This Woman Says She Had A Miscarriage. Now She Could Face 70 Years In Prison.

[dgiharris]

But their is still no proof she killed her baby. Before or after the baby was delivered. All the pills prove is she was thinking about abortion. They found no proof she had them in her system. Also it cost a lot of money to bury a baby's body, maybe she didn't have it. And that's why she threw the baby in the trash.

I think too often we get blinded by the words "can" and "maybe".

We need to quantify the "cans" and "maybes".

Can I get hit in the head by a meteorite right now. Sure I can. Is it probable? No.

Given what we know about the situation and the circumstances and the evidence we DO have, what is reasonable and probable?

I'm fine with a decision made based on reasonability and probability. Contrary to the movies, circumstantial evidence is used in court cases, especially when it fits.

Or put another way, how would you ever find someone guilty in a crime like this? Is the only way they would be found guilty is if there was a smoking gun and video evidence? At some point logic and basic rational reasonable deduction has to take over does it not?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Or put another way, how would you ever find someone guilty in a crime like this? Is the only way they would be found guilty is if there was a smoking gun and video evidence? At some point logic and basic rational reasonable deduction has to take over does it not?

If the drugs they claimed that she used were actually found in her system and if a test that actually works showed that the baby had been born alive.

The reasonable conclusion that she took the drugs is pretty definitely countered by the fact that none were in her system. The reasonable conclusion that the baby was born alive is rendered moot by the fact that the test they used simply does not work.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

There was a segment on the 11PM CBS Los Angeles news about a search through dumpsters in the downtown area for a newborn who has possibly been left in one. A woman was found sitting on the ground bleeding profusely in DTLA, and taken to a local hospital where it was evident to treating staff that she'd recently given birth. A witness said she talked to the woman and asked about the baby, and that the woman said something along the lines (not a direct quote) of "don't worry about it." She could have been delirious, though, as she'd lost a lot of blood. She was taken into surgery and will be questioned by police after she's more coherent. In the meantime they're continuing the search.

At the time of the last broadcast about this it was still unknown if she delivered a stillborn or a live baby.

 

[dgiharris]

If the drugs they claimed that she used were actually found in her system and if a test that actually works showed that the baby had been born alive.

The reasonable conclusion that she took the drugs is pretty definitely countered by the fact that none were in her system. The reasonable conclusion that the baby was born alive is rendered moot by the fact that the test they used simply does not work.

The argument is not that she took the drugs, her attempt to by the drugs establishes intent. In order for a crime to occur you need both Act and Intent. So her attempt to buy the drugs establishes intent whether she bought them or not.

THen her subsequent action of throwing the baby away in the dumpster establishes the Act.

Intent + Act = Crime

It's very simple legal math. Then couple it with the circumstantial evidence and her actions afterwards and you can present a strong argument that this was a crime.

THere are two ways to look at the burden of proof in this case. You are saying, "Well, they can't prove the baby was born alive". I would counter that and say, "Well, she can't prove the baby was still born!!!"

Then I would also present the argument that if she would have called 911 immediately during her labor, the baby could have been born in a hospital and with care "could" have lived. Again, the burden shifts back to her, can she "prove" that the birth happened so fast that she couldn't call for help? An instant miscarriage at 25 weeks seems pretty unlikely.

I submit that since this case is about the death of another person, burden of proof shifts from the State to the Accused. It's not the State that has to prove the baby was born alive. No. It's the Accused that should have to prove the baby was born dead. And the Accused can't do that. Then couple it with the Intent and then you have Intent + Act = Crime. And thus she is guilty and i'm not losing any sleep over it.

You can try to make this case about a "miscarriage" but I don't buy it. 25 wks is not a miscarriage, it's a premature birth. There is a huge difference. And with medical treatment the baby could have survived and this mother denied the baby that through her willful negligence. So, when you are negligent and it results in a death, you get charge and convicted. If convicted you pay the penalty and if the penalty is harsh, so be it.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

The argument is not that she took the drugs, her attempt to by the drugs establishes intent. In order for a crime to occur you need both Act and Intent. So her attempt to buy the drugs establishes intent whether she bought them or not.

THen her subsequent action of throwing the baby away in the dumpster establishes the Act.

Intent + Act = Crime

I actually made it that far before I realized that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Please stop just making stuff up.

 

[Supreme]

It seems a shame to throw away the life of a young woman over two contradictory laws. I hope the legal system in Indiana comes to its senses.

 

[variant]

I don't get the outrage here. I mean, are we to believe that an educated woman just made a mistake here? Seriously, I just can't see how a jury could be egregiously wrong here.

Um miscarriages can happen without anyone doing anything wrong.

The toxicologist said she had no trace of the drugs in her bloodstream so the facts don't support the states case.