Ohio cheerleader acquitted of murdering her newborn in 2017
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An Ohio cheerleader indicted for burying her newborn in her family’s backyard two years ago was acquitted Thursday on all but one charge of gross abuse of a corpse.
The now 20-year-old Brooke (Skylar) Richardson, who gave birth in 2017, was facing a potential life term, charged with aggravated murder, involuntary manslaughter, child endangerment, tampering with evidence and gross abuse of a corpse, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported. Earlier this week a judge had dismissed the tampering charge, the Enquirer said.
Defense attorneys had depicted Richardson as naïve, frightened and easily manipulated, influenced in part by sexual abuse she said she had suffered. Alone and scared, she had given birth in the middle of the night at age 18 to a stillborn baby and buried her in the backyard, her attorneys said. A psychologist testified that she had a personality disorder.
Prosecutors portrayed Richardson as a someone obsessed with appearances who didn’t want her “perfect” life ruined when she found out she was pregnant. After killing her baby, they said, Richardson took a lighter to the infant’s foot in an attempt to burn her.
Only bones were left when the child was found, which left the question as to whether the baby was born alive inconclusive, as ReWire News reported at the time.
Richardson graduated from Carlisle High School, about 40 miles north of Cincinnati, after serving on the track and cheerleading teams, the homecoming court and the national honor society, the Cincinnati Enquirer said. She was headed to the University of Cincinnati at the time of her arrest.
It took the jury of seven women and five men less than five hours to arrive at the verdict, reported WCPO-TV . Richardson broke out into tears when the jury’s decision was read.
By THERESA BRAINE
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
128 visitors
A horrendous act - I thought when I first heard of this. The problem for the prosecution was they could never prove the baby was alive. Under those guidelines it didn't leave the jury much choice, though if I had been on that jury it would have taken a lot longer than 5 hours to arrive at a verdict!
I don't know, burying a corpse in your backyard doesn't seem all that horrendous to me. Maybe a little weird but nothing serious
You are assuming the baby was born dead?
I hate to even think about it
Since that cannot be verified one way or the other, then that leaves a reasonable doubt.
Really? In many states it is illegal or very difficult to do it legally. Hope the next homeowner knows there is a dead body buried in their yard. Probably has to be disclosed before the property is sold.
I don't get the impression FreeF was discussing the legality of it. Only the idea behind it.
Yeah, otherwise you could end up with a Poltergeist scenario.
I understand the law, Gordy. Then it is up to the jurors to arrive at a verdict. I understand the verdict, but as I said, if I was on that jury, I would have used my calculation of 2 + 2 must = 4 and I would have voted GUILTY AS CHARGED!
You're going under the assumption that the baby was born alive. Without evidence to back that up, there is no reason to assume that was the case.
I wasn't stating he was.
Just making sure, since you brought up the legality behind such an action.
Evidence no. Logic yes. If I'm on a jury I have the right to distinguish between the two.
What logic? How can you form a logical conclusion without evidence? Such a conclusion is still based on an assumption and/or personal feeling.
I think it's handled, but thanks for the input.
You see Gordy, logic is not something as definitive as legal technicalities. Here is what I have to go on:
1) she found out she was pregnant with a baby that was not her boyfriends
2) she initially confessed to murdering it
3) she buried the limited remains in the back yard
Without an autopsy, we are left with the lawyering & technicalities. The jury is guided by that. I am not and as a juror I have the right to use my own logic!
Such a conclusion is still based on an assumption and/or personal feeling.
A very logical assumption.
Vic,
I studied forensics. If she had done something active to the baby, the corpse would have shown that. Both suffocation or chocking leaves behind evidence. Had she buried the child alive, there would have been dirt in the babies lungs. Had she passively done noting and waited for it to die, then that wouldn't show, but that could take hours and a freaked out teen, is going to get the job done, as quickly as she could recovered, especially if she was a head case.
As for time spent on a case, I sat on a jury that we all agreed within 5 min of entering the room, unanimously. There must have been very little solid evidence presented. In my case, it was rock solid. We ate lunch and then gave our verdict.
The story is sick and a bit twisted, but criminal law is clear. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt, and obviously they could not prove that.
