May 7, 2009: Two Faced -first American face transplant
 

http://cellar.org/2009/facetransplant1.jpg

http://cellar.org/2009/facetransplant2.jpg

Connie Culp was shot in the face by her husband five years ago. She lost her nose and needed a trach tube to eat and breathe. Now she has a nose again, thanks to a donor. I suspect 10/20 years ago I might have though research into face transplants was cosmetic/frivolous. This definitely proves otherwise. It's a very beautiful thing, if not in the traditional sense. pics are before/after and way back when....

(BBC story)

She is a reverse Jackson, she used plastic surgery to get a nose

Who did you think the donor was???

That lady's head that Arnold used to sneak into Mars.. (I have Total Recall of it)

The initial transplant involves adding much more skin than is actually needed (in case of tissue rejection I think it said) at a later stage, they will cut away excess and round off her face. That's not the shape it will stay.

Look at her picture before she was shot. She was such a bonny lass. Apparently her husband also shot himself and survived. He's serving 7 years.

He only got 7 years? That, in itself, is a crime. :(

My gut reaction was exactly the same as yours medic. But I don't know the circumstances around it. Maybe there was a case for diminished responsibility? If not, then really, it's a very low sentence.

Basically the same time he'd serve had he killed her.

I read elsewhere that she forgave him and testified on his behalf to reduce the sentence.

I can forgive a whole hell of a lot, and have. I don't know that I could forgive someone who did that to me. What a nightmare, can you imagine? I can't. Every day you look in the mirror and it's YOU looking back...until it's not.

I saw her on a news conference, briefly. She has more inner strength than I could dream of.

Oh. Oh, well in that case, that seems a fair sentence.

Men tend to get off more lightly than women in cases of spousal abuse/ violence.
Judges still operate under the perception that women aren't natuarally inclined to violence, therefore a crime perpetrated by a woman against a man is more heinous.

Not relevant in this case of course. It just bears repeating every now and then.

I disagree - repeating that is not helping, do you have any statistics on that? Not being argumentative, but I think that almost the opposite is the more common belief.

I knew I recognized that triangle face from somewhere!

That might be the opposite of commonly held beliefs where you are Classic, but not here in the UK.

There is also another factor involved to do with preconceived murder, versus the so-called 'crime of passion'. Because women who kill abusive partners usually don't do so in an act of immediate self-defence, but rather after years of abuse, and when the partner is at his most vulnerable (and therefore the only time she will feel able to attack), they have usually faced a full murder charge. Because when men kill their wives they can usually point to an instance of rage, they have historically got away with lighter sentences. I will look for the source but there was a case, not so long ago (maybe a decade) of a judge considering it an acceptable mitigation that a man had snapped because his wife was 'nagging' him.

Our laws only recognised 'rape' as being legally possible within marriage in the mid-late '90s.

There's a similar discrepancy as well, in sentencing for child murder. Women who murder children (I don't necessarily mean their own children) will usually be seen as much greater monsters than men who do the same. Again I'll have to go digging for suorces...though actually, no i won;t not yet. I will go write my essay on factory reforms :P