.

Stonington Woman Kills Grandchildren and Herself

Police say Debra Denison, 47, picked up her grandsons, ages 2 and 6 months, from a North Stonington day care center and shot them, then herself.

Revised version with updates 1:38 p.m.:

A 47-year-old Stonington woman took her 2-year-old and 6-month-old grandsons from their day care provider Tuesday, drove to Foxwoods' Lake of Isles golf course and shot and killed the children with a .38-caliber handgun before turning the gun on herself, according to Connecticut State Police.

At 7:45 p.m. Tuesday, state police issued an Amber Alert after receiving a call from the mother of the children. Police confirmed for Patch later Tuesday evening that Debra Denison, the boys' grandmother, picked up the baby and toddler from Kidds and Co. day care in North Stonington and drove off with the children and the gun in a 2002 White Chrysler Town & Country minivan with a CT registration of 445-ZAZ. In the Amber Alert, state police said Denison is "bipolar and has medical conditions."

Day care center co-owner Christine Hare said that Denison had previously picked up the boys, and that they had been notified Tuesday the grandmother would be picking them up that day. Tuesday was Alton Perry's second birthday. The boys' parents are Brenda and Jeremy Perry of North Stonington.

State police troopers and detectives were called in to work the investigation, and area police agencies were notified and given the descriptions of Denison and the children, 6-month-old Ashton Perry and 2-year-old Alton Perry. State police at Troop E in Montville confirmed that Denison had left a suicide note.

At about 9:30 p.m., according to a press release issued late Tuesday by state police, Troop E received a 911 call that a vehicle with three injured people inside — two of them children — was found parked near Lake of Isles.

According to the release, troopers and local EMS personnel responded to the scene and confirmed the vehicle matched the one in the Amber Alert. Denison and the two children were pronounced dead at the scene.

Late Tuesday night, state police continued to block the entrance to Lake of Isles Road, and the Eastern District Major Crime Squad responded to the scene to investigate. The Office of the Chief State's Medical Examiner will conduct an examination to determine the cause and manner of death.

At Debra Denison's Sherwood Drive home in Stonington late Tuesday, the house was dark except for a solitary lamp lit in the living room. No one answered the door.

Early Wednesday along Norwich-Westerly Road (Route 2) in North Stonington, a state police cruiser blocked the driveway of a home with all its lights on and several cars parked in the yard.

According to the Connecticut Judiciary website, Denison has a criminal conviction for reckless driving from 2003 but no other Connecticut police record. 

 

Original article:

A 47-year-old Stonington woman took her 2-year-old and 6-month-old grandsons from their day care provider Tuesday, drove to Foxwoods' Lake of Isles golf course and shot and killed the children with a .38-caliber handgun before turning the gun on herself, according to police.

At 7:45 p.m. Tuesday, Connecticut State Police issued an Amber Alert for the abducted children. Police confirmed for Patch that Debra Denison, the boys' grandmother, picked up the baby and toddler and drove off with the children and the gun in a 2001 White Chrysler Minivan.

State police at Troop E in Montville confirmed that Denison had left a suicide note. State police on the scene had not provided a representative to comment as of 11:15 p.m.

Numerous attempts to reach CSP spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance for additional details were unsuccessful. Check back with Patch for updates.

According to the Connecticut Judiciary website, Denison has a criminal conviction for reckless driving from 2003 but no other Connecticut police record.

Editor's note: This article originally was published by Montville Patch.