There was no chance for forensics. Even Dr Michael Baden would have nothing from this! Perrie, didn't you see where it points out that only a few bones were left?
As for time spent on a case, I sat on a jury that we all agreed within 5 min of entering the room, unanimously. There must have been very little solid evidence presented. In my case, it was rock solid. We ate lunch and then gave our verdict.
I understand there are those rare cases, I don't think this is one of them.
The story is sick and a bit twisted, but criminal law is clear. It must be beyond a reasonable doubt
That's right - the key word is "reasonable" as opposed to "any" doubt!
How is that possible if nothing but bones remained?
I feel for the girl but what she did was wrong, I'm pretty sure we have a no questions asked in our state if a child is abandoned properly alive.
You are all assuming that the baby wasn't born stillbirth. But in fact, she gave birth alone with no hospital care. There was much room for things to go wrong. There is your reasonable doubt.
I am not saying that she didn't murder the baby. I am saying that there is no way to prove she murdered the baby.
Actually, I did miss that.
There is a difference between reasonable and any. I am sure some of these jurors had some doubt, but with little evidence (some bones), how could they know reasonably that she did it?
I'm afraid this is one of those cases that will never have a good outcome.
Just remember, she made a confession before getting lawyered up. That baby did not belong to her boyfriend. She was capable of burying her baby's deteriorated corpse.
As I said, if I'm a juror I'm voting guilty!
There was a piece recently on television about how frequent false confessions are. Remember that the Central Park Five originally confessed, but were exonerated by DNA evidence.
If you vote guilty, you're ignoring the basis on which you're supposed to be voting.
Bad analogy. That was a case that could take us far adrift of this discussion. (There were many crimes going on in Central Park that night). I do understand what you are trying to say, but this case has the 3 facts I listed, which added together produce a logical conclusion.
If you vote guilty, you're ignoring the basis on which you're supposed to be voting.
Sometimes it is necessary. This case is one of those.
And only one of those facts supports conviction - the confession. A teenager confessing when interrogated without the benefit of counsel is hardly surprising, and highly questionable.
The legal threshold for conviction should never be subordinate to personal feelings. The accused always gets the benefit of the doubt. It's one of the founding principles of our criminal justice system.
Especially if one's name is William Kunstler.
The legal threshold for conviction should never be subordinate to personal feelings.
It should always be subordinate to common sense!
The accused always gets the benefit of the doubt. It's one of the founding principles of our criminal justice system.
The level of that benefit is restricted to what is reasonable.
I'm assuming nothing of the sort, the court (who had way more access to evidence and the law than you or I) has given their verdict on what there is evidence to convict her for and that's enough for me. I'm very big a supporter of the rule of law as opposed to the rule of opinion.
Really
None of that elevates the act to the horrendous level for me. You're more than welcome to believe differently
I'm not aware that he's involved with this case in any way. His death probably prevents it.
Not when "I've already decided she's guilty despite the lack of evidence" is equated with "common sense".
Recognizing that a teenager being interrogated without the benefit of an attorney is a prime target for coercive techniques is reasonable. Ignoring that and the lack of physical evidence is not.
And you just gave us your opinion.
His rotten spirit lives on!
Not when "I've already decided she's guilty despite the lack of evidence" is equated with "common sense".
There are important facts which you keep trying to nullify. There is enough EVIDENCE to vote guilty!
Recognizing that a teenager being interrogated without the benefit of an attorney is a prime target for coercive techniques is reasonable.
I disagree. Telling the truth dosen't require an attorney.
Ignoring that and the lack of physical evidence is not.
I haven't ignored anything - that's the problem
I had to look up two things.
Ohio does have a Safe haven law where you can anomalously give away your child upto a certain age...30 days?
And you can legally bury a body on your property, yes bury as in dig a hole and throw them in. Personally I think this is awesome.
So without proving the viability of the child if it was stillborn or not she certainly committed no felonies. Like I said I feel sorry for the girl but then I feel sorry for Casey Anthony, her parents raised spoiled self centered child.
No, not nullify. I take into account that there may be more to the facts than you are willing to admit.
