Patreon

Man Set New Wife On Fire For Sleeping With Ex-Lover On Wedding NightMother Gets Year In Prison For Attacking School Staff When Told She Needed Visitor PassMarried Teacher, 32, Accused Of Having Sexual Relationship With Student, 13'Sons Of Guns' Cancelled After Star, Will Hayden, Accused Of Raping DaughterMaria Fernandes Died While Napping In Her Car Between Her Four JobsBryce Dion, Sound Mixer For Reality TV Show Cops, Dies Recording ShootoutGirl, 9, Accidentally Killed Gun Instructor With Uzi At Bullets And Burgers Meri Woods Found Guilty Of Downloading Child Porn To Frame Ex-HusbandJury Rejects Caleb Ruh's Claims He Was Sleeping When He Molested GirlTina Durant Accused Of Allowing Man To Get Her 11-Year-Old Daughter Pregnant

EVERETT, WA – A woman in Washington was in court yesterday, answering to accusations that she tried to cut off her sleeping husband’s head with a reciprocating saw.

Police arrested 44-year-old Renee Bishop-McKean last October after her husband, Brett Bishop, told them that she had just tried to kill him. He told them that he had awoke to the sound of the Sawzall reciprocating saw that his wife had in her hands, and was in the process of pressing against his neck.

After pushing her away and jumping out of bed, Bishop says he fought with McKean to get control of the saw. “Renee came at me in the kitchen with the Sawzall raised up, we had a struggle over it,” said Bishop. “She kept pulling the trigger to make it run, so I reached out and pulled the battery out of it.”

Not quite ready to call it a loss, the criminal complaint states McKean swung a hatchet at Bishop and hit him in the back of the head with a mallet. When police arrived at the home they could hear Bishop screaming at his wife. “It was you, it was you,” Bishop could be heard shouting. “You tried to cut my head off. You’re going to jail.”

McKean told police that, despite what her hysterical husband was claiming, she had not tried to kill her husband. In fact, she had probably saved his life. She told police that an intruder  broke into their house and was trying to kill her sleeping husband with the electric saw. The intruder escaped out their daughter’s window just as she had wrestled the saw away from him, and just as her husband had woke up and found her standing over him with it. She did admit to hitting her husband with the other tools, but only because her husband was attacking her.

Investigators had a hard time believing her story, especially since the window she says he intruder escaped out of was secured with a child-proof lock. But a shut window and a husband’s testimony where not all prosecutors needed to charge McKean with first-degree attempted murder and first degree domestic violence assault. There’s also the fact that police found a layer of black plastic underneath the bed sheets, as well as an abnormal number of large aluminum roasting pans, towels, and bottles of bleach inside the house.

There was also McKean’s past behavior. She has two felony convictions from a 2001 incident in which she and Bishop got into an argument and she fired a gun inside their apartment. Then, one month before she allegedly tried to remove her husband’s head, she had accused him of poisoning their son with anti-freeze. The boy was checked out at the hospital where it was determined he had not been poisoned.

Concerned for her mental health, social workers temporarily removed their two children, both under the age of 10,  from the home and Bishop moved out at the same time. The night of this latest incident was Bishop’s first night back. To add insult to the relative minor injuries Bishop suffered from that October night, McKean is refusing to give him a divorce.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments


The views expressed in the comments are those of the comment writers and don't represent the views or opinions of D'D or its staff. Feel free to flag comments that may violate conditions outlined in our Disclaimer.

  • Sam

    So you’ve got an axe, a mallet and a chainsaw handy – and you choose the loudest one to off your sleeping hubby with?? Fuck it. She deserves to be in jail for that amount of stupidity alone.

  • OutOfBubbleGum

    Renee Bishop-McKean is doing more for the economy than President Obama or Mitt Romney.

    At all of the ax, mallet, and Sawzall assembly lines, there will be a new employee who is responsible for putting on the yellow and black sticker for “Do Not Use Ax, Mallet, or Sawzall toCut Off Heads.”

  • come_and_see

    Talk about amateur hour. I thought you girls were crafty. LOL, should of knocked him out with some pills or something.

  • Transducer

    Not sure how you can run a Sawzall on someone’s neck without killing them. Maybe she forgot to remove the dildo attachment?

  • http://profiles.google.com/coldlogic HAL 9000

    These sorts of devious schemes are why James Bond always gets away.

  • Zazen

    Hey, don’t group me in with special ed here D<

  • JohnQknowitall

    Talk about falling through the cracks. This crack pot has an history.

