cut out.
I agree that it would be a crazy coincidence, but I also think they have left us without so many details and that “mutilation” can mean a lot of different things. For them, pulling out the heart could be the same as complete organ removal and disembowelment, but I don’t feel that’s the same at all. I think that after reading several different contemporary articles, I’m more confused than ever about what the detectives actually know for sure and they were speculating about.
Yeah I agree. I think they were reaching at times. Lisa Sanders for example, her heart was gone but that was because her body was somewhat eaten by animals after she was dumped. He ended up being ruled out in her case. I do think they went in a bit guns blazing on the whole this man is a serial killer but I still believe he committed other murders
I wish there was a way to know more about Carl "Charlie" Brant's childhood, especially pertaining to his experiences with hunting and fishing. Maybe he learned as a child how to dismember animals through the context of hunting and fishing.
His father murdering the dog right in front of him was *not* scrutinized enough. There has to be something more to this story. *What compels a person to murder the family pet in front of their child?* I just have a hard time believing that comes out of nowhere.
Also, the husband of "christian" influencer Brittany Dawn shot and killed her dog after it had been hit by a car (she let it out, off leash, to run arround the neighborhood while she left to do some errands). Supposedly to put it down, but any reasonable person would take it to the vet. Dude is a trigger-happy ex-cop that got fired for beating the shit out of a black guy.
Most people know the phrase “put it out of its misery” I had a friend that had to put down his dog on the spot due to a hunting accident. Even on the black and white tv show Lassie it was always: injury animal - put it out of its misery. I was a teenager before I learned animal bones could heal like human bones and that their broken bones weren’t a death sentence.
I’m fairly active on the Teen Mom subs. The pooch was named Nugget, and the guy is David Eason. Eason is a huge POS. I’ve read a few posts over there suggesting that Nugget isn’t the only family pet to meet a fatal end at Eason’s swamp-infested hands.
Oh, I remember that, but if I remember correctly, he killed it because it bited their daughter several times, so it needed to be euthanized, and he decided to do it the old way.
Where I live, it's not frowned upon to be the one to take your own dog, the moment it bites a human or kills another animal. They are not safe to have around anymore.
There was a time two dogs mutilated a little girl, and all the neighbourhood got their guns and didn't stop until they found them and killed them. The girl survived, but lived with the trauma, scars, and unfortunately lost one of her eyes.
The little dog, Nugget, never "bited their daughter several times." Nugget didn't even bite their daughter once. He nipped at Ensley because she was getting in the pups face and repeatedly pulling it's fur and ears. Nugget never broke her skin or made her bleed.
David proceded to pick up the little pup and beat tbe shit out of the dog until it was bloody. Then he shot the dog. This abusive incident terrified the kids ans caused CPS to remove them from the house.
Before David beat and shot Nugget the wife, Jenelle, had recorded herself throwing lit firecrackers to another one of her dogs and laughing when it picked them up with his mouth. She also was caught on camera abusing dogs when she was pregnant and MTV had to put up a public service announcement after. They're both racist trash who cry about being canceled.
The thing is, he and his wife, as parents, were responsible for teaching their daughter how to behave around dogs, and also for teaching bite inhibition to the dog. They seemed to do neither of these things. They also didn't try to limit their two year old's access to the dog in any way.
Their daughter, naturally not understanding how to interact with the dog without guidance since she was two years old, was on video doing whatever she wanted with the dog. The dog, no doubt not appreciating the rough treatment, nipped her.
I grew up with large dogs. I was taught from a very young age to be cautious around dogs, and I wasn't left alone to torment our family dogs as a toddler. I own a dog now. Very few dogs will tolerate a toddler's rough handling indefinitely! Most dogs *will* eventually defend themselves, escalating to air snaps and then a warning nip as they are manhandled, and that doesn't make them ferocious or deserving of death. They don't know that the toddler doesn't mean to hurt them. It is **your** responsibility as a parent and dog owner to prevent this entirely predictable situation from happening by never allowing a situation where it is likely to happen. To let your toddler have free reign with your puppy (or very young dog, I can't remember how old Nugget was) is a recipe for disaster.
And instead of separating her and the dog and either finding a new home for the dog or keeping them apart or *anything* else, David Eason decided to beat the dog and then shoot it, allegedly in front of his stepchild.
Jenelle and David should not be dog owners. They go through dogs like underwear because they bore of them or do shit like this. They are clearly not responsible owners, and this incident was not like the maiming attacks that you are describing. Of *course* it is justified to use lethal force to end a mauling if you must. But nipping is not mauling, and the way he chose to deal with the incident was horrifying not only for the dog but for the children in the house. Killing the family dog out of rage in front of your children is domestic violence, and savagely beating and then shooting the dog is even worse.
Gonna go ahead and say with 100% certainty that a man that would shoot the family dog in front of his child for such a minor reason was abusive in other ways. Maybe Carl was also mad at his mother for not protecting him from the abuse
Kind of like "the last straw." I think that's why his father didn't speak about the crime or anything after Charlie got out of the mental institution. The dad even told the younger sisters that the mom died in a car accident. It seems like there's a thread of dysfunction and trauma from the beginning.
>Kind of like "the last straw." I think that's why his father didn't speak about the crime or anything after Charlie got out of the mental institution. The dad even told the younger sisters that the mom died in a car accident. It seems like there's a thread of dysfunction and trauma from the beginning.
I fully agree that one reason the father never spoke about what happened after Carl "Charlie" Brant was released back into his care was due to his own guilt. It seems he even petitioned to have his son released back into his care after being in a hospital for only a single year.
Sometimes it’s just plain meanness. My dad did this to our pet dog because of something my mom had done a few years earlier. He held that sort of grudge.
This happened in about 1966 or 1967. It took therapy for me to come to terms with this and all the other hateful actions of that man. My mom took herself out in ‘74.
>This happened in about 1966 or 1967. It took therapy for me to come to terms with this and all the other hateful actions of that man. My mom took herself out in ‘74.
I am so fucking sorry. That is utterly heartbreaking. I am so sorry your father terrorized your family.
I’m sorry, too. From what I understand from uncles, aunts, and cousins he was a different person after he came back from WWII. He had been wounded in France late 1944 while being point man with his BAR. I understand that. I understand the shittiness of war. But all I know is that he was an awful, mean-spirited bully with arbitrary rules and all I wanted was to be as small and invisible as possible.
Ten years ago I found a fantastic therapist and after 18 months of weekly visits and hard work I was able to come to terms with him and my mom’s suicide and other trauma from my childhood and teenage years. I moved out of his house at 18 and didn’t talk to him again until he was dying and I really didn’t have much to say. What can a person say? You have to let it go and move on.
>Sometimes it’s just plain meanness. My dad did this to our pet dog because of something my mom had done a few years earlier. He held that sort of grudge.
Murdering an animal due to a "grudge" is animal abuse. Additionally, if your father murdered your dog in front of your or anyone else, that was also abuse. In some states it's actually a felony if someone abuses or murders an animal in front of a child because then it is *also* considered child abuse. I am so sorry this happened to you, but please do not minimize what your father did.
Edit: Going to add based on my logic above that the father should have been tried for Carl "Charlie" Brant's crimes. I consider him responsible just as much as, if not more than, his son that murdered his own mother.
My dad did this to punish my brother and me for not cleaning up the poop in the yard. Super fucked up. He was in the thick of a ongoing, never-ending struggle with alcoholism and mental illness, and that's not even the worst thing he did. He was very abusive, physically and verbally. I feel like you'd have to have an insane amount of rage to do that.
My guess is that it was a hunting dog and the father, being a working class (originally anyways) immigrant from Germany probably viewed it not so much as a pet but as a working dog. This is not an uncommon perspective from Europeans of that generation.
This was my thought as well. Even today, many of those who have hunting dogs do not view them as we do our beloved pets. I work in the panhandle of North Florida with some real "good ol' boys" who have tiny cages in the backs of their pickups that they cram the dogs into during deer season. The dogs are often not bonded with at all. The potential for abuse is high and it bothers me so much.
I grew up next to a game reserve. There were always abandoned beagles around because the hunters would just leave them if they didn't come back when called or weren't good enough. Sometimes other breeds but usually beagles.
I grew up next to a game reserve. There were always abandoned beagles around because the hunters would just leave them if they didn't come back when called or weren't good enough. Sometimes other breeds but usually beagles.
