Say you’re a US Marshall.
When you walk into the US Marshall station to get your assignments for the day and get “eviction” detail, you always go in thinking there might be a bit of danger. - after all, people usually do not like getting kicked out of their homes.
So, you do whatever you have to do before every shift to prepare yourself for violence or just angry people in general.
Right?
Well, nothing you could do could prepare you for the nightmare that Banita Jacks created.
You show up at the residence.
The door opens and you get that first whiff of that sickly sweet stench that makes your insides turn.
You’re thinking that it couldn’t possibly be what you’re thinking.
While you’re thinking that, she tries to stop you from going up to the second floor.
Why?
Because the decomposed bodies of her four daughters are up there.
Crime scene experts say that the first to go was the oldest - 17-year-old Brittany - who was stabbed in the stomach four or five times. Next to her body was the kitchen knife that Banita Jacks used on her.
According to Banita Jacks, she killed Brittany because her daughter was “loose.”
11-year-old Tatianna Jacks was strangled to death.
6-year-old N’Kiah Fogle was strangled to death.
5-year-old Aja Fogle had been hit on the head multiple times with something hard enough to cause blunt-force trauma, and was also strangled to death.
All the girls were found in the adjoining bedroom on the floor, rotting. The medical examiner couldn’t say if they had been left there for two weeks or two months. Due to the bad decomposition of the girls’ bodies, identification was made very difficult.
Life isn’t CSI. Grissom isn’t always the man on the case.
According to Banita Jacks’ statements, her girls were all possessed by the Devil and had died one by one in their sleep. Banita Jacks also told the authorities that she had not fed the children in quite some time.
Since Banita Jacks’ arrest and the blitz of media coverage, the Mayor of Washington DC fired four Department of Social Services workers because they didn’t do their job on this case.
Since Banita Jacks was arrested, calls to the city’s abuse and neglect hotline have gone up by more than 400 percent, according to city records. There are now more than 1,600 open investigations, counting those filed in the last 30 days. We’re just waiting for another Banita Jacks, really.
Of course the lawyers came into the ring to get their cut. The “family” of these children are filing multi-million dollar law suits against the state for not paying attention to these children. The fathers of these children, who weren’t paying child support, are suing for millions as well.
Banita Jacks became a recluse and pulled her children out of school. They checked and determined that the family had moved to Maryland because Banita Jacks never answered the door.
So, let’s look at the prizes for everyone. What does everyone win in this case?
- Mother- gets insanity plea and spends however long it takes to get sane.
- Biological fathers who never paid child support get millions.
- Family members who didn’t pay attention now get millions for four dead grandchildren.
- The Mayor of Washington DC gets re-elected.
They all win, despite the fact that, as Banita Jack’s family put it so eloquently, “she smells like death and she’s insane” after she was arrested.
I’m sure that all the investigators reeked of decomposition too. It takes a lot of lemon to get that stench out of your soul and uniform, but you always remember that smell of politics, money and decomposing children on the second floor during a seemingly normal eviction.
Loading …
If the deadbeat dads win I will cry. They should be right there facing charges with the ‘mom’ since they had neglected their children even worse then she did.
[Reply]
ceecee reply on April 1, 2008:
we dont know if they were deadbeat or not. Just because they did not pay child support doesnt mean that they werent involved in those kids lives.
[Reply]
bogustoo reply on April 1, 2008:
If they WERE involved in those kids’ lives, that’s even worse! How could they leave their innocent children with someone who is clearly insane!
[Reply]
Nissa reply on April 1, 2008:
Indeed. If they did see those kids then they are even worse then the mom. Sitting back and watching your children suffer…
Jason reply on April 1, 2008:
no… 2 weeks or more without talking with your child is definitely not involved.
These Dads are dead beats even if one of them is a member of Congress.
[Reply]
When was the last time family members saw the kids? 2 weeks ago? 3 weeks ago? Since they’re not able to determine the cause of death I’m gonna guess it’s been awhile. If a few lawyers can make an honest buck off of the death of these kids, so what?
I don’t think any of us expects the nice people in Social Services to save the world either. You win some, you lose some. Now their workload suddenly jumps 400% - they’re gonna have to cut even more corners just to make quota, let alone save the life of some nutjob’s kid that would just grow up and make more kids to abuse and neglect.