    But she needs to know how to do her man in “right.”

    http://youtu.be/XLvWKDSFjn0

  • http://www.facebook.com/beckygalindo84 Rebecca Lynn Galindo

    This popped in my head when it said she will not grant thier divorce lmao they dont say til death due u part for nothing lol sorry i know it was lame

  • mandajayne

    “I’m sorry honey, wasn’t trying to wake you, but you missed a spot shaving, let me get that.” That’s all she needed to say. Totally believable.

  • EveryVillainIsLemons

    Crazy bitch, it’s “getting ahead,” not “getting A head.”

    I feel sorry for those kids.

  • Califboy

    Maybe she was trying to just give him some “head” ……. :)

  • RachelAnnPrince

    maybe she was trying to drop a hint like hey all these fucking tools are taking up valuable garage space do something with them would ya!

  • CT

    I would have to vote for the chainsaw being the loudest. Ever start one of those up? If you hear that shit start in your house, I don’t care WTF you are doing or where you are – you should run and run really fast.

  • Zazen

    If I woke up with a chainsaw going off near me, the only way anyone would know I didn’t actually teleport is because there’d be a pee trail heading off to the hills.

  • Sam

    I take it that means that your hubby’s diy skills leave somewhat to be desired…? ;)

  • CT

    I come from a long line of DIYers. My Mother installed a new floor in her kitchen by herself this past Spring. I’m a bit of a snob in this respect so he cant compare to what I’m used to. He can do it, I’d just rather do it my way.

  • CT

    <3

  • JGo555

    Motherfucker, all she wants is a day off in the spa AND FOR YOU TO PUT THE FUCKING SEAT DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • JGo555

    You mean, you rather be right.

  • Kwumey .

    midol stock just went up 89%

  • CT

    I’ve learned the hard way and spent money twice on projects that I compromised. I do it my way which is the right way. I do the research and spend the time to know what I want.

  • Canuck Gramz

    Okay I immediately thought that too and felt very guilty for it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/uneffectivehalo Angela Kay

    So I married a sawzall murderer.

  • http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/ Dakota Valkyrie

    A Washington state woman accused of trying to decapitate her sleeping husband with an electric saw has been convicted of attempted murder.

    Snohomish County Superior Court jurors took only about three hours to decide on a verdict Thursday in the trial of Renee Bishop-McKean of Everett. They also convicted the 44-year-old of first-degree assault for hitting the man in the head with a hatchet and mallet.
    [...]

    Bishop-McKean told police an attacker must have entered the home through an open window, found the saw and attacked her husband. A deputy prosecutor who noted the window was locked so it would only open a few inches called that the “Tinkerbell did this” defense.

    The woman did not testify. Sentencing is set for Oct. 4. Bishop-McKean faces at least 15 years in prison.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/WA-wife-tried-to-kill-husband-with-sawzall-170696146.html

  • Jean Valjean

    A fact many of you may not know is that women commit the majority of domestic violence. Further, around 44% of spousal murders are committed by the wife. Of course, these are just the ones we know of. Since women are more likely to use poison and murder for hire they are more likely to escape detection. Even when caught committing murder for hire the charge is often conspiracy to commit murder since she isn’t actually the killer.

    BTW, despite the fact that about 53% of all DV is committed by women, only .3% of DV resources go to serve men. That means 47% of DV victims are women and 99.7% of resources go to them.

    This, apparently, is the “equality” women have been calling for all these years.

  • Athena

    You are right about domestic violence percentages by gender. Women have also been statistically proven to be substantially more likely to strike out physically against a significant other (roughly 70% of women strike out physically against a significant other). The difference, however, is in the damage incurred. Short of murder and attempted murder situations, women are much less likely to hospitalize or severely injure their significant other. No domestic violence is acceptable, but that’s part of the motivation for devoting the lion’s share of resources to female victims.

  • Jean Valjean

    Given that around 44% of people murdered by their spouse are male, I disagree entirely with your premise that women need more protection than men.

    Women are injuring men more than is recorded, but men are less likely to go to the hospital out of shame. I’m quite certain that the lack of funding for DV for men has something to do with it. Society’s insistence that only women deserve protection from violence is a pretty good inducement for men to keep their mouth shut.

    That and the fact that men who call the cops on their wife’s violence are just as likely to be arrested given “primary offender laws” which require police to arrest men even if they are the victim.

    But you are correct, “no violence is acceptable” which is why women like you justify 99.7% of all DV resources going to women.