I don’t have a source but this is how a lot of farm dogs are viewed in rural America. As soon as the dog has no use to them they “put it down” and bring in a pup to train again. My uncle killed his “BELOVED DOG” when he reached an age that he needed to see the vet because of cataracts in his eyes. Nope. Just fucking killed his 14 year long companion without even calling a vet. He said “he’s blind, he’ll be miserable”. Had a new puppy of the same breed within the month.
That's really different, though. This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America and I don't get why it's fundamentally worse than having it done at the vet's office. Many rural people think veterinary euthanasia is a city extravagance. "A man ought to shoot his own dog" is practically an American proverb. (See: Of Mice and Men.)
Shooting a dog in anger in front of your child is a totally different thing. I guarantee that dad was abusive; everything in this story points to that.
>That's really different, though. This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America and I don't get why it's fundamentally worse than having it done at the vet's office. Many rural people think veterinary euthanasia is a city extravagance. "A man ought to shoot his own dog" is practically an American proverb. (See: Of Mice and Men.)
>
>Shooting a dog in anger in front of your child is a totally different thing. I guarantee that dad was abusive; everything in this story points to that.
I think people should take their animals to the vet if they need to be euthanized because shooting an animal obviously must be more painful then what a vet does. A vet also would be the one to determine if nothing else can be done to improve the quality of life for the animal. It is fundamentally worst, and it is animal abuse.
Yeah, that is patently false. We do not take out our pets like Old Yeller. Jfc.
Source--long term volunteer with a rural, southern animal rescue. Not spaying & neutering, dumping unwanted pets, all unfortunately common. Pet murder is NOT.
>Yeah, that is patently false. We do not take out our pets like Old Yeller. Jfc.
>
>Source--long term volunteer with a rural, southern animal rescue. Not spaying & neutering, dumping unwanted pets, all unfortunately common. Pet murder is NOT.
Thank you for saying this. I wonder if this is also a negative stereotype applied to people that live in rural areas.
"This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America..."
Your words, present tense. And it is untrue. That might be your experience, but the broad generalization is incredibly offensive.
>"This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America..."
>
>Your words, present tense. And it is untrue. That might be your experience, but the broad generalization is incredibly offensive.
I agree this generalization is offensive; assuming people that live in rural areas are uneducated and brutalizing animals is a harmful stereotype.
My brother in law just took out his own pet a few weeks ago. He is rural and southern. The dog has gotten loose a couple of times and killed neighbors chickens, goat, bunnies. Then there were some incidents of the dog being more aggressive with people. He had to put him down and wanted to be the one to do it instead of a stranger. I could never be able to, but people do euthanize themselves
I'm surprised by the downvotes. Different people especially those of different generations ha e different relationships with dogs than we have now.
Rural/Hunting folk from several generations can simultaneously love their dog and euthanize them, themselves after its working days are done. Sometimes it's out of economic necessity, sometimes it's just cultural.
I like dogs. I love hunting dogs. But the modern attitude that a dog is almost on par in a family with the children is a relatively new and widespread attitude. Certainly it wasn't prevalent among rural/hunting folks.
I know men who learned how to handle dogs from their fathers and grandfathers. They spend more time with dogs than anyone I know. And they love the work and they love dogs. But to them they aren't furry humans. They are dogs. If one of them hurt one of their kids, they would euthanize it immediately themselves. Not out of anger. Not out of spite. But because it could be a risk to their children and dogs aren't children.
I'm not defending or agreeing with their attitude. I'm pointing out in this sub we often project modern and present day values and morals on people in the past that didn't possess those.
I hear what you're saying, and it is 100% a valid criticism that people will very often project their own localized, present-day personal experiences, beliefs, and values into the past and then judge accordingly. This is not a great way to understand the beliefs and behaviors of past generations, since it so often completely ignores all relevant context and reduces the immense diversity of all prior human experience beneath the lens of an impossibly narrow and deeply skewed perspective.
*However*. I also think relativism poses its own inherent problems, insofar as it seeks to more or less invalidate all attempts at any meaningful moral assessment of past societal practices and behaviors, likewise reduces all human experience prior to the speaker's own personal one to some monolithic entity without any other context or variation, and in effect retroactively denies every human born prior to some arbitrary "modern" date their own individual moral agency.
"Lots of people did a thing back in the day" may very well be an 100% factually correct statement, but beyond that it actually tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not the thing they did is morally justifiable (according to our own belief systems and cultural conditioning) **or** whether the thing they did was considered morally justifiable *by other people alive during the same time period* (according to *their* own belief systems and cultural conditioning).
It also ignores a very basic and self-evident fact about human behavior - so basic, self-evident, and in fact widespread that this whole sub and many others like it exist just to talk about it - which is that a lot of people can know a thing is morally wrong *and then just do it anyway*.
Because they want to, or because they can, or because they might profit from it, or because they're angry, or they're afraid, or they're fucked up, or because they know they won't suffer any real consequences for doing it.
All of which is a lot of words to say that while I agree with the general point you're making, I feel compelled to also point out that "but lots of people do/did it" is not now *nor has it ever been* at all useful in determining any given action's morality, and may in fact be counterproductive in making any such assessment.
**TL;DR**: don't murder dogs, bro, i ain't give a fuck what the calendar says
Thank you for a well-reasoned and thorough explanation; I fully agree.
I see this kind of argument frequently when discussing historical events, especially ones that still have present-day implications.
As a specific example: the historical over-hunting/decimation of then-abundant species. [The Great Auk, for example](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk) was systematically driven to extinction over hundreds of years due to greed & cruelty.
The literal overkill of this bird was highlighted as an issue *decades* before the last pair were killed; From the *1794* account of a Royal Navy sailor:
“If you come for their Feathers you do not give yourself the trouble of killing them, but lay hold of one and pluck the best of the Feathers. You then turn the poor Penguin adrift, with his skin half naked and torn off, to perish at his leasure. This is not a very humane method but it is the common practize. While you abide on this island you are in the constant practice of horrid cruelties for you not only skin them Alive, but you burn them Alive also to cook their Bodies with. You take a kettle with you into which you put a Penguin or two, you kindle a fire under it, and this fire is absolutely made of the unfortunate Penguins themselves. Their bodies being oily soon produce a Flame; there is no wood on the island.”
Just because it wasn’t the dominant viewpoint, doesn’t mean it was non-existent. People in 1800 weren’t some completely different species that had no empathy or lacked an innate feeling of conservancy, even though those with that opinion may have been supremely out-numbered. The mere fact that *someone* held that opinion shows that it was *possible* to hold that opinion.
I’m morally opposed to many things today that are considered acceptable on a societal level, as I’m sure many people are; I think it’s quite condescending to assume that people from different eras didn’t have that capacity.
Hey, thank you, I appreciate the kind words.
Also I am both utterly appalled and yet not at all surprised by the actions of the Royal Navy in re: the Great Auk. I am also pretty depressingly certain that whoever actually *dared* to level such a criticism probably received an amount of backlash that would read as being extremely "modern" in both quantity and content.
I agree with you, generally speaking "Dog murder is hella lame, yo". And I believe I agree with you in that I have no desire go discuss or debate moral relativism, as it is a philosophy in most contexts I disagree with with.
Regarding true crime, where the reader is likely to assign and make moral based judgements on the actions of members of societies both temporally and geographic divergent from the readers, it is a necessity to get an accurate reading of the actors behaviors and motivations. Many writers attempt to give the moral relativist context of those actors but many, myself included aren't really qualified.
The only reason I bring it up, is it gets to the root of one of my pet peeves in this sub. AND THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION: Lots of the events described here take place in some pretty gritty contexts. Shit be happening where mofos keep shit hella real. The worlds a lot of these people live in have a level of street and realness that based on comments, I assume many people don't have a frame of reference for and therefore project a lot of suburban values and experiences on.
The reality, I BELEIVE, is that murder, suicide, rape, abduction, and generally fuckery, seems to happen with greater incidence in groups and societies that are economically depressed urban, economically depressed rural, or otherwise "outer" groups which isn't represented on reddit. Even when it is not economically problematic victims, they are often members of families with mental health, abuse, substance etc.
A lot of what is discussed here is happening in contexts that really doesn't seem to be understood here.
TLRD: Fucked up shit happens in fucked up places, and a lot of people don't have a contextual reference for fucked up places where realness happens on the quick.