It’s nice to see a mayor that is willing to put his head on the chopping block by making the bold decision to fire 4 people that made a simple error in judgement. Doesn’t matter that these 4 will end up costing taxpayers money - can’t have people on the payroll that allow even the most insignificant people fall through the cracks.
In life these kids were nothing and probably would have never been anything, but by golly, this is America. Let’s make their deaths mean something their mother can be proud of.
[Reply]
Missino_Ts reply on April 1, 2008:
Who are you to declare these kids were nothing, just because they weren’t rich and white? You sound like a typical pro-lifer who doesnt give a damn about the people who are already here.
[Reply]
TurtleMania reply on April 1, 2008:
They don’t pay social services jobs enough.
I remember years ago wanting to career that profession and then I found out that the top salary was 20k! Imagine 20k for a job that sends you to hell each day. Some may say it’s not about the money. For me, 20k can’t put food on my family’s table amid the recession and all. If they pay police more, then dammit they need to increase social services as well. It’s a shitty job dealing with POS scum bags that rebel against society. Not all clients are dirtbags but that’s gotta hurt geting paid shit.
[Reply]
Nissa reply on April 1, 2008:
My mother was considered nothing growing up. She was tossed around and tossed out. She turned out damn well. Don’t judge kids before they have a chance to grow up and show society what they’ve got.
[Reply]
Baddie76 reply on April 1, 2008:
Tell Banita Hi for me when you get to Hell, Miwist. ;)
[Reply]
Miwist reply on April 1, 2008:
Any messages for anybody else?
[Reply]
Aaron reply on April 2, 2008:
I have a message for you;
Go fuck yourself.
Oh, and also, I hope you get raped into a coma.
This is terrible. I can’t believe someone could just kill their own children and live in the same house as they are rotting upstairs. The stench must of been horrific.
Nissa- I totally agree with you. These fathers don’t deserve anything. If they were not paying child support and clearly they weren’t involved in their children’s lives, what rights do they have to any money?
TurtleMania- If you are working in social services, you are not working against your will. They know how much the job pays, they still decided to be employed there, so they need to do their job! Period.
Where was the family that is now suing the state when these girls were decomposing? None of them wondered where they were? Sounds like the whole family is fucked up in the head. We all known the mother is.
[Reply]
Obviously the father/fathers of these childen weren’t all that ‘involved’, nor were any other family members… if they hadn’t even seen the children for so long that they didn’t know they’d been dead for weeks/months.
Replying to another comment…. how in the world does not financially supporting children you’ve fathered not qualify as a ‘dead-beat’ dad? How is being ‘involved’ with your children- yet not contributing to their support being a good parent in any way?
People who are jonesing for sex, but don’t want the hassle or expense of having children, should use a damn condom EVERY time.
And what those kind of people DON’T deserve is to get a single penny from the deaths of children they were dead-beating on. Same as with the family members who obviously didn’t see the children very often, if at all.
If there has to be a lawsuit, if there has to be a lesson taught regarding errors made by any gov’t program, the attys should pursue them for free, and any monies awarded should be put into a fund to help other children who have been neglected, abused or overlooked.
These people couldn’t have seen the children very often, but I’ll bet they could bother to make the daily trip to the courthouse for the lawsuit… to see how much money they’ll get.
The kids are dead. The mother should get the DP. The father/fathers and so-called family should be hanging their heads in shame rather than lining up like hyenas for a feast at the court troughs.
I couldn’t help noticing that the mom claimed she hadn’t fed the children for a while. That must be the understatement of the year. How much do dead children normally eat?
It always pisses me off when people don’t spend the child support they aren’t getting on their dead children.
c
[Reply]
It is obvious that these children were not valued by their families during their (children’s) lives.
As far as blaming the fathers - let’s figure out why they were not paying child support first. My daughter’s mother knows my motto - “No Child, No check” Could they have stopped paying because the mother decided to cut the fathers out of the picture?
What if one of the fathers had forced his way into the house to check on his children? Who’d be the criminal?
The only way that anyone should be entitled to any cash is if THEY had made reports that were not properly investigated, else no report, NO case.
I’d also like to send the lawyers to hell - these lawyers have no intention of makingthe world a better place - I bet many of hem love the world and want the world to be as fucked up as possible so they can just keep in sueing!
How funny the word sue attracts lawyers and the word suey attracts pigs.