I think it's very possible that she did kill her baby. I also think it hasn't been proven, and likely can't be proven. There could very well have been a stillbirth. It happens, and it's more likely to happen to a young woman giving birth alone, who hasn't had the benefit of prenatal care.
Confessions are coerced on occasion. A young person who doesn't understand her right to an attorney and her right to avoid incriminating herself is an easy mark for railroading. I doubt that who fathered the child had any bearing. This isn't the 19th century, where a woman having a child out of wedlock will lead to her unending ostracism, especially if her boyfriend wasn't the father. And burying the remains could be the result of panic, or even just sadness over a loss she couldn't share with anybody.
So you disagree with both the right to counsel and the presumption of innocence? Those are both fairly important concepts here in these United States, Vic.
You say you aren't ignoring anything, but your declaration does not make it so. You persist in ignoring that the child could have been stillborn. There is no way to prove that it wasn't, and therefore no way to prove that she killed anybody.
We're all fairly sure that OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty, too. But prosecutors couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Hell, the case against Anthony was pretty strong, as far as I could tell. I'm fairly sure her own parents thought she was guilty as sin. But it couldn't be proven, any more than this woman's guilt could be proven.
Ok
Confessions are coerced on occasion.
Agreed. It's not right, but I don't think that it's done randomly on the rare occasions when that used to be done. (NYC detectives come to mind).
A young person who doesn't understand her right to an attorney and her right to avoid incriminating herself is an easy mark for railroading.
Assuming that could possibly have happened, do you think that the police would do that to someone they thought was innocent?
I doubt that who fathered the child had any bearing.
A teenage girl who finds herself pregnant and discovers an unpleasant truth isn't important?
And burying the remains could be the result of panic, or even just sadness over a loss she couldn't share with anybody.
Possible as opposed to probable
So you disagree with both the right to counsel and the presumption of innocence?
I believe in the right to counsel. Should not being informed of that right cancel a confession - No, I don't go along with that. I know it's a technicality in the law, but it's one I am against. I'm concerned with many of the technicalities within the law. Suddenly we had a Miranda law. Are we better off?
You don't just confess to murdering your baby because your'e scared or confused. This is supposed to be a woman we are talking about. (A woman with no maternal instincts - how grotesque!)
Those are both fairly important concepts here in these United States, Vic.
I don't need to be reminded, Sandra.
We're all fairly sure than OJ and Casey Anthony were guilty, too. But prosecutors couldn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actually OJ is another bad analogy - Don't you remember - the jurors later admitted they knew he did it, they him off because of something the LA police supposedly did to Rodney King! The Casey Anthony case is another of those we can discuss another day. None of those cases are anything to be proud of. Lady Justice may be blindfolded but she shouldn't be stupid.
That's your opinion
Yes. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
Sometimes, a conviction is everything.
It might be, or it might not. Teen pregnancy isn't nearly as stigmatized as it used to be. It's hardly an iron-clad motive for murder.
"Probable" is still speculation, not proof.
People have confessed to rape and murder because they were scared and confused. It happens, Vic, your disbelief notwithstanding.
Her sex neither makes her innately morally superior nor subjects her to higher standards in behavior.
Not all of them.
And I'm not sure how you get that the LA Police "supposedly" did anything to Rodney King. It was on video. Physical evidence. Something lacking in the case at hand.
I'm sure you can dig some up. I tend to trust the police far more than I trust lawyers.
Sometimes, a conviction is everything.
I expect a lot more of the well educated. So they are capable of terrible things?...I think you may be onto something there!
It might be, or it might not. Teen pregnancy isn't nearly as stigmatized as it used to be.
You mean the country has become more like NM, where it's worn like a badge of honor? Sorry, I don't mean to generalize, I take that one back, it just seems to be so sad.
It's hardly an iron-clad motive for murder.
Do you ever wonder if she considered it murder? After all some don't consider an infant to be a person. It's a new concept.
"Probable" is still speculation, not proof.
Define circumstantial evidence.
Her sex neither makes her innately morally superior nor subjects her to higher standards in behavior.
I'm talking about maternal instincts as opposed to what the kids are learning on MTV
Not all of them.
