Was Family Plane Crash Deliberate?
Indiana Pilot And 8-Year-Old Daughter Were Killed When Plane Crashes Into Ex-Mother-In-Law's House
-
Play CBS Video Video Plane Crashed For Revenge? Police believe that Eric Johnson intentionally crashed his small airplane into his mother-in-law's southern Indiana home, killing both himself and his 8-year-old daughter, all for revenge.
-
Video Probe: Plane Crash Intentional The investigation of a plane that crashed into a house in Indiana, killing the pilot and his 8-year-old daughter, has authorities saying it wasn't an accident. Meg Oliver reports.
-
-
Vivian Pace talks with emergency workers after a plane crashed into her home in Bedford, Ind., on March 5, 2007. A pilot took his 8-year-old daughter up in a small plane and crashed it into his former mother-in-law's house in southern Indiana, killing himself and the girl. (AP)
-
A firefighter walks by a plane that crashed into a home in Bedford, Ind., on March 5, 2007. Authorities say the single-engine plane crashed into a home Monday near a southern Indiana airport, killing both people on board. (AP)
-
-
Interactive Children In Danger Warning signs, state-by-state child services information and a history of child welfare reforms.
The mother-in-law, Vivian Pace, wasn't injured and told reporters outside her damaged home Tuesday about the phone call.
She said her daughter, Beth Johnson, was worried after Emily didn't show up for school after a weekend vacation with her father. Beth finally reached Eric Johnson by cell phone shortly before the crash.
"I've got her, and you're not going to get her," he told her, according to Pace.
Johnson, a student pilot who had soloed before, had taken off in a leased, single-engine Cessna from a southern Indiana airport near Bloomington on Monday morning. Less than two hours later, officials said, the plane smashed into a wall of Pace's home.
Andrew Todd Fox of the National Transportation Safety Board declined to say if Johnson, 47, said anything over the plane's radio before the crash. The airport has no controller on duty, so no recording was available of any communication, he said.
Pace believes the crash was deliberate.
"That was the only way he could hurt Beth. That was the only way he could get to her," she said.
State and Bedford police were treating the case as a suicide and homicide, State Police 1st Sgt. Dave Bursten said. He said they had yet to find any notes indicating Eric Johnson's intentions with the flight, but the fact that the house was his ex-wife's mother's home raised serious questions.
Bursten said findings from a preliminary crash investigation have led police to believe the plane intentionally crashed into the Bedford home, CBS News affiliate WISH-TV reports.
The couple had divorced in November after 12 years of marriage, Pace said.
Beth Johnson went to the Bedford Police Department the morning of the crash to file a missing person report, police Maj. Dennis Parsley said Tuesday.
She gave officers no indication of any threats against Emily, Parsley said, and told police that her ex-husband, a property manager for the state Department of Natural Resources, had recently taken the girl to Cancun for a few days of vacation.
"(Emily) was to spend the weekend with dad, and dad was supposed to bring her to school Monday morning," Parsley said.
Fox said Tuesday that investigators were looking at whether the plane was functioning properly and hoped to have a preliminary report within a week.
At Parkview Primary School in Bedford, where Emily was a first-grader, counselors were called in to help the students, Principal Sari Wood said Tuesday.
"We're all grieving over this," Wood said. She described Emily as a "dear little girl" who "got a kick out of things and enjoyed life."
"She just was one of those really friendly, really open little kids," Wood said.
© MMVII, CBS Interactive, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From U.S.
The secrets of tennis legend 
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 58 Commentsa 8 year old child died, in an aircraft, and she probably SAW it coming, you are all too stupid to see that, and dilberatly being pious and pompous about man/woman chest beating from BOTH sexes
get past the stupid ideals and realize a child died in a callous and harsh way a child should never deal with
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I think that Agnim is saying more than that.
You are indeed living in a fantasy world! Actually you are quite pathetic. What's the matter are women threatening your manhood? Women have come this far and let me tell you it isn't because ignorant men like you allowed it. Actually you are a disgrace to the male species. bhappy2-2 is right you are a poor excuse for a man.
Posted by bhappy2-2 at 08:01 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
Who the hell do think would have the advantage of at using your guns, females or males? Jeez! What delusions of grandeur!
It's exactly moronic mindset like yours that are deluding females to get out of line, and a beat down.
Hopefully, you don't put foolish ideas in heads of the females in your family and then send them to contend with males; 'cause I'm sure you know what the outcome is going to be most of the time, right?
Little lost mind, male dominance IS NOT man-made!
I'm not stating anything here that's made up or mere opinion.
I'm stating the natural order of things that will never ever change between males and females as long as they shall exist!
Women who pay attention to the truths about I post about the natural pecking order, and respect it, are ALWAYS going to fair better. Those who don't are going to have rude awakens, if they wake up at all.
The power of a female lies in the skill of running up the 'white flag', in surrendering that is!
No matter how many guns and bombs you put in the hands of females who would be foolish, that NATURAL STATE OF AFFAIRS will never ever change.
Perhaps Sam Colt? Or Mr. Remingtom, Mr. Mossberg, Mr. Mauser or any of a number of other gentlemen who would gladly protect her from the kind of sicko that donated the sperm for this child. They would even be happy to protect her from YOU! All she has to do is get a gun, learn to use it and hope the need never arises. You see Agnim, the Constitution applies to ALL, not just us males. You are a sorryass example of a MAN, so I can only say male in your case.