sebastian dangerfield February 28, 2013 at 05:20 PM
Donkeybuster says "Iranian leaders are not US citizens." Wow-- that is inciteful. The concept that weapons dont kill --people do-has nothing to do with their citizenry. Does it? So, just so I know, if anyone utters threatening comments-then they should not be allowed to own a weapon of any kind? Im trying to follow logic. Let me restate what I think your (and many other) premise is. Dont blame the weapon-. So that should include any weapon. Prevent people with malintent to possess weapons. Ok--agree. So we should have throrough background checks. Agreed?
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 06:17 PM
donkey buster, i wasn't debating which method is preferred, I was debating what method is easier:. "Actually it is easiest to kill people with a motor vehicle." Nice try Luca/Seb, I know your trying to poke a hole in my story, but unfortunately for you, you choose a terrible example as there are only 2 countries with depts. of transportation. And no transport agency worldwide considers the head of transportation "president".. in any language. Maybe in your research you missed a few names of fleet admirals of those countries mentioned, but i'm not debating that anymore with you, people don't want to read about us going back and forth on that issue.
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 06:19 PM
I was pointing out how it was written for clarity. Much debate is spent on what our founding fathers meant when they wrote the constitution. (ex. what does "bear arms" mean)
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 06:39 PM
Siwanoy, Bear arms means to bear arms. The writers certainly did not mean that civilians were to be disarmed, which was my original point.
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 06:52 PM
Maybe I didn't clarify my statement enough. what arms are included? a hang gun? an assault rifle? an RPG? etc. Also, the founding fathers never said the right to bear arms didn't extend to convicted felons or murderers etc. So if we were to follow the constitution, everyone who is not Native American, African-American or a women has the right to bear arms. How would you define "bear arms"?
sebastian dangerfield February 28, 2013 at 07:00 PM
Siwanoy Nope didnt miss any names. You provided the names of 5 countries. I checked them all out and none have any military fleet admirals ( as opposed to honorary -which youve already described it as military). I cant believe you checked out president of transpotation countries-- --i mean now im laughing. What a buffoon. In any event--its pretty clear to all patch readers you are dishonorable. Now go back to missing points as you normally do. Point out how its 33,500 instead of 33,900 traffic deaths, which means you can google-but no one really cares -. John Sini did in fact ask numerous times without reply -as to the numbers of people who walk along that street. For good reason. To debate the point, misses the thrust. But that is what you do--miss the point. So go google your facts--because you are not capable of putting ideas together.
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 07:04 PM
Siwanoy, My points stands, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. If you wish to engage in middle school sophistry have at it.
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 07:14 PM
so your for guns, and quote the constitution, but won't try to define what it means. How mature.
Kimbell February 28, 2013 at 07:16 PM
I'd like some answers Edmund. I interpret your "Molon Labe!" as a bit threatening. So tell me Mr. Tough Guy, what are you going to do if someone tries to take your guns? Also, I agree with Siwanoy's point, what does "right to bear arms" means? Can I build a nuclear weapon to protect my house? Can a carry around a stun gun? Should my child be allowed to bring a gun to school - why not - doesn't he have the right to bear arms? Or is only you who gets to interpret with the clause means?
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 07:16 PM
Luca/seb, not my fault you missed the point.. which still stands, how many of those killed by motor vehicles were homicides.. there is no point in comparing numbers if you aren't using the same criteria for both. I forgot, you're never wrong, so its impossible that you're wrong here, ok, makes sense.
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Kimball, - LOL-who is the someone coming to take my guns? You?- - No, I have an opinion of the meaning of the right to bear arms ,the Supreme Court (as per the constitution) interprets the meaning of the constitution. And they have! Please read up on Heller vs DC-in short the court found an individual right to self defense within the 2A. Therefore my response to your demand that guns be banned was the simple truth-you can't.
Sandra February 28, 2013 at 07:55 PM
KImbell you are ridiculous.
Boggs February 28, 2013 at 08:06 PM
Sandra, and you are a piece of work too, honey...... Don t you believe in 1st Amendment Rights? Sandra 4 hours ago Crabtree-Can we express ourselves without people like you making personal attacks? Show some maturity.
Shredder February 28, 2013 at 08:30 PM
