The Dale Hyde segment - Hyde's strange MO?

[justins5256]

I was just thinking about the Dale Hyde segment this morning. I think his was one of the more disturbing segments in the history of the show, but one thing I was wondering about it...does the MO seem strange to anyone else?

The re-enactments and the descriptions of the abuse made it seem as though Hyde physically abused children through beating and manual strangulation, IIRC.

It was mentioned several times in the segment that Hyde had a temper problem, and I believe that a psychologist interviewed in the segment suggested that Hyde was extremely dangerous and would function best in a safe, controlled, and extremely regimented environment.

All that being said, I guess I just find the mechanics of Hyde's crimes, as depicted on UM, odd.

Okay, so he has a temper. Plus, the physical abuse patterns allegedly perpetuated by Hyde sound like things an abusive parent or guardian might do to the children under their care when angered.

However, as depicted on UM, Hyde and his family had dinner, and everything appeared fine. Then, just as Hyde is putting both of the kids to bed, he decides to randomly strangle one of them.

All that being said, I'm not trying to cast suspicion or doubt on the story or anything, but I'm just wondering what the "full" story may have been. What set Hyde off that night? Did Hyde and the kid argue beforehand? Did Hyde and the mother argue beforehand? Or, did Hyde try to sexually assault the kid and the kid resisted?

I especially wonder about the latter because...

all the seemingly veiled references to "abuse" throughout the segment;

Hyde's prior history of "abuse" - but only with children. Hyde's girlfriend interviewed on UM didn't accuse Hyde of abuse and seemed surprised that he did this;

it was mentioned in the segment that Hyde had a history of starting relationships with women who had children already and then "abusing" the children (this sounds more indicative of a child sexual predator pattern);

that despite how "dangerous" he was, that Hyde must have seemed or come off "normal" enough to engage in relationships with women with children.

the mechanics of the crime as depicted on UM. The UM segment makes it seem as though Hyde had a temper but what about that evening set if off?

Hyde was sentenced to 12 years. Seems kind of extreme for run of the mill child abuse.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into everything, but I always felt like something was "missing" here, for lack of a better word.

Any thoughts?

[wiseguy182]

Actually, I thought his sentence was too lenient. Child abusers are the scum of the Earth. I would have been perfectly content had he rotted in prison.

Without getting into a lengthy explanation, the main problem I have with Dale Hyde is that I think he knew he needed mental help, and yet, didn't seek it out. If he had, perhaps some of this abuse could have been prevented. He strikes me as an extremely selfish human being who puts his wants before others.

And no, I don't think anyone "set him off", I think he went off due to his mental issues.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

Actually, I thought his sentence was too lenient. Child abusers are the scum of the Earth. I would have been perfectly content had he rotted in prison.

Without getting into a lengthy explanation, the main problem I have with Dale Hyde is that I think he knew he needed mental help, and yet, didn't seek it out. If he had, perhaps some of this abuse could have been prevented. He strikes me as an extremely selfish human being who puts his wants before others.

And no, I don't think anyone "set him off", I think he went off due to his mental issues.

But if Hyde legitimately had mental problems, shouldn't the sentence have actually been less harsh than what was prescribed? Shouldn't he have ended up in a psychiatric hospital?

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by justins5256

But if Hyde legitimately had mental problems, shouldn't the sentence have actually been less harsh than what was prescribed? Shouldn't he have ended up in a psychiatric hospital?

No, because he sat in the room saying "I think I need help" but instead of being a MAN and owning up to his faults, he skips town and everyone worries if he's going to do the same thing to some other helpless child. He was fully aware of what he was doing and that he needed professional help, and yet, he chose not to seek it out.

I've changed my tune on numerous cases over the years, but my opinion on this one stays put. Hyde did unspeakable things to children and very nearly killed the one boy. He's a disgusting piece of filth.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

No, because he sat in the room saying "I think I need help" but instead of being a MAN and owning up to his faults, he skips town and everyone worries if he's going to do the same thing to some other helpless child. He was fully aware of what he was doing and that he needed professional help, and yet, he chose not to seek it out.

I've changed my tune on numerous cases over the years, but my opinion on this one stays put. Hyde did unspeakable things to children and very nearly killed the one boy. He's a disgusting piece of filth.

I guess my point was that if Hyde truly had psychiatric issues, that claim should have been put to a jury, and if the jury believed that he had these issues his sentence should have been to a psychiatric facility as opposed to prison.

You assert that Hyde had psychiatric issues, but then you say that his 12 year sentence wasn't long enough. My point is that position is incongruent with the law. If Hyde was a psych case he should have been in a psych facility, not prison.

