8 year old Kyle Alwood sets fire to home, kills his family

This happened back in April but I didn't hear about it until just recently. He also had a Youtube channel under his name.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A nine-year-old boy from Illinois has been charged with five counts of first-degree murder in connection with a mobile home fire that killed five people, among them three young children.

Woodford County State's Attorney Greg Minger announced on Tuesday that the juvenile suspect also has been charged with two counts of arson and one count of aggravated arson, accused of intentionally starting the deadly fire.

The April 6 inferno near the village of Goodfield killed one-year-old Ariel Wall; her brother Daemeon Wall and cousin Rose Alwood, both aged two; Ariel and Daemeon's father, 34-year-old Jason Wall, and the children's maternal great-grandmother, 69-year-old Kathryn Murray.

All five victims died of smoke inhalation inside the family's trailer at Timberline Mobile Home Park.

Jason Wall's fiancee, 27-year-old Katrina Wall, and her son from a previous relationship, Kyle Alwood, then aged eight, managed to escape the fire.

Minger would not reveal to the Journal Star other details about the young murder and arson suspect, including a possible relationship to the victims.

He said the child, if convicted, could be placed on probation for at least five years but not beyond the age of 21, and would likely receive counseling.

He will not be imprisoned, if found guilty by a judge during a bench trial.

The criminal charges were filed against the unnamed nine-year-old suspect six months after the deadly arson fire, which broke out at around 11pm on April 6 at 14 Cypress Court.

By the time firefighters responded to the scene six minutes later, the trailer home had been engulfed in flames.

Neighbor AnnaMarie Siebert told the Journal Star at the time that screams could be heard coming from the burning property, but the flames were too intense for bystanders to try and rescue the trapped residents.

Katrina Wall and her son Kyle were taken to an area hospital and later released.

Minger said it was a 'heavy decision' to charge a nine-year-old with one of the most serious offense there is, but he concluded that it had to be done 'for finality.'

According to an online obituary, Jason Wall was a US Army veteran who served several tours of duty abroad, including in Iraq, Afghanistan and Korea.

After retiring from military service, Wall worked as a truck driver. He devoted his free time to hunting and spending time with his fiancee and their children.

The obituary notes that Wall was raising Katrina Alwood’s eldest child, Kyle, 'like his own son.'

Alwood’s grandmother, Kathryn Murray, was a homemaker and an artist who enjoyed drawing and sewing. Her other hobbies included cooking, camping and fishing.

‘She was known as the best Grandma,’ the woman’s obituary reads.

Daemeon Wall, aged two, was a fan of the Mickey Mouse Club House, with Goofy being his favorite character, and enjoyed watching the animated film Happy Feet. The toddler was said to have been ‘very protective’ of his baby sister, Ariel.

The one-year-old girl, Jason and Kathryn’s youngest child, loved to grown and make the ‘Chewbacca’ sound with her dad, according to her obituary.

Two-year-old Rose Alwood, Kathryn Alwood’s niece, loved the Disney film Coco.

‘Her favorite words that she always said were "katchup" and "mine,"’ according to the toddler’s memorial page. ‘She loved doing arts and craft projects with grandma and was especially known for photo-bombing her mother.’

This is awful; I'd never heard about this either.

To charge him with first degree murder indicates they have evidence of premeditation and intent. I'm not sure how to even wrap my head around that.

Reading the obituaries of the babies is heartbreaking.

thelmar wrote:

To charge him with first degree murder indicates they have evidence of premeditation and intent. I'm not sure how to even wrap my head around that.

They have to have fucked up on that, surely? I mean I can buy the idea that this kid set the fire on accident but on purpose? It's not even that I think children are innocent little angels, I just think there's no way a dumb little kid had enough brains to commit mass murder via arson. If those prosecutors got it right though, oh man, I'd keep a serious eye on that child, because I could not think of a bigger red flag than "burned five people to death before the age of ten".

I've been hearing a lot about this on my local news channel since I live fairly close to Illinois. It has been very controversial. The state attorney says it was a hard decision, but is ultimately the one he had to make. I'm guessing they know more than we do. However, the article goes on to state that prosecutors will have a hard time proving the intent... so I'm not really sure.

Here is a local article about it that talks about the charges a little more.

Reading the YouTube comments of the TIME news article about this case is fascinating. A majority of these people are practically salivating at the thought of this kid receiving violent retributive justice for committing murders he may or may not have been cognitively functioning enough to understand the impact of. Interesting how people are so immediately willing to destroy a person; even as young as nine, for murdering people they don't know, whilst having no details as to the history of the childs mental health, or his living situation. Funny how that works.

That being said, I do think it's entirely possible for a child that young to have enough anger within them to have killing intent, and a large enough sparsity of emotional maturity to act on that intent. The question is if they had juuuust enough emotional maturity to actually contextualize how acting on that intent would affect others.

AntiSocial-MasterDebater wrote:

Reading the YouTube comments of the TIME news article about this case is fascinating. A majority of these people are practically salivating at the thought of this kid receiving violent retributive justice for committing murders he may or may not have been cognitively functioning enough to understand the impact of. Interesting how people are so immediately willing to destroy a person; even as young as nine, for murdering people they don't know, whilst having no details as to the history of the childs mental health, or his living situation. Funny how that works.

Because Humans are violent, bloodthirsty, and hypocritical by nature.