[Reply]
Chelsey reply on April 7, 2008:
You are not paying to see your child, and if you believe that you are then I really doubt you should be seeing her in the first place. You are paying to help feed her and clothe her. If you were still married to your ex-wife, and ended up working a job in a different city, would you stop sending money home because you weren’t seeing your daughter?
Clearly a mother keeping a father from seeing his child out of spite is wrong, and if your ex did that then a lawyer should be called, but I think you need to re-think and realize what these checks are for.
[Reply]
first the fathers are just as responsible because they did nothing to stop this from happening.
Second, mitwist fuck you and your condescension you piece of shit. You talk real big for a person who uses the Internet to make themself feel bigger. YOU are nothing, go get stabbed in the stomach and die you fucking idiot.
[Reply]
Miwist reply on April 1, 2008:
It is spelled “Miwist” not “mitwist”, don’t you forget it.
As for the stabbing, maybe you should use the tried and true method of 4-5 times. It worked rather well when Banita Jacks used it on her daughter, Brittany.
[Reply]
Aaron reply on April 2, 2008:
You are pathetic. Plain and simple, you get off on pissing people off on the internet.
You are real cool man. Look at you go, making fun of real people who actually lost their lives just to gain attention. These were CHILDREN, and they were murdered brutally. Get a fucking life.
[Reply]
Chelsey reply on April 7, 2008:
OH DEAR GOD PEOPLE ARE SAYING BAD THINGS ON THE INTERNET!!!!!/1!
Hell for everyone that sued, and for the mother.
[Reply]
From Tress
TurtleMania- If you are working in social services, you are not working against your will. They know how much the job pays, they still decided to be employed there, so they need to do their job! Period.
My response:
You get what you pay for! Period.
[Reply]
This is really sad… its especially sad when the “family who cared so much” only comes out of the wood work once the children are dead, they wanna know why no one cared.. why didn’t they care??!! I hope the family and the baby daddies get NADA!!! Why didn’t they open their mouths until now to collect money? I hope Banita gets death and her family gets lives… next case!
[Reply]
btw, who voted NO on hell?? this woman and her family need to go to hell, f*ckin low lives!!
[Reply]
bigc reply on April 1, 2008:
FRED, there is no excuse for a father not to pay child support. OF COURSE the father should be allowed to see his child, but whether he sees the child or not, the child must be taken care of, and it’s 1/2 of the father’s responsibility. If you don’t want to pay, don’t make babies. If the fathers had wanted to see their children, and were not being allowed to, they could go to court for visitation.
[Reply]
Fred reply on April 2, 2008:
I was simply stating that we should find out why the fathers were not involved. My “No Child, No Check” philosphy has worked well, my daughter’s mother makes sure my daughter is ready to go.
The law is that even if the father is not paying child support, visitation is NOT to be terminated. But when her mother tried to screw with me I found that the courts takes their sweet time with restoring visitation, but if I want to get into court fast, simply withhold the check. Catch 22 here - visitation is NOT to be terminated because the father is not paying….
I actually PAY more than just child support as her mother “feels” that my check does not cover all the expenses. In CT EACH parent is supposed to pay a portion, parenting is NOT supposed to be for a profit.
As I stated before, if the fathers DID file reports, then they deserve a settlement, but if the fathers did not demonstrate any involvement, then by all means they get nothing!
While the odds are in favor of these fathers being dead beats, let’s not forget the lessons from the Charles Stewert and Susan Smith cases - NEVER assume
Just because Momma is not getting a check does not mean the fathers are deadbeat. The father(s) could be withholding money because the mother did not spend it on the children, but rather blew it on crack, boyfriends who abused the children, some wierd church or a combination of all. (I bring the church in because she says that the children were possessed by the devil)
I am tired of the phrase “Deadbeat Dads” when there are pplenty of “Money Making Moms” out there as well who feel that child support moneys are theirs and that they should be paid for being a parent.
While the fathers must bear the responsibility for where their sperm lands, mothers must also understand that the sperm can only be implanted when the legs are spread! (It’s 1/2 their fault) EXCEPT RAPE!
[Reply]
RealityCheck reply on April 5, 2008:
Hmm…It was never found that drugs were involved and both fathers were very well off financially. The fact that she was getting evicted should clue you into her state of mind. Also the indication that whether it was 17 or 5 years old, they really had no intention of paying any attention to these girls, until now. Until the Mayor spoke up and opened the flood gates for lawsuits against the state. All of Washington DC is up in arms about the latest of the Babykillers and the forgetfulness of DSS.