Lol, oh, that's so reassuring! You know, I remember watching that trial every day. One day, early on in the case, they took the jury out to the crime scene. One of the jurors was wearing a Simpson football jacket. The prosecution got him removed from the jury. When he was removed he told a reporter that the jury was going to acquit Simpson..he said they are already humming he's our brother. For years Iv'e looked for that on Google. Can't find it, but I remember it well. The day before the verdict was delivered somebody asked me how I thought the case would be decided and I told that little story. I don't think the nation will ever forget it!
It was on video. Physical evidence.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the LA police weren't acting inappropriately, but the video begins with King being apprehended. The physical evidence, you describe dosen't show the chase or the resisting of arrest or whatever King was on. I guess we are getting into something else aren't we?
I gave you an example. I think most police are trustworthy, but I know that some are not.
I'm not quite sure if you mean this as a jab at me, or at some police detectives, or of a high school girl. Yes, some police officers are capable of terrible things. Some have their sights set on a conviction, and will do anything to get it, including the illegal. Planting evidence, for example.
The best way to take it back would be to delete it. Regardless, I don't know of anywhere that teen pregnancy is worn as a "badge of honor". But no longer are girls expected to slink away to a relative's house for 9 months, give up on high school or college educations, and settle for a low-paying job or marriage to any man who will take "tainted goods". And no longer are girls held to be solely responsible for the results of theirs and others' actions.
I have no idea. I'm not privy to her thoughts, any more than you are.
You brought it up; you define it.
I don't think kids are looking to MTV for moral guidance, Vic. "Maternal instincts" are just an excuse to hold her to a higher standard of behavior.
Most of the Simpson jurors still agree that he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The gove debacle hurt the prosecution's case terribly. So did Mark Fuhrman. And TBH, Marcia Clark appeared to be in way over her head from the start. I remember my dad watching a few of her remarks and saying, "They're going to eat her alive." And the Simpson defense team did just that. Do I believe OJ killed Nicole and Ron? Absolutely. Did the prosecution prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt? Absolutely not.
Logic is used to arrive at sound conclusions.
So? Irrelevant to the issue.
Where? I do not see where she confessed to killing it. The article states that the baby was stillborn. That's not the same as murder.
That doesn't determine where she actually killed the baby or not.
You cannot logically or honestly declare her guilty beyond all doubt without the crucial piece of evidence which determines if the baby was alive at birth or not. So your logic is flawed. You're making your conclusion based on your own opinion and/or feelings on the matter. That is hardly logical.
A logical fact.
Then there is no way to conclude with certainty whether the baby was born alive or not.
There is a 50% chance she killed the baby and a 50% chance she did not, based on the available evidence. Seems like a rather large amount of reasonable doubt. Certainly not enought to formulate a sound logical conclusion.
Where? Under what conditions was that confession obtained? Link please?
That does not prove she murdered it.
That shows a disregard for the facts presented and the degree of reasonable doubt. That is essentially voting with emotion. Hardly logical.
No, there isn't. Such evidence is circumstantial. But it does not directly tie into whether the girl killed the baby or not.
How do you know what someone will say when they're scared or confused? Especially a teenage girl who underwent a traumatic experience?
Pure speculation and irrelevant to the case.
Like whom?
How any parent could not know there child is pregnant in the late stages is mind boggling. No one noticed? Someone could have helped the mother and saved that baby.
When did she find out the baby didn't belong to her boyfriend?
I'd love to question the parents. I notice they had nothing to say. I can't blame them. They won't disown her. It's a little late for them to take a hands on approach, isn't it?
They got her a good lawyer so I would say they paid attention when their daughter was facing murder charges. I don't think they where paying attention prior.
There is no way my daughters could have hidden a pregnancy for months from me or each other or their friends. I would love to hear from the parents too.
Ah, there it is! I believe you touched on it. Note: we don't need concrete evidence to figure that out!
I don't think they where paying attention prior.
Yup, I got that impression as well!
There is no way my daughters could have hidden a pregnancy for months from me or each other or their friends.
Nor mine!
I'm glad that I'm not alone in the land of reason.
Others will have the last word on this one.