TheOne99 wrote:

AntiSocial-MasterDebater wrote:

Reading the YouTube comments of the TIME news article about this case is fascinating. A majority of these people are practically salivating at the thought of this kid receiving violent retributive justice for committing murders he may or may not have been cognitively functioning enough to understand the impact of. Interesting how people are so immediately willing to destroy a person; even as young as nine, for murdering people they don't know, whilst having no details as to the history of the childs mental health, or his living situation. Funny how that works.

Because Humans are violent, bloodthirsty, and hypocritical by nature.

I don't buy that. It may seem odd of me to say that considering what forum we're on, but I believe the opposite is true, that humans on the whole are kind, caring, and understanding, and for the most part acts of aggression are the results of frustrations from various circumstances beyond their (our?) control. I believe this because if humans really were just violent by nature, then modern society would never have taken root. We'd still be cavemen beating each other to death and raping a rival tribe's women. Empathy, kindness, and understanding is what has allowed the human race to get this far without collapsing in on itself. Back in the stone age the murder rate was one in ten. Nowadays murder rates in first world nations don't exceed 5 per 100,000 people. That's the kind of difference between Lake Eerie and the Pacific Ocean.

QuestionMark wrote:

TheOne99 wrote:

AntiSocial-MasterDebater wrote:

Reading the YouTube comments of the TIME news article about this case is fascinating. A majority of these people are practically salivating at the thought of this kid receiving violent retributive justice for committing murders he may or may not have been cognitively functioning enough to understand the impact of. Interesting how people are so immediately willing to destroy a person; even as young as nine, for murdering people they don't know, whilst having no details as to the history of the childs mental health, or his living situation. Funny how that works.

Because Humans are violent, bloodthirsty, and hypocritical by nature.

I don't buy that. It may seem odd of me to say that considering what forum we're on, but I believe the opposite is true, that humans on the whole are kind, caring, and understanding, and for the most part acts of aggression are the results of frustrations from various circumstances beyond their (our?) control. I believe this because if humans really were just violent by nature, then modern society would never have taken root. We'd still be cavemen beating each other to death and raping a rival tribe's women. Empathy, kindness, and understanding is what has allowed the human race to get this far without collapsing in on itself. Back in the stone age the murder rate was one in ten. Nowadays murder rates in first world nations don't exceed 5 per 100,000 people. That's the kind of difference between Lake Eerie and the Pacific Ocean.

I think I may have mis-phrased what i meant, I meant to the people who WANTED the child dead, I didn't mean Kyle was violent, and bloodthirsty by nature, but im talking about the hypocritical reaction by the public by wanting him dead despite it clearly contradicting society's rules of conduct, morals, laws etc. You may have already got what I meant the first time but if you didn't i hope this correction clears it all up

AntiSocial-MasterDebater wrote:

Reading the YouTube comments of the TIME news article about this case is fascinating. A majority of these people are practically salivating at the thought of this kid receiving violent retributive justice for committing murders he may or may not have been cognitively functioning enough to understand the impact of. Interesting how people are so immediately willing to destroy a person; even as young as nine, for murdering people they don't know, whilst having no details as to the history of the childs mental health, or his living situation. Funny how that works.

That being said, I do think it's entirely possible for a child that young to have enough anger within them to have killing intent, and a large enough sparsity of emotional maturity to act on that intent. The question is if they had juuuust enough emotional maturity to actually contextualize how acting on that intent would affect others.

The mob mentality comments are kind of based for adding no exception to children because I believe all lives have no objective value and it reveals a bit of inner honesty, but the only reason why they are not based is that they are rooted in butthurt and an extreme case of virtue signaling. The commenters are also dumb because they probably live in a world of black and white. I bet those brainlets never actually cared about the victims, to be honest.

TheOne99 wrote:

I think I may have mis-phrased what i meant, I meant to the people who WANTED the child dead, I didn't mean Kyle was violent, and bloodthirsty by nature, but im talking about the hypocritical reaction by the public by wanting him dead despite it clearly contradicting society's rules of conduct, morals, laws etc. You may have already got what I meant the first time but if you didn't i hope this correction clears it all up

I understood your original intent, yeah. Though I will say that neither of us really now if Kyle is bloodthirsty by nature, this was an accident, or this was a dumb/impulsive kid who did a tremendously stupid thing. There are indeed some people who are pretty damn cold, and arguably outright and truly evil, but they're few and far between.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Alwood said her son suffered from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and ADHD, and took medication each morning.

Quote :

The state’s Department of Children and Family Services opened an investigation into the circumstances of the deaths two days after the fire, according to an agency spokesman. Alwood said they took custody of her son shortly after the fire.
The agency had 13 previous contacts with the 9-year-old’s family before the fire, dating back to when he would have been an infant.

In most cases, the agency either referred Alwood to community services or determined allegations were “unfounded” after the family took some action to fix the situation.
DCFS took custody of the boy shortly after the fire, and he was placed into a foster home, according to an agency spokesman.

Keep your eyes peeled on this one, something's definitely fishy about this family.

QuestionMark wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Keep your eyes peeled on this one, something's definitely fishy about this family.

It certainly would make things a little more comprehensible if we learned that he was brought up in a violent and neglectful environment. If that was all he knew, to react with violence or act out, then it certainly explains more than if he just up and killed everybody.