why did he burn him

It's been a decade since I've seen this but here's what I remember (and please correct me if I'm wrong about the events)
-Gibb came home and found her son burned from the bathtub, Stamos said he was just giving him a bath
-Stamos was driving them to the hospital and Stamos stopped the car to lay down the law/threaten Gibb. Cynthia baiscally agreed to whatever he wanted just so he'd get her son help.
-Predictably it ended up in court. I can't remember who was on trial here or even whether it was family or criminal court but I specifically remember Gibb on the stand being told that the child said Stamos burned him but Gibb kept saying "no it was me" (obvously because of the threats) and afterwards John telling her she was great up there.

My questions are;
!) Why did Stamos' character burn the child? I know he's a sicko and all but what motivation did he get out of it?
2) What was the end result of this specific trial?




I know your post was a long time ago, but thought I would post anyway!

In the morning the burn happened, he suspected she was going to pick the boy up from school and then not return home, and stay with her mother instead. So, he did that to the boy, called her at work, to get her home.

It served the purpose for him in that she came home to him and she knew what he was capable of, making her more afraid to leave.

As far as his sentence, I think it was two life terms? Not sure, but doubt he will ever get parole.


I know you responded much later than the original poster but I appreciate it. I'm watching it today, just came in at this part...thanks, it helped.

"My faith will not allow conviction without optimism."


Here's what doesn't make sense.....he checked the boy out of school so why didn't anyone bring that up? There were witnesses that he took him home and didn't it show him signing something quickly before he got him on the playground? Not to mention, her workplace could be a witness that she received a call to come right home.

It is easier to critique than create


I haven't been able to find out much about the actual case but the real killer, Alejandro Henriquez did indeed scald his then-wife's three-year-old son but also threw him down a flight of stairs. That scene was not filmed and the scalding of the little boy was not shown on film as per the request of John Stamos, who is protective of children in real life and did not want those abuse scenes depicted. Henriquez had a history of sexually abusing children and may have killed some kids in his family. I don't know if he was molested himself in real life (as suggested in the TV movie) but it's possible.