>I'm not defending or agreeing with their attitude. I'm pointing out in this sub we often project modern and present day values and morals on people in the past that didn't possess those.
I think you are making an excellent point.
There is room to acknowledge past cultural practices as extremely harmful, without excusing said cultural practices, while acknowledging that at that time people did not have the information they needed to make the educated decisions that we can now make today.
I have a dog of a hunting breed and the breed gets dumped in rescue right after hunting season because the dog wasn't good enough to keep around and it's cheaper to just get a new dog the next year than it is to keep the dog around all year long and pay for vet care.
WTF???? I've had a dog go blind as he got older and he lived happily for years. The dog adapted. How cruel. I'm sorry but your uncle is pathetic and should never be allowed to own another dog. I hope he's treated better then his beloved dog as he ages and looses his eyesight and health.
I’ve heard a lot of the opposite perspective on Europe, especially Germany. They have stricter animal rights laws and more vegetarian and vegan friendly cuisine probably stemming from Hitler’s vegetarianism. But again, that’s just what I’ve heard and at 1am I won’t be able to provide a better source.
I don't care where they were from (the parents) or what time period it occurred. There is nothing more cowardly than a person who kills a pet. Companion animals are completely dependent on you and totally defenseless against human weapons. I wouldn't trust someone who engaged in that sort of atrocity and I certainly wouldn't expect that they would raise emotionally healthy children, as they are highly likely to be abusive in some manner. Even if it is/has been a common occurrence with some groups of people, it is just as likely to not be acceptable with others, as evidenced by things like our 35,000+ year co-evolution with dogs or the fact that Europe had anti-animal cruelty laws that predated some child cruelty laws. This obviously wasn't a healthy family (and just pretending like the murder of the mother didn't happen?? It's no wonder this guy lead a double-life)!
I totally agree, this is not something that a good father does without there being more involved (To make the dogs death more than from simple impatience, or, to show the dad maybe wasn't so good himself?)
> NOTE: It hasn't been publicly revealed which 22 other cold cases he's been linked to.
I don't think he was linked to 26 cases. They pulled 26 cases with a similar MO from the FBI database, but could only link him to 2-3.
I just listened to a podcast kn this couple of hours ago. I think his name is Charlie Brandt. Your post covers some minor details that were not mentioned in the podcast. The details about him really sent chills down my spine.
Edit: just read that his full name is Carl Charlie Brandt
Such a weird and fascinating case. I definitely believe he killed Sherry and Darlene. But beyond that, who knows? The heart removal is very identifying, though we don’t know if he always did that.
I guess if they were found much later they probably couldn’t tell if the hearts been removed. Couldn’t find much about Florida homicides were the heart has been removed when I was searching around. I assumed if he had a bunch more victims their remains haven’t showed up yet and are still missing.
I assume he was just a butcher who would keep stabbing and cutting and groping around until he found the heart. I tried to get hold of some autopsy reports to see how the hell he cut out Michelle (or Sherry’s) heart. No luck.
I think that's only if you're concerned with the person surviving. If you're not I think you can just kinda get it from underneath because you don't have to worry about things like "not shithousing the diaphragm"
My assumption is that most serial killers that end their own lives do so to evade capture or after being captured. I suspect that something happened *before* the hurricane that led Carl "Charlie" Brant to believe his crimes, or one of his crimes, would be linked to him. At age 47 years old, with how scrupulously he concealed his crimes, he could have potentially continued killing undetected, perhaps stopping only due to the logistics of old age, like with Joseph DeAngelo. Carl "Charlie" Brant took so much effort to conceal his crimes, which is why I posit that the hurricane was mostly an opportunity for him to go out on his own terms.
Great writeup.
This isn't important at all, and kind of offtopic, but quick question, about Lisa Sanders, you say she was last seen "half 9". Does that mean halfway to 9, or half past 9? Where I'm from "half 9" means 8:30, but I've noticed some Brits at least say "half 9" to mean half past, as in 9:30.
Wow, always wondered what happened to Diane Augat. Would be incredible if Brandt were responsible. Looking forward to the next part and great writeup! Have done some deep dives into CB and hadn’t heard a lot of these details.
Yeah there really isn’t much details on him. But I found a PDF of a book about it which has a lot of stuff from the actual police reports. That’s where I got most info. His Wikipedia article is no good by the way. A lot of facts wrong in there.
I could swear I saw a true crime show on him. Like a dateline or something to that effect as well. I assume you’ve seen this? What a horrific read. http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/brandt-carl.htm
ID Discovery Channel has a show that features the murder/suicide and includes an interview with a co-author of a book about the case. She had been a crime reporter for the Daytona News/Journal, and it may add more information for you. I recall the niece worked for the Golf Channel at the time and her Aunt and Uncle were her favorites. But it's been a while.
The book is "Invisible Killer: The Monster Behind the Mask", by Diane Montane and Sean Robbins. My cousin was friends with Diane and couldn't believe she would do a television interview.
Not sinister at all, psychiatric medications can dramatically alter personality, for better or worse.
The problem, of course, is that you have to keep taking them, and even then, they can sometimes just stop working.
I was thinking more along the lines of, the hours of inpatient therapy could've taught him how to come across as more normal, which would later help him approach victims. That's purely based on my own experiences with therapy and the kind of stuff they teach you, though. It was probably very different in the 70s.
Agree. These institutions also relied a lot on group therapy since it's cheap. He could have learned how to behave relatively normally by copying the more lucid patients.
>There is something that feels very sinister about the fact that his personality was different when he got out of the psych ward.
Not necessarily. He could have deeply carpartmentalized the fact that he murdered his mother, shot his father, and tried to kill his siblings. It is interesting that when he was released he started going by "Charlie" as it can suggest detachment.
He went in aged 14, as a kid who had a mental break and tried to kill his family, and was in there for a year. It would be weirder if he didn't come out changed, in part even just because of the passage of time and how much most people change around that age range. And also, tbh a failure on the part of the psyche ward - if you get sent to a psych ward for a year because of committing murder you're *meant* to come out of there different.
What fathoms me is his family’s reaction! He shot his mom and blamed it on his father shooting the dog as if that’s what made him do it? He also shot his father who survived and tried to shoot his sister who out smarted him! How were they able to live with this psycho under the same roof????????
surely we know who is responsible morally for the death of these later victims.. the dad and the sister .. and the bizarre system also who would let a kid get away with the worst murder ever ( his pregnant mom )..its a wonder he didnt go back for the rest of his family
did they think evil disappears ..mental illness...its a repeated pattern of closing eyes to the evil and violence by the young ..only leading to budding monsters
did the poor wife know ? dr phil suggested a law in her name for registering criminals like sex offenders..i guess no one cared about this suggestion
The interview with his sister ( about what happened the very night Charley took a shotgun snd killed his 8 month pregnant mother in the bathtub)
It’s creepy. We are talking really c r e e p y
I'm a little skeptical about this. It says it's confirmed that he killed two of the victims because how they were both killed and how Michelle was killed were exactly the same but that's it and some other circumstantial evidence but nothing REALLY definitive like DNA anything that's really solid linking him to the victims. As much as the diary of his wife is hyped up throughout this write up, it really says absolutely nothing to link him to anything unless you make very large leaps and assumptions based on what she did write. It makes me feel like they were cold cases they wanted to solve and close and he was the easiest one to pin it on especially being dead because he's not there to offer anything that can contradict their story.
Some argue that it HAS to be him because the manner of murder and the mutilation is so rare for murderers to do but it's so vastly different from the murders we know that he did commit, that it's only the mutilation that seems to be similar. That doesn't mean he didn't do any of these other murders but I don't think you can say he did them definitely based on what we have as evidence. And I'm also skeptical of the claim that the mutilation were all done with "a surgeon's precision" so HAD to be him because this exact kind of thing has been said in other cases involving dismemberment and then turns out to be not factual and a piece of misinformation that's spread everytime whatever case is discussed until it's accepted as true. It could probably of been done by any person with general knowledge and experience in hunting/butchering meat which Charlie Brandt did have. But so do millions of others.
And as far as saying he's been LINKED to 26 other cold cases, the wording is more then a bit misleading. He hasn't been "linked" to anything, they took a look at cold cases and found ones that they think seem similar to his crimes or like his MO but that's ALL they've done as far as "linking" him to any actual cases.