Edmund Burke is a constitutional scholar and I'm honestly really enjoying his input on this stuff. I just read Heller. Great case! However, I also just read the constitution and I don't see where it says that the supreme court is to interpret it. I see that it says that the court is supposed to handle all cases and controversies, so I guess that can be construed to mean that it SHOULD interpret the constitution...but you assert so boldly on this public forum that it says that it does say this that I presume that I just misread it and would appreciate some guidance. Thank you sir.
Shredder February 28, 2013 at 08:40 PM
Just joking. It obviously doesn't say that and it's only the precedent set by john marshall in marbury v. madison. Please stop pontificating and speaking condescendingly to Kimbell when you're clearly not as erudite as you'd like to believe.
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 08:46 PM
Shredder, Are you and Siwanoy is the same 6th grade class? Interpret is the commonly used term to describe what the Supreme Court does when it decides cases. Its is not in the constitution. Mea Culpa. Does this grave "error" negate the balance of my argument or is it severable? I await with ,trembling hands, your learned response.
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 09:13 PM
So if its up to the supreme court interpret the meaning of the constitution, they could decide that the right to bear arms only applies to firearms that were around at the time they wrote those words. Then the supreme court would be taking your guns, what then?
Shredder February 28, 2013 at 09:20 PM
Sorry no I'm in Advanced Placement US History (11th grade) and I have no idea who Siwanoy is. I just thought it was weird that you'd take such a patronizing tone and yet make such a novice error. So I was calling you for being rather insufferable. But you are right in that that in itself doesn't really negate the argument. However, strangely, you seemed to suggest, in response to Kimball's question regarding the limits of her gun ownership, that Heller stands for a finding of "self defense" in the second amendment. Ironically, in actuality, while Heller does in part stand for the fact that private gun ownership within the home can not be totally banned, it clearly notes that limitations to this right are totally justifiable. So, your argument not only was unnecessarily rude, it totally failed to address her concerns in a tragically ironic mode.
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 09:24 PM
Siwanoy, They could but they didn't.
Sandra February 28, 2013 at 09:26 PM
Boggs -You are following me like a lost puppy. That's OK with me- maybe you will learn something. Kimbell mentioned children bringing guns to school. That qualifies as ridiculous to most of us. The nuclear arms argument is also a bit over the top. If Kimbell can choose to abort a baby then I can choose to carry a gun for my protection. Leave me alone.
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 09:30 PM
I know they didn't, I asked you what you would do if they did, they still CAN. "Then the supreme court would be taking your guns, what then?" For someone who insults others with silly statements, like "Are you and Siwanoy is the same 6th grade class? " & "...middle school sophistry have at it." you really should pay more attention when reading.
Kimbell February 28, 2013 at 09:50 PM
I aborted a baby?????????????? Take that back or I call a lawyer.
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 09:55 PM
Shredder, We can certainly debate judicial review and it's origins if you like. As regards the balance of your post, I refer you to Kimbel's second post above and my response. I limited my response solely to her original demand for a ban on all guns for all citizens. So,perhaps it is not so strange or ironic that I brought up Heller. Your serve. -
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 10:12 PM
Siwanoy, Okay I'll play. If the court ruled that only flintlocks were protected under the 2a and CT passed laws outlawing modern weapons, then I would either get a flintlock or move to a state with less restrictions. I have a high regard for the good sense and decency of my fellow citizens,even those I disagree with and I would never take up arms against them. Does that answer your question.
Siwanoy February 28, 2013 at 10:16 PM
Thank you for answering, your answer makes perfect sense and is very reasonable. I didn't know if you were going to go for the "well its in the constitution so i would keep my gun.. etc. To be specific, I didn't think you were going to, but I knew it could be a response. have a good day.
Shredder February 28, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Okay, let's debate judicial review and its origins. You begin the debate, you scholar, you!
Edmund Burke February 28, 2013 at 10:42 PM
LOL, I would never debate a man who can or dares to use "tragically ironic mode" in a sentence.
Shredder February 28, 2013 at 11:02 PM
So you're a liar?
Edmund Burke March 01, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Siwanoy, Thank you and I apologize for 6th grade remark.
njh March 03, 2013 at 02:44 AM
I agree with Vicki. The grandmother had a history of mental instability. No way in hell would she EVER be alone with my kids. Supervised visitation only.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something