[wiseguy182]

There is nothing "run of the mill" about the strangulation, severe beating and near killing of a child. The only thing "extreme" about this case is the abuse he inflicted upon a defenseless child.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

There is nothing "run of the mill" about the strangulation, severe beating and near killing of a child. The only thing "extreme" about this case is the abuse he inflicted upon a defenseless child.

Within the context of my original post, the "run of mill" comment was part of a larger argument that perhaps Hyde's abuses extended to more than just physical abuse as was alluded to in the segment.

Hyde's prison sentence seemed lengthy, from a legal perspective, given the alleged charges. Thus, I used it as evidence to support my argument that perhaps Hyde committed a more serious sexual based offense.

Honestly, was it that unclear in my original post? I don't want to be misconstrued about such a sensitive topic, and I can clarify my position if need be.

[TheCars1986]

Totally understand what you are saying justins5256.

I've always felt an uneasy "undercurrent" to the segment that was downplayed. Perhaps he was just a psycho who randomly would beat children on a whim, but there just seems to be something missing from the segment.

I do think the 12 year sentence was too lenient, but as you've mentioned, if this was some sort of psychiatric disorder, you'd think he would have wound up in some maximum security ward somewhere and not a prison. I suppose it is possible that that angle was played up at his trial and the jury or judge didn't buy it. I don't know.

[wiseguy182]

Originally Posted by justins5256

Within the context of my original post, the "run of mill" comment was part of a larger argument that perhaps Hyde's abuses extended to more than just physical abuse as was alluded to in the segment.

Hyde's prison sentence seemed lengthy, from a legal perspective, given the alleged charges. Thus, I used it as evidence to support my argument that perhaps Hyde committed a more serious sexual based offense.

Honestly, was it that unclear in my original post? I don't want to be misconstrued about such a sensitive topic, and I can clarify my position if need be.

Alright, I think I see your point now. I did find it interesting that Stack said Hyde would continue to seek out families, especially ones with "young boys". That does seem to point more towards a sexual based predator, although there's no hard proof he was, so it remains uncertain.

Additionally, there's the issue of him beating his own biological son to death. Considering Hyde was roughly 22 at that point, the child couldn't have been that old. And then he beat an 8 month old (!!) so severely it ended up having brain damage as a result. Additionally, the segment said Hyde's anger was "increasing", so I think his anger management issues played a very large part in this.

The part about the ex-girlfriend wasn't in the Lifetime airing and I honestly don't recall it.

I still think his sentence was too lenient though. Whether it's fair from a legal perspective or not doesn't amount to much in my book. He killed a child, caused another to have brain damage and strangled and beat another. He's a creep and deserves the worst.

Somebody in the segment stated that Dale wouldn't have improved through therapy and things of that nature. It was also stated he was a very cunning criminal, and considering he has fled more than once, I think he's a high risk to society particularly children. And considering the ages of his known victims (6 years old, 8 months old, etc) I don't think he should be allowed near children.

And I definitely don't think he should have just spent a few years in a psychiatric ward and that be the end of it. It makes little difference to me if that's fair or not, he simply should not be allowed near children.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

Alright, I think I see your point now. I did find it interesting that Stack said Hyde would continue to seek out families, especially ones with "young boys". That does seem to point more towards a sexual based predator, although there's no hard proof he was, so it remains uncertain.

Additionally, there's the issue of him beating his own biological son to death. Considering Hyde was roughly 22 at that point, the child couldn't have been that old. And then he beat an 8 month old (!!) so severely it ended up having brain damage as a result. Additionally, the segment said Hyde's anger was "increasing", so I think his anger management issues played a very large part in this.

The part about the ex-girlfriend wasn't in the Lifetime airing and I honestly don't recall it.

I still think his sentence was too lenient though. Whether it's fair from a legal perspective or not doesn't amount to much in my book. He killed a child, caused another to have brain damage and strangled and beat another. He's a creep and deserves the worst.

Somebody in the segment stated that Dale wouldn't have improved through therapy and things of that nature. It was also stated he was a very cunning criminal, and considering he has fled more than once, I think he's a high risk to society particularly children. And considering the ages of his known victims (6 years old, 8 months old, etc) I don't think he should be allowed near children.

And I definitely don't think he should have just spent a few years in a psychiatric ward and that be the end of it. It makes little difference to me if that's fair or not, he simply should not be allowed near children.

For what it's worth, I didn't mean for this to turn in to a discussion about whether or not Hyde's sentence was fair or unfair.

