View Single Post
  #81 (permalink)  
Old July 8th, 2011, 07:12 PM
Rev22:17 Rev22:17 is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,771
Default

ToddDH,

Quote:
Originally Posted by You View Post
Annie, you may be right but you must consider if only just this.

There was conclusive forensic evidence that the child had duct tape in the area of her mouth. Secondly, the mother didn't even report her missing for I think over a month and kept lying about where she was. Why?
First, as best I can tell, there was a piece of duct tape stuck to a few strands of her hair such that it would fall over her nose and mouth if turned to fall on her face. I don't recall any evidence that the duct tape had acutally been bonded to her face, though admittedly I might have simply missed such a detail.

Second, the mother's apparent failure to report the child missing really does not prove anything. Yes, it's suspicious, and the detectives clearly should pursue that line of inquiry in their investigation, but they apparently did not turn up any evidence that would constitute proof of wrongdoing.

Quote:
You]Now if the death was an accident, I would like to know the answers to those questions.
So would a lot of other people.

Nonetheless, our legal system requires the prosecution to prove the case. It does not require the defendant to explain behavior that may seem suspicious or otherwise strange.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
If the baby had accidentally drowned, why all of the hullabaloo? Her very own tesitmony was enough to convict her in any court I've ever been in. She repeatedly lied not only to police but the prosecution and even her own lawyer threw his original defense right out the window which is practically unheard of.
This might seem like splitting hairs, but she technically did not testify to anything because her statements to police do not constitute testimony. Note, also, that the convictions are for "false statements" to investigators rather than for "perjury" because she was not under oath.

Quote:
Originally Posted by You
I personally think the entire answer to the whole thing was the look on the parents faces as they got up and left right after the verdict was read and if anyone knows, they certainly do. The mother lied to save her child's life but I think it's obvious, they both knew she was responsible for their granddaughter's death.
The defendant may well have killed her daughter, but the real problem here is incompetence on the part of the prosecutors. The prosecutors should not have brought indictments without clear evidence linking the defendant to the offense. By bringing the case to trial without the necessary evidence, they have precluded any future prosecution on the same charges even if new evidence comes to light via the "double jeopardy" clause in our federal constitution.

Having said that, I think it's good to have cameras in our courtrooms so we, the people of the United States of America, can witness the bungling of cases such as this by prosecutors acting in our name. If enough of our fellow citizens get sufficiently upset, we might even get competent investigators and prosecutors!

Norm.
Reply With Quote