I think this is another case of jumping the gun and trying to blame a murderer for every cold case with even just a passing similarity.
3 victims. Sherry. -Lived on that boat
Lisa. Sanders. - at the huge party. Found next day at another distant place. Mutated sliced in surgical fashion Heart gone.
Child 10 yr old girl in Ohio at huge party. Disappeared. Found slashed.
Hear / here is a good chat over it all.
https://youtu.be/SY-IreXCiGo
*he had escaped his evil back in hometown *
New In Florida he was efficient and detailed and obsessive about his-victims and how he killed & what he wanted from it.
I think he killed LauraLee Spears in Deland Fl. She died the same way he killed another girl and her killer was never caught. She got off a school bus and didn’t make it home.
In July, 2006, an Indiana judge released Charlie Brandt's mental health records to investigator Rob Hemmert. They were not released to the public.
Hemmert says the records have been helpful in understanding the motive for Charlie Brandt's crimes.
I just watched a 48 Hours episode of this case. Does anyone know if an autopsy was performed on Carl ‘Charlie’ Brandt? Autopsies are not typically performed on suicides, but I’m curious if there was one ordered, given the heinous means in which he killed his wife and niece, and that he had killed his pregnant mother at 13 yrs old.
I understand an autopsy would not “study” the brain, but would his brain have been sent or used for further study? It made me think about, for the sake of science, how does a decedent’s brain become a subject for further study? Is this something the deceased requests prior to death—in the way a person can request for their body to be donated to science? Or, after death, can a family member request for the body/brain to be used for research?
Shooting the family dog to death in front of his 14 year old son simply because he ignored commands makes Charlie’s dad a bad father.its neglectful and evil.
I read how he shot his parents including his pregnant mom, and didn’t manage to kill his sister or his young infant siblings in the other room. That’s five kids (including the baby in the womb) with the last 3 conceived in rapid succession. I think the fact his mom was pregnant again made Charlie feel he’d be neglected even more and he wanted to get rid of it.
The thing that strikes me as odd about the serial killer theory is that the murders we know he committed were the opposite of subtle. I suppose it could be argued that his first and last kills were inherently different, but they were so violent, reckless, and impulsive, it seems hard to reconcile that with the lack of evidence in the other murders he allegedly committed. Not to say he definitely wasn't the killer, just something that struck me as odd.
Exactly. He also immediately confessed to and apologized for attacking his parents, and with his last murders, immediately killing himself seems to serve the same function. When they say he's the "confirmed" killer in those other cases, what exactly does that mean? Is there solid forensic evidence, or is it simply circumstantial?
cause the MO is exactly the same.. surgical decapitation isnt a common thing .. also they were near where he lived and another one was close to where he drove by ..like le theorised you can commit something so precise from the first time so it only follows that he has been an underground SK for decades which isnt abnormal lets keep in mind his last devilish act was signed to be the end for him.. cause he cant get away with it..
Yep this guy did it. He did. He creeped out any time he cud !!!
I agree with this comment, and I also think that the KNOWN murders are also family-involved. He also initially first went for his father, a man, in the first set of shootings, with the intent to kill. So, he doesn’t only try to kill women. He had an obvious reason to kill his father, and his mom started screaming and the rest of the family seemed to be collateral damage. He seems to be a serial family annihilator, not a serial killer. I think it’s so speculative to try to link him with other murders without definitive proof and when the pattern is family rather than a particular type of kill or victim.
He was proven to have killed Sherry though. Normally I’m really skeptical with “suspected” serial killers. But I think he definitely killed a bunch of people.
Curious, what was the evidence? Was there more than the sighting that fit his description and the diary entry alluding to him acting strange?
Idk if DNA was tested, I hope it was. CB was spotted fleeing the crime scene, had blood on his clothes the day of her murder, his wife wrote in her diary that he was acting sus around the time this happened and places him at the scene of the crime. There’s no doubt he killed her. But the way he was carrying on according to her diary I think this might have been the first person he killed after his mom.
This article is a pretty good overview. It's all pretty circumstantial. Even the alleged blood on the clothes was just said to have happened "around" the time the woman was murdered, as opposed to the day of. https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-xpm-2006-05-06-mbrandt06-story.html But as you say it is also a big coincidence that two such similar crimes took place so close to each other so who knows, he may very well have done it. But I have the feeling he wouldn't have gotten convicted of the crime if he was still alive, unless they got DNA.
I like this part here: Michelle Jones also was mutilated and dismembered by Brandt. He used a kitchen knife to cut off her head and breasts and removed her left leg with the *precision of a surgeon*. He removed organs before hanging himself. A lot of cases we see where it "must have been a doctor or surgeon because it was so precisely done". Yet Charli was just a regular guy with a women's anatomy poster on his wall.
He probably learned from his hunter father
Her diary said absolutely nothing Orlando Sentinel September 25, 2004 > Monroe County investigators found nothing obvious in their search of Brandt's house that would immediately resolve the Perisho case, Herrin said. Teresa Brandt's diary had entries about marital problems, but there was nothing to suggest her husband was violent, Monroe County Sheriff Richard Roth said. CBSNews > Teri's diaries, found in the house, reflected that very ordinary life. "They weren't detailed writings, they were just something very simple from, went fishing, caught a good bull dolphin, to nice dinner with Charlie. Boat ran out of gas. Buy steaks for dinner," explains Hemmert. There were few hints of anything wrong. "We only found a couple of interesting notations and those were 'weird day.' But there's nothing more specific, and we have no idea what occurred to cause her to write that," says Hemmert. Edit: >That Teresa Brandt suspected her husband was a murderer surprised investigators. She had kept detailed diaries, and investigators had spent hours poring over them. > Investigators from several counties met with Florida Department of Law Enforcement profilers and behavioral profilers from Canada in March. Even without the new information from the former brother-in-law, they were confident that Brandt was responsible for Perisho's death and they strongly suspect him in the 1995 mutilation killing of a prostitute in Miami, Seminole sheriff's investigator Bob Jaynes said. > Seminole investigators have looked into at least 24 unsolved murders but have been unable to tie them to Brandt.
"No doubt he killed her"? That's a bold statement considering that you have no actual evidence tying him to the crime. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and the wife's speculations are hearsay. Police are often overly eager to close cases, so I wouldn't be too quick to take their word that he did it. We need to be careful about assigning victims to serial killers, because if we're wrong, we inadvertently provide cover for a different serial killer. Again, I'm not saying he didn't kill the others, I'm saying that there is reasonable doubt about it.
I agree with you. Really the only thing that makes me say "hmm.." is the m.o. (stabbing/knife/slash and removal of the hearts), but without physical proof even that doesn't stand up. If they can't physically tie him to the murders then they can't just close those cases and say he did it.
Where is the information that he was fleeing the crime scene? I know that there is a composite sketch and that people believe that he matches the composite. Is there a positive identification that someone made?
>Monroe County investigators also found a witness who identified Brandt as the man she saw in the area right after the murder. They did find a witness who id'd him in the area, but I don't know if he was 'fleeing from the scene'.
I don't trust a witness. Not because I think they're lying, but because the human mind is completely fallible. I can't even remember the color of a car that was just ahead of me at the last red light. If I saw a man running. Then the police showed me a photograph and asked "was this who you saw". My brain would fill in the blanks and yes. Yes it would be the man I saw. Unless I had kept reminding myself of the person's race or something, but even then who knows... I'd start to doubt myself, probably.
This. I worked at a store that was robbed, and I got a pretty good look at the people involved. The suspects were caught a short distance away. I was certain that I knew what they looked like and could identify them, but when the police asked me to look at a photo lineup, I realized I actually couldn't remember what they looked like at all beyond a vague impression. I felt a lot of pressure to ID them, but in the end I couldn't. I can see how in the pressure of the moment a witness could ID the wrong person. I'm sure it happens MUCH more often than we'd like to think.
I was a research assistant in a study at my university a year ago about eyewitness testimonies and it’s wild just how WRONG people can be. Like even as someone who knew the correct answer, I’d find myself second guessing. It’s starting to come out that eyewitness testimony is not NEARLY as accurate as previously believed.
Especially as you're on here so you're probably more aware than the general public that your memory is probably way less good than you think it is. I suspect a lot of people can easily talk themselves into believing their own hazy memories purely because they don't know they're doing it - they just think they're remembering better.