Rather, I was trying to understand what type of predator Hyde really was and if the segment perhaps downplayed a sexual assault type of angle here because the crime as depicted on UM does not make a whole lot of sense.

Your comment about him seeking out women with young boys makes me wonder. On the other hand, if he beat his own son to death, that suggests something else beyond a merely sexual motive for these crimes, IMO.

[LilMissKryssy]

I think Hyde took his wrath out on small children because he felt a sense of power and dominance. If he went out to a bar and fought another grown man, that grown man can fight back. Since he had no known violence towards women, he might not have prayed on young girls because for whatever reason in his twisted mind, he felt hurting a young girl was equivalent to hurting a woman so therefore, he could only hurt young defenseless boys.

[MegtheEgg86]

justin,

I have always thought this was among UM's most bizarre segments precisely for the reasons you outlined in your original post. It's absolutely anecdotal, but as someone who reads and watches a LOT of true crime, I have never encountered a story about an offender with an MO anywhere close to the way Hyde's was presented on UM.

Personally, I kind of had an inkling that perhaps Hyde's physical abuse was in fact related to some especially heinous sexual abuse. That is, Hyde felt the need to inflict physical pain on his victims in order to "gain" from the experience, if you follow me.

As grossly unpleasant as it is to delve into the particulars of sexual abuse--especially that which is perpetrated on children--I'm unsure how likely it is Hyde would engage in such behaviors with his own biological male child. It seems this is more common when the children are female.

I've never known what to make of Hyde, but the segment tends to make my "skip over" list more often than most.

[justins5256]

Originally Posted by MegtheEgg86

justin,

I have always thought this was among UM's most bizarre segments precisely for the reasons you outlined in your original post. It's absolutely anecdotal, but as someone who reads and watches a LOT of true crime, I have never encountered a story about an offender with an MO anywhere close to the way Hyde's was presented on UM.

Personally, I kind of had an inkling that perhaps Hyde's physical abuse was in fact related to some especially heinous sexual abuse. That is, Hyde felt the need to inflict physical pain on his victims in order to "gain" from the experience, if you follow me.

As grossly unpleasant as it is to delve into the particulars of sexual abuse--especially that which is perpetrated on children--I'm unsure how likely it is Hyde would engage in such behaviors with his own biological male child. It seems this is more common when the children are female.

I've never known what to make of Hyde, but the segment tends to make my "skip over" list more often than most.

Meg,

Unfortunately, I think I see your point. That certainly adds another dimension to this already very disturbing segment/case.

This segment has always been very unsettling for me personally. I think it was among some of the first glimpses I had of UM when it originally aired and the story always stuck with me. At the time it aired, I was probably the same age as the boy victimized by Hyde in the segment, and, believe it or not, my father kind of looked like Dale Hyde! Now, my Dad was never mean or abusive at all, but his resemblance to Hyde was so uncanny, and not really knowing just how the world "worked" I think there was a brief period of time in my life in which I honestly thought my father was Dale Hyde.

[wiseguy182]

While I can't say for certain there wasn't a sexual motive here, child molesters usually don't go for children as young as 8 months old. (though it does happen sometimes, unfortunately), and as Meg said, men molesting their own sons is probably pretty rare also. There's also the weird fact that one of the other sons was in the same room. Would Hyde molest the 6 year old when his older brother is right there? I think this is more suggestive of the uncontrolled anger. And were the other sons molested?

But on the other hand, the segment stated Hyde was sort of playing "house mom" if you will, and getting close to the kids, which is often a path that child molesters take.

All in all, I just don't know. I think it's probably a combination of both.

Hyde also bit the poor kid on the arm. What a lowlife.

[amandab1234]

Originally Posted by wiseguy182

While I can't say for certain there wasn't a sexual motive here, child molesters usually don't go for children as young as 8 months old. (though it does happen sometimes, unfortunately), and as Meg said, men molesting their own sons is probably pretty rare also. There's also the weird fact that one of the other sons was in the same room. Would Hyde molest the 6 year old when his older brother is right there? I think this is more suggestive of the uncontrolled anger. And were the other sons molested?

But on the other hand, the segment stated Hyde was sort of playing "house mom" if you will, and getting close to the kids, which is often a path that child molesters take.

All in all, I just don't know. I think it's probably a combination of both.

Hyde also bit the poor kid on the arm. What a lowlife.

Sadly some monsters do go for babies. Look up the Baby Brianna case this took place in Las Cruces, NM (which is like a 1hr drive from where I live in Texas) even worse, the ppl who abused her got a slap on the wrist