  • Athena

    With all due respect, sir, you don’t know women like me. You’re new here, though. Stick around and you will see that I am remarkably objective and fact-driven.

    This is not *my* premise. I was stating fact, and suggesting that it is a motivation in the allocation of resources. I never once stated that I agree with said allocation of resources. In fact, I’ve always found it rather appalling, especially having seen what an abused male goes through first-hand. Similar to the stigma associated with male rape, the argument could easily be made that male victims deserve more resources, given the psychological impact that comes with “reverse” domestic violence (for lack of a better term).
    There is plenty of research regarding the gender bias associated with domestic and sexual violence perpetrated against men, and I’m familiar with a great deal of it. I am well aware of the under-reporting that is a deep and pervasive issue. However, I’m dealing in common sense. I have not encountered research that suggests women are significantly more prone to using weaponry in their domestic violence (that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, but I can’t present an argument based on research I haven’t seen). Therefore, if men and women are abusing each other at relatively similar rates, it stands to reason that the average male is capable of wounding a woman worse than when the situation is reversed.

    Lord knows, that was the case in my equal DV opportunity household growing up. My 5’7″, 140lb mom would lash out physically more often than my father, but when my 6’3″, 300lb father lashed out physically, there were lasting injuries.

    Still, you and I are in 100% agreement that “women-only” feminists are denying men much deserved resources on a grand scale, and they minimize the scope of femaly-on-male DV.

  • Jean Valjean

    I’m glad we are clear on the facts. Some more facts are that women actually are more likely to use weapons and ambush to even the odds in DV instances. Further, DV households are more likely to have child abuse as well. And who abuses children more? Women–at twice the rate as men. They also murder children more than men.

    While women’s greater likelihood of injury might be a motivation to give women more resources it fails to explain the indifference to children who are suffering under an abusive mother. Given that women are twice as likely to abuse their children and much more likely to murder them it would seem especially prudent to provide DV resources to fathers so they can protect their children from the mother. Instead, what is more likely to happen is that he will be jailed and the children will remain with mom while he rots in jail on false charges.

    If I’ve insulted you, and I believe I have, I apologize. This is a bitter issue for me and issues such as this fester in the minds of men all over this country who have yet to awaken politically to the injustice forced upon them in the name of “female rights.”

  • Athena

    Neonaticide comprises 45% of child murders and, yes, this is overwhelmingly perpetrated by mothers (as I just pointed out in another thread, today). However, once a child is past a day old, males are substantially more likely to kill a child (between fathers and “male acquaintances”). Infanticide, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Filicide. Related to child maltreatment, as of 2010, men represented 45.2 percent of perpetrators and women 53.6 percent according to this report. Of course, when juxtaposed with the fact that 84% of custodial single parents are mothers, and there are more children in single-parent households than not, that gives the prior numbers some perspective.

    I should note that I do not list these numbers to disprove you, per se. The anti-male bias in domestic violence resources is real; in family courts, is real; in traditionally “female” careers (child care, K-12 teaching, nursing), is real. But to misstate or purposely exaggerate the statistics associated with these issues is a disservice.

    You are an exceptionally articulate (if not a bit misogynistic) commenter. I’d hate to see you fall down the rabbit hole with statistical assertions that are less than accurate. I used to intern for a public defense attorney. I’ve (by proxy) defended men caught in situations very much like the ones you describe. Anyone around here can tell you that anti-male bias is, for lack of a better descriptor (I think it makes it sound glib), a “pet” issue of mine. I am the first to scream “unfounded sexism!” when female commenters respond to stories with comments like, “And this is why I don’t trust my kids with men”. We’re on the same page (mostly).

    As for insulting me, hardly. I’m a fuckin’ android. ;)

  • Jean Valjean

    I will add to your clarification that men brought into the home after the genetic father has been pushed out by the mother are the ones committing most of the child murders and sexual abuse perpetrated by men. The biological father is the least likely to murder his own children.

  • Athena

    Not to beat a dead horse, but did you bother to look at my links? According to the BJS:
    Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 —
    31% were killed by fathers 29% were killed by mothers 23% were killed by male acquaintances 7% were killed by other relatives 3% were killed by strangers
    Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males.

    Granted, this only addresses children under the age of 5, but I’ve found no evidence suggesting the trend reverses past that age group. I’m afraid the numbers simply don’t support your claim. If you’ve got a more reliable set of numbers, or perhaps a unique way of looking at these numbers, I’d like to hear it.

