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.
-
-
Photo
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)
-
Photo
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.
Video and Galleries from U.S.
-
Video
Lightning Strikes NASA Pad
-
Video
Costs Of Healthcare
-
Video
Harry Hurt Lobster Fishing
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 58 CommentsI think it would behoove the press and the investigators to wait for proof before making assumptions. Too many times people are convicted by the press and the police when they are actually innocent.
Posted by sasi1 at 08:13 PM : Mar 05, 2007
+ report this comment
We're all SLAVES. Who cares?
And so, more men die. Stupid, angry, blind animals, goaded into destroying themselves and their whole families. Isolated from each other, isolated from support and their brothers, they are brought to shame one-by-one by the system. They die for the rich, and for the unruly and unrighteous woman.
in japan, china, and other asian countries, this is very commonplace.
I think where people are pushed and pushed to produce, this occurs more frequently....
pursuit of happiness, hardly!
cafepress.com/warisprofitable
I'm with you on this one; but you know how it is already: Too many Americans won't believe news unless it's bad. LOL
And the ignorant, foolish, and IRRESPONSIBLE police are always eager to go along with the divisiveness; 'cause otherwise those morons would be out of a do nothing job!
Lastly, for both who died - RIP...
Lastly, for both who died - RIP...
Posted by george2221 at 09:07 AM : Mar 06, 2007"
Yes, George, these kinds of tragedies will continue to take place until we remove the ignorant pus.sified, mindless, and moronic males who make laws that contravene the natural schemes of things.
Frustrated fathers are going to demonstrate again and again their predominant right to their children over those of the mother. And demonstrate them in ways that will make the foolish mothers cringe!
Father gives life. And the father WILL take life; because the male does not have the same kind of attachment to the children as the mother does.
Fact is the father has PRIMARY 'ownership' over the children. (The Romans at least had that situation correct). LOL
As the dominant gender, the male is in the best position to look to the well being and SAFETY of the children, which are of primary importance.
So unless the male has a mental/physical defect that would make him incompetent, or he has just up and neglected the children, then NO GOOD LAW can be made to override the natural and predominant right of the father to his children, and then substituting the mother in his stead.
Posted by remmeler at 10:49 AM : Mar 06, 2007"
Killing humans is never justified; so please read for comprehension, and not just jump to childish conclusions.
The point is that if we create certain conditions, then there are consequences that will naturally follow or are highly likely to follow!
It's common sense even!
If we deny children to mothers and give them to fathers instead, there is a greater likelihood that the mothers WILL NOT grab the children and destroy them.
Even for that reason alone, the children should be given to their father as a PRIORITY if he wants them.
If he desires them, giving a man's children to the mother is the stupidest kinds of laws we can write; because the males are likely demonstrate their dominance.
having had a Relationship with a women who drove me crazy I can understand the Masdness caused by a Vindictive Woman but can not understand the Need to cause such carnage and death.
I was fortunate to walk away from that Marriage with my Sanity intact and have now had a beautiful relationship for the past 24 years.
There is No excuse which would cause me to believe that in order to get back at someone i had to kil My Daughter or another.
This Guy was sick......
If he desires them, giving a man's children to the mother is the stupidest kinds of laws we can write; because the males are likely demonstrate their dominance.
Posted by Agnim at 11:28 AM : Mar 06, 2007
What the f*ck is wrong with you?
Posted by smb221 at 01:28 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
Welcome to the real world!
That is the reality that most have been hiding from; and in the process, endangering children in their state of ignorance and delusion. LOL
How many fathers must partake in these all too common tragedies before we change the foolish laws in favor of the fathers who MUST have their children?
There are some sick people out in the world (and posting here!) - but that's no reason to give violent jackholes whatever they want.
From the sound of this one, I'd say the more appropriate lesson (only for Agnim's limited mind - the rest of us can understand reason) is that the father should never get any custody at all, so he can't kill the child.
I'm surprised the other guys on this board let you get away with painting them as such out of control, vicious, dumb savages.
Posted by SusanHelit at 02:10 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
What you fail to appreciate is that it is MEN who ultimately decide/allow the laws.
And when they become witless and listen to foolish females spout the kind of nonsense you do, then the society can expect more and more of these tragedies!
The more myopic minds like yours insist that men should not have their children, the more you foolishly challenge their manhood; and the more children are endangered!
But the deluded mindset doesn't really give a rat's arse about the children; you just need to live out your delusions of female grandeur. LOL
Of course what you are saying can't be taken too seriously; because females of themselves HAVE NO POWER but what the more dominant male give/allow them!
So I'm more after the relatively weak and mindless males who should know better and yet go about making stupid laws that MUST give rise to these tragedies, all because they allow foolish females to whine nonsense in their ears. LOL
You don't represent reality, nor do you represent men.
Posted by SusanHelit at 03:15 PM : Mar 06, 2007"
Having 'contempt' is not going to bother men who WILL have their children, come hell or high waters.
Having 'contempt' will NEVER prevent these escalating tragedies, in which frustrated fathers resort to their ultimate weapon, force in defense of manhood!
Having 'contempt' will not save children; not that your kind cares!
In fact, the 'contempt' will cause stubborn foolish men to make stupid laws that will ensure the very tragedies that some claim the don't want visited upon children!
And I don't know which planet you are from; but in EVERY culture the Law Givers are ALWAYS males, and for obvious reasons: Mother Nature endow males with DOMINANCE!
Females have no powers less that which are given/allowed by males.
These are facts of life as long as males and female shall exist, and for which some are in deep ignorance/delusions/denial.
And studies have shown that there's a natural edge given to women - rape tends not to concieve children - since I presume your strength is everything philosophy figures that's one more bit of dominance. Although today, dominance is all about intelligence. By strength, lions would be dominant, we'd be the weakest species around!
As wise men, and women, everywhere know, write into law, and enforce as police officers and individuals both.
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!
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 03:56 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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 58 Comments