It shall be swept under the proverbial rug.
penny reply on April 10, 2008:
Fred- I agree with some of your thoughts on issues with child support. I receive a vary minimal amout of child support every month. I’m fine with that because I have the benifit of seeing my childs beautiful face. When her dads weekend comes, he does alot with her and spends alot of money doing it. I know that that is an ideal situation, but I think that some sort of checks and balace system should be in place, if the father request, and there is good reason for it. I know that it could get turned into another way for x’s to hurt each other, but in some cases it could help. Plus maybe dads that were previously unwilling to support would understand better where there money was going. (although common sense should tell them, but we dont live in that type of world). I just think that some women, not all, abuse their child support, and the people being hurt are the children.
Well not knowing the circumastances of why the fathers wern’t around, I wont judge them. For the mother, she was clearly insane, and clearly deserves to die. I have no problem with giving mentally insane people the chair. One reason is no better than the other to kill some one. Except self defense! regardless of why some one commited murder, they still did it, and they deserve to die for it.
[Reply]
I was under the impression that most states are in line regarding child custody/visitation. Where I live, custody/visitation has nothing to do with child support. You can create children and have rights to see them completely separately from any obligation to pay support. So it’s a little hard to swallow that every single time a story comes up where children were not being financially supported by a parent that it’s claimed that the other parent was probably ‘withholding’ the child. It is much more common that parents are taking advantage of access to their children that they are not supporting, and that they are still fighting about in court.
Pretending that there are not a lot of parents who choose to simply not have anything to do with children they’ve created is not living in reality. Immediately jumping to the conclusion that every time a parent chooses to not be a part of their child’s life it’s because the other parent is holding the child ransom is just not reality.
Parents are legally allowed to participate in their children’s lives, even if it makes everyone miserable, and even if they choose not to help support those children.
Blah blah about ‘no child/no money’ or whatever that old used rant was about. Please. No parent is allowed to make the rules, even if it makes them feel more in control to claim they do.
Truth is, parents can see their kids even if they do not pay support. In fact, a lot of them can see their kids even if they don’t support them, and have previously abused them.
If something happened where I could not see my children, I would still support them. I love them, and that love does not stop just because you don’t get the access you want.
I hate everything about child custody disputes. Everything is so obviously a hangover from the hatred the parents feel towards each other, and rarely is the child’s needs put first. And it tends to hang around years after they’ve divorced or remarried- their spouses seem to love getting in the mudpit with the rest of them.
Pretending that there is not a large number of parents that desert their children would be as stupid as presuming that another large number are not fighting custody over personal issues on both sides, or ignoring the other parents that somehow manage to be adults and not use their children as pawns in the struggle to win in their divorce agenda.
I appreciate your efforts to be a part of your children’s lives, Fred, but you really don’t need to exaggerate your power over the situation (no kids/no money) when obviously there’s no legal basis for it.
Sane people can appreciate people staying involved in their children’s lives without needing to hear the contrast of how bad the other parent is. Your worth as a parent is not based on a comparison to them. If you see your children, and support them, we will appreciate you. We would appreciate you just the same if you and your ex pareted amicably and shared your parenting with no conflict.
Sometimes it seems to me lately that a lot of dads seem to feel the need to dwell on the conflict, what they’ve overcome, what a bitch their ex is, etc. That’s sad. The measure of a father should be in what they do, and not in comparison to the personal conflict they have with an ex-spouse.
A good dad is a good dad. They see their children, and take care of them as well as they would have if they’d stayed with their ex. They don’t stiff their children in their efforts to punish the ex, nor do they submit to requests for support they wouldn’t have been paying if they’d stayed together.
Dads should get respect for being dads, not for overcoming difficulties with their ex.
In the same vein, I have little respect for mothers who don’t acknowlege that they shared in the choice to make a child that needs care. Or mothers who live to pay back whatever hurt they think their ex caused them.
To children, I think they would not care about any of that- only in knowing that both of their parents love and support them, and keep the conflict in the adult realm where it belongs.
But to say that all parents should be assumed to not have contact with their children because the other parent is restricting them is just not reality.
c
[Reply]