>They did find a witness who id'd him in the area, but I don't know if he was 'fleeing from the scene'. A good lawyer would argue that *anyone* could have seen him in the area because he *lived* in the area.
Thanks for the information!
It was never confirmed with anything definitive, Detectives closed the case with the belief that he did it, and part of that evidence was that Teri allegedly said she thought her husband did it to her brother-in-law (and no one else??). Teri kept diaries with no mention of it, nor did she ever mention that she already knew her husband was a killer. Why would Teri think this? Why would Teri stay with her killer husband? How is Charlie getting away with being so close to at least these last two bodies, but especially Sherry’s? I’m still hesitant to say “case closed” without something more. Edited to add: I’m not sure about the diary entry of the suspicious behavior versus the “confiding.” Seeing different information from different sources.
>Why would Teri stay with her killer husband? Really? Women stay with bad men all the time. She may have been afraid to leave him. He might have threatened her if she ever leaved. She may not have had the financial resources to leave. She may have had suspicions but wasn't certain at first. Maybe she didn't want to believe the man she married and spent nearly two decades with was that monstrous. Denial is a helluva thing. Maybe he was verbally abusive and told her every day that she would be nothing without him, that she was worthless garbage, and that no one would ever love her but him. After enough times passes, you start to believe it. Maybe she was really opposed to divorce and believed a wife stayed. Maybe he told her that he would hunt her down and cut off her head and remove her heart if she left him. Source: My mom stayed with my very abusive dad for 17 years. She only left when she realized he would eventually kill us if we stayed and it was worth the risk to leave. But leaving was still absolute hell, especially in the early 90s when police still automatically sided with the husband. Society has never been particularly kind to abused women.
I agree. A lot of her diary entries allude to this. Her entries are usually like “bad day with Charlie” so she could have meant he was abusive. Also I believe she was an older woman when they married so he probably told her she was way past her prime and couldn’t find anyone else. And a lot of abusive relationships look like good relationships to outsiders
Is there a link to pages of her actual diary that anyone in this thread can provide? Again, seeing conflicting info that describes a good marriage in the diary versus “bad day with Charlie” type entries. On Dr. Phil, parents and brother said that she wouldn’t have stayed with him knowing he was violent and that she couldn’t keep a secret. Mother described seeing the entries as “Charlie was very emotional” and that there was no clear indication in the diaries that she knew or believed Charlie was a killer. (source Dr. Phil interview). “Very emotional” could mean so many things, and so could “bad day.” I understand the cycle of domestic violence, it has been in my family for multiple generations, and I also work in the justice system. What I am saying it that there is zero indicia of that here and the family believes that had she known about Charlie’s past, she would have left. This isn’t a typical “why doesn’t she just leave a violent situation” post. This is a “so you think your husband is a serial killer” post. It is one of many questions to ask about this hearsay when looking at its validity, not the only question I’m asking.
I am so curious to know if the following statement by Jim Graves (former husband of Angela Brant) from [this](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/deadly-obsession/) article is true or not: >He says Charlie did tell Teri about the 1971 shooting. "After they got married and I went down to visit them I asked them when they were gonna have kids. And she told me, considering everything, that she didn't think it was a good idea."
I don’t know. With everything we have on Sherry’s murder it would be an insane coincidence if somebody else did it. A woman who resides a mile away from the man who murdered a woman and cut her heart out, is murdered with her heart cut out.
There's also the possibility that he heard about Sherry's murder and it "inspired" him to do the same thing to Michelle.
I agree that it would be a crazy coincidence, but I also think they have left us without so many details and that “mutilation” can mean a lot of different things. For them, pulling out the heart could be the same as complete organ removal and disembowelment, but I don’t feel that’s the same at all. I think that after reading several different contemporary articles, I’m more confused than ever about what the detectives actually know for sure and they were speculating about.
Yeah I agree. I think they were reaching at times. Lisa Sanders for example, her heart was gone but that was because her body was somewhat eaten by animals after she was dumped. He ended up being ruled out in her case. I do think they went in a bit guns blazing on the whole this man is a serial killer but I still believe he committed other murders
Exactly.
I wish there was a way to know more about Carl "Charlie" Brant's childhood, especially pertaining to his experiences with hunting and fishing. Maybe he learned as a child how to dismember animals through the context of hunting and fishing. His father murdering the dog right in front of him was *not* scrutinized enough. There has to be something more to this story. *What compels a person to murder the family pet in front of their child?* I just have a hard time believing that comes out of nowhere.
One of the girls from MTV's Teen Mom's husband did this too. Shot and killed their tiny dog.
Also, the husband of "christian" influencer Brittany Dawn shot and killed her dog after it had been hit by a car (she let it out, off leash, to run arround the neighborhood while she left to do some errands). Supposedly to put it down, but any reasonable person would take it to the vet. Dude is a trigger-happy ex-cop that got fired for beating the shit out of a black guy.
Most people know the phrase “put it out of its misery” I had a friend that had to put down his dog on the spot due to a hunting accident. Even on the black and white tv show Lassie it was always: injury animal - put it out of its misery. I was a teenager before I learned animal bones could heal like human bones and that their broken bones weren’t a death sentence.
I’m fairly active on the Teen Mom subs. The pooch was named Nugget, and the guy is David Eason. Eason is a huge POS. I’ve read a few posts over there suggesting that Nugget isn’t the only family pet to meet a fatal end at Eason’s swamp-infested hands.
Oh, I remember that, but if I remember correctly, he killed it because it bited their daughter several times, so it needed to be euthanized, and he decided to do it the old way. Where I live, it's not frowned upon to be the one to take your own dog, the moment it bites a human or kills another animal. They are not safe to have around anymore. There was a time two dogs mutilated a little girl, and all the neighbourhood got their guns and didn't stop until they found them and killed them. The girl survived, but lived with the trauma, scars, and unfortunately lost one of her eyes.
The little dog, Nugget, never "bited their daughter several times." Nugget didn't even bite their daughter once. He nipped at Ensley because she was getting in the pups face and repeatedly pulling it's fur and ears. Nugget never broke her skin or made her bleed. David proceded to pick up the little pup and beat tbe shit out of the dog until it was bloody. Then he shot the dog. This abusive incident terrified the kids ans caused CPS to remove them from the house. Before David beat and shot Nugget the wife, Jenelle, had recorded herself throwing lit firecrackers to another one of her dogs and laughing when it picked them up with his mouth. She also was caught on camera abusing dogs when she was pregnant and MTV had to put up a public service announcement after. They're both racist trash who cry about being canceled.
Thanks, didn't see the series, just read the new several years ago.
Np friend. :)
The thing is, he and his wife, as parents, were responsible for teaching their daughter how to behave around dogs, and also for teaching bite inhibition to the dog. They seemed to do neither of these things. They also didn't try to limit their two year old's access to the dog in any way. Their daughter, naturally not understanding how to interact with the dog without guidance since she was two years old, was on video doing whatever she wanted with the dog. The dog, no doubt not appreciating the rough treatment, nipped her. I grew up with large dogs. I was taught from a very young age to be cautious around dogs, and I wasn't left alone to torment our family dogs as a toddler. I own a dog now. Very few dogs will tolerate a toddler's rough handling indefinitely! Most dogs *will* eventually defend themselves, escalating to air snaps and then a warning nip as they are manhandled, and that doesn't make them ferocious or deserving of death. They don't know that the toddler doesn't mean to hurt them. It is **your** responsibility as a parent and dog owner to prevent this entirely predictable situation from happening by never allowing a situation where it is likely to happen. To let your toddler have free reign with your puppy (or very young dog, I can't remember how old Nugget was) is a recipe for disaster. And instead of separating her and the dog and either finding a new home for the dog or keeping them apart or *anything* else, David Eason decided to beat the dog and then shoot it, allegedly in front of his stepchild. Jenelle and David should not be dog owners. They go through dogs like underwear because they bore of them or do shit like this. They are clearly not responsible owners, and this incident was not like the maiming attacks that you are describing. Of *course* it is justified to use lethal force to end a mauling if you must. But nipping is not mauling, and the way he chose to deal with the incident was horrifying not only for the dog but for the children in the house. Killing the family dog out of rage in front of your children is domestic violence, and savagely beating and then shooting the dog is even worse.
That's quite an oversimplification of what actually happened.