  • Jean Valjean

    The above numbers are flawed and likely biased. Take note that the percentages add up to 93% plus another 3% for Unknown which isn’t included in the percentage list, and 4% which are killed by female acquaintances,

    Further, we know for a fact that many child murders are committed by both parents but that number is suspiciously absent. Essentially the survey is saying that 23% of child murders are committed by an “acquaintance” which I assume is a boyfriend but the mother was never involved in that murder? Why aren’t these percentages added? It appears that if the mother acted in conjunction with the father or boyfriend then her crime is being left out of the statistic and only the male’s is recorded. That represents a clear anti-male bias and calls the motivation of the survey into question.

    If for instance 20% of child murders were committed by the mother and father then in order to add that statistic to the list they would ultimately arrive at a total percentage above 100%. ie. 120%. Even if they listed these murders separately without creating a category for accomplice murder they would have arrived at a percentage above 100%. Therefore, the only way to arrive at an even 100% was to blame all accomplice murder on the male which under reports murders committed by women by 20% (hypothetically). Without knowing the number of accomplice murder we have no way to determining the actual number of women murdering children.

    As is often the case, women aren’t charged for crimes that they commit but instead are given treatment and counseling. However, when men commit the same offense they are charged with murder.

    Since this is a BJS statistic then it will only include convictions for murder. Since we know that women are less likely to be accused, arrested, tried, convicted, and get a fraction of the sentence that men do then I’d say this BJS statistic is critically flawed and given the history of such surveys I believe it is deliberately so.

    All that said, I don’t have a break down of accomplice murder and I’m surprised by that since I have been talking about the statistic. It does exist but today I haven’t found it yet. I suspect that previous BJS statistics have included accomplice murder and those copies have been removed. Some links which I’ve tried from my own reference list aren’t working.

  • Athena

    You can find methodology information at the link. These numbers are actually not based on convictions. They are based on murder reports, including unsolved murders. Information on the methodology they use to calculate offender data of unsolved murders is at the link.

    Having worked in criminal defense, I find your statements about the failure to charge women for serious crimes to be rather exaggerated. I agree that they often get more lenient sentencing; but, then again, men make up the majority of judges. Go figure. So much for protecting your own.

    I hope you stick around. There’s so much estrogen in this peanut gallery, I find your misogyny a bit… refreshing.

  • Athena

    “Experts say” is a dangerous and over-used phrase. I find it entirely possible that mothers are more likely to kill. In fact, I find it likely, considering that mothers, traditionally and still, have significantly more access to their children than fathers do. The substantial majority of custodial single parents are mothers. The substantial majority of stay at home parents are mothers (although not in my household). It just makes sense. However, a random collection of “experts” does not establish fact, especially when they are openly speculating.

  • Jean Valjean

    “Of course, when juxtaposed with the fact that 84% of custodial single parents are mothers, and there are more children in single-parent households than not, that gives the prior numbers some perspective.”

    Perhaps, but it also results in a great deal of under reporting. Women, being the sole child care provider have more opportunity to commit the crime but also greater freedom to cover it up. Even when cohabiting with a male, he may not have access to the children in the same way that the mother does. She may perform the bathing and triage for the children thus preventing detection by the male partner.

    As a child who suffered abuse from a step-mother and sexual abuse from step-siblings I know there is a lot that goes on that the father never hears about. And even if an abused child tries to tell them that often pits the father against the mother and vice versa. Faced with the fear of breaking up a marriage or getting protection from abuse I chose to keep quiet and do my best to avoid everyone.

    Contrast this to male violence against children which is more likely to be detected by the mother and reported.

  • Jean Valjean

    This doesn’t address the fundamental flaw in the survey which is the absence of accomplice murder. It exists and if they’ve pinned the murders on men out of convenience then the whole study is unreliable.

  • Athena

    Agreed. I didn’t go so far as to see how they addressed the murders involving multiple perpetrators. But no statistician worth a shit would pin it on men out of convenience or bias. These statistics are vetted before release.

  • Athena

    Is male violence against children more likely to be detected and reported? I’m not sure how long you’ve been reading this site, but I’ve been here for around seven years, and we seem to have a disproportionately high number of stories about women “protecting their penises”, as our commenters like to put it. While women do have more access to the children, I believe their financial (and perhaps even emotional) disadvantage makes them less likely to report detected abuse.