The 2nd Amendment. Read it, learn it, use it. Its a human right! Its a human necessity. ESPECIALLY WITH MALES LIKE YOU!!!
You think that men rule the world? Well if they are they are doing one hell of a lousy job of it! The world is in pretty bad shape. BE CAREFUL, one day you are going to wake up out of your fantasy world to find that women are ruling. Women have come along way. Years ago men were brought up to think they were the masters,but women are no longer allowing them to rule over them. Women have moved up in the world, taking more and more positions that used to be mens. What's the matter feeling threatened? In fact I think it is time for a woman president. VOTE FOR HILARY!!!
Posted by SusanHelit at 05:18 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
There is absolutely no contradiction; 'cause you really don't know what constitute contradiction!
If you are in service of someone, just being able to make an invention doesn't mean that you will have rights to the patent and the proceeds, will you?
In a man's world, the female can always produce the children; but SHE HAS NO POWER OF HERSELF TO ENFORCE ANY RIGHT TO THAT CHILD; and why should she anyway when her role is TO GIVE?
Because of the natural state of male dominance, all or any rights a female has is given/allowed by some males!
Do I really need to spell it out so vividly to awaken the mind from its slumber.
And why on earth would a man want to "have a child by himself" when his Mother Nature provides females who will gladly bear the 'burden' for months required at at time, while he can be off doing something more fun? LOL
Ask any good baker, it's so cool to just drop a 'bun in the oven' and come back later to collect it no?
Maybe a better analogy is the farmer who sows the seed in the hole, leave it, and then come back to reap. LOL
I can't remember the name of it, but if I do I will let you know so you can maybe find it and watch it.
Posted by erasmus6 at 05:36 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
Erasmus, I don't usually watch movies that obviously come out of the Hollywood drug-induced imagination. They are always bizarre, as you must have realized from watching this movie sober? LOL
And of course this movie must be about the future (read that drugged imagination) 'cause there is nothing in the long history of humans that would remotely form the basis of such a childish story.
And since the future is made from the past, we should look to the clear lessons of history to appreciate the male-female relationship. It is not about to change fundamentally. And I can assure you that it never will, for reasons you may not be able to understand. OK?
Of course this does not mean that there won't be the OCCASIONAL freaks of nature in the odd society now and then; but overall the fundamental rules will hold forever and ever.
FYI: CHECK yourself you keep saying the term "MOTHER NATURE", this indicates a female dominant form usually associated with nurturer, caregiver,protector of creation,etc. As far as female rights are concerned they were NOT orginially given to us by men----check many holy
books & find examples of the responsibility of children given to the mother by GOD'S hand not mans (Jesus respecting woman & children ,commanment:Honor mother & father (note mother is 1st). Many women worldwide exercise their rights to be mothers or not (abortions, adoptions,contraceptives,being foster mothers & in extreme cases mercy killing sick children-- hospital pulls plug or stop medicating,etc.). Also MOTHER NATURE sets up children & animals to stay with their mothers until adulthood & in some cases to protect them from the males--- check a nature channel.
I saw a movie years ago that took place in the future. Women were in control and the men were slaves. The men had collars around their necks and were tied to a center post (like they do with horses). They were called "DYNKS". The men were used to do the physical labor and for continuing the species. (ahhh and some of them can't even do that well) It was such a great movie. John Saxton was in it. I can't remember the name of it, but if I do I will let you know so you can maybe find it and watch it.
Not that anyone who kills a child really wanted it - nor do they deserve it - as nearly every single man (and every single real man) agrees.
Funny how you contradict yourself - females are set up by nature to care for kids - and that's why you think men should get first call? Just spend a few more years working this philosophy out, because it just too obviously doesn't work.
Ok, you need to get a grip there, buddy. First of all, if men can do everything else the world needs, I have yet to see it. And because men are so concerned with the thing between their legs getting attention they don't have time to do everything else the world needs. And secondly, every woman knows that God screwed up when he created man and then made up for it by creating woman.
Posted by SusanHelit at 03:56 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
LOL
Why should men "try and have the children by themselves" when Mother Nature already provide males with a natural carrier who CANNOT resist playing their PRIMARY role of mother?
If a female is not a mother, her life (in the natural scheme of things) has been worth a lot less than intended.
There would have been no reason to make females if not to continue the species (a vital role); because men can do everything else the world needs!
Children belong to mother & father, NOT the father.
Posted by jc19611 at 03:57 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
You are obviously contradicting yourself for; could the females (act like the males can) and take the children against the wishes of the males?
The males have super rights to the children and CAN enforce them; the females have only inferior rights, which the males may or may not allow!
That is how Mother Nature sets up things when she made the male the dominant gender and the female the submissive one. Tamper with that set up (in our ignorance and delusion) at our peril!
Posted by SusanHelit at 03:32 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
LOL
That is so 'baby talk'.
As Tina would say, "What's love got to do with it?"
Men should have the right to their children and THEY should be the ones allowing the visitation, not the other way around!
When we create a FALSE situation of females even appearing to dictate to the DOMINANT MALES, it is never going to end nicely.
And we know who will get the chitty end of the stick MOST of the time, the female, right?
Only fools insistently go against the grain of nature.
Only fools make laws that contravene the way nature sets up things between male and females.
And fools are responsible when tragedies like these occur; 'cause like you unwittingly might conclude 'love' has NOTHING to do with it!
As wise men, and women, everywhere know, write into law, and enforce as police officers and individuals both.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 58 Comments