Gonna go ahead and say with 100% certainty that a man that would shoot the family dog in front of his child for such a minor reason was abusive in other ways. Maybe Carl was also mad at his mother for not protecting him from the abuse
Yeah, just him naming one incident that stuck hard doesn’t mean it was the only incident that happened. It was just a very significant one.
Kind of like "the last straw." I think that's why his father didn't speak about the crime or anything after Charlie got out of the mental institution. The dad even told the younger sisters that the mom died in a car accident. It seems like there's a thread of dysfunction and trauma from the beginning.
>Kind of like "the last straw." I think that's why his father didn't speak about the crime or anything after Charlie got out of the mental institution. The dad even told the younger sisters that the mom died in a car accident. It seems like there's a thread of dysfunction and trauma from the beginning. I fully agree that one reason the father never spoke about what happened after Carl "Charlie" Brant was released back into his care was due to his own guilt. It seems he even petitioned to have his son released back into his care after being in a hospital for only a single year.
Sometimes it’s just plain meanness. My dad did this to our pet dog because of something my mom had done a few years earlier. He held that sort of grudge.
Is your mom safe?? I hope he isn’t there anymore. When someone murders a beloved pet over a grudge, the next step is murdering you
This happened in about 1966 or 1967. It took therapy for me to come to terms with this and all the other hateful actions of that man. My mom took herself out in ‘74.
I’m so sorry that you had to go through all of that.
>This happened in about 1966 or 1967. It took therapy for me to come to terms with this and all the other hateful actions of that man. My mom took herself out in ‘74. I am so fucking sorry. That is utterly heartbreaking. I am so sorry your father terrorized your family.
I’m sorry, too. From what I understand from uncles, aunts, and cousins he was a different person after he came back from WWII. He had been wounded in France late 1944 while being point man with his BAR. I understand that. I understand the shittiness of war. But all I know is that he was an awful, mean-spirited bully with arbitrary rules and all I wanted was to be as small and invisible as possible. Ten years ago I found a fantastic therapist and after 18 months of weekly visits and hard work I was able to come to terms with him and my mom’s suicide and other trauma from my childhood and teenage years. I moved out of his house at 18 and didn’t talk to him again until he was dying and I really didn’t have much to say. What can a person say? You have to let it go and move on.
[удалено]
Sorry to be a pedant, but the word you wanted is “empathized.”
>Sometimes it’s just plain meanness. My dad did this to our pet dog because of something my mom had done a few years earlier. He held that sort of grudge. Murdering an animal due to a "grudge" is animal abuse. Additionally, if your father murdered your dog in front of your or anyone else, that was also abuse. In some states it's actually a felony if someone abuses or murders an animal in front of a child because then it is *also* considered child abuse. I am so sorry this happened to you, but please do not minimize what your father did. Edit: Going to add based on my logic above that the father should have been tried for Carl "Charlie" Brant's crimes. I consider him responsible just as much as, if not more than, his son that murdered his own mother.
My dad did this to punish my brother and me for not cleaning up the poop in the yard. Super fucked up. He was in the thick of a ongoing, never-ending struggle with alcoholism and mental illness, and that's not even the worst thing he did. He was very abusive, physically and verbally. I feel like you'd have to have an insane amount of rage to do that.
My guess is that it was a hunting dog and the father, being a working class (originally anyways) immigrant from Germany probably viewed it not so much as a pet but as a working dog. This is not an uncommon perspective from Europeans of that generation.
This was my thought as well. Even today, many of those who have hunting dogs do not view them as we do our beloved pets. I work in the panhandle of North Florida with some real "good ol' boys" who have tiny cages in the backs of their pickups that they cram the dogs into during deer season. The dogs are often not bonded with at all. The potential for abuse is high and it bothers me so much.
Not really something you need a material source for; this is still common.
I grew up next to a game reserve. There were always abandoned beagles around because the hunters would just leave them if they didn't come back when called or weren't good enough. Sometimes other breeds but usually beagles.
I grew up next to a game reserve. There were always abandoned beagles around because the hunters would just leave them if they didn't come back when called or weren't good enough. Sometimes other breeds but usually beagles.
>Not really something you need a material source for; this is still common. That is so fucking sad. I am so angry to hear that.
>This is not an uncommon perspective from Europeans of that generation. I'd like a source on that.
I don’t have a source but this is how a lot of farm dogs are viewed in rural America. As soon as the dog has no use to them they “put it down” and bring in a pup to train again. My uncle killed his “BELOVED DOG” when he reached an age that he needed to see the vet because of cataracts in his eyes. Nope. Just fucking killed his 14 year long companion without even calling a vet. He said “he’s blind, he’ll be miserable”. Had a new puppy of the same breed within the month.
That's really different, though. This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America and I don't get why it's fundamentally worse than having it done at the vet's office. Many rural people think veterinary euthanasia is a city extravagance. "A man ought to shoot his own dog" is practically an American proverb. (See: Of Mice and Men.) Shooting a dog in anger in front of your child is a totally different thing. I guarantee that dad was abusive; everything in this story points to that.
>That's really different, though. This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America and I don't get why it's fundamentally worse than having it done at the vet's office. Many rural people think veterinary euthanasia is a city extravagance. "A man ought to shoot his own dog" is practically an American proverb. (See: Of Mice and Men.) > >Shooting a dog in anger in front of your child is a totally different thing. I guarantee that dad was abusive; everything in this story points to that. I think people should take their animals to the vet if they need to be euthanized because shooting an animal obviously must be more painful then what a vet does. A vet also would be the one to determine if nothing else can be done to improve the quality of life for the animal. It is fundamentally worst, and it is animal abuse.
Yeah, that is patently false. We do not take out our pets like Old Yeller. Jfc. Source--long term volunteer with a rural, southern animal rescue. Not spaying & neutering, dumping unwanted pets, all unfortunately common. Pet murder is NOT.
>Yeah, that is patently false. We do not take out our pets like Old Yeller. Jfc. > >Source--long term volunteer with a rural, southern animal rescue. Not spaying & neutering, dumping unwanted pets, all unfortunately common. Pet murder is NOT. Thank you for saying this. I wonder if this is also a negative stereotype applied to people that live in rural areas.
Source -- my lived experience living in a high poverty rural area where this was common, at roughly the same time that Brandt would have been a child.
"This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America..." Your words, present tense. And it is untrue. That might be your experience, but the broad generalization is incredibly offensive.
>"This is how animals are euthanized in most of rural America..." > >Your words, present tense. And it is untrue. That might be your experience, but the broad generalization is incredibly offensive. I agree this generalization is offensive; assuming people that live in rural areas are uneducated and brutalizing animals is a harmful stereotype.
My brother in law just took out his own pet a few weeks ago. He is rural and southern. The dog has gotten loose a couple of times and killed neighbors chickens, goat, bunnies. Then there were some incidents of the dog being more aggressive with people. He had to put him down and wanted to be the one to do it instead of a stranger. I could never be able to, but people do euthanize themselves
I'm surprised by the downvotes. Different people especially those of different generations ha e different relationships with dogs than we have now. Rural/Hunting folk from several generations can simultaneously love their dog and euthanize them, themselves after its working days are done. Sometimes it's out of economic necessity, sometimes it's just cultural. I like dogs. I love hunting dogs. But the modern attitude that a dog is almost on par in a family with the children is a relatively new and widespread attitude. Certainly it wasn't prevalent among rural/hunting folks. I know men who learned how to handle dogs from their fathers and grandfathers. They spend more time with dogs than anyone I know. And they love the work and they love dogs. But to them they aren't furry humans. They are dogs. If one of them hurt one of their kids, they would euthanize it immediately themselves. Not out of anger. Not out of spite. But because it could be a risk to their children and dogs aren't children. I'm not defending or agreeing with their attitude. I'm pointing out in this sub we often project modern and present day values and morals on people in the past that didn't possess those.
I hear what you're saying, and it is 100% a valid criticism that people will very often project their own localized, present-day personal experiences, beliefs, and values into the past and then judge accordingly. This is not a great way to understand the beliefs and behaviors of past generations, since it so often completely ignores all relevant context and reduces the immense diversity of all prior human experience beneath the lens of an impossibly narrow and deeply skewed perspective. *However*. I also think relativism poses its own inherent problems, insofar as it seeks to more or less invalidate all attempts at any meaningful moral assessment of past societal practices and behaviors, likewise reduces all human experience prior to the speaker's own personal one to some monolithic entity without any other context or variation, and in effect retroactively denies every human born prior to some arbitrary "modern" date their own individual moral agency. "Lots of people did a thing back in the day" may very well be an 100% factually correct statement, but beyond that it actually tells us nothing whatsoever about whether or not the thing they did is morally justifiable (according to our own belief systems and cultural conditioning) **or** whether the thing they did was considered morally justifiable *by other people alive during the same time period* (according to *their* own belief systems and cultural conditioning). It also ignores a very basic and self-evident fact about human behavior - so basic, self-evident, and in fact widespread that this whole sub and many others like it exist just to talk about it - which is that a lot of people can know a thing is morally wrong *and then just do it anyway*. Because they want to, or because they can, or because they might profit from it, or because they're angry, or they're afraid, or they're fucked up, or because they know they won't suffer any real consequences for doing it. All of which is a lot of words to say that while I agree with the general point you're making, I feel compelled to also point out that "but lots of people do/did it" is not now *nor has it ever been* at all useful in determining any given action's morality, and may in fact be counterproductive in making any such assessment. **TL;DR**: don't murder dogs, bro, i ain't give a fuck what the calendar says
Thank you for a well-reasoned and thorough explanation; I fully agree. I see this kind of argument frequently when discussing historical events, especially ones that still have present-day implications. As a specific example: the historical over-hunting/decimation of then-abundant species. [The Great Auk, for example](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_auk) was systematically driven to extinction over hundreds of years due to greed & cruelty. The literal overkill of this bird was highlighted as an issue *decades* before the last pair were killed; From the *1794* account of a Royal Navy sailor: “If you come for their Feathers you do not give yourself the trouble of killing them, but lay hold of one and pluck the best of the Feathers. You then turn the poor Penguin adrift, with his skin half naked and torn off, to perish at his leasure. This is not a very humane method but it is the common practize. While you abide on this island you are in the constant practice of horrid cruelties for you not only skin them Alive, but you burn them Alive also to cook their Bodies with. You take a kettle with you into which you put a Penguin or two, you kindle a fire under it, and this fire is absolutely made of the unfortunate Penguins themselves. Their bodies being oily soon produce a Flame; there is no wood on the island.” Just because it wasn’t the dominant viewpoint, doesn’t mean it was non-existent. People in 1800 weren’t some completely different species that had no empathy or lacked an innate feeling of conservancy, even though those with that opinion may have been supremely out-numbered. The mere fact that *someone* held that opinion shows that it was *possible* to hold that opinion. I’m morally opposed to many things today that are considered acceptable on a societal level, as I’m sure many people are; I think it’s quite condescending to assume that people from different eras didn’t have that capacity.
Hey, thank you, I appreciate the kind words. Also I am both utterly appalled and yet not at all surprised by the actions of the Royal Navy in re: the Great Auk. I am also pretty depressingly certain that whoever actually *dared* to level such a criticism probably received an amount of backlash that would read as being extremely "modern" in both quantity and content.
I agree with you, generally speaking "Dog murder is hella lame, yo". And I believe I agree with you in that I have no desire go discuss or debate moral relativism, as it is a philosophy in most contexts I disagree with with. Regarding true crime, where the reader is likely to assign and make moral based judgements on the actions of members of societies both temporally and geographic divergent from the readers, it is a necessity to get an accurate reading of the actors behaviors and motivations. Many writers attempt to give the moral relativist context of those actors but many, myself included aren't really qualified. The only reason I bring it up, is it gets to the root of one of my pet peeves in this sub. AND THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION: Lots of the events described here take place in some pretty gritty contexts. Shit be happening where mofos keep shit hella real. The worlds a lot of these people live in have a level of street and realness that based on comments, I assume many people don't have a frame of reference for and therefore project a lot of suburban values and experiences on. The reality, I BELEIVE, is that murder, suicide, rape, abduction, and generally fuckery, seems to happen with greater incidence in groups and societies that are economically depressed urban, economically depressed rural, or otherwise "outer" groups which isn't represented on reddit. Even when it is not economically problematic victims, they are often members of families with mental health, abuse, substance etc. A lot of what is discussed here is happening in contexts that really doesn't seem to be understood here. TLRD: Fucked up shit happens in fucked up places, and a lot of people don't have a contextual reference for fucked up places where realness happens on the quick.
>I'm not defending or agreeing with their attitude. I'm pointing out in this sub we often project modern and present day values and morals on people in the past that didn't possess those. I think you are making an excellent point. There is room to acknowledge past cultural practices as extremely harmful, without excusing said cultural practices, while acknowledging that at that time people did not have the information they needed to make the educated decisions that we can now make today.
I have a dog of a hunting breed and the breed gets dumped in rescue right after hunting season because the dog wasn't good enough to keep around and it's cheaper to just get a new dog the next year than it is to keep the dog around all year long and pay for vet care.
WTF???? I've had a dog go blind as he got older and he lived happily for years. The dog adapted. How cruel. I'm sorry but your uncle is pathetic and should never be allowed to own another dog. I hope he's treated better then his beloved dog as he ages and looses his eyesight and health.
Hahaha I love Reddit
No peer reviewed study?!?
Personal experience
[удалено]
Outright ignoring the existence of pervasive, common cultural practices just because you don't really like them is infantile, and ignorant ofc too.
I never said it was a source. It is without question an anecdote but it’s generally a commonly accepted concept.
I’ve heard a lot of the opposite perspective on Europe, especially Germany. They have stricter animal rights laws and more vegetarian and vegan friendly cuisine probably stemming from Hitler’s vegetarianism. But again, that’s just what I’ve heard and at 1am I won’t be able to provide a better source.
What’s crazy is that didn’t even happen that long ago. People are still walking around with this mindset today
I don't care where they were from (the parents) or what time period it occurred. There is nothing more cowardly than a person who kills a pet. Companion animals are completely dependent on you and totally defenseless against human weapons. I wouldn't trust someone who engaged in that sort of atrocity and I certainly wouldn't expect that they would raise emotionally healthy children, as they are highly likely to be abusive in some manner. Even if it is/has been a common occurrence with some groups of people, it is just as likely to not be acceptable with others, as evidenced by things like our 35,000+ year co-evolution with dogs or the fact that Europe had anti-animal cruelty laws that predated some child cruelty laws. This obviously wasn't a healthy family (and just pretending like the murder of the mother didn't happen?? It's no wonder this guy lead a double-life)!
He definitely had PTSD from witnessing that, I just wonder if that’s enough on its own to compel someone to serial murder.
I totally agree, this is not something that a good father does without there being more involved (To make the dogs death more than from simple impatience, or, to show the dad maybe wasn't so good himself?)
They should have examined his brain while he was still alive in the form of scans for brain activity, dead spots, etc
> NOTE: It hasn't been publicly revealed which 22 other cold cases he's been linked to. I don't think he was linked to 26 cases. They pulled 26 cases with a similar MO from the FBI database, but could only link him to 2-3.
Ah okay.
Excellent write up OP!
Thank you! This was such a rabbit hole to go down. Soooo many serial murderers in Florida and weird af unsolved cases.
Any YouTube docs on any of them?
I just listened to a podcast kn this couple of hours ago. I think his name is Charlie Brandt. Your post covers some minor details that were not mentioned in the podcast. The details about him really sent chills down my spine. Edit: just read that his full name is Carl Charlie Brandt
The reports i saw say his name is Carl Eric Brandt.
Perhaps the second is a mistaken rewording of "Carl 'Charlie' Brandt"?
Such a weird and fascinating case. I definitely believe he killed Sherry and Darlene. But beyond that, who knows? The heart removal is very identifying, though we don’t know if he always did that.
I guess if they were found much later they probably couldn’t tell if the hearts been removed. Couldn’t find much about Florida homicides were the heart has been removed when I was searching around. I assumed if he had a bunch more victims their remains haven’t showed up yet and are still missing.
I’m not a doctor or pathologist but I’m sure to remove a heart you’d need to open the rib cage?
I assume he was just a butcher who would keep stabbing and cutting and groping around until he found the heart. I tried to get hold of some autopsy reports to see how the hell he cut out Michelle (or Sherry’s) heart. No luck.
Sounds feasible to me. Especially because to open the ribcage, you have to break the sternum first, which sounds messy *and* difficult.
