Ohio cheerleader acquitted of murdering her newborn in 2017

  
Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 months ago  •  44 comments

Ohio cheerleader acquitted of murdering her newborn in 2017
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.

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

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

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!

 
 
 
Freefaller
1.1  Freefaller  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago
A horrendous act

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freefaller @1.1    2 months ago

You are assuming the baby was born dead?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1.1.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago

The late term abortion fetishists will celebrate the ruling

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1.1.2    2 months ago

I hate to even think about it

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago
You are assuming the baby was born dead?

Since that cannot be verified one way or the other, then that leaves a reasonable doubt. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  Freefaller @1.1    2 months ago
burying a corpse in your backyard doesn't seem all that horrendous to me.

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @1.1.5    2 months ago
Really? In many states it is illegal or very difficult to do it legally. 

I don't get the impression FreeF was discussing the legality of it. Only the idea behind it. 

Hope the next homeowner knows there is a dead body buried in their yard.  Probably has to be disclosed before the property is sold.

Yeah, otherwise you could end up with a Poltergeist scenario. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.4    2 months ago
Since that cannot be verified one way or the other, then that leaves a reasonable doubt. 

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!

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    2 months ago
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.

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.9  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.6    2 months ago
I don't get the impression FreeF was discussing the legality of it. 

I wasn't stating he was. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Sunshine @1.1.9    2 months ago
I wasn't stating he was. 

Just making sure, since you brought up the legality behind such an action.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.11  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.8    2 months ago
Without evidence to back that up, there is no reason to assume that was the case.

Evidence no. Logic yes. If I'm on a jury I have the right to distinguish between the two.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.11    2 months ago
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. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
1.1.13  Sunshine  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.10    2 months ago
Just making sure, 

I think it's handled, but thanks for the input.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.12    2 months ago
What logic?

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.11    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.15    2 months ago
I studied forensics.

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!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.17  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.15    2 months ago
If she had done something active to the baby, the corpse would have shown that.

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.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.17    2 months ago

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. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.19  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.16    2 months ago
Perrie, didn't you see where it points out that only a few bones were left?

Actually, I did miss that.

That's right - the key word is "reasonable" as opposed to "any" doubt!

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.19    2 months ago

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!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    2 months ago
Just remember, she made a confession before getting lawyered up.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.22  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.21    2 months ago
Remember that the Central Park Five originally confessed, but were exonerated by DNA evidence.

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.22    2 months ago

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.

Sometimes it is necessary.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.24  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.23    2 months ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Freefaller
1.1.25  Freefaller  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago
You are assuming the baby was born dead?

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.

 
 
 
Freefaller
1.1.26  Freefaller  replied to  Sunshine @1.1.5    2 months ago
Really?

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.

None of that elevates the act to the horrendous level for me.  You're more than welcome to believe differently

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.24    2 months ago
William Kunstler

I'm not aware that he's involved with this case in any way.  His death probably prevents it.

It should always be subordinate to common sense!

Not when "I've already decided she's guilty despite the lack of evidence" is equated with "common sense".

The level of that benefit is restricted to what is reasonable.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.28  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Freefaller @1.1.25    2 months ago

And you just gave us your opinion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.29  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.27    2 months ago
His death probably prevents it.

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

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.30  KDMichigan  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.1.18    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.29    2 months ago
There are important facts which you keep trying to nullify.

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.

Telling the truth dosen't require an attorney. 

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.32  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.31    2 months ago
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.

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.

 
 
 
Freefaller
1.1.33  Freefaller  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.28    2 months ago
And you just gave us your opinion

That's your opinion

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.34  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.32    2 months ago
Assuming that could possibly have happened, do you think that the police would do that to someone they thought was innocent?

Yes.  It's not like it hasn't happened before.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/psychologist-explains-why-people-confess-crimes-they-didn-t-commit

Then there was Barry Laughman, a man with the mental capacity of a 10-year-old, who in 1987 confessed to raping and murdering an elderly neighbor after police falsely told him they found his fingerprints at the scene. After his confession, the police disregarded all other evidence. Neighbors who offered alibis for Laughman were told they must be mistaken. His blood was type B, but the only blood at the crime scene was type A. So the forensic expert proposed a novel theory: that bacterial degradation could have changed the blood type from B to A. Laughman spent 16 years in prison until DNA evidence finally cleared him. (Kassin later testified when Laughman sued the state.)

Sometimes, a conviction is everything.

A teenage girl who finds herself pregnant and discovers an unpleasant truth isn't important?

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

"Probable" is still speculation, not proof.

You don't just confess to murdering your baby because your'e scared or confused.

People have confessed to rape and murder because they were scared and confused.  It happens, Vic, your disbelief notwithstanding.

This is supposed to be a woman we are talking about. (A woman with no maternal instincts - how grotesque!)

Her sex neither makes her innately morally superior nor subjects her to higher standards in behavior.

the jurors later admitted they knew he did it

Not all of them.  

https://abcnews.go.com/US/oj-simpson-juror-thinks-simpson-now-decades-criminal/story?id=48730188

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.35  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.34    2 months ago
Yes.  It's not like it hasn't happened before.

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?





 
 
 
sandy-2021492
1.1.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.35    2 months ago
I'm sure you can dig some up.

I gave you an example.  I think most police are trustworthy, but I know that some are not.

I expect a lot more of the well educated. So they are capable of terrible things?...I think you may be onto something there!

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have no idea.  I'm not privy to her thoughts, any more than you are.

Define circumstantial evidence.

You brought it up; you define it.

I'm talking about maternal instincts as opposed to what the kids are learning on MTV

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.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.37  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    2 months ago
You see Gordy, logic is not something as definitive as legal technicalities.

Logic is used to arrive at sound conclusions.

1) she found out she was pregnant with a baby that was not her boyfriends

So? Irrelevant to the issue.

2) she initially confessed to murdering it

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.

3) she buried the limited remains in the back yard 

That doesn't determine where she actually killed the baby or not.

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!

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 very logical assumption.

A logical fact.

There was no chance for forensics. Even Dr Michael Baden would have nothing from this!   

Then there is no way to conclude with certainty whether the baby was born alive or not.

That's right - the key word is "reasonable" as opposed to "any" doubt!

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.

Just remember, she made a confession before getting lawyered up.

Where? Under what conditions was that confession obtained? Link please?

That baby did not belong to her boyfriend. She was capable of burying her baby's deteriorated corpse.

That does not prove she murdered it.

Sometimes it is necessary. This case is one of those.

That shows a disregard for the facts presented and the degree of reasonable doubt. That is essentially voting with emotion. Hardly logical.

There is enough EVIDENCE to vote guilty!

No, there isn't. Such evidence is circumstantial. But it does not directly tie into whether the girl killed the baby or not.

You don't just confess to murdering your baby because your'e scared or confused. 

How do you know what someone will say when they're scared or confused? Especially a teenage girl who underwent a traumatic experience?

Do you ever wonder if she considered it murder?

Pure speculation and irrelevant to the case.

After all some don't consider an infant to be a person. It's a new concept.

Like whom?

 
 
 
Sunshine
2  Sunshine    2 months ago

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @2    2 months ago

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?

 
 
 
Sunshine
2.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    2 months ago
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.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.1    2 months ago
They got her a good lawyer so I would say they paid attention when their daughter was facing murder charges.

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.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Others will have the last word on this one. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


TOM PA
pat wilson
arkpdx
Jack_TX
Gordy327
loki12
PJ
Dulay


46 visitors