  • Jean Valjean

    By financial disadvantage do you mean the abuse of child support, WIC, AFDC, and a multitude of other welfare programs directed almost exclusive towards women and their children? Do you mean the disadvantage that results in women being only 15% of the homeless in America? Do you mean the disadvantage that give women 85% of all custody as well as up to 50% of the fathers’ take home pay for up to 20 years? Or is it that disadvantage of having access to a general fund of educational financial aid as well as fund directly and exclusively for female as well as thousands of organizations and programs specifically and exclusively tasks to privilege females? Or maybe it’s all those “office for women” in every branch of government that ensure women get more than men in just about everything which is harming women?

    And when it comes to emotional disadvantage are you referring to the fact that whenever women fail they are called “victims” but when men fail they are called losers? Given that all a woman has to do is portray herself as a downtrodden victim of the bad ole patriarchy isn’t there an incentive for women to blame their own poor morals and choices on anyone other than themselves?

    Men get along pretty well without the emotional support that women claim they need. Without the social networks that women rely on and yet rarely are we called “victims” when we drown our children in the tub or drive them into a lake. Well, by “pretty well” I mean if you don’t count the 7 million men in some stage of incarceration, the 85% of homeless, or the fact that we die on average 6 to 14 years younger than women.

    What it boils down to is that we have a system of obligation inequality. Men are obligated to protect and provide and women are obligated to . . . do whatever they want.

    Try to think of one obligation that women have to any man that is enforced by law or powerful social custom and they cannot get out of it. You can’t do it. But I’m sure you can think of many that men have towards women. ie. child support, alimony, going down with the ship. And while occasionally women might also have these obligations, when they do they are regarded as unfair both by the women themselves but by society in general.

    My point is this. If women have no obligations towards men then they cannot fail at those obligations. They cannot fail at anything. If men have obligations towards women then whenever any man fails then all men fail. If one man fails to not rape a woman for instance then all men have failed to protect women from rape because we are all responsible to provide that protection. Women have no obligation to protect men from anything or to protect themselves from rape or anything else. Therefore, many women believe that they should be able to dress and act as whorish as they like, sexually frustrate every man they meet and be completely free from blame for whatever might happen.

    We also find that men are supposed to protect women from unwanted pregnancy. Even though women have 100% control over reproduction, and cheap access to high effective birth control we, as a society, still blame men for unwanted pregnancies. It’s like smashing your car into a tree and blaming the passenger in the backseat.

    So then, you talk about “emotional disadvantage” and what I see is that women have no obligation to make better decisions. They aren’t held tot he same standard of accountability as males are and then they make mistakes they are given every opportunity to escape responsibility for those mistakes.

    I’ll use reproduction as an example. If a woman becomes pregnant she can get an abortion, or put the child up for adoption unilaterally, and in many states she can abandon the child legally. This last right was given to women to prevent them from murdering their children. Imagine if some politician proposed we create a special bank that bank robbers could come and get money legally to prevent them from robbing banks? It’s the same thing. But men are obligated. He has no choice whether he wants to be a father once the mother has decided to have a child. He is forced to pay support for decades and there is no place he can go to “abandon” his parental responsibilities.

    The common response to this is that men can use a condom and if they don’t want to have a baby they should keep it in their pants. I think that’s a great idea! Only, why not apply it to women as well? Why create these massive entitlements to enable women to bring children into the world to be raised in poverty without a father? Why shouldn’t women be expected to make hard decisions and be accountable for them?

    And this is what feminism has down for the last 40 years. Put the responsibility for women’s choices on men and the government. Women aren’t at fault when they seek out bad boys and get knocked up. Women aren’t at fault when they knowingly marry violent men. Women aren’t at fault–they are always victims. And that lack of accountability and consequence is what creates emotionally weak women. It infantilizes them and retards their development and human beings.

  • Athena

    See, I’d be totally in your corner if not for comments like, “And while occasionally women might also have these obligations, when they do they are regarded as unfair both by the women themselves but by society in general.” What kind of god-awful women do YOU know?!

    Yes, financial disadvantage. Child support is hardly a guarantee. Some estimates put full, on-time child support to a custodial parent to be at a mere 25%. That means 75% of custodial parents, gender aside, have to assume it’s not coming on a month-to-month basis. One study found 43% of custodial parents aren’t getting a single dime of court-ordered child support. As for programs like welfare and WIC, that’s not exactly a tempting option. We’re talking about living below (usually, WELL below) the poverty level. Is it available? Yes. But the negative stigma associated with it discourages many from taking advantage of it.

    As for the rest… You’ve clearly been heavily impacted by personal experience, and it’s exhausting me. Until tomorrow. :)