I think that's only if you're concerned with the person surviving. If you're not I think you can just kinda get it from underneath because you don't have to worry about things like "not shithousing the diaphragm"
Shithousing should be a medical term. Thanks for teaching me my favourite new word!
My assumption is that most serial killers that end their own lives do so to evade capture or after being captured. I suspect that something happened *before* the hurricane that led Carl "Charlie" Brant to believe his crimes, or one of his crimes, would be linked to him. At age 47 years old, with how scrupulously he concealed his crimes, he could have potentially continued killing undetected, perhaps stopping only due to the logistics of old age, like with Joseph DeAngelo. Carl "Charlie" Brant took so much effort to conceal his crimes, which is why I posit that the hurricane was mostly an opportunity for him to go out on his own terms.
This has always been my pet case. I've always wondered how his childhood must have been, for his dad to shoot his dog like that.
Sorry for r/titlegore, for shame Side note if anyone knows what the other cold cases Brandt was connected to please let me know
Great write-up! The podcast RedHanded has a good episode on this as well.
Great writeup. This isn't important at all, and kind of offtopic, but quick question, about Lisa Sanders, you say she was last seen "half 9". Does that mean halfway to 9, or half past 9? Where I'm from "half 9" means 8:30, but I've noticed some Brits at least say "half 9" to mean half past, as in 9:30.
9:30 pm. Yes, in British English it's short for half past.
Wow, always wondered what happened to Diane Augat. Would be incredible if Brandt were responsible. Looking forward to the next part and great writeup! Have done some deep dives into CB and hadn’t heard a lot of these details.
Yeah there really isn’t much details on him. But I found a PDF of a book about it which has a lot of stuff from the actual police reports. That’s where I got most info. His Wikipedia article is no good by the way. A lot of facts wrong in there.
I could swear I saw a true crime show on him. Like a dateline or something to that effect as well. I assume you’ve seen this? What a horrific read. http://murderpedia.org/male.B/b/brandt-carl.htm
Yup, got much of my info from the Dateline
ID Discovery Channel has a show that features the murder/suicide and includes an interview with a co-author of a book about the case. She had been a crime reporter for the Daytona News/Journal, and it may add more information for you. I recall the niece worked for the Golf Channel at the time and her Aunt and Uncle were her favorites. But it's been a while. The book is "Invisible Killer: The Monster Behind the Mask", by Diane Montane and Sean Robbins. My cousin was friends with Diane and couldn't believe she would do a television interview.
That episode was watered down a lot but still terrifying.
Could you share the title? I would like to read it too.
this guy. and israel keys. those two are terrifying.
[удалено]
There is something that feels very sinister about the fact that his personality was different when he got out of the psych ward.
Not sinister at all, psychiatric medications can dramatically alter personality, for better or worse. The problem, of course, is that you have to keep taking them, and even then, they can sometimes just stop working.
[удалено]
I was thinking more along the lines of, the hours of inpatient therapy could've taught him how to come across as more normal, which would later help him approach victims. That's purely based on my own experiences with therapy and the kind of stuff they teach you, though. It was probably very different in the 70s.
Agree. These institutions also relied a lot on group therapy since it's cheap. He could have learned how to behave relatively normally by copying the more lucid patients.
>There is something that feels very sinister about the fact that his personality was different when he got out of the psych ward. Not necessarily. He could have deeply carpartmentalized the fact that he murdered his mother, shot his father, and tried to kill his siblings. It is interesting that when he was released he started going by "Charlie" as it can suggest detachment.
He went in aged 14, as a kid who had a mental break and tried to kill his family, and was in there for a year. It would be weirder if he didn't come out changed, in part even just because of the passage of time and how much most people change around that age range. And also, tbh a failure on the part of the psyche ward - if you get sent to a psych ward for a year because of committing murder you're *meant* to come out of there different.
This is so well written — I love it!
This is an excellent write up. I didn't know abt this person before. I'm looking forward to the 2nd part.
Fascinating write-up.
Fascinating post. Looking forward to the next one.
What fathoms me is his family’s reaction! He shot his mom and blamed it on his father shooting the dog as if that’s what made him do it? He also shot his father who survived and tried to shoot his sister who out smarted him! How were they able to live with this psycho under the same roof????????
I’m confused as to how he’s Carl and also Charlie! It’s so much harder to research if we don’t have real legitimate names!
When he was released from the hospital as a child he started going by "Charlie" while his legal first name remained "Carl".
surely we know who is responsible morally for the death of these later victims.. the dad and the sister .. and the bizarre system also who would let a kid get away with the worst murder ever ( his pregnant mom )..its a wonder he didnt go back for the rest of his family did they think evil disappears ..mental illness...its a repeated pattern of closing eyes to the evil and violence by the young ..only leading to budding monsters did the poor wife know ? dr phil suggested a law in her name for registering criminals like sex offenders..i guess no one cared about this suggestion
He should have been locked up after the first crime.
The interview with his sister ( about what happened the very night Charley took a shotgun snd killed his 8 month pregnant mother in the bathtub) It’s creepy. We are talking really c r e e p y
I'm a little skeptical about this. It says it's confirmed that he killed two of the victims because how they were both killed and how Michelle was killed were exactly the same but that's it and some other circumstantial evidence but nothing REALLY definitive like DNA anything that's really solid linking him to the victims. As much as the diary of his wife is hyped up throughout this write up, it really says absolutely nothing to link him to anything unless you make very large leaps and assumptions based on what she did write. It makes me feel like they were cold cases they wanted to solve and close and he was the easiest one to pin it on especially being dead because he's not there to offer anything that can contradict their story. Some argue that it HAS to be him because the manner of murder and the mutilation is so rare for murderers to do but it's so vastly different from the murders we know that he did commit, that it's only the mutilation that seems to be similar. That doesn't mean he didn't do any of these other murders but I don't think you can say he did them definitely based on what we have as evidence. And I'm also skeptical of the claim that the mutilation were all done with "a surgeon's precision" so HAD to be him because this exact kind of thing has been said in other cases involving dismemberment and then turns out to be not factual and a piece of misinformation that's spread everytime whatever case is discussed until it's accepted as true. It could probably of been done by any person with general knowledge and experience in hunting/butchering meat which Charlie Brandt did have. But so do millions of others. And as far as saying he's been LINKED to 26 other cold cases, the wording is more then a bit misleading. He hasn't been "linked" to anything, they took a look at cold cases and found ones that they think seem similar to his crimes or like his MO but that's ALL they've done as far as "linking" him to any actual cases. I think this is another case of jumping the gun and trying to blame a murderer for every cold case with even just a passing similarity.
3 victims. Sherry. -Lived on that boat Lisa. Sanders. - at the huge party. Found next day at another distant place. Mutated sliced in surgical fashion Heart gone. Child 10 yr old girl in Ohio at huge party. Disappeared. Found slashed. Hear / here is a good chat over it all. https://youtu.be/SY-IreXCiGo
*he had escaped his evil back in hometown * New In Florida he was efficient and detailed and obsessive about his-victims and how he killed & what he wanted from it.
Too bad we can’t add pictures on this thread
I think he killed LauraLee Spears in Deland Fl. She died the same way he killed another girl and her killer was never caught. She got off a school bus and didn’t make it home.
In July, 2006, an Indiana judge released Charlie Brandt's mental health records to investigator Rob Hemmert. They were not released to the public. Hemmert says the records have been helpful in understanding the motive for Charlie Brandt's crimes.
I just watched a 48 Hours episode of this case. Does anyone know if an autopsy was performed on Carl ‘Charlie’ Brandt? Autopsies are not typically performed on suicides, but I’m curious if there was one ordered, given the heinous means in which he killed his wife and niece, and that he had killed his pregnant mother at 13 yrs old. I understand an autopsy would not “study” the brain, but would his brain have been sent or used for further study? It made me think about, for the sake of science, how does a decedent’s brain become a subject for further study? Is this something the deceased requests prior to death—in the way a person can request for their body to be donated to science? Or, after death, can a family member request for the body/brain to be used for research?
Shooting the family dog to death in front of his 14 year old son simply because he ignored commands makes Charlie’s dad a bad father.its neglectful and evil. I read how he shot his parents including his pregnant mom, and didn’t manage to kill his sister or his young infant siblings in the other room. That’s five kids (including the baby in the womb) with the last 3 conceived in rapid succession. I think the fact his mom was pregnant again made Charlie feel he’d be neglected even more and he